Talk:Are We Dating The Same Guy?

Bias

I don't know anything about editing wikis, but can someone add an bias flag? The entire article comes across as very negative and only points out concerns, not the potential benefits. This is a complex issue that should be represented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.239.214 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What things specifically? Can you provide sources which this article doesn't use? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I find that the phrasing of the article is very biased and after I tried to handled one such case on the page, it was quickly reverted to the previous half-truth. Showing that the previous editor/s was not only biased, but refused to change their ways in light of new information. Also, seeing your reply stating, 'Mine is that the article is, if anything, too favorable' implies that you have something against the page which goes against the objectivity we aim for on this platform. Naslilx (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Mine is that the article is, if anything, too favorable. Please see https://endawdtsg.com for hundreds of screenshots of what is happening within these groups. 2603:6010:6E00:1052:B5:B631:8A59:B48C (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This source is a WordPress blog by the looks of it, so it isn't considered reliable per WP:BLOG. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The screenshots are published on a Wordpress site, yes. But they are FROM these AWDTSG groups. I'm not saying it should be included in the wiki. I'm saying if you think these groups aren't extremely harmful to men then you need to go see those screenshots. This is absolutely horrifying and I have no idea how Facebook continues to let it happen. 2603:6010:6E00:1052:169:6837:602E:E9B9 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased and negatively toned language

from #New_Zealand : "A few cheating men have been discovered on the group, however it is not common." Oh? Disregarding whether or not this accurate (which it very well may be!), sounds like someone's a little defensive? Anyway, [citation needed], eh mate.

from #History : "When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they said that it was disgusting and unacceptable for men to post screenshots of women's dating profiles, failing to realise that they were doing the same thing."

I might've added a [citation needed] here but - what?? was this written by a salty incel? There appears to exist plenty of legitimate criticism of these Facebook groups; if that is so then it should be documented on this wikipedia page with language that is not so moronic.

-signed, a random who heard about Are We Dating The Same Guy 10 minutes ago and looked it up on Wikipedia because that's how I learn about lots of things. much love <3 67.218.217.86 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased and Half-truths

So, I began editing this page after I searched for It and found it a too subjective and just negatively-charged for what a Wiki page is supposed to read like. So I began going through the links and tell me why I uncovered two half-truths made about the page. The first one talking about how 'the group mocks men'. There are various things wrong here, the first one is how the original editor failed to add that those who mocked men on these groups were removed- this information was on the very line talking about how men were mocked in the reference article but this was ignored by the original editor which just makes it seem malicious. Even after the rectified this, it was still reverted back to the original half-truth. Secondly, saying the group mocks men when it goes against the rules of the group (this was also in the information from the reference article) is making a blanket statement for the wrong choices of a few. Some of the other articles sourced were opinions pieces but another that seemed to grind my gears was the one about why the group was closed in Vancouver, it clearly states in the article that this was due to undisclosed reason with someone coming out take credit for this. Again, even though this person had taken credit, even the original article doesn't know if this is completely and yet, on Wiki this is cited as a the reason the page was shut down. I understand more than anything that we are humans and have biases, but if such bias would impact on such an important job as to how we inform, then we can take a pass from the page. It's okay to hate the group in question, its a free world, but hatred shouldn't not affect how we create the full picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naslilx (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Naslilx: I appreciate your work on making this article more neutral. Replying to your comment about mocking men, the source used says One of the other examples of rule-breaking within the group is the frequent mocking (or “roasting”) of the men who are posted, when it’s technically prohibited by the group’s magna carta. Their appearance might get picked apart in the comments, or women just take the piss out of a man’s dating profile, even though it’s strictly forbidden. It says "frequent mocking", not Some members of the group have been known to mock the men (emphases on "some members"). While it is true that it is against the rules of the group, this does not mean that this does not happen, as mentioned by the source. Because Wikipedia has a policy of sticking to sources and no original research, I am going to have to restore the content to the source. What I will do to achieve better neutrality is to attribute the source. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this point, Panamitsu. It is also not lost on me that you conveniently forgot to add the next line from the article which says that some girls from the group are removed or the group itself is punished by the admins for such behaviour.

Also, I noticed after highlighting praise from reputable sites, you removed those but you are quick to highlight opinion pieces deriding the group.

I just want to say that this is clearly biased for an editor. Naslilx (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to add that yourself. For the praise part, do you mean the sentence I removed, "Since its inception, the group has been praised for prioritising women's safety in the modern dating scene" (or similar)? Because that was unsourced puffery, which we tend to avoid in encyclopaedias as it sounds like an advertisement and doesn't really say much in the end, but I may have made a mistake. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

fds

“It is misandrist,” he says simply. “It’s about the reduction of people to ridiculous, facile stereotypes.” That said, he acknowledges that it’s unlikely to ever become a serious threat. “The problem this kind of misandry presents is fully dwarfed by misogyny, simply because of the power of the patriarchy… Men’s rights activists and white supremacists have actual access to power structures.” I think AWDTSG counts as a power structure.https://old.reddit.com/r/afterAWDTSG/comments/1arxdm1/brutal_relationship_advice_for_women_from_the/ 217.66.158.64 (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)