Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings

Violence against men category

It qualifies as it was a gendered attack against men for their gender. The edit summaries given by Sceptre are not sufficient imho. Indeed, the edit summary Provide sources that his hatred of men was not out of hatred of women, and we'll talk implies that that it was a gendered attack, so I'm not exactly sure where that fits on the opposing side. However, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/27/no-fact-rodgers-killed-men-women-doesnt-change-fact-misogynist.html describes Rodger as hating men as well, and since it was provoked by this, it makes it a gendered attack. Though I do note that it was primarily against women, the men did and were hated by him, evident by his manifesto and videos. Tutelary (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers didn't hate men for being men, he hated men out of their relationship towards women. There is a strong effort on Wikipedia to not paint this as what it was: misogynist violence. And yes, misogynist violence can hurt men too. These two comment pieces – [1][2] – explain it more than I have the effort or the willingness to. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The articles that you're citing make it quite clear that it was a gendered attack against men as well. Therefore I'm a bit confused on why you're so opposed to the category that qualifies as it. I'm not proposing that we remove the 'violence against women' category, but add the 'violence against men' category. The category text Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys. makes it quite clear that they were killed mainly out of spite for taking women, but that is still considered a gender based attack. He hated men, though not overshadowing your point of misogyny, but he did hate men and that would make this a gendered attack against them, thereby fitting the category. Tutelary (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hitler hated Jews because he thought they were less than human, and the KKK hates the blacks because X, and the Westboro Baptist Church hates the gays because they violate god's law. Who cares WHY these lunatics hate someone? Hatred is not some sort of logical chain that you can perform logical operations o - e.g. X hated Y because of Z, therefore, X didn't really hate Y?? It doesn't make any sense. Many analyses have said that his hatred of women actually derives from his own failings to achieve the masculine ideal. And maybe his failings to achieve the masculine ideal stem from our society. and maybe our society stems from 1000 years of patriarchy. and maybe 1000 years of patriarchy derives from... We don't need to do root causal analysis just to place a category - his clear and often-reported hatred of men and, most importantly, the fact that men were targeted as victims of his violence is the important thing. Even if we accept that men were victims BECAUSE of misogyny, it is still gendered violence against men, and reliable sources POINTED OUT that misogyny can harm men, thus the category is clearly relevant.

The key question is, was any of his violence motivated by hatred for men? Let's look at sources:

• [3]

"But his hatred of femininity is tangled with hatred of other men—and himself"

"As long as masculinity is based in hatred of and fear of femininity, it will be expressed in violence—against men, against gay people, and against the marginalized. And most of all, it will continue to motivate violence against women.”

• [4]

"Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way."

"It is not uncommon for men who resent women to take out their aggressions on other men, but unlike public violence against women, male-on-male attacks slip more easily underneath our cultural radar."

"Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience. This is not ammunition for an argument that he was a misandrist at heart—it’s evidence of the horrific extent of misogyny’s cultural reach."

• [5]

"Sure, we can admit that we hated men, but only if we accept that his hatred for men stemmed from his feeling of entitlement towards women."

• [6]

"The reason why he hated men was because they received the thing he thought he deserved," she said. "He did not think he was entitled to men's bodies. He did not think he was entitled to sexual submission from men. What he was resentful about was that some men got those privileges and he did not. So that was part and parcel of his sexism and part and parcel of his misogyny."

Thus, sources seem to pretty much agree that he hated men, and that he targeted, directly, men that he hated, and several men died or were shot. Now, the bulk of sources claim that the root cause of his hatred of men is actually misogyny. Fine, we don't need to argue that here - the reliable sources are all competing to decide who gets to be the root cause. But you're misunderstanding the category. The violence against women category is not "Violence, based in the final root cause analysis, on misogyny", and the violence against men category is not "Violence, based on final root cause analysis, on misandry". A single level of gendered hatred suffices, and both his manifesto AND reliable sources note his hatred of men - we don't need to to final root cause analysis. If a guy goes to shoot up a school full of girls and shoots the male guard, fine, that's not "violence against men" - but that's NOT what happened here. When the Taliban slaughter girls at a school, we don't say "Well, their hatred of women stems from radical interpretations of Islam, therefore, it's not really violence against women" - NO. From whence that hatred of men derives is not that relevant, it doesn't DIMINISH his hatred of men, and this hatred was expressed very clearly in his manifesto and, begrudgingly in some cases, accepted by reliable sources. The Violence against men category is about gendered violence, men targeted because they were men. The sources above demonstrate that he hated men and that he targeted men that he hated - this was not random. This also does not diminish the misogyny, nor the violence against women. Categories are NOT either/or - we can have both. When someone sets off a bomb in Iraq at a market, and men women and children are killed, we don't call that gendered violence, since specific genders aren't targeted. Here, we do have gendered violence, on BOTH sides (the Srebrenica massacre is a similar example of gendered violence on both sides - men were slaughtered, and women were raped) - thus this was also a case of both violence against men AND violence against women, in both cases based on gender).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers clearly expressed hatred toward men and killed them. However, he indicated he hated a subset of men, sexually active men. According to the sources, his hatred of men was fueled by his rage that other men had sexual access to women, while he did not, so they deserved to be punished. He hated women because they were women and hated men because of their access to women. I'm not sure the "Violence against men category" fits here because he did not seem to target men for being men. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Previously discussed at Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings/Archive_1#Violence_against_men_category. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he hated only a subset of men - see my examples below for "subsets of men" that were nonetheless targeted for violence. Sexually-active men with access to women - and hating them and wanting to kill them - is a classic example of a gendered target. It's not "I wanna kill everyone" - it's "I want to kill people of this gender that did this, and people of that gender who did that"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's look further at Srebrenica - this is a classic example, oft-spoken of, of violence against men - something like 8000 men were massacred. Now, was this done BECAUSE the Serbs just hated men? Probably not. Did they hate everyone, like Rodgers seemed to? Probably not either - I assume the Serb killers went home to their wives and families afterwards and had beers with their friends - like Nazi death camp guards, they were probably rather ordinary people. The Serbs hated muslims, more specifically Bosniaks, and they enacted that hatred by gender-separating the men and boys and slaughtering them, and then later, raping the women. In both cases these are incidences of gender-based violence since the violence was discriminate, but stemming perhaps from a deeper hatred of a whole people. Did the Nazis hate Greek men when they massacred all the men in a village at Massacre_of_Kalavryta? It's hard to say, they were an occupying army, and wanted to punish the village. So maybe they didn't hate all greeks, maybe they just hated the greeks in that village - the massacre of men was unlikely to be caused by hatred of men, but it's nonetheless a prime example of VIOLENCE against men. Sceptre is confusing the root cause final cause analysis of that motivation - with the proximate hatred that he expressed towards men and the direct violence he enacted against them as a result. Now, you may claim "No, it was gender-based violence against the women, but it wasn't gender-based violence against the men, they were just in his way" - but that's not what the sources above state, they state that he targeted men he was jealous of, he targeted men that he hated! The violence against women category is full of instances of violence against women that aren't driven by misogyny - sometimes mental illness, sometimes "extreme interpretations of the Islamic dress code" 2002_Mecca_girls'_school_fire, there are always analysis of proximate and deeper causes, but that doesn't matter for categorization, what matters is whether violence was enacted against people based on their gender, and we have strong evidence that both men and women were targeted accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We can also do a very simplified hypothetical. Suppose a killer posts a video saying "I hate all of you women, I can't stand you. To punish you, I'm going to kill all of your boyfriends and husbands" - and then goes on to massacre their boyfriends and husbands. Articles will say "Well, this was clearly motivated by hatred of women" - ok, fine, but it was still "violence against men"! A more complex version is what actually happened here - he didn't just hate women, he also hated men - perhaps he only hated a certain type of men - e.g. ones who had sex with women - but that's still a pretty broad list, and that list remains gendered, and his violence was accordingly gendered. We should also look for sources to see if this was also racially motivated - I think all of his roommates killed were Asians, and he seemed to despise Asians.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, none of the men he killed was with a woman at the time. As far as we know, he didn't know whether any of them were sexually active. All of them could have been virgins just like him, for all he knew. Whatever the ideas beneath his rage, they didn't seem to affect which men he chose to kill. So it doesn't make sense to form ANY kind of link between those ideas and those killings. Mandruss (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

see the quote above: "Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way." - not all victims were killed, fwiw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's very much the point. He didn't know whether they were virgins or bachelors, he didn't know that those men weren't the ones who had countered him. He killed them because of his hatred for their gender, and that's the point of the category. Look above with Obi's links to the reliable sources, stating his hatred for men. I thought this was a plain cut dispute giving the reliable sources, but it appears to not be. Tutelary (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, none of the women Rodger killed rejected Rodger or even knew him. I think Rodger's stated motive and why victims were targeted matters for the category. The victims who were strangers to Rodger were white, does that mean this belongs in a category "violence against whites"? I'd say no because according to his stated motive he did not target whites for being white. Similarly, he did not target men for being men but he was very clear on targeting women for being women. I saw no sources that indicated Rodger hated men for being men but rather for their (imagined) relation to women. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The root cause of the root cause of the root cause doesn't matter Bobo. He hated men, and RS sources point out that he targeted men, as well as women. Again, I point you to how these categories are being used for every other article - do the Taliban hate women for being women, or because that's how their interpretation of the Koran instructs them, or because that's what they were taught in school? It doesn't matter for the category to apply - if someone targets women for violence, the category fits. He targeted men for violence, that much is clear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

