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 ⚇♔ 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

That is still true

It's still being edited in a way that wants to purposefully say it's all about hating women.

Even when an edit says it's nuancing, it's not good enough. The supposed « reliable » sources aren't reliable, that's the whole issue. I don't see why you should need a « reliable » source to give some nuance at such a contentious issue.

Even the left wing is creating spaces to talk about men's rights. So it's already wrong to say that it's associated with far-right. Men's rights activist know that the vast majority of left-wingers and right-wingers do not care about men's rights, so to associate them with any extreme side is already wrong.

And we aren't even asking to say the opposite, we're asking to give nuance so it can give people the tools to make their own decision, that there is some contrast to have.

Instead, it does look like you aren't interested in any of that. The comparison with gravity is also very wrong and intellectually dishonest. We're talking about social issues, even the perspective of Andrew Tate should be considered seriously (as much as I dislike him), maybe we should cite « the myth of male power » and then you'll be able to give it nuance ? Or you'll just brush it off as unreliable because it doesn't fit your narrative ?

You're basically saying that this whole page is written as if it was saying that the sky is blue. It's really not, otherwise this wouldn't be a contentious topic. Even the flat earth isn't contentious. You can say all you want that « this is based on what experts say », but you feign to ignore that we know you are choosing which « experts ».

It's true that there are parts that are involved in hate, but it's also true that there are parts that are involved in virtue with the goal to empower men. The issue is that, in itself, is contentious, and not the fact that there are both good and bad actors.

So there's no wrong in contrasting with the bad side of things, but we're also asking for the good sides to not be buried under all of it.

The last edit is seeping with bias, it's really badly written. I don't understand why people who would be focused with « academic precision » would be fine with something like that. StarZax (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The supposed « reliable » sources aren't reliable, that's the whole issue. The article mainly uses mainstream scholarly sources, which are the preferred kind. Dismissively saying they "aren't reliable" without explanation is pretty insulting to the users who put a lot of time and effort into evaluating sources for reliability.

I don't see why you should need a « reliable » source to give some nuance at such a contentious issue. Because Wikipedia does not publish original research. Sticking to published, mainstream sources is necessary to maintain a neutral point of view.

Maybe we should cite « the myth of male power » and then you'll be able to give it nuance ? Or you'll just brush it off as unreliable because it doesn't fit your narrative ? The Myth of Male Power is a book that exists to promote certain beliefs about gender and politics. It is a polemic, not a work of serious scholarship.

Even the flat earth isn't contentious. It is contentious according to a small group of fringe authors. Which is kind of the problem here as well.

You feign to ignore that we know you are choosing which « experts ». Of course we choose expert sources, based on criteria laid out in Wikipedia's verifiability policy. We avoid fringe sources as well as those that fail to demonstrate factual accuracy. No one here is pretending otherwise.

There's no wrong in contrasting with the bad side of things, but we're also asking for the good sides to not be buried under all of it. Giving both sides equal validity is not how we achieve neutrality. Wikipedia doesn't engage in disputes over what is "good" or "bad". We just summarize what the most reliable sources say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Up to us to distribute reliable sources, then we'll discuss and see if you deem them reliable or not. StarZax (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As others have said in this discussion, reliability is determined by community consensus. Some people interpret this as a sinister conspiracy to suppress The Truth™. While I'm sure that helps those people feel special, more productive users usually make an effort to understand and apply Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, which is there for anyone to read. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I just was a bit sarcastic on this. Can't wait to discuss all that when it'll be the time. StarZax (talk) 01:00, 22 August 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)

Absolutely, which is why it's pretty ridiculous to have this page written as if it was as true as the sky is blue.

You perfectly said it yourself : there is a wide variety of views. That's what people have been talking about for years on this page, and the latest reverts show it's going backwards. StarZax (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you check out Wikipedia's page about self-published texts being used as a source.

