This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation Start‑class This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2015 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs). Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles Feminism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I do not know much about Mgtow, but is it appropriate to address it as misogynist in the first sentence, or should it be more neutral? Again,I don’t know much about it, so I decided to ask. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoolbro: Neutrality on Wikipedia means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It doesn't mean avoiding words like "misogynist", so long as they are reliably sourced and weighted in representation to the sourcing. MGTOW has been widely described as misogynist in reliable sources, and I've yet to see a RS disputing the descriptor, so yes, I believe it's appropriate. Full disclosure, I am the one who inserted the descriptor, but past discussions about the term on this talk page have resulted in it being retained (for example, Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 14#Misogyny). As always, if you (or anyone else) knows of reliable sources that contradict the descriptor, happy to take a look at them and discuss possibly rewording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't label terrorist organizations as 'terrorist'. This could only be done if *everyone* agreed (and obviously their members think they are freedom fighters etc.) What usually happens, after the first few sentences, is something like "The USA, Europe etc. all consider group X a proscribed terrorist organisations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.92.138 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss how we describe organizations designated as terrorist groups, I'd recommend you do so on the talk pages of those articles, not here. WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could read the IP's statement and think he or she wishes to discuss how we describe organizations labeled as terrorist groups. "Other content" is not synonymous with "WP:OTHERCONTENT". The IP is (apparently) asking a valid question about using the word "misogynist", by drawing a parallel to how Wikipedia (generally) handles the word "terrorist". The answer is that "terrorist" is subjective — as noted, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. While I suppose misogyny may be subjective, MGTOW are openly and unapologetically misogynist, and the article boasts a plethora of reliable sources that substantiate this. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I personally believe that MGTOW is misogynist, but it seems somewhat off to put something so subjective in the first paragraph of their article. Ejkrause (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ejkrause (talk · contribs) भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above (the one timestamped 22:53, 26 October 2020). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source provided for the term misogynistic. I don't think those Twitter journals can be seen as a reliable source. Better to just add a [citation needed] after that statement. Anyone agree? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree that you should drive-by tag that. I think you should read the discussions here and learn more about how article ledes work.--Jorm (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, Bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Twitter journals"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, yes the provided link is, as it claims: a "thematic analysis of 10,280 tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users on Twitter". And then interpreted and explained in their own words. I don't think this can be used as a reliable source. MGTOW is a fairly new phenomeon so there's a lack of (good) resources. But I don't think that that should mean everyone is allowed to just fill in the blanks with their own interpretation. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Ambiance, one thing you might want to check is WP’s policies and guidelines. See WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS. You are quite right that WP does not allow just anybody everyone to “ fill in the blanks with their own interpretation”. Reliable, secondary sources-preferably academic- are privileged. They are the ones we want to do the research and make interpretations etc. You will see the sources used in this article to support the “misogynist” label are academic sources published by reputable publishers, and are precisely the sort of references that WP editors should use.Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquatic Ambiance: Ah, thank you for explaining. If you look at the page numbers of the source that are being used, it is not the authors' primary research that is being cited, but rather their overview and explanation of the background. This article is making no statements based off the Twitter research those authors were doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of one of the main MGTOW forums,i can confirm the policies strictly prohibits any kind of targeted hate just because of their gender. JNoXK (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work from personal statements by members of a group but from third party sources. The article has a clear not to say not to remove that material without agreement so please don't do that again -----Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If hundreds of people try to remove the "misogynist" from the article, maybe there's some truth in it, what do you think? Those Twitter journals obviously aren't a reliable source. Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have not been hundreds of people trying to remove "misogynist" from the article. But all it takes is one person to actually make a policy-based argument as to why it ought not to be included; so far that has not happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To remain at least somewhat rational, we should ask why it ought to be included rather than why it ought not to. The original study ^[1] cited analyzes "tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users" to proclaim that the whole movement "normalises misogynistic beliefs through online harassment". My advice is to consider the removal of said term. 20:02, 15 February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.17.191 (talk)

