Talk:Manosphere/Archive 5

Gotell & Dutton, 2016


This (free to read) source could be useful for the article, as it has a good amount of material on the topic and can be freely used under a Creative Commons license. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I remember coming across it in my research but for some reason I had doubts about its reliability. Can't for the life of me remember why now, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Manosphere"
I first heard the term "Manosphere" from Adam Carolla in the late 90's. He used the term both on the show Loveline and (mostly) on The Man Show. Your article refers to it being first used in 2009. That is not correct.Diver Dan1984 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources to support your claim.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The Manosphere has been associated with mass shootings etc. Really?
I've just made an edit & had it reverted for reasons I don't understand so thought I'd raise it here.

The article makes this rather extravagant claim (twice): It has also been associated with online harassment as well as some mass shootings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

As it stands (after reversion & editing) that claim is supported by a fruit salad of references. I've checked the ones available to me & read the abstracts of the others. My comclusion is:
 * None of the research cited supports the claim about mass shootings.
 * None of the research cited supports the claim about real-world violence.
 * The phrase "has been associated with" makes the claim essentially meaningless. One could make a similar claim about Santa Claus.
 * Likewise "has been implicated in"
 * The article as a whole has a political flavour rather than factual. Not what I'd like to see on Wikipedia.

Let me know if I'm wrong otherwise I will put my change back. Tony999 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've taken a quick look at a couple of the sources, and not yet found any direct mention of the shootings; I think Tony999 may have a point. There are sources elsewhere associating the manosphere with shootings, but as far as I can see, these are more about generic radicalization than specific acts of violence. We should at the very least break these cites out into separate references so that each can be associated with the relevant claim. -- The Anome (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've now split out the claims about mass shootings, and supplied relevant cites for those claims. I hope this resolves the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I've done a minor cleanup edit just to match the citation style. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you just work backwards from the claim you wanted to make to find something to support it? Surely, that’s not the way this is supposed to work? More generally I’ve looked at a few of the references in the article & I find that the scholarship falls short of normal Wikipedia standards.

But my main issue is that even a casual reader would see that this article is palpably different to a normal Wikipedia entry. It is judgemental and relies on guilt by association and vague insinuations. While many in the Wikipedia community doubtless share the position taken by the article, the fact is that there are two sides to this issue and only one is reflected in the article as it stands.

I propose that the article should be rewritten form scratch by someone impartial. Better a brief, uncontroversial article than a biased one – it’s not worth compromising Wikipedia’s reputation for this. Tony999 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to present any sources you have that reflect a different side to this topic that isn't being presented here. I'm a little surprised that you're questioning the connection to acts of violence, though, given the incel community is practically known for such things. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I support Tony999 's concerns --Emostorm7 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC) 12-27-2001 Emostorm7 (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant to say I SUPPORT Tony999 's concerns
 * OK, but this isn't a poll. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

27 December 2021
This topic page is in of itself is very sexist, and the article includes the groups Men's Right Activists, which has a good number of women in it, and is also linked from 'father's rights' activist groups. It's basically used as a redirect form any group that supports men. I agree there are some bad men's support groups as there are some bad women support groups, but there's no reason all men support groups should be categorized under this misandrious term. It seems many pages linked to this topic or heavily editorialized to push up a particular agenda, which is against the rules for pages on Wikipedia. On top of this somehow they've also ended up in the protected category.

I came across this page by looking at the wiki for one of the men's activist groups, and followed the links and notice that it links to many of them (men's activist/men's rights groups). This category is also protected so people, including myself who has been editing Wikipedia for years, can't edit it. This web of protected links groups all men support groups as misogynistic, which is a completely untrue and opinionated statement.