According to that category it is supposed to reflect "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys.". I don't think this case fits. I don't think his violence against men was gender based. I actually don't care that much either way, but personally, if I were to go to that category to find articles on "gender based violence against men", I wouldn't be looking for stories like this. This isn't gender based violence against men imo. I think adding this to the category does a disservice to the category and those who might wish to use that category to find a specific type of article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So his attack on women was gender based, but his attack on men was not? Sources disagree with you Bobo. His manifesto goes into extreme detail on how much he hates men. From CNN: "He also said he despised men who had luck with women and said he would eliminate them, too. "I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer," he added. "It is only fair."" [7]. How can you imagine that this isn't gender-based violence on both sides? This wasn't "I'm going to kill the sorority girls, and any security guards who happen to be in the way" - this was "I'm going to kill women because X, and I'm going to kill men because Y". Both genders were targeted, explicitly. When someone says "I'm going to kill all men", we obviously consider that gender-based violence. If someone says "I'm going to kill all men over the age of 15", that is still gender-based violence. If someone says "I'm going to kill all men who are more sexually successful than me" again, that is STILL gender.. based... violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: The sources do appear to support that this was a misandrist as well as a misogynist-motivated attack. I support inclusion of the category. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the category violence against men based on the sourcing and the location he specifically chose to target. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - reading parts of his manifesto as well as RS coverage, this guy hated some men and women, and it's easily demonstrated he lashed out at both. I'll be so bold as to say that making this only about women is political, not encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Have reliable sources used the word "misandry" or "misandrist" to describe Elliot Rodger? I've seen many RS refer call Rodger misogynistic, but only seen the misandrist label given to him by non-neutral groups such as mens rights advocate, blogs, comments section of articles, etc. What I'm hearing from a lot of supporters of the category sounds like "I read his stuff and deemed it misandrist" or "his actions seem like misandry to me" and while that may be a very reasonable conclusion, that's original research or synthesis. To be encyclopedic, we need to simply reflect the reliable sources. Have reliable sources specifically labeled him a misandrist? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The terms 'misandry' and 'misandrist' are not requirements to add the 'violence against men' cat nor any other cat (that I'm aware of). The cat specifically refers to gender-based violence, which is what Rodgers had committed, and Obi had demonstrated a few posts up. Also, I am all for sticking to the sources, which is why we cited them in terms of him hating against men and for the attacks. Though him being a 'misandrist' as demonstrated by reliable sources is not required to add the category, just the demonstration of gender based violence. Also, the sources cited (as you can see above in Obi's post, he demonstrated it rather clearly) that the sources did describe him as hating men. We're not arguing for the addition of a 'misandrist' cat (if such one exists), but purely for the cat already being discussed. One last thing; just because a source is biased does not mean we can't use it. See WP:BIASED. There may be other factors that may disqualify its credibility, but being biased is not one of them. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's undeniable Rodger killed males and was full of hatred, but the violence against men category says it is specifically for "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys." I do not think the reliable sources have established his killing of males was gender based. If we are going to add this to the violence against men category, seems we could go ahead and add Columbine and World Trade Center attack and countless other cases where clearly men were killed and the killers expressed hatred, but seems that category is specifically looking for gender based hatred, and I'm simply trying to determine if the RS state Rodgers had gender based hatred of men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how to parse "gender-based hatred of men" - what other kind is there? Or are you suggesting he harbored gender-based hatred of women, but had no such feelings about men, and just killed them incidentally? Did you actually read his manifesto?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave plenty of examples above of RS who claim that he hated men - and not just individual men, but broad cross-sections of men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Do they use a phrases such as "Rodgers was a guy who hated men"? Seems the sources state he hated men who he imagined had sexual access to the women he felt entitled to. Reading over his stuff, the guy seemed full of hate, but have reliable sources said Rodger hated men or used word "misandry" or "misandrist" to describe him?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the sources I linked at the top, and yes the sources say that. Maybe he didn't hate all men, I'm not sure, but he certainly hated large numbers of them, e.g. any sexually successful man, which is Isla Vista a college party town was probably lots of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• support inclusion of category, per arguments given above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Some excellent arguments above. It's just as worthy of inclusion as the violence against women category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd call it misomania, the syndrome characterized by delusions of persecution and hatred. Not au currant, but most accurate. I don't think a misogynist would lust after women. I don't think a misandrist could have lived with male roommates or have had a relationship with a little brother. But he clearly had portions of misogyny and misandry, just not the complete package in either case. That misomania includes delusions of persecution seems right to me. snug (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: we're not discussing adding the Category:Misandry category here, this is about the Category:Violence against men category. I pointed out elsewhere that many instances of violence against women are not necessarily driven by misogyny, and acts of violence against men aren't all driven by misandry - all that is necessary is someone is targeted for violence based on their gender. The sources above establish this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The category "violence against men" is a subcategory of the "Misandry" category. Similarly, the category "violence against women" is a subcategory of "Misogyny" category. There appears to be some misunderstanding of the category purpose. Just because men (or women) were targeted violently doesn't make the article appropriate for either of those categories. For example, the World Trade Center attack and Columbine are not included in the violence against men or women categories, even though men and women died, because for inclusion in these categories, it needs to be gender based violence. I have not seen any RS that say Rodger engaged in gender based violence against men, but I have seen multiple wikipedia editors arguing that they interpret various things they read in reliable sources that way. I've repeatedly asked for RS quotes that clearly say Rodger was either a misandrist or clearly describe his violence against men as gender based violence. I'm still waiting for such quotes. These quotes are easy to find with respect to Rodger and Misogyny/gender based violence against women, but not so about Misandry/gender based violence against men. All I've seen so far is arguments that editors here think it was misandry or gender based violence against men, but we need to find a reliable sources interpreting it that way, not just wikipedia editors intrepreting it that way. BTW, I'm by no means saying the interpretation is unreasonable, but it can't just be our interpretation. Please find quotes from commentators from reliable sources that clearly interpret Rodger's violence against men as gender based violence and/or call Rodger a misandrist, if you want to place the article in this category. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that parenting structure of the categories. While violence against men and women can be a manifestation of misandry and misogyny, it isn't always the case - and it's besides the point. You're asking for the sources to say one very particular set of words, and refusing all of the other words the sources are using - like the fact that he targeted men he was jealous of (that comes from CNN), or that he proposed a virus that would eliminate all of the men, or that his manifesto detailed how he wanted to kill the sexually successful men he saw around him, and then, he does so- killing several, wounding several others. And you seem to forget that his targeting of men was not random - he butchered his roommates with a knife, before doing anything else. We're not talking about 9/11 here, this was personal, gender-based violence that both men and women were victims of. i suggest you re-read the sources I provided above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I verify that violence against men is a subcategory of misandry. I also think misogyny and misandry and their subcategories are too small to capture Rodger's issues. A little like convicting Capone on tax evasion. snug (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a misanthropy category for now...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just putting my thoughts in to this. Does the addition mean he killed men or that he killed them because they were men? from the manifesto (that is generally believed to be his motive) it seems the women were killed because they were women and the attempt at the sorority house was inspired by this. then again, he did seem to kill in discriminatory, which gives the idea that, in intent, he wanted to kill lots of women, but in reality, he killed people on both gender. If anything they should both be removed, although in that, we have the issue that we are removing somebody who frequently contributed to anti-female hate websites and wrote an anti-female manifesto not categorised by his shooting of women. it's sort of like if somebody posted on anti-jewish websites and wrote an anti-jewish manifesto but killed jewish people and non-jewish people in a similar shooting. would Wikipedia categorise by both even though his sentiments were pejoratively against women? he was not a misandronist but he did murder men. How do you categorise by that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Would Wikipedia categorise by both?" I think the answer is no. The vast majority of sources describe this as violence against women, based on evidence such as his manifesto. The rest is really academic; I can't find any sources categorising this as anti-male violence, so that category doesn't warrant inclusion. Secondly, the argument against removing the "violence against women category" — namely "he hated men too" — is a fringe viewpoint of conservative op-eds, and there are much more voices stating that deal with what is effectively a logical fallacy of saying "therefore he wasn't a misogynist". To remove the VAW category on that basis — as has happened several times — is a violation of WP:UNDUE. So is stating that his murder of his flatmates was for any other reason than to turn his apartment into a torture chamber and killing room, as there are no sources to that effect. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While most sources fixate on his anger towards women, there are some that mention he had issues with men as well. That there are more sources focusing on his hatred of women is more a product of the success that women's rights groups and feminist theory has had raising awareness of societal inequality. There are more voices out there who have been educated with that perspective (myself included - I took nearly dozen courses on feminist theory, and women's literature in college). Your hypothesis about why he killed his roommates is interesting, but not really relevant. I'm a little surprised by the pushback on including this category. It's not like we're saying that there was no violence against women - both can coexist.Mattnad (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a hypothesis, it was a well covered aspect of his manifesto; example source. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This has also been discussed as a possible race-based issue that intersected with gender. see [8] - his racist ravings were mostly directed at men of color, not people of color more generally. so it had an intersection of gender + race involved. [9] also covers how he posted specific messages of hate about black and asian men (he considered himself to be "white").--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All which, I hasten to note, still doesn't warrant the VAM category. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support However Obi-Wan please don't mention anything about race being involved, it will take away from the feminists wanting this incident to be solely about women and the female gender. Mattnad they cannot co-exist with feminists, that's not how it works. Feminists thrive on victimhood, that is how they get their power. If males/men can also be victims (in various ways throughout society), then that means feminist women will lose some of their power. If men can also be victims it exposes the feminist lie/propaganda tool of "patriarchy". NotHowItWorks (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• "