Please note my comment above: If you look at the page numbers of the source that are being used, it is not the authors' primary research that is being cited, but rather their overview and explanation of the background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible to be anti feminist, that is, rejecting the toxic aspects of the ideology, without being misogynistic. just because you disapprove of one thing, does not mean you condone its mirror image. 2600:1017:B120:1D47:1164:4679:60E6:77C8 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I've not seen anyone suggesting here that the two are the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s on first? What’s on second. Destrypants (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word *misogynist* has to be removed because if anyone chooses to break away from a group or common way of life it doesn't mean that they are instantly misogynistic. There is no FACTUAL PROOF OT THE MGTOW /idea/concept being misogynistic. To call it misogynistic there have to be real facts proven by science and studies. Thus the article right now is not correct thus its misleading and has false information. The word *misogynist* has to be removed NeutralandEqual (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide a policy-based reason or multiple reliable sources that indicate your position is the correct one. For now, a plethora of reliable sources state the organization is misogynist; in fact, I'm not sure it's possible that an ideology like that of MGtOW can be anything except misogynist.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasmic Physics: Please stop adding {{citation needed}} templates to sentences that have inline citations immediately following them. If you have any concerns about the citations, feel free to discuss them here, but {{citation needed}} is for missing citations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging a part of a sentence is perfectly acceptable according to WP policy. I urge you assume good faith, in that I am not ignoring inline citations.

According to WP:NVOP, I challenge the neutrality of the sources - that they take the premise of misogyny for granted rather than critically arguing the point. Furthermore, the relevant statements should ideally be restructured to reflect the contentious nature of the assertions. For example, "A and B says that y is categorizable as z." This is also supported by policy in cases such as this. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasmic Physics: As I have explained, {{citation needed}} is for when citations are missing, and as you have just explained, you had a much more nuanced concern about the sources that was not expressed in that template. That's why I asked you to take it to the talk page rather than just dropping the tag in with no further explanation—otherwise myself and other editors would have had no clue what your actual concern was.

The sources used here are reliable, and even if they were non-neutral as you claim they are, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (WP:BIASEDSOURCES). If you have other reliable sources that take a different view that you would like to propose be used, feel free to present them. Without any reliable sources that contradict these statements, we do not introduce doubt or suggest that the claims are contentious.

On Wikipedia we reflect the mainstream consensus of reliable sources, and no serious researchers argue that misogyny doesn't exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually express my concern within the parameters of the template under the provided reason, namely that the generalization is unjustified (within the source). The source is objectively non-neutral as can be noted by way of the prose in which it is written, but that is besides the point. I am well aware that sources are not required to be non-neutral. However, WP editorial policies make provision for addressing non-neutrality by correctly presenting information collected from sources. Conventionally, the onus lies with the sources of an initial assertion to justify it's point before a counter-assertion must be justified. Ergo, the sources, no matter how reliable, that make the assertion that all people subscribing to this subculture are inherently misogynistic (which is what this article claims, by the way it is written), must first justify the assertion. This simply does not appear to be the case.

I have made no argument whatsoever that misogyny does not exist, and so have no idea why you would raise this point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple RS classify MGTOW as misogynist, and no sources refute the claim, we do not have to adjust the prose as you have suggested. Furthermore this claim that sources must "justify the assertion" to some arbitrary standard is not based in policy—if a source makes a claim, and that source meets our RS standards, we can and should include the claim, of course weighting it in accordance with any other sources that comment on the same topic. Again, if you have such sources that discuss whether or not MGTOW is misogynist and take a different view, please present them so that we can properly weight the statements in the article.

You objected to sources which "take the premise of misogyny for granted", perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the very definition of "misogyny" precludes anything from being definitively classified as such, since it is a subjective opinion like 'delicious' or 'ugly'? The relevant assertion is akin to the stating "Merlot tastes awful", while citing an Oxford University article. This statement in that form automatically invalidates the opinion of every person who happens to like Merlot. Likewise, asserting that adherents of this subculture are mysogynistic invalidates all contrary opinions that they are in fact not mysogynistic, including those of the adherents themselves.

In regards to you saying "We do not have to adjust the prose", might I direct you to a principle present on the the WP:NPOV article:

