Talk:Manosphere/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Manosphere links

(refactored from User talk:Chicago Smooth) --01:29, 27 September 2022

Greetings. Please double-check that the links you add to the "See also" section are not already present in the article. Also, what is the published source for the terms you say represent "major talking points" within the manosphere? Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Why was "The 21 Convention" removed? I am very confused on that reversal. A lot of what goes on in 'the manosphere' BEGAN with The 21 Convention. In my strong opinion, the manosphere article is invalid and totally incomplete without any mention of The 21 Convention Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know you personally, and you don't know me personally ... and I understand you're just trying to be a "good editor," but I am going to do a little bit of "venting" right now: When it comes to at least two (2) of your articles - The Worldwide Manosphere article and Attraction & Seduction Community article, Wikipedia articles are GIVING CREDIT to a number of men who really don't deserve it, and NOT GIVING CREDIT to a few men WHO DO DESERVE IT.

Three examples:

1) Alan Roger Currie - Currie was the very first well-known African-American Dating Coach in the world. He was the very first person who began using the delineation between "Alpha males" and "Beta males" as far back as 1997. Currie had a Wikipedia article TWICE, and both were deleted (One article for his book, "Mode One" between 2007 and 2009, and then another article for his career as a book author and dating coach between 2015 and 2020) Among men who have been active in the worldwide manosphere for years, Currie is a LEGEND. But he is treated very disrespectfully by many of the Wikipedia.org editors. Over half of the talking points that Kevin Samuels used on his YouTube Livestreams before his death, he borrowed from Currie! Related: Nupe vs. Nupe: Examining the rift between Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie and Superstar YouTuber Kevin Samuels Many Pickup Artists (PUAs) and dating coaches for men blatantly stole a lot of Currie's material and talking points without giving him "proper credit attribution"

2) Anthony Johnson Johnson is the Founder of The 21 Convention, which is the most longest running weekend conference for heterosexual men active in the worldwide manosphere. There is no way you can have an article about the worldwide manosphere without mentioning Anthony Johnson and/or mentioning The 21 Convention It's bordering on being blasphemous.

3) The Black Manosphere A significant African-American sub-section of the worldwide manosphere is known as The Black Manosphere. It first rose to prominence in 2015 because of a number of audio podcasters and video podcasters. Related: Elle.com Discusses The Black Manosphere The aforementioned Kevin Samuels first gained his popularity in The Black Manosphere

Many of the editors are approving articles based solely and specifically on mainstream media mentions, but the reality is, a lot of those guys are not original. If many of these editors were truly active in either the worldwide manosphere and/or Black manosphere, they would know that everything I am saying is 100% valid

Thank you for time and attention to this reply. Much appreciated. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP article contents need a published, reliable source to back them up. The only generally reliable source you cited was The New York Times, and it only mentions the 21 Convention in passing. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page to gain consensus for any other proposed additions, but first you may want to familiarize yourself with our policy of No original research. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks for the reply Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The article on Alan Roger Currie has been at AfD three times, the most recent being in March 2020 with a consensus to delete. He seems to be a non-notable figure, so there's no reason to include him here without very strong sourcing on the level of the multiple scholarly sources already cited. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that is not 100% true Sangdeboeuf. The first 2 times the article got voted for deletion, the article centered on Alan Roger Currie's book "Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking" rather than Currie himself. Only with the third time the article got voted to delete was the article centered on Currie's career as a book author and professional dating coach for men.

Part of my argument thought is that Wikipedia seems to deem a lot of unoriginal "copycat" types as "notable" rather than the men who they are copying FROM. As I mentioned already, Kevin Samuels. Samuels was popular, and had a large following on YouTube, but nothing about his content or talking points was ORIGINAL. Within the ranks of the manosphere, and particularly The Black Manosphere, Samuels was known for borrowing and even blatantly stealing content and talking points from other manosphere content creators, including Currie.

