Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Manosphere

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".[1][2] 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".[2] 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'".[3]

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.[4] David French argues that Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson are also part of the manosphere,[5] with Helen Lewis from The Atlantic also considering Rogan as part of the manosphere.[6]

Sources

  1. ^ Haskins, Caroline (November 7, 2024). "Rogan, Musk and an emboldened manosphere salute Trump's win: 'Let that sink in'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 8, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  2. ^ a b Merlan, Anna (August 14, 2024). "The heterodoxy: are 'free thinkers' like Joe Rogan driving young men to the right – or just confusing them?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 22, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  3. ^ Jennings, Rebecca (September 26, 2024). "The cultural power of the anti-woke tech bro". Vox. Archived from the original on October 9, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  4. ^ Marcus, Josh (November 7, 2024). "How Joe Rogan and the right-wing 'manosphere' helped propel Trump to victory in 2024". The Independent. ISSN 1741-9743. Archived from the original on November 9, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  5. ^ French, David (April 14, 2024). "Opinion: The Atmosphere of the 'Manosphere' Is Toxic". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on October 9, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.
  6. ^ Lewis, Helen (September 11, 2024). "How Joe Rogan Remade Austin". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on November 8, 2024. Retrieved November 9, 2024.

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

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.[1] 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,”[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 article was also cited out of context since the focus of the source is specifically on Andrew Tate. I moved the citation to § Further reading instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC) edited 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Collected" by who?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Useless discussion is going nowhere. Wasting the community's times is WP:Tendentious editing.

I want to be clear here, the language implies a sort of "authoritative agency", subtly suggesting the authority of the speaker to collect the designated principles into a definable entity.

