Talk:Manosphere

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 [[1]]. 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 ([2]) 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)

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)

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. [3]

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: [4]. 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)

This article seems to have a neutrality issue

The manosphere is in the lead described as "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." and later the these "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." It also mention a number of movements within this group. One is fathers' rights groups. From the wiki page on Fathers' rights movement the Fathers' rights movement political views are described as "...both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare.". It also states that The fathers' rights movement is indeed a part of manosphere. It is hardly possible to be both far-right / alt-right and part of liberal branches. And the Fathers' rights movement wiki page mentions nothing about online harassment, mass killings or being implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

I noticed that the article mentions alot of magazines as sources, but does not seem to reflect that the articles are heavily influenced by the writers own personal and political views.

This article seems to have a neutrality issue. MIS (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific, what are the exact neutrality issues you refer to? (ie: which claims not supported by a reliable source/which sources do you not consider reliable etc.) Bacondrum (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it seems that the lead is quite hostile to this manosphere concept, describing it in a way that gives the impression that the manosphere is quite hateful, violent and belonging to the far right. The article points out Fathers' rights movement, as belonging to the manosphere. But according to Wikipedia article on Fathers' rights movement, the impression is, that the Fathers' rights movement the quite opposite. This seems to be a serious contradiction, not a small thing being labelled as a part of "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." that "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." I am not quite sure where the exact neutrality issues is, as it could be multiple things, a mix or something I missed. My first impression is that the sources are extremely biased. But also that it is not made clear that the concept primarily used by those who sees themselves as in opposition to the 'manosphere', in other words, a pejorative. MIS (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: The sourcing overwhelmingly describes the manosphere (and the movements that comprise it) in this way, so the Wikipedia article reflects that. You write that my first impression is that the sources are extremely biased—you can view the sources yourself in the references section. There are around 50 of them. I doubt you are claiming every single source is biased/unreliable/otherwise unacceptable, so please do specify which you're dissatisfied with so we can actually have a discussion.

As for the father's rights point: that's an interesting one. I actually made an edit not too long ago to change the wording to some father's rights groups. But then I realized that I had worded it that way based on my own personal understanding of father's rights groups (which I do not claim to be particularly deep—I have not researched them much at all), and not based on the sourcing. The sources I've seen that mention father's rights and the manosphere say that the manosphere includes father's rights groups with no equivocation. I think it's quite possible/likely that there are people who do not include the more liberal branches of the father's rights movement in their definitions of the manosphere, but I haven't actually seen sources supporting this, and so I undid my change.

As for the word "manosphere" being used by those who are opposed to the manosphere and its groups, that hasn't been my impression. One of the sources, a GQ article that interviews Paul Elam, includes quite an in-depth conversation where Elam explains the term and diagrams the various groups in the manosphere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will point to the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), particular the part about not stating opinions, seriously contested assertions as facts. And not using judgmental language and avoiding undue weight to a particular view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is my hope that you will take this to heart, and consider whether you truly think the article honor this principle. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." MIS (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the issue. You're talking about unspecified things that "seem" hostile to the subject? Honoring principles? You give no specific examples of the issue. Please, show us the specific claims not backed by citation/misrepresenting the citation/based on original research etc. Otherwise it appears as though this is just complaining. Bacondrum (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did give a specific example of the issue, twice in fact. I came by this article by chance, and I see a strong political bias, both in the article and those who guard its message. I was hoping to appeal to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of neutrality. This is not a debate forum, and I do not desire to be a part of an ideological fight that should not be on Wikipedia in the first place. I see an issue, you do not, and we will not get any further with this. MIS (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: Which seriously contested assertions are being stated as facts? I have already explained my thought process around the issue you identified pertaining to the father's rights movement; does that make sense to you? Bacondrum and I are both trying to get more information from you so that we can properly respond to your concerns, so I don't understand why you are throwing up your hands, accusing editors of ideological warring, and proclaiming we will not get any further with this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@MIS - Yawn. Next you'll be complaining that the Ku Klux Klan article is biased because it describes them as a white supremacist hate group. Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Very POV Article that reads like a hit-piece

This article is extremely biased and we all know it. I've made some changes, but I expect they will be reverted in short order due to that same bias. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