Someone please help me fix this so we can make these pages neutral and not biased against any particular gender. Thank you fellow editors, Doug

Here is the primary page these pages seem link too. I will follow up in the talk pages of other topics in the future as I come upon them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere#:~:text=The%20manosphere%20is%20a%20collection,%2C%20and%20fathers'%20rights%20groups. --Emostorm7 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, it seems i was not signed in on my previous entry to this talk page which is listed above entitled 'this term is riddled with misandry, and should not be a category'


 * I'm not seeing anything "misandrious" about the article, which is based on numerous published, reliable sources. The article is semi-protected, meaning that any user with at least 10 edits who has been registered at least four days can edit the page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Emostorm7, thanks for bringing up your concerns. As Sangdeboeuf already said, editing is possible for certain group of users, and you're well on your way to join this group. In the mean time, could you elaborate on which things you specifically want to change? For example: which section, which sentence? Thank you! Pyrite Pro  (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And provide the sourcing to support the suggested change, please. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

1 January 2022
These definitions are nonsensical. The is either an angry woman or scared and weak man...either way, it's completely biased and inaccurate. 2600:8803:590A:EC00:FD2B:3F0C:A877:385 (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agarcia584.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

19 February 2022
The manosphere is a broad term used to describe any platform that centers male voices and experiences-- that's it Saying that the manosphere espouses misogyny is no different than saying feminism hates men due to a small minority within that sphere who may feel that way. Within the manosphere is content from Black Male Scholars (BMS) who seek to understand and study black males through an interdisciplinary lens. So, it's inaccurate and unfair to present misogyny as if it's a tenet of the manosphere Truthfully1969 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To add, there are those in the manosphere who DON'T oppose feminism/womanism etc The manosphere also includes members of the lgtb community. There is content within the manosphere that prioritizes nothing but males and mental health. The majority of the manosphere isn't a bunch of incels existing on the fringes of society Truthfully1969 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As always, if you feel this article should be changed, you should suggest *specific* changes, rather than vague, general opinions, and (more importantly) you should provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to make. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have provided a very specific grievance with the article. Right in the first paragraph, it's alluding to misogyny being something particularly "on brand" for the manosphere; I'm clearly saying that the assertion is inaccurate. The manosphere in and of itself is a very vague term used to describe a bevy of male centered content. Also, I said that there are those in the manosphere who DON'T oppose feminism. The manosphere is an extremely diverse space in which many different disciplines and ideo occupy space. A male scholar who prioritizes male in their research, but through an intersectional lens, would also be part of the manosphere. Research academics like Tommy Curry, Ebony Utley etc Or, kook at activist like Zakiya Sankara Jabar. The manosphere is a vast, non linear space. I would hope that you guys do better research on the manosphere and stop centering it's fringe minorities. The article is bias, and that's the best way I can put it. Truthfully1969 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * [citation needed] Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is based on well-researched scholarly publications, and to a lesser extent, popular media sources. If such sources focus on the misogyny of the manosphere, then so do we. See WP:V and WP:NOR. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

30 December 2021
I've never felt the need to 'help' Wikipedia until I stumbled on this page. This reeks of cultural bias to the exclusion of facts and reason. Which I don't think is good for Wikipedia to adopt. Even if you have an entire project dedicated to feminism.

Lets start from the top. // Summary All these groups are lumped together under an umbrella and then the worst traits of incels and PUAs are equally applied to MRAs and fathers rights groups. Then it is declared that anyone in these groups is implicitly a right wing radical when places like r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates exists. "Some sources have associated" is not a factual claim and all these sources are feminist women. Dubious credibility.

//History The origins in the mens liberation movement are glossed over and the shared ideology from that page is not present here at all. It goes straight into how the manosphere is rape threats, patriarchy, and misogyny. Remember, this is an umbrella term covering fathers rights groups and men who don't want to be tied to their gender roles.

//Ideology 'Heterogeneous group' is mutually exclusive with distinct communities that have adversarial relationships. MRAs and PUAs do not see eye to eye. PUAs are womanizers, misogynists, etc. MRAs fall more under men's liberation and only oppose feminism in so far as it damages men through things like forced fatherhood, alimony, and the duluth model of domestic violence. There are plenty of women who are MRAs like Karen Straughan and the honey badgers.

