Talk:Misandry

​

26 April 2026

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thread retitled from When an article stops explaining a concept and starts deciding the conclusion.

The core issue with the Misandry article is structural, not merely editorial. Rather than explaining the concept of misandry, the article is organized around a prior conclusion—that misandry is negligible, exaggerated, or primarily rhetorical.

After providing a minimal definition, the article does not proceed to develop the topic in line with standard encyclopedic practice (e.g., definitions, scope, forms, historical usage, empirical research, and major interpretations). Instead, it quickly shifts to discussing who uses the term, why it is used, and how those uses are criticized. At that point, the subject of the article has effectively been displaced: from the concept itself to a meta-discussion that frames the concept as contested or invalid.

This constitutes a structural deviation from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). Per policy, articles should describe topics fairly and proportionately, presenting significant viewpoints without endorsing one. Here, however, a particular interpretive framework—largely skeptical of misandry as a meaningful phenomenon—is embedded into the article’s structure. The result is not the neutral presentation of a dispute, but the implicit resolution of that dispute through narrative design.

The article also raises concerns under Wikipedia:Due weight. Perspectives that deny or minimize misandry are presented with assertive language and explanatory depth, often framed as research-backed conclusions. In contrast, opposing perspectives are frequently reduced to formulations such as “some have claimed,” accompanied by source-labeling or motive attribution. This is not proportionate representation; it is asymmetrical framing. One set of views is treated as established knowledge, while others are preemptively marginalized.

Additionally, the article employs forms of framing that verge on pre-emptive delegitimization. By foregrounding the identity or presumed motivations of those who use the term—rather than first presenting their arguments—the text shifts evaluation from claims to claimants. This risks violating the spirit of NPOV by introducing bias through context rather than explicit assertion.

There are also issues related to Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). The use of evaluative labels such as “misandry myth” or “false equivalence” reflects strong scholarly positions, but the article often does not sufficiently contextualize these claims in terms of methodology, scope, or academic disagreement. While sources may be cited, the lack of explanatory framing limits the reader’s ability to independently assess the validity and boundaries of those conclusions.

Taken together, these issues indicate that the problem is not isolated bias in phrasing, but a deeper structural substitution: the article does not primarily explain misandry as a concept, but instead organizes content around a pre-existing stance toward it. Through definition, structure, and source presentation, it transforms a descriptive entry into a framework-driven narrative.

As such, incremental edits are unlikely to resolve the issue. A substantive restructuring would be required to align the article with NPOV, due weight, and verifiability standards—beginning with restoring the concept itself as the central subject of the entry. GabriBees (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the concerns above, the article’s editing history itself appears somewhat concerning and may warrant closer review. It may be appropriate to consider whether issues related to Wikipedia:Ownership of content are affecting its development.

If the page is currently protected, reconsidering that protection could help attract more neutral, uninvolved editors and improve balance. Experienced editors may also wish to review what further steps or processes would be appropriate in this case. GabriBees (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"man-hater feminist" represents the popular antifeminist myth which has no any scientific evidences"

What does such scientific evidence entail? The sentence is confusing Trade (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Concern about discussion suppression

The following discussion 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.

---

Please review the history/archives. There have been instances where posts raising concerns—including my recent one—were removed or downplayed without substantive replies. This makes it difficult to maintain a transparent discussion or to build genuine consensus.

When concerns are not addressed but instead fade from view without response, it raises a troubling question: are we actually addressing the issues, or simply making those who raise them disappear from the discussion?

Could experienced editors advise which processes to follow if there are concerns about article ownership or recurring issues in discussion conduct? GabriBees (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that too much discussion here falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your last message was rolled up because you posted a bunch of AI generated text, and you have apparently done so again in this section. Stop doing that, please. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That is not the case. The views I’ve expressed are my own, not AI.

I would also suggest that focusing on whether text is AI-generated may not be the most productive direction here. The more important issue is how we can improve the article and this discussion process. I hope we can keep the focus on addressing the content and concerns raised, rather than speculating about contributors’ motives.

Thank you. GabriBees (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

We've seen a lot of AI here, and your comments are full of the classic AI-signs, including characters that humans don't type because they aren't present on keyboards. Being dishonest about this will not help. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your so-called "AI-generated characters" may come from translation tools or browser. My native language is Turkish, so I need to use translation tools; otherwise, I can't communicate with you.

In the meantime, please don't abuse warning templates to suppress discussion; if you really want to use them, please attach the original guidelines or policies.

Please answer my questions, not make pointless speculations about motives. GabriBees (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Translation tools these days are AI, and they will insert stuff into your comments that you didn't really say. If you cannot read and communicate in English yourself, you have no basis to criticize this particular article. I suggest you have a look at the Turkish language Wikipedia instead. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not the case. I review everything very carefully to ensure that all the text conveys my meaning.

My English level is IELTS 7.5.

Is it worth getting hung up on this? No. Let's focus on making Wikipedia better. GabriBees (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you are capable of reviewing carefully you are capable of writing in your own words. Yes, it is worth getting hung up on this. As you have just found out, no one is going to bother to read or respond to the kind of stuff your automated system has been churning out so far. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You should point out which of my points are right, which are wrong, which are reasonable, and which are untenable.

If you can use this as an excuse to suppress my reasonable viewpoints, what reason will you use to suppress the viewpoints of other editors? Let's stop this pointless discussion. GabriBees (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Since I am unable to dig out which are your points and which are incomprehensible AI-waffle, I decline. Also see WP:TLDR. PS: It is interesting that you complain about others suppressing your viewpoint while simultaneously telling me what I should and should discuss. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

See? My goal is to keep the discussion going; your goal is to make it disappear or cease to exist. Putting everything else aside, the amount of text you've written about irrelevant issues is so enormous that you could easily find time to look at the archives and historical records of people's meaningful perspectives.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestion. GabriBees (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

the amount of text you've written about irrelevant issues is so enormous Ditto, my friend. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It is only appropriate to "keep the discussion going" if the discussion is leading to improvements in the article. It is not appropriate to use these pages for general discussion of the topic. WP:NOTFORUM applies. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

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.