Talk:YesAllWomen

Notability?

Not to demean any causes, but this is an article about a Twitter hashtag that is five days old. Are we absolutely sure this fits with the notability guidelines? I mean, five days is an awful short amount of time for something to have "helped illustrate how pervasive the gendered violence, harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination women continue to face around the world."24.152.180.71 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The notability seems pretty clear to me. Regarding the content issue, I think I've fixed it: [1]. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP editor brings up a good point regarding notability guidelines. Seems reasonable to consider if this should be a stand alone article or should instead be merged into 2014 Isla Vista Massacre page and/or related feminism pages.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how this is notable. It's a little ridiculous to set a precedent to make an article for every hashtag that had some level of attention; for instance, #Bringbackourgirls just redirects to the article on the kidnappings. This should, at best, be a redirect into 2014 Isla Vista killings#Debate about misogyny. Rhydic (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the articles I've seen about the hashtag consider the hashtag as the primary subject, and only discuss the killings in relation to the hashtag's origin. e.g. Daily Beast, Forbes, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, LA Times. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion articles do little to support the need for this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a way to validate shared sentiment. 59.167.110.137 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconding the examples of stand-alone merit Odie5533 provided as evidence the discussion and the resulting archive have broad cultural implications that readers will find notable. Not sure how to parse "This is an encyclopedia, not a way to validate shared sentiment" in terms of relative subject merit. I guess lots of people think Star Wars, Grand Theft Auto, and The Big Bang Theory are very notable, having contributed to our cultural discourse? If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that wants to argue notability to refuse brief documentation of published social commentary, but clearly does include lots of detailed information about television shows, movies, and video games, the "notability" distinction here is blatantly disingenuous and either random or biased along gender lines. The "op-ed" distinction is also entirely subjective. The articles are from established sources. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I created this, so I should chime in about why I thought it was notable. I agree with Odie that while the movement may have started because of one violent act, it quickly transformed into much more than that. That's why I feel it deserves a page where it's separate from the article about the killings. As a side note (and a response to the social media comment), I think we should consider that social media is a space where a lot of women speak out, unlike on the rest of the internet. Perhaps we should consider some leniency with our idea of notability when we want more representation of women (content-wise and editor-wise) on Wikipedia. Also, though you may consider the references op-eds, they're in legitimate sources that typically meet notability requirements. Jami430 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on whether this should have an article (although the thought of every transiently popular Twitter meme getting a Wikipedia article is alarming), but it's worth noting that Wikipedia generally expects the subjects of articles to demonstrate notability over an extended period of time rather than in a brief burst of news coverage. If they're still talking about this one two weeks or two months from now, it would clearly be notable; but if the media coverage dies down quickly, it may not pass the notability test after all. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's notable now, then it's notable. See Notability is not temporary. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not feel this article is notable and was surprised to see it even existed. I haven't heard it discussed anywhere in media - at all (but personally obv.). I would support this article being merged into or redirecting to the 2014 Isla Vista killings#Debate about misogyny page. I do not agree that a stand alone article on a twitter hashtag should exist. A Canadian Toker 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

Major news outlets such as Democracy Now! [2], NPR [3], Mother Jones[4], LA Times [5],and others have covered the campaign as a cultural phenomenon. It's not "just a hashtag." It's an online archive of the international population's commentary on women's health and human rights. The page is brief and describes the history and nature of that archive and its social impact. Why is this is a "notability" issue, but pages detailing episodes of The Simpsons and The X-Files pilot episode are clearly notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic context? ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Present or past tense?

It's been about a week or so since this hashtag started to gain traction and it isn't trending anymore on any social network. Given the naturally fast pace of social media and the mainstream media who only make mention of topics like this which virtually always go forgotten relatively quickly, is it not appropriate that this short-lived, slacktivist hashtag be rewritten in the past tense? 107.226.24.237 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't think the article should be written entirely in past tense, since the hashtag is still used. But I've changed some of the tenses back to what I hope is a possible compromise. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Hashtag

I've added information about some news peoples who were critical of the hash tag, as it related to the Isla Vista Shootings. I added the following from the corresponding section on the Isla vista section to balance out the neutrality of this article.

Some women, such as Samantha Levine, a columnist at The Daily Beast, argued that women conflating their experiences with dress codes and men whistling with Rodger's violent attacks risks women who have been actual victims of violence using the hashtag not being taken seriously. Other examples of trivializing #YesAllWomen tweets included of "I’ve never seen a hot husband with a fat wife on a sitcom" and women being asked to smile.

A Canadian Toker 04:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the cited addition. I tweaked it slightly to avoid weasel words. The example tweets are a bit confusing, and the sentence is not grammatically correct. Are they examples of women posting situations which would trivialize the hashtag, or examples of tweets which are intended to trivialize the hashtag? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Odie, I am unsure if the they are examples of women unintentionally trivializing the hashtag or people intentionally trivializing it. I merely grabbed it from the Isla Vista article. A Canadian Toker 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

NotAllMen Redirects to this page

I do not think having 'NotAllMen' redirect to this page is wise. This article's only mention of the NotAllMen twitter hastag is the sentence It was also a response to another hashtag, "#NotAllMen"

If we are going to maintain the redirect from NotAllMen to this page I think it is important to try and integrate a bit more information about the NotAllMen hashtag and why the YesAllWomen tweeters felt they needed to respond to NotAllMen. I would preferably remove the NotAllMen redirect to this article and remove the sentence talking about it. Thoughts?A Canadian Toker 04:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't use the existence of the redirect as the impetus to expand the article in one direction or another, though it could use a bit of background about the other hashtag. There's not really a better place for the redirect to go, so if not here then the redirect could just be deleted since we don't have anything discussing it. This page doesn't need to incorporate NotAllMen just because it's a redirect. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should remove the redirect. If the NotAllMen hashtag is that noteworthy it should get its own page. I don't think it should even mentioned here.A Canadian Toker 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

YesAllWomen was created in response to NotAllMen, so not mentioning it is rather silly. However, YesAllWomen got a lot of coverage, while NotallMen did not, so it's better to keep the redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that not mentioning NotAllMen is silly, although I'm not sure why it's notable enough to deserve a redirect (which implies it will be talked about in depth) or even more than a passing mention. - Shiori (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, redirects do not imply in-depth coverage, merely that the redirect points to whatever we have on a subject. The correct way to approach having a redirect deleted is explained at WP:R#CRD. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess "in depth" was a miswording on my part. What I meant was if someone were to do an accidental link to NotAllMen (which everyone agrees shouldn't have an article since it's not notable), and they come here, there is literally only one sentence explaining why they wound up here. At the very least there needs to be a hatnote explaining the redirect. I still prefer the removal of the redirect, though, since it's extremely tangential to the subject matter. - Shiori (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's useful, but I understand your concern. My primary point was WP:RFD is the right venue for that, and if you think it should be deleted, then I encourage you to begin a discussion there. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirect is up for deletion review. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this redirect's entry on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page. - Shiori (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

---

The result of this discussion was to keep the page where it is. There are obviously two sides to the arguments here, but there seems to be an larger number of editors who oppose merging the article at this point. If anyone wants to revert me, go ahead, but I am going to boldly close it this right now, since I do not see a merge proposal happening anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)}}

Officially disputing closure for now; I'd prefer that an administrator decide on both counts. 3 days I believe is not enough time, but unlike the afd, the !vote here seems to be split more jaggedly than the afd, which was closed on WP:SNOW bounds. However, if an admin were to decide to close this, I would not dispute this again. Tutelary (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that YesAllWomen be merged into 2014 Isla Vista killings. I think that the content in the YesALlWomen article can easily be explained in the context of the isla vista shootings. Having a standalone article for a tweet hashtag related to the shootings is unnecessary. Merging the information into this article will not cause any problems in the Isla Vista article as far as article size is concerned. This hastag is not a discreet subject and it does not warrant its own page.

• Overlap: This article almost completely overlaps the information contained in the Isla Vista article.
• Text: It is unlikely that this page will ever be exapanded. Its not even trending any more
• Context: this article is short and relies heavily on the context of the 2014 Isla Vista killings

Discussion

• Oppose - For the following reasons:

The hashtag may of originated due to certain actions by somebody but was in response to a much much wider issue of violence and misogyny towards women, to sugest it is limited to that violent occurance by merging it with it is idiotic to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.130.146 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support: for reasons above

A Canadian Toker 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

PS I would suggest merging it into the 2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny section. A Canadian Toker 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the following reasons:

1. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia."

2. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia."

3. As of today, this hashtag still comes up in the news with regard to broader conversations about gender relations that have expanded beyond the Isla Vista killings, Odie5533 makes a similar point in the notability section of this talk. --Formidiable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formidiable (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Anybody can add a Wikiproject, and those are templates automatically added. An article being in scope of a Wikiproject does not automatically make it notable. I'm not gonna comment on your third point, just wanted to note that. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the article is merged, the redirect would remain, and the redirect could be tagged to those projects. I think only time will tell if this tag has staying power.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - hashtag alone is sufficiently notable for its own page. Not all hashtags are sufficiently notable but this one is. snug (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current citations already note the hashtag as expanding further than Isla Vista. But regardless, it is premature to enter into notability discussion whilst publicity and discourse of the topic remain high. marp (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be 3 separate ongoing discussions concerning this article. We have a discussion at AfD (which includes editor's suggestions about merging), this discussion here on this talk page about merging, and a separate discussion about merging at the talk page at 2014 Isla Vista killings. If the consensus is to keep the article, then these 2 separate discussions + discussion at AfD about merging will not matter, but if the consensus is to delete the article, then let's make sure that these 2 separate discussions on merging + the discussion at AfD are all taken into consideration. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also a related effort to delete the "#NotAllMen" redirect, being discussed here. Agyle (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - #YesAllWomen is only in part a response to the Isla Vista shootings. Among other things, it's a response to #NotAllMen, which preceded the Isla Vista events by several months. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do not close prematurely Just because another discussion happened after it was proposed for merging does not make this discussion void. Consensus will be assessed with both of their regards. Tutelary (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This was a response to perceived misogyny in the Isla Vista shootings, and is otherwise not notable enough for its own article. This would be akin to putting #CancelColbert in its own page, instead of in "Culture impact of the Colbert Report" where it belongs. Also, the merge would allow the perspective necessary for requisite neutrality. --Vreddy92 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I have to speak up and say I feel incredibly uncomfortable about the idea of taking this topic—one about women discussing times when they've felt intimidation and fear—and redirecting readers to an article about a murderer who wanted to slaughter women (his words). Doesn't this seem problematic to anyone else? Jami430 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article about a murderer, this is an article about a series of murders, and that series of murders was one of the things that triggered this yesallwomen conversation. If, in the long term, this topic isn't seen to be notable enough to stand alone, then it needs to redirect. A redirect to the relevant section of that page is the most sensible thing (I suppose it could also redirect to a section in the sexism page or misogyny page or something similar, but since the exposition of the hashtag will likely always remain in the article about the murders that's the best place to redirect it if that decision meets with consensus.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Jami430: No, you are not the only person who thought that, and i'm glad you said so. Even if in this case it turns out to be unavoidable (I don't know), I think it's a shame when we look to policy without even attempting to consider the consequences, that was something that played out quite poorly in how we dealt with "Jews and Communism" as well. In any case, I just wanted to say, "no, you are not the only person who noticed that problem." --j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The hashtag is somewhat incidentally related to the killing, in that it was first used in a discussion of the IV killings, but it is often used in a wider context unrelated to the incident, and was created in direct reponse to the #NotAllMen hashtag (and general "not all men" argument) which preceded the IV killings. Agyle (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It notably exists separate from from the incident that created it. Dream Focus 22:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Since the AfD was closed with the result being to keep this article, this discussion and the one on the talk page at 2014 Isla Vista killings should be closed as well, shouldn't they. The overwhelming consensus on both talk pages is not to merge. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Merge This hashtag is part of the political reaction to the killings, and really has no meaning beyond that context. It is all one and the same thing, and should all be in one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for multiple, independent reasons, each sufficient
  1. As a procedural matter, this discussion should be closed as keep with deference to the community consensus at AfD, per WP:CONLIMITED, which is policy.
  2. On the merits: Because it is false to suggest that this has no meaning beyond that context, when reliable sources say things like "The hashtag #YesAllWomen was not just a response to Elliot Rodger and the extreme sexism of his manifesto and YouTube trove, recorded before his UC-Santa Barbara rampage. More than that, it was a response to the #NotAllMen crowd, people quick to “explain” that not all men are violent and abusive toward women." (Washington Post), as well as widely-published discussions such as [6], which do not even mention the Isla Vista shootings. These same sources demonstrate notability under our general notability guideline independent of the context of the shooting, so the argument that this doesn't have independent argument is mistaken as well.
  3. Because, as a matter of editorial judgment, I feel that an appropriate discussion of this tag and movement would be overweight at the shootings article. That article should probably limit its coverage to around a paragraph or so, in my editorial judgment, and refer readers here for the broader analysis.
  4. Because, as Jami430 points out, as a matter of personal judgment, we should, at the margin at very least, consider the impact of a redirect on the people most affected. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• alternative Another merge target might be Violence against women or Misogyny.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• "Oppose"' The content of the Twitter discussion was focused on a much broader issue than one crazy shooter. And there has been enough media coverage of this to prove its notability, independent of the shootings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm not sure if it has due weight in the story of the killings to be merged into the article. It was an event of itself inspired by the shootings but it stands by itself as an article 31.205.21.96 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While in general I don't like the idea of a Twitter hashtag having it's own wiki page, this article is no longer a stub, and the amount of content would constitute undue weight in the 2014 Isla Vista Killings article. Also, spreading the content out to other feminism articles would seem disjointed. This hashtag received enough media coverage and the current article has enough good content to be a stand alone article, so oppose the merge. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge tag

Why was the previously deleted merge tag re-added? The consensus on the articles for deletion page discussion was to keep this, at least for now. If it were to be deleted, content could have been merged into 2014 Isla Vista article, but the consensus was to keep the article so it seems merge discussion tags should be deleted.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the person who officially contested. Although I note WP:CONLIMITED, I believe that deletion and merging are two different things, and should be decided in both of their regards. Additionally, the close was done by a non-admin under certain criteria such as WP:SNOW (or the implication thereof). If an admin decides to close this merge discussion and assess consensus, I will not contest it again. Tutelary (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there is some value in keeping this open. Ktr didn't close this on CONLIMITED, the reasoning read to me more like SNOW. (If the reasoning had been CONLIMITED I probably would have supported keeping it closed, I think that's a straightforward application of policy, and Ktr is a respected long-term contributor here. The claim you need an admin bit for that doesn't move me, and I'm speaking as someone who has one.) As a "what is the consensus here locally, on the merits question, I can even see the argument for closing... it doesn't have a snowball's chance of closing "merge". But it might still close "no consensus" or "don't merge", and there's some value in waiting to find out which it is. (Bias disclaimer: I've opined above strongly in favor of "do not merge.") --j⚛e decker^talk 16:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge Tag siege

Why should there be a third chance for this tag? CCC is for next year, or at least next quarter, not the day after. Tutelary and, afaict, Joe Decker are, in the #Merge tag section, both ignoring the #Discussion started in the #Merger proposal section. Why would CONLIMITED apply here? There is nothing to trump. There is no need for the wider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YesAllWomen AfD to trump the limited talk page discussion, as the talk page discussion is against merge. There are twenty three people at the AfD who want it kept, vs three who wanted it merged, and eight at the discussion who specifically vote against merge, vs three again. Adding the merge tag yet again is tendentious forum shopping. Anarchangel (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anarchangel: I am doing this due to the merge tag being added before the article was nominated for deletion. In addition, the discussion is not yet closed officially, as I disputed a closure by an experienced editor because I believe the discussion is not straightforward like the afd. I acknowledge that it will likely lead to a not merged result, and I accept that. I just want it to be officially closed by an admin, as it isn't WP:SNOW like the afd. If you wish, you could seek an uninvolved admin at WP:AN to close the discussion. You have my word I will not dispute an official admin closure. Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gee, thanks. You'll just "dispute" the other 31 people's consensus, then. Anarchangel (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I was going at. I've already explained why I disputed it, and the afd I believe has an official consensus response by a wide variety of editors. I just want this merge discussion to be officially assessed by an admin and then closed. The WP:CONLIMITED mention was an acknowledgement that the afd was stronger. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You've misread me entirely. I believe that if you examine everything I've said on this page, my view will be clear. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Was that to me or Anarchangel? If so, which response? It seems out of context. Tutelary (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Anarchangel misread me entirely. I conveyed that poorly, sorry about that. I'll break that out below. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Anarchangel, you've misread me entirely. I believe that if you examine everything I've said on this page, my view will be clear. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• As the admin who closed the AfD, I should have been a little clearer. I saw absolutely no consensus to merge this article into 2014 Isla Vista killings. If needs be, I'll amend the closure to state that, but I'm pretty sure you guys can resolve this here without doing that. In short; "Keep, with no consensus to merge" - Alison ^❤ 22:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  I don't believe there is any argument on what the AfD said. What is lacking, if I understand your intent correctly, so far is an uninvolved admin, like yourself, hatting the merge discussion arguing that the AfD decision takes precedence over that the merger discussion per CONLIMITED. I would love to do it myself, but I've expressed an opinion on the question on the merits, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If I could add my comment, I could request an uninvolved admin (who I can see in blue on my watchlist due to a userscript), using a neutral message to request the hatting of this. I just really thought it should have been formally closed, which was why I was so adamant about it. No intent to cause anybody any stress or fret about anything. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• ok -  Done - Alison ^❤ 23:26, 11 June 2014 (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.