Again, these sources are dubious in their credibility talking about these groups motivations.

//Jargon Mostly fine, but Alpha and Beta males is more a PUA/Incel thing then an MRA or MGTOW thing.

This marks a repeated pattern of taking any seemingly negative male behavioral trait and essentially applying it to all men in the manosphere which the article deems as any man who shares his negative feelings about feminism or women.

//Associated Movements and radicalization Only the bad one though right? Because any man that believes in paternal surrender (something the NOW has actively fought against and thus anti-feminist) is a racist mass shooter in waiting... The article is literally written to make this implication.

//Websites No r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates or anything of the sort.

//Public Perception The package deal fallacy is understandable here as per header. It's actually written fairly neutrally. 2601:404:CF00:9BD0:9937:1256:FA94:E388 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the review. The best way to suggest changes to a page would be to provide suggested text, along with the reliable sources used to back it up. WP:SAMPLEER may be useful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All these sources are feminist women. Dubious credibility. More dubious than the credibility of antifeminist men? We don't use political litmus tests for sources; see WP:BIASED. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideally, sources without really strong opinions are best, no? Some feminists spend time undermining male rights, and some MRAs take to undermining feminism too. By taking a collection of biased sources from only one side of the argument, treating it as if it is completely factual and objective, and using it to write a so-called neutral article, we are left with something that is not informative nor useful in any way. Instead, the biases should be addressed, arguments from every part of the debate represented, and a neutral conclusion reached. I have opened my own section detailing my thoughts. GamerAJ1025 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, so it's intellectually honest to say, exclusively quote police in an article about police brutality then? Like I said, why is there no r/Leftwingmaleadvocates, no r/RedpillWomen, no Karen Straughan. Why is the ideology from the mens liberation page not present? Why is this article implying fathers rights group are decrying rape threats and misogyny?

And why change the title of my discussion to 'December 30th' when it's exactly what this article is saying? It's almost like you know it's wrong.

The sources need not be politically neutral, but the article does. LogicalShyft (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes the information about a subject that is published in reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that have a more positive tone about the Manosphere, feel free to provide them. Reddit is not a reliable source, and neither is self-published content, such as blogs or Youtube channels. If you feel the article is slanted in one direction, you need to provide reliable sources that support the other direction. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's literally talk about reddits on this page. From what I'm gathering it's only invalid when it doesn't fit Project Feminism's agenda apparently. And that still doesn't explain why men's liberation is glossed over. There's tons of sources there and on the MRA wiki entry. From this article you'd be inclined to think everything written on those linked pages is a lie. LogicalShyft (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Reddit is not used as a source, though reliable sources do discuss Reddit. If any reliable sources talk about /r/MensLib in relation to the manosphere (which seems very possible), that might be worth mentioning. Firefangledfeathers 03:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to vent your feelings about the article or its subject. Feel free to suggest concrete improvements citing reliable, published sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I don't know all the proper procedure and markdown. I'm just trying to improve this article here. Not glam up people like Elliot Rodger. I'm finding myself hard pressed to find a single article about men's activism that isn't instantly follow by 'but that's actually misogyny' after every paragraph

Are we to believe that there are no valid mens issues? That all these groups believes are backwards and reactionary? Have you checked out the duluth model of domestic violence? Opposing that, is anti-feminism. Other articles implicate (just like this one) people who acknowledge male domestic violence as being PRO-violence-against-women... I don't care who the source is, that's not correct. And that's why Earl Silverman hung himself. It's really not surprising why mens suicide is 6x higher WORLDWIDE.

How does one arrive at that conclusion? Through a 'reliable' source? Some of these sources are just opinion pieces. A blog is just as valid. Especially being a primary source. Out of the horses mouth so to speak. But I'm told everything actually said by the people in these groups is invalid unless what? If there are no academics or media figures acknowledging the valid side of men's rights (because feminism is mainstream) then they don't exist?