They were actually reverted because your whitewashing effort was not supported by reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TiggyTheTerrible: Your prediction was correct, though not because of bias: changes to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sourcing, and if you are going to remove sourced content you need to first make a good argument for why either a) the sources are unusable, or b) they are contradicted by other more reliable sources. Your edits removed sourced content, and introduced no additional sourcing. I see you are new to Wikipedia; you might want to give WP:NTK a quick read, especially before editing controversial pages such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This page is filled with POV opinion-based sources that do not actually attempt to prove their point but merely state it. It seems clear that: 1) the Manosphere is poorly defined. 2) groups are lumped into it willy-nilly. And 3) any source I give you would likely be struck down as POV. I did not actually delete any sources that I'm aware of, though this may have happened accidentally. I am reinstating the POV tag, and I suggest you do not remove it as this is against the rules of wikipedia. Now, considering this page is loaded with biased sources, I'm assuming that all contrary sources would be acceptable? How do you feel about The Red Pill Movie as a source on MRAs not being misogynistic or alt right? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Please read WP:RS for Wikipedia's policy on how to find acceptable third-party sources for citation in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are visible in the page history, so you can review where you removed sourcing. I would suggest you read the policy that Anome and I have both linked, as well as WP:NPOV—particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. We evaluate sources based on their reliability—if you provide reliable sources that provide an alternate viewpoint on the manosphere that is fine. But if your sources are unreliable, you are correct that they can't be used in the article. I am not familiar with the movie that you mention, but a quick bit of research on it suggests that there have been concerns over its accuracy.

I would also recommend you try to elaborate on how this page does not meet NPOV, which on Wikipedia is defined as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Otherwise the POV tag is misplaced. Is it missing significant views that have been published in reliable sources? If so, please provide the sources. Is it misstating views in the existing sources? If so, please be specific as to where. etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible Hi, you're gonna have a hell of a time arguing that a universally canned, crowd funded film is a reliable source, to call it amateur would be a compliment. As for your complaint about bias sources here, your edits so far have provided no reliable sources, in-fact you've provided no sources at all, just your own opinion. At a cursory glance I can see no unreliable sources (maybe Canoe.com, I've never heard of them, but the other sources are solid) Please read WP:RELIABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and it can be useful to look at [5] Hope that helps. Also, men's Sheds are just community organisations for older men, they have absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with this articles subject and I think most men who attend men's sheds would be deeply offended to be grouped with these kinds of organisations - I highly doubt any reliable source will make the connection. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And don't tag an article with a neutrality template unless you can demonstrate the issues relevant ie: Which sources are not reliable? claims not backed by citations? etc. Simply saying "Very POV Article that reads like a hit-piece" is not sufficient evidence of a neutrality issue, it's simply your opinion. I hope that helps. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Bacondrum as much as there WERE positive reviews for the Red Pill - I can demonstrate that it was 'universally panned' before anyone knew what it was about, and before the first previews even existed. I can show you video footage of protesters trying to stop people even seeing it. I can also show you that the creator was a Feminist, and that the film was mainly funded by her and her family. Only some of it was crowd funded, and you can see the raw footage on youtube. You would have a VERY hard time trying to prove that she manipulated that film in any way, and that is a very serious accusation based on no evidence. If you think that members of men's sheds would be offended at being included, then you need to realise that so are father's rights groups, MRAs, and anti-feminists. Almost all are egalitarians who despise the right wing/PUA/incel groups on the list. I've yet to see any indication that any of these belong on the same list, and I think this term is actually something of a Media whitewash to lump father's rights in with the far right. The reason I question your sources so strongly is because none of them seem to have actually taken a look at the spaces they say are full of Nazis and Misogyny. No sources are given for the actual political stances of these movements that I can see. What evidence is there Father's Rights groups are 'far right' of misogynistic, for example? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only study I'm aware of that even tries to do this is this one they conducted by themselves]. [[User:TiggyTheTerrible|TiggyTheTerrible] (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Regardless of what critics thought of the film, it seems pretty clear it can't be used as a reliable source. As for your other comments, exaggerating the claims made in this article is not helpful. Nowhere in this article does it claim that these manosphere groups are "full of Nazis"—this article doesn't use the term "nazi" anywhere. The article also does not make any specific claims that the fathers' rights movement is far-right—the actual phrasing of the article is clear that the manosphere is generally associated with the far-right, and that the father's rights groups are a part of the manosphere. Both claims are adequately cited in the inline sourcing if you care to look into them. The current sources do indeed support that fathers' rights groups have displayed similar extremism to other groups in the manosphere, though that is not currently discussed in this article—in my opinion, nuanced discussion of that particular movement is best kept to Fathers' rights movement or the country-specific fathers' rights articles (whichever is more appropriate). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious GorillaWarfare? The very first line describes them as "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right.". Honestly, if you were aiming to make them sound like far right, you succeeded. I also take issue with the citations here. And why isn't the Red Pill valid when it actually delves into the MRA movement? The sources on the page hardly seem to! For example: [1] states that MRAs "believe the world has been overrun by feminism and that the only way to fight back is to embrace a super-dominant, traditionally masculine gender role." The first part is true - they believe feminism is in power. The second part is not - MRAs actually hate gender stereotypes every bit as much as feminist do. Probably because their key theorists are mainly left-leaning ex feminists. "MRA differs subtly from other movements with similar principles, such as the “pickup artist” (or PUA) movement" is a weird way of saying that the two movement have precious little in common. Most MRAs are hyper concerned with father's rights, male suicide, and male rape victims. PUAs are about getting laid. The article also keeps claiming that MRAs like Trump, which is odd because their own subreddit seems fairly ambivalent. Phrases like "If they voted, they voted for Trump." stand without any real evidence, and are actually contradicted by a slightly earlier part of the article saying that MRAs don't care about politics. I can go into more depth if you like, and I can do this for literally all the sources on the page. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to go into more depth -- your personal opinions and original research on the various manosphere groups is not usable in contradicting reliable sources, as has already been pointed out to you in the beginning of this section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare In that case, I will provide reputable contrary sources to even out the article. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what we've been asking since the getgo. I've got this page watchlisted so I will keep an eye out for your suggestions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare How about now? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and can I directly quote Roosh from his own site calling MRAs 'sexual losers'? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What makes something "reputably misogynist"? And "claimed" makes no sense, the ideologies claim to be far-right? The manosphere is a term used to describe a collection of predominantly web-based and reputably misogynist ideologies that claimed to be associated with the far-right and alt-right. This lead sentence makes no sense. As for the rest of the edit, I thought we were clear that the TRP documentary can't be used? I'll take a look at the rest of it in detail shortly, I'm in the middle of something at work. And no, you should not quote Roosh directly unless it's used in a secondary source -- otherwise there's no reason to believe his opinions are relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Okay. Fair enough about the clunky grammar. I'll take a look at it. The idea of quoting Roosh is to point out in that lower section that he does not identify as an MRA. Can you explain to me why this award-winning documentary is not reputable? I'm noticing that it won "Best Documentary Feature" a "Best in festival" and two "Excellence in Producing a Documentary"s. Surely it is at least as reputable as The Cut TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that it is a reliable source. It has been criticized for lack of accuracy: From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.” ([6]), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. If you want to start a discussion at WP:RSN to try to achieve consensus on its use, be my guest, but until then it should not be used.

