Talk:Manosphere

Intro
The intro is worded in such a way as to imply that men's right activists and father's right's activists promote misogyny. That's not right at all. BeyondHalf (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific suggestion about how to change the wording, and reliable sources to support that suggestion? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The manosphere is a group of loosely associated websites, blogs, forums, authors and writers all concerned with masculinity and men's issues, and includes input from the MRM, pick-up artists, anti-feminists, and fathers' rights activists that are mainly for men." Should fit in well. Nowhere is there any promotion of violence or hatred of either women or feminism. Daydreamdirty (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion ignores the well-documented violence and hatred associated with the manosphere. You are proposing a whitewash. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * wikipedia itself is the one associating men's right activists and father's rights activist with the so called "manosphere" though? 24.34.64.221 (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also violence and hatred associated with the radical feminism, yet the wikipedia as source is muck more mild toward this issue. I sense serious bias here! 82.131.14.96 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The evidence is literally in the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Citing a wikipedia article conflicts with No original research. You'll instead need to find a reputable published source to back up your claim.
 * I look forward to what you find Therealteal (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ive read this entire thread.You are correct. Your suggestion for the first paragraph was spot on. Wikipedia is using circular logic. The entire site is extreme left now. Too bad, at first, it was a valuable resource. 174.141.144.209 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the extreme left. Do you have suggested edits in mind? Therealteal (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. My reply to this topic pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the green-light editors of WP was reverted (deleted). Because, according to Sangdeboeuf, wasn't "constructive". Even the co-founder of the site points out how biased it is. There's no point in discussing "reliable resources". If it doesn't match their narrative, it's "unreliable". Vendena (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you meant to reply to me. However, I looked at that comment you made that was reverted. I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
 * If the overwhelming majority of the academic community says that gravity isn't real, Wikipedia will also say that gravity isn't real. There isn't independent research allowed here (See No original research). We instead write exactly what the experts say. I hope that clears things up
 * Therealteal (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources are needed when the claim is vague, as the subjects being called misogynist object to the claim and constitute refutation to that the claim that they are misogynists. The claim that anit-feminism and championing fathers right is akint o misogyny is a sexist, misandrist in and of itself. Those "sources" that are used are not credible and are put forth by feminists who are anti men's rights 73.250.237.93 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. In no way does the manosphere promote misogyny. Mst5506 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Please keep your personal feelings out of this Mst5506. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So should we add examples of mysoandry in articles about feminism? 31.178.7.216 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you can back it up with reliable sources, then please do Therealteal (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is obviously slanted in its intro. You can make an argument for including specific instances of violence from individuals associated with the manospehere without including that as the top description. The idea that this 'is based on evidence and specific references' is ridiculous. As another commenter alluded to, you could list dozens of cited articles about environmental activists who have embraced violence without concluding that violence is a defining feature of the environmental movement, or that the thesis statement for the 'environmentalism' page should focus on violence. 207.44.77.58 (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We follow the reliable sources, and the preponderance of sources to describe the 'manosphere' in the way our article does. MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the NPOV issues in the intro. You are clearly quoting agenda sources.  But first, let's take a look at your phrasing just now:
 * "Preponderance"? Please do not over state.  In that introduction there are 4 component sources to it's citation index, currently index 1.
 * Hodapp (2017), p. xv;
 * Lumsden (2019), pp. 98–99;
 * Jane (2017), p. 662;
 * Marwick & Lewis (2017), pp. 9, 13
 * 2 of the 4 cited sources, the last two, contains the citation quote (supplied) involving the word "misogyny". Not a Plethora.
 * Surely you're not inviting other agenda sources to counter these. Wikipedia seems to not ever be able to handle NPOV issues responsibly.
 * 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section is a summary of the rest of the article. The rest of the article expounds at length on the movement's misogyny, including numerous sources. NPOV expressly does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also 'agenda sources' is not a thing. MrOllie (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If by "agenda sources" you mean the many scholarly writings about the manosphere which have been cited in the article, then you are greatly diminishing your argument's effectiveness. You seem to be saying that "agenda sources" are biased, that they are activist sources seeking change. But Wikipedia holds that scholars writing about their topic of study are among the most expert of observers. They are the highest sources we can use. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The point in studying the manosphere is to look at the misogyny and related ideologies within it, that's really why the term exists, so I'm not sure why you want to remove the ideologies from the lead. You suggest that violence related to radical feminism is glossed over compared to the manosphere article. If that is true, it'd be because of an issue with sourcing, not with Wikipedia. Radical feminism is not movement with the purpose of studying for "violence and hatred associated with radical feminism". — Panamitsu (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that should be clearly stated in the lead. That manosphere isn't the whole but rather subsets inside those groups. Daniel Souza (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what Sugiura says: "The manosphere encompasses a wide range of groups from MRAs and Fathers’ Rights Activists (FRAs), to PUAs and to the more extremist MGTOW and incels." The groups exist within the manosphere. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Concurring with this statement - the introduction of the page is clearly intended to associate mens' advocacy groups (i.e. groups simply seeking to address male-specific issues in the interest of males) with groups that seek to belittle or limit the rights of women, in a way that comes off as biased. As a reminder, it is illegal under US federal law to take action as a business/organization that intentionally and materially affects clients/members/employees on the basis of sex, except in certain circumstances. When you cite articles in which the authors are literally using sexist/hate speech (several cite "male toxicity" and similar sexist statements) within their body, you are, according to US law, simply looking at an article whose author has not yet been sued for libel. For example, if we could define "manosphere" as a formal/legal term and included it in a contract, that contract would be immediately null/invalid because you cannot intentionally include a definition/condition that is already illegal under US law. There is no such condition placed upon eligibility for being published in an academic paper, but I have to believe that we collectively have enough common sense to conclude that these are not valid sources when their content already willfully ignores existing US law. Perpetuating this kind of source article is not morally ok simply because Wikepedia is protected from libel law, and at best it's lazy. At the very least, if we are going to cite academic papers that contain what can only be described as sexist slurs (which is already a very good indicator of bias), it's fair/necessary to at least point out that if the authors' conclusions are correct, the perpetrating male-advocacy groups are all acting illegally under US law but have not been otherwise sued/convicted (i.e. a very logical reason to question the credibility of the authors). My credentials: I am a senior commercial insurance broker, leading the Management Liability and Employment Practices Liability practices at the largest insurance firm in the country that serves non-profits (which includes quite a lot of mens' advocacy groups). I am published on this subject. Black $heep (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When the reliable sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article, since that is what our content policies require. We are not interested in WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Also see WP:YESBIAS. There is nothing illegal about the language used by the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Black $heep has been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. WP:NLT would also apply, but even without this, it's still a very poor argument. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Black sheep is actually entirely correct. The lead is clearly trying to conflate the manosphere with hate, which alters the readers prespective from the beginning. You should also note that wikipedia admins determine which source is reliable. That reliability source list can very easily be skewed depending on who is judging, and given the plehtora of evidence of wikipedia bias, that is precisely what is going on. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources is not determined by individual admins. It is determined by community consensus, for which there is a wide variety of views. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

