This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've been trying to write some content from the perspective of these websites but many of the links are blacklisted as references. What do we do in the instances of articles that are on content that would not be considered neutral in articles unrelated to them? It seems that Stormfront (website) doesn't use the websites at all and it was the best known example I could find of an article that focuses on a hate site (even if, in this instance, not all websites included qualify as such) -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that the recent edits from new users are due to this thread [1] -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
References are referring to posts made by members of these websites concerning aesthetic appeal of women or men, and what the articles are criticising are the members' viewpoints on the apparent masculinity or femininity of a man or women, which is not actually concerning the basis of their sexuality.
Know Your Meme has a good profile of this topic here. I propose using it as a source but clearly attribute that the information is coming from this site and not in WP's voice. Cla68 ( talk) 13:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I have the book The Rational Male by Rollo Tomasi which gives a more objective view on the manosphere than many of the sources currently used. I will try to add some info to the article using that book as a source over the next week or so. Cla68 ( talk) 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this book self-published? Cla68 ( talk) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone support the idea of adding subsections on the different Manosphere websites? There could be one on the Men's rights movement, one on Pickup artists, with links to the main articles for each beneath the titles? -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 00:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[2] This material relates to the Manosphere and is reliably source. We're supposed to be building a complete article, not removing information. I think the material is relevant. Cla68 ( talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary is right that this is way off topic. Discuss the article, not each other. But the demographics WP do reveal something about WP in general... EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article currently contains an extremely pejorative presentation of the topic. Just a reminder, according to WP's policies, articles are supposed to be written in a neutral voice, which means a reader should not be able to tell which side Wikipedia is taking on the topic. Cla68 ( talk) 07:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, the article needs to be deleted or heavily revised to reach neutrality.
You must be joking if you think the current material just needs a rewrite for "tone". In its current state the article might very well be libellous.
I am working on a complete re-write of this article. Give me time to work on it Okyoureabeast ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A rewrite should refer to the previous entry, deleted on October 2012. Some of the websites are stale, but at least it's more neutral in tone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manosphere Ceese ( talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"Please this article should be recommended for deletion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.100.213 ( talk) 10:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pejoratives like "misogynistic" need to be removed from the introduction and the main article body, but only appear in the Criticism section. Currently the Criticism section is far longer than the rest of the article, which is very wrong. For comparison of other content hosting sites, neither the youtube nor vine wiki entries even have a criticism section, nor do their entries contain pejorative sections detailing possibly offensive content that readers may find on their sites. This should be used as the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese ( talk • contribs)
There have been a lot of sources attempting to draw links between Elliott Rodger and PUAHate ideology and manosphere ideology... to date I've seen no article explicitly refer to PUAHate as part of the manosphere, since it would obviously be absurd to call an explicitly, vehemently anti-manosphere and anti-PUA site part of the manosphere. It's also not a link that anyone ever made prior to the politicized discussion of the Rodger murders in which "sources" that were anti-manosphere to begin with (based on previous writings) used the incident as a club to bash the manosphere with. It tells you something that even these sources did not refer to PUAHate as a manosphere site (or a PUA site, obviously). You're making an arbitrary statement, well beyond anything in the sources, that the manosphere is defined solely by anti-feminism and all sites featuring anti-feminist content are necessarily part of the manosphere-- if you feel like that's more accurate than the definition currently in the article, and have requisite sources, go for it, and other editors can decide if the end result of that is up to Wikipedia's standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.74.63 ( talk) 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The initial criticisms of the manosphere were weak pejoratives coming from people all in a tizzy about some weirdo shooter with a Xanath addition [18] that everyone's already forgotten. Real, on point, actually useful criticisms of the manosphere should replace this:
The source 'The Guardian' does not state that Rodgers posted to Manosphere websites. Again, it's original research to imply or heavily imply connections to the article's topic when no reliable source backs it up. Here's what The Guardian states One of the most successful communities in the "manosphere" is Reddit's Red Pill. It has almost 53,000 subscribers who believe that women are designed solely for sex and sandwich-making. (I'm paraphrasing, but barely – one email I got this week suggested that "the women's movement is breaking the circle of life, and our humanity"). The part about Rogers is where a 22-year-old man with direct links to men's rights activism posted videos in misogynist forums promising to "slaughter" the "sluts" who rejected him) was the first confirmation that we are right not to laugh off the approaches of these anonymous and raging men. The 'related website' portion is trying to have its cake and eat it too, by having a connection by some chance of Rodgers posting to these 'manosphere' websites, but the source does not say that, so therefore we can't imply it either. Also, I left a note on the IP editor's talk page about 1 revert rule. This article is under probation and one editor can only make one revert per 24 hours. Any gaming of the system can also result in a block, even if it's out of 24 hours, given interpretation. Tutelary ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Tutelary, this is exactly right and why I deleted that line in the first place, the phrase was an attempt to create a connection between Rodger and the manosphere without backing it up with a source. As a side note this entire page appears to have been set up on May 30 as an attempt to link the manosphere to Rodger, rather than an attempt to accurately describe the topic of the article. I believe by the same editor who wrote the "related websites" phrase. 70.208.84.138 ( talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The attributed quote does not appear to be in the linked source. Ceese ( talk) 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The Dreher quote used on the page is misleading and out of context. The phrase "as far as I've read its stuff," in the full context of the article indicates that Rod Dreher has not read a whole lot of its stuff, in which case why is he being quoted here. Furthermore his larger point is that he's agreeing with what he perceives to be a manosphere principal (that women are attracted to men who treated them badly). It appears whoever used this is bending over backwards to show that a conservative has criticized the manosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upgrade upgrayedd ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone mind telling me where in the linked sources this statement is justified "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence."? I've looked through the sources linked and I can't find the justification for this statement. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Whether you, as an editor, believe the quotes are "cherry picked" by the SPLC and ABC is irrelevant. I believe there are worse quotes from these sites and harsher wording is in order. But we go by what reliable sources state. To argue that the sources don't give examples of sexual abuse(Rape) and domestic violence is not possible. It's right there in the sources. Dave Dial ( talk) 16:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Some of these forums have been described in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence.
So, if you wish a harsher description, I could see that. To pretend that the descriptions don't mention sexual abuse and domestic violence is just plain wrong. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM): “women haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations,” whose rage is “directed at all women, not only perceived feminists.”
Agreed there is nothing in the source supporting that claim. The editor who keeps putting that line back seems to think the mere fact that the SPLC provided quotes from blogs discussing the issues of sexual abuse and domestic violence justifies the wording of the line. It doesn't. The wording is very specific-- it states that the SPLC believes these sites are misogynistic particularly with regard to these issues. For that to be a line that makes it to Wikipedia the SPLC has to have actually expressed such a sentiment. For example... does the SPLC believe that advocating for men who have been falsely accused of rape is "misogynistic with regard to sexual abuse?" Maybe it does! But it doesn't say so, therefore Wikipedia can't say so.
Repeatedly saying "the blog examples discuss sexual abuse and domestic violence" is a waste of everyone's time frankly because nobody denied that. We're looking for where the SPLC says what Wikipedia is saying it says, and after 24 hours of parsing a 700 or so word article, nobody's been able to come up with anything.
Perhaps re-phrasing the sentence to accurately reflect the source (instead of removing the whole phrase) would be a compromise. It also really doesn't belong in an opening paragraph. I'm not touching it anymore personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, if whoever originally wrote that line is still reading the page, could he/she indicate what it even means to think a blog is misogynistic (ie woman-hating) particularly with regard to sexual abuse and/or domestic violence? The accusation (which again, the SPLC did not make) sounds like weasel-words insinuating that the manosphere encourages people to rape and encourages people to beat up women. Do you now see why it's important whether the source actually said what's in the article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 ( talk) 01:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I read the reports and they didnt give a partial retraction. They expanded on the original post and made it clear that it wasnt intended to be a hate group listing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It also seems to say that it has been described "in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" as being misogynistic regarding those things. So it would be in any of the sources saying that it is "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence", not just the SPLC
I presume it means all of the media coverage rather than that one article. Should more references be added to that line?