@NotHowItWorks:, please consider editing your comment to not group all feminists together. This is an emotionally charged topic, but I think we should focus on our reasons for adding or removing the category without decrying large groups of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So it's categorized under both violence against women and violence against men? Is there some other gender that he was neutral about? Or is this simply a hate crime by a severely warped individual, driven by jealousy. He even wanted to kill his own brother. That wasn't "gender-driven", any more than were the other mass-shootings in the news the last few years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case. There are other examples of same, but rarely with a spree killer like this. You would never gain consensus to remove this from Category:Violence against women and that category is clearly applicable - the question is was his targeting of the other men based on their gender? I believe so - because he named them as "men" and critiqued their specific sexual access to women, which is a gendered role. He wasn't jealous of rich people, he was jealous of and wanted to kill specifically men ( as well as women, obviously). His brother was a different issue, that one seems more personal to me - so this killing is full of motives of all sorts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have RS that supports this prior to voting?

I haven’t voted because I'm not sure a vote is appropriate yet. If we had reliable sources, even only a few, or even just one, that described this as a gender based attack on men, or referred to Rodger as a misandrist, then a vote would seem appropriate. However, as far as I can see, we have zero reliable sources which describe the Isla Vista attack as a gender based attack on men. Rather, what we have are some editors who have referred to content and quotes in reliable sources, and then come to conclusion that it was misandry/gender based attack on men based on things they pulled out of various articles, while the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. As far as I can tell regarding wikipedia policy, it shouldn't work this way. First we need a reliable source commentator, not a wiki editor, coming to conclusion that Rodger was a misandrist, or that this was gender based attack on men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