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

Perhaps, we need the input from an administrator who does not invite a conflict of interest? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasmic Physics: "Misogyny" is not a subjective opinion like "delicious" or "ugly", nor is it judgmental language. I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy. If you would like to invite outside opinions, be my guest, but I don't know where you're getting that I have a conflict of interest with MGTOW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarefare: I agree that you appear to have a conflict of interest. You are a feminist activist by your own statements on your profile and you appear to be targeting groups relating to men's activism... Would you not agree that this is a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Correction Coming: I would not. You may wish to review WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Last time I checked I was not employed by MGTOW (nor any opposing group), and I have no other personal or financial connection to them. I believe what you're trying to accuse me of is advocacy, which is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. You will notice that the "advocacy" supplement explicitly says, Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. If you feel that I have not been following Wikipedia policy, please do feel free to explain specifically how–either to me directly or at a noticeboard where other editors can weigh in–but if your only concern is that I am a feminist and I edit articles on topics relating to antifeminism, your concern is misplaced, or at least not based in any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the group's ideology, the group is rarely referenced and what references from the group appear to come from niche members or barely affiliated outliers rather than a key component. Instead what is provided is criticisms from opponents of the group, critical reception, and what appears to be a series of straw men propped up using political opponents as sources. Just as I would not go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. These things belong in criticism and reception rather than under ideology. They are critics of what hidden agendas the movement may have and are certainly not what the majority consensus of the group is to as its own ideology. Recommended change would be the following for someone that still prefers to keep the definition of a group's core ideology based on their political opponent's view on their core ideology. "MGTOW members claim to believe that" followed by their own claims with regards to their own beliefs... This seems like a social media hit piece on them as is rather than an encyclopedia article as it is currently written. I would recommend additional changes. All criticisms are still relevant but they go into the "criticism" or "critical reception" category... Expressing exclusively criticism as its core ideology and using exclusively political opponents as sources is not a credible way to write pertaining to its core ideology and also is not contextually a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Correction Coming: Just as I would not go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. This article is not citing "socially progressive feminist" sources; it is almost entirely sourced to peer-reviewed academic publications and books written by experts and published by reputable publishers. As for your suggestion that criticism be moved to a "criticism" section, please see WP:CRITS; it is recommended to work critical coverage into the article, grouped by topical sections. Regardless of how the article body is structured, the lead still must summarize the article content, and so cannot omit significant criticism entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarefare: I am absolutely not suggesting that all criticism be moved to a criticism section and neither and I recommend that all criticism be allowed in the criticism section. I am, however, suggesting that not exclusively criticism should be allowed in the explanation of a group's core ideology. I am also suggesting that the segment in which exclusively criticism is present ought to get its own section labeled criticism so as to remain intact. As for the issue of socially progressive feminist sources... Vice calls itself socially progress and feminist. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls itself both socially progressive and feminist. Both state that they do so proudly. Which of the sources listed does not identify as socially progressive or feminist and do you not think that the sources identifying themselves as socially progressive and feminist makes them socially progressive feminists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Correction Coming: Can you be specific as to what you think is missing from the ideology section that needs to be added (with sourcing, please)? And no, per the page I already linked, Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.

Regarding your concerns about Vice and the SPLC: we do not disallow using sources with bias (see WP:BIASEDSOURCE) so long as they are reliable and used properly, which these both are—the SPLC sources are only used with in-text attribution as is recommended for sources with a strong point of view. But as I already mentioned, these make up the minority of sourcing in this article. If there are other reliable sources that take a different point of view that you think ought to be included, feel free to suggest them.

As an aside, please sign your talk page posts by including four tildes at the end (~~~~) or following the more detailed instructions I left on your talk page. In order for the ping template you have been using to work, you both need to sign your posts and start spelling my username correctly: there is no e after "War". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating and comical. The more I get involved in attempting to correct Wikipedia’s horrendous bias toward feminism and against men’s rights the more I see culture and communication in hilarious action.

Arguments like the one above read like Abbet and Costello routines. It’s like trying to talk to someone who speaks a totally foreign tongue by speaking more slowly and loudly.

Wikipedia is EXTREMELY biased against men’s rights and offers wildly inaccurate pictures of the men’s movement, antifeminism, mgtow, etc. So far the only article I’ve found that isn’t a joke is the one on the Honey Badger phenomenon, which of course someone has conveniently suggested be collapsed into another article. Lol ALL MEN’S RIGHTS CONCEPTS MUST BE BURIED UNDER PROPAGANDA might as well be Wikipedia’s official policy description. Destrypants (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s so obvious it just cracked me up. This page is literally farcical.

Anyone care to discuss whether or not we might ever be allowed by the edit Gestapo to improve it?

It seems to me that Wikipedia is done as an impartial source about anything political. They’ve just ceded too much territory. If I’m honest it doesn’t seem hopeful. I myself am more liberal than conservative but that doesn’t mean I want Wikipedia being so biased that it becomes less than useless.

Like this page is. It is comically propagandistic.

And, if anyone cares, wildly inaccurate. Destrypants (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefinitely topic banned Destrypants from this topic area for making disruptive posts, like these above, and attacking other editors. Comparisons to the Gestapo are entirely beyond the pale. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am not allowed by the edit Gestapo to even TALK about improving it.

Way to prove how “beyond the pale” the comparison is by shutting me up by force with your big editor gun.

You win.

Bye Wikipedia. You are succeeding in driving away the very voices that might correct you: hardly what I thought Wikipedia was all about.

Neutrality? Good luck with that! Destrypants (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]