In popular culture

Hello everyone! I've went ahead and included an "In popular culture" section which, so far, has only one entry about a political cartoon The New York Times refused to print that critiqued the Men's rights activist response. Feel free to expand.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This article has also been mentioned in a meta kind of way in popular culture on jezebel which could go in the in popular culture section as well? I think it is relevant as the article is about the hashtag as well as about the page about the hashtag. Lathomas64 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a good article. Great comments section, too. In which one intrepid reader notes Wikipedia's page for the Youtube video Charlie Bit My Finger. Which apparently is very, very notable. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as this topic is socially relevant it will be attacked by MRAs, and as long as it is new it will be questioned by WP regulars. A 2007 video has the benefit of years of notability vs. days. There are always people who question the notability of something in the early days, esp. something internet-famous. The deletion and merger requests are groundless, but please be careful not to lump the WP deletionists in with the MRA nutjobs. There aren't a lot of WP articles on hashtags so this is a little ground-breaking. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All points well made, well taken, and much appreciated, JohnnyMrNinja. The "hashtags aren't real" issue seems to be partly driving the debate, and that's understandable. Speaking as a publishing professional (my actual job for the last decade, in actual life), I think it's useful to understand large-scale Twitter projects like this as collaborative, crowdsourced digital publishing products (kinda like Wikipedia). In the same vein, Wikipedia has had its own fight for legitimacy compared against print media. As has any web-based publication. In re: the "test of time" element, good point. Odie5533 directed us to Wikipedia's own definition of notability: If it's notable now, it's notable. Wondering how many articles or what other kind of criteria would serve to prove "notability." ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

events, such as a global uptick in use of a twitter tag to have a conversation are inherently ephemeral, and even if documented in a hundred sources they do not necessarily merit an article - otherwise the wiki would be awash in current events and news of little long-term significance: this tag is too young to make that judgement -- if people are still talking about it in a few months time then it could be kept. Plenty of articles have been deleted after it became apparent the phenomenon described was just a flash in the pan. If you see other articles that are not notable or ephemeral, please send them to AFD - just the way Wikipedia works is when many eyes are on something the rules are applied in a more strict fashion than the barren Unwatched wastelands. As far as I can tell this is the first article about a hashtag so we are breaking new ground - if this becomes a movement and has a conference and has an NGO set up behind it etc then the hashtag itself becomes just a social media channel to something larger, I think it would be strange for a hashtag-only article to remain for long - it must either evolve or die.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The specific example of a conference/NGO/other result is insightful in terms of notability, and a great idea for moving online activism into offline spaces. Not sure how opening up the possibility of page creation to discuss a ton of "hashtag" pages is (1) terrible or (2) very likely to be any more of a problem than other unimportant/not-quality types of submissions. How does Wikipedia deal with page creation in terms of volume, people hours, etc.? The ephemeral aspect of digital publication, esp. public platforms, is tricky, agreed. Super especially this item, which as noted is an unusual example all around. It has elements of a digital publishing project (Twitter can certainly be defined as a digital publishing platform) and a protest "event." The term "slacktivism," as applied by another user, is pejorative and subjective. If the participants intended to act in a civic engagement context, then it was civic engagement, even if observers don't define the action of online speech sufficient as such. A kind of parallel could be made to the Occupy movement: public space (online space) is being occupied to lay bare complex, intersecting cultural issues (public health, gender inequality, women's health, misogyny, mass violence, etc.) in an ongoing, open-ended discussion. That said, Thought Catalog has compiled a selection of material into an ebook and is donating proceeds to National Organization of Women [7], which is at least an addition to the pop culture section of the article. The "In popular culture" section is a great addition, btw. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt really have a mechanism to deal with people hours, as it's all volunteers - which is why I tend to be a deletionist or Mergist vs an inclusionist. We simply don't have enough editors anymore to police and improve the articles we have so we should be parsimonious about creating new ones. if yesallwomen remains a hashtag that trended for a few weeks in may, the article will likely be deleted and redirected to the shootings or to a subsection of 'sexism in popular culture' or something - (in the same way #Bringbackourgirls would likely be redirected to the kidnapping.) in order to survive long term as a stand-alone topic we need to have some sort of evidence of longevity and impact per WP:lasting- are people talking about this in books written a year or two from now, etc. many of the Arab spring movements started with hashtags, but they became much more, the hashtag only goes so far (which is why people call it slacktivism). I don't think a parallel with occupy is apt, since that was actually colonizing a real space. You cant virtually take over the presidential palace and have a virtual coup, you have to actually do it. It is fantastically easy to ignore a twitter discussion... A bit harder to ignore protesters in the main square or legislation change - I'm not demeaning the conversation but for now that's all it seems to be, a conversation. Some movements start as this and become more, and some fizzle, I'm sure if you looked you could find half a dozen hashtags which got some modicum of coverage, trended, started a big discussion, and then petered out - this one seems bigger but only time will tell if it has real influence - remember the half life of a tweet is no more than ~ 30 minutes. You have critiqued above some of the pop culture articles we have, but there are also oodles that we *don't* have, especially ones about ephemeral trending memes and hashtags, and random comings and goings of celebrities and various trends. Sidebar: f you see lame articles, send them To the chopping block, I see it as another way of improvng the wiki to ice bad or trivial articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Framing the concept of "notability" as tangible result or event seems like a good starting place. I think there's room for discussion re: "colonizing a real space": Memes inhabit, are transmitted, and affect human culture groups to inhabit "real spaces" in more than one way. But I get the parameters of the concept as used here. Thanks for the insight into Wikipedia's editing/curating processes. Online repositories are definitely influential on offline culture, and it's important to have these discussions about how we participate in content vetting and sharing. I appreciate the conversation and the work that goes into making these things work. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of bias that I was talking about, the idea that this is only "a conversation" and that it would need to be something with some sort of physical presence or even lasting impact to maintain notability. Planking didn't feed the children, Doge didn't bring peace to Ukraine, and Slender Man had an article well before the attempted murder. We even have articles about simple conversations, even if they don't change the world. Notability is notability, simple as. It is my opinion and the opinion of several other editors that there are enough RSs to pass GNG. If there is an argument that reliable secondary sources can't be found then let's have it, the rest has no relevance. I am a deletionist as well, but the idea that a type of topic can never be notable by default is ludicrous.

Also, the point of the hashtag is to highlight misogyny and rape culture. That's what it's doing, so, yes, "slacktivism" is dismissive and disrespectful. A woman talking about her sexual assault to the world is not an easy thing, especially when she knows she will be attacked by MRAs and trolls. But that's the sort of thing they're doing. Not everything important changes a line on a map or warrants a tax deduction. Of course, none of that has anything to do with WP:GNG. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

this is somewhat new ground, of course there are lots of examples of articles we shouldn't have, but that's an otherstuffexists argument. Anyway this isn't the afd, by my point is for now this isn't yet a movement despite what ppl at jezebel would have you believe, so as an event (which is the best description) it needs to show WP:lasting impact to be kept as a separate article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If this gets known outside of the shootings, then it can remain as a separate article. Right now it's too soon to tell, but since the article is here, we can wait and see what happens. If in a few months, it becomes unknown, then perhaps it makes sense to merge, possibly with it's own subsection in the Isla Vista article and use a redirect.Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just saw my addition re: the anthology compiled by Thought Catalog was deleted because there's no evidence that it's important that someone made the ebook. Apologies! I thought the section header was "In popular culture," not "In popular culture, as vetted by evidence-based dissertations regarding popular culture artifacts pertaining to their relative cultural merit" ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be more parsimonious about such sections, and only include things which other sources believe are notable. Otherwise, how do we separate "A few bloggers on jezebel held a hangout where they discussed yesallwomen" and "A gawker writer published a PDF of her favorite sayings" and "Some company published an ebook".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. And I'll assume that was the reason for deleting my addition of the Melissa Harris-Perry segment, also? I mean, she's even noted as notable in Wikipedia! Praytell, Obi-Wan Kenobi: What sources do you personally accept as viable sources to provide evidence that A Thing Exists and Is Relevant to People Who Utilize Wikipedia? Spelling out that obviously short list will save all the other writers and editors a lot of time. I thought part of the process of determining notability as a stand-alone article included the hashtag being discussed as its own phenomenon, not just tangential to the Isla Vista murders, which the MHP segment goes toward. I detect shifting goalposts. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the hashtag is discussed as its own phenomenon, then add that to the content section of the article, with the source - e.g. during a discussion with Melissa Harris-Perry, she said that xxx. That's fine. OTOH, the "popular culture" section should be populated with instances where the meme made it to some other place, and someone noticed it. E.g. suppose the new star wars movie has a whole scene called "YesAllWomen" - but if no-one writes about it, we shouldn't add it here. But, if several RS discuss the fact that the new star wars movie has a scene about "yesallwomen" then that would be an appropriate addition. The fact that some talking heads spoke about it makes for a good source to add more content, but doesn't make for a good addition to the "in popular culture" - since a meme like this is spreading very far and wide and fast, so we should only capture the uses of it in other domains that are noted by some other reliable source. Otherwise the whole thing can become trivialized, e.g. "Cafe press started selling yesallwomen shirts, Starbucks offered a $10 coupon if you tweeted yesallwomen, Colbert made a joke about yesallmenareidiots, etc"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification re: your editorial decision and apologize for my defensive tone in the above comment. As you noted, discussing this is tricky due to, among other things, nebulous and open terms for content creation and editing both here and in other online spaces. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

The word "populat" should be written "popular" in the first section. TsipiMagen (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need to explicitly list the gender of the slain victims?

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.

---

A recent IP edit added a gendered description of the slain victims. When I removed it, I called it undue in my edit summary, but I was reverted. I ask now: do we really need this? I think not, but I would like to hear other opinions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue, as the majority of sources which have covered this, even in the context of YesAllWomen, have pointed out that 4 men and 2 women were killed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE refers to the substantial amount of coverage to things only covered in non-reliable sources. It has other meanings, but that's what it means in this case. For example, giving Scientology a spot on the page 'Science' discussing it as the truth and what not, and then sourcing it to blogs would obviously be undue weight, while in addition to the quantity of reliable sources stating the opposite. In this case, there are multiple reliable sources stating the gender of the victims, and I think that it should reflect here. I can be swayed if there is a coherent point on why it shouldn't be included. Tutelary (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems relevant given the origins of the hashtag. I cannot see a reason why we would not include the genders.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the shooting. For this discussion, however, please do note the gender of the victims is often mentioned as a way to subvert attention from misogyny as Rodgers's stated reasons for killing those particular men, whom he deemed his sexual rivals: "People try to talk about the misogyny behind the shootings, and someone, frankly a male, steps in to write about how more men were killed than women by Elliott Rodgers. They believe this somehow proves that Mr. Rodgers wasn’t a sexist, it seems. . . . Simply put, his orientation toward men was rooted in his perspective that women were objects of sexual conquest and men were alpha or beta competitors standing in the way of his sexual release" [8]. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

While this article is not specifically about the shooting, it does say that this hashtag was a response to the shooting, and at the bare minimum, we should give users the context behind the shooting, which includes the genders of the victims. Additionally, we're not going to omit something just because someone else finds it personally objectionable with comments such as They believe this somehow proves that Mr. Rodgers wasn’t a sexist, it seems which are not particularly relevant comments. Tutelary (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, we shouldn't omit facts such as who was killed. I certainly am 100% for facts. The article I just cited also discusses facts regarding the killer's motivations per the killer's own "manifesto" as well as video and textual artifacts. Apparently, other digital publishing projects within popular culture, and well-researched and credible work from established news sources are merely opinions and neither notable nor relevant. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can discuss the other changes of why your edit was reverted on a new section of the talk page. This is about including/excluding the genders of the individuals, to which I !vote to include. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I also !vote to include because facts, as I already stated. Merely pointed out the ways discussion of gender in this case is being used as derailment, and that the source I cited to that effect was not any less valid than any other "personal opinion" re: notability and relevance. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I welcome you to readd it with reference to WP:BOLD, and when reverted, start a new talk page section related to it. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already been re-added by Obiwankenobi. I followed Obiwankenobi's addition with a referenced statement regarding how Rodger publicly indicated he would punish women for denying him sex and that he would also punish men for having access to sex with women, while he did not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the genders are relevant and should be there. Dream Focus 05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In a vaccum, without clarification that he intended to kill far more women but wasn't able to because the women at the sorority house didn't let him in when he pounded on the door, and that the number of men killed is skewed by the fact that he also killed his roommates before he began his shooting spree, it sounds like an attempt to minimize the effect of his mysoginy on his motivation to commit mass murder. Going into all of that feels like undue weight. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2014 (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.

Eacheverywoman

Just a note that, apparently, the creator of the hashtag has been receiving death threats and has requested people stop using the hashtag, so some people are moving the conversation to eacheverywoman instead. I haven't found many reliable sources for this yet, but it's mentioned several times in twitter etc. Just a development to keep track of.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should refrain from inflamtory language such as "recieving death threats" unless it is supported by reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting putting this in the article yet. Just noting it as a development.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is citation needed tag repeatedly being added for properly sourced quote?

The quote "too sensitive" doesn't need tag because it's referenced by Salon article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/this_is_the_yesallwomen_comic_the_new_york_times_wouldnt_publish/

Here's the opening paragraph from the article used to reference quote: "David Rees and Michael Kupperman do a regular comic for the New York Times’ Week in Review, but the paper refused to run their take on #YesAllWomen because the material was deemed “too sensitive.” The issues addressed? Men’s rights activists, infantile misogyny, Internet harassment and pissing in your pants." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been adding the tag for "too sensitive", which is so short as to not need a citation. I was adding the tag for the entire quote "the subject matter (male rage, online bullying & the hashtag #yesallwomen) was 'too sensitive'". However, I figured out the source for the quote, so I've replaced the tag with the citation. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Origin of #NotAllMen

The article currently says this: After the killings, some twitter users started using the hashtag "#NotAllMen",[1][10] to defend the idea that not all men commit such crimes (#NotAllMen was itself an outgrowth of the "not all men" defense sometimes used to deflect feminist arguments.)[11][12][13], but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. I think the #NotAllMen hashtag was started by feminists mocking/protesting the "not all men" argument, not by people actually sincerely making a "not all men" argument.

I think sources support that: e.g., this Vox article describes #NotAllMen as "meant to satirize men." The cited Slate article says over the weekend "a lot of men started tweeting this, saying "not all men are like that." which supports the way the WP article is currently written, but doesn't explicitly say that the men used the #NotAllMen hashtag. This cited WaPo article says #YesAllWomen "was a response to the #NotAllMen crowd, people quick to “explain” that not all men are violent and abusive toward women" -- which I'd say is ambiguous. And this CNN article says #YesAllWomen was "a response to the "not all men" defense" [not hashtag] and links to this Time article that dates the ""not all men" mockery meme" back to early 2014, before the killings happened.

I will change the article text sometime tomorrow if nobody else does it before then, but wanted to make the case here first in case I'm missing something. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your link to the Vox article doesn't work. Can you find an active link? It's not clear at this point if the article you are referring to is a reliable source. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct link: [9] —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Granger. I've done some more reading/research, and I think it's hard to tell whether #NotAllMen was ever used as a hashtag by people sincerely making a "not all men" argument. Long post ahead: I will outdent to make it somewhat less painful to read.

The Toronto Star says #YesAllWomen was "a reaction to the “not all men” argument"; Rebecca Solnit says it "critiqued a stock male response"; the Vox and CNN links above say the same. None of those sources outright say that the hashtag #NotAllMen was used by men sincerely making that argument, although they also do not explicitly say it was not. The Springfield News-Sun is ambiguous/unclear, saying "even though the "not all men" argument seemingly began as a sincere way to counter feminist arguments, the #NotAllMen hashtag had been largely turned on its head by Sunday." Irish news site The Daily Edge describes #YesAllWomen as "a response to the #NotAllMen argument," but it's not clear to me whether they mean #YesAllWomen responded to the hashtag #NotAllMen, or are just using the #NotAllMen hashtag as a kind of useful related link. Brooke Gladstone at NPR said explicitly that "many men responded with the Twitter hashtag #NotAllMen" and NPR is a reliable source, but FWIW my personal experience of being interviewed by Brooke Gladstone about Wikipedia was that she made lots of inaccurate statements that required correcting; however Al Jazeera also said explicitly that "#NotAllMen was used as a defensive response to the #YesAllWomen hashtag." Psychology Today describes both #notallmen and #yesallwomen as "encourag[ing] new forms of male and female solidarity since the terrible killings in Santa Barbara last month," implying they are both being used by feminists, not by people sincerely making a "not all men" argument. Mashable says this: "Some men responded to #YesAllWomen with another hashtag, #NotAllMen. The tag has existed for a while, and it's usually used in counterpoints to feminist arguments. However, in the wake of the shooting, tweets with #NotAllMen are more likely to be in support of #YesAllWomen than arguing against feminism."

FWIW I have looked and I can't find any examples of the #NotAllMen hashtag used in any way other than as mockery. This Storify includes mocking examples of the #NotAllMen hashtag, but no sincere ones. It is clear from this April 2014 Time story detailing the meme and this Vox story that the Not All Men meme precedes the killings; Time links to a Not All Men cartoon posted on Twitter in March 2014 and a Not All Men Tumblr that launched in April 2014, and Vox reproduces a tweet using the phrase (not the hashtag) in February 2013 and says "After [a comic published in April 2014], the joke hit a nerve and blew up. Comedian Paul F. Tompkins added a joke about "not all men." John Scalzi, a science fiction writer went on a Twitter rant about "not all men." Soon it got picked up by Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel, and Zimmermann at Time."" And, Southern California Public Radio says "the #NotAllMen hashtag had been used for months prior to Friday night's rampage."