re "misandrist", that isn't required - the category is not "Violence inspired by or primarily driven by misandry". The sources are already given above, in any case, illustrating that he hated sexually successful men and targeted them as part of his rampage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, the "violence against men category" is a subcategory of "misandry" and is described as "gender based violence against men and boys." Above, you made it clear that you interpreted things in RS as supporting gender based violence against men with respect to these killings, but as far as I can see, those sources didn't come to that conclusion, you did. We need a reliable source commentator calling it misandry or gender based violence against men. If we can find even one reliable source that does either of these things, I would support a vote, but at present we don't have that. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's plain from how the Violence against Men and Women categories are used that they are not simply intended for any act of violence where the victims were men or women. For the categories to be useful, their scope needs to be observed properly, and that means reliable sources that show that the category is applicable. As of right now including the category is OR. You can't vote to override policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We've already discussed the RS above, so I'm not going to repeat them here. It is clear from those sources that Rodgers intended to target males that he hated, his manifesto is full of hatred towards these males, and a number of men were killed or wounded, painting them as bystanders in a purely misogynistic crime is POV and not supported by sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but like I keep saying, I see there are RS quotes above, and I agree that wiki editors here have looked at those quotes and interpreted those quotes to mean either that Rodger was a misandrist, or that this was a gender based attack against men, however, that is the view of the wiki editors only, the reliable sources above do not come to the conclusion that Rodger was a misandrist or that these attacks were gender based violence against men. Unless, I'm missing something. If even one reliable source comes to that conclusion, please link it here and I will withdraw my objection to the voting.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic any hate-motivated violence against someone who has a gender is gendered violence. Sources demonstrate that he hated men who had sexual access to women, but not that he targeted men for being men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, this wouldn't belong in the violence against women category, because he hated mainly women who rejected him. All of his victims were college-age, he didn't shoot at grandmothers or school girls. In both cases, his hatred of a gender was focused on a subset of that gender - attractive women who spurned him, and sexually active men who had access to those same women. Just because there was context to his hatred of men, it remains the fact that he targeted these men because they were men + (their access to these women).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, this wouldn't belong in the violence against women category, because he hated mainly women who rejected him. This is incorrect, and not supported by the sources. The killer's misogyny is well sourced and well supported. The claim that he hated men, or wanted to kill men, specifically for being men is not similarly sourced. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See the sources above, which demonstrate otherwise. I don't think he hated "all" men, any more than he hated "all" women, but he certainly did hate certain subsets of men and targeted them for death.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant what you or I think: what's relevant is what the sources say, and having sources that say that he hated some men for specific reasons is very different from sources saying that he hated men for being men. Hating particular members of a group is not the same thing as hating the group itself. We have sources for this being violence motivated by misogyny, but not for it being gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, from the CNN source, "The incident made him realize he "was capable of killing them," he wrote. "I wanted to kill them slowly, to strip the skins off their flesh. They deserve it. The males deserve it for taking the females away from me, and the females deserve it for choosing those males instead of me." [10]. He didn't divide the world into "female" and "everyone else who I might randomly kill otherwise on my way to kill females" - instead he had specific targets of men he hated. When he got out of the car and walked into the deli to shoot one man there, he knew he was shooting a man. We have sources above that note that he targeted men he was jealous of, and planned to kill them, and he succeeded in killing or wounding several. He hated a lot of people, but it's not true to state that he only hated "particular" men - he hated broad subsets of men - e.g. basically any college-age man who had sex, which is a lot...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But it's still a logical leap to go from 'he hated men who had sex' to calling this gendered violence against men. The sourcing for the violence against women category is much stronger and does not require that type of logical leap. Calling this gendered violence against men when the targets were men who had sexual access to women is original research, because we have to interpret what sources are saying rather than simply report what they're saying, as we can for the violence against women category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've successfully avoided this debate, but I'll offer some observations. (1) There is disagreement about the meaning and intent of the categories; (2) Each side has made its position clear and is understood by the other side; (3) Neither side is changing its mind or giving up. We might as well be debating religion or party politics. It seems to me it's time to give up on the debate and seek a determination by an outside group, but I don't know what mechanisms exist for that. Dispute resolution? Mandruss (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It could probably go on like this forever. Since this has been called OR, I brought issue to WP:Original research noticeboard. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with listing this in the category Violence against men. The motivation for the killings wasn't hatred of men (in general), it was jealousy of sexually active men (and extreme anger and frustration towards women), so I don't see a reason to consider it a true gender-based crime. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that also a requirement for Category:Violence against women? e.g., in order for an event to be listed in Category:Violence against women, the perpetrator must have stated and be acting based on a hatred of all women? That's not how the category was used traditionally. Rather, it has been used for instances where people were targeted for violence, IN PART, based on their gender (many other reasons come into violence, such as religious hatred, ethnic hatred, political reasons, jealousy, etc) - do you really think your average garden variety rapist hates "ALL WOMEN" and that his rape of a single woman is an express of hatred of "all women"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For the category "violence against women", it appears the reliable sources either need to call the perpetrator a misogynist or alternately, reliable source commentators need to come to the conclusion that it was gender based violence against women. We have neither of these with the Isla Vista killings. However, I would not be at all surprised if there are articles in the category "violence against women" that are miscategorized, but that's not a good argument to also miscategorize here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the problem, and maybe this is best solved by having a broader discussion about inclusion criteria for both of these categories. However, it is a complete red herring to say "the killer didn't hate all males, he only hated some of them" - that is not the inclusion criteria, the gendered nature of the relationships these males had with women that he desired sexually was the driver of his hatred and the reason for his targeting of them, he made this quite clear and reliable sources make this quite clear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys." Based on one reading, which is the one being done here, the violence, which was directed by the killers anger against the gender "women" and the sub-category of gender "men who get to have sex with women," which also involved stabbing and shooting men, it is valid for inclusion - because the category in question was created as a violation of WP:POINT to push a POV. The violence was gender based (against women) and some men or boys. However, I ignore that rule, and remove the category. "men who get to have sex with women" is not a gender. Hipocrite (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion since this debate/conversation has gone on and on and there still seems to be two very differing opinions on what to do. As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) who hated just about everyone if you read his writings. How about we remove both categories, since in some way having them there almost legitimizes Rodger as a sane person. I always felt that neither category was appropriate, and almost sort of silly seeing as how crazy and out-of-touch with reality the guy was. NotHowItWorks (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you points for suggesting a solomonic decision. This may be the way to go, although I don't see how having both makes him appear sane. It's not as if his hatred of both men and women somehow cancels each other out. Still, my mind boggles at the double standard - Rodger hated those women he desired (a subset of women) which prompted violence against some women, but somehow his hatred towards men who had relationships with these same women (a subset of men) did not prompt violence against some men. I can readily accept the duality. I have to questions the logic (and motivations) of those who cannot. Still, if we cannot have one cat, then it would follow we cannot have the other.Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) But it's not about how any of us sees it, it's about how secondary sources see it. That's pretty much Wikipedia Principle Number One. You, presumably not a mental health professional, just based a large part of your argument on your own amateur diagnosis (almost certainly - really?), ignoring the fact that it is well established that Rodger was never formally diagnosed with anything, let alone Narcissistic Personality Disorder!. We simply can't do that. By the way, a mental health professional would never offer a diagnosis without having examined the subject, or if he did he would be putting his career at risk. Mandruss (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss and am concerned that so many still don't seem to understand how it works on wikipedia (or is suppose to work). We don't go by what we, as wiki editors, think is reasonable or fair. We go by the reliable sources. RS have been very clear in calling Rodger a misogynist and this gender based violence against women, so removing violence against women cateogry would be violation of due weight. Zero RS (that anyone has been able to produce) have called Rodger a misandrist or come to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men. All we have are wiki editors cherry picking quotes out of RS and saying those quotes mean to them that it was gender based violence against men, when the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If we were going by reliable sources, then we'd include the VAM category. The tortured logic used to dismiss it is not WP:RS in the least. You can't have it both ways.Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If there was even one reliable source that calls Rodger a misandrist, or one reliable source commentator that comes to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men, the voting would make sense, and keeping category in article while we debate would seem OK too, but currently we have zero such sources. All we currently have is wiki editors cherrypicking quotes out of various articles and saying those quotes mean to them that this is gender based violence against men, while the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. If someone has managed to find a reliable source that calls Rodger a misandrist or a reliable source that comes to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men, please link it here, as that would significantly change the course of the debate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement in the category that he had to be a misandrist. That's your invention. The category only requires that "men" were targeted because they were men. There's no cherry picking when multiple reliable sources say he "hated men" and there's no dispute he killed several and injured others. It's at this point when the tortured logic, and arbitrary criteria starts to come in that he had to hate ALL men. I'll add that there is no similar requirement for the Violence against women category. So in it you find it attached to articles relating to war such Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be very clear about what's going on here since it's the "elephant in the room", so to speak. The reason there are no RS showing Rodger was a misandrist is because the media and news organizations are going to follow the standard line of thinking, which is that any violent event where women were targeted must mean this was simply a woman-hating misogynist attack. They can't accept any complexity when it comes to gender issues (very politically correct) and can't accept the fact that maybe this lunatic Rodger also hated men. NotHowItWorks (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"There aren't any sources because they're concealing the truth!". Sorry, this ain't conspiracypedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy. That's just the way it is in terms of mainstream media and journalists. And I'm completely sure that Sceptre is neutral and unbiased, she only identifies as a queer, lesbian, trans, feminist activist... NotHowItWorks (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Not, that's uncalled for. We have all types here, and everyone is entitled to participate and everyone is expected to edit according to NPOV no matter how they identify. You may say "Sceptre's edit here appeared to violate NPOV because x, y, z" but picking on sceptre b/c of how they've revealed themselves on their homepage isn't fair, I suggest you strike. Thanks,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Being a new editor, Not, you may not know what Mr. Kenobi means by "strike". It means retracting a prior statement in a discussion. It's considered better form to draw a line through it rather than delete it outright. To do that, you put <s> and </s> around the text you want to strike. Also you might want to read some of WP:AGF. One good way to make Wikipedia fail is to start questioning the motives and objectivity of editors who disagree with us. Mandruss (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. However, to be fair, I've been accused of POV pushing and misogyny more times than I can count since the whole category tree of Category:Violence against men was put up to be deleted, and I've dished out my own accusations of POV from time to time. It happens. However, I do think it is going a step further to accuse someone of POV because of their gender, sexuality, or what not, as opposed to "You're pushing a feminist POV b/c you're an avowed radfem" - we all know that sort of POV pushing happens, but while one can choose their political views, one can't really chose one's gender or sexuality. I guess my point is, you will definitely see and be subject to accusations of POV pushing, and occasionally you may suggest that an editor is pushing a POV - just don't try to tie that POV to their stated or assumed gender or sexuality, that in my mind takes it a bit too far, and makes it a touch too personal. Does that make sense? Of course, it's better to never accuse someone of pushing a POV, but we aren't all saints...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that explicitly state Rodger hated men and committed very violent acts against them. What's at work here is that a few editors have created an artificial threshold (with no similar equivalent in the VAW category) that it must be called "misandry" if we want consider the violence as an act against men and include the category. They are so motivated that they'd rather eliminate the VAM category completely than have any mention that Rodger hated men and women. RS samples below:Mattnad (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women.,
• "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women",
• ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma.

Sceptre, there is a consensus for inclusion of the category, and claiming that 'there are no sources' when there are at least 20 is misleading at best. Tutelary (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Given the amount of controversy regarding considering these killings a gendered act of violence against men combined with the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Categorisation#Articles, it's more or less clear that these killings don't belong in catVAM even if some sources consider them such. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy does not merely exclude a category from being added. Additionally, what counts as consensus for one article may not count as consensus for another. See the discussion at the very top of the page, where multiple editors !voted to include the category per the sources that Obi garnered. That was the consensus that the editor who reverted was talking about. Additionally, I'd like to hear specific qualms about this category which you're talking about. It's clear from the sources that this was a gendered attack against the men who he was envious about, and a gendered attack against women who would not sleep with them. It easily fits into both categories; violence against men in north america and violence against women. Tutelary (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources that some sources considered it to be gendered violence against men. It's also clear from taking a quick look at reliable sources about the incident that there are more than a few sources that don't consider the shootings to have represented a gendered act of violence against men. And WP:Categorisation makes it pretty clear that in the event that sources disagree about whether or not a cat applies, the cat shouldn't be put in the article. Although WP:Categorisation is only a guideline rather than policy, I don't see a strong enough consensus on this page to overrule it. (Despite my barb against Cla in my editsum, I hadn't noted the existing talk page discussion before changing the cat, as I had just been going through a tree of related cats, or I would've participated in it before making a change.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources do not disagree in that regard. The sources presented equivocate it as violence against men. I'm not going to outline each and every source, as Obi did rather great in that regard, and I invite you to see it at the top of the page. There was a !vote and the consensus to include the category. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The attack brought out a lot of politicized commentary including voices who see things through the lens of gender politics. Feminism has had a longer lead time shaping the perspective of people so there are more voices who see this only from a woman's perspective. That however doesn't mean the other sources that take a middle ground (i.e., he hated men too and murdered them) are incorrect. Rodger's attack was unusual in that he was so vocal about his hatred of men and women and acted on that hatred. In most cases, gendered violence is one or the other. In this instance, it was both. NPOV allows us to include a minority viewpoint if there are sufficient reliable sources supporting it. There are.Mattnad (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post (ignoring the first couple sentences) would be perfectly correct if it were talking about article content, rather than categorisation. You are correct that it is perfectly appropriate (and in fact necessary) to talk about the fact that a good number of sources suggested Rodgers hated men and that his attacks were a form of gendered violence against men for it to be worth including in the prose of the article. We have different standards regarding appropriate categorisation than we do regarding article prose given the differences between article prose and categorisation, and catting this as VAM fails at least two of the three normal article categorisation guidelines (that are in the link I provided above.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a fringe view that this counts as violence against men, and it's telling that the only sources being offered talk about this not being violence against men for its own sake, but violence against men as proxy violence against women: he killed his roommates so he could kill women in his apartment. He hated men who had sexual access to women. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a fringe view point and trying to claim it as such is offensive in its own right; trying to dismiss it as if it's talking about Creationism or Reflexology. Additionally, you're admitting it yourself that it's violence against men. He hated men who had sexual access to women. Even if that were to be true, that is still violence against men. I'm honestly not seeing the controversy in including this category. Additionally, your two person consensus cannot override the wider consensus between (I think) at least 8 editors at the top of the section. See WP:CONLIMITED. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"He hated men who had sexual access to women." Looks like we're all in agreement here that he hated men. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And we know that men who have sex with women is also a fringe group :). More seriously, his reasons for hating men don't really matter if Septre was trying to suggested his hatred of! and murder of men was only about his hatred of women (which is quite a remarkable statement to make). Ergo, while the violence against women category is fine, we cannot include violence against men, because he really didn't hate or murder men.Mattnad (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please review the sources and the arguments at the top of the article, where multiple reliable sources have described his hatred of men--even if that hatred was based on hatred of women, it was still hatred against men. The category is for gender based violence, in which this was, and I feel like a broken record here; you people are not looking at the sources which were presented. The sources stated explicitly that he hated men, and editors are trying to say that they didn't. What sources am I looking at that you're not. Please explain to me your POV and what sources you are looking at. I am looking at the ones on the top of the page.