Again, Currie has been a name in the worldwide manosphere since 1999, and Anthony Johnson - Founder of The 21 Convention - has been active in the manosphere since 2006 or 2007, but yet neither one are mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Currie was interviewed on national television and nationally syndicated broadcast radio, something Samuels never achieved. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

None of that matters without a published, reliable source supporting inclusion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You might be misinterpreting the term "notable". On Wikipedia, notability is defined as "covered in multiple reliable sources, in sufficient depth to support an article's worth of content". Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with a potential subject's achievements, except to the extent that we would expect reliable sources to cover someone with those achievements. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So, in regard to Kevin Samuels, The Black Wall Street Times and Black News NewsOne and the Atlanta Black Star are "reliable sources"?? LOLOL. Yeah, okay. Most of his references are sources are about HIS DEATH ... not the originality about his content or talking points. Currie, on the other hand, was interviewed on a FOX Network morning television talk show before anyone really knew who a "dating coach for men" was #FACTS Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Santa Claus" has also been interviewed on FOX's morning talk show,[1][2][3] so I wouldn't take that as evidence of anything. Interviews in general are not in-depth, secondary sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Samuels's death was covered by The New York Times, NBC News, and several more niche sources, including the ones you mention. That seems like pretty good evidence of notability, but that's a discussion that belongs at Talk:Kevin Samuels. On the other hand, a Medium post is not reliable for biographies of living people: see WP:MEDIUM and WP:BLPSPS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The importance of reliable, independent sources has been explained to Chicago Smooth many, many times, specifically regarding Alan Roger Currie. As I said in 2020, I no longer accept Chicago Smooth's claim that they do not have a conflict of interest. They have been a near-WP:SPA, promoting Currie via flimsy sources for over a decade. That the medium blog post claims to be authored by Currie himself, but is written in the third person in the same style as Chicago Smooth.

Specific to this situation, Currie is very far from being the worst example of the manosphere, but reliable, independent sources are not obligated to care about how well he clears the bar of basic decency. Are reliable sources talking about Currie and his "copycats" as exceptions to the manosphere, or as examples of the manosphere? The answer appears to be neither. If sources aren't explaining this for us, dipping into extremely obscure primary sources to add this would be gossip.

That said, the Elle.com source is worth a closer look. It would be much better, obviously, to find a non-opinion source for this, but it still discussing a perspective that is currently missing from the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I will add this, and then I will leave this issue alone (at least on this talk page):

1) In my strong opinion, there needs to be more consistency about what makes a person (or accomplishment) "notable" or "not-notable." For example with Currie, another totally different person began an article about Currie's book, "Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking" back in spring 2007. An editor APPROVED the article, and said Currie's book was "notable" at the time, but then approximately 2 years later, a totally different editor said, "this book is not-notable because it is self-published." The article was nominated for deletion TWICE. Now fast forward to 2015. I created the article for Currie's career as a book author, dating coach, and prominent member of the manosphere and I specifically asked an editor, "is this article worthy of being published?" and he replied "sordid, but notable." My article about Currie existed for over FIVE YEARS until another editor said, "This reads like an advertisement; please edit this article and 'remove the fat' so to speak and 'keep the meat' so to speak"; I did that. Then a second editor essentially said the same thing. He said "you have too much trivial stuff in this article not backed up by reliable sources, so trim this article down"; I did that. Then, finally, because a third editor and I got into a heated exchange of words, he decided to nominate the article for deletion.

Bottom line, if my article for Currie wasn't worthy of being published, then the very first editor should not have allowed it to be published in the first place. It was extremely disappointing to allow an article to exist for 5+ years, only to have it deleted because of one editor's "personal feelings." There is a difference between being "popular" and "notable" in terms of mainstream media exposure, and a person being considered by many to be EMINENT (i.e., highly respected within the field of his work). When it comes to the latter, Currie is prominent in the field of dating coaching. Currie is to African-American dating coaches what Erik von Markovik aka 'Mystery' was to popular pickup artists (PUAs).

