Talk:MGTOW

Men going their own way #1

MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.

The concise definition of Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW):

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) refers to men committed to self-determination. Referring to oneself as a ”’Man Going His Own Way”’ (MGHOW) is a statement of self-ownership and a declaration that a man has the supreme right to decide what his goals in life will be as opposed to having his goals dictated by others who, in preference to self-determination, prescribe utility-based roles for males entailing servitude to women and society.

Men going their own way #2

Being the guy who put the definition in first, I was intending to note that the acronym had two definitions. Admittedly, I am more familiar with the political MGTOW than the aircraft MGTOW, which is why I asked for more information/links for both, and was hoping that those who are more familiar with the aircraft MGTOW would make their contribution. I also but both in because I wanted to be factual. If putting in an xlink is considered promotion, then I apologize.

Also, I know yga and have said the same to him, and he's come to an understanding. I hope you will do the same. Laboratory Mike 21:00, 25 June 2006 (EST)

---

Why was the "Men going their own way" entry, removed? And replaced with an aircraft specification?

With no explanation, no discussion.

It's obvious isn't it. Should I say it? Despite that you wiki authorities don't want to hear the truth? Is it because you editors are biased against males, right?

Do you realise what is happening? People are turning off wiki, feeling that you are the enemy. The entire men's movement does not want to give you any money because you are anti-male censoring feminazis.

Not that money should come into this, it's just that people are really hoping for the downfall of wiki, hoping that your entire operation (and your biased censorship) go under due to lack of funds. Hating wiki and their faceless cowardly editors, with a vengeange, because of your nasty anti-male dictatorial censorship. So much for giving the people an equal voice. You give females all the voice and males no voice!

yga--81.7.46.41 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the edit summary in the page history [1], I removed the entry because it appears to be promotion for an obscure website/movement. My feeling that it is obscure comes from the google results, and the fact that an entry for this topic has already been deleted at wikipedia. I understand you might find this a bitter experience, but wiktionary is not here to "give people a voice", it is here to define terms that they are likely to wish to look up. Kappa 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am a user who came here to look up the Men Going Their Own Way term, because it gets mentioned a fair bit on the internets, and I didn't know what it meant. All I found at first were people complaining that the MGTOW articles got removed from Wikipedia and Wiktionary, before finally finding out what it meant. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---

And yet a far more obscure term, for aircraft was used?

You'll probably argue that the first one on the list was actually for aircraft.

http://www.google.com/search?q=MGTOW

Not any more — By now (2013) the aircraft is so far down on Google you won't find it any more --Krischik (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And of course it is. If thefreedictionary.com, wiktionary, and every other source of information censors this, instead of relying on what REAL PEOPLE are saying, then this acronym will never be in the mainstream sources of words. If you look at the non-organizational, just independant ordinary people's websites, you'll see it's all about "men going their own way".

"Terms people are likely to look up". Eh??? Are you sure about that? So that means I can delete every term on wiki that people are unlikely to look up?

Do you mind if I spend a few weeks, getting me and some mates to scour your wiki for all the terms to delete that are less likely to be looked up? And impose our idea of what is important or not, upon wiki?

You may not realise what wiki is about these days, I suppose, but the majority of the content on wiki isn't mainstream. There is a lot of content which is the "leaves" of humanity's knowledge, instead of the maintrunks. In Web2.0 terminology, this is known as the "long tail", in which small niches comprimise 90% of the content. And yet you, with your politically driven idealogy, want to go against your founding design principle??

You may not realise it, but wiki has many terms and stuff that aren't really all that mainstream. Be careful of the reasons you submit for deletion, because if they were *fairly* applied, it would come back and bite you. This is just more bias. The "promotion of a movement" claim could be made for many a wiki entry.

As for the wikipedia.org deletion, that was just done for political reasons. And believe me, wiki will pay for their politically purposed deletion.

So what if the page had external links??? MOST Wiki pages have links to external websites!!! That is just ridiculous. Should I then go and delete most of wiki because they have links to external websites?

If you were reasonable, instead of trying to sound reasonable when infact being cowardly and biased and dictatorial, you'd simply have removed the links to external websites (and removed it on all others) at the same time.

--81.7.46.41 19:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)yga

While there is value in the "long tail", it is constantly necessary to filter out people trying to promote new words, movements, products etc. If this is not done, wiktionary will be overwhelmed. I agree that it is difficult to find a system that does this perfectly. If you need a dictionary/encylopedia that is completely "uncensored" you may find wikinfo more useful than wiktionary or wikipedia. Kappa 08:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RFV discussion #1

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

"Men Going Their Own Way". Seems to be an obscure movement, googles badly. Kappa 08:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mgtow&btnG=Google+Search

Anon unsigned message posted in the wrong section

removed disputed sense. Andrew massyn 07:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reintroduction of political MGTOW definition

I have reintroduced the political definition and have provided 4 links to 'Men Going Their Own Way' websites, forums and a chatroom. There are many more related sites on the net to verify that this is not an obscure movement, but very active with many participants.

With a google search of MGTOW, [2] the first two pages are related to 'Men Going Their Own Way' and not until halfway down page 3 is the aircraft acronym refered to. A google search of MGTOW and feminism, [3] returns 10,900 results.