24 June 2024
I'm no Andrew Tate cultist, but holy sh*t, some of this is so biased I can feel the blue hair dye leaching through my screen. "ongoing systemic misogyny within a patriarchal culture?" or "The idea of misandry (hatred of or prejudice against men) is commonly invoked, both as an equivalent to misogyny and a way to deny the existence of institutionalized sexism.[27] However, Sugiura writes that "there is little evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives"." Who is Sugiura? How is this random speaker in any way relevant? How are these assertions, which are politically contentious, neutral enough to be written here? The article then goes on about rates of violent crime in a way that seems improper for the context.

Ultimately, there are a great number of random authors cited, like Sugiura, as saying some extremely biased things, which is perfectly acceptable, but such statements must include the opposing opinion to give a clear picture of what is actually going on. 172.56.17.54 (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be Dr. Lisa Sugiura, an associate professor at the University of Portsmouth; someone with actual academic credentials in this field. See WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE; we do not have to "include the opposing opinion" when the two do not have similar support or credibility in the reliable sources. As such, if you want to include more material that suggests that the manosphere is *not* a misogynist hellscape, you'll need to find reliable sources that support that contention (good luck with that). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it's amazing how you have taken information from all the leading experts for this and feminism to ensure no bias of opinion. Like how studies show feminism has led to the growing breakdown of the family unit, increasing child poverty and huge increases in mental illness in women. Wikipedia as always being completely non biased in their choices of what to show. 82.40.205.30 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you've got reliable sources that you think support a viewpoint that's not being reflected here, you're welcome to suggest edits based on them. But if you're just looking to gripe about feminism, I would suggest a personal blog. WP:NOTFORUM. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dr Alok Kanojia, Dr Jordan Peterson, Dr Steve Stewart-Williams - all psychologists that support men's issues, Louise Perry (former feminist journalist) who when "seeking the enemy" learnt the truth about mens issues, Marilyn York - attorney for men who points out inequality in the legal system, the Institute of National Statistics has many examples of mens issues from poor performance in school being linked to single mother households, along with teen pregnancy and mental illness for girls. They also link mens suicide rates as the leading cause of death for men under 45. There's the fact that when the push for women to be considered legally equal to men in the US constitution feminists opposed this as they realised this would allow women to be drafted. There is so much factual data out there saying young men are at breaking point and need help, not ridicule, while support for men is almost non-existent is causing a literal epidemic. The manosphere is NOT about women bashing, it's about learning about and taking action on mens issues. It's not saying "women are bad and should get no support" but instead saying "neither are men, and they need support too." I know Wikipedia states itself to not be a reliable source of information but you could at least TRY to look into something fully before writing it off as "women bashing" 82.40.205.30 (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you're welcome to suggest edits based on specific sources (not vague handwaving at individual scholars). Increase your chances might be useful as to how to craft a edit request. As for "women bashing", the only one who's used that wording here is you.
 * I will note that much of what you're describing sounds more like the topic covered at men's rights movement, which goes into topics including military conscription, suicide, and so on. The manosphere is a related, but not synonymous, topic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will do, but I suggest you consider your approach to messages like these. Deliberate antagonism such as that in the first reply to the OP is not in the best interests of a site that is attempting to give accurate and non biased information online. The equivalent would be the entry for feminism stating it is an idealogy that believes men are at best disposable and at worse not worth the air they breath. There are medicals on both sides but that does not mean that they are the majority or even that there should be sides. 82.40.205.30 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not medicals, Radicals lol. Good old autocorrect 82.40.205.30 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to be treating the manosphere as though it is simply the male counterpart to feminism. The term "manosphere" refers to a group of specific online subcultures; if you are looking for the general topic of men's rights, you might have more success at the articles on masculism or the men's rights movement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)