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.

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.

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