Also I have a question about the Taki's Magazine source. It's run by Taki Theodoracopulos who has ties with Greek fascist party Golden Dawn and has published fascist apologetic articles. Does wikipedia have a specific policy on using fascist websites as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a poorly-written article, but the part of it I want addressed is "Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post accuses them of excluding gay, lesbian, and transgender people." Well so what? I'm gay, and I regularly participate in some parts of the so-called "manosphere", and other gay people are also participating, as are transmen and transwomen. I have never felt excluded in any way, nor have I seen any exclusion. I find it very, very hard to believe that I would have missed this, as I am very attuned to anti-LGBT discrimination. That sentence about Caitlin appears to be included solely to defame and mislead. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
They are pretty much 50/50 libertarian and conservative, so most of the homophobic sentiments come from the more conservative websites. From my experience they are much more anti-trans than anti-gay and more ignorant than hateful concerning gay people like myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely clunky phrase, especially for a heading. Would something like "Media reaction" be cleaner and more appropriate? PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also read that the Anti-Pick Up Artists are somehow a part of the Manosphere, at-least since the Isla Vista shootings, by this logic should we also put fascists and anti-fascists into the same category. Also having spent a large amount of time in the Men's Rights Movement I have yet to see any pick-up artists, ¿where does this relation(ship) stem from? ¿shouldn't the term be used as an umbrella-term rather than an organisation? -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 21:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Where did it originate? It seems to be a terms largely used to criticise and the men's rights movement by feminist writers, according to the sources used in the article... Zambelo; talk 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
[27] and [28] Tonicthebrown ( talk) 04:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
F. Roger Devlin's essay Sexual Utopia in Power, originally published within The Occidental Quarterly, had a huge influence within the Manosphere, particularly on Roissy of Chateau Heartiste and the Red Pill subreddit. Would it be possible to note this in article? -- 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is easily the shittiest, most biased entry I've seen in a while. And why the hell is it part of Wiki Project Feminism?
I'm excited about this lemma! I just wanted to link someone to a broad overview of the "Manosphere" (biased or not) and found this weird entry. Well, "let's look at the pre-Elliot-Rodger version of the article, it might be vandalized", I thought, just to find out, that the whole lemma was created a week ago in reaction to the events, as if such a thing didn't exist before. Perfect! I always searched for a "Wikipedia's failure as an encyclopedia in a nutshell" and how it's used as a campaign tool to fake reality instead describing it. Now I found this absolutely perfect example. Thank you very much for this, I will use it in my research work. -- 89.204.135.53 ( talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is INCREDIBLY unbalanced and biased towards the Men's movement. It paints only a blanket negative light on everything with extreme feminist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.128.10 ( talk) 23:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've been trying to write some content from the perspective of these websites but many of the links are blacklisted as references. What do we do in the instances of articles that are on content that would not be considered neutral in articles unrelated to them? It seems that Stormfront (website) doesn't use the websites at all and it was the best known example I could find of an article that focuses on a hate site (even if, in this instance, not all websites included qualify as such) -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that the recent edits from new users are due to this thread [1] -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
References are referring to posts made by members of these websites concerning aesthetic appeal of women or men, and what the articles are criticising are the members' viewpoints on the apparent masculinity or femininity of a man or women, which is not actually concerning the basis of their sexuality.
Know Your Meme has a good profile of this topic here. I propose using it as a source but clearly attribute that the information is coming from this site and not in WP's voice. Cla68 ( talk) 13:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I have the book The Rational Male by Rollo Tomasi which gives a more objective view on the manosphere than many of the sources currently used. I will try to add some info to the article using that book as a source over the next week or so. Cla68 ( talk) 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this book self-published? Cla68 ( talk) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone support the idea of adding subsections on the different Manosphere websites? There could be one on the Men's rights movement, one on Pickup artists, with links to the main articles for each beneath the titles? -- 31.205.21.96 ( talk) 00:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[2] This material relates to the Manosphere and is reliably source. We're supposed to be building a complete article, not removing information. I think the material is relevant. Cla68 ( talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary is right that this is way off topic. Discuss the article, not each other. But the demographics WP do reveal something about WP in general... EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article currently contains an extremely pejorative presentation of the topic. Just a reminder, according to WP's policies, articles are supposed to be written in a neutral voice, which means a reader should not be able to tell which side Wikipedia is taking on the topic. Cla68 ( talk) 07:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
As it stands, the article needs to be deleted or heavily revised to reach neutrality.
You must be joking if you think the current material just needs a rewrite for "tone". In its current state the article might very well be libellous.
