Talk:Manosphere/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Well sourced criticism... isn't

We have the perjoratives added in revision [1] that "They have been described by various news outlets and civil rights groups as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence." and this was added as "well sourced criticism".

It isn't. Neither citation mentions "sexual abuse", "domestic violence" or "misogynist worldview" in the cited articles, and one... is a random about an Anita Sarkeesian kickstarter campaign in 2013 that is so misinformed it claims the manosphere is chat rooms (in 2014? Really?), Facebook pages (uhhhh, yeah) and "the dark underbelly of the internet" (No doubt attempting for the Bulwer-Lytton competition with that crap line). The awful, awful 20/20 smear piece was loudly criticized as biased journalism written by low quality journalists with questionable reporting standards. [2] [3] [4]

This is not an at all well sourced criticism, and should be removed. Ceese (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• You have to be kidding. You think a website named judgybitch.com is a more reliable source than 20/20? That just shows that you are editing from a fringe POV. The fact that you can add the above thread and honestly believe it makes a point for you shows something to 'regular' people. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TIL you can't edit articles that are about your beilefs, you instead have to allow outsiders to speak for you, just because your beliefs are uncommon (and rapidly gaining followers) Bumblebritches57 (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that the ABC report (which never aired as a 20/20 piece and ended up needing a massive correction appended to it) was written by 2 low-level production assistants one of whom was a sales associate at Abercrombie and Fitch. But ABC is for the purposes of Wikipedia considered a reliable source obviously so it is what it is. More important is whether the text of the article reflects the source material, however flawed they are. 70.208.84.138 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

News agencies are not blanket reliable sources. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente even screwed that up, hence the large correction by an editor at the bottom of their technology analysis piece. Again, "most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" WP:NEWSORG, and since this 20/20 is documented as containing errors by one of 20/20's own editors, it should not be cited at all. Ceese (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I'm only just becoming familiar with the policies so wasn't sure about how Wikipedia treats it when a generally respected source puts out high school quality journalism as in the case of the ABC piece. The Caitlin Dewey one is even worse, at least the ABC one had a correction. Also good to know that Wikipedia frowns on using opinion pieces as sources for factual statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't easy to find even-handed or even factually correct treatments of the manosphere in mainstream media. Makes this exercise a bit of a challenge. 70.208.85.56 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sodini

There are some attempts to link Sodini to Manosphere, the sources being used only draw parallels between Sodini and Rodgers. From what I can tell this appears to be some WP: OR. I'm open to other input on this though. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I dont believe the manosphere really existed in 2009 anyways. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a joke. There was no possible way to interpret those source articles as linking Sodini to the manosphere. People are trying to use this article as a smear piece and it really needs to be watched. I half expect to open this page and see a "link" between Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and Hitler and the manosphere. Upgrade upgrayedd (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the cult analogy before, it has some credence with the Manospheres spreading of misinformation and falsified statistics --80.193.191.143 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh?Upgrade upgrayedd (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, remember, we're here to write objective, neutral entries on topics. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

and by falsified statistics, you're of course referring to feminism, what with it's 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 women will be raped bullshit, right? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Taki's Magazine a reliable source?

I'm curious if Taki's Magazine is a reliable source for criticism? I know we accept publications of all political allignment, even if they are far-right, but I'm curious what their editing guidelines are? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

According to their Wikipedia page, Taki's_Magazine, they're self published and regularly introduce essays and opinion pieces from notable people. I'm unsure. Tutelary (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Source of criticism? I'd say yes because it's notable enough of a publication to have its own wiki page. But it's not a reliable source for statements. In other words, we'd need to say "Taki's Magazine says..." and then source it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've restructured the paragraph in question so it makes it more clear that these press criticisms were made by Taki's Magazine alone. It definitely doesn't hurt to have a counterpoint, and the choice quote of "distinguished by a class and refinement totally missing from the shrieking hysteria of modern feminist blogging" is a little telling about what exactly their bias is. It's probably worth noting that Taki's Magazine has written on the Manosphere before: [5] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@PearlSt82 why did you revert my edit? I tried contacting you on your talk page and you haven't responded, if you don't respond within 24 hours, I'm reporting your revert as abusive and correcting it. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Because your use of language violates WP:NPOV. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