As for your comparison to The Cut, The Cut has an editorial board, and is published by a well known publishing house with a reputation for fact-checking. It's not as high quality as the academic sources in this article, but it certainly seems to stand up better than that film.

Regarding Roosh, frankly it doesn't matter that much how he self-identifies. See WP:MANDY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Red Pill is not a reliable source. Having discussed this before on Wikipedia, I know one of the festivals that gave an award to the Red Pill also gave awards to a Scientology anti-psych propaganda film. This is ironic, since "Psychology Today" was also cited. Regardless, this kind of thing is very common with indie films and documentaries, and proves nothing. If a reliable source mentions this film as it relates to the Manosphere, it could be used to add this as context, but only then, and probably not in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TiggyTiggyTheTerrible I took a look at the Red Pill and no one is going to let that thing stand as a RS, you are welcome to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN and get feedback from other editors, but to me it's very poor documentary film making, more akin to propaganda than serious inquiry. The Psychology Today citation is a WP:NEWSBLOG. If you want to change the article you need to base changes on reliable, mainstream sources. As it stands you seem to want to make changes based on your opinion and when those edits are challenged, come back with poor sourcing. I'd recommend doing some deeper research on the subject, let the sources inform your contributions. At this point in the discussion you should probably bring your suggested changes and sources to this talk page and discuss them first, lest this become a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'd probably tone down the accusations of POV bias too, I started out being combative and it got me nowhere - you'll find a less combative attitude makes it better for all involved, it can be fun even. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and civil discussion really makes a difference. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay Grayfell. How about this source. Or maybe this source? I would be interested to see how many of your critics of the film have actually seen it because I have seen examples of the film being attacked by people who admit they haven't watched it. The film isn't actually about Feminism so much as Men's Rights. The feminist attack on it is a secondary framing devise. I'd like to know what you define as a reputable party, since it is Archived by both Amazon and Youtube.