So. Here is what we're currently saying, and what I think we should change it to:

Current article: After the killings, some twitter users started using the hashtag "#NotAllMen",[1][10] to defend the idea that not all men commit such crimes (#NotAllMen was itself an outgrowth of the "not all men" defense sometimes used to deflect feminist arguments.)<<This is what we're currently saying, and although it is explicitly supported by two or three reliable sources, it seems to be contradicted by at least one or two others, and the majority are ambiguous/unclear.

Proposed revision: After the killings, some Twitter users made arguments that "not all men" commit such crimes, with others responding by satirizing those arguments as defensive and irrelevant. It's not clear whether the hashtag #NotAllMen was used sincerely by people making "not all men" arguments, or solely by others mocking them. Not All Men has been an Internet meme since before the killings, used to mock male defensiveness about misogyny and sexism. <<I think this is better than what we have now. It's long and not particularly gracefully-worded, but the sources support it, and it doesn't purport to more certainty than can be backed up.

So. I have spent enough time on this, I think! I am going to change the article, and add citations to it. But if other people want to refine what I've done, please feel free. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

actually if you search topsy.com you can see that the hashtag was first used around 5 years ago, and for several years was used straight up. I think we should go with the sources that say it was first used as a defense, and then later used in a mocking fashion. Or we could just say 'the phrase notallmen' was used without getting picky about who used the actual hashtag first and whether it was straight or not - ultimately it's of little import. Apparently someone traced not all men to the 1800s.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotAllMen&src=typd The earliest #NotAllMen tweet is is 4th May 2011, a minority are from late last year and early this year, and the majority are from May 24 onwards. Almost all the ones before May 24 are using it as an argument.Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

actually the first usage is several years earlier, but I agree it was used as an argument and not mockery for many years. Use topsy to search not twitter. If our primary source research contradicts what secondary sources say we should consider them unreliable.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. We stick to the sources even if they're wrong. Verifiability, not truth. Tutelary (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

that's just an essay, and widely disputed. If our research demonstrates clearly that the hashtag was first used in 2009 we should not state in wikipedia's voice that it was first used in 2014. Part of deciding on the reliability of sources is triangulating the evidence and driving whether to trust or reject a source. Not all sources are equal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While not evidence one can put in an article, I suspect the term gained some notoriety as early as 2009. My suspicious derive from [10]. Where that meme is coming from...... would take the sort of analysis we rely on secondary sources for. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not in citation tag

I added that tag because the sentence 'women were his primary target' are not supported by the two sources given, which do indeed support the former statements, but not this latter statement. Tutelary (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reworded and added quote regarding targeting sorority. Also added another citation. Removed tag because text no longer includes unsupported statements. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No longer contesting as no longer applies. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute regarding providing context to the killings

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.

---

User:TaraInDC provided context to who was killed saying the assertion that he killed more men than women was often used to deflect the misogyny claim. This seems reasonable and current content is all on topic and properly referenced. It actually seems a bit ironic that the reason #YesAllWomen was created now seems to be playing out on the wiki page for YesAllWomen, with properly sourced content regarding Rodger's misogyny being repeatedly deleted from page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's best not to make these things personal, but on the basis of policy, guideline, among other things. I can understand why Obi removed it all; it's best not to elaborate on these things in great detail unless absolutely necessary. We could link to the main article of 2014 La vista killings instead of going through great pains to elaborate on every significant detail. Also, I'm going to request that you change up the title, as it is indicating that through one revert, an editor was edit warring, which was not the case. Tutelary (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Which guidelines and policies justify removal of reverenced content which illustrates Rodger's misogyny in an article about a hashtag which arose as a response to those denying Rodger's misogyny and denying misogyny in general? If it is important to add the gender breakdown of those killed, why is it unimportant to provide context to that gender breakdown?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed title to remove "edit war" but given that User:Obiwankenobi has deleted this on topic and properly referenced content 3 times now, without participating in the talk page discussion, it seems "edit war" may have been appropriate.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

this is not quid pro quo - the gender breakdown of the victims is a simple a concise statement of fact that has been repeated in numerous commentaries. The fact that person X on blog Y used this fact to make an argument Tara disagrees with is completely irrelevant and the desire to hide The gender of the victims for what has broadly been termed gender-based violence is ridiculous. More importantly, almost Every single source which attempts to give a final root cause analysis of the reasons for the killings cannot be trusted as a reliable source since for the most part those commenting are not psychoanalysts nor police investigators. The debate is raging and will continue as to what caused this and what should be done and we should cover this incredibly complex debate on the proper article in depth - not this one - regardless of the event which inspired this hashtag it has gone way beyond isla vista so one or two lines establishing the event suffices, vs quoting of cherry picked lurid quotes about his hatred of women (I could cherry pick lurid quotes about his hatred of sexually successful men too). You're trying to prove a point here about Rogers misogyny but that's not the point of this article, and the way it was summarized was one-sided and only covered half of the Debate in any case (it failed to mention the mental health angle which a number of RS have pursued). As such it's a coatrack and undue here, we're better off being concise and letting readers draw their own conclusions vs pushing them in one direction which seems to be your purpose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The broad context is already included in the article prior to the block of disputed text. The location where each person was killed and the fact that the sorority house he wished to attack was closed are interesting facts about the killings but they don't relate to the creation of the hash tag or its subsequent social media use. In other words, these facts add no relevant context to this article, and while they belong in the article on the killings, they're off-topic (aka heading into WP:COATRACK territory) in this article and need to be removed. The YouTube quote is already covered more broadly as well and including it is WP:UNDUE --Ca2james (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Even the original edit by Tara was dangerously close to WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK because the information isn't relevant to this. The hashtag mainly began in response to killings in which he killed four men and two women; that's all that's necessary. Even the information on how many he killed or their sex could be considered unnecessary as the hashtag only originated due to the killings. That's it; the number of killings is irrelevant to its origins in this context. Any more detail strays into what should stay on the main article for the killings, which is one of the reasons that there was such a conflict over deletion and merging for this article. If it's really bugging you guys you can leave it as it is with a simple summary of how many he killed, but any more than that is undue and should be left to the main article. (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here is the content deleted.

"In total, Rodger killed four men, including his three roommates, who he fatally stabbed prior to leaving his apartment, and one man who Rodger killed as he fired into a deli, and two women, who he shot outside of a sorority house. Rodger previously indicated the sorority was his intended target. Prior to the killing spree, Rodger said in a YouTube video, "I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there." However, no one answered the door at the sorority house when Rodger attempted to gain entry. [10][11][12]"

As far as I can see, no one is asserting anything you'd need a psychologist or investigator to analyze. All of it is properly referenced. While I agree it's a bit wordy and needs tweaking, and perhaps it's wordiness could constitute undue weight, I think the context of who Rodger said he intended to kill, and the fact that he improvised when no one was home at that sorority house (or more specifically no one answered the door) is relevant and on topic. Also, the included quote about his stated desire to "slaughter" those sorority women is reliably sourced and clearly shows his misogyny. Rodger's misogyny is on topic as part of the #YesAllWoman hashtag evolution was responding to those who denied Rodger's misogyny. If there are quotes or sources that dispute his misogyny it would seem that info would also be on topic, but deleting properly referenced quote that illustrates his misogyny does not seem appropriate as Rodger's misogyny is clearly on topic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Rhydic's comment. It does seem removing the gender breakdown and simply referring to the number he killed (or just indicating he carried out a killing spree without specifying number killed) would remove the need for any context to that gender breakdown. It seems that quote about slaughtering the sorority women mights still be on-topic in the article, but only if it can be naturally fit in somewhere that makes sense. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

it's a one sided and very incomplete description of the events of that day. Is better to stick to the headlines and leave the detail for the article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused. How is Rhydic's suggestion that we just refer to a killing spree perpetrated by Elliot Rodger, with a link to Isla Vista Killing spree page for context, one sided? One sided seems more like insisting the gender breakdown be included in this article, while refusing to allow in context for that gender breakdown, even when that context is properly referenced. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant the content you were edit-warring in was one sided. It spends most of its time at the sorority house which he didn't enter, instead of what he did during the other 20 or so minutes of his spree. As for whether or not we mention the genders, I think it is important, but explaining the whole 'context' as you put it is not, since we simply don't have space to do it justice here. He said (and we repeat) that he intended to kill women and men, and he succeeded. The idea that we can't mention the gender of the victims without the obligatory plastering of misogyny all over it is offensive - as is the idea that we should remove mention of genders since someone on the internet used that as an argument to say 'it's notallwomen' or whatever. Let's stick to simple facts here and leave the theorising to the main article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If mentioning the gender breakdown is important, then it seems the context for that gender breakdown would also be important. Additionally, calling it the "the content I was edit warring" is interestingly one sided, considering after bringing it to the talk page, i left your revert in place, even though it lacks consensus and you restored your version multiple times without discussing. Additionally, I'm not sure I get your assertion that the "plastering of misogyny all over it is offensive". YesAllWomen is a hashtag about misogyny. Tons of reliable sources have called Rodger's stated motive for the killings and his quotes prior to the killing misogynistic. Describing the killing as misogynistic seems required by WP:WEIGHT, because so many reliable sources have called it misogynistic. Now if you can find neutral reliable sources that say it's not misogynistic, that would also be relevant. Either way, it seems we can resolve the dispute regarding the context for the gender breakdown, by simply referring to it as a mass murder or spree killing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

bobo, I bet the word misogyny exists at least 20 times In this article, and his hatred of women is twice-expressed already, if not more. My point is, it's offensive that every time someone says '4 men and 2 women died' people feel the need to come in and say 'because misogyny!!!' - the facts are simple, the reasons behind those facts will comprise the subject of study for years to come. Pop psychology has misogyny as one of the drivers, but other more thoughtful commentators, including his parents who dealt with him and know him, have pointed to mental illness. Explaining the 'context' as you put it - esp in the clumsy and 1sided way you were attempting - turns this article into a coatrack, an essay I suggest you read - because this article is not about the killings nor is it about Rodgers misogyny, it is about a hashtag, so we should remain short and to the point while giving the key facts - which are, in my mind, he threatened to kill women and men - in his words because he hated them - and he succeeded. I think the most ridiculous position is this quid pro quo - eg 'omg we can't possibly say how many men or women died without giving our full analysis' - no, that's simply not true.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, Rodgers' actual motivations aren't relevant to this article because this is an article about a hashtag, not about the killings or their reasons themselves. Yes, the killings are background information and it's necessary to mention them to provide context. However, the only background needed is the fact of the killings, not an assessment of the killer's motivations or a demonstration of his misogynistic thoughts or a description of his visit to the closed sorority house. All of that is other stuff is WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE for this article, and it appears that consensus is against the addition for those reasons. --Ca2james (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james, I actually agree with your assessment that the only background needed is the fact of the killings. That's why I agreed with Rhydic's suggestion above that we just refer to the killings and not get into specifics,gender breakdown,etc which removes need for context to that breakdown. As per a previous edit tag summary, it appears TaraInDC agrees with this as well so it seems we have pretty good consensus to resolve this dispute.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, answer this question, and honestly - if he had killed 1 man and 5 women, would you be arguing to remove the gender-body-count here? I would bet large sums of money that you wouldn't, in fact you'd be strongly on the opposite side. As mentioned earlier, the gender break down of the deaths is a well-attested fact. The motive OTOH is much in dispute, and will be for a long time. They are two different things, and it would be quite difficult to add the proper "context" here without this article becoming a coatrack, but it is important to note here that women AND men were indeed killed by this violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodger's motive has been widely described as misogynistic by tons of reliable sources. Your responses here suggest you disagree and it offends you but we go by reliable sources. That his target was the sorority house and he improvised when he was denied access has also been reported in reliable sources. Here's just one http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thwarted-in-his-plan-california-gunman-improvised/. To answer question, if he'd killed 1 man and 5 women, but had announced he'd planned to slaughter every single guy on Rugby team because he hated "buff blond jocks", but then wasn't able to gain access to Rugby team, absolutely. I would argue that we should either remove the gender breakdown or provide context to it, especially if it were an article about misandry. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I know enough to know that I'm not smart enough, unlike the vast majority of people commenting on the interwebs, to actually KNOW what was the final root cause of his attacks. Did he hate women? obviously. He also hated men. And he also hated Asians. And he also hated black people. And he hated overall a boatload of things. Was he mentally ill? What was the root cause of his illness? From whence did this hatred of so many people spring? Why was it transformed into violence? Unfortunately he's not alive so we can't interview him, but I assume psychologists and investigators will be poring over material for years and will eventually come back to us with an explanation, vs the lame theories parroted by bloggers who have zero expertise in such matters. My question wasn't about whether you'd argue differently if the whole situation was reversed, it was about whether you'd want the gender-breakdown here if everything else was the same, except the number of victims of each gender. If more women were killed than men, I'm rather sure you wouldn't be arguing for provision of detailed context, because the body count would then align with your personal theory about the killings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You're interpretation is interesting but not really relevant for editing WP. We don't include "vast majority of people commenting on the interwebs", only reliable sources. It's not really relevant if you know your not smart enough, or strongly believe the reliable sources are written by people who "are not smart enough". We report the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You made an assumption about my own feelings on the matter. I corrected that false assumption. That is all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I do agree. While it is certainly valid and referenced information, presenting it without the context of how he came to kill so many more men than women misleads the reader. It is misleading because that information alone, without the fact that his intention was to 'annihilate every single girl in the sorority house,' suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims. Undue weight is about not just space, but relative importance. Those five words may not take up much room, but they paint a very different picture of the shootings than a version with no gender breakdown at all or one that offers more context. WP:NPOV instructs us to "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." If this misleading information can not be addressed by giving it more context due to space or weight concerns, then it needs to be removed. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• i just saw this gem by TaraInDC: the number of men killed is skewed by the fact that he also killed his roommates before he began his shooting spree, posted above on June 12. That is possibly the most offensive thing I've read yet in Wikipedia about this mess - it implies that the slaughter by knife of 3 of his roommates has skewed the statistics somehow, or that their murder wasn't part of the main event and thus they munge up the 'actual' stats. I think some of y'all need to get out of your bubble and realize we are taking about real humans who died, they are not symbols to be manipulated in order to make some broader point. We should respect the dead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My point is simply that the common argument that misogyny couldn't have been a factor because he killed more men than women ignores the fact that he didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more, he killed more men because his shooting spree was not as effective as he had hoped. Fully half of his victims were killed before the actual shootings (and the calls to the police) began. Insisting on leaving out any context to the gender breakdown makes it seem that the article is attempting to cast doubt on the effect of Rogers' misogyny on his actions that day. Given that this article is about the online discussion of misogyny that the killings sparked, this information does need to be put in proper context. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, I understood that point, and I think it's offensive, and you're arguing with the internet which we don't need to do here - that's what twitter is for. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Your notion of 'proper context' is one orthodoxy and a 1-sided story about the sorority. What 'could' have happened is not that relevant compared to what did happen. "He didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more" - that's the whole problem with your argument here - you're trying to say 'well he hated men and he hated women but he hated women more therefore..." But hatred isn't really something you can easily measure quantitatively to compare and contrast, and the one decent analysis I've seen of his manifesto had actually more expressions of hatred for men - as a class and of specific men - than of women. In any case speculation in how it could have been worse should certainly not be placed here, and suggesting that the deaths of his roommates was somehow a separate event and therefore distorts the tally is, again, incredibly offensive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'arguing with the internet;' I am explaining why by including the gender breakdown without explaining how he came to kill more men than women the article appears to be advancing an argument in a non-neutral way. Rogers' actual motivations are the only reason the killings are relevant to the article, because it was his comments about women and his attitude towards them that lead to the conversation which is the subject of this article, not the killings themselves. Including only the gender breakdown but no further information about these victims begs the question of why the killings are seen as misogynistic. Leaving that question there without giving it an answer is inappropriate. Why do you feel the gender breakdown of murdered victims is exactly important enough to be included without context: too important to leave out but not important enough to explain why more men were killed than women? What exactly does the gender breakdown add to the article? How would it do a worse job of explaining how these killings came to incite an online discussion of everyday misogyny without them? -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

These killings were widely described as gender-based violence and violence against women, so providing the fact that two women were the unfortunate victims demonstrates that the killer enacted his purpose and succeeded, at least to a degree. It's not "advancing an argument" - it's simply providing a fact. The detailed description of the event and the deep extrapolation on the motive doesn't belong here, please read WP:COATRACK to understand why. I don't believe it's possible to add reasonable "context", certainly not the one-sided "context" you attempted to add -we'd need a lot more space, but taking up that much space would hence go too far in this article. But the fact you'd rather HIDE the genders of those slain is ridiculous. I feel like you think you *know* what was in his head, and you *know* why more men were killed than women, but you don't, none of us do, all is idle speculation, and has no place here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If this were an article about spree killings or the history of the neighborhood where the killings occurred you might be correct. However, this is an article about an online conversation on misogyny, so it's important that the section that discusses the killings do a good job of explaining why they sparked such a conversation. Per WP:NPOV, if it's not possible to address the neutrality concerns of including this leading information by editing the article to address the way the events are portrayed, it's better to remove the information. I don't see what's 'one sided' about my description of the six victims, by the way. Can you explain? I understand that you feel it makes the section too long - I actually agree, but feel that it's better to include it than to leave the gender breakdown unexplained, and since the former wasn't favored I went with the latter. This is a neutrality concern, however, so one or the other does need to happen.

