This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Alternative views 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation 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 This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2015 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs). Feminism 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Kennedy-Kollar, Deniese (2024). "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)". Extremism and Radicalization in the Manosphere: Beta Uprising. Routledge Studies in Crime and Society. New York: Routledge. pp. 58–64. doi:10.4324/9781032631080-6. ISBN 978-1-040-03920-5. Krendel, Alexandra (2021). "From Sexism to Misogyny: Can Online Echo Chambers Stay Quarantined?". In Zempi, Irene; Smith, Jo (eds.). Misogyny as Hate Crime. London: Routledge. pp. 99–118. doi:10.4324/9781003023722-5. ISBN 978-1-000-43034-9. Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin; Kelly, Megan; Jasser, Greta (2022). "Of Victims, Mass Murder, and 'Real Men': The Masculinities of the 'Manosphere'". In Carian, Emily K.; DiBranco, Alex; Ebin, Chelsea (eds.). Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right. Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right. London: Routledge. pp. 117–141. doi:10.4324/9781003164722-9. ISBN 978-1-0005-7622-1.

Thread retitled from "Opinionation".

This article is opinionated. Calling a group mysoginistic because of your personal views is not only wrong, but also has no place on a platform meant to educate people. Your opinions aren't relevant on this platform. Reddouble (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article characterizes the group as the cited sources do, that is how Wikipedia works. Editor's opinions don't come into it. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's incorrect and should not be included into the article simply because of sources biases. How can I help to change this? (Since I can't edit the article) Reddouble (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We describe subjects how reliable sources describe them. Even if that means doing so in a way that might seem biased to those related to the subject. For example, we call homeopathy a pseudoscience whose beliefs are contradictory to all modern sciences. Practitioners of homeopathy likely consider this biased, but that's what reliable sources say about the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how can I preserve the reliability of Wikipedia by correcting a protected mistake? Reddouble (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find other reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect? That's just, like, your opinion, man.

It's is also not the same as opinionated. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) edited 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don’t see how it is “misogynistic” when someone opts to be a hermit? Leave them alone and refrain from slapping labels to demonise them instead. Steven1991 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what about "heteropessimism?" Here is a book that talks about it: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003263883-3/incels-mgtow-heteropessimism-jacob-johanssen

" Incels and MGTOWs are one particularly extreme example of wider developments that Asa Seresin (2019) has named heteropessimism, which are described as “performative disaffiliations with heterosexuality, usually expressed in the form of regret, embarrassment, or hopelessness about straight experience” (ibid). Heteropessimism is a permanent articulation of disappointment with straight culture and heterosexuality while at the same time remaining deeply attached to them. As Seresin has argued, such discourses can be found within anti-/feminist circles and also in the LGBTQI community. Heteropessimism is thus a contemporary defence mechanism that is more widely apparent than in male communities." Simple and accurate definition of the core issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.43.24.110 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the source say MGTOW, or indeed heteropessimism, isn't misogynistic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Avoid using "misogynist" in wikivoice".

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Remove the "misogynist" description in wikivoice and instead add a sentence along the lines of "The community has been widely described as misogynist by scholars and experts. [references used in article]".

• Why it should be changed:

Using "misogynist" in wikivoice seems to directly violate MOS:LABEL, which explicitly includes "misogynist" as an example of a label to avoid using in this manner. MOS:LABEL suggests using in-text attribution instead (e.g. "widely described as misogynist by experts").

For example, the Al-Qaeda article first uses "militant organization" in wikivoice and only afterwards describes who designates it as a terrorist organization. This is the correct editorial approach as prescribed by WP:PAG and we should use it here.

spintheer (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would contradict WP:NPOV, which has more weight than the manual of style. It clearly states that avoid stating facts as opinions; since the sources are high-quality, usable for statements of fact, and unanimous, we cannot simply present their conclusions as an opinion. See also WP:INTEXT, which warns against misusing in-text attribution in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say pretty much what Aquilion wrote. Per WP:NPOV we go with what a preponderance of high quality sources state. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this seems like a misapplication of NPOV, because the basic premise seems erroneous. "MGTOW is a misogynist community" is not a factual assertion. It may be a popular opinion stated by all relevant reliable sources, but it definitionally cannot be a fact because it's an unfalsifiable statement (unlike the sky is blue, the example given in NPOV).

Just because all relevant reliable sources agree on something doesn't automatically make it a fact. NPOV recognizes this, and explicitly says that reliable sources may universally agree with a statement that is still only an opinion:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.

NPOV also says Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. "X is misogynist" is a value-laden statement that disparages the subject. It's fine to say that MGTOW is an online community and then say that it's widely described as misogynist, but it's inappropriate to just outright call it misogynist in Wikivoice. spintheer (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the FAQs at the top of this page. To put it bluntly, you're incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 06:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could refer to a specific part in the FAQ and explain how it addresses what I wrote. From what I can see, some of the FAQ answers repeat things that were said above (RSes support the statement), but none of them seem to add new relevant information to this discussion (say in wikivoice or not). spintheer (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, upon further search (e.g. [1]), there doesn't seem to be a consensus on a rule to separate opinion and fact. It looks like it's determined ad-hoc, individually per article.

If this is true and policy doesn't help, then maybe a RFC is needed (whether misogynist should be said in wikivoice or attributed in text, e.g. "The community has been widely described as misogynist by scholars and experts")? spintheer (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The assessments of subject-matter experts are valid as statements of fact in Wikivoice, as long as they represent a consensus of such sources with no significant reliable-source dissents, and as long as they're properly referenced and to appropriate sources. The dissents of non-RS and of individual editors not liking what's said without a clear basis in sourcing are not considered. The characterization of groups and movements is often a target for "this is just opinion." Wikipedia doesn't deal in watering-down of consensus of reliable sources in that manner to suit the preferences of individual editors, or of organizations and movements who wish to present themselves in a more benign light. The MoS and NPOV don't require both-sidesism. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. So there's a hierarchy:

1. Statements that are universally supported by RSes are considered as fact that's stated in wikivoice

2. Statements that are supported by most RSes may be attributed using "widely considered"

3. Statements that are supported by many (but not most) of the RSes might be mentioned in the lead with specific attribution

4. Statements that are supported by a few or one RSes might be mentioned in the body of the article.

In other words, in the context of writing articles, there is a continuum between fact and opinion. All else equal (e.g. WP:RSCONTEXT), a statement's place in this range is sort of determined by RS voting.

Wikipedia doesn't deal in watering-down of consensus of reliable sources in that manner to suit the preferences of individual editors, or of organizations and movements who wish to present themselves in a more benign light. That should really go without saying. Doing so is contrary to the WP:PURPOSE of this project and people who do so are not here to WP:BUILDWP. spintheer (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done any kind of editing on Wikipedia, so please be as kind as possible as I totally do this the wrong way. Can this be added as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@deeperunderstanding/mgtow-or-men-going-their-own-way-what-is-it-and-what-is-their-purpose-c4959aac9be0 JeremySWiki (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...No? spintheer (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]