/* Ideology */

The end statement "Many also support lowering the age of consent to 12 or below." is not supported at all by the source. GQ claims that one man supports doing so. This does not belong in this article unless somebody can find a reasonable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEBE:8860:904F:9F3:A11A:AD48 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the sentence. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Some more sources relevant to this: [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.54.189 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. Strong claims like this one need strong sourcing, and this one doesn't currently have it. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, if more people write on the Manosphere, sources will come that assert just this. Until then, best of luck with editing other subject areas --5.81.54.189 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New source

"The 'man-o-sphere' is outraged about Mad Max? Hand me my popcorn!" is an extremely hostile column about the Manosphere recently published in The Guardian. It's chock full of perjorative quotes. Anyone want to get some of it in this article? Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

One ROK writer claiming the new Mad Max film is part of a feminist conspiracy strikes me as a little UNDUE even if it is getting some press coverage. It might work better in the Mad_Max:_Fury_Road article PearlSt82 (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is part of their blog section too rather than the main pages, pretty good read still though --5.81.51.171 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Commentary AND Criticism?

This is classic PR spin bullshit. The idea that you can temper criticisms of any WP article subject with glowing reviews from some other motherfuckers is ludicrous. This needs to be two separate sections. Period. HuntClubJoe (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:NOT, WP:WTAF, and WP:EL I've removed the "Notable manosphere sites" from the external link section. While some of them may be notable, many of them were very likely not. The list had degraded to an indiscriminate collection of blogs, and seems like it was edging towards the Wikipedia:Spam event horizon. Thespudgobbler added this site as a source to support which ones were popular. That's the right idea, but as an anonymous blog reposting Alexa rankings from a single date-range, it didn't seem reliable. If there are any manosphere sites that have their own articles which aren't already mentioned here, they could be added to the 'see also' section in stead. Unless better inclusion criteria can be established, the external link section should probably be kept to sources about the manosphere, rather than sites in the manosphere. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research in "Vocabulary" section

Recent changes made by Sertimini54 expanded the 'Vocabulary' section to include content sourced to a couple of Reddit posts and an example story on the www.mgtow.com forum. These are not reliable sources, per WP:UGC. Several of the additions are not sourced at all. Further, the phrase "pussy pass" is partly sourced to an academic paper; this is very clearly WP:SYNTH, as that source mentions nothing about the phrase. The section also contains several grammatical errors, and is written in a non-neutral way. On my talk page the user has implied these edits are about balance, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources to establish weight, not false balance. I am starting this discussion to avoid edit warring, but this content must be either sourced or removed soon. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like someone tried to add some sources, but none of them meet the standards of WP:RS. I have removed the content since it is not reliably sourced and appears to constitute original research. Please discuss here before re-inserting it. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the previous wording, as the article uses the term "red pill" several times, which is a likely cause for confusion. It wasn't long enough to need its own section, so I included it in 'content' above where the Red Pill subreddit was mentioned. The content is sourced to the Washington Post story, which is widely used throughout the article. That source is not very clear on the red pill/blue pill thing, but it's very cryptic without any explanation at all, so I think it's fine for this point. If this seems undue, please revert. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Some small edits

What the hell? "Reddit is a popular gathering place for MRA's"? What? Glenzo999 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed that, tagged the article for not including all viewpoints, etc.

Done. Glenzo999 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to be a lot more specific, "etc" is way too vague to be useful. If there are additional sources, suggest them, or suggest which viewpoints are missing considering existing sources. The source used for the Red Pill subreddit said nothing about it being 'satirical', so I have restored the previous wording, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Please discuss on the talk page before restoring. Grayfell (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Auto archive?

I see 28 threads on this page with no activity in any for the last three months.