Would the wording 'killed six men and women' be acceptable? -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you're bending over backwards to avoid mentioning 4 men killed, or trying to negotiate that we can do so, only if we provide some detailed "context" around it. It's irrelevant here. What is relevant is what is ALREADY in the article - e.g. he stated that he hated women and wanted to kill them, he stated that he hated sexually successful men and wanted to kill them, and, guess what, he did succeed in killing several women and several men. This information is not in violation of neutrality, just because someone somewhere on the internet once used it in some argument you happen to disagree with.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, re this suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims. How in the name of Beelzebub can you POSSIBLY know, or can any reliable source seen to date possibly establish, what the "primary" targets were? His diatribes and hate extended far and wide, and he started the day by killing his roommates in a particularly brutal way, using a knife apparently. He threatened men in his online video posted before the attacks, noting that he would demonstrate that he was the true "alpha male" - etc. You're trying to use this article to promote a particular version of the events, rather than presenting a short, neutral summary of the undisputed facts as we know them, and leaving it up to the main article to explore different theories, who supports them, what evidence they have, etc. If we start adding such POV here, there's a risk it will drift from the established consensus neutral view that will arise in the main article. Hence, coatrack.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated references to the essay wp:coatrack are off point, as you are suggesting that adding more information about the women he killed and attempted to kill is tangential to an article about the conversation of misogyny that the attacks spurred when in fact it's the only reason the attacks are relevant to the article at all.

I am not claiming to 'know' anything. What I am saying is that including the gender breakdown without including more context suggests something that we can not know: it suggests that his primary targets were men. Including information about the failed attempt at entering the sorority house suggests that he tried and failed to kill far more women than he did. That information is important becasuse his violence against women is highly relevant to the subject of the article.

By including the numbers of victims and excluding information about the attempt to gain access to a sorority house where he stated he intended to 'kill every stuck up blonde he saw' the article is giving a biased perspective on the killings which appears to imply that the response to them, and their framing as misogyny-motivated, is incorrect or unfair. This is particularly inappropriate here, in an article about the conversation about misogyny that these killings sparked. In this article, we need to describe fairly the elements of the killings that lead online commentators to respond to it in the way that they did. Would the phrasing 'killed six men and women' satisfy you? Why or why not? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you're imagining an imaginary argument that we aren't making in any way shape or form. You're also trying to prove, here, somehow, that his "primary" targets were not men, but women. How do you know? According to one analysis of the manifesto I've read, he first wanted to kill his roommates, then invite people into his apartment to kill them, then he wanted to attack the women at the sorority, then kill people on the street (attractive couples, especially). Which one of those is the "primary" target? This is such a complex issue we're simply better off NOT trying to cover it here. Including the gender breakdown doesn't suggest anything, it's a simple reporting of facts. That you add a layer of interpretation to those facts is your issue, not an issue with the words on the page. I don't think we should hide the gender breakdown, no, but I don't think we should add more lines of context either, in fact we should trim it even a bit more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim to 'know' anything and I am not trying to 'prove' anything: what I am saing is that currently the article seems to downplay the elements of the crimes that the community who started this conversation was most responding to (eg the sorority house). That's not appropriate. If you feel that more detail about the crimes would be undue weight, why insist on stating precicely how many men and women were killed? Why, again is 'killed six men and women' not acceptable? This avoids begging any questions without adding to the length of the passage at all.

Yes, the gender breakdown on its own absolutely *does* suggest something which, as you keep stating, we can not know. If you would prefer not to get into it here, that's perfectly fine, but we need to avoid the topic altogether, rather than including only information which would lead the reader to wonder why the killings were considered migogynistic without adding information which would answer that question. The description of the incident is currently not doing a good job of explaining why it got the response it did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the hashtag is related to the killer's misogyny and the fact that he killed women, I think it's important to note how many men and women were killed. The article already says: The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive for killing two women and four men, and wounding thirteen others before committing suicide. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful (refs and wikilinks not included).

This already summarizes both his misogyny and his thoughts towards men, providing context for stating the number of men and women killed and background for the hashtag. Including any more about Rodgers' frame of mind or his actions that day or the fact that he wanted to kill more people doesn't add useful or relevant context to this article; adding all that would only shift the focus away from the hashtag to the killings which would be coatracking and undue. The article on the killings are wikilinked so anyone interested in knowing more can easily get that information. --Ca2james (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thus far, there are 4 sentences describing the killings. the first sentence states "killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive". The second sentence, as of my recent edit, is just the basic facts. The third sentence states his self-expressed motives in simple form: "punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful". the last sentence states that some think it was mental illness, others claim it was a product of misogynistic society. Thus, in 3 out of 4 sentences describing the killings, you have misogyny/hatred of women/desire to punish women. It boggles me that you want more, and want to go into the play by play and him knocking at the door of the sorority house. If we do the play by play, we have to do the whole play by play, and that would not be appropriate here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, if the rest of the information about those killed are not relevant, why are the numbers of men and women killed important? Why is 'killed six men and women' not sufficient? This acknowledges that he killed both men and women without begging the question of why an alleged misogynist killed twice as many men as he did women. We're opening a line of thought here which we're not finishing properly. If we don't have room to handle the issue completely, that's fine, but the solution is to leave it out, not to handle it incompletely. In an article about the online response to the killings, the attempt on the sorority women is every bit as important as the final death toll, if not moreso. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, I fear you haven't read the coatrack article carefully enough. We're not "begging" any questions here, and as I noted above, 3 out of the 4 sentences describing the event ALREADY describe his misogyny. You're attempting to paint a more detailed and very particular picture of the killings here w.r.t the hashtag, e.g. "this is a description of the killings as viewed through the lens of those who created and responded to this hashtag" - that's very inappropriate and a coat-rack like attempt, because it means you're trying to paint a picture of the event that supports the creation of the hashtag - but when we do so in wikipedia's voice, it makes it seem like *that* is the neutral, consensus description of the event itself. Attempting to describe the whole event neutrally, which would really be required if one wanted to provide so-called "context", would be out of place here, as several others have mentioned. Above you're arguing for deleting a few words that would leave the gender split ambivalent, whereas I (and others) were arguing for the deletion of over 1000 bytes of slanted material. It's not the same thing in any way shape or form. As to why an alleged misogynist killed twice as many men as he did women that is and will be fodder for endless online conversations and disputes to come, we certainly aren't going to resolve that in a few sentences here, and FWIW my personal feeling is that we will resolve it by realizing that things are more complex than they initially seem, and the psych-101 diagnosis of "misogynist", while factually correct, is woefully inadequate in describing the motives, the mental states, and the various circumstances that led to this terrible tragedy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, this article is begging a question, whether you intend so or not: without context, the statement that the killer killed more men than women leads the reader to wonder why the killings were considered to be motivated by misogyny at all. I am *not* attempting to give "a description of the killings as viewed through the lens of those who created and responded to this hashtag," I am attempting to give the information that is most relevant to the reaction that people using this hashtag had to the killings. It has nothing to do with the coatrack essay: I am not attempting to 'support' the hashtag, I am attempting to fully explain why a killer who murdered four men and two women spurred a conversation about misogyny. wp:coatrack is an essay. WP:NPOV is policy, and it states that we should "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." This information does mislead the reader by giving only half of the story of the killings - the final death toll - when in fact the other events of that day had far more to do with the online conversation this article discusses than the death toll did. If we are set against giving more information on the killings and the attempted 'annihilation' of all the women in the sorority house, then we must remove the gender breakdown as well.

Your framing of my description of the event a 'slanted' is puzzling. What, precisely, is slanted about it? Is it factually inaccurate? Does it leave out relevant information as your preferred version does? You're making too much of the length issue: your preferred framing of the killings does not get precedence simply because it's shorter. My proposal of 'six men and women' is shorter still, and also accurate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, this isn't productive. I, and I think most other people who !voted here to keep the gender breakdown above, do not feel that such a simple, factual description of events misleads the reader in any way shape or form. We have given plenty of reasons for the reader why this hashtag was started - e.g. that Rodgers avowed a hatred of women, and wanted to punish them, and succeeded in killing two and wounding several others. That's more than enough. What is slanted about the material you attempted to add is it spends the majority of the text (3 out of 4 sentences) talking about the sorority house, and very little time talking about the other events of the day. Your addition was 4 whole new sentences with a play by play - a very particular angle on the play by play, actually, that, as you say, highlights the sorority attack as being a key driver for this hashtag.. Please don't compare the "length" of that addition with one word here or there, its apples and oranges.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

the statement that the killer killed more men than women leads the reader to wonder why the killings were considered to be motivated by misogyny at all. yes, and I think that's fine if the reader wonders that, and then clicks over to the article to learn more. The reader will always be "wondering" about something or another - perhaps the reader will wonder why he butchered his roommates with a knife, or what led to his hatred of attractive women and sexually successful men, or why the mental health system failed him, or what influence PUAHate had on him - the reader will wonder lots of things, and it's not our job to provide the reader with pat little answers and simple explanations - especially when those explanations actually hide deeper truths.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, and I think that's fine if the reader wonders that, and then clicks over to the article to learn more.Well this is where I disagree: leaving that question open leaves this article wanting in terms of providing a balanced explanation for why the reaction to the killings was as it was.

In fact I did not add a 'four sentence play by play;' I added one sentence detailing who each of the victims was in only slightly more detail than the previous version did. There was more text added afterwards before you reverted both me and BoboMeowCat, but please don't misrepresent what I added. If you believe the addition was too long, that's perfectly reasonable, but the same information can easily be relayed in fewer words. You also, incidentally, appear to have padded the character count by including references, which take up nearly half of the removed material and make the change sound considerably bigger than it was. How can one sentence that breaks the victims down slightly further, from just 'four men and two women' to 'three men he stabbed at his apartment, two women he killed when he was denied entry to the sorority house, and one man he killed when he fired into a storefront' be such an unreasonable addition? -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious reason is that you don't describe any of the wounded, who are just as much victims as the others, just luckier to have survived. The description of the victim in the deli is inaccurate, since there are several contesting stories about whether he entered the deli or didn't, as opposed to your initial addition which had him blindly shooting and randomly hitting a man by chance. It's OR pushing a point. We don't know the gender breakdown of the victims, but if we ever get it we should add that too. This was a complex event with complex factors behind it. I think the text that is there now reaches a reasonable compromise of providing context and details without going so deep as to become coatracky. Again, I'm boggled that you find this unbalanced, when 3 OUT OF 4 SENTENCES about the killing describe his misogyny. What more do you want?? There's plenty of explanation there already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't describe any of the wounded? Neither does the gender breakdown currently in the article. That information is not available, as when last I checked around half the injured victims' names had not even been released. That *would* be undue weight as it actually would require a 'play by play' and would doubtless get far too long. If leaving out details of the wounded is a strike against my version, it's a strike against yours as well. If you're concerned about how the victim in the deli is portrayed, and if there is substantial reason to think that this cited detail is in question, we can remove 'fired into' and simply say 'was shot while standing in a deli' or something along those lines. It is not 'original research' to say he fired into the deli: that was what the source I read stated and I had not seen anything to conflict that. In other words, you are arguing against including the information at all by nitpicking specific wording. All of these can be fixed if there's reason to fix them. That's no cause to remove the sentence altogether.

It seems strange that you are calling your preferred version (that is, the gender breakdown with no further information currently in the article) a 'compromise' between your position (including the gender breakdown with no further information) and mine (removing it or providing more context.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, we do describe the wounded, we give the exact number of wounded. As I mentioned, if we had the gender breakdown of the wounded, I would add this as well - GIVEN that this is widely described as a gender-based hate crime, and said gender-based hate crime was the key inspiration for the hashtag. I still cannot comprehend why you want to actually hide the fact that he murdered two women! Saying that there's "no further information" is simply ridiculous, I suggest you read the article again. There are four sentences. Four. Three of them describe his misogyny in one way or another. The fourth gives the toll. That is plenty. I suggest you spend your time improving the coverage of the event in the actual article, since you seem quite concerned that we get these details right. Here is not the place. This is an article about a hashtag, lest that be forgotten.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a look at one of the sources Bobo provided above: [11], which sums up the attack in 10 bullet points; only one of them is about the sorority. In the running text, around 26 paragraphs/sentences are devoted to other aspects of the attack, vs 7 devoted to the sorority. Thus, the additions of Tara + Bobo are UNDUE, and as they've both admitted above, intended to make a point about one theory re: the motive. If we describe the events only through those he killed, as Tara proposes, that gives a very incomplete picture of the day, because he certainly intended to kill more than 6 people - but Tara admits above that giving the description of those he wounded would make it "far too long". Therefore, we should skip inclusion of the play by play completely here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep focusing on how this or that sentence does or does not mention misogyny as if mentioning it elsewhere in the article 'earns' the right to ignore relevant information. That's not the case. Yes, the other sentences do frequently reference his opinions on women. They also reference his resentment towards men. How is that relevant? What's important is how this specific sentence frames this specific piece of information. Why is the gender breakdown so important that it must be mentioned in a short summary of the killings in this article, but not important enough that any further context on these victims is worth mentioning? Again, I am only dividing these victims into three groups instead of two: that is not all that much more detail. Why does stating that he killed four men and two women do a better job of explaining the relevence of the killings to the hashtag than saying he killed six men and women without stating the gender, or than detailing a little more about what happened and where he went during the shooting spree?

Nobody has 'admitted' that they 'intend to make a point.' Please stop casting aspersions on other editors in this way, it's getting quite inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have Tara. Bobo: (Tara) saying the assertion that he killed more men than women was often used to deflect the misogyny claim; Also, the included quote about his stated desire to "slaughter" those sorority women is reliably sourced and clearly shows his misogyny.; Tara: It is misleading because that information alone, without the fact that his intention was to 'annihilate every single girl in the sorority house,' suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims.; he didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more, he killed more men because his shooting spree was not as effective as he had hoped. You've done it again below, noting that mentioning the genders of the victims is some sort of ploy, but actually it's just a fact which seems inconvenient to you, so inconvenient that you'd rather hide it if you could, or transform it into a story about the sorority shootup that didn't happen. You and Bobo have stated many times that you're trying to use the play-by-play to illustrate that he really was a misogynist, that he INTENDED to do X, Y, and Z, and that he was thwarted from doing so, and therefore the actual number of killed doesn't match what was actually in his head. It's OR, because you're cherry picking sources and cherry picking language to make a very particular point about misogyny being the root cause, and playing a massive game of what-if. Admittedly, that what-if is the interpretation parroted by people who use this tag, but it's not the consensus of serious reliable sources, which are now looking at personality disorders, a long history of mental illness, and other factors besides misogny. We don't get into any of that here, we state, in several different ways, a quick summary of his stated intentions, and the results. That's more than enough.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've stated that I am seeking to 'avoid' making a point about the killings by providing more relevant information. That is not the same thing as seeking to prove a point myself. You are describing my actions inaccurately by saying that I have 'admitted' to doing something inappropriate when that is simply not the case. You are once again using severely loaded language here: why do you think that this information is so 'inconvenient' to me if not because you think it proves a point? I think that the current article is inappropriately biased by using this information without context, because it implies that men were the primary targets, and including the failed 'annihilation' of the sorority house paints a very different picture. That's a fact, too. Is it 'inconvenient' to you? -- TaraInDC (talk)

No, Tara, it only demonstrates that men were the primary murder victims, and as noted below, I believe its possible women were in the majority of the wounded - if I felt that was an inconvenient fact, why would I promise to include it here if ever released? A great deal of ink was spilled on this 4-men-dead fact, including a number of sources that said "See, misogyny hurts men too!" - so there are all sorts of interpretations and spins off that fact, all of which are off-topic here. Besides the failed annihilation of the sorority house, there was also the failed chamber of death in his apartment that no-one was lured to, and the failed potshots he took at pedestrians, and many other things besides. We can't spend time, esp in this article, speculating on how much worse it could have been, we can only thank heavens that those sorority girls were smart enough to not open the door! I don't think you believe your position is inappropriate, and you've been very open and upfront about exactly why you want to add this information to the article, I just think the result, including the text you proposed and the additional text Bobo proposed, would be inappropriate coatracking here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

