Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 7

Reliable sources
We seem to have the following reliable/third-party sources so far:

Sources used in the current article that directly reference the topic as a primary, or near-primary, topic


 * Martin Daubney's Sunday Times piece here: while there are only Breitbart excerpts from it on the open Web, a full, citable version of it is probably available behind the Sunday Times' paywall.
 * , which is at least good for existence-proof
 * -- the SPLC is generally regarded as a reputable source
 * -- the SPLC is generally regarded as a reputable source

My impression is that these five, taken together, are sufficient to establish notability for the topic.

In the article, but of uncertain independence


 * This: appears to be published by a WP:RS, but also appears to contain advocacy

In the article, but of uncertain relevance


 * this perfectly good reference: alas seems to lack any direct mention of the article topic

Not in the article yet


 * More Martin Daubney, but this time in the Telegraph, which is an WP:RS for most things, and not behind a paywall:
 * This Vice magazine article: Yes, it's Vice magazine, which often has a sensational approach to journalism, but it does have an editorial policy, and this looks like a reasonable non-sensational article.
 * Good enough, I think, for an existence proof.

Sources from a Google Scholar search

Not much so far, and apparently nothing as yet in major journals, but we do have these works from undergraduates that have been through some kind of review process:
 * http://onourterms.barnard.edu/ojs/index.php/oot/article/view/34/25 -- from a peer-reviewed undergraduate journal, The Undergraduate Journal of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard College
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Mountford/publication/281448472_Creating_Masculinities_Online_Bronies_and_The_Red_Pill_-_J.B_Mountford/links/55e8172708ae21d099c164dc.pdf -- this dissertation

Do we have any more?

-- The Anome (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can try digging through EbscoHost in a few days if you like. (Can't now because biannual password change went awry).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I just searched "men going their own way" and "mgtow" on the database of academic journals that I can access through work (includes ebscohost) and this was the only hit when I filtered for peer-reviewed articles:
 * Gelfer, Joseph. (2010). The Good Men Project: Real Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Manhood. Journal of Men, Masculinities & Spirituality. Volume 4, Issue 1, p. 32.
 * Without that filter, the only other source that isn't already on the list is:
 * David K. McClurkin, et al. 25 Jul 2015. Readers write: Worldwide progress, single men, water issues in Israel. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.
 * I haven't looked at either article yet because I'm still at work. I'll check them out in a little bit to make sure they were actually referencing MGTOW, but it seems like they probably are based on the titles. The Christian Science Monitor one is probably free to the public anyway. Permstrump (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The CSM cite is to a readers' letters column, which would generally exclude it from being an WP:RS, even though the CSM generally is one. The mention of "MGTOW" is in a letter complaining that a linked article doesn't mention the phenomenon, so that article's not going to be usable here, either. -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cross Gelfer off of the list too. I think this link to the full text should be accessible for free to everyone. It's a book review that only mentions MGTOW once in passing and to the best I can tell, MGTOW isn't mentioned in the actual book.


 * Daubney's column in the Sunday Times Magazine is actually all about MGTOW. It consists of quotes from interviews with 3 MGTOWs and a few other people in the Men's rights movement and the Honey Badger Brigade, but nothing from unaffiliated informants. Based on that and the author's history, even though it's RS, it's biased and shouldn't be cited frivolously. The way it's referenced in the current version of this article seems accurate and appropriate though. Is it a copyright violation if I share a link to where someone copy & pasted the full text in a reddit post?


 * Re: 's earlier comment about the frequently recycled Google trends stat, this is what the Sunday Times article says,
 * Although it's impossible to say how many men actually consider themselves MGTOWs, this graph offers an intriguing insight into the popularity of MGTOW as a search term in Google. The horizontal axis represents time, the vertical axis shows the proportion of searches for a term, relative to the total volume of global searches "everyday sexism" searches for the feminist website that documents instances of casual sexism peaked in 2014 "mGTow" Google Trends, the source for this graphic, does not reveal the total number of searches for a term. But it does show that the proportion of searches for "mGTow" is fast increasing.