Please, educate me. LogicalShyft (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're pretty light on specifics, there. One thing to note: primary sources are actually not the gold standard of sourcing on Wikipedia. The ideal is to use secondary sources, not primary ones--don't let the names mislead you. That's why there's an emphasis on scholarly papers, newspaper articles, etc. If you "don't care who the source is", then you're going to have a rough time on Wikipedia, because sourcing is everything on Wikipedia. Our core content policy is verifiability, which states that all material [in Wikipedia articles] must be attributable to reliable, published sources. If something isn't discussed or covered in reliable sources, then we don't include it. A dearth of sourcing for a particular idea doesn't mean that idea is untrue, but it does mean that that idea cannot be covered in Wikipedia, because it's unverifiable, and verifiability is the only way we can provide any kind of confidence in the information we publish. That's why we're asking you to propose changes and provide reliable sources to back those changes; we can't just "make the article less biased", because any content we change must ultimately be backed by reliable sources.
 * So, again: if you would like to make substantive changes to this article, please provide reliable sources that support your ideas. Once you do, we can discuss what changes need to be made. Vague allusions to other people/theories/events won't get you anywhere; we need sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair, I understand sourcing, but are primary sources not valid? Are you saying wikipedia would put 2+2=fish if it were in a newspaper? Is there no quality control to this? Like I said, not trying to be malicious or difficult here.

Earl Silverman was a man who was battered by his wife, who had nowhere to go because all the shelters were for women, so he started his own, poured his heart and soul, but the government never gave him funding, and he was ridiculed similarly to how these articles read. He sold the property and was found hanging in his garage. Male domestic violence in an explicit MRA talking point. 'A voice for men' mourned his loss

Karen Straughan and the Honey badger (men's rights) also already exist on wikipedia. But aren't mentioned here. There's the book 'Daughters of Feminism' and the movie 'The Red Pill' which back up what I've been saying about ideology.

The problem is this is a meta article. My primary issue is it seeks to lump all these groups together and then pick the worst ones, and cherry pick the worst people to create false equivocation. This page should be summarizing how these groups are different. Instead it says "They're all the same, they're all woman haters" LogicalShyft (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding primary sources, Wikipedia has a policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that all editors should read, but I'll put it a nutshell: . Sources should also be independent of the subject to ensure neutrality. If you want more coverage of male suicide, honey badgers, etc., then it's on you to provide sources that discus those things in the context of topic. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC in 2020 on the suitability of The Red Pill as a source (Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 299), which concluded: "Attribution needed for opinions. Most users agree that the The Red Pill Movie is not reliable on its own, described as a documentary film that is not subject to any quality or reliability standards with respect to the information presented. Users in support of its reliability did not provide clear examples to support the source based on Wikipedia guidelines."
 * I think this conversation would be a lot more likely to produce actual changes to the article if you would suggest the specific changes or content that you would like to see introduced, along with the necessary sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Very few of the sources present here are independent of the subject. Nearly all of them exist on the opposing side but aren't presented as such. I would like to include 'feminist' qualifiers to their attributions WP:Biased.

It would seem the systemic bias against the men's rights movement is preventing honest discussion on it's validity. As you say "the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism."

From this WP:Bias perspective it is a practical impossibility to present male rights, question the patriarchy, or attribute the negative aspects of feminism in an article. They are de-facto, incorrect, because the feminist perspective is the correct one.