In absence of any other information, while it only demonstrates that men were the primary victims, it does suggest that men were the primary targets: why else would they outnumber women two to one? I am not suggesting that we spend more time in the article on how much worse it could be, only that we need to either give a bit more information, or a little bit less. Again, I ask why the gender breakdown is so important. I've explained why I think the information isn't useful as it is, and why I think that removing it or expanding on it would be a better application of NPOV. What, exactly, does the gender breakdown alone add to the article that outweighs the fact that it gives a skewed perspective on the killings by ignoring details like the killer's intent to 'annihilate' the women in the sorority house, one of the more important factors that have lead to these killings being seen as motivated by misogyny? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Because facts are more important than speculation. The worded-by-committee "6 men and women" is just awkward, and has little to recommend it. As has been stated umpteen times, this was widely described as gender-based violence, and sources covered his hatred of certain types of women (and of certain types of men). Thus, avoiding mention of the gender breakdown is, frankly, odd. This wasn't a failed plot that never made it outside of his head - he actually went out and succeeded in killing and wounding a heck of a lot of people. That you think speculation on what-could-have-been is more important, not in the main article but specifically here in an article about a hashtag! - is problematic, to say the least.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your framing of my comments as 'speculation on what-could-have-been' is getting insulting. I am not speculating on anything. I am stating a cited fact, and one that is very relevant to the reaction that the killings received. I am not suggesting we say 'a whole lot more women totally would have died if...' I'm suggesting that if we are to include the gender breakdown, we also include other information about the killings that might help explain why a 'misogynistic' killer killed twice as many men as women. Avoing a mention of a gender breakdown may seem 'odd' to you but when we're unwilling to put that breakdown into any sort of context then we seem to have painted ourselves into an 'odd' corner. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you absolutely ARE speculating - your whole POINT is speculation - your claim is that we really need to tell the story of the failed sorority attack, because if that attack would have succeeded, many more women would have died. The bulk of the text that you and Bobo were reverting into the article, it was about the sorority, so if you want to talk about implication, you are strongly trying to imply that the context of the failed sorority attack is crucial because it COULD have been much worse, and more women COULD have died, so don't pay too much attention to the actual toll, let's look at his plan. How exactly, in a very short space that we have available in this article, do you intend to demonstrate "why a 'misogynistic' killer killed twice as many men as women" - especially if you intend to ignore those he wounded! (as a side note, I personally hate this "twice as many" angle - mathematically it's true but if the dude in the deli had been a woman, it would have been even steven - it's literally a difference of one death...) but to your question, it is quite a difficult question! To answer the why, you need to map out the whole day - what were his plans, where did they go wrong, and you need to detail other scenarios. You're a big fan of the failed sorority what-if, which is indeed an important part of the story, but it's only ONE part of the story, and he had plans both BEFORE and AFTER the sorority to kill others (indeed, he executed some of those plans). How much time would you spend detailing his plans with the roommates? Who was he going to invite back to his killing room? How many might have died had he succeeded? Attempting to explain to readers here, in the wrong article to boot, WHY Rodgers only killed two women and not twenty and why he killed four men and not ?? is completely off-topic and could not be handled by anything less than several paragraphs of detailed prose and would likely consist of a fair amount of speculation and original research to boot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is reported in reliable sources that Rodgers said he planned to target that sorority and improvised when denied access. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thwarted-in-his-plan-california-gunman-improvised/ It appears you think including that info, as it is reported in the reliable sources, would cause readers to speculate that if he had access to the sorority he would have killed more women, but that doesn't seem like a valid objection. BTW, your interaction with TaraInDC seems to be getting close to violating WP:Civility. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also reported in reliable sources that he planned to turn his apartment into a killing zone. It is also reported in reliable sources that he ran over several pedestrians, and shot at half a dozen others. I'm not opposed to mentioning the sorority if we also mention other aspects of his complex plan, and I'm not opposed to mentioning the circumstances of those killed if we discus the circumstances of those wounded. But doing all that ends up being too much, and doing only half of it violates neutrality because we're cherry picking one aspect of the attack to make a particular point about the validity of this hashtag.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodger's stated plan to slaughter all those "blond sluts" in the sorority seems more on topic than that other stuff in this article. This article is about the hashtag #YesAllWomen, which was inspired by interpretation that Rodger's killing spree arose out of misogyny. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that way, doesn't it. Wouldn't it be nice if we could tell just part of the story, just describe the parts of his plan that are presumed by us to be important to this hashtag and that support the points the hashtag tries to make, and leave the rest of those pesky facts out? It would be nice, and it might flow nicely in a blog post, but it's a bad idea for a neutral encyclopedia. I don't think there's any doubt that misogyny played an important, perhaps determining role, in the events, but I think it's also clear that the story is bigger than just misogyny. An attempt to paint a "misogyny-is-the-final-root-cause" picture of the events here, while we busily build a more neutral version elsewhere, is the real problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, my argument is not based on speculation any more than yours is. My 'entire point' is that we should not 'invite' speculation based on an incomplete view of the evidence. My argument is that 'what could have been,' as you insist on putting it, is important to what makes the killings relevant to this article. It's not original research to state a fact. I'm not advocating adding commentary on any of this in the article itself, so it's very inappropriate for you to call my justifications for why I feel this information is relevant 'original research.' These are simple, cited facts intended to give more context to the gender breakdown. Your point about the man in the deli is exactly the issue: without that information it seems that more men were being targeted. With that information, it's much clearer. I am not saying that any of these details are important, only that if we invite the question, we need to answer it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A complete view of the evidence is too much for this article. A skewed view of the evidence, concentrating on the failed sorority attack, is a classic coat-rack. So there isn't really any reasonable way to add the "context" you desire - either you put it all in (and that's too much), or you focus on just the sorority (thus, UNDUE), or, you leave it out entirely, and let the article explain the details. Do we know if he specifically targeted the man in the deli, vs the other customers? Did he know he was shooting a man? Why was that one man shot, and not the others? Who did he target for running over with his car - was it only women? Only men? Only jocks? We still don't know. Who did he take potshots at on the street? You're trying to paint an incomplete picture of an incredibly complex series of events in the name of context, and focusing on just the dead while ignoring the wounded (who were clearly, like the others, marked for death). OTOH, your other option of purposefully hiding the information about the # killed by gender, which takes up a very tiny amount of space, is ridiculous, and the only reason you've expressed for doing so is because you believe the fact of the # killed may cause a reader to speculate. Let them speculate away! That is not our problem. If we leave the genders out, the reader may speculate "how many women did this misogynist actually kill"? only that if we invite the question, we need to answer it as well - yes, and if we answer the question we have to discuss who he wounded, and where, and why, and we need to discuss why he killed his roommates, and we need to discuss who he planned to bring back to his apartment, and a great many other things - in other words, we don't get to pick and choose what exactly we discuss if we go down the path of "context" - otherwise we end up painting a non-neutral picture. If you don't realize how one-sided a focus on the sorority attempt is by now, I don't think I can say anything to convince you. what makes the killings relevant to this article - yes, you've made this point before - the problem is, the way you are framing "context" is "an incomplete view of the events of the day focused more on motive and plans than actual facts, and dwelling deeply on his intended massacre of sorority girls which was thankfully thwarted" - that is the very definition of a coat-rack.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Including the locations where the people were killed is not appropriate for this article because by including it, wikipedia is saying that those locations have something to do with the creation of the hash tag. But since the locations don't actually have anything to do with the hash tag and so don't belong in this article.

I support including the genders of the people killed because if we don't, the reader is likely to assume that either all men were killed or all women were killed. The additional details regarding the sorority and video and roommates aren't needed needed because there's already an explanation included as to why he wanted to kill men as well as women. Although the hash tag was created in response to the killer's misogyny, there's more to these killings than that misogyny and this article isn't the place to discuss that. --Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the locations of the killings do not seem relevant to the creation of the hashtag, but the fact that he planned to slaughter every "blond slut" in the sorority seems relevant to the creation of the hashtag. Not sure how the gender breakdown is relevant to the creation of the hashtag. I mean maybe it is. Did the hashtag evolve in part because people used fact that he killed more men than women to attempt to deflect feminist arguments regarding misogyny. More importantly, do reliable sources report this? If so, that would clearly seem relevant to this article and should be included. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I support including the genders of the people killed because if we don't, the reader is likely to assume that either all men were killed or all women were killed. Not if we say "killed six men and women." This avoids the issue of why he's considered misogynistic if he killed more men than women altogether, and allows the reader to learn more by clicking through to the main article. It is not coincidence that the gender breakdown is so often cited, and other elements of the killings often ignored, by people making the types of arguments to which this hashtag is a response. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that as the article sits, where it elaborates on in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The spree resulted in the killing of two women and four men, wounding of thirteen others, and ended with the suicide of the killer. is the way that it should be done. It's concise and it doesn't attempt to portray any side as more or less important. I believe rather firmly that going and elaborating on every single little detail of what happened is irrelevant and may violate balancing aspects. The 'main article' function should be underneath the 'origin' header if having that article in context is needed. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark my words - at some point the wounded list is going to come out, and we'll see that 75% of the wounded are women. Then people will be clamoring to put that information here. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that more of the wounded are women than men, based on some of the accounts I've read. It's hard to tell though. We also have eyewitnesses who were shot at but missed, a number of those were women too. For the record, if we do get a gender-breakdown of the wounded, we should put it here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying this as if it proves some bias on the part of anyone with the temerity to disagree with you, but this is part of the problem: we simply know more about the dead than the wounded, and by making a point of stating the gender breakdown of the dead without giving any more information about the shooting or other targets we are only giving one facet of the story. We're ignoring the wounded because we don't have cited information about them, but we are also ignoring targets who were not killed, but whose targeting is known to be a significant factor in the shootings having the reaction they did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, as it stands, we give a rough description of the stated motive. We give more detail on the motive, and the online videos, etc. Then we state the outcome. Then we state the dominant interpretations coming out that explain this mess. You (and later, Bobo) are suggesting giving a play-by-play, but not of the whole thing, but focusing on the sorority, and only discussing those killed (not those wounded). That's UNDUE, and a coatrack, because you're not even summing up the description of the event in the main article, you're focusing on a particular part of the whole event in order to prove some point about about this hashtag. That's not how a good article is written IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I am not suggesting giving a "play by play." I am suggesting giving slightly more detail on each death rather than giving the gender breakdown with no further context. I am also suggesting an alternative; removing the breakdown and stating that he 'killed six men and women.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained, and others have as well, why neither of these options is viable in my mind - its silly to give details on each death if we don't give details on the wounded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that's my point: giving only the gender breakdown of those killed, when no information is available on the wounded and we're unwilling to offer enough space to give the numbers we do have any context is, in a word, silly. Why is it 'silly' to give these details on the dead if we don't have them for the wounded, but not the details which you are advocating including in the article? -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We provide what info we have. We could certainly provide more context into who he killed exactly, and why, and when, and who he wound, exactly, and why, and when, but you yourself admitted that would be too much. It is quite common, when atrocities such as this occur, to sum them up briefly in terms of the human toll, which is what we do here. When people speak of 9/11, they usually talk about how many died in the towers, and how many died in the planes - the background, the motive, etc - thats a much more complex story. This is commonplace. When you have instances of gender-based violence, then the death toll is typically split by gender. Again, this is commonplace.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I second this - it's strange to read the victims segregated into gender (as 2 women and 4 men) and then to read 13 people later in the sentence. I can't imagine the value in doing this unless it is to deflect the misogyny claims --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The 13 are the wounded, for whom we don't have a gender split yet. If it becomes available, I think we should add that as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Since we don't yet know the gender split of the wounded, I'd support including "killed six men and women and wounded 13 others" in this article with no other additions. There is something weird about breaking down the dead by gender and not the wounded. --Ca2james (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably the simplest solution for now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this, it is quite strange to make the distinction anyway, but if it is to be done then it should be part of a more comprehensive coverage --80.193.191.143 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this because I tend to read that as 12 people total were killed (6 men and 6 women). Why not just leave it as "killed six and wounded 13 others"? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to want to specify that both men and women were killed, and I don't read it that way myself; I've heard the construction 'X number of men and women' used elsewhere pretty regularly. If it were twelve people total the natural way to say it would be 'six men and six women.' Can you think of a clearer way to express it? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough and it definitely avoids contributing to the morbid death count competition that some websites have made it out to be --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can live with it. I agree it is grammatically correct as written. Because there’s now good consensus, I’ll update page. I realize we still have 1 rather vocal objector, but unanimous agreement not always possible. As we have already had some edit warring on issue, I would ask objector not to change it without consensus to change it, and would also ask newcomers to the discussion to participate on talk and gain consensus prior to changing. Additionally, the above discussion shows good consensus to not add timeline/locations/other details of the killings either (ie that he first killed roomates, then people outside sorority after failing to gain access to sorority house etc).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't live with it, because this is a gender based attack, and it's only natural to include the gendered numbers between them. To attempt to combine them together negates the entire thing. As I said before, I wish for the article to remain the way it is. It shows the amount of people and the brief context which is needed without providing undue weight towards either side. This would ultimately also convey mixed messages to the reader, who would once again need to know how many of each gender was killed, because you conformed them both into one number. Additionally, it should be noted that Obi has been blocked for 36 hours for something wholeheartedly unrelated to this discussion, and it should be given courtesy not to continue without their input on the matter; especially since they were the main objector. Tutelary (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You're making the argument that it is important to include the information that more men were killed than women, because it was a 'gender based attack.' That seems to suggest that you believe this information is relevant because it says something about which gender was being attacked. Why is it so vital to include one fact which makes it seem that men were the primary target, but insist on excluding other information (one sentence that briefly described the three sets of killings and where they occurred) or any other information that shows why these attacks sparked a conversation on misogyny? This is a 'show don't tell' issue: we are saying 'the attacks have been considered misogynistic,' informing the reader of a fact, but the only detail about the killings themselves we are offering seems to show the opposite. That's not appropriate, especially not when the misogynistic aspect of the attacks is the only reason it's included in the article.

Frankly, the two of you have been extraordinarily inflexible through this process: there have been multiple objections to including this information with no further context, and multiple solutions offered to the neutrality issue it presents, and none of it is acceptable to the two of you. We are trying to work with you here.

I disagree that this discussion needs to grind to a halt because one participant has been blocked for edit warring. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not making it seem it's more important that more men were killed than women. I also do not believe that the information is relevant because it says something about which gender was attacked, I think it's just generally given to be encyclopedic to give the genders in a gender based attack, whatever the count. I would still be advocating for the exact same thing if the counts were flipped; 4 women and 2 men. I would still be advocating to list both genders in that regard and their numbers in deaths. That's not the problem. The problem is the possible original research and the background context which is not needed in the regard of the article. Describing in great detail how each person was killed in an article about an Internet hashtag is just wholeheartedly unencyclopedic in that regard. I also believe that there is no reason to euphemize or combine the numbers to say '6 men and women' unless there is an absolute and good reason to. From what I've read in the discussions, there does not seem to be an overt reason for doing such. This is a 'show don't tell' issue: we are saying 'the attacks have been considered misogynistic,' informing the reader of a fact, but the only detail about the killings themselves we are offering seems to show the opposite. That's not appropriate, especially not when the misogynistic aspect of the attacks is the only reason it's included in the article. Having each specific and grisly detail on how they were killed and what aspect of Elliot's efficiency is not encyclopedic and is certainly undue weight. That's why there's a 'see also' section in the origin section, to provide readers with the link to the thorough background context if desired. This is not the article to do so. I disagree that this discussion needs to grind to a halt because one participant has been blocked for edit warring. I never said it had to, just gave the option. While I am one person and Obi and I share some of the main concerns, there may other falters or instances which may warrant a larger discussion. I am also certainly open to a neutrally worded RFC which Obi mentioned for a wider community consensus. Tutelary (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per extensive arguments already given above, due to the gender-based nature of this hate crime, we should give the gender-based breakdown of the murder victims, and of the wounded if we ever get that information (I've done some more research, at least two were men and at least one was a woman).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the previous discussion was all that strong a consensus - it seems rather split to me - but even if it were, consensus can change, so the existence of a previous discussion does not prevent a new one from coming to a different conclusion. Bear in mind that this discussion comes after we've spent some time discussing, and rejecting, other alternatives to address the neutrality concerns cited in the previous one. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been a mess, so if you want to propose new language that eliminates the gender breakdown, I'd suggest proposing it in a new section below, and making a neutrally worded RFC on the matter to bring in a broader consensus. You would have to cogently defend why, in one of the most horrific instances of gender-based violence in recent history, in an article about an online hashtag that catalogued gender-based violence against women and that was inspired by the gendered hatred expressed by the killer, we at wikipedia have nonetheless decided to leave the victim count ungendered since those simple facts as we know them may cause readers to speculate!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be fair to presume that you strongly support including this gender breakdown of one of the most horrific instances of gender-based violence in recent history because they were more male victims than female victims? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I would support it no matter the count; as I stated above, if more women than men end up being wounded (we may know this soon, as some victims have already come forward and been profiled), I would strongly support putting that count in too. As I mentioned earlier, some have argued that "misogyny hurts men too", and they give rafts of statistics on how misogyny can also hurt men - so from those sources' POV, pointing out that men died is just as important as pointing out that women died. No matter what our feelings about the root final ultimate cause, a proximate cause was clearly gender-based hatred, misogyny was clearly a driver, and we should not hide the basic facts in the interest of not confusing our poor readers. Ultimately, the fact that there are more men than women victims is happenstance, it could have easily turned out differently - for example, if instead of three women outside the sorority, it happened to be three men standing there, or if his roommates had invited a woman to stay over instead of a man, or if a woman was in the deli that caught his eye instead of a man, or if some of the other wounded had died, all it takes is a single victim changing gender and the count would be equal, so ultimately it's arbitrary, but it is nonetheless a fact that we shouldn't hide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is largely happenstance. In fact, you put it very well yourself when you said that "for example, if instead of three women outside the sorority, it happened to be three men standing there, or if his roommates had invited a woman to stay over instead of a man, or if a woman was in the deli that caught his eye instead of a man, or if some of the other wounded had died, all it takes is a single victim changing gender and the count would be equal, so ultimately it's arbitrary". I'm not totally against the inclusion of the gendered figures but it is strange to do so without the context that you removed in this edit: [12] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the famous "context". Of the 4 sentences in that diff, 3 discuss the sorority. That's the problem with that "context" - it only covers one particular part of that day, thus it's UNDUE and attempts to reframe the whole story of the attacks to focus on a particular aspect of the attacks that creators of the hashtag and defenders of the "misogyny caused it" theory used to defend their points. Indeed, those arguing for this "context" want to tell the sorority story here for exactly that reason, since it bolsters the whole point of the hashtag. Read WP:COATRACK to understand why this is a bad idea. As I said, if we include context, we'd need to include it all, including descriptions of those he wounded, shot at, ran over, etc, but then it becomes way too long, so better to leave it out entirely, give the very basic facts, and let the play by play happen elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, it was the part that he planned in his manifesto. You seemed to be suggesting earlier that there was prevalence in the idea that "misogyny caused it", in fact, you said "misogyny was clearly a driver". Are you going back on this? Your argument here pretty much confirms my previous sentiment that you support including the gender breakdown because they were more male victims than female victims and that you yourself are trying to debunk the idea that the killings were motivated by misogyny --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

did you know he planned to kill his roommates in his manifesto too? And turn his room into a killing chamber? He also planned to slaughter jocks and alpha males who he despised, he also planned to murder attractive couples. Yes, I think there's no dispute misogyny was a driver - he hated the hell out of the college women he was denied access to, but, it should be noted, he also hated the hell out of men, especially those with girlfriends. Did misogyny "cause" it? That is much more up for debate. I don't know, neither do you, and neither do most journalists opining on this story. We may never know, but our best bet is to wait for professional psychologists and investigators to piece together exactly what happened and dig into his family life and history to uncover the (potentially many) root causes of this. I think the one phrase we have here now, which is "After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression." is a pretty good summation of the current state of discussion on this matter, at least we probably can't do much better in a sentence. There seem to be two dominant narratives - the "it's the misogynystic culture that caused this" vs "it's a deep history of mental illness that manifested itself in misogyny but could have also manifested itself in other forms of hatred and violence". I think this page is an especially bad place to try to lean towards one interpretation of root causes, since our goal here is not to validate or defend the hashtag, it is to describe as neutrally as possible the circumstances behind it and the reaction to it. Again, since the events of the day are so complex, any attempt at a summary of those events, especially one that prioritizes the attack-on-women-that-didn't-succeed, is undue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

you yourself are trying to debunk the idea that the killings were motivated by misogyny yeah, that's a cogent accusation. That's why I'm spending all my time here arguing over 3 words on a wikipedia page for a hashtag. That would be the best way to debunk the misogyny theory, wouldn't it?? Actually I'm kidding, that's actually the most ridiculous accusation I've heard all day, no, all week. I'm here to ensure NPOV here, that's it, and it all started when someone added some decidedly non-neutral language...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"neither do the bloggers at Jezebel" - did you really have to go there? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

fair enough I reworded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

If I'm reading rightly, pretty much everyone really wants to see a gender breakdown of the people killed (and those who are wounded, if that information is ever known). The sticking point is that some want to see more context for the gender breakdown and that others feel the context proposed so far is too coatracky and undue. I've been doing some reading on the hash tag and a couple of articles (not necessarily RS) link the hash tag to the killings by quoting some of his manifesto as proof of his misogyny - because it was his words almost as much as his actions that made this hash tag happen..