Anthony Johnson - founder of the first major conference and event to center on manosphere-related issues & topic titled The 21 Convention - made a post in 2021 where he listed ten men as being the "founders, pioneers, and early thought leaders" of the worldwide manosphere. Guess who's name was included? Alan Roger Currie (the only Black man included in the list)

2) As far as the "conflict of interest," yes, I do know Currie personally. I also know the above-mentioned Anthony Johnson personally. I know a lot of the personalities in the worldwide manosphere and Black manosphere personally. This is why I am able to point out the flaws, weaknesses, unfair omissions, and missing information in articles such as The Manosphere. Many of the Wikipedia editors don't have first hand knowledge of The Manosphere and The Attraction & Seduction Community like I do. Again, not to "pick on" Kevin Samuels again, but between 2016 and 2019, Samuels was a "nobody" in the Black manosphere. He was a "wannabe." Then, in spring 2020, he began harshly admonishing African-American women, those women got triggered, and then his popularity blew up almost overnight thanks to a mention on WorldStarHipHop.com. The problem with Samuels though (as mentioned by me before), is that over half of his content, material, and overall talking points was either "borrowed" or stolen from other popular manosphere & Black manosphere content creators. For example, when Samuels died, legendary radio host Tom Leykis blasted Samuels on Twitter referring to him as a "content thief" who stole a lot of his talking points without giving him proper credit attribution.

I am not trying to spit on Samuels grave. I don't think Samuels article should be nominated for deletion. My point is, guys like Currie and Johnson should have articles on Wikipedia. I don't care if their respective articles are only one or two paragraphs in length. Those two manosphere fixtures should be represented on here, and the sub-section of the worldwide manosphere known as The Black Manosphere should be mentioned in this manosphere article.

Enjoy the rest of your week. I'm done here. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE applies throughout Wikipedia, and WP:PROMOTION is never allowed. WP:SELFPUBLISHED material is only considered reliable when the author is a recognized authority on a subject (and never as the main source about themselves). WP:ARTICLEAGE is never a reason to keep material that does not satisfy notability requirements. Once again, you don't provide any published WP:SOURCES to back up your claims. While genuine expertise is valuable, a personal WP:CONFLICT of interest means it is best to avoid the topic altogether. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, many of you Wikipedia editors are NOT CONSISTENT when it comes to your own "notability standards." Over the five years that the article for Alan Roger Currie existed, I had MANY EDITORS examine that article and consider it "notable" AT THE TIME. The first editor to nominate the article for deletion in 2020 did so because he was "angry" and "irritated" after an exchange with myself. It had NOTHING to do with "notability standards." It was PERSONAL. I mean, you're telling me that men like Steve Pavlina, Tony Gaskins, Zan Perrion, and Todd Siler are more "notable" than Currie?? If so, then Wikipedia's 'notability standards' need to be seriously re-examined. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea which editors you previously interacted with. As Grayfell pointed out at the last AfD, what you are asking is also an admission that Wikipedia has a spam problem. The way to fix this is with better, independent sources, but the place to discuss other articles is on those articles' talk pages. As for the Currie article, after 13 years and three AfDs, it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search for "black manosphere" returns only a single peer-reviewed journal article (weirdly not accessible via the Wikipedia Library, not sure why). A brief mention might be OK if anyone has access to the full paper, but I would avoid citing personal magazine essays in an article that mostly cites academic sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC) edited 10:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Most interesting you cited a source authored by Indiana Ph.D. candidate Aaron Fountain. Most men active in the Black Manosphere are familiar with Fountain due to his former YouTube Channel (most Black men viewed him as a "harsh critic" and "enemy" to the Black Manosphere, but men like Alan Roger Currie had no ill feelings toward Fountain)

And sorry Sangdeboeuf, I will never totally give up on getting Currie's article re-activated. Never. I will also continue to make efforts to get Anthony Johnson his very first Wikipedia article. Why?

