Talk:Manosphere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[citation needed]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is literally in the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. In no way does the manosphere promote misogyny. Mst5506 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Please keep your personal feelings out of this Mst5506. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So should we add examples of mysoandry in articles about feminism? 31.178.7.216 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you can back it up with reliable sources, then please do Therealteal (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Gotell, Lise; Dutton, Emily (2016)[edit]

User has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This source is clearly a blogger. The author is the Executive Director of a non-profit and makes pop culture recommendations in her "research." Request we remove this source in its entirety.

See below from the cited article:

Situating ourselves: ‘Don’t be THAT Guy/Girl’ We did not come to this research through scholarly interest. Instead, when MRAs sought to undermine a local anti‐sexual violence campaign, this project found us. Black $heep (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy is obviously not a blog. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how "Don't be THAT Guy/Girl" makes this anything other than a blog. Black $heep (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I publish a peer-reviewed journal (I am literally an expert on this subject), you'll include it in this article? Just want to make sure we have this on record. Black $heep (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you publish in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, perhaps. Even if we didn't use it, it wouldn't be a blog. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the stance on giving pop culture advice in "peer-reviewed journals?" That doesn't disqualify them? Black $heep (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Escalated. Have a nice day Black $heep (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below from Wikipedia's source guidelines. I suspect this is why pop-culture advice is not acceptable - it relies on the author's own anecdotal experiences.
Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.
The author spends a great deal of the article sharing her own perspectives, biases, and opinions from a 1st person perspective.
If this doesn't qualify, what does? Black $heep (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's own personal experience would mean your own personal knowledge - that is you the person on this talk page. Sources from reputable publishers are supposed to provide novel information, that is the whole point. But this has now become off topic for this talk page. If you have general questions about Wikipedia policy you may ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE - I won't respond here any further. MrOllie (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not off-topic. Are you seriously saying that Wikpedia's guideline is referring to the person posting it on Wikipedia and not the author? That would make no sense and is not how the statement reads. Black $heep (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribeiro, Manoel Horta; Blackburn, Jeremy; Bradlyn, Barry; et al. (2021)[edit]

This source uses hate speech and language that qualifies as sexist under US federal law if directed with intent toward a certain group of individuals on the basis of their sex. Request we remove this source in its entirety.

Below from the cited article:

We find that milder and older communities, such as PickUp Artists and Men’s Rights Activists, are giving way to more extreme ones like Incels and Men Going Their Own Way, with a substantial migration of active users. Moreover, our analysis suggests that these newer communities are more toxic and misogynistic than the older ones. Black $heep (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED. Also, those are not sexist slurs. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They indeed are. US law says so. And I am a senior professional in a field that deals with this every single day. Black $heep (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were, it would be irrelevant. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be irrelevant. Why would we want to cite an article that does not incorporate US law? What is the benefit we're seeking? Black $heep (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. If you think a source is doing something illegal, write to them about it. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, yes it is. And you are citing absolutely nothing other than Wikipedia's own statements about themselves, which have nothing to do with US law Black $heep (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are sending me an article about censorship. Censorship is not the same thing as defamation. There is a legal difference. A big one. Black $heep (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanssen, Jacob (2021)[edit]

This source uses hate speech "incels" and language that qualifies as sexist under US federal law if directed with intent toward a certain group of individuals on the basis of sex. The source contains libelous/defamatory statements by virtue of specifically naming groups with accusations made on the basis of sex for which those groups have otherwise received no legal accusation, charge, nor conviction. Request we remove this source entirely.

Below from the cited article's abstract:

"Dis/inhibition shows itself in self-victimization and defensive apathy as well as toxic agency and symbolic power and expresses itself in desire for hatred of other bodies. The text draws on the pyschoanalytic thinkers Klaus Theweleit, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Jessica Benjamin and Wilhelm Reich to present detailed analyses of the communities within the so-called manosphere, including incels, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), alt-right YouTubers and NoFap users. Black $heep (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not slurs, libel, or defamation. You have greatly misunderstood both US law and Wikipedia's sourcing policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "obvious?" Please explain. Black $heep (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTFORUM, I decline to debate this further. You can find Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines at WP:RS that is the only standard Wikipedia uses. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will happily escalate. The truth matters. Have a good day. Black $heep (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've collapsed the above sections, as Black $heep has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. I would also suggest WP:NLT, WP:AGF, and WP:CIR apply here. Grayfell (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrst201 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manosphere&oldid=1218932696"