What if we added context in a similar way? We could change this second sentence in the Origin section: "The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful." to include one or the other of his quotes, and then include the gender breakdown later? Possible quote choices are (I know the sources aren't great but they're what I first found and these quotes are everywhere):

• All of those beautiful girls I’ve desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy. All of those popular people who live hedonistic lives of pleasure, I will destroy, because they never accepted me as one of them. I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer. It is only fair. Mashable
• "You girls have never been attracted to me," Rodger said in his final video. "I don’t know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice... I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman." Chegg blog

At first I thought this should work to provide context for the gender breakdown but now I'm not sure. What do you all think? --Ca2james (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It does seem the objection to the gender breakdown was lack of context to that breakdown. I do think if we can agree on text regarding context for the killings that isn't overly wordy or WP:COATRACK, that would solve the dispute as well. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern with the current version is primarily that we are providing details about the events themselves that do not agree with what we are telling the reader about those events. While that is in part because the only gender breakdown we have is for those killed, and not those wounded, I am less concerned about the numbers themselves than I am about the skewed perspective of the attacks that it gives: we're telling only part of the story. I think this can be rectified by including what information we do have about others who the killer targeted, although it can also be solved by removing the gender breakdown. In fact, the lede of the main article does not mention the gender of the victims at all (saying he 'killed six' rather than 'six men and women' or 'four men and two women,) and instead saves the more detailed information for later in the article where it can be given the proper context. The sentance that I added here was an attempt to complement the gender breakdown, as some editors were adamant that it stay in place. While those quotes are all potentially useful and illuminating, I think that they only add to the length of the section without addressing what I see as a wp:weight problem. So I think that if we're willing to increase the size of the section, it should be by adding details about the people the killer targeted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reserving my post. 1 Am where I'm at. Will respond when I wake up. Tutelary (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Started an RfC which is what was suggested earlier on but never really elaborated on. It's a complex issue and I feel that wider community input will be helpful in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

Tutelary, if you were opposed to rewording to remove the gender breakdown, why didn’t you respond to the multiple arguments for removing gender breakdown during lengthy discussion? Your participation here has been minimal, yet I see you reverted what seems to be strong consensus edit with summary (no consensus- 3 editors disagree, but that is misleading edit summary because at the time I made edit, of the editors who had voiced an opinion, it was 5 in support and only 1 objector. Obiwankinobi was the only objector, while myself, Rhydic, TarainDC, Ca2James and IP 80.193.191.143 had reached agreement on content and even the exact wording. Even if we include you, who has recently rejoined the discussion that is still 5 to 2. Not sure how you counted 3. While we may at some point regain consensus to specify the genders, that info should stay out of the article while we discuss. Especially considering there was never strong consensus to put it in the article in the first place. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, while there are valid arguments on both sides, it would be unfair to claim consensus when it seems to be strongly against the objector --80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2014 (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.

Requests for comment; Gender breakdown

Original RFC statement
Should we disclose the gender breakdown of the deaths and wounded (if it ever comes out)? The article was edited to give thorough detail on each death, and a resulting heated discussion ensued, including whether to include a gendered breakdown in any instance. Also in dispute is whether to include thorough context on each death as a result of the gendered breakdown. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional info provided by 3 editors

To add some details, the current dispute seems to have arose because some editors feel it is important to specify that Rodger killed 4 men and 2 women, instead of just stating Rodger killed 6 people, and then linking to 2014 Isla Vista killings page for those details. It has been argued that without adding context to the gender breakdown, this misleads readers by suggesting men were Rodger's primary target, and that seems to contradict statements Rodger made prior to the shooting spree. So such context was added (ie that Rodger specifically said he planned to slaughter every "blond slut" in sorority house, but improvised when he was unable to gain access to sorority house). This context has been objected to. Multiple compromises have been suggested and agreed on to various degrees by talk page participates, but two holdouts have been very firm in wanting the death count specified by gender and also to wanting no additional context to that gender count added to the article YesAllWomen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the solutions to the dispute that have been offered are as follows:

• Retain the gender breakdown (added here). Add no further information on specific victims or targets.
• Retain the gender breakdown, and balance with more contextual information (eg this revision or the one reverted here).
• Remove the gender breakdown, replace with 'killed six men and women' or something similar.
• Make no reference to the gender of victims; state that the killer 'killed six people' or return to the pre-June 9 language of 'killed seven people including himself.' This is the approach taken in the lede on the main article: gender of victims is not mentioned until later in the article, where there is space for more context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TaraInDC (talk • contribs)

There is a dispute around whether a gendered breakdown of those killed (and when known, those wounded), should be added, and, if such a breakdown is added, whether specifics about those killed/wounded/targeted should be added. Several editors believe a simple gendered breakdown of the victims is needed since the attacks are an example of gender-based violence. In response, two editors have attempted to add "context" about the attacks that focuses almost exclusively on the failed attack on the sorority - because in their view such description "illustrates Rodger's misogyny" [13]; one supporter claims that leaving such information out while maintaining a gendered breakdown of victims would "make it seem that the article is attempting to cast doubt on the effect of Rogers' misogyny on his actions that day." [14]. Several other editors have opposed these additions, suggesting they are WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK, since they focus on only one part of the attacks and promote the "misogyny" cause as opposed to other causes explored in sources. To date, several versions of the description of the event have been proposed, three of which are listed below. Please use the survey section below to !vote for your preferred version, or feel free to propose an alternative wording. The alternative sentences listed below would be placed in the area marked {INSERT SENTENCE HERE}

Currently agreed upon text:

"The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who were sexually active, while he was not.[6][7][8] {INSERT SENTENCE HERE} After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[10][11]"

Alternatives proposed for description of victims

1. The killing spree resulted in the murder of two women and four men, thirteen people wounded, and ended with the suicide of the killer.[1][9]
2. He killed six people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself.[1][9]
3. In total, Rodger killed four men, including his three roommates, who he fatally stabbed prior to leaving his apartment, and one man who Rodger killed as he fired into a deli, and two women, who he shot outside of a sorority house. Rodger previously indicated the sorority was his intended target. Prior to the killing spree, Rodger said in a YouTube video, "I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there." However, no one answered the door at the sorority house when Rodger attempted to gain entry. [10][11][12]--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Header was divided into individual statements instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning - non-neutral RFC header Note to participants in this RfC - the additional non-neutral opinions/comments added above by Bobo and Tara and warred back in multiple times are not neutral and do not reflect the scope requested in this RFC, which is whether to include the gendered breakdown of deaths or not. Two editors are repeatedly disrupting the RFC header and making it non-neutral through their edits. I suggest editors ignore those comments, focus on the RFC question and put their votes below.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I disagree - I feel the original RFC did a rather poor job of explaining the conflict and contained loaded language; asking if we should 'disclose' the gender breakdown as if editors were trying to hide something, and describing a brief sentence giving slightly more context to the attacks to avoid giving a skewed perspective as 'thorough detail.' It is *very* typical for RFCs to outline the changes on the table when there have been multiple solutions to the dispute presented, and if you can cite specific wording of my descriptions above that is non-neutral, or if you feel there are others I have left out, please feel free to say so. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) RfC statements are meant to be separated from other discussions as to pose as a NPOV overview of the dispute. Editors are not supposed to add their criteria nor their opinions underneath the RfC statement, as it could be seen as a possibly biased statement and might be a form of campaigning towards one particular side. This is also done out of precedent. Check out the other RfCs and you will see much of the same. In addition, teTutelary (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) If you check edit summary on this talk page, you'll see Obiwankenobi's edits to move my above comments have been reverted by Mr. Granger, a neutral uninvolved party who supported my contributions as appropriate, and who hasn't participated in this heated debate at all (a debate Obiwankenobi has voiced opinion in- see above sections). I disagree that the header is non-neutral, but I'm also completely fine with Obi's suggestion for others to ignore my contributions, if they find it non-neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

survey

• This is the wrong question. The issue is whether we should restrict information on those targeted to the death toll, which gives a skewed picture of the events and makes it seem men were the primary target. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Further, I'm fine with any of the options above save the first: I understand the argument that more detail could cause the section to become overlong, but without mentioning the failed attempt at 'annihilating' the sorority which is generally cited by reliable sources the primary goal of the shooting, including the fact that he killed more men than women is confusing to the reader and gives a skewed image of the attacks. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• While I think it is undue, the best solution if editors strongly feel it is necessary to include information concerning the gender breakdown would be this version of the section where there is proper context for it [15]. However, I feel the best possible version is the current one which does not go into the detail to specify and instead links to the main Isla Vista article where the gender breakdown is explored [16] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Use the contextual version of the article. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do not include context. Per my comment below, it's most important to go with RS to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Ca2james (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Include gendered breakdown with no detailed context. If necessary, link to the main article. An article about the hashtag should not be describing every single detail on how each individual was killed. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Wording #1 from above, include gendered breakdown, current context suffices we should not give a play by play especially one that prioritized a certain aspect of this story which is cherry picked and turns this into a coatrack. The breakdown of dead and wounded is simple and factual, but the alleged 'context' a small group of editors is proposing to add here is undue and focuses the readers attention on one aspect of a horrific day which supports or aligns with the sentiments expressed by users of this hashtag. It is this a decidedly non-neutral approach to provide context. Neutral context could potentially be framed and added but then it would be much too large and undue weight for this article. Since any attempt to describe who Rodgers targeted must include all plans and all victims, wounded or killed, only focusing on one aspect of the attack that failed is completely biased and misleads the reader. The alternative proposed of hiding the gender breakdown because the poor reader might be confused is ridiculous - I've never yet heard of hiding three words of fact in the interests of - what exactly? Let the reader learn more in the article, a higher death toll of males implies nothing about the motive behind the crime but it is OTOH very relevant to let people know that an attack that had misogynistic motives ended up killing two women - it boggles me people want to hide the fact that two women died. I !vote for wording #1 above accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

YesAllWomen is a hashtag created as a result of the misogynistic nature of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Saying that "7 people were killed" takes away from the fact that the killings were a result of a mentally ill man who hated women, and doesn't give enough information about the shootings. Giving "4 men and 2 women" were killed without context gives the impression that he aimed for men. Giving context, in that he intended to kill many more women, but couldn't, gives the most information as to the rationale for the feminist movement's creation of the hashtag. Without that, you either have a completely gender neutral mass shooting, or a mass shooting perpetrated against men. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That argument hardly holds water because he didn't solely express his distaste for women; he also hated active men. Saying that the killings were misogynistic in nature because Rodger was a misogynist is nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to make an entire summary of something which already has its own article. On top of this, he killed four men and two women (plus himself, which is 5-2), not solely women; to say that the killings were only misogynistic is unfounded because that wasn't the only statement he made or the result of the murders. Whether or not the killings were misogynistic isn't for this article, only the tag's background. Also, just for the record, this is not the article for the shooting.

By the way, it was, by a two to one ratio, perpetrated against men, not women. Rhydic (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As an addendum, the first paragraph of the Origin section already sums up his mental illness, hatred of women for "rejecting" him, and his hatred of active men. It doesn't need repeating. It's concise and already matches pretty much all the points you want to add from a neutral standpoint. Rhydic (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"By the way, it was, by a two to one ratio, perpetrated against men, not women" And comments like these are exactly why using the gender breakdown with no further context is an NPOV problem. Some users want to retain this information and exclude other information about the attack because they believe that this cherry picked statistic proves something important about the killings. After killing his roommates (who apparently died because he wanted to turn his apartment into a killing chamber, and not because they were male - they were male because they were his roommates) he was locked out of the sorority where he had intended to kill "every blonde slut he saw" and improvised by first killing two women in a targeted killing, and then injuring many more and killing one man in a final act of random violence. If we want to provide information which would seem to support Rhydic's view that these killings were not motivated by misogyny, we must include this other information about these targets which explain why the killings sparked the discussion about misogyny that it did. The misogynistic aspect of the killings is the only reason they're even relevant here, and we can't whitewash that. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"because they believe that this cherry picked statistic proves something important about the killings." But then you're starting to get into cherrypicking which killings are relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. Either way, I've already suggested to basically trash the breakdown and leave it to the actual article on the killings instead of repeating the same irrelevant information all over the place. By the time you get the breakdown in ~THE PROPER CONTEXT~, you'll have summarized almost the entire killing spree, where the murders happened, why they happened, and how they happened, which is all information that should stay in the main article. I'm not denying that there wasn't some kind of misogynistic driver for the murders, but I am saying that it's going to wind up as undue weight because this article is about a hashtag; trying to make a contextual gender breakdown opens up the potential to rack up (heh puns) so many WP:COATRACK violations that it's not really even worth mentioning. If people want to know more about the killings, the main article is already wikilinked at the top of the Origin section. This article is about a hashtag, not a summary of a killing spree with some cute factoids about a hashtag tacked on. This was one of the main arguments for merging the article. It's almost impossible to get any kind of summary without it being WP:UNDUE; merging it would have allowed a lot more leeway as the information would already be in the article. Rhydic (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I rather agree that more detail, especially on the level of the last version that was removed, feels like a digression here, and think that avoiding the topic, as the main article's lede does, is a better solution to avoid the section getting overlong: my only concern is that if we include any information on who was targeted, we need to talk about more than just who the killer successfully murdered in order to avoid making it seem that men were the primary target rather than the primary vicitims. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I've changed my position a bit from the previous discussion. My first issue with the contextual version is that it isn't clear to me why the play-by-play is important when I read it; the cherrypicked (I say this because the entire day isn't included; nor should it be) play by play doesn't contribute to an understanding of his misogyny in my mind. My main issue with the contextual version is that I don't think that we need to try to explain why "only" 2 women were killed because that's heading into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory along with some WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE, unless there's a WP:RS that also links this kind of context with the gendered breakdown of the dead. Is there such a source? I know I've found some sources (I don't know if they're reliable) that link his written and/or video manifesto with the creation of the hashtag but I haven't seen any that link the hashtag with an explanation of why "only" 2 women were killed.struck; I was completely wrong about this. My second concern is one of weight. --Ca2james (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of source are you looking for? Do you have reliable source that only focus on those actually killed and don't mention the other contextual information? Here's one by the Washington Post that specifically addresses the 'he killed more men than women' argument as it relates to the hashtag. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more that address the gender breakdown and why it doesn't tell the whole story:

• The National Post: "Elliot Rodger might have killed more men than women, but the first three men were his room-mates, a prelude to the purposeful carnage. According to his own words, the women were more to the point."
• New York Magazine; "And even though Rodger killed more men than women on his way to the sorority Alpha Phi, where no one answered the door, his target — “all women for rejecting me and starving me of love and sex” — is a disturbingly and persistently common one.
• CNN: "In fact, Rodger's killing spree shows that men can also be victims of hostility toward women: Four men were among those killed, including his two roommates, "the biggest nerds I had ever seen," Rodger said."

One recurring theme in these articles is that the failed attack on the sorority is as relevant to the killings as the gender of those killed. You'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't treat it as the primary target. It's well established by the sources above that the gender breakdown alone gives a skewed perspective of the attacks and makes it seem that men are the primary victims. Calling this original research is simply absurd. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are some good sources that I hadn't seen. I apologise for calling it original research and everything; my head remembered a different version than you'd added. I've struck that whole comment out above.

