Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 9
Frank Worley-Lopez biographical information[edit]
I'm going to revert the most recent edit for a couple of reasons. (1) The other views of Frank Worley-Lopez aren't relevant to this article and (2) even they were, the information added is not cited. - Scarpy (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- The guy wrote a piece arguing for a separatist movement in Puerto Rico around "MGTOW." The very piece cited. Not relevant? Not "cited?" Oh dear. At any rate, wasn't what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source" so removed it.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah there was a discussion about the Worley-Lopez article meeting WP:RS criteria just a few days ago: Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Reliable sources. My opinion is that it's WP:QUESTIONABLE, but that the content in this article that it supports (e.g. MGTOW is a response to gynocentrism) is not contentious, and therefore it's use in that capacity is acceptable. What do you think? - Scarpy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- ""Blogger Lopez wrote a blog post calling for a separatist men's movement in Puerto Rico inspired by "MGTOW" and urged Puerto Rican men to sign a petition demanding their own state" is a true statement. It amounts to "obscure person shares incredibly fringe opinion in obscure corner of the internet." Magpies cobbling together such oddities is not how "knowledge" is constructed. Your assertion that the statement "MGTOW is a response to gynocentrism" is not contentious is ludicrously false. The vast majority of the planet rejects there is a culturally or legally dominant "gynocentrism." What would be uncontroversial would be to say: "Adherents of "MGTOW" claim it is a reaction to what they perceive as gynocentrism." However, that would be not particularly helpful since "gynocentrism" has many different meanings for different people and in different contexts. Instead you could write "Adherents of MGTOW claim it is a reaction to what they claim is the legal, political and economic dominance of women and women's viewpoints in most modern societies." But you don't need his sloppily reasoned, poorly written and obscure post to support this claim since far better sources do, far more clearly. Dan Murphy (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- So, I think we agree that it's a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, and I'm sympathetic to your overall WP:FRINGE concerns. That being said, do you have a specific objection to it being used as a citation for MGTOW as a response to gynocentrism? It's not contentious and not giving the the Worley-Lopez piece undue weight. - Scarpy (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- ""Blogger Lopez wrote a blog post calling for a separatist men's movement in Puerto Rico inspired by "MGTOW" and urged Puerto Rican men to sign a petition demanding their own state" is a true statement. It amounts to "obscure person shares incredibly fringe opinion in obscure corner of the internet." Magpies cobbling together such oddities is not how "knowledge" is constructed. Your assertion that the statement "MGTOW is a response to gynocentrism" is not contentious is ludicrously false. The vast majority of the planet rejects there is a culturally or legally dominant "gynocentrism." What would be uncontroversial would be to say: "Adherents of "MGTOW" claim it is a reaction to what they perceive as gynocentrism." However, that would be not particularly helpful since "gynocentrism" has many different meanings for different people and in different contexts. Instead you could write "Adherents of MGTOW claim it is a reaction to what they claim is the legal, political and economic dominance of women and women's viewpoints in most modern societies." But you don't need his sloppily reasoned, poorly written and obscure post to support this claim since far better sources do, far more clearly. Dan Murphy (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah there was a discussion about the Worley-Lopez article meeting WP:RS criteria just a few days ago: Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Reliable sources. My opinion is that it's WP:QUESTIONABLE, but that the content in this article that it supports (e.g. MGTOW is a response to gynocentrism) is not contentious, and therefore it's use in that capacity is acceptable. What do you think? - Scarpy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- We're responding out of order here, my last comment was in response to the first part of your comment (edit history). Responding here to the part that starts with "Your assertion that..."
- To be clear, I'm not personally asserting anything about MGTOW or if it does or doesn't exist as a response to gynocentrism, or what the vast majority of the planet thinks or doesn't think on the topic. That being said, I agree with you that some language to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is necessary. Also if there are better sources for how MGTOW views gynocentrism, can you add them to the article or to the talk page? - Scarpy (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)