 * I can't see the actual graph b/c the version of the article that I can get through my work account is text-only, but I think this description makes it clear that it's a flimsy, nondescript stat that has been exaggerated over time as it's been requoted. Permstrump (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't read it, but I don't think the Mountford dissertation should be considered a potential RS b/c I can only find it on researchgate.net, which is all user generated content. The same DOI number is attributed to at least one other article on the same website, so the fact that it has a DOI doesn't seem to indicate it was truly published anywhere else. Permstrump (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reggie Yates does not "reference the topic [of MGTOW]" as a "primary, or near-primary, topic" in that sham documentary. He only briefly shows the MGTOW.com website on screen and some youtube comment sections.  Most of the documentary is about PUAs, MRAs, internet trolls, standup comedians, and feminists. —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 15:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with the exception to the "sham" description. Yates doesn't make contact with any MGTOW folks and despite his obvious desire to contact someone from the movement and expand on it, he is unable to make any headway here and isn't able to elaborate in MGTOW in any kind of meaningful depth. As such, I think the BBC reference should be removed. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And the SPLC report is primarily about men's rights activists, not MGTOW, and also only mentions MGTOW in passing. I am also surprised that you consider organization such as the SPLC, with a clear biased agenda (and even lawyers to defend this agenda) as a reliable source. —''' M aximum G ross T ake O ff W eight (talk). 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I had went looking before and found to the link sources on Google Scholar (mostly just going through and finding which ones we're referring to air planes). Will see if I can find out more about their peer-review process. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to MGTOW.com
The only link in the EL section right now is to mgtow.com. Including this website without any additional context is implying that it's in some way official or vital to the topic, which hasn't been clearly established. The site is cryptic about who is running it and looks like it's mostly forums and similar WP:UGC, so it's not a reliable source by itself. If the article can be expanded or rephrased to explain what this site is (with reliable, independent sources, of course), then it may be include it with that context. Otherwise it doesn't look like it meets WP:EL guidelines, and should be removed. Having a matching domain-name isn't a good threshold for inclusion of an external link. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link, as well as recently added mgtowhq.com, which appears to be a forum. Per WP:EL, if there is a high-quality directory of such sites it could be considered, but an indiscriminate collection of links to mgtow-aligned sites is not neutral, and invites spam. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL sure sounds to me like "links to mgtow-aligned sites" are exactly what an article on mgtow should have. 76.64.13.25 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not at all. MGTOW isn't an official organization, so there isn't an official link that could be included. There needs to be some criteria for inclusion other than being about a topic. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY, otherwise anyone could throw together a wordpress blog and have it linked here. A quick search showed dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, of sites, forums, blogs, youtube channels, et cetera. Few if any would be reliable sources and as far as I can see none of them have any substantial claim to being somehow official. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References mentioning MGTOW

 * Jacqueline Allain, "Finding Common Ground: A Feminist Response to Men’s Rights Activism", On Our Terms, Barnard College Vol. 3, Iss. 1 (2015), Pp. 1-34.
 * Joseph B. Mountford, "Creating Masculinities Online: Bronies and The Red Pill" (September 2015), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4400.5608, University of Sussex M.A. Dissertations.
 * Peckham, Leslie J., ""Be a Sturdy Oak: the Art of Manliness and Rebranding Masculinity in 21st Century America" (2015). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Theses and Dissertations. Paper 829.
 * Michael Lucchese, "‘Hikikomori': Japan Faces Epidemic of Young Men Never Leaving Their Rooms" ( 8 Jul 2015), Breitbart. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/08/hikikomori-japan-faces-epidemic-of-young-men-never-leaving-their-rooms/
 * Kay Hymowitz, "Love in the Time of Darwinism: A report from the chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive" (Autumn 2008), City Journal. http://classes.kvcc.edu/smyers/A_Study_of_Love/Modern_Love/Love_in_the_Time_of_Darwinism.pdf
 * http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/sexbots-why-women-should-panic/


 * Allain's piece can be downloaded from this page. She calls MGTOW as "extreme" MRAs and cites ReturnofKings.com as a MGTOW website created by a blogger who is a professional pick-up artist. It's not the best source in terms of anything really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * After reading Allain's piece in full, I agree. The crux of it are her subjective reactions to, and characterizations of, posts in Men's Rights subreddits. She gives no actual data to support characterizations she's making of the posts and posters. Although their FAQ for the journal it's posted it in does say that professors review submissions, making it in some sense "peer-reviewed" there's not much that can be used from Allain's article other than her personal opinions about content in Men's Rights subreddits. - Scarpy (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)