Any objections to implementing auto archive? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I'll set it up now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I see someone has removed the POV tag. I'm going to restore it. There has been discussion of this in the past but none active at the moment. Here are the problems I see. The first para of the lead ends with the view of the SPLC, which calls the manosphere a hate group. The whole second para is opinion from Caitlin Dewey and Eva Wiseman, who both say the manosphere inspires murder. The entire Ideology section is the same, plus someone calling the manosphere "gay," apparently intended as an insult. Commentary and criticism is more of the same. I can only find two paragraphs, the third and the penultimate of that section, that offer anything that's not negative, and even that is defensive. I can't find any statements by members or proponents of the manosphere. Maybe there really are no proponents outside the manosphere itself, but even if that's true, shouldn't we at least have a quote or two from the manosphere? I doubt these people are calling themselves hate groups or claiming to inspire murder. Even if they are, we should have that in their own words. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wasnt willing to work on the article tagged without knowng why it is tagged. As you have explained your reasoning I will now try to address the issues you raise, over the coming days, as I translate the article into Spanish. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It still looks unbalanced to me, because although we have a lead that now seems pretty fair, the entire rest of the article consists solely of a "criticism" section. I've had trouble finding any coverage of the "manosphere" that isn't critical or at least defensive, so maybe this is the best we can do. @RichardWeiss: did you find any supportive sources? If not, we could probably remove the POV tag. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted to an older version. It was heinously off-balance. "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has been criticized for including manosphere sites on its list of 'hate-groups'"? Seriously? That is the first sentence of the only subsection? It's painfully weaselish editorializing. First we need to say what the manosphere is, and then explain that the SPLC included manosphere sites, and then we explain who criticized them and why. Nowhere do sources say anything about "pejorative personal details", and what does that actually mean, anyway? Is that supposed to be doxing? If so, sources need to lay it out, and the pathetic Business Insider op-ed is totally unsuitable for that kind of thing as a statement of fact. Roosh V is supposed to be just harmless ol' dating advice? C'mon, now. Info on him, or on Reason's opinion of him, belongs at Roosh V.

"Eva Wiseman of The Guardian stated that 'Advocates of the men's rights movement are united by their belief that feminism is the enemy.'" - How is that a criticism?

There was more, but this was just a trainwreck of bad formatting and WP:NPOV cherry picking. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's getting better. At least now we've got two sections that try to explain what the manosphere is, instead of launching straight in to a Criticism section. I'd like to see them expanded so that these two sections are at least as big as the Criticism section. Dewey and Wiseman both seem to be critical of the manosphere, and it would be nice to get some more neutral sources. I've looked and can't find any. Everything seems to be polarized. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure that's such a big problem. More reliable sources are always a good thing, but being critical doesn't disqualify a source; sometimes that's just good journalism. If independent sources are critical, that's what the article should reflect. Attempting to balance out the criticism with weaker, positive sources is false balance. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but after reading this article I still don't have a clear idea what the manosphere is and why people hate it. I'm not looking for sources that praise the manosphere so much as ones that explain it without saying it's bad or good. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

"Bodybuilding" was recently removed from the lead, then restored with the comment "citation needed for removal." This is not correct. All material must be verifiable per WP:V, and if challenged, a source citation must be provided. "Bodybuilding" is not in the cited source. It also is not mentioned in the body of the article, which it should be per WP:LEAD. It should be removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos

This addition was just reverted: "Prominent alternative right figure Milo Yiannopoulos has referred to himself as a member of the manosphere." The edit summary was "Breitbart is not a reliable source." While I agree Breitbart is not RS for most things, it is RS for statements made by its authors. And Yiannopoulos is notable. So if it supported the statement, I would leave it in. Trouble is, I don't see where it supports the statement. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