• Currie was the very first self-help guru associated with the worldwide manosphere to use the delineation between "Alpha males" and "Beta males"; Currie was using these delineations as far back as 1997
• Currie was the first self-help guru associated with the worldwide manosphere that used to harshly criticize and expose the psychological and emotional manipulation tactics of many Pickup Artists (PUAs) (which used to be mentioned in the article for The Attraction & Seduction Community which later got incorporated into the Pickup artist article until an editor who had personal feelings against me removed it)
• Currie is generally regarded as the very first African-American dating coach in the world (Currie self-published an eBook before any other African-American dating coach back in May 1999)
• Currie was the first African-American dating coach to appear on national television, be interviewed on nationally broadcast syndicated radio shows, and speak internationally (Amsterdam, Berlin, London)
• Currie was discussing the concept of "romantically and sexually frustrated Beta males" and their homicidal & suicidal tendencies (which would later be referred to as Incels) years before the George Sodini incident and the Elliot Rodger incident
• Currie previously had a career as an award-winning stand-up comedian in Chicago (Currie was the 1989 Grand Prize Winner of Chicago Miller Lite Comedy Search Contest)
• In 2009, Currie became the first person to teach an adult-education college level course in the Indiana University system without possessing a Ph.D. or Masters in Psychology or Human Sexuality (his course was titled "Dating for 21st Century Singles")
• Johnson founded The 21 Convention which is the longest-running weekend conference & convention for heterosexual men active in the worldwide manosphere (the above-mentioned Currie was actually the very first African-American featured speaker and self-help guru the event ever had)
• Johnson has interviewed or interacted with just about every major influential self-help guru in the worldwide manosphere
• Johnson is a very outspoken and controversial figure in the worldwide manosphere, with very strong opinions and criticisms against modern-day Feminism
• Johnson's more recent conference, The 22 Convention (which is his conference designed for women to attend in addition to his men-only 21 Convention) has been mentioned in the New York Times, New York Post, and other online media publications
• Johnson and Currie make every effort to add balance and see that the worldwide manosphere is not viewed as just consisting of bitter misogynists, sexually frustrated incels, and general "woman-haters"

So Sangdeboeuf, based on those reasons above (among a few more), I will always make it my personal Wikipedia mission to make sure those two men ultimately receive their due credit!! But being objective, I respect that you feel you're doing the job you're supposed to do as a Wikipedia editor, so I hold no personal animosity against you simply because your opinions differ from mine. You and I just don't see eye-to-eye on many issues related to the worldwide manosphere, the Black manosphere, Currie, and Johnson. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal views about the black manosphere and associated figures are not the issue, nor have I expressed any here. But blatantly disregarding existing consensus as you propose is WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is also disruptive because, among other things, this is not the talk page to discuss Alan Roger Currie's deleted article. If Chicago Smooth wants to improve this article, they should provide reliable source. Once again, first hand knowledge is original research, and is not a substitute for reliable, independent sources. Self-published sources and user generated content are seldom usable. The use of lots of boldface or italics for emphasis isn't a substitute for sources, either. Currie's Patreon page still links to his Wikipedia bio, which suggests that Currie views having a Wikipedia page as a source of legitimacy, or at least of significance. This is a very common belief which leads to a lot of problems across Wikipedia, including spam. Having an article should instead be seen as a reflection of reliable sources. So if Currie or any of his friends want to recreate his article, or create any new ones, they will need to start with reliable, independent sources instead of first-hand knowledge. They will also need to very carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in order to comply with Wikipedia's terms of service. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fellas, give me at least a LITTLE credit. After all, I was the one who added Andrew Tate and Jesse Lee Peterson under the "See also" section. 5 years ago, literally NO ONE associated those two personalities with the worldwide manosphere (similar to Kevin Samuels with the Black Manosphere). The #1 reason why both of those men are now associated with the worldwide manosphere is because of the aforementioned Anthony Johnson. Johnson was the very first person to interview & interact with both (although now, Johnson and Peterson have since fallen out). I also prompted you all to look into adding content related to the sub-section of the worldwide manosphere known as The Black Manosphere. So, bottom line, it's not like I am just some "Wikipedia Talk Page Troll" here. Again, I just want to see people get their due credit. Currie and Johnson were associated with the worldwide manosphere years before anyone knew who Tate or Peterson were Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Currie and Johnson were associated with the worldwide manosphere years before anyone knew who Tate or Peterson were. By whom were they associated with the worldwide manosphere? By their fans and followers? Or was it by reliable, independent sources? If the latter, which sources? Why haven't you cited them yet? That is not a trivial detail, and context like that matters.

Also, the phrase "worldwide manosphere" in quotes returns three pages of results in Google, leading to 28 non-repetitive results. The first results are to Currie's IMDB profile (which is explicitly not a reliable source for this kind of thing, per WP:IMDB). Almost all of the rest are in reference to the 21 Convention, or more specifically, the 22 Convention. Many of those uses are to quote the project's self-description, and are not using this phrase directly. The few sources I have seen for this also directly tie these conventions to far-right and pro-trump politics, per guests such as Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux. For whatever reason, those sources do not emphasize Johnson's role by name.