I feel like in the first sentence a little more neutrality is needed here, otherwise you risk the implication that the "diverse" association described is self described by all parties. Azeranth (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly and proportionately reflecting the views of published, reliable sources. If reliable sources describe the manosphere as a diverse collection of websites and so forth, then so do we. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collection here means a 'group' or 'aggregation' of things. Diverse means 'composed of distinct or unlike elements'. Both descriptors are supported by published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf
Right, the issue here isn't "does the word collection have a meaningful semantic value" here, it's "whether the definition provided represents an imposed framework reflecting the speaker's biases, rather than an organic categorization arising from the self-conception or intrinsic connections among the members."
The question not if the sources and speakers referenced are reliable, but that the construction of the category is inherently opinionated and thus must either qualify its authority as expert analysis or reference a valid source of truth, such as the perspectives of the category members themselves or a stricter definition requiring the cointersection of all qualifying elements.
The issue with such a category error is that it allows one to derive counterfactual conclusions from unproven premises. For instance, by asserting that "the manosphere is a coherent entity with identifiable members," one might infer that "it has a unified social or political agenda," which then leads to the claim that "the manosphere coordinates its members toward a common goal." From there, it becomes possible to conclude, fallaciously, that "all members of qualifying subcategories, such as anti-feminists or MRAs, actively support and enable misogyny," and finally that "anyone who advocates for men's rights is necessarily bigoted against women."
This reasoning mirrors the flawed syllogism: "Eagles and penguins are birds. Eagles can fly. Therefore, penguins can fly." In both cases, membership in a broader category (birds or the manosphere) is wrongly assumed to convey specific attributes (flight or coordinated misogyny) without demonstrating a necessary or inherent connection.
To remediate this category error, one of two steps must be taken:
1. **Articulate the Speaker’s Point of View**: The speaker must clarify that the statement **"the manosphere is a coherent social and political entity with extant participants"** reflects their own perspective or interpretative framework. This acknowledges that the category is not an objective reality but rather a subjective construct shaped by the speaker’s biases, experiences, or analytical goals.
2. **Establish Expertise or Authority**: The speaker must substantiate their ability to define and categorize the manosphere. This requires demonstrating expertise or referencing credible sources to validate the claim that the identified groups (e.g., anti-feminists, MRAs) are members of the category as prescribed. Additionally, this would involve showing that the defined category has meaningful coherence—such as shared principles, goals, or behaviors—beyond the imposed framework.
Without addressing these points, the argument remains an unsupported and opinionated construction rather than an objective or analytically valid claim. Azeranth (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an awful lot of verbiage based on the choice of a single word - especially since you forgot to propose a replacement. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie It's a contentious page. a suitable replacement would be to identify it as "a term used in online discourse to simultaneously identify...." then it's fine from there. this altered language makes it clear that
1.) The term is constructed, and the category is not objectively implicit (in the way "the manosphere is" does)
2.) does not support derived factual claims about members merely from membership.
mostly, it's because there's a difference between nominalization of a set of properties or relationships that you can then infer members from, vice, nominalizing a set of members and inferring properties or relationships therefrom.
the latter is a vacuous category. The manner of construction does not support deriving logical inferences about its members other than "they are members of the category", which is not only rhetorically inappropriate but violates the style and prose of Wikipedia Azeranth (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any actionable complaint here. The current wording is fine as it accurately summarizes the sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet again. the complaint is not that the definition does not accurately represent the sources, but that the sources are not suitable experts to present "the manosphere" as a naturally existing category as its presently defined Azeranth (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That means you have a problem with the reliability of peer-reviewed research and analysis published by topic scholars. Your viewpoint is contradictory to Wikipedia's remit, which is to find the best sources and summarize them. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we have are a collection of academically published books and peer-reviewed sources. That is as expert as it gets in Wikipedia terms. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie You do know what a natural category is right? The point is that manosphere isn't a natural category, and it doesn't matter how many letters come after your name, you can't treat arbitrary categories as natural.
I mean, if you think I'm blowing this out go look on this very talk page. there are people in this talk page making precisely the claim that fathers rights activists have a long and well documented tendency for violence as evidenced by "they're members of the manosphere"
that's begging the question. Azeranth (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'I think the source is wrong' is not an argument that flies on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:V and WP:NOR, which are core policies here. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie I'm not claiming the source is wrong, I'm claiming the manner the source is employed her is beyond the scope of the authority of the source to violate the laws of logic and category construction Azeranth (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie It can be within the scope of a sources authority to construct categories and frameworks for the purpose of an analysis or rhetoric, and, to speak intelligently about the manner in which the phrase is used in discourse; while simultaneously being out of scope of the same source to present that subjective framework as an objective natural category.
not at all an indistinct difference. Azeranth (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference to us here on this talk page, though. You don't think the source can support the statement in the article, and others (and Wikipedia's policies) say it can. MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie So just clarify for me, when is a source sufficiently authoritative to assert the natural existence of an arbitrary category? Just to be clear, those are technical terms with specific meanings so, please use them accordingly when answering. Azeranth (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie also, you made a claim that I made a distinction without difference. I addressed and rebutted that claim. don't just shuffle on and dismiss, that's a very dishonest tactic. do you still think I'm failing to distinguish the complaint I'm making, or are you just refusing to admit my point and falling back to asserting the source is sacrosanct? The Wikipedia MOS absolutely does not permit sources to be employed beyond the authority or expertise of the subject, regardless of credentials or qualifications of the speaker, unless their comments are presented as commentary or documented opinion, not as objective facts Azeranth (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence is supposed to be simple and clear. We're not going to replace one word (which is sourced and fits fine) with nine, certainly not based on reading a bunch of implications into that word that don't exist in common parlance. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, And I really do not screeds that look like they were AI written. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller nice ad hominem attack Azeranth (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Azeranth it wasn’t meant as one. See WP:TLDR. Some people make very long detailed comments, others like me are very, probably too, succint. .if you say you aren’t using AI I assure you I’ll show good faith and accept that. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller Well that's kind of you, but no, that's just my speaking manner especially when I'm trying to lay out a point. In either case, it makes it hard to feel taken seriously when I feel I have a clear and specific point. "The current verbiage presents 'manosphere' as a natural category, when that's obviously beyond the scope of the source's authority to claim given the manner of construction (defining by members not criteria)" but everyone seems to be giving me the "so what your saying is" treatment and not engaging with the core point, which is the nature of natural categories and the way the relevant language is employed for intellectual honesty and clarity.
you can't tell me with a straight face that any statement which says "members of the manosphere are..." can be made with any intellectual rigor based on the given definition, because it's a vacuous set; yet, the definition provided is ostensibly one from a source of said rigor? Azeranth (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie They absolutely do exist, go read the time this was already brought up on a different thread about the definition itself associating MRA and misogynist. Someone literally claims that the article should stand because fathers rights activists are violent. I don't know what more proof you could need that this isn't an esoteric or contrived observation about poor logical construction Azeranth (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't assuming that MRAs are misogynist because we used the word 'collection'. Whatever you're trying to accomplish here, you're going about it in a rather backwards way. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie you're right, people are making that mistake due to the category error where the concept of manosphere is presented as a natural category, but is defined like an arbitrary one (identifying members not properties or criteria of inclusion) Azeranth (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2024

I think manoshphere does not promote misogyn Dsgeorge3005 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I think that spaghetti grows on trees but that's nobody else's problem but mine. Seriously though, this page is not for stating personal opinions about the subject. It is for specific suggestions about how to improve the article. See WP:NOTFORUM. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2024 (2)

Manashpere is not misogynstic Dsgeorge3005 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No coherent change has been requested here. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y" and should be supported with Reliable Source material. In this case we have good Reliable Sources for the current text. Just shouting an opinion is not going to get the article changed. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manosphere