There is also another online dictionary that refers to 'Men Going Their Own Way': thefreedictionary[4]

I would appreciate if the above could be considered and this definition can remain as this is a legitimate movement with its participants growing in number as time goes on. Monad 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the references, as they're all dead links. The interest and searches and related sites have grown exponentially since the term was introduced into wiktionary. I'm just not an expert, so I can't reintroduce appropriate alternate references. Someone else feel free to do so.--77.28.31.227 08:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re verification tag, I reintroduced the MGTOW definition in April 2007 (as above) under the username Monad. This was current until 25 December 2010. Since some if the links were dead as mentioned previously I updated them. Upon returning I find that they have been deleted and I have been blocked from editing under the username Monad for "Spamming links to external sites: repeat offense (multiple)" so I will not bother to do so again 'anonymously'. However note a Google search of MGTOW and feminism, [5] returns 31,300 results compared to my previous entry April 2007 returning 10,900 results. 119.12.244.209 06:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Google matches are not usually much use for WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise that Equinox, however my updated links to verifiable sites were deleted, including my comment on here and I was blocked for editing under the username Monad by SemperBlotto. 121.91.110.122 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem - they'll be in the entry's history. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion #2

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

"Men Going Their Own Way - An antifeminist/libertarian political movement." It has no Wikipedia article and no mentions in Google Books; I suspect it is something minor and non-notable. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously failed RFV. "Do not reenter without valid citations", IMO, means just that. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MGTOW control of definition

Don't worry about it fellas, the real MGTOW is now about 19 out of 20 Google results. People will simply turn away from controlled (read: censored) sites like this one. - 165.228.7.101 06:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess so. Stange [Herbivore men] has been added and is allowed to stay — which is a quite similar movement. But then that is Japan and not USA. --Krischik (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Wikipedia, but here, your task is very simple: 1) Find at least three independent uses of the term that aren't just mentions over a period of more than a year in sources that meet WT:CFI (the main sticking point so far has been that web sites aren't durably archived. We consider Usenet as durably-archived for purposes of CFI, so that's probably your best bet). 2) Add them to Citations:MGTOW. 3) Recreate the sense, with wording that's neutral in point of view. Remember that we're a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, so references to authoritative sources are unnecessary (except for etymologies), and links to non-lexicographic web sites are frowned upon. We're also only concerned with the term itself, not the political or social context (beyond what would apply to use and connotations of the term).

Although some individuals may have their agendas, the only reason a deletion will stick is that the entry doesn't meet WT:CFI, is hopelessly full of formatting and other errors (see WT:ELE), is promoting something, or violates some other basic rules. If you think you've met the standards I've mentioned, and it still gets speedily deleted, you can bring it up at the Beer Parlor(WT:BP), or, if it's strictly a matter of whether the quotes meet WT:CFI, at WT:RFV. At the very least, you should be able to get it changed to an RFD or RFV so that you have a chance to defend your addition. I think the main reason the RFV documented above succeeded is because no one offered any citations to show that it met WT:CFI.

We have no censorship here- you can find entries for just about every vile and/or obscene and/or controversial term that's been documented to be in actual use. You just have to meet the requirements and follow the rules, and the entry or sense will stay. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

even now after all those years the internet still doesn't understand mgtow. its a sad sight seeing what they tell about us.. greetings patrick a mgtow from europe

If you want to argue for your ideas, you'll have to go elsewhere: all a descriptive dictionary can do is describe the way the term is used and what people mean when they use it in, a clear and impartial manner. We don't advocate, and we don't take sides. That goes for feminists, MGTOWs, or people who believe the world is run by a unicorn with three heads. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless the entry is Gamergater... Equinox ◑ 14:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent definition reverts

I added a message on User_talk:Cloudcuckoolander#MGTOW, but the discussion would be more relevant here. Lets discuss any proposed changes here before making them. -- 71.208.37.30 23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also commented on User_talk:Chuck_Entz#MGTOW, so far that's being ignored as well. -- 71.208.37.30 02:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why put the least used version on top?

Hello @Equinox, I have a question, was there any particular reason why you degraded the popular use of the term, in favour of the rarely used form?

I'm hoping we can reach consensus and put the modern use as first. Amin (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

From googling around it seems that sense is not really rare but rather a fairly conventional aviation jargon term, with a history of consistent use going back many decades. It seems fairly obvious that it should have precedence over a fringe neologism. — Kleio (t · c) 03:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The aviation term is far more commonly used in CFI-compliant sources such as published books. Equinox ◑ 08:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Split by ety?

Should we put the 'men' and 'takeoff weight' definitions in different etymology sections? I know we don't usually split initialisms/acronyms by ety (because each one is its own ety), but in this case it would be based on (slash, a proxy for) splitting by pronunciation. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A mess

This page is a mess! Somebody delete and start again. It’s not supposed to be a website promoting an organization. It’s supposed to be an authoritative, informative short article defining a term and giving its context and history in as objective a way possible.

Looks fine to me. What don't you like? Equinox ◑ 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)