There is a connection there, but this needs good sources. I wouldn't object to Breitbart being included as a supplementary source in combination with something more reliable, but Yiannopoulos is infamous for his arguably tongue-in-cheek self-aggrandizement. This is more of an edge case than some, but not every quote from him belongs in Wikipedia. The Bokhari/Yiannopoulos article in particular has been very controversial, also, and was mentioned in alt-right only with context provided by neutral and more reliable sources. I don't think it would be WP:DUE to include that context here, and I don't think it would be neutral to include it without that context. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of this guy, but just based on the one brief mention in which he calls it the "so-called 'manosphere'", I agree we don't need to add anything to this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Milo is usually described in the media as an alt-right leader. The New York Times notes, These rebels do not necessarily have all that much in common with one another, let alone with the remainders of the religious right. The Trump-voting “deplorable” is likely to be a cultural evangelical but not a churchgoer, or a pro-choice lapsed Catholic who never cared for religious moralists. The typical “manosphere” denizen is something else entirely — younger, tech-savvy, impious, impressed with his own unblinking Darwinism. As constituent parts of cultural conservatism, these groups don’t form a particularly coherent whole; what unites them are common fears (feminism, political correctness, sometimes Islam), not a common cause. In this sense, as in others, America is becoming more like Europe, where conservatism has been less than religious for some time, and the cultural right has long had a fractured and incoherent quality. Homosexuals are barred from a lot of manosphere sites, and Roosh views Milo as more of a moderate than a conservative, although he still thinks it's important for antifeminists to stand together against their common enemy. Compy book (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Heartiste

There's no mention on here of Weidmann's blatant neo-Nazi attitudes. His site is more about politics than pick-up artistry these days. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Even with WP:RS (Wikipedia cannot just interpret Weidmann's text directly), bringing that up sounds definitively WP:SOAPBOX to me. 69.159.83.14 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies (Zero Books, 2017) has some info about this. I've added a summary to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Is there any particularly reason why the bourgeois liberal political activist group the Southern Poverty Law Center is name checked in the introduction of this article, as if they are some sort of grand moral authority? I realise at this point in time, a condemnation from the SPLC is more like an endorsement, but still, I have to question why we are including it here. While the SPLC may have moved out from their niché ghetto of hyper-focusing on obscure micro-scopic neo-Nazi/KKK sects in the 2000s, to attacking pretty much anybody who doesn't endorse third-wave feminism, homosexuality and transgenderism, as well as their generic sectarian attacks on Christianity (Catholics being a favourite target), are they actually "experts" in any of these fields? As far as I can tell they just whine about people they don't like for political reasons. I don't think this adds anything of value to the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Were you trying to be ironic when you accused them of whining about people they don't like for political reasons? SPLC are experts in hate crime and hate groups, and are a reliable source for information on this topic, which includes misogyny. Applying a bunch of conservative buzzwords is unpersuasive, to say the least, and it says absolutely nothing about how reliable the SPLC is as a source. How, exactly, does the SPLC "endorse" homosexuality? I can assure you that they are not asking anyone to become gay in order to fight social inequality, if that was a concern.

I would prefer it if the article simply said some of these site promote a mysognistic worldview, and some are part of the alt-right. Since "the media" is a silly phrase which means nothing in this context, and the SPLC are reliable for this, we can and should just summarize their findings in simple language. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the SPLC are either a reliable source or "experts" on so-called "misogyny" rather than a partisan political lobby? Where is the evidence that the SPLC's late capitalist/bourgeois liberal political views are important enough for them to be mentioned in an article about a pro-masculine social movement in the introduction? They basically specialise in creating blacklists of groups and people they don't like (including people who offer up critiques of pious Anglo sacred calfs like feminism or the "LGBT" movement).