I'd be content to see the article reflect these sources to say that the killings appeared to be misogynistcally driven even though he killed more men than women, since he started his spree by killing his male roomates and was prevented from killing the sorority members he targeted when no one answered the door. I don't think the quote is necessary and I think we need to keep the context brief if it goes in. --Ca2james (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong article to get into root cause analysis. We already state in the first sentence his stated motive was hatred of women and we state in the second that he hated women and men and in the third we state sources claim it was driven by misogyny. That's three different ways, no more is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Ca2james, so you mean something along the lines of the revision Chess recommended in the survey section above? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

part of me now thinks we should close this RFC down, as the purpose is to bring in new users but the non-neutral header continually warred back in has made the whole RFC suspect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

-- reopened with one addition to the header--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New rfc

Those on the other side refused to engage in drafting of a new RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have closed the RFC as some felt the header language was non-neutral so added their own non-neutral language instead. So much as it pains me were going to have to have a whole discussion here just on the wording of the RFC. If we can't agree that the above RFC header language is non-neutral there's zero point in continuing it as it will only cause resentment and grumpiness from one side or another. My proposed wording is as follows: "Should we provide the gendered breakdown of those killed (and if it becomes available, those wounded), or should we simply state that six people were killed and thirteen wounded?" I think we should leave the 'context' discussion out, as it's confusing and provides too many options. If the RFC holds that the gendered split of victims should be added, then we can hold a separate discussion about potential language around 'context'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC) New language for RFC - upon reflection, I think we should actually give people three choices, rather than asking questions in the abstract. There are the versions and language I propose: There is a dispute around whether a gendered breakdown of those killed (and if known, those wounded), should be added to this article, and, if such a gendered breakdown is added, whether additional details about those killed/wounded are needed. Three versions of the description of the event have been proposed. Please !vote for your preferred version, or propose an alternative in the survey section below. The text that is changing is bolded. "The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[6][7][8] The killing spree resulted in the murder of two women and four men, thirteen people wounded, and ended with the suicide of the killer.[1][9] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[10][11]" The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[6][7][8] He killed six people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself.[1][9] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[10][11] The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive.[1][6] The killer, Elliot Rodger, previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[7][8][9] In total, Rodger killed four men, including his three roommates, who he fatally stabbed prior to leaving his apartment, and one man who Rodger killed as he fired into a deli, and two women, who he shot outside of a sorority house. Rodger previously indicated the sorority was his intended target. Prior to the killing spree, Rodger said in a YouTube video, "I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there." However, no one answered the door at the sorority house when Rodger attempted to gain entry. [10][11][12] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[13] If you have a proposed change to any of the versions, suggest it here, or if you think a fourth should be added.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Meta discussion re: new RFC So you are seeking to gain consensus for your preferred version, and only your preferred version, and wish to prevent discussion on any solutions that have been proposed to the problems with addition of the gender breakdown other than simply reverting that addition? Unilaterally closing the RFC because you didn't like the way it was going was not appropriate. I suggest you revert that and try discuss the matter reasonably, in comments, not edit summaries. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC) (Note: talk page has been refactored since this comment was made: linking for original context -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC) no, this is obviously a contentious issue and positions are entrenched so we need to move delicately, that RFC was not the way forward as it didn't present a simple question nor was it neutrally headed. I propose a new RFC just asking if we should add the gender split. If that passes, then we can have a other discussion about what sort of 'context' would be appropriate, if it doesn't pass then it's irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) also it has nothing to do with how the RFC was 'going', I'm not even sure if any new editors had commented already. Anyway the closing was because there was persistent edit warring on the header and Tara even you felt the original header wasn't neutral, thus the whole thing was corrupt.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC) My commenting here is going to be strictly limited as I'm not done packing for my impending camping trip and it's getting late; won't have Internet for over a week. Nonetheless, the header which was added signified editors as being 'holdouts' was simply not neutral and in my eyes was attempting to influence the readers that the RfC might be frivolous by problem users and to side with the other side. That's not a neutral RfC. I think that a new RfC is in order due to the sheer nature of the RfC having a non-neutral statement. Whether that will be me filing it is in question as well. I've no problem with a new RfC. If the former one is reopened, I think that I might withdraw by myself if needed.Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I say again: it was inappropriate to close the discussion unilaterally. This is not a move you should have taken on your own after absolutely no discussion, especially not just after edit warring over your refactoring of the section. No, I did not think the original statement was neutral, but I also don't think so little of my fellow editors that I believe they're incapable of reading through the spin and deciding for themselves. A longer description of the dispute and a list of the options being offered was relevant and important (if you read again, you'll see that the addition of "detailed context" was specifically mentioned in the original RFC, so it's not a matter of expanding the scope.) And attempting to restrict the topic of an RFC to the change you wish to support, and excluding any other solutions, looks to me like an attempt to get your change 'rubber stamped' by the community before any discussion is permitted over how to properly balance the addition to avoid giving a misleading picture of the attacks. There is no reason to have multiple RFCs over a very simple issue: the question is not the inclusion or exclusion of specific details, but how to handle the section as a whole. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Tara, it was also inappropriate for you to add your own version of 'context' unilaterally to the RFC but you did it anyway. People do lots of things unilaterally here. The bottom line is, you think the header wasn't neutral, and I agree, as does Bobo, as does Tutelary. We all agree it wasn't neutral for one reason or another. Rather than try to patch it up which wasn't working well, much better to frame a new RFC here. If you think it's important to have a third option, then propose some language for the RFC that includes your third choice, and well see. To be clear however, any RFC should not make disparaging comments about other editors, nor attempt to describe the whole history of the debate esp in a 1 sided manner. Much better is to frame a simple neutral question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC) If you're going to be pedantic about it, Tutelary's RFC was 'unilateral' as well. Adding to a discussion is something most people do 'unilaterally;' closing it prematurely, however, is not something that one heavily involved editor should take upon themselves. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Tara, I didn't close it with a decision, I closed it so we could come to consensus on the wording of the header, which wasn't going to happen in the middle of an active RFC. If you don't have an agreed upon neutral header, an RFC is pointless - eg a waste of other editor's time. I felt Tutelary's version was neutral and importantly concise, but you obviously didn't and you and Bobo warred in blatantly non-neutral content. Rather than wasting more time bemoaning it, why not propose neutral language building on my proposal above and let's move this forward rather than back.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) No. Your decision to unilaterally close an ongoing RFC is simply disrespectful to the other editors who have been attempting to work towards a solution. You are not entitled to singlehandely declare that existing discussion invalid and demand a do-over. Between once again reverting to your preferred version of the article despite it not having consensus any more than any other recent change to the section, your aggressive refactoring of the RFC and edit warring over those changes, and your abrupt closure of the RFC when your refactoring was disputed by three other editors, your behavior in this discussion has become extremely disruptive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Tara, please stay on topic. We're here to discuss a neutrally worded RFC. OTOH, you're accusing me of all sorts of things that you yourself have just done - e.g. reverting to "your" preferred version of the page, edit-warring over the changes to the RFC above, etc. I am not "declaring that existing discussion invalid", I am putting it on pause while we frame a truly neutral RFC statement/header and question, the discussion will certainly continue after this brief pause in programming. You have admitted above that the statement was not neutral (I disagree but it's irrelevant, as I and Tutelary feel that the additional statements added were also non-neutral, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...), so we actually have consensus that it isn't neutral! If anything, my closure is a sign of respect since I prevent uninvolved editors from wading into a mess and have saved us all a ton of time (RFCs with non-neutral headers have been contested post-facto in the past) - we're much better off framing an agreed upon consensus neutral RFC question here, and presenting a clean face to other editors, rather than continuing the squabble by edit warring over whose version of the events gets to be "above the line" in the RFC. You've otherwise made your views known, repeatedly, but I'd suggest you move on and focus on productive outcomes, like suggesting a modification to the language I proposed above that would include perhaps a third option, which is your preferred solution - e.g. gender + context. We could perhaps frame it as a choice between three versions - one which has gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories, a second which has no-gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories, and a third which has gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories + play-by-play that includes *all* plans and *all* targets (in order to avoid coatracking/bias/cherrypicking). If you could draft the third, that would be actually useful and would move this discussion forward in a productive fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reopening old RfC

The recent closing of RfC by involved editor seems disruptive and I think it should be reopened. We were in the process of getting useful feedback from uninvolved editors. I do not feel it was appropriate for an involved editor to close it abruptly without any discussion. Especially after that involved editor edit warred the talk page to move comments of other editors on the RfC in question.

[[17]] [[18]] [[19]]

Notice a completely uninvolved editor reverted and defended RfC contributions as appropriate (Mr. Granger who hasn’t taken any side in this debate at all). Also, there wasn’t any specification on what was deemed non-neutral prior to closing RfC on grounds of non-neutrality.

Question: is there a notice board to report this to get feedback on policy to reopen this RfC? Or can we just revert the edit that closed it unilaterally and without discussion?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, your additions were not neutral since they characterized two editors as "holdouts", and because they added a cherry picked quote about him wanting to kill blonde sluts, and because they contained a very particular "view" of the discussion - summing up a discussion should ALWAYS be done with extreme care, and in my experience it is best to not even attempt to do so, esp in the header of an RFC. I have been involved in drafting RFCs around contentious issues in the past, and your addition was completely inappropriate, I tried to simply move it to the discussion section but you and others reverted, so rather than continue that useless line of discussion, once it became clear that both you and Tara felt the original statement by Tutelary was non-neutral, the best course of action was to close it and start over in framing the RFC header. Tutelary, who started the RFC, actually agrees on that point. I wish you'd focus on the productive path I've laid out rather than on escalating. Remember, the point of the RFC is to bring in new voices, but we should be very careful to NOT influence their thinking before they hit the page - both your and Tara's above-the-line comments did exactly that and thus polluted the RFC, since we'd had very little outside comment we're much more likely to get a good result if we hit the restart button and start with a statement we ALL agree with. Why exactly do you want to escalate when I'm offering a path of reconciliation and consensus here?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem striking "holdouts" as I can see that can be taken as non-neutral, but the slaughtering "blond sluts" quote was specifically used in one of the debated versions. It wasn't cherrypicked to mislead anyone. It was what was specifically used as part of the context to the killings, in one of the debated versions of the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "path of reconciliation" and I'm confused why you do not see that you actually escalated things here by closing RfC with zero discussion. It's as if this all has to be done precisely on your terms. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, this is water under the bridge. Tutelary has withdrawn the RFC and requested that we redraft a neutral header. if we want to open an RFC, we need to all agree on neutral language for the opening question, and for any details provided. If you think a better path is for us each to offer our own version of events, then do you really want me to add my version up top as well? And then ask others to add their summary as well? And then spend time during the RFC arguing with each other to help correct each other's comments??? It doesn't end well. I'm not saying this has to be done on my terms, I'm saying that if we're to have an RFC, given the incredibly contentious nature of this debate, it needs to be clean. As of right now, we don't even have consensus on the RFC header, so let's focus on that rather than trying to revive an RFC which was irredeemably compromised. Please focus on positive momentum vs negative complaints.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, this all seems to be getting rather ridiculous. The reason for the RfC is we can not reach consensus. This lack of consensus is illustrated by the multiple sections above. With respect to your question, if you were to comment under my edit summary on an RfC, I may ask you to strike content that was inaccurate or non-neutral but I certainly wouldn't scrap the entire RfC because it was no longer worded only as I personally preferred. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not scrapped the RFC Bobo, I simply put it on hold so we could re-work the opening statement... If you and Tara had spent your electrons on building a consensus opening statement with me, we'd be done already and the RFC would be open. I'm not looking for "Obi's" personally preferred wording - I'm encouraging you to work with me on a consensus header, which usually isn't that hard, if you'd just join me up there, the water's warm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, there wasn’t any specification on what was deemed non-neutral prior to closing RfC on grounds of non-neutrality. This is my biggest problem. I've offered specific language in Tutelary's summary that I find non-neutral, and explained why more detail about the discussion, especially a summary of the changes being proposed, is necessary. Rather than discuss problems himself, we have an editor removing everything but the 'neutral' summary prepared by an editor who supports his point of view entirely. And when that wholesale removal of every contributor he disagrees with is disputed, he closes the discussion. This is simply not appropriate behavior for a collaborative environment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything Tara. I simply put it in the discussion section. You clearly felt Tutelary's summary wasn't neutral, so that's what we're here to fix, rather than having her statement, and hobo's statement, and then my statement, and then CAJame's statement, and so on and so forth. It becomes ridiculous. Whose statement gets to be first? Can you bold it? etc. Its a terrible way to start an RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To be precise, what actually occurred was you moved content of other editors (myself and TarainDC) to the survey section without our permission. You were reverted by a completely non-involved editor who did not find this appropriate. Shortly thereafter you closed the RfC unilaterally and with zero discussion, on grounds of non-neutrality, without bothering to specify what you found non-neutral first. This isn't collaborative editing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, if I need to spell it out to you that It has been argued that without adding context to the gender breakdown, this misleads readers by suggesting men were Rodger's primary target, and that seems to contradict statements Rodger made prior to the shooting spree. (while not providing the counter-argument) or but two holdouts have been very firm in wanting the death count specified by gender and also to wanting no additional context to that gender count added to the article YesAllWomen. (while not specifying WHY) is a neutral way of summing up the very complex debate we had above, then I suggest you may want to rethink what you believe neutral means. Tara's version says Retain the gender breakdown, and balance with more contextual information - subtle, but still leans the reader into thinking "Well, yes, balance is nice, that's much better", etc - and suggesting that "gender breakdown without context" is unbalanced. Especially given that we already HAVE context, in 3 other non-disputed sentences, so the whole notion that we were adding that he killed women and men and not saying anything else is a poor framing of the issue. In any case, it became quite clear to me that both of you felt the original RFC itself was not neutral, so we actually have consensus that the lede wasn't neutral, we just disagree on why. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I chose an expedient path to get to a solution that will be more acceptable to a broader community, and Tutelary has withdrawn the RFC in any case. I've drafted a better RFC lede above, so why not participate there, make suggested changes, and we can reopen the RFC forthwith.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You were completely mistaken with respect to my interpretation of Tutelary's RfC summary. I did not find it non-neutral, but I found it lacked sufficient detail regarding what the dispute was. This is a perfect example of why you should discuss first.There was no consensus that Tutelary's summary was non-neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine. You and Granger felt the original version was insufficient, Tara felt it was non-neutral, I felt your additions were non-neutral, and Tutelary concurred. So between the four of us, none of us like the results. Is that a good way to start an RFC? Nyet. In any case, I'm growing rather tired of rehashing what is done, let's focus on what to do next. If you want to open/reopen the RFC, we're going to need to come to consensus on the introductory statement. Guess what I'm suggesting we work on together above?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I am impending on my camping trip where I will have no access to the Internet in any context, please consider this my unambiguous Withdraw Former RfC as proposer, under neutrality concerns. I won't be able to participate in the discussion for the new one in this critical phase, but I do support a new one being drafted, and the old one staying closed. Again, this is just to make unambiguous my statement regarding it, since I am the one who crafted the original RfC. Tutelary (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the close was inappropriate and is not supported by consensus, and that the RFC should be re-opened. The discussion does need to continue, and at this point it would be inappropriate to either start again, discounting the contributions of those who have already commented, or to replace the initial summary with the one Obi is busily drafting above or another, rendering the existing comments nonsensical as they are addressed to a different conversation. This is not Tutelary's dispute, it's the page's.

Obi's behavior has not been conducive to collaboration. His pleas to 'move forward' from his inappropriate close are a transparent effort to deflect criticism away from his behavior and to exert control over the path of the discussion. It's rather self-serving to hold a conversation hostage and then declare it 'water under the bridge.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to open the old RFC, given that Tutelary has withdrawn, what will you use as the header? And, given that you have taken your decision to add your preferred headings, will you make edits I suggest to your headings that you provided to make them more neutral, or will you pick and choose? Also, will I be allowed to provide my own heading/description of the events up top? Can my version come first? If my version is not neutral in your mind and you suggest changes, am I obligated to take them into account, or can I make my own decision on that matter? Should other participants be able to add their summaries to the top of the RFC at any moment? Can I propose my own list of "versions" of the article for people to choose from? Should we wait to re-open the old RFC until we've all had a chance to comment on and change each other's versions of the events? An RFC is not "here is a big messy debate, here are twenty views on that debate, hey new editor, sort it out" - instead an RFC should be framed briefly, neutrally, and should be focused on a simple question the reader can provide feedback on, whereas I count a great many options for the reader to comment on in the header of the now-closed and withdrawn RFC above. And if we're talking about transparency, then your and esp Bobo's edits to the RFC header were a rather transparent effort to tilt readers towards a particular reading and particular conclusion. If you want to re-open up the RFC above, then I expect to be able to place my own summary of the arguments to date and my own list of proposed versions to choose from. However, I think for the reader this would be an extremely bad idea - the shorter the better... The whole process of negotiating what is said in that header - that is what I've started to discuss above, a discussion you seem content to ignore and would rather complain about behavior here. Let's move forward please. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I don't believe that Tutelary is entitled to withdraw in this case, as I explained why the withrawl was disruptive to an ongoing discussion. If we abandon the RFD and start a new one on the same issue at this point, we only discount the opinions of those who have already participated. I believe that your approach to what you saw as issues with the RFC was inappropriate: removing everyone's comments but Tutelary's wholesale and then closing the RFC when that approach did not work. It's your way or the highway with you, it seems. Again, asking us to 'move forward' by ignoring your disruption and allowing you to control the discussion on this page is transparently self-serving. -- TaraInDC (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, I'm looking for a compromise here but I'm not seeing it from you. Thus, it appears it is your way or the highway as well. You want to 1) reopen the old RFC even given that 2) you feel the opening statement is not neutral. That doesn't make sense. If we focus on the end result, we want an RFC with a simple question that can engage readers without biasing them. Given your unwillingness to leave your and Bobo's biased summaries out of the lede, the only corrective I can think of that is fair would be to 1) allow me to place a summary in the lede of my version of events and my own proposed set of changes - I would ask to put mine first, alongside Tutelary's and 2) at the same time, to open a discussion with proposed changes/strikeouts of your and Bobo's opening. Of course you'll ask to make changes and strikeouts to my opening, and perhaps of Tutelary's since you found it decidedly non-neutral, and half of the RFC will be devoted to us arguing about the header of the RFC. Are you signing up for this? Do you really think it will lead to a better result? A much better alternative is for us to work together on a single, simple consensus statement which I've started above. You keep saying 'removing everyone's comments' but that's not what I did, I simply moved them, and have demonstrated above why they were patently not neutral, and Tutelary agreed. If we start a new RFC with a better and more targeted question we can ping anyone who participated and ask them to weigh in on the revised question, so there's no concern with missing their voice and, importantly, we will be able to attract new voices since complex RFCs scare people off while simple crisp ones do not.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC Statement

The RFC statement as it was before the out-of-process close:

Should we disclose the gender breakdown of the deaths and wounded (if it ever comes out)? The article was edited to give thorough detail on each death, and a resulting heated discussion ensued, including whether to include a gendered breakdown in any instance. Also in dispute is whether to include thorough context on each death as a result of the gendered breakdown. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To add some details, the current dispute seems to have arose because some editors feel it is important to specify that Rodger killed 4 men and 2 women, instead of just stating Rodger killed 6 people, and then linking to 2014 Isla Vista killings page for those details. It has been argued that without adding context to the gender breakdown, this misleads readers by suggesting men were Rodger's primary target, and that seems to contradict statements Rodger made prior to the shooting spree. So such context was added (ie that Rodger specifically said he planned to slaughter every "blond slut" in sorority house, but improvised when he was unable to gain access to sorority house). This context has been objected to. Multiple compromises have been suggested and agreed on to various degrees by talk page participates, but two holdouts have been very firm in wanting the death count specified by gender and also to wanting no additional context to that gender count added to the article YesAllWomen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the solutions to the dispute that have been offered are as follows:

• Retain the gender breakdown (added here). Add no further information on specific victims or targets.
• Retain the gender breakdown, and balance with more contextual information (eg this revision or the one reverted here).
• Remove the gender breakdown, replace with 'killed six men and women' or something similar.
• Make no reference to the gender of victims; state that the killer 'killed six people' or return to the pre-June 9 language of 'killed seven people including himself.' This is the approach taken in the lede on the main article: gender of victims is not mentioned until later in the article, where there is space for more context.

