Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reliable source on the pronunciation[edit]

Opinions on if this column is WP:RS as far as the pronunciation of MGTOW? It wouldn't have been my first choice since it's a column written by a journalist with a known bias, but it's already cited in other parts of this article. The article says MGTOW (pronounced "mig-tau"). Permstrump (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be. The Sunday Times is generally regarded as a WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I added that citation for the first pronunciation guide, but not MGHOW since I wasn't sure if that would be WP:SYNTH. IMHO the MGHOW sentence is a little confusing b/c of the redundancy. I had to re-read it a few times to notice the difference between that sentence and the first sentence. @MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight: thoughts on changing it to, "A participant in MGTOW is called a Man Going His Own Way (abbreviated MGHOW)" for simplicity? I'm not sure of the best way to clean that bit up. Permstrump (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just remove the second pronunciation guide; its pronunciation should be obvious from the first one. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking and I think the lede seems less busy that way, so it's easier to follow. Permstrump (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed status of scholarly sources[edit]

The journal On Our Terms does have a review process described on their FAQ. WP:SCHOLARSHIP talks favorably about the reliability of dissertations. My opinion here is that so long as these are not used in a capacity giving them undue weight, I don't see an issue with using them to source the small amount of claims they make about MGTOW. The dissertation does draw a distinction between pick-up artists, red pillers and MGTOW, which may be relevant to resolving some of the WP:SYN issues. Similarly, the paper in the On Our Terms also makes a distinction between the larger MRA movember and MGTOW. - Scarpy (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Allain's piece in full, I don't believe it can be used as a source here. 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) 04:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature and Scope[edit]

The scope of the referent is a bit unclear at parts.

This shows an uncomfortable amount of conflation between MGTOW and not just any man who ever foreswears women, not just any man who's ever forsworn women, but also all lifelong bachelors regardless of cause.

Please let's be clear exactly what we're talking about here and not the entire demographic of group of men who don't marry. MGTOW are a coherent social group with a particular set of beliefs, not just anyone who doesn't get married for whatever reason.

Please this referent already has a fuzzy enough edge without allowing it to semantically drift into the herbivore men of Japan.

I think this usage comes from the Erin Pizzey interview, but if you look at that source, it's clear she is talking about all men who don't do such things as chase women for a particular point she was making, but her purposes and ours are different. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article about just MGTOW per se.

For this reason I'm going to wait an appropriate amount of time and then delete the part where herbivore men seem to be included in the referent of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Pizzey was right on target. The article already contains a reference which explicitly states that MGTOW and herbivore men are one and the same thing. The article also contains another reference which states that "MGTOW is already massive and has tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of men around the world, ... They just don’t know they are going their own way, and that the term or online community exists." and "what amazed me most while researching this article was that every time I explained the MGTOW concept to a friend, they all knew one — they just didn’t know they were called MGTOWs.". Also see the overview at ""Grass Fed": An Explanation of Herbivore Culture". —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are the same referent, they should be merged into one article. But I don't think they should because they are not the same thing. As you probably know, MGTOW is a social group or movement that actively promote the lifestyle choice for others, and have an extensive field of thought or philosophy or reasoning that goes with it. It is not clear that every Japanese man that doesn't persue women does so for the same reasons, or that they form any kind of cohesive group the way MGTOW hang out together and hash out their ideas in that way, or if they do, whether they are at connected to the MGTOW movement in the anglosphere.
We need to maintain a very narrow focus and so even though Erin Pizzey had good reasons to conflate the two we have very good reasons to maintain a narrow scope of this referent to the unambiguous MGTOW movement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All we'd really need is a third-party reliable source making the comparison. One just currently doesn't exist. - Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider piece[edit]

The article is a bit self-contradictory. At one point it says MGTOW is a subset of "The Red Pill Movement" but later says that it's only similar, not a subset. While Business Insider is a reliable source, the tone of the article is that of a hit piece and it makes me wonder a bit about it's relevance here and how much due diligence was done when writing it. - Scarpy (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and describe what sources say about the referent, including their biases. For example, we could say "...in a report sympathetic/hostile to MGTOW, the Shfamous McNotable describes MGTOW in the following positive/negative way...". Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A clear consensus that this article is not the primary topic for "MGTOW". Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Men Going Their Own Way → MGTOW – :: Explanation: The abbreviation MGTOW has two meanings (1) Men Going Their Own Way and (2) Maximum gross takeoff weight. First, some relevant statistics from the Google search results:

  • mgtow: 530.000 results.
  • "men going their own way": 75.700 results.
  • "maximum gross takeoff weight": 8.430 results.
  • "maximum gross take off weight": 3.530 results.
Some remarks:
  1. The vast majority of pages which contain the abbreviation MGTOW use it to refer to Men Going Their Own Way, not Maximum gross takeoff weight
  2. The subject of Men Going Their Own Way subject is known primarily by its abbreviation MGTOW; almost no-one uses the full phrase "Men Going Their Own Way", instead the vast majority prefer to use the acronym. The abbreviation MGTOW, not the full phrase, is by far the most common way to refer to this topic.
  3. Maximum gross takeoff weight is better known as maximum takeoff weight, which is the much more frequent way to refer to this concept.
  4. Judging by this Google Trends report, the popularity of Men Going Their Own Way has exploded exponentially since 2009, while the popularity of the topic Maximum (gross) takeoff weight has decreased in the same period. It is reasonable to assume that the popularity of Men Going Their Own Way will continue to grow exponentially, while the popularity of Maximum (gross) takeoff weight will stagnate.
Conclusion: Men Going Their Own Way is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of MGTOW. Please create the page MGTOW and move the current page Men Going Their Own Way and its associated talk page to MGTOW. Thereafter, the page Men Going Their Own Way should be changed into a redirect to MGTOW. I will add the disambiguation
This page is about social phenomenon. For aeronautical concept, see maximum gross takeoff weight.
to the MGTOW page. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC) —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE' the nominator's account has been indefinitely blocked for bad username; nominator please indicate what your new username is. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016[edit]

Correction for the definition of MGTOW

Men Going Their Own Way (Common Abbr. MGTOW; (sorry, not good at special characters used for pronounciation) ) Is a phenomenon that is quickly becoming a movement in the Manosphere that occurred as a result of the laws, society, and government systems that have made men distrustful of women. These men have found aspects of dating, marriage, and seemingly inevitable divorce to be stacked against them. Due to this, these men have decided that “The only way to win is not to play.” ShadowKomet (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also WP:NPOV. Grayfell (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell your consensus is a biased point of view and violates your own stance of neutrality. Consensus does not equal neutral, as not everyone that establishes said consensus is agreeable to, or understands in full, the facts of a given situation, instead following an ideology of truth. Facts do not follow a consensus, but truth, which is in the eyes of the beholder, does follow a consensus. There is also one article mentioned on the page with also does not conform to your neutrality. Calling something a cult without a prior establishment of facts surrounding an organization to call it such, is largely opinion based and therefore biased. ShadowKomet (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is in the eye of the beholder? Huh. I don't know about that, but I do know that Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy used to build Wikipedia articles, and this is not the place to try and change that policy. Instead, if you want to make such a drastic change, you need to clearly explain how that change improves the article and how it accurately reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to start after the pronounciation.
  • Phenomenon over "online movement", cite Herbivore men
  • Evidence of move to a movement, cite MGTOW.com
  • Laws, Society, and Government cause, cite Allan Turing as an earliest notable figure.
  • Marriage and Divorce, cite official statistical data from US (sorry, I don't know who that is), StatsCan, and the UK (sorry, don't know that one directly, either), will post amendments as soon as general data can be presented, feel free to help out.
If someone has better ideas, post them. ShadowKomet (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ShadowKomet: Alan Turing? I can't see any relevance here at all: Turing was a gay man with no apparent animosity toward women (far from it: he proposed marriage to his friend Joan Clarke, with whom he remained close friends even after their breakup), and there's no evidence that he was anti-government in any way. -- The Anome (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just made a mistake. Men going their own way are not anti-government, just avoidance of involvement in government when possible. Alan Turing did most of what he did to avoid social and legal prosecution instated by the government, being a gay man. ShadowKomet (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way/Archive_8&oldid=1076376027"