There seems to be confusion regarding the category "violence against men". When warring armies of men hate and then kill each other, that is not “violence against men”, as the category is defined. As I understand it, the category is supposed to reflect gender based violence against men, similar to the “violence against women” category, so being placed in that category would mean the men were targeted and killed because the killer thought there was something “wrong” or “inferior” about the male gender, similar to a hate crime. Clearly Rodger was jealous of men who got to have sex with women, but jealousy doesn’t typically qualify as a hate crime. Tbe category “violence against men” really doesn’t seem to fit here and is not supported by any reliable sources I've seen. I haven't seen any reliable sources describe this as a hate crime against men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

I very much invite you to view the category's scope in itself, as it does very much fit here as the reliable sources have mentioned that he hated men and that he killed them. Even if the notion of 'he only hated men due to the fact that he hated women', that is STILL violence against men. The cat deserves to stay. Tutelary (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Only, the sources at the top of the page as outlined by Obi explicitly mention his hatred of men. Also, what reliable sources are you looking at that I'm not? Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said above , hating those you are jealous of isn't typically described as a "hate crime". Being jealous doesn't mean you view that group as wrong or inferior. Jealousy isn't a "hate crime", which seems to be causing confusion because jealousy can lead to hate (and did with here). "Hate crime" is about a specific kind of hate where you find the hated group "wrong" or "inferior". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of what qualifies for inclusion. So now it's not enough that he heated men. But he had to hate men for a reason that he felt they were inferior or wrong. Well, even with your ever changing rules for inclusion, Rodger qualifies. His writings were full of complaints about how these other men were inferior to him. Per a Psychology Today article "Rodger was not just self-centered, but he developed delusions of grandeur: “Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger… Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent… Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god.” In imagining his attack, he believed, “everyone will fear me as the powerful god I am.”[11].Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't my personal interpretation. The wikipedia article for Violence against women refers to it as a hate crime. For the violence against women category, It's not enough for the act to be violent and the victim to be female, it has to be gender based violence against women similar to a hate crime. We should treat the violence against men category the same way. I agree we have wiki editors cherry picking quotes with word "hate" in it from reliable sources, and saying those quotes mean to them this was gender based violence against men or a hate crime against men, but I've yet to see any reliable source that itself came to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men or a hate crime against men. This is a serious problem.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Bobo I wonder what reliable sources that you are looking at that I'm not. Look at the top of the page where Obi laid out the reliable sources and what they stated. Do you want me to bring his comment down here in the form of collapsed comment due to me constantly bringing it up. The sources do demonstrate the gender based violence against men, which is all that category requires to list. Additionally, this had been discussed and there was a consensus to include the category, not to exclude it. All of a sudden, WP:BRD has been taken to WP:BOLD, no revert due to 'no consensus', but there IS consensus to include the category, and that bit of it is true, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick of having to defend this category. Additionally, the cat's scope does not include the notion of a 'hate crime' nor does it require to, and that is your own additional caveat which has not been reflected in the cat's scope. Tutelary (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're basing your judgment that it must be hate crime, using the Violence against women article as justification, here's what the lede of the article says (emphasis mine), "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered."

Yes some violence against women is a hate crime, but not always, and there's no requirement that it must be similar to hate crime to be considered for VAW. I've noted many articles that are tagged with VAW, but there's no mention of either a gender bias, or hate crime. For instance the first four articles in the US VAW category make no mention of gendered specific targeting or hatred: Amish school shooting, Bear Brook murders, Beth_Doe#Beth_Doe, Charlie Brandt.

But in the end, I don't expect you to change your mind. I'm just making these points for other editors who are not deadset on finding any (and in your case, various and mutable) reason for excluding the Violence Against Men cat.Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"I've noted many articles that are tagged with VAW, but there's no mention of either a gender bias, or hate crime. For instance the first four articles in the US VAW category make no mention of gendered specific targeting or hatred: Amish school shooting, Bear Brook murders, Beth_Doe#Beth_Doe, Charlie Brandt".

Gotta love the hypocrisy of feminists; I just read all four articles and there is no mention that these acts are gendered violence that specifically target females, yet they are in the VAW cat. Rodger specifically targeted males and mentions why in his manifesto, but somehow that's not violence against men. There are also probably at least a few more articles besides just those four that don't belong in the VAW in U.S. category. NotHowItWorks (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't tar all feminists with that brush. We have a few editors who have point of view that's inflexible, but overall feminist thinking allows for, and is starting to address broader gender violence.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mattnad I wouldn't say that all feminists are inflexible ideologues, however most unfortunately are. NotHowItWorks (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel some pages in the VAW category are miscategorised, then remove them, but that has no bearing on this article. The point is, "violence against women" actually has an accepted scholarly definition. I've seen no indication that the spear equivalent has been shown. The only justification is how you're reading the sentence "he hated men who had sexual access to women", which makes me think: are the Westboro Baptist Church's actions not homophobic when they talk about "fag lovers" (i.e. straight allies of LGBT people)? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