GorillaWarfare Regarding Roosh, can you or someone else please link me to an example of him engaging in men's rights activism of any kind? Otherwise he is only claimed to be one.

Bacondrum I'm not trying to be combative, so sorry if that's how it came across. What about the film strikes you as propaganda? Looking at the key citations on this page, I see mainly opinion pieces and I can't find any studies linking Men's Rights or Father's Rights to misogyny or the alt right. The same is true of links to Roosh. The Red Pill features prominent interviews with famous feminists - including the editor of Ms Magazine, and a number of others, who openly criticise the Men's Rights Movement. It shows them in a positive light, and you can see their full interviews online so there's no hint of foul play. It's just a series of interviews of both sides, and her commentary. My previous links also call it an even-handed look at MRAs. Your view that it is propaganda seems to be an opinion, I'm sorry to say. TiggyTheTerrible (talk)

@TiggyTheTerrible: If you want to continue arguing whether or not the documentary is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Consensus here is already pretty clear that it can't be used. Regarding Roosh: your evaluation or my evaluation of whether Roosh is an MRA is absolutely irrelevant here. Your comment that Otherwise he is only claimed to be one makes me wonder if you've read our policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing and original research, because reliable sources "claiming" that Roosh is an MRA are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Fine. I'll just use reviews of the film from reputable sources. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: In this article..? Or in a discussion at RSN? If the latter, that makes sense. If the former, I'm not sure how commentary on that documentary is going to be relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare To be honest, I'm seriously struggling to find anyone who has done real research into what these movements believe. Mostly the articles on this page and elsewhere say things like 'this white nationalist site criticised feminism an unspecified number of times, therefore the men's rights movement is alt right'. They also make very basic factual errors. As far as I can see the documentary is the only source that tries to investigate what men's rights activists believe in even a semi-neutral manor. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to find that if I am having trouble finding solid sourcing that matches my view of a subject, it's time for me to revisit my view of a subject. And if it is that hard to find sourcing that represents your view, then that certainly suggests your view should not be added to this article, per WP:WEIGHT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tiggy, I agree with everything GorillaWarfare said. I don't want to get into it too much, but that film is a text book example of poor documentary film making. It's been so universally canned for good reason: she is Begging the question and makes nonsense claims about being the only "feminist" to actual speak to anyone in the movement - that's obviously false, I've read a number of interviews with MRA's. Her claims to be a feminist are hard to take seriously as her views are antithetical to mainstream feminism, I found her disingenuous throughout (I'll admit, I couldn't sit through this film, it's tedious in the extreme). Then we get to the core issue: deliberate misreading/misinterpretation of facts and figures...She claims that 99.9% of all military deaths are men, and completely ignores the fact that only 14 percent of military personnel in the USA are women and of them a minute percentage are involved in active duty, women have only been allowed to serve in combat roles since 2013 and as of the films release date only one woman had ever been enlisted in the infantry (she still hadn't been sent into combat at the time), so it's no surprise that very few women had been killed in active military service seeing as none had ever been sent into a combat role on the front line. She claims 94% of workplace deaths are men and never mentions that many dangerous professions like mining, construction etc. are still male dominated with between 5% and 9% female employees in these high risk workforce's. In fact, the statistics her claims are based on are glaring evidence of systemic discrimination against women, if anything. These are just some of many dishonest and uncritical claims made and they are why no one took this wacky piece of propaganda seriously. It's dishonest, and it's easy to pull apart the lies and misrepresentations, it's not a reliable source, it's crappy film making that doesn't bother to analyse or criticise claims made by interviewees. Bacondrum (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this source at RSN as I'm sure this is not the first time the source has been discussed and probably wont be the last: [7] Bacondrum (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare I don't think you understand what I mean. I'm saying that actual numerical research into the political beliefs of these communities basically does not exist. Not positive. Not negative. Not anything. The closest I can find are polls on the communities themselves, and a study that counted word usage. Looking at the articles cited on this page, the logic is very dodgy. Looking at these communities, I find policies banning alt right and misogynistic speech. It seems very disingenuous to misrepresent opinions as facts without some cravat that points out the citations are opinions. It's even worse to do that and then pretend that someone with negative views of these communities, who actually spent several years researching and talking to them in person, is wrong just because she became convinced they weren't Hitler.