Therealteal (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

By definition, a reverted change results in restoration of status quo. It doesn't make the article go "backwards". It's perfectly correct to revert non-neutral changes such as this recent one by Zxgnarlz, who was trying to whitewash the topic and remove the very well-supported misogyny aspect. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see how it is white washing, but anyway

I guess I wasn't clear enough, but that doesn't matter much. Nobody is arguing that there is, indeed, a matter of misogyny. And it was still cited, while supporting the credentials of the sources. Therefore I see no point in arguing since it's not going to change anyway. StarZax (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a wide variety of views on whether aliens built the pyramids. Treating all viewpoints as equally valid would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So that's what I meant : we lack the numbers, it's still considered « fringe » so it's mislabelled. Wikipedia will adapt afterward. Got it. StarZax (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a head count. Once again, go read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant or I wasn't clear.

I understand it's not just about numbers. It's about producing enough reliable sources. That's what I meant by using the term « fringe » as I do understand that the number itself isn't a justification.

I take advantage of this post to ask you about another one (because I can't find an edit button and I don't want to spam you with multiple discourses at the same time)

What makes you think that Will Pharell's work is about promoting beliefs more than anything else ? I see that he has the credentials, is it because it has been critiqued ? According to the Reliable sources page, I guess it's the usage by other sources that makes it unreliable to Wikipedia's standards ?

"Giving both sides equal validity is not how we achieve neutrality."

I don't think I've been asking for equal validity either. I asked for it to be mentioned, but I figured that I probably just don't have the same definition of manosphere and mine got mixed with « men's movement ». So fair enough, I understand that Wikipedia reflects a consensus and it's undeniable that it doesn't matter if I think that the term manosphere shouldn't imply that there's only bad, it still does for various reasons. StarZax (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Warren Farrell is described by his publisher as a "best-selling author and leader in both the early women's and current men's movement" rather than as an academic or researcher. However, Wikipedia doesn't really care about academic credentials. Instead we look for sources that have been vetted by the scholarly community via publication in peer-reviewed journals or by mainstream academic presses.

The Myth of Male Power is published by Berkley Books, which is known for science fiction, not by a specialist academic publisher. The introduction contains a lot of vague language about how the book is a "leap forward" and will "create growth", which are ideological rather than scholarly goals. Farrell literally claims that the statistics he presents are less important than whether the book "rings true" and "reflects men's feelings"(!)

It is correct that citation by other reliable sources is a good indicator of reliability. The Myth of Male Power has been generally panned by scholars in the field of gender studies: [1][2][3] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The men's rights movement page seems to be written in a less partisan way. Couldn't you use that as inspiration? 86.14.255.146 (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have specific suggested edits in mind, do let someone know, but just saying be more like the men's rights page isn't very helpful. Therealteal (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert of "inane puffery" and NPOV

I am a bit confused as to a recent revert that stated my added content was filled with "inane puffery" and was not neutral. I was about to add in additional sources to the section entitled "associated movements" with several RS that described "the hetrodoxy" as associated with the manosphere. If @Greyfell can describe how this failed neutrality and is "inane puffery" I would appreciate it.

My proposed edit is below:

The Guardian has described the manosphere as associated with a movement called "the heterodoxy", which it described as "male podcasters, influencers and public figures" that "marketed themselves as free-thinking pundits who evaded the bounds of political classification". It highlighted "brash, charismatic" figures such as Joe Rogan, Sneako, and Russel Brand, as part of this growing coalition, while Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson were described as also part of the manosphere. Radley Balko describes them as "bill[ing] themselves as skeptics who are immune to the trappings of tribalism, partisanship, and the status quo" but sharing a suspicion of "elites", "experts", and "wokeism". It highlighted that their political views could once have been described as libertarian, but shifted rightwards over time with an "anti-establishment, nihilistic tone" and promotion of conspiracy theories. The Guardian further reported that the movement is "sympathetic to the challenges of being a young man and happy to provide antidotes to discontents. Those come in the form of health and wellness tips (heavy on protein, raw meat and weightlifting), and pseudo-academic, resentment-tinged explanations as to why so many young men are falling behind in higher education and the workplace". Rebecca Jennings from Vox described this group as "tech bros" such as Joe Rogan being influenced by the manosphere, but with less "talk about the alt-right or being 'redpilled'".