I'd like to start a discussion on inserting an image of Elliot Rodger into the 'perpetrator' section, as it is encyclopedic for people to see the shooter in this instance. For precedent, see other major shooting articles, like Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting and 2012_Aurora_shooting. Tutelary (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a particular image in mind? Mandruss (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Since we may be allowed to use fair use regard in this, it's not limited to simply freely available images. Although if we do use the 'fair use' exception, someone else will need to write a fair use rationale for it, as I'm not really qualified to do so. I don't have any particular image in mind, though it does need to necessitate 'not over the top' criteria. So him smiling I think wouldn't be appropriate. Just to start this discussion off, how about this image? http://i.imgur.com/Fo1Qc3W.jpg (Though a fair use rationale may disqualify this one, as I believe it might qualify for only low-medium resolution images.Tutelary (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally think images add to an article, but I've yet to be inclined to learn all that copyright crap. I'm even less qualified than you, I'm sure. This article has been a pretty lonely place for a few days, so you may have to seek help with that elsewhere. Mandruss (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a search a while back looking for images for this article at WM, none of Rodger I could find, plenty of Isla Vista and the college campus though. It's really a fairly simple process to upload an image, if you use this upload wizard, it pretty much walks you through it step by step. For example, in this photo of Lanza, if you look below it, you will see a section titled "Summary", these are the questions you will have to answer when you upload the image through the wizard. Immediately after you upload an image under the fair use rationale, it will be tagged for review, and usually if it's going to be deleted for some reason, it's actually pretty quick. The "purpose of use in article" and "not replaceable with free media because" questions are really important to get right as the answer to those questions will be scrutinized closely. This policy WP:IUP is a good place to start.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image and given it a fair use rationale. I'm not sure if I botched it or not, I guess we'll have to see. Though I know the resolution is a problem...I don't know how to fix that. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. The image was deleted, and along with it my path to the related talk page. I would have been interested in the rationale, if any additional was given. Where is the copyright issue when the image was a screen shot from a video whose author is deceased? Did his parents inherit the copyright? Mandruss (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I challenged the deletion in this post: User talk:TLSuda#Wikipedia:Files for deletion.2F2014 June 16.23File:Elliot Rodger Screenshot From Youtube Video.jpg; the closing admin gave an expanded explanation for the deletion. I still disagree with the decision, but fear it will stand.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. For me, it was mostly about article aesthetics---in the Internet age, we're used to having some pictures mixed with the text. I'd bet money that most GA articles have a tasteful number of images. I'd also bet money that many of the images in GA articles aren't critical to one's understanding of those articles; they merely enhance understanding, or even just enhance aesthetics. But there will always be an abundance of Elliot Rodger photos just a Google away, for those who want to know what he looked like. Mandruss (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::I added a picture. It is a result of fair dealing (fair use). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Cap_of_one_of_Elliot_Rodger%27s_videos._Perpetrator_of_2014_Isla_Vista_Killings.png - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Le sigh. Is it copyright if it violates LiveLeak's terms of service? Better to be safe and respectful of copyright. I'll try again soon. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page for three days owing to the edit warring (four reverts in 24 hours, four different editors; blocking would be a bad idea). Please discuss the category on the talk page, rather than reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Full page-protection wasn't really necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• There have been 2 or 3 edit wars to date, some really nasty and most including the same editors, over this category; these edit wars seem to be on a biweekly or triweekly basis. I stopped things before they became an issue. Would it have become an issue? Perhaps yes, perhaps not (probably yes IMHO). But I see protection as more preventative than punitive, and any possible edit war was prevented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the edit war regarding the "violence against men" category has resurfaced, and considering this edit war has recurred many times, it seems reasonable. It seems to me the category should be out of article while we discuss, given concerns raised regarding lack of reliable sources to support category, and concerns raised regarding article not meeting WP:Categorization guidelines for the category, but it's also clear that editors feel strongly about keeping this category for this article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. The category was given consensus at the top of the page by numerous other editors. WP:CONSENSUS is one of Wikipedia's strongest policies, and if you want to exclude it, you'll need to change that exact consensus. Tutelary (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There is clear consensus on the talk page to include the category. So, the editors who kept violating WP policy by removing the category should have been blocked or banned instead of protecting the page. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding we can't vote to override WP:VERIFY. There have been serious concerns raised by multiple editors regarding whether RS support this category. Seems content this disputed should be out while we discuss. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The dispute only continued recently, recently like yesterday or the day before. Before that, for a period of 2-3 weeks the article was in a stable state with the cat in place. Additionally, categories are not content on the page; but they do need verification, which is why I'm going to point you to the top of the page, where Obi outlined the sources and what they say about his hatred of men; this due weight certainly supports the category. I'm not seeing any other category in this which requires more sources than this one to verify; and you still want to exclude it. Anywho, please defer to the section already to be had about it, might as well centralize the discussion. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually didn't remove category, but I've raised concerns regarding sourcing for category. Anyway, I don't think anyone is disputing there are multiple quotes above, taken out of reliable sources, that Wikipedia editors have interpreted to mean this was an example of misandry or a gender based attack against men, the problem is, the sources themselves didn't come to that conclusion. This has been called original research. I tried taking dispute to Original research noticeboard, but we didn't really seem to get any fresh eyes on the issue, editors from here just made the same argument over there and the dispute has continued....on and on and on. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's there requirement for the VAW category that sources must say the act was misogyny for it to be used? Oh.. there isn't one. Sounds like BoboMeowCat has a different, and much narrower inclusion critereon for the VAM category. How about we make a deal. You can start first by cleaning up the VAW category to meet the equivalent threshold, and then you can come back here and make that case that a reliable source use the term "misandry."Mattnad (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I move that we allow the cat, suspend this debate, and all participants become founding members of a project, Violence Categories Cleanup.

• Phase I: Better define violence categories
• Phase II: Identify and uncat articles not meeting the new definitions

This debate seems very much cart before horse. Even if it ever ends, it will still be repeated again and again for similar articles in the future. Life's too short, my friends. Mandruss (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea honestly. Arkon (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Would that just move the same debate, the same voices and rationales, the same stalemate to a different venue? Maybe. But, being at a higher level with a broader scope, (1) it would be more worthwhile, and (2) it might attract other experienced voices who can't be bothered with the cat fate of a single article. Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally think it would be a good idea. The core of the disagreement is definition. At least on the VAM category, there has been an effort to restrict it to gendered violence unrelated to combatants in war. Despite that effort, some editors argue that a RS must state it was "misandry" - a word so rarely used that spell-check software doesn't recognize it. On the VAW side, there is no equivalent requirement, or an attempt to to set limits, so we have the category being applied to instances like this one where a single body was discovered, with no known motive or perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. It seems like putting article that doesn't fit inclusion criteria, into the VAM category, because you think there are articles in the VAW category, that similarly don't fit inclusion criteria is WP:POINT. However, that being said, I do think both categories could likely benefit from having inclusion criteria better clarified. Regarding inclusion criteria, I haven't seen anyone argue the words "misogyny" or "misandry" need to be used for either of these categories (but the use of such words by reliable sources to describe the perpetrator would seem like strong evidence that these categories may be appropriate, considering the VAM and VAW categories are subcategories of the Misandry and Misogyny categories). The inclusion criteria for both categories specifies "gender based violence against men/women" and the article for Violence against women compares it to a hate crime. Kevin Gorman seems knowledgeable regarding categories and interested in topic, maybe he could help us clarify appropriate inclusion criteria for both cats.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your assertion that nobody is setting a requirement for that a reliable source states an event requires “misandry” to permit inclusion. Some samples from BoboMeowCat: [12], [13], [14],[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings&diff=next&oldid=612556576]

And then here some others: [15], [16]

There are plenty more. The arguments against inclusion is that unless someone explicitly says it was gendered violence, usually expecting that the word “misandrist” be used, it is not. So it’s not enough that “Rodger Elliot hated men” – we must have someone saying it was misandry. Even war crimes are not on the table for this category, when men and boys are targeted, because it was not hatred. Rather, it is argued they were targeted because they could be combatants (notwithstanding many women who participated in Partisan conflict during WWII for instance)Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was a reliable source calling Rodger a misandrist would be one way to justify inclusion in the category. I never said it was only way. Other ways would be RS coming to conclusion this was a gender based attack on men or reliable source describing this as a hate crime against men. Jealousy isn't usually considered a hate crime.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Subjects should be treated in accordance to how they are treated in reliable sources, rather than attempted to be bent in to a weird artificial equivalence based on what editors perceive as logical pairings. If one subject is treated differently than another subject in its presentation in reliable sources, then its Wikipedia article either does the same thing or is poorly written. Because of the unique nature of categorization and their limited ability to convey nuance, we have a special set of guidelines about how to handle them - of particular relevance are Wikipedia:Categorisation#Articles and WP:SUBCAT. For an article to be appropriately categorised, the category must be a defining characteristic of the topic of the article, which for our purposes is a characteristic "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" to the topic. The problem this article runs in to is that although many reliable sources do speak about it as an act of violence against men, more than a few do not - hence failing the consistency test. WP:SUBCAT is relevant to many articles in the VAM/MAM tree as it specifies that articles should not be placed in both a parent category and its own subcategory unless the subcategory is eponymous, which MAM is not.

The recent push towards inappropriate categorisation is part of a broader and much longer lasting push to inappropriately promote the agenda of the men's rights movement on Wikipedia. This entire broader topic area is infested with advocates who should be topic banned under the existing article probation, but uninvolved administrators are consistently unwilling to enforce the terms of the probation. I'm sure I could get sanctions put in place if I asked an uninvolved administrator through a private channel, but I don't think that doing so is appropriate or should be necessary, and view it as a pretty disgusting failure of a significant portion of the administrator base aware of the MRM situation that they're unwilling to take actions necessary to allow good faith contributors to be consistently driven off be relentless POV-pushers who contribute nothing of value to the encyclopedia (who are also frequently organized off-site, in ways we've documented many times before.) Hope the first paragraph helps, but I'm fucking off of this entire topic area - given that there's apparently no interest in retaining good faith contributors to the topic area over malicious trolls, Wikipedia deserves the shitty articles it'll end up with, even if the rest of the world doesn't. (Articles related to MR content used to, quite literally, state things like 'antidowry laws are legal terrorism' and 'feminist organizations use the fear of domestic violence to oppress men.') Now that I'm avoiding the topic area and most previously productive contributors are either avoiding the topic area completely or have substantially reduced their participation in it, I imagine the quality of related articles will fall sharply once more. Good luck, you'll need it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• comment I've been trying to stay on my self-imposed wikibreak but have made a few contribs here and there, and wanted to add a few thoughts to this discussion. 1) If enforcing strict inclusion criteria to this category is important, then I do agree that the same strict enforcement should be applied to the VAW category - even if the inclusion criteria themselves are slightly different because VAM and VAW are not the same nor do they derive necessarily from the same societal structures. We should all be editing from NPOV in spite of our own personal feelings, and when people who have !voted to delete a category then start to empty it (while not applying the same standards to similar categories for another gender), that looks rather POINTY. 2) We have just completed a very tendentious and full-of-personal-attacks discussion on the very existence of the VAM category structure, which was ultimately kept. Nonetheless tensions are still high, and those tensions are bleeding over into discussions here.