I am working on a complete re-write of this article. Give me time to work on it Okyoureabeast ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
A rewrite should refer to the previous entry, deleted on October 2012. Some of the websites are stale, but at least it's more neutral in tone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manosphere Ceese ( talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"Please this article should be recommended for deletion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.100.213 ( talk) 10:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pejoratives like "misogynistic" need to be removed from the introduction and the main article body, but only appear in the Criticism section. Currently the Criticism section is far longer than the rest of the article, which is very wrong. For comparison of other content hosting sites, neither the youtube nor vine wiki entries even have a criticism section, nor do their entries contain pejorative sections detailing possibly offensive content that readers may find on their sites. This should be used as the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese ( talk • contribs)
There have been a lot of sources attempting to draw links between Elliott Rodger and PUAHate ideology and manosphere ideology... to date I've seen no article explicitly refer to PUAHate as part of the manosphere, since it would obviously be absurd to call an explicitly, vehemently anti-manosphere and anti-PUA site part of the manosphere. It's also not a link that anyone ever made prior to the politicized discussion of the Rodger murders in which "sources" that were anti-manosphere to begin with (based on previous writings) used the incident as a club to bash the manosphere with. It tells you something that even these sources did not refer to PUAHate as a manosphere site (or a PUA site, obviously). You're making an arbitrary statement, well beyond anything in the sources, that the manosphere is defined solely by anti-feminism and all sites featuring anti-feminist content are necessarily part of the manosphere-- if you feel like that's more accurate than the definition currently in the article, and have requisite sources, go for it, and other editors can decide if the end result of that is up to Wikipedia's standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.74.63 ( talk) 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The initial criticisms of the manosphere were weak pejoratives coming from people all in a tizzy about some weirdo shooter with a Xanath addition [18] that everyone's already forgotten. Real, on point, actually useful criticisms of the manosphere should replace this:
The source 'The Guardian' does not state that Rodgers posted to Manosphere websites. Again, it's original research to imply or heavily imply connections to the article's topic when no reliable source backs it up. Here's what The Guardian states One of the most successful communities in the "manosphere" is Reddit's Red Pill. It has almost 53,000 subscribers who believe that women are designed solely for sex and sandwich-making. (I'm paraphrasing, but barely – one email I got this week suggested that "the women's movement is breaking the circle of life, and our humanity"). The part about Rogers is where a 22-year-old man with direct links to men's rights activism posted videos in misogynist forums promising to "slaughter" the "sluts" who rejected him) was the first confirmation that we are right not to laugh off the approaches of these anonymous and raging men. The 'related website' portion is trying to have its cake and eat it too, by having a connection by some chance of Rodgers posting to these 'manosphere' websites, but the source does not say that, so therefore we can't imply it either. Also, I left a note on the IP editor's talk page about 1 revert rule. This article is under probation and one editor can only make one revert per 24 hours. Any gaming of the system can also result in a block, even if it's out of 24 hours, given interpretation. Tutelary ( talk) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Tutelary, this is exactly right and why I deleted that line in the first place, the phrase was an attempt to create a connection between Rodger and the manosphere without backing it up with a source. As a side note this entire page appears to have been set up on May 30 as an attempt to link the manosphere to Rodger, rather than an attempt to accurately describe the topic of the article. I believe by the same editor who wrote the "related websites" phrase. 70.208.84.138 ( talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The attributed quote does not appear to be in the linked source. Ceese ( talk) 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The Dreher quote used on the page is misleading and out of context. The phrase "as far as I've read its stuff," in the full context of the article indicates that Rod Dreher has not read a whole lot of its stuff, in which case why is he being quoted here. Furthermore his larger point is that he's agreeing with what he perceives to be a manosphere principal (that women are attracted to men who treated them badly). It appears whoever used this is bending over backwards to show that a conservative has criticized the manosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upgrade upgrayedd ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone mind telling me where in the linked sources this statement is justified "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence."? I've looked through the sources linked and I can't find the justification for this statement. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Whether you, as an editor, believe the quotes are "cherry picked" by the SPLC and ABC is irrelevant. I believe there are worse quotes from these sites and harsher wording is in order. But we go by what reliable sources state. To argue that the sources don't give examples of sexual abuse(Rape) and domestic violence is not possible. It's right there in the sources. Dave Dial ( talk) 16:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Some of these forums have been described in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence.
So, if you wish a harsher description, I could see that. To pretend that the descriptions don't mention sexual abuse and domestic violence is just plain wrong. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM): “women haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations,” whose rage is “directed at all women, not only perceived feminists.”