Bacondrum "that film is a text book example of poor documentary film making. It's been so universally canned for good reason" The audience score is very high, and a lot of the negative press was from people who didn't even watch it despite being given the opportunity to. So, you can see that a lot of the people who are against the film are angry because it attacks their own biases. One reviewer I looked at scorned the very idea that men have problems related to their gender, which is patently untrue. Does Cassie need to mention that only 14 percent of military personnel in the USA are women? It seems obvious that they aren't. The point is that men alone are sent to die. That's the issue being talked about. I can't find any claims about being the only "feminist" to actual speak to anyone in the movement. Only that she claimed to have made the first documentary on them, which is 100% correct. Saying "I've read a number of interviews with MRA's" kinda backs me up on that - you read them rather than watching them. And do they predate the film? The stat that 94% of workplace deaths are men is a valid one. That they die in dangerous professions is, I think, mentioned in the film as part of the discussion. Seeing as how we have been flooded with articles about how women are suffering on the front lines during Covid 19, I don't think it's really valid to rebut that by saying 'they chose to be in a profession where infection is a risk'. Calling this all systemic discrimination against women is, I am pretty sure, something the MRAs mention in the film. It certainly gets mentioned in the Raw Files. However, a better way of framing it is that society seeks to protect women but not men. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I don't understand why you are discounting scholarship on the manosphere because it is not "numerical". Qualitative research is still held to high standards, and there are multiple peer-reviewed publications used in this article that should not be disregarded simply because they do not do polls or whatever it is you are looking for. This is now the second time you've made references to Nazis and Hitler in this discussion, despite the article mentioning neither, and it is completely unnecessary and ABF. Anyway, now that there is a discussion open at WP:RSN, I think we can consider this conversation finished, since it seems this conversation is now focusing solely on whether the documentary can included in the article as a source, and that discussion ought not be split. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: My apologies for any misunderstanding with the term 'Nazi'. It's a shorthand for far right I am using to point out that that is how people view the implication. Indeed, at least one of those sources on the page mentions white supremacy. Please do link me to some thorough academic research on the Manosphere. As far as I can tell, it's just a blanket media term of vague origin that is often used to conflate various groups who rarely (if ever) cross paths. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Link it to you? They're already used in the references section, but sure:

• Cite #16: Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019). "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment". New Media & Society: 146144481988714. doi:10.1177/1461444819887141. ISSN 1461-4448.
• Cite #17: Ging, Debbie (2019). "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities. 22 (4): 638–657. doi:10.1177/1097184X17706401. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #18: Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. (December 4, 2018). "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities: 1097184X1881611. doi:10.1177/1097184X18816118. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #22: Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of "The Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movements' Discourse". Gender and Society. 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 190285.
• Cite #23: Jane, Emma A. (2018). "Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator". International Journal of Cultural Studies. 21 (6): 661–680. doi:10.1177/1367877917734042. ISSN 1367-8779.
• Cite #24: Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. (December 4, 2018). "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities: 1097184X1881611. doi:10.1177/1097184X18816118. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #35: Sculos, Bryant W. (November 30, 2017). "Who's Afraid of 'Toxic Masculinity'?". Class, Race and Corporate Power. 5 (3). doi:10.25148/CRCP.5.3.006517. ISSN 2330-6297.
• Cite #52: Schmitz, Rachel M.; Kazyak, Emily (May 12, 2016). "Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men's Rights Activist Websites" (PDF). Social Sciences. 5 (2): 18. doi:10.3390/socsci5020018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

These are just the academic publications, there are some additional quality book sources being used as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Only two of those even mention the men's rights movement. One seems to be locked off, and I'm reading the other. I am noticing some weird things in it though "MRAs seek to establish resources for men to utilize in maintaining their elevated position in society in relation to women and other social minorities" is a very weird way of saying "MRAs campaign for male victims of rape, domestic violence, and homelessness; regardless of race." I do not get the impression this writer is approaching this subject from an unbiased perspective. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 17:55, 10 June 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)

I haven't seen any reliable sources discussing the origins of the term, but if you know of any I'd be interested to read them and incorporate them into this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)