If you want to make an article on Anthony Dream Johnson you will still need to abide by reliable source requirements, specifically for WP:BLP content. You may also want a heads-up on Wikipedia:General sanctions, as that applies to "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people." Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

By whom were they associated with the worldwide manosphere? By their fans and followers? Or was it by reliable, independent sources? If the latter, which sources? With respect Grayfell, mainstream media did not even begin paying attention to the worldwide manosphere until The George Sodini incident and even more so, The Elliot Rodger incident occurred. Before those two incidents, no one really cared about the worldwide manosphere other than those (heterosexual) men that were active in it. Same with the sub-section referred to as The Black Manosphere. As mentioned, the Black manosphere has been in existence since no later than 2015, but it was never mentioned by mainstream media until the late Kevin Samuels began gaining more popularity in spring and summer of 2020. The most notable being the aforementioned Elle.com article.

As far as the sub-section of the manosphere known as both The Pickup Artist Community and The Attraction & Seduction Community, the first person I remember who received some degree of mainstream media attention was Ross Jeffries because he was interviewed in Playboy magazine in the 1990s.

So let me ask you Grayfell. Examine the articles for Tony Gaskins (who was interviewed by Alan Roger Currie on BlogTalkRadio in 2011), Steve Pavlina (who was a speaker at two conferences along with Currie being the headliner), and Zan Perrion (who spoke at Johnson's 2017 "21 Convention" along with Currie). Be honest. You're telling me that Currie and Johnson don't deserve to have an article that is at least one or two paragraphs in length compared to those three men? I mean, seriously? Currie's never been mentioned in the New York Times or Washington Post, but he was mentioned in Black Enterprise magazine in 2009 and Essence magazine I believe in the same year. Currie has also interviewed a long list of notable people in the area of dating advice and relationships advice (who have articles here on Wikipedia) on his former internet radio show on BlogTalkRadio. And as mentioned already, Johnson was mentioned in both The New York Times and New York Post.

Trust: I am not going to attempt to reactivate Currie's article, or create a brand new article for Johnson, until I have at least 3 or more editors give those article drafts the "okay." I am not going to try to force the issue just to be "rebellious." But again, I gotta say that when I see articles on here like those for Gaskins, Pavlina, and Perrion (as well as a few others), but none for Currie and Johnson, it just unfortunately leaves me shaking my head. I will just encourage both men (Currie and Johnson) to keep striving to become more "notable" in their respective careers so that some faction of mainstream media decides to pay attention to them and give them both their flowers and due credit before they pass away Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. I agree that mainstream media only began paying close attention to the manosphere after it was tied to mass murders. That lack of attention is not a problem we can solve, even if we wanted to. To repeat the point, Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. This means Wikipedia isn't a platform for news reporting either. Because we reflect reliable sources, Wikipedia has a bias in favor of the mainstream media, and there's nothing you or I can do about that. If you know of reliable, independent sources which have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, but are outside of the mainstream for some reason, please present them. Yet again, your first hand knowledge is not a reliable source.

As for those other articles, yeah, they are bad. Unfortunately, it is very, very easy to find bad articles. That's not an excuse for anything. Once again, Wikipedia has a spam problem. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm guessing most of Category:American self-help writers needs serious attention, and many would fail if nominated for deletion. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom. We don't operate on precedent, instead we operate on consensus.

WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean at least 3 or more editors, and it also doesn't mean that once an article is created it cannot ever be deleted. There is no way to guarantee an article will survive, but the best approach remains to stick to reliable, independent sources. If those sources don't exist, the article could get deleted at any time, much like all the other "lifestyle coach" spam littering the project.

So what sources are you proposing? BlogTalkRadio is not reliable for this article, and it is neither reliable nor independent for any proposed article on Currie. IMDB isn't reliable either, as I already mentioned.

Per WP:NYPOST, the New York Post is not reliable, either. The NYT is generally reliable, so if the NYT mentions Johnson, it would have to be evaluated in context. The story linked above, "Tesla Owners Try to Make Sense of Elon Musk’s ‘Red Pill’ Moment" doesn't mention Johnson by name, it merely mentions his conventions. Notability is not inherited, so this isn't sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

10 February 2023

Thread retitled from "manosphere too broad a term.".