Therefore, I suggest we should put this discussion in abeyance because it seems to be going in circles, and all go back to editing other topics, and agree to neither conduct mass additions nor mass removals of articles from these obviously contentious categories for now, and enjoy a bit of the summer. Then, in a months time, when tensions have simmered somewhat, we can all gather at the Gender bias project (or somewhere else) and start discussing a set of inclusion criteria that would apply to the VAM and VAW categories and associated subcategories, a discussion that could eventually be brought to a broader RFC. Questions could include, for example - if a husband kills or mutilates his wife, should that be added? If a wife kills or mutilates her husband, should that be included? What about a serial killer who only targets women - should they be included? What about a serial killer who only targets men or boys - should that be included? What about a man who molests a number of girls? Should that be added? What about a priest who molests a number of boys? Should that be added? Should the Category:Rape category be a subset of VAM and VAW, or should it only be a sibling, under Category:Gender-based violence, and what would such a change imply re: dual parenting/dual categorization of a given case of rape? Should we make an explicit list of things which are NOT qualified to be in these categories? For example, a fight breaks out between the teams at an all-women's basketball match - are those sorts of things out? Or, a bunch of (all male) soldiers in Iraq are captured and executed - is that out since they are soldiers? The problem is, there are many definitions of VAM and VAW - and categories are generally designed to be more inclusive than exclusive, which I think we should be here. For example, VAM is sometimes defined in the statistical sense of violence where males are the victims and a great many discussions of VAM cover the inherent violence against men due to their preponderance in military service, including forced conscription; other times it is focused on sexual or gender-based violence and combatants are excluded from such analysis; the same is true of violence against women - the broadest UN definitions would cover any violent act in which a woman is the victim as "violence against women", whereas other analyses look at whether the woman was targeted because of her gender or unequal power relations, etc. In practice, categorization is often decided by navigational utility, and demanding that sources use a particular phrase before allowing a category goes against much categorization practice that happens here without dispute. There are no easy answers here, and we're certainly not going to solve it on this page, and I personally no longer care that much whether the VAM category remains or is removed here. It might actually be a useful olive branch to extend to those who detest these VAM categories to remove it from this article while awaiting a broader consensus, which could then be applied back on this article once those broader discussions complete. I just don't see the current back and forth here as likely to produce much light vs lots of heat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Obi: though I appreciate a lot of your post, most of the questions you pose are already explicitly covered by our categorisation guidelines, which have been in place for eons and were put in place for a reason and after significant discussion. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Unless the basketball fight you mention is consistently defined across sources as a gendered act of violence against women, of course it doesn't belong in the category. Kevin Gorman (talk)

I agree of course on the basketball, I was just giving that as an example, and that maybe we should have a list of things that, in general, don't qualify - e.g. "murdered woman found, no clear gendered motive = no inclusion in the category"; "soldiers killed/wounded = no inclusion in category", etc. Those categorization guidelines are guidelines, and we regularly have more constrained or specific inclusion criteria for categories that go beyond, and also that may limit, those same guidelines; we also have some categories that are all-inclusive, in that for certain set categories, all instances that fit a certain minimum criteria are included, even if that same criteria is not DEFINING for example. A very famous example is Category:American women novelists, which has been packed full of every female to ever pen a novel, if if being a "woman novelist" is not defining of their oeuvre. The guidelines you cite also don't necessarily help us in determining whether a clear incidence of domestic violence of a man battered by his wife should ONLY be in the Category:Domestic violence category, or should it also be in the Category:Violence against men category, given one is the subset of the other. We often have partial diffusion of categories, for example, and things are diffused to multiple places simultaneously. The current structure and gendered nature of this violence complicates things, esp since we have neutral children. It's all quite complex, and our guidelines only help us so much in sorting it out- thus my call for a broader discussion, but later when tempers have cooled.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't mean for the discussion to spill over into this section as well. I was only making the point that full page-protection wasn't really necessary as it won't solve the problem. This discussion has been ongoing since this article was created and there is still no resolution and the edit war has been slowly percolating the whole time too. Since there has really only been a small group of editor's that have been discussing this issue, maybe a more realistic solution, rather than full page-protection, (which has resulted in the same arguments by the same editors), would be to initiate a RfC for a broader input from the community, or some other dispute resolution process that is available for us to pursue to try and reach a binding consensus. Any thoughts about expanding this discussion to the broader community? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument made above by someone, which I'm repeating, is that we should take this discussion beyond this particular article first, since there seems to be a lot of disagreement over inclusion criteria more generally, and whether "misandry" must or must not be mentioned as a driver, and the extent to which RS must describe an event as "VAM" or "VAW" in those precise terms in order to qualify. But I also think tensions are too high to have that discussion rationally, which is why I'm suggesting a break of a month before digging into such inclusion criteria, during which anyone interested can start by reading up on the various sources we have for VAM and VAW.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think a RfC could help guide us in the right direction - whether it be in the direction of a discussion about "inclusion criteria" for the category VAM or whether it be in the direction of trying to obtain a consensus as the VAM category stands right now. Either way, it's a step forward in resolving this, rather than the stalemate we currently face. I don't think the tensions are that high that this dispute can't be resolved by asking for a broader input of other opinions from the community. If other editors think a month cooling off period is warranted, then I can get behind that too, the lake is looking pretty good right about now. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I agree that an RfC is a good idea. Considering drive-by posters, not just talk page participants, keep removing category (which doesn't surprise me because the cat doesn't really seem to fit to me). However, every time category is removed, it's restored and edit wars keep recurring. Clearly, the issue isn't going to just go away and an RfC with a clear decision on category for this article seems needed. I also agree with Kevin Gorman that the category violence against men appears to be being used by some editors as part of the men's rights movement. Clarifying inclusion criteria and applying MRM probation sanctions to those who repeatedly abuse inclusion criteria might help. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Subsection titles in Responses

I'm not entirely sure if I'm just missing something here, but these don't read properly. "Immediate reaction(s)" and "Congress" make sense, but I don't understand how Misogyny, Gun control and mental health, and Memorial services work; it implies that these are all entities capable of responding to events. I figure it would make more sense if they were reworded, e.g. "Debate about misogyny" and "Gun control and mental health reform proposals" or something of the sort. The contents of the sections themselves seems to be pretty relevant and decent, but the titles don't seem to match the context. Maybe the Responses section could be renamed to "Aftermath" or something and the existing subsection in Events could be moved somewhere else and renamed or merged. Thoughts? Rhydic (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Debate about misogyny" isn't strictly correct, either, since the subsection only talks about the small fraction of that debate that was triggered by the killings. Same for the gun control and mental health. So it comes down to where one chooses to draw the line on correctness. I for one have never had a problem reading those section names as:

Responses

[in the area of]Misogyny

[in the areas of]Gun control and mental health

The memorial services, as I see it, were in fact responses to the killings. Mandruss (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Debate over misogyny" seems to contradict the reliable sources. It implies that there is significant debate regarding whether or not Rodger's writings/videos etc were misogynistic and whether or not his misogyny played a role in crime. This does not appear significantly debated by RS. Arguing that the crime is about more than just misogyny has occurred, but this doesn't make misogyny "debated".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

They were just basic suggestions of ways to reword it to make more sense grammatically and had no bearing on sources. My point is that it reads like misogyny was a response to the killings or that misogyny made a response to the killings. Rhydic (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. In that case might be simpler to retitled the above section to something like: "Responses, discussion and legislation"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe just change "Responses" to "Reaction"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This has been sitting a while with no comment, so I went ahead and renamed the section "Reactions and discussion" as that seemed to fit best with the content. Rhydic (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinez major

[This discussion is dependent on the resolution of "Majors in Casualties box: yes or no", below.]

It is perhaps an indicator of the quality of the article that we are reduced to discussing such minor points as this (the cat debate notwithstanding).