What specific changes need to be made to this so that we may continue the discussion without any further edit warring on this talk page? -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As one of the contributors above, I suggest striking part of my comment. Specifically, I would like to strike "two holdouts have been very firm" and change this to "a couple editors prefer". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change it, it's your comment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

1) delete Bobo's statement entirely. We should not and need not sum up the debate. It is too one-sided. Her statement should be iced.

2) modify your statement to provide 3 (or possibly four) simple options that are spelled out for the user - eg the actual article text - without attempting to sum up what the differences are between them - simply provide the text, don't attempt to make comparisons with other articles

3) propose slight rewording of Tutelary's statement as you suggest until you agree it is neutral - or delete entirely since she withdrew and use a tweaked version of the language I proposed above --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think all four are different enough to warrant inclusion - which would you eliminate? I don't agree that we should include large blocks of text with specific language. We should be discussing approaches to the problem, not enforcing specific wording. Bobo's addition offers important information about the actual issues under discussion. Bobo is working on modifying the language: it's more helpful to state specifically what you think is wrong than to demand that the text be stricken entirely. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

disagree. We should absolutely not try to sum up the debate- it's very difficult to do neutrally. If I were to copy edit Bobo's text to make it more neutral every single line would be changed. It's simply not worth it. If you want to list all 4 fine, but 'general approach' doesn't cut it when every word is edit-warred over. We need to present clear choices for the users that at least we agree with, but at the same time we shouldn't have a 'descriptor' text for each version which isn't neutral as you have it now. Let the text speak for itself. See my proposal above for a much better way. One of the problems is your approach of saying 'gendered breakdown without context' but there IS context in the article already re his motivations. If a vaguely worded RFC ends up saying 'yes provide context' then we're back to square one discussing exactly what context means and how to do so neutrally: thus you guys needs to sign up in advance to 'context' language that you like. But a warning - editors will not !vote for your version if it looks like coatrack so I'd suggest time working out some really neutral 'context' language that briefly covers all of his intended targets and all of those killed and wounded, not just those that bolster the point of the hashtag.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is every word 'edit warred over?' I think that deciding on an approach is important: if we invite contributors to !vote on specific language then we put ourselves in a position where the language can not be changed without another RFC, even when it does nothing more than improve the flow of the paragraph or adjust the section to adapt to other changes elsewhere in the article. We need to decide what information about the targets should be included first, then we can decide on wording. So I don't agree that your proposal is a 'much better way.' This should be a discussion, not a vote on A, B, C or D. Frankly, given that you have been the most vocal objector to including any information about the targets other than the gender breakdown of those killed, it's actually a little troubling that you are predicting more problems to come from any consensus achieved from a version of the RFC other than your own. And please stop putting the word 'context' in scare quotes. It's getting old. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. If we come to agreement to add some "vague" amount of context, that is just a recipe for further POV pushing - we've already seen the POV edits both you and Bobo have pushed with a very particular version of the events with an explicitly admitted goal of illustrating that the whole thing was driven at the root by misogyny. That is the root of this problem, actually. I am all for including lots of information about the targets, but upon reflection it became evident that including that information here would be undue, but choosing to leave some of that information out to cherry pick the parts of the story that you prefer would violate neutrality. We have discussed enough, way more than enough in fact, and we have, or can quickly come to, several specific options. I'm willing to sign my name behind one of them, so why don't you draft another one that you and Bobo prefer, and then we'll see what the community thinks. A vague finding of "Yes, we should add some context" is for all intents and purposes useless, since context already exists in the article describing his motives and putative causes of the event, and would just lead to further argumentation here as you add wording about the failed attack on the sorority, and others attempt to add wording about other aspects of his attack that you revert, etc etc etc. The only way to end this is to agree on SPECIFIC LANGUAGE - and then keep said language without substantive changes until some stronger consensus forms to tweak it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop misstating other editors' arguments right now. For the last time I have not 'admitted' to a 'goal of illustrating that the whole thing was driven at the root by misogyny.' I have stated that I feel the wording which includes only the number of men and women killed, with no other information about targets, gives a skewed, non-neutral picture of the attacks. No more putting words in other editors' mouths, please and thank you.

We are not here to get people to vote on one version over another. We're here to get people to help decide what level of detail is permissible about the victims and targets of the attacks. I don't agree that the summaries I offered are 'vague.' I think they are as succinct as possible while still getting the point across, but if you can propose brief, neutral additions to the descriptions of the proposed solutions please feel free to do so. I think that voting on specific wording is not productive and not conducive to the improvement of the article, especially given that participants may themselves have input to offer on wording. Your insistence on controlling the structure of an RFC that's already well under way is obstructive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

well, you've made that position abundantly clear. Let's move on, repeating it is rather useless. If you want this to be a broad, free ranging discussion about how much detail to put about what, then an RFC is inappropriate. Thus, I suggest we revert to the text pre-dispute, and continue the discussion until we can come up with a few versions you guys actually agree upon. Otherwise bringing more editors into the middle of this mess via a corrupt RFC is absolutely not going to be effective and any consensus that so arises will be of little worth - especially given the extant RFC which you seem to put some much stake in actually disparaged two editors and the positions they held, in the intro!! It's quite stunning. I think new participants are welcome to propose new wording but we should let them do it, and otherwise offer specific suggestions for them to vote on. Tara you may not realize it but you are also acting in an incredibly controlling fashion, deeming that the RFC must be worded in your way, and that perhaps my suggestions if reasonable may be heeded. Who put you in charge? No one. The RFC was started by someone else, who reverted your additions and withdrew the RFC, so the RFC is dead. Get over it. You need to learn about consensus forming which I am attempting to do, and I have an open offer on the table to write a new fully consensus based RFC which you and Bobo have repeatedly rejected. That is disruptive as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

additionally, Bobo for example was quite clear in one of their early reverts, stating: "Please stop deleting properly referenced on topic content which illustrates Rodger's misogyny" - so Bobo admits that they are adding specific details of the killing to align with the 'misogyny' theory supported by proponents of this hashtag. As mentions umpteen times it's classic coatracking - I'm not putting words into people's mouths I'm simply stating the conclusions that follow from the arguments y'all have made here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you reread my contributions above you will see my point is (and has always been) we should go with the reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources have described Rodger's motive in the massacre as misogynistic. From your edits to this article, as well as your contributions to talk page, I'm getting that you disagree that misogyny is a good summary for his motives, but this isn't about my opinion, or your opinion, we should go by the reliable sources, giving due weight in proportion to what is presented in the reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

please take a look at the first sentence, which no-one has disputed. It lays out his motive. The second sentence also gives more detail on his motive. The content we've been disputing is not about motive! it's about 'how much description do we get into re the specifics of who was killed where and why and who else did he plan to kill but wasn't able to (and by the way, filter that whole thing to just focus in the women because this page is about women)'. There is a huge difference between describing a simple fact, and attempting to 'contextualize' that fact with cherry picked evidence based on cherry picked sources couched in claims of due weight. You guys have been completely transparent about actually why you wanted a one-sided summary of the attacks on this page, and now you're backpedalling. Anyway, we aren't any closer to a solution - based on Tara's latest it seems we can't even agree what the RFC is for - eg to agree upon which wording should be used or to share our feelings on a general approach. Again, given the tendentious nature of this discussion anything less than a specific set of wordings is going to leave us wanting. They had an RFC just to determine a single sentence describing Jerusalem, so we're in a similar pickle here. We should elaborate specific wordings we support and provide them neutrally for new editors to pick from (those new editors can also be encouraged to propose new language). If you look at the RFC I've proposed above this is very close to the direction i was going. This whole ownership of comments in the RFC header is the real problem we need to get way past that.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it was obstructive. I was disheartened to return to look for updates to the RfC that I had contributed to a few days ago and see one editor (Obi) attempting so thoroughly to control the debate - insistent on closing the original RfC without consensus, drafting a new one without consensus to begin a new one, edit warring to keep the original RfC (that he disagrees with) closed, engaging the many editors who disagree with his views in an antagonistic manner, and misrepresenting the views of those whose arguments disagree with his own in order to derail the debate. I think this editors behaviour on this talk page has been very disruptive and not the way to attract uninvolved editors into the debate --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reopened the RFC. Since both Tara and Bobo seemed unwilling to make the changes I had suggested to the header and didn't see any significant problems with the neutrality of their statements, and since they were also unwilling to work with me on a joint/consensus RFC header, and felt the RFC should be reopened -- even if the person who started the RFC had withdrawn it and the editors participating on this page still have no clear consensus on the purpose of said RFC -- I had no alternative but to simply add my own opening statement and goals for the RFC, and divide the RFC header into individual statements, that way there will be no confusion as to whether there is a consensus RFC statement - because there isn't. I suppose we will see what other editors bring to the table, and hopefully we can nonetheless have a productive discussion. I'm sorry for causing the drama, I really did think my solution would have been better, and I think the current RFC is going to be a mess, but the other editors here seemed very tied to the particulars of their RFC header additions. Any reading of consensus on from previous discussions is debateable, and thus I have reverted to the version of the wording pre-discussion here. Once the RFC has finished in 30 days, we will ask a neutral closer to assess consensus w.r.t the wording, but until then per BRD the previous wording should stay.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess, as you state, because you made it a mess. You reopened it in drastically different format with comments completely out of order from when they were added and with headers difficult to follow.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The main difference is, I added my own header comment, and I placed it next to Tutelary's since we feel similarly so it felt reasonable to have our two statements together, and then yours and Tara's. Everything else is aligned in the same order. If you have suggestions on how to improve the header please, suggest away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. Your proposed wording had gotten no traction, and there was at least some discussion going on in the second section geared towards reworking the original language rather than re-writing it completely. There's no deadline. The damage you did by closing the RFC was done, and there was absolutely no call to make matters even worse just because your proposed language was not gaining consensus. It was particularly inappropriate to place your heavily biased and unsupported comments, and your instructions to contributors to vote on one of your proposed versions of the article, above the comments which were originally part of the RFC: talk pages, you may have noticed, are typically kept in chronological order.

You have to stop taking such disruptive action. This is a collaborative project: you can not just run roughshod over the opinions of other editors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Tara, did you get consensus for your additions to the header of the RFC? I don't recall that. Did you agree to make the changes I suggested to your header of the RFC? I don't recall that either. Do you have specific suggestions for how to improve my comments? I'm certainly willing to listen. Also, there were repeated calls for me to reopen the RFC, both on this page and on my talk page and elsewhere on the wiki. Yes, there's no deadline, but I was getting rather sick of being lambasted for putting the RFC on hold in order to work on a better opening statement. I didn't see any progress happening there, so decided to just reopen it with your statements intact that you seemed loathe to change; if you want to modify your statement please feel free, and if you'd rather ask people to !vote on the list of options you proposed as well, go ahead and do that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

FFS, will you relax? It's a Sunday. Why the rush? The damage from closing the RFC was done: if I thought it was a good idea to simply re-open the thing with no further discussion about how it should be re-opened I'd have done it myself rather than starting a discussion about it. I was hoping to figure out how to adjust it to ensure there would be no further disruption. Your additions are extremely biased, and your decision to place them above those that were made as the RFC was being opened is completely inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Tara, you seem to forget that you and others have been blasting me on this page and elsewhere for putting the RFC on hold. So please don't blast me for re-opening it. If you have suggestions on how to make my additions less biased I'm listening, please tell me what you'd like to change. I already explained that putting my comments next to Tutelary's, especially since she has formally withdrawn from the RFC, made more sense, since we saw eye to eye. Perhaps we could do the first 15 days of the RFC with our two entries on top, and the last 15 days of the RFC with yours and Bobos on top?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, in the interest of peace and goodwill, I've moved my statement below yours and Bobo's so you can enjoy the pride of first placement, we'll switch the order after 15 days just to be fair. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree to your proposal to eventually move your comments to the top of the section, as they are overlong, contain a very poor summary of the solutions being proposed and direct instructions for editors to choose one of your three versions of the section. By adding the longest of proposed versions of the section with more detail on the killers' targets as the only solution to the dispute other than removing the gender breakdown entirely or restricting information on the targets to the gender breakdown alone you create a straw version of other editors' arguments. This is just one reason why I find your insistence on making this RFC into a vote on specific language unproductive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to suggest a fourth option which is shorter, I'd be happy to add it to my list. I think cycling the order of comments is only fair.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think continually refactoring an in-progress RFC is disruptive, and I don't think that your approach is productive, so I'm certainly not going to contribute to it. As I said, this is only one issue with the approach you have chosen. You had an opportunity during your out of process close of the RFC to contribute to a full rewording of the statements but the discussion didn't move quickly enough for you: at this point, you need to leave the section alone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with the way the statement by Obi is worded, particularly the parts that say two editors have attempted to add "context" about the attacks that focuses almost exclusively on the failed attack on the sorority - because in their view such description "illustrates Rodger's misogyny" and Several other editors have opposed these additions, suggesting they are WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK, since they focus on only one part of the attacks and promote the "misogyny" cause as opposed to other causes explored in sources. It is completely NPOV and reads like an attempt to convince new editors to side with himself. Is it possible to have one written from an unbiased perspective? It feels like it belongs below in the threaded discussion --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to reword that sentence that would be more neutral? Also, do you have similar suggestions for how to correct the neutrality issues esp in Bobo's post?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would do it by describing what the four options are rather than criticising the points of other editors. Having re-read it, I think I also agree with them being the same significant issues with Bobo's post. If anything, I think the RfC should just be the one by TarainDC, as it explains what the options are clearly and with links to diffs --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add that this has been the most poorly organised RfC I have read yet on the website. It is not surprising that there have been no new contributors so far --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's largely because the reactions to the options themselves are quite confusing to read. I don't understand why you are so strongly towards including a gender breakdown of the deaths for men and the deaths for women but so strongly against providing a real context for this. It's not like you are against the inclusion of a gender breakdown, which would make more sense to only slightly supporting it, or like you are for a detailed exploration of this breakdown, which would warrant its inclusion in the first place. It seems so misleading to me and I'm confused as to why you feel strongly enough about this to act so disruptively --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also completely boggled that people feel so strongly that we must hide the gender breakdown unless a full play by play is provided, but I guess there's no accounting for taste. As to your other comments, I agree, but it proved impossible to convince other editors here to move their non-neutral statements, and it also proved impossible to draft a shorter, tighter, single consensus (thus unsigned) RFC header - Tara and Bobo seemed quite attached to their specific contributions and especially their specific location at the top of the RFC, so this is what we're stuck with. I wouldn't be opposed to context if this was a simple crime - eg he walked into a classroom, shot the male teacher and 5 female students. But this was a complex crime, a year in the planning, with at least 10 separate crime scenes. To summarize only part of that day here in a non-neutral way, which all of the proposed 'context' versions to date have been, is undue - for example they all left off the wounded, who only survived by the grace of god and not due to any intention of the killer. We could summarize all of it, but then it would be undue; it seems ridiculous that providing a single simple fact that even by itself is incredibly germane requires a paragraph or two of baggage. Thus I felt if we couldn't compactly describe the events, we should leave the detailed description of the events out. As to my motivation, I suppose I am honestly a bit disgusted at the use of this page to promote a POV around the supposed 'actual' or 'primary' targets of this maniac's murderous rampage that destroyed 6 lives and harmed a dozen others and the attempts here to boil it down to 'misogyny', when the truth is much more complex as most thoughtful sources assert; and that said, his avowed hatred of women is already attested two in 3 out of the current sentences.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I just tweaked the re-opened RfC to remove what seemed to be excess headers. Readers don't care that the statement was from BoboMeowCat or Obiwankenobi etc, and statements are signed at end anyway. Hopefully, this might make it a bit easier to read, and we'll start getting participation again.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Obi-Wan Kenobi?!? Only minutes after I tweak RfC, to make it easier to read, you have to come in and "fix the indent", which actually un-fixes the point of making it like a threaded discussion, which seems easier to read. It's a minor thing, but it seems you are still dominating this talk page, even after assuring admin Dennis Brown you'd take a breather, and go edit something unrelated for a weak. Yet you are still very active here and also still very active on main topic article for this page 2014 Isla Vista killings. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)