Does it Make sense to place men's rights activist in the same conceptual category as misogynists and alt-right ? What about Jordan Peterson. How can you have an article about a category of all things or social movements which are for, by and about men without mentioning more centrist positions like Jordan Peterson? Does he belong in the category that holds actual radical misogynists and pick up artists? My intuition tells me there is a feminine perspective bias in this article and I would bet that is borne out once you account for the sources and references used to support the article as well as the gender of contributors to the wiki. Tom shortliffe (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The term as defined by topic scholars is as broad as they make it. Looks like there is plenty of room in the definition to hold haters and reasonable people at the same time. Wikipedia follows WP:SECONDARY sources, which are defining, so your issue would be with those sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Beet skeet (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bemrich (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

remove word misogyny remove this paragraphs:

"The manosphere overlaps with the far-right and alt-right communities.[7] It has also been associated with online harassment and has been implicated in radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women.[8] Some sources have associated manosphere-based radicalization with mass shootings motivated by misogyny.[9]"

"Associated movements The manosphere overlaps with white-supremacist and far-right ideologies,[13] including the neoreactionary, white-nationalist alt-right movement.[7] Zuckerberg writes that many alt-right members are either pick-up artists or MGTOW, and "the policing of white female sexuality is a major concern" of the alt-right.[32] The severity of the antifeminism espoused within these communities varies, with some espousing fairly mild sexism and others glorifying extreme misogyny.[33] Racism and xenophobia are also common among groups in the manosphere, and perceived threats against Western civilization are a popular topic.[34]

Radicalization and violence The manosphere has been associated with online harassment, radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women.[8] Some sources have associated manosphere-based radicalization with mass shootings motivated by misogyny.[9] Robin Mamié of École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and colleagues associate radicalization into far-right ideologies via the manosphere with the idea of the alt-right pipeline.[35][non-primary source needed] " Saie5978 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the dog 15:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

On misogyny

Manosphere is not always misoginic, just as feminism is not always misoandric. NPOV should be observed. Chronophobos (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources, as WP:NPOV requires. If they say that the Manosphere promotes misogyny (and they do), so to will the Wikipedia article. We cannot replace the reliable sources with your personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with MrOllie. A great many sources connect the manosphere with hatred of women. That is a foundational fact of this topic. Removing it would be a violation of WP:NPOV, contrary to what Chronophobos said above. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying father's rights groups satisfies the condition of being an entity that promotes hatred of women? Otherwise a distinction should be made in the article's opening or, for that matter, anywhere in the article. 35.142.81.147 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If the best available sources don't draw such a distinction, neither will the Wikipedia article. See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

In the reference Manosphere#CITEREFSugiura2021 cited for this article, under the heading "The Manosphere", the fifth paragraph in, to me, reads as such a distinction. What do you think? 35.142.81.147 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sugiura writes that the manosphere group Fathers for Justice shares many of the same views as pickup artists and all the rest. Father's rights groups are seen to work against feminism using the same hateful tactics as the other manosphere groups. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For the first point, I don't object to an edit to the page adding Fathers for Justice as belonging to the manosphere. For the second point, if the source doesn't draw such a conclusion, neither should the Wikipedia article. And if other sources do draw such a conclusion, then there are conflicting assertions made by different reliable sources. See WP:NPOV 35.142.81.147 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But Sugiura does make the point, which is why it's in the article. If there are other sources contradicting Sugiura, then they may be used if they are equally reliable and equally backed by other scholars making the same conclusion. If that's the case we could tell the reader what one group of scholars says contrasted by the findings of another scholarly group. But we are not going to set up a false balance between respected scholarly research and lesser sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with false balance. Instead the article cherry-picks Sugiura's words, since it omits her words on what the primary focus of FRAs consists of. The primary focus of FRAs seems to contradict several of her own statements, which includes one direct quote in the article. 35.142.81.147 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The section of Suguira's article you cited reads (my bolding): 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 fact that the primary focus for FRAs ... is actual men’s problems rather than espousing vitriol against women does not mean the fathers' rights movement is not part of the manosphere, or that the manosphere in general doesn't promote misogyny. There is no contradiction.