Several media sources and commentators have differing opinions over which online figures are a part of or adjacent to the manosphere. The Independent describes Joe Rogan, the Nelk Boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, and 'Bussin with the Boys,' as part of the manosphere. David French argues that Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson are also part of the manosphere, with Helen Lewis from The Atlantic also considering Rogan as part of the manosphere.

Sources

BootsED (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I should explain this some more.

The biggest problem is that both Guardian sources barely even mention the manosphere, making the inclusion of all of this appear to be WP:SYNTH.

The inane puffery was coming from the sources, but in the context of these sources, this was not as inane. Taken out of that context and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASEd, it was not appropriate. The Guardian sources are not only describing 'the heterodoxy' as "brash" etc., it is also specifically mentioning issues with bigotry and pseudoscience. They claim they are at war with the mainstream media, as well as broadly accepted ideas about science, health and government.[4] and quoting a podcaster: “Many of the creators stoking fervor by constantly bashing DEI, critical race theory, feminism and LGTBQ+ rights don’t have anything to lose under a second Trump presidency. For the most part, they’re already wealthy and will only financially gain from the tax cuts that will be passed,”[5] and so on. This is a main thrust of these sources, so to use it for emphasizing how 'charismatic' they are doesn't seem appropriate. It's also not really appropriate to emphasize how good they are at appealing to their audience without also mentioning, as the sources do, that these influencers are "spoon feeding" their audience a toxic ideology.

There was also an editorializing issue. Does a reliable source say that commentators have differing opinions? Is David French 'arguing' that The Independent (meaning Josh Marcus) is somehow wrong not to include Tate and Peterson? I don't really see the benefit of framing it like this, but the article already has a lot of issues similar to this, so maybe I'm just nit-picking.

Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification @Greyfell. I can see how this can appear to be WP:SYNTH, as I agree the Guardian sources do not mention the manosphere much. This is why I thought including it in the section titled "associated movements" was more appropriate, and the sources talked about how "the heterodoxy" was influenced by the manosphere.

I didn't include the mentions about bashing DEI, feminism, and ecetera as I believed they were already strongly mentioned in the other sections of the article and didn't want to simply repeat what was already said. I also thought they were covered through mention of being against elites, experts, and "wokeism", along with mentioning their promotion of conspiracy theories. I can see now that while I may have thought this was clear, it may not have been clear to other readers.

I can also see your comment and confusion about commentators having differing opinions and the framing of the debate. During my research on this topic I've noticed that several sources will describe Joe Rogan, for instance, as part of the manosphere while others say he is part of "the heterodoxy", or is simply adjacent to it. I will remove this last section, as I think going further into this debate would require a whole section dedicated to this "associated movement" and may even require its own page to go deeper into its ideology.

It's late where I am right now so I will work on re-writing and shortening this section to address your concerns. I appreciate your constructive criticism. This is what Wikipedia is all about. BootsED (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Greyfell that the addition had problems with WP:SYNTH, along with the non-neutral emphasis on positive traits, cherry-picking the quotes. It's also unnecessary to describe which sources list which heterodoxy figures. Any person listed consistently in the sources should be named as influential. Those on the periphery do not get listed. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Ben Rich & Eva Bujalka in The Conversation, who attribute the manosphere's appeal to young men’s search for connection, truth, control and community, as opposed to regular old misogyny. This seems to be just the authors' opinion, which we shouldn't cite alongside peer-reviewed academic sources as though they're equally valid. The authors themselves admit that little research has been devoted to why and how men are attracted to manosphere communities. The focus is also on Andrew Tate specifically, which makes this material seen unduly weighted in the article. I moved the citation to § Further reading instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Jargon

" However, Sugiura writes that "there is little evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives". Both male and female homicide victims are more likely to have been killed by a man, rather than by a woman. "

True as this may be, it belongs in a section named "criticism", not in one named "jargon". 203.13.3.94 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The quote is in reference to the term "misandry" used as manosphere jargon. The article doesn't have a criticism section, which are generally discouraged in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)