Regardless I don't see how that invalidates the people themselves presenting their opinions. Even if you think their beliefs are incorrect. They are their beliefs. LogicalShyft (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED specifically says that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I have looked at nearly all the sources cited in the article, and none claim to be opposed to the subject. Most are reputable academic and peer-reviewed publications, which are the gold standard for reliability on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blogging platform or a place for manospherians to promote their beliefs. We summarize what reliable, independent sources say (and no, being a feminist or having an unfavorable opinion of the manosphere does not make one less independent of the subject). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BIASED also gives an explicit example of labeling feminist sources, you also didn't address the systemic bias that is openly on display here, or my point about the movie presenting the ideology correctly regardless of what you think about whether they are right or wrong on their opinions about feminism.
 * It is quite plain here that anything shining a positive or objective spin on this issue will be shut down because of the rampant Undue weight of feminist theory LogicalShyft (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that a given Wikipedia user may happen to disagree with so-called feminist theory doesn't mean it's given undue weight. Due weight means fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Most of the sources cited are quality academic publications, not feminist activists; labeling sources based on the authors' undisclosed personal beliefs would be prohibited original research. Virtually all reputable sources characterize the manosphere as misogynist and aligned with the alt-right. If there are comparable sources that disagree, feel free to present them here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC) edited 02:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick clarification: where I wrote "the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including 'rights,' 'patriarchy' and 'feminism.'" at the RfC, I was quoting a RS review of the film: . Those are not my own words, but I think you have mistaken them to be. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

21 February 2022
I want to specify that I am aware that there are definitely groups of men out there that advocate for misogyny and hold extreme beliefs about men and women and their places in society. However, I am also aware that there are people who advocate for men's rights in good faith and with a desire for equality.

My issue here is that the topic is presented as very black and white. The Manosphere is described as a collection of men's groups that advocate misogyny in some way. But it is also described as containing basically every men's group that has any following whatsoever. This is problematic because it presents all men's groups as being inherently misogynistic, which I view as an inaccurate portrayal. There would surely be pushback if someone were to present all women's groups, such as feminism, as inherently misandristic, so why is the inverse not seen the same way? There's more nuance to it than 'all men's groups are misogynistic', because whilst some people use the term Men's Rights Activism in a misogynistic way, undermining the rights of women or trying to give men more rights over them, others use the same term in a reclaimed sense, to describe what is essentially a male version of feminism, looking to solve societal problems that men face. Some use Father's Rights as a way of claiming that fathers are superior parents to mothers, whilst other people use the same term to bring up legitimate biases in Family Law that make it more difficult for a father to win a dispute.

But I do agree that some spaces are very misogynistic, such as pick-artistry and very toxic incel groups, that generally seek to undermine the rights of women. It's just more nuanced than the article makes it out to be. It essentially uses a false dichotomy fallacy in its reasoning, where all men's groups must be misogynist just because some of them are. And it conflates all men's groups with sexist and toxic men's groups, which is innaccurate.

So my suggestion is that the article is rewritten in a way that is actually informative and does not defame people who are actually trying to bring about gender equality. For this reason, a definition of manosphere must be chosen. Either it means the collection of all men's groups (including ideologies of equality and misogyny), or it means the collection of all men's groups specifically characterised by misogyny. Right now, it is described as being misogynistic but also including any men's group, which is problematic because whilst these things do overlap, there are plenty of places where they don't.

(Edited to fix spelling, expand on point)

GamerAJ1025 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition, although this is a somewhat secondary point, I have been going through some of the sources and found some of them to be unhelpful. As I am new to this, is there any way that the wiki judges the validity of a scientific paper? One of the sources used to claim that manosphere groups glorify violence against women is a paper on an investigation that was conducted. The researchers catalogued a list of about 1300 terms and searched for the number of occurrences of each one. However, the criteria for a word to be considered offensive was not stated and seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. There was a category, for example, called 'belittling', which contained derogatory words to refer to women. However, the word that came up the most in the category was the word 'female'. This makes me sceptical because the use of the word female is not always used in a belittling sense, and it is expectable that the word would come up often in a discussion over gender rights. However, the uses of 'female' were still added to the total number of belittling terms used despite this clear oversight, which leads to an inflated figure that is at least somewhat over representing the true amount of belittling language used.