Whether the FRA movement satisfies the condition of being an entity that promotes hatred of women is irrelevant, because our article is clear that the manosphere is heterogeneous and that the specifics of each group's ideology sometimes conflict. The lead section could be expanded to include this as well IMO. Regardless, a quick Google Scholar search turned up the following:

• "Most elements of the [fathers' rights] movement evolved in ensuing decades toward extreme antifeminist and misogynist positions" —Deborah Dinner, "The Divorce Bargain: the Fathers' Rights Movement and Family Inequalities" (PDF).
• "Crowley provides evidence of disturbing and blatantly antifeminist and misogynistic views on the part of fathers' rights activists" —Heidi M. Berggren, "Defiant Dads: Fathers' Rights Activists in America. By Jocelyn Elise Crowley" (book review).
• "At first glance, the modern fathers’ rights movement and law reform efforts appear progressive ... Beneath a veneer of gender equality language and increased political savviness remains misogynistic undertones and a call to reinforce patriarchy" —Kelly Alison Behre, "Digging Beneath the Equality Language: The Influence of the Fathers' Rights Movement on Intimate Partner Violence Public Policy Debates and Family Law Reform" (PDF).
• "There has been a negative depiction of women within much of the fathers' rights discourse, and a blaming of mothers in particular, that is indicative of a virulent strand of anti-feminism, if not misogyny, within parts of the fathers' rights movement" —Richard S. Collier, "The Father's Rights Movement, Law Reform, and the New Politics of Fatherhood: Some Reflections on the UK Experience".
• "Negative and hostile depictions of women in general and single mothers in particular are the bread and butter of fathers’ rights discourse. Fathers’ rights literature routinely depicts women as parasitical, mendacious, and vindictive" —Michael G. Flood, "Separated Fathers and the 'Fathers' Rights' Movement".

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Sugiura article also specifically mentions efforts by fathers’ rights groups to undermine women’s shelters and services in the context of the backlash against feminism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If your "best available sources" are not neutral, then following those sources is a violation of a neutral point of view. An alternative is for the decision makers who choose to lock pages such as this to take on the responsibility to investigate the material themselves.I don't personally subscribe to MGTOE or other manosphere ideologies. But it doesn't take much perusal or investigation or open mindedness to find that most commentators and commentary are not misogynistic. I'd love to donate to Wikipedia this time around as I have the last two, but I'm not donating to an outlet that's turning into yet another form of biased media. 172.251.36.107 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason that they are the "best available sources" is because they are neutral, as the scholars have thoroughly researched the topic and have published their findings. The part you don't like about this topic is the part we are keeping because it is the most neutral representation of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikipedia will survive without your undoubtedly generous financial support. In the meantime, read WP:BIASED. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I'm a decently well-read person but even I had to google what heterogenous means, there should be a wiktionary link for that in case ppl are confused. Woozybydefault (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed "heterogeneous" in the lead to "diverse", which is the first synonym listed at wikt:heterogeneous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Just thought I'd point out that there are many mainstream media sources now available for this topic, that I stumbled across while making updates to Andrew Tate's page. Here's a few examples, the rest can be found with google searching in news section:

• https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199179
• https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/andrew-tate-tiktok-fame-men-2022
• https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/1/10/23547393/andrew-tate-toxic-masculinity-qa
• https://mashable.com/article/how-to-raise-a-boy-manosphere-influencers
• https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/oct/02/as-social-media-grows-kenya-so-does-disturbing-toxic-manosphere (Opinion)
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/14/manosphere-taylor-swift-cat-andrew-tate-patriarchy (Opinion)
• https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2947

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the current sources, only that there could be more added and probably more added to this stub smart-class article. Pinging main contributors here: @Sangdeboeuf @GorillaWarfare CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has about 1,600 words (not including references), so hardly a WP:STUB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies I meant "smart-class", had misread the content assessment 🤐 CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

cleaning up needed

The 1st paragraph, and the 1st paragraph in "themes and ideology" is repetitive. needs to be cleaned up Gizziiusa (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Gizziiusa (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)gizziiusa

The lead section (containing the first paragraphs) exists to summarize the article as a whole. Some amount of repetition is unavoidable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)