If their "views" (which are hardly a profound analysis of this movement, rather whining, finger-pointing or name-calling) are to be mentioned in the article at all, then it should only be in a subsection under a title such as "Opposition"... then people can skim their eyes over it, see that the SPLC dislike it for whatever reason, and move on. The SPLC are not important enough to have their name promoted in the introduction of the article as if they deserve the floor to be presented as the definitive view. We should not be inflating their importance. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks feminism rejects all criticism really, really doesn't understand feminism. Putting things in "quotation marks" doesn't make them less accurate. This has been discussed repeatedly at WP:RSN and elsewhere. They are generally a reliable source. Your attempt to relegate this to a WP:CSECTION is a perfect example of why those are discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines, although I don't recall anyone trying to call it an "opposition" section before. That's even more painfully non-neutral, because this isn't a pass/fail ballot issue or similar where "opposition" is meaningful. We are not trying to encourage people to "skim over" information just because some editors don't like it. That's comically absurd. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How would a section entitled "opposition" be non-neutral? Objectively, the SPLC are opposed to this movement and their entire involvement in this topic area is to scrunch their faces up in an anguished physiognomy and yelp "misogyny!" (which can hardly be construed as support from the SPLC, but is rather an estrogen induced passive-aggressive statement of "support third-wave feminism or we will call you nasty names"). We also have WP:UNDUE as a central part of WP:NPOV and inflating the partisan political views of the SPLC beyond their reasonable place, because certain editors support their stance, is a violation of that. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely a scenario you are describing. If you think estrogen induces passive aggressive behavior, you should go back to med school and retake endocrinology and psychology. Wikipedia isn't the place for insults, nor for medically-dubious venting. I'm sure you already know of plenty of manosphere sites that would be more accommodating to this kind of verbose nonsense.

The SPLC isn't opposed to this "movement", they are opposed to misogyny, and presenting this as "two sides" would be textbook false balance. They are also not opposed to the movement because it's not a movement, it's a loosely defined group of websites. The manosphere has no single authoritative leader, nor any binding principles, nor any cohesive ideology at all. Even the SPLC article from 2012, which is extremely critical of the manosphere, doesn't pretend that it's a monolithic thing. The examples listed by the article are crystal clear in their support of their conclusions.

Saying over and over again that they are not all that important is pointless. They are, along with the ADL and a few others, one of the most important sources for information on hate movements in the US. Your agreement is not necessary for this to be accurate. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Arguing that the SPLC's reporting is an "estrogen induced passive-aggressive statement" is an admission that other users need not take your arguments seriously. Try coming back with something that doesn't sound like it was first developed on avoiceformen.com. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais has past form in this area - bordering on the cringe-inducing. I haven't taken this editor's arguments seriously for a long while. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I question the neutral voice of the SPLC and their provided information. There's even a citation within the criticisms section that calls their motivations into question. This article is already a dumpster fire, but in the spirit of maintaining a neutral point of view, I removed all mentions of the SPLC and their complaints in the main article. If their complaints wish to be discussed, they should be done so in the controveries section. 50.1.165.123 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As has already been discussed, SPLC is considered a reliable source for information on hate groups. If a reliable source discusses their motivation, and this is presented as significant to understanding the manosphere, then we could include that information. Removing a source because you do not agree with it isn't more neutral, it's whitewashing, which is less neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Category request?

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Category_request:_Category:Manosphere Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Article 8/28/18 is very outdated

Sluthate has been rebranded to redpilltalk and is pretty much completely inactive, I don't think it should be listed in the intro of modern sites. Relevant organizations that have popular sites as of today imo are A Voice for Men and National Coalition for Men. Modern active sites as of today are now almost exclusively on Reddit including r/mensrights r/MGTOW, r/TRP (The Red Pill), and r/Braincels. r/TRP is now the de facto popular pick up artist board, RooshV is pretty irrelevant to the manosphere now as he's rarely a subject of discussion. I'll give a while for people to put their word in on this talk page, then I'll start slowly re-writing half this article to reflect the changes since the last bulk of this was written, mostly just the change in what are the active sites Willwill0415 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. Find reliable sources first, and go from there. As I hope you've figured out by now, Wikipedia needs more than just your opinion for this kind of thing. Do you know of any reliable sources which specifically support these proposed changes in relation to the manosphere? In order to be reliable, it's almost certain these such sources would also be independent of the manosphere. As an encyclopedia, we are not only interested in modern developments, but we must take a long view. I'm sure many in the manosphere would like to pretend Roosh has faded away completely, but his influence on the manosphere is documented by sources, and it's these sources we use for articles. I think you get the picture. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

