Template talk:Manosphere

Criteria for inclusion in this template
Seems like this was kind of thrown together. Was there any specific reasoning to it that I'm missing? - Scarpy (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing when I came across it. I presume there are reliable sources to tie all of these linked pages to the term "manosphere" (rather than just being based on WP:OR determinations of what's relevant). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the history of this term, and I'm wondering if there's some conflation in it's usage, at least as it's presented in the manosphere article and this template. Searching Google Scholar, News Archive, Books and UseNet, the first time I can find anyone using the term is 2010 and it's on alt.support.shyness and seems to be a term of derision. |sort:date/alt.support.shyness/zyQe3rDSS3c/JIWumNbwLLkJ The thread is about men who aren't having romantic success and it's used interchangeably with "omegasphere" and there's a similar connotation here a few months later. It starts to appear in blogs and news, again basically as a pejorative, first February, 2 2012 in Catholic publication, then about a month later the term is used by the SPLC and it seems to take off from there. ... I suppose some of this is also discussion relevant to the manosphere article, but to the extent that we're concerned with what is and isn't manosphere, I suppose it's relevant here as well. - Scarpy (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * you seem pretty interested in this topic. Do you have any thoughts on this point? - Scarpy (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Friends, this template, and the associated main namespace article has numerous problems with NPOV and reliability of sources. 12.49.46.42 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)