Agreed there is nothing in the source supporting that claim. The editor who keeps putting that line back seems to think the mere fact that the SPLC provided quotes from blogs discussing the issues of sexual abuse and domestic violence justifies the wording of the line. It doesn't. The wording is very specific-- it states that the SPLC believes these sites are misogynistic particularly with regard to these issues. For that to be a line that makes it to Wikipedia the SPLC has to have actually expressed such a sentiment. For example... does the SPLC believe that advocating for men who have been falsely accused of rape is "misogynistic with regard to sexual abuse?" Maybe it does! But it doesn't say so, therefore Wikipedia can't say so.
Repeatedly saying "the blog examples discuss sexual abuse and domestic violence" is a waste of everyone's time frankly because nobody denied that. We're looking for where the SPLC says what Wikipedia is saying it says, and after 24 hours of parsing a 700 or so word article, nobody's been able to come up with anything.
Perhaps re-phrasing the sentence to accurately reflect the source (instead of removing the whole phrase) would be a compromise. It also really doesn't belong in an opening paragraph. I'm not touching it anymore personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 ( talk) 00:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, if whoever originally wrote that line is still reading the page, could he/she indicate what it even means to think a blog is misogynistic (ie woman-hating) particularly with regard to sexual abuse and/or domestic violence? The accusation (which again, the SPLC did not make) sounds like weasel-words insinuating that the manosphere encourages people to rape and encourages people to beat up women. Do you now see why it's important whether the source actually said what's in the article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 ( talk) 01:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I read the reports and they didnt give a partial retraction. They expanded on the original post and made it clear that it wasnt intended to be a hate group listing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It also seems to say that it has been described "in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" as being misogynistic regarding those things. So it would be in any of the sources saying that it is "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence", not just the SPLC
I presume it means all of the media coverage rather than that one article. Should more references be added to that line?
Also I have a question about the Taki's Magazine source. It's run by Taki Theodoracopulos who has ties with Greek fascist party Golden Dawn and has published fascist apologetic articles. Does wikipedia have a specific policy on using fascist websites as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a poorly-written article, but the part of it I want addressed is "Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post accuses them of excluding gay, lesbian, and transgender people." Well so what? I'm gay, and I regularly participate in some parts of the so-called "manosphere", and other gay people are also participating, as are transmen and transwomen. I have never felt excluded in any way, nor have I seen any exclusion. I find it very, very hard to believe that I would have missed this, as I am very attuned to anti-LGBT discrimination. That sentence about Caitlin appears to be included solely to defame and mislead. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
They are pretty much 50/50 libertarian and conservative, so most of the homophobic sentiments come from the more conservative websites. From my experience they are much more anti-trans than anti-gay and more ignorant than hateful concerning gay people like myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely clunky phrase, especially for a heading. Would something like "Media reaction" be cleaner and more appropriate? PearlSt82 ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also read that the Anti-Pick Up Artists are somehow a part of the Manosphere, at-least since the Isla Vista shootings, by this logic should we also put fascists and anti-fascists into the same category. Also having spent a large amount of time in the Men's Rights Movement I have yet to see any pick-up artists, ¿where does this relation(ship) stem from? ¿shouldn't the term be used as an umbrella-term rather than an organisation? -- 86.81.201.94 ( talk) 21:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Where did it originate? It seems to be a terms largely used to criticise and the men's rights movement by feminist writers, according to the sources used in the article... Zambelo; talk 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
[27] and [28] Tonicthebrown ( talk) 04:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
F. Roger Devlin's essay Sexual Utopia in Power, originally published within The Occidental Quarterly, had a huge influence within the Manosphere, particularly on Roissy of Chateau Heartiste and the Red Pill subreddit. Would it be possible to note this in article? -- 80.193.191.143 ( talk) 12:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is easily the shittiest, most biased entry I've seen in a while. And why the hell is it part of Wiki Project Feminism?
I'm excited about this lemma! I just wanted to link someone to a broad overview of the "Manosphere" (biased or not) and found this weird entry. Well, "let's look at the pre-Elliot-Rodger version of the article, it might be vandalized", I thought, just to find out, that the whole lemma was created a week ago in reaction to the events, as if such a thing didn't exist before. Perfect! I always searched for a "Wikipedia's failure as an encyclopedia in a nutshell" and how it's used as a campaign tool to fake reality instead describing it. Now I found this absolutely perfect example. Thank you very much for this, I will use it in my research work. -- 89.204.135.53 ( talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is INCREDIBLY unbalanced and biased towards the Men's movement. It paints only a blanket negative light on everything with extreme feminist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.128.10 ( talk) 23:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)