yea, which is why I created this subsection, yes it would have reliable sources and pieced together slowly with others, I don't really care about Roosh we can leave him in. What do you think about adding any of r/TRP, r/mensrights r/Braincels, r/MGTOW, and A Voice for Men to the list of sites? What do you think about removing Chateau Heartiste? Yea long view is definitely important, we wouldn't want an article with just all recent sources or only modern forums. That would be very bad. Here's some just a super cursory list of reliable sources: The Red Pill forum [10][11][12] r/MGTOW [13][14] r/mensrights [15] A Voice for Men and National Coalition for Men and associated figures [16][17] maybe this one [18] r/braincels [19] [20] Willwill0415 (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but please be very cautious of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Some of those sources do not mention the manosphere, which is a red flag. Please resist the temptation to 'daisy-chain' from sources about both the manosphere and a subreddit, to a source that is exclusively about the subreddit in isolation. This may be appropriate in some cases, but is usually SYNTH. As I said, sources should discuss these changes in relation to the manosphere, so the point is not merely to describe these sites or to Wikilink to their articles, it is to explain how they are related to this specific topic. The current article doesn't necessarily do a great job of this, but that's the general idea.

If the sources line-up, I support trimming the fat and slightly expanding the list. I think it may be useful to think about how the entry would look if the site goes defunct. If the entry would be disproportionate as a defunct site, it's probably disproportionate as a current site, also. This isn't a rule, or anything, just an idea for how to reign in the sprawl. This will also prevent WP:PRIMARY problems when these sites move or change ownership or disappear, as we already know they are prone to doing. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

got it Willwill0415 (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mountford (2018)

There is a noted difference in the manosphere in the compositions and interactions of different age groups in the manosphere between forums and vlogging channels, with forums having a tendency for an egalitarian relationship between different age cohorts, whilst on vlogging platforms this collaborative spirit disappears, and is replaced with a tendency for older men to provide mentorship-like comportments to younger men.

I can't find anything to support this text in the source cited, so I've trimmed it from the article. Can anyone help me out on this one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible offwiki source of disruption

See [21] - the bit about this article. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

4chan as part of the manosphere.

Editors seem to be as oblivious to real life as the news reporters asking "who is this 4chan hacker?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxetonO (talk • contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Misogyny used as a catch all term

How are fathers’ rights activists and people who learn how to improve their social skills with the opposite gender suddenly classified as women haters? Are heterosexual women who pay for dating advice for dating men suddenly men haters? (Misandrists). It’s an absurd and transparent POV proposition. Articles like this should not label and propagate stereotyping. 213.46.66.66 (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Because that's how WP:RS refer to it? Moreover, the Manosphere is not just fathers' rights activists or socially awkward hetero men. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Neither are they “predominantly alt right women haters” as the article states in its very FIRST sentence.

Wikipedia should not promote stereotyping and division but rather be an open and objective source of information. The sources WP:RS have evidently been preselected to bolster an inherently absurd proposition and we both know it.

The article lumps father’s rights activists, people who aim to improve their dating skills and rapists into the same group.

Can you seriously not see what is wrong with that? 86.93.208.34 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Find reliable sources please EvergreenFir (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

We need reliable sources like Zuckerberg (Marks sister the incredibly obscure blogger) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.93.223 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Truly ridiculous that something as broad as literally tens of thousands of blogs, sites, forums, magazines, and communities, in which people who try to fight for equality for men and are leftists pacifists are also included, can be labeled as a

1) Movement.

2) Misogynystic

3) Alt-right.

Wikipedia has turned into a joke. And for the person asking for sources, the burden of proof lies on you. Linking to The Cut and Vox as "references" just shows there is a blatant agenda behind this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxetonO (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources WP:SOURCE...Vox and The Cut are reliable sources, there's not really any debate about it [[22]]. Feel free to edit based on reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source (Emphasis added)

This is the source for the cited author's use of the term 'Men's rights movement' (hereafter: `Movement`):

https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-an-mra.html

Have you clicked that link? Do you see? There aren't any facts regarding the previous, only innuendo; implying that it has to do with the sitting president and mysogny.