Until yesterday, the Casualties box showed Martinez as "undeclared", since this is what the source says (UCSB newspaper Daily Nexus). Then Kieronoldham changed that to English Literature and cited a source. I came along and "improved the edit" by making the new ref conform to the rest of the article.

After some further and belated research, I think "undeclared" was better after all, since (1) all the sources I can find that indicate English lit say he was "studying English literature", which I don't think is the same as a declared major, and (2) I believe declared major is the intent of the Casualties box.

However, before I revert to "undeclared", I wanted to get some other opinions, if any exist. Mandruss (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "motive"

We've been back and forth on this several times in the history of the article. I would like to try for a formal consensus in the hopes of stabilizing that field value.

Imo, a criminal motive is something one hopes to gain or accomplish by committing his crime(s). Motives include money (e.g. Madoff), ethnic cleansing (e.g. Hitler), Jodie Foster's approval (Hinckley), vigilante justice (e.g. lynch mob), cover-up of other crimes (e.g. bumping off the witnesses), and revenge/retribution/punishment (e.g. Gary Plauche).

Social isolation, female rejection, and sexual jealousy, the previous contents of our Motive field, are causes, not motives. Rodger did not hope to gain any of them; he already had plenty of all three.

The current field value is: Revenge for sexual and social rejection

Comments please. Mandruss (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Would think having a reliable source, preferably one that doesn't have a political ax to grind, to guide us (ie, He killed his roommates because he wanted to bring women back to torture them without interruption, even though he made no effort to capture any of his female victims during the spree). I personally cannot even fathom a guess at his motive since he was mentally ill, which perhaps is the most accurate "motive" of all.Mattnad (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying "Revenge for sexual and social rejection" doesn't accurately reflect the gist of a majority of RS? I think it does that while avoiding the areas of controversy, thereby maintaining NPOV. Precisely following the above definition, it avoids those nasty Greek m-words, since they aren't things one can "hope to gain or accomplish". It's important to note that motive doesn't imply fact, only Rodger's perception of fact. Mandruss (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bad attempt. But then there's his suicide.... In reading psychological assessments, [17] and [18], the view is more nuanced. But I personally wouldn't object to what you've proposed. I just wonder if if we can reliably propose his motive. Leave it out?Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Call me stoopid (wouldn't be the first time), but I don't see the problem. If, in fact, it accurately reflects the gist of a majority of RS, and I haven't heard you contest that, then we're not proposing anything. We're simply reflecting RS as we're supposed to do. Mandruss (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. By the way it's spelled "stupid" ;) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, one down. Could I get your explicit support then? At this point I'd be happy with a consensus on the definition of the word motive, as boldfaced above. That alone would have precluded most of the changes in the field to date. Mandruss (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Proposal - per talk above. Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

With an eye toward bolstering my case, I looked into definitions of "motive" elsewhere, such as Motive (law) and Wiktionary (sense 4). To my dismay, I found that most of them give looser definitions than mine, many even including the word "cause" in the definition. Since I believe one has to abide by authoritative sources even when he strongly disagrees with them, I'm withdrawing this whole discussion. I'll leave the current contents of the field, but I'll bite my tongue if someone changes them back, or to something else outside my definition (which is not to say that I'll tolerate anything in that field). Moving on. Mandruss (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand you withdrew your proposal, Mandruss, however I have since changed the field. I added the word unclear so it now reads: "Unclear; revenge for sexual and social rejection" I basically followed the explanation for motive that was used in Seung-Hui Cho A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, in fact I kind of like it. Mandruss (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Majors in Casualties box: yes or no

[Text moved from "Martinez major" on 17 July.]

Delete majors All of the majors should be removed. They were not relevant to the selection of victims, there is no notability due to them, and they are no more relevant to this article than the clothes that the victims wore. Just because certain trivia is known does not mean it has to be reported here. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Second WWGB. All majors should be removed. Student or not is relevent, what major is irrelevent. A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this isn't going my way, but let's wait a little longer for more opinions before we change it. 2-1 isn't much of a consensus. I'll put something in this editsum that might get people's attention in watchlists until the next update to this page. Mandruss (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete Majors - As above I would like to see them deleted. I would have preferred a bold though - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What is "a bold"? Mandruss (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep majors I suppose I should add my reasoning here. As to relevance, the article contains loads of other (uncontested) things that aren't strictly relevant. For just one example, what is the relevance of the names of the high schools Rodger attended? Wouldn't it be equally relevant to say only that he attended at least three high schools? When Rodger threw coffee on a couple, is it relevant that they were outside a Starbucks? When he sprayed a group with a Super Soaker, what is the relevance that they were playing kickball, and at Girsh Park? Who cares where they were and what game they were playing there? He didn't spray them because they were playing that particular game, as far as we know. It seems to me that the relevance objection is used selectively. If we like something that's not strictly relevant, or at least don't dislike it, we don't complain about relevance. A relevance argument should not be used as cover for I just don't like it, even if done unconsciously.
It's not uncommon to give a small amount of personal or biographical information about victims, especially ones who died. See Virginia Tech massacre#Norris Hall shootings. That box gives more personal information than we are here, including hometowns. Mandruss (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep majors - They were all UCSB students and data regarding majors was reported by RS and also it humanizes the victims. If we are going to have a victims box, a bit of info that sheds light on who the victims were should be included.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete majors - Unencyclopedic and unrelated to the reason for their killings. This needs pruning, as Mandruss pointed out, and the majors are one of the easier things to take out. "Humanizes the victims" sounds like a "right great wrongs" argument. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think info reported by reliable sources that helps you get to know who someone was is "right great wrongs", seems we have a lot of editing to do with respect to info on Rodger. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(Need for general pruning was not the point of my argument, so perhaps "pointed out" is inaccurate.) Mandruss (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Kind of agree with Bobo's RS argument; RS decides what's significant. However, AFAIK the school news site is the only RS that reported all of the majors, all of the others mentioning only one or two in passing, such as Martinez was "studying English literature", for example. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Mandruss (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Majors Per BLP, particularly WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:NPF. As well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE --Kyohyi (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

None of WP:BLP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM (part of WP:BLP), and WP:NPF (part of WP:BLP) apply, as we're talking about people who are deceased. Mandruss (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP: BDP is a part of BLP, and extends BLP to the recently deceased. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BDP: "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." Mandruss (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Read all of BDP not just what supports you're point of view. Fyi the whole policy:

"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people."

Emphasis Mine. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, cascading exceptions. Nothing confusing about that! You win. (Also please don't attack my tactics, I'm as fair and honest as anyone around here). Delete majors Mandruss (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

5-1 for delete is a strong consensus. Majors are out. Mandruss (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, I support their removal. I hoped we could retain their years (i.e. junior, sophmore etc). Am I to understand that the above policies would preclude that? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you show how the aforementioned policy pages preclude the majors but allow the years? I'm not seein' it; on the other hand, I have recently shown a hopefully temporary difficulty with reading comprehension. :) Mandruss (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm for including the majors. By any standard, the victims are far more notable than the perpetrator. I thought including the majors was the result of an earlier discussion where we pared back other information on the victims, but then the consensus was to leave the majors. Odd that that discussion seems to have been deleted from this talk page. There have been many accusations already that the victims aren't real and that this whole incident was faked somehow. Minimal information on the victims is one minor step toward keeping the truth in play. There is way, way too much information about the perpetrator in this article. His date of birth, his schooling, etc… all should be deleted. In fact, what is included about the victims *should be an upper bound* on what is included about the perpetrator.snug (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't even acknowledge the policy cited above, snug, I assume you feel consensus carries more weight. I disagree, since the policy represents a greater consensus. In any case, there's no consensus here to override the policy. Any conspiracy theorists are best ignored, in this case as in any other, provided they stay out of the article content. Amount of perp information is outside the scope of this section. Mandruss (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've acknowledged BLP in the posts on this talk page that have been deleted on this subject, when the first consensus (deleted) was reached that has now been reversed by the second consensus. I don't think students' majors are contentious or questionable, so I think there is no violation of BLP. So I do see that the consensus overrides policy in this case. Generally when you are a college student your major is a reasonable portion of your identity. Including that information is a tiny nod toward acknowledging that the victims were humans and not merely objects to be wiped out like figures in a video game. First we removed their birthdays because of worries about identity theft. To me birthdays are a significant difference between humans and objects in US culture, but I thought the policy had some sense, although the identity theft argument applies equally well to the perpetrator, and his birthday was not removed, presumably to encourage theft of his identity; no other reason is sensible, as he is less notable than the victims. Now removing their majors goes beyond policy to a `trash