Jump to content

Talk:Manosphere: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 109: Line 109:
== cleaning up needed ==
== cleaning up needed ==


The 1st paragraph, and the 1st paragraph in "themes" is repetitive. needs to be cleaned up [[User:Gizziiusa|Gizziiusa]] ([[User talk:Gizziiusa|talk]]) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The 1st paragraph, and the 1st paragraph in "themes and ideology" is repetitive. needs to be cleaned up [[User:Gizziiusa|Gizziiusa]] ([[User talk:Gizziiusa|talk]]) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [[User:Gizziiusa|Gizziiusa]] ([[User talk:Gizziiusa|talk]]) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)gizziiusa

Revision as of 19:31, 10 January 2024


Intro

The intro is worded in such a way as to imply that men's right activists and father's right's activists promote misogyny. That's not right at all. BeyondHalf (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific suggestion about how to change the wording, and reliable sources to support that suggestion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The manosphere is a group of loosely associated websites, blogs, forums, authors and writers all concerned with masculinity and men's issues, and includes input from the MRM, pick-up artists, anti-feminists, and fathers' rights activists that are mainly for men." Should fit in well. Nowhere is there any promotion of violence or hatred of either women or feminism. Daydreamdirty (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion ignores the well-documented violence and hatred associated with the manosphere. You are proposing a whitewash. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia itself is the one associating men's right activists and father's rights activist with the so called "manosphere" though? 24.34.64.221 (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also violence and hatred associated with the radical feminism, yet the wikipedia as source is muck more mild toward this issue. I sense serious bias here! 82.131.14.96 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is literally in the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a wikipedia article conflicts with Wikipedia:No original research. You'll instead need to find a reputable published source to back up your claim.
I look forward to what you find Therealteal (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In no way does the manosphere promote misogyny. Mst5506 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Please keep your personal feelings out of this Mst5506. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So should we add examples of mysoandry in articles about feminism? 31.178.7.216 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you can back it up with reliable sources, then please do Therealteal (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously slanted in its intro. You can make an argument for including specific instances of violence from individuals associated with the manospehere without including that as the top description. The idea that this 'is based on evidence and specific references' is ridiculous. As another commenter alluded to, you could list dozens of cited articles about environmental activists who have embraced violence without concluding that violence is a defining feature of the environmental movement, or that the thesis statement for the 'environmentalism' page should focus on violence. 207.44.77.58 (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the reliable sources, and the preponderance of sources to describe the 'manosphere' in the way our article does. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the NPOV issues in the intro. You are clearly quoting agenda sources. But first, let's take a look at your phrasing just now:
"Preponderance"? Please do not over state. In that introduction there are 4 component sources to it's citation index, currently index 1.
Hodapp (2017), p. xv;
Lumsden (2019), pp. 98–99;
Jane (2017), p. 662;
Marwick & Lewis (2017), pp. 9, 13
2 of the 4 cited sources, the last two, contains the citation quote (supplied) involving the word "misogyny". Not a Plethora.
Surely you're not inviting other agenda sources to counter these. Wikipedia seems to not ever be able to handle NPOV issues responsibly.
𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is a summary of the rest of the article. The rest of the article expounds at length on the movement's misogyny, including numerous sources. NPOV expressly does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also 'agenda sources' is not a thing. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If by "agenda sources" you mean the many scholarly writings about the manosphere which have been cited in the article, then you are greatly diminishing your argument's effectiveness. You seem to be saying that "agenda sources" are biased, that they are activist sources seeking change. But Wikipedia holds that scholars writing about their topic of study are among the most expert of observers. They are the highest sources we can use. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point in studying the manosphere is to look at the misogyny and related ideologies within it, that's really why the term exists, so I'm not sure why you want to remove the ideologies from the lead. You suggest that violence related to radical feminism is glossed over compared to the manosphere article. If that is true, it'd be because of an issue with sourcing, not with Wikipedia. Radical feminism is not movement with the purpose of studying for "violence and hatred associated with radical feminism". —Panamitsu (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On misogyny