And actually there seems to be very much debate about it. Or haven't you had a look at the previous two talk pages? 12.49.46.42 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where your first link ([23]) is cited in this article. Can you clarify? Oh, nevermind, I see what you're saying. The author of The Cut does link the term "men's rights movement" to that quiz thing you linked. But many online magazines do that these days—not to indicate that they're citing that source, but rather just to cross-link to other works on the subject that they've published.

I'm having a little trouble here understanding what claim you're actually taking issue with here—does the article say something you feel is incorrect? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Part of this I feel may have been my error, as I had a very limited time to commit these, and was myself committed do doing so rather than delay. And if I didn't confirm the edits as posted, I would have lost all progress on them, as the computer being used had a logon policy that was set to expire seconds after I did so. I have cleaned up the formatting to hopefully be more clear. 12.49.46.42 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Fact checking: an objective standard of proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere >> Clicks citation #1 >>>

https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/mens-rights-activists-are-flocking-to-the-alt-right.html >> clicks on "`Movement` reached it's peak" >>>

https://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/ >> clicks on the primary framing definition of the author's entire piece, "The Manosphere" >>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere >>

Circular logic. Tautology. The definition of 'manosphere' cited in this article cites this article for its definition of 'manosphere'.

It's true because the website says so and the website says so because it's true.

I'm at a loss for words. Is this truly the standard being defended by representatives of the Wikipedia?

12.49.46.42 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've now split this into a separate section, but did you see my questions I asked above (in #Misogyny used as a catch all term)? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking here to dissuage what I wrote to start this section or do you not understand it? 12.49.46.42 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're asking, and I am also asking for you to answer the questions I asked of you above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit to the lede to be more npov

"The manosphere has, at various times, and by various outlets included the men's rights movement, antifeminism, incels (involuntary celibates), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pick-up artistry (PUA), and fathers' rights groups."

Which was reverted to "Movements within the manosphere include men's rights movement, antifeminism, incels (involuntary celibates), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pick-up artistry (PUA), and fathers' rights groups."

with a edit summary of 'undo -- no indication this is ephemeral, and it's not appropriate to ascribe this only to "outlets" (which suggests it is only media sources characterizing these groups)'

Do you have any objective facts to support this, or is this just your feeling? 12.49.46.42 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes—the citations used to support that sentence make no indication it is ephemeral, nor are they all media outlets. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but the word outlets 'suggesting' that they're media outlets is a subjective assertion. Adding the word 'outlets' differentiates the manosphere from an objectively factual category, or an implication that everyone holds the manosphere to 1) exist 2) that it comprises these specific groups, which obviously isn't true, and doesn't. Being specific as to it's place in time differentiates it from unchanging categories, like groups of natural elements, and is a true statement since some of those citations are from 2014, some from 2018, et al. 12.49.46.42 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources do not consider some of these groups to be a part of the manosphere, or indicate that at some times they were not part of the manosphere, please provide them. Otherwise you seem to be pushing a fringe opinion onto the article without any sources to back it up.

As for your commentary about "outlets", a definition of a word is not a "subjective assertion." "Outlet" is not used to refer to a singular person publishing a book, or a group of academics publishing a paper, and both of those types of sources support the claim. I have just added a few more, even, since so many cites on this page verify that claim. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Manosphere is a subjective term, not a concrete objective group. It can mean whatever an author chooses it to mean, and comprise whatever groups likewise. My wording make is explicit that the groups being talked about are described by authors and not some immutable categorization. Do you see? And as for defining terms, can you give a citation that outlet must equal news outlet? Because I don't think it does.