Now, I personally believe that most of these uses of the word were with intent to belittle women, but from a scientific point of view, I know that there is no way to know for sure. This is simply one of the limitations of the method that the researchers used because they could only search for the number of instances, without any clue of the context (since that would be way too time-consuming to do manually). Other such examples include uses of 'bigger' being recorded as instances of racism, every use of 'dumb' being considered belittling towards women, and simply including the word 'hate' being considered hate speech despite the many contexts it can be used in (eg 'I hate it when my sandwich goes soggy', something that is not hate speech). I do not see how a point backed up by the conclusion that the researchers made in this source is considered that valid, however, as it would be deceiving to use the data they found as evidence to prove a point in my opinion. Sure, the research does also bring to light the common use of many other examples of unambiguously derogatory language, but the limitations make it difficult to make a valid conclusion with.

However, this is a minor gripe and is almost certainly not as pressing as simply rewriting the article to be free of biases, fallacies, misinformation and ambiguity. Precision and accuracy are important for an informative article. GamerAJ1025 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is based on well-researched scholarly publications, and to a lesser extent, popular media sources. If there are comparable sources that present a different view of the subject, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I read that page, and it recommends using well-reviewed secondary sources rather than papers themselves. Anyone can conduct a 'study' and write a paper on it, but that won't always be of any scientific value. If your method is fundamentally flawed, I don't see how your conclusions based on that data can be regarded as particularly factual. My point being that some of the sources used do not sit well with me. Again, though, this is not the issue that I regard as particularly important here. You seem to have chosen to address my minor gripe instead of the main problem with this article. GamerAJ1025 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is already based on numerous reliable, secondary sources. If I failed to address your main point, feel free to re-state it more concisely. Other users don't have all day to read massive walls of text. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided individuals who create male centered content as apart of the manosphere. Interestingly,the wikipage on feminism, doesn't present it in the first paragraph as particularly misandric or racist, despite there being a very real and solid history of these spaces within feminism. There is more than enough content available from the manosphere for the article not to be slanted in this manner. It's not accurate and there individuals, like myself, are clearly telling you guys that it's not correct. It seems as if you guys have an inherent bias, so you aren't doing your due diligence in really researching beyond what you already believe. Again, this isn't a good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfully1969 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How about those sources then? Your own personal interpretation of content within the manosphere doesn't count. This article has been edited by a number of individuals with varying beliefs. If you aren't able to convince any of them, maybe that should be food for thought. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuance
Not all men/father issues activists are alt right, and the first few paragraphs of this article seems to mischaracterize innocent people for the sake of simplicity over nuance. 24.114.72.188 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed entirely, grouping legitimate father's rights organizations together with incels and PUA's clearly shows major bias on the part of the author, and is a gross mischaracterization. It appears there's been several attempts to correct this, but the author(s) seems to feel that all men who advocate for any men's rights should be grouped together as "bad". Very disappointing and misleading. RichardZack (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is based on published, reliable sources. Any complaints that do not reference similarly reliable sources are irrelevant. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, the editor ignored the multiple published, reliable sources I added to this article. RichardZack (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Jones et al.
This source is used to justify inclusion of "fathers rights" groups as part of the "Manosphere". However, as you can see from the quote, it only generically mentions "father's groups", not "fathers rights groups". This is misleading and is being used as false mischaracterization to claim that all fathers rights groups are somehow misogynistic.

Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019). "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment". New Media & Society. 22 (10): 1903–1921. doi:10.1177/1461444819887141. ISSN 1461-4448. The Manosphere is now home to several different groups, including pickup artists, the more radical 'Incels', father’s groups, Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) and the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) group and each has important differences that need to be unpacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardZack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That isn't the only source. See e.g. : "The manosphere is a group of loosely associated websites, blogs, and forums all concerned with masculinity and men's issues, and includes input from the MRM, pick-up artists, anti-feminists, and activists." --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote is not the entire source either. later in their introduction, Jones et al. specifically contrast men's rights and "father's rights groups" with Men Going Their Own Way; their mention of "father's groups" should be evaluated in this context. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement
As clearly shown in the link at the top of this article that mischaracterizes "fathers rights" as part of the "manosphere", the father's rights movement is actually defined as:

The fathers' rights movement is a social movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support, that affect fathers and their children.[1] Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children's mothers—either after divorce or as unwed fathers—and the children of the terminated marriage. The movement includes men as well as women, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.[1][2][3] Many members of the movement are self-educated in family law, including child custody and support, as they believe that equally-shared parenting time was being unjustly negated by family courts.[1][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement

This article appears to distort the primary interest and focus of this group, to malign them and incorrectly group them together with incels, PUAs, etc. As such, at the very least it earns the "dubious" tag and more likely this association should be removed entirely. The editors appear overly protective however and unwilling to make this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardZack (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I added another primary source to refute this mischaracterization on the page.
 * The full quote from the source is "Unlike the aforementioned groups residing in the manosphere, the primary focus for FRAs, with Fathers for Justice being the most well known, is actual men’s problems rather than espousing vitriol against women, progressiveness and feminism. Fathers for Justice are concerned with paternal rights and ensuring that fathers have access to their children when relationships break down, when Criminal Justice Systems entrenched in what they deem, sexist, conservative ideals ordinarily operate in favour of the mother. In this respect, the continuation of traditional gender roles, the desire and ideal of other groups in the manosphere, marginalises men and devalues their status as parents."
 * https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83982-254-420211004/full/html RichardZack (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your recent edits because:
 * Inclusion of fathers' rights groups in the manosphere is supported not only by the sources already cited in the article, but also by the Lisa Sugiura chapter you cited, in which she says, This chapter outlines the evolution and development of Men’s Rights groups online, including MRAs, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), Pick Up Artists (PUAs) and Fathers for Justice. These groups and incels are all connected by the same underpinning anti-feminist ideology, namely the redpill and the blackpill that have subtle distinctions and engage in trolling and harassment tactics that embody internet culture but are driven by the same motivations as the earlier men’s rights groups. (emphasis added)
 * The sentence you added to the lede Unlike the aforementioned groups... access to their children. was undue there and also a close paraphrase of the source. The wikipedia article already discusses, in the Ideology and content section, the heterogeneous nature of the manosphere with the real but oft-exaggerated differences between its various fragmants (which, again, is what Sugiura says too!). If you wish to expand that section a bit to specify the differences in focus between the father's rights movement and other components of the manosphere, please propose the exact language here, so that it can be discussed.
 * Abecedare (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abecedare. I looked at the cited source, and although it does indeed draw a distinction between those groups within the manosphere, it nonetheless clearly places father's rights group within the manosphere. And I'd go beyond calling it a close paraphrase. Part of it was a direct copy-paste from the source, which violates our copyright violation policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are editors so quick to reject the clear distinction between the groups, even after several primary sources have been provided? No reason to reject my recent edit, except bias. RichardZack (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reasons have been explained clearly and thoroughly by several users. If you are unable to hear what others are saying, maybe you are the biased one. Just a thought. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your own source says, The manosphere encompasses a wide range of groups from MRAs and (FRAs), to PUAs and to the more extremist MGTOW and incels but is that feminine values, propelled by feminism, dominate society and promote a 'misandrist' ideology that needs to be overthrown. Any minor differences between these groups are therefore WP:UNDUE for the lead section. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC) edited 03:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Distinctions between groups
In the below reliable, primary source, Lisa Suguiria states:

"Unlike the aforementioned groups residing in the manosphere, the primary focus for FRAs, with Fathers for Justice being the most well known, is actual men’s problems rather than espousing vitriol against women, progressiveness and feminism. Fathers for Justice are concerned with paternal rights and ensuring that fathers have access to their children when relationships break down, when Criminal Justice Systems entrenched in what they deem, sexist, conservative ideals ordinarily operate in favour of the mother. In this respect, the continuation of traditional gender roles, the desire and ideal of other groups in the manosphere, marginalises men and devalues their status as parents."

However, editors have rejected several attempts to properly make this distinction in the article. So, where in the article do the editors suggest this be noted?

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83982-254-420211004/full/html

Contrary to the article, it seems clear that the focus of all these groups is not the same. Grouping them all together is a mischaracterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardZack (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The place to describe the nuances of any individual group within the manosphere is the article for that particular group, in this case Fathers' rights movement. The fact that fathers' rights groups differ to some degree from other "manosphere" groups does not mean they aren't part of the manosphere. The term is used as an umbrella for a variety of men's groups on the Internet, and the Sugiura source (a chapter from a scholarly book, which is a secondary source, not primary) in fact places father's rights within the concerns of the manosphere. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of women
This source clearly shows that women are part of fathers rights groups: https://web.archive.org/web/20130630120953/http://www.glennsacks.com/why_are_there.htm

All editors on this page argue that fathers rights groups are part of the Manosphere.

Therefore, the Manosphere communities include women. This seems important to note as otherwise the article is written as if only men were members of these groups.

I added a change but this was rejected. Where to document this properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardZack (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For WP:WEIGHT reasons we definitely need multiple sources to include any kind of statement like that in the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is due in the lede but perhaps mention can be made of ideologically supportive women's groups, such as Tradvives, in the Associated movements section. For example, Suguira says:
 * "The manosphere also has support from groups comprised of women. Trad-wives, short for traditional wives, are women who support and practice traditional domestic values, with a mutual nostalgic yearning to return to simpler times, when men and women knew their places – men as the breadwinners and women as the homemakers, and a rejection of feminism. There is overlap with Tradcons, as well as the far right, as they and trad-wives share an anti-immigration, anti-islam and anti-multiculturalism political stance, which they believe have contributed to contemporary societal problems...The influence and support of trad-wives upon the growth of the manosphere and ultimately the increased threat against women and society should not be overlooked as women have long played a significant role in extremist movements, if not as key risks as potential allies (Bloom, 2011; Brown, 2013; Parashar, 2011; Pearson, 2020)."
 * Again, exact language can be proposed and discussed here. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Several sources support that women are involved, and discuss a multitude of reasons. Here's interviews with 23 women involved with fathers rights groups:
 * http://ohiofamilyrights.com/Reports/Reports/Special-Reports-Page-1/Conflicted-Membership-Women-in-Fathers--Rights-Groups.pdf
 * "This article explores the presence and absence of these conflicts through an analysis of 23 in-depth interviews of women involved in the fathers’ rights movement in the United States. Broadly speaking, the fathers’ rights movement, composed primarily of separating, divorced, and unmarried men, aims to reform child support and child custody legislation in ways more favorable to men and less favorable to women. Groups in the movement typically have in-person meetings once per month, during which members discuss their own personal cases as well as plan legislative initiatives. Smaller numbers of women join through their relationships with men as second wives, mothers, and sisters. Alternatively, others join as independent, freestanding noncustodial mothers or child advocates." RichardZack (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss this is at the fathers' rights movement article. The preceding source is over 12 years old and does not mention the broader "manosphere". To imply anything about women in the manosphere based on this source would be improper synthesis. Glenn Sacks is a political commentator. Not reliable here IMO. The Sugiura source, as quoted by above, looks fine to me. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The larger point is that as written the current article implies male-only membership. This is not the case. You are arguing that fathers' rights groups are part of the "manosphere", and since there are multiple primary sources that discuss how women are part of the father's rights groups (including those that Abecedare mentioned from Suguira), it's reasonable to state in the lede that women are part of these communities. RichardZack (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Primary sources should be treated with caution. I disagree that this is WP:DUE for the lead based on a single source (Sugiura). "Support" does not equal "membership". Trad-wives, for example, are described as being an "offshoot" of the manosphere, not an integral part of it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)