Manosphere is not always misoginic, just as feminism is not always misoandric. NPOV should be observed. Chronophobos (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the reliable sources, as WP:NPOV requires. If they say that the Manosphere promotes misogyny (and they do), so to will the Wikipedia article. We cannot replace the reliable sources with your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MrOllie. A great many sources connect the manosphere with hatred of women. That is a foundational fact of this topic. Removing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV, contrary to what Chronophobos said above. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying father's rights groups satisfies the condition of being an entity that promotes hatred of women? Otherwise a distinction should be made in the article's opening or, for that matter, anywhere in the article. 35.142.81.147 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the best available sources don't draw such a distinction, neither will the Wikipedia article. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the reference Manosphere#CITEREFSugiura2021 cited for this article, under the heading "The Manosphere", the fifth paragraph in, to me, reads as such a distinction. What do you think? 35.142.81.147 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sugiura writes that the manosphere group Fathers for Justice shares many of the same views as pickup artists and all the rest. Father's rights groups are seen to work against feminism using the same hateful tactics as the other manosphere groups. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I don't object to an edit to the page adding Fathers for Justice as belonging to the manosphere. For the second point, if the source doesn't draw such a conclusion, neither should the Wikipedia article. And if other sources do draw such a conclusion, then there are conflicting assertions made by different reliable sources. See WP:NPOV 35.142.81.147 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Sugiura does make the point, which is why it's in the article. If there are other sources contradicting Sugiura, then they may be used if they are equally reliable and equally backed by other scholars making the same conclusion. If that's the case we could tell the reader what one group of scholars says contrasted by the findings of another scholarly group. But we are not going to set up a false balance between respected scholarly research and lesser sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with false balance. Instead the article cherry-picks Sugiura's words, since it omits her words on what the primary focus of FRAs consists of. The primary focus of FRAs seems to contradict several of her own statements, which includes one direct quote in the article. 35.142.81.147 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section of Suguira's article you cited reads (my bolding): The manosphere encompasses a wide range of groups from MRAs and Fathers’ Rights Activists (FRAs), to PUAs and to the more extremist MGTOW and incels. The fact that the primary focus for FRAs ... is actual men’s problems rather than espousing vitriol against women does not mean the fathers' rights movement is not part of the manosphere, or that the manosphere in general doesn't promote misogyny. There is no contradiction.
Whether the FRA movement satisfies the condition of being an entity that promotes hatred of women is irrelevant, because our article is clear that the manosphere is heterogeneous and that the specifics of each group's ideology sometimes conflict. The lead section could be expanded to include this as well IMO. Regardless, a quick Google Scholar search turned up the following:
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sugiura article also specifically mentions efforts by fathers’ rights groups to undermine women’s shelters and services in the context of the backlash against feminism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your "best available sources" are not neutral, then following those sources is a violation of a neutral point of view. An alternative is for the decision makers who choose to lock pages such as this to take on the responsibility to investigate the material themselves.I don't personally subscribe to MGTOE or other manosphere ideologies. But it doesn't take much perusal or investigation or open mindedness to find that most commentators and commentary are not misogynistic. I'd love to donate to Wikipedia this time around as I have the last two, but I'm not donating to an outlet that's turning into yet another form of biased media. 172.251.36.107 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that they are the "best available sources" is because they are neutral, as the scholars have thoroughly researched the topic and have published their findings. The part you don't like about this topic is the part we are keeping because it is the most neutral representation of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Wikipedia will survive without your undoubtedly generous financial support. In the meantime, read WP:BIASED. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I'm a decently well-read person but even I had to google what heterogenous means, there should be a wiktionary link for that in case ppl are confused. Woozybydefault (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "heterogeneous" in the lead to "diverse", which is the first synonym listed at wikt:heterogeneous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just thought I'd point out that there are many mainstream media sources now available for this topic, that I stumbled across while making updates to Andrew Tate's page. Here's a few examples, the rest can be found with google searching in news section:

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the current sources, only that there could be more added and probably more added to this stub smart-class article. Pinging main contributors here: @Sangdeboeuf @GorillaWarfare CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has about 1,600 words (not including references), so hardly a WP:STUB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I meant "smart-class", had misread the content assessment 🤐 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up needed

The 1st paragraph, and the 1st paragraph in "themes and ideology" is repetitive. needs to be cleaned up Gizziiusa (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Gizziiusa (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)gizziiusa[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manosphere&oldid=1194793069"