And let me be abundantly clear. I came to this website because, I like seemingly many others as evidenced by the two previous talk pages, saw a huge problem with NPoV and Verifibility that apparently hasn't gone away since it was first pointed out. I edited some things, with summaries, and you (an administrator) reverted my changes. Do you hold an objective standard of proof? If I could provide objective evidence that there were problems with this page that my edits successfully addressed, would you admit it? Because in addition to being less than desirous of fighting an edit war, I am even less inclined to argue with someone who cannot be convinced that they are in error. This is obviously a contentious and political issue and article. Do you yourself not see any issues with NPoV or Verifibility here and now? 12.49.46.42 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If "manosphere" is described as a subjective term by reliable sources, please present them. But at the moment, the sourcing in this article describes the manosphere in no uncertain terms, and the article has been written based on that. Scholars and journalists appear to agree which groups comprise the manosphere, and I have not seen any reliable sources discussing disagreement on which groups belong or don't belong to the category, so there is no need for a sort of semi-in-text attribution such as "outlets".

And as for defining terms, can you give a citation that outlet must equal news outlet? Because I don't think it does. [24]

I would love for you to provide specific issues you're finding with this page—that is all I have asked of you and previous people on this talk page. As someone who fairly actively edits various pages about subjects within the manosphere, it is frustratingly common for people to come to an article talk page claiming that the article is POV, but then not point to any specific claims in the article they feel are non-neutral, or to any reliable sources providing a differing viewpoint that need to be represented. It is very hard to address peoples' perceived POV issues with pages when all they do is say "this is POV!" or slap a {{POV}} template on the page and then say little else. I will note that you still don't seem to have replied to my questions in your sections above—do you intend to continue those conversations?

I agree that there have been issues with this page—more with verifiability than with NPoV. As you can see, I have been working to address them over the past couple of weeks: [25]. And yes, of course if you make reasonable and well-supported criticisms I will do what I can to improve them. Furthermore, you seem to be claiming I have reverted all of your edits—that is not true. I only reverted the ones where content you claimed was uncited was indeed cited in the page already—another one I reverted only when I added in a new source. I have left some of your edits in place because they were indeed improvements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-responsive. This thread started about one specific edit, and you haven't provided evidence for your claim. So maybe that is the crux of the issue you are having a hard time understanding -- is it? Upon review of stats on this page, I find you are responsible for fully one-fifth of the additions to, and like as many edits of Manosphere. A look at your edits suggests you were in your part, responsible for the state of the article as I first encountered it. I'm not saying you are consciously blind to what I'm saying, but I would love for YOU to answer my question, which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you haven't, namely whether you hold an objective standard of proof or not. 12.49.46.42 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I hold an objective standard of proof. Which specific edit are you trying to link to? You've linked to an entire talk page section. I think part of why this discussion is so difficult is I'm having a really hard time following your comments here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

IP 12.49.46.42, please Stick to the article, don't attack other editors. If anyone appears to have an issue with objectivity here it would be you. Looking at a handful of the claims you've complained about, the citations back the claims. This appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion

The citations referenced do not support the assertion that "the general ideology of manosphere groups centers on the promotion of... hostility towards women." Neither do they support that the ideology of manosphere groups centers on "exaggerated misogyny." 12.49.46.42 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"promotion" is meant to refer specifically to "of some forms of masculinity", not to everything in the sentence. If you have suggestions for how it could be worded more clearly, I'm all ears. As for the citations referenced... they absolutely do support the assertion that the manosphere is centered around hostility towards women and exaggerated misogyny: Despite some conflicting agendas and tribalism, these groups are united by an antagonism towards women, a vehement opposition to feminism, and the production of hyperbolic misogynist discourse involving the imagery of what Alex from A Clockwork Orange might call ‘ultraviolence’ (Jane, 2016) (emphasis mine). I have to ask... do you have access to the source? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

IP, as noted by GorillaWarfare, the citation backs the exact phrasing that you removed. What you are doing amounts to vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Where did the term come from

I am somewhat familiar with the various components that this article says make up the “manosphere”... but I have never heard the term “manosphere” before. I am curious as to where it came from. This article could use some history of the term AS a term ... Who originally coined it? How, when and where did the term gain traction? Is it widely used? Who uses it today, and are there people who dislike its usage... Stuff like that. Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a media label. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Have you seen the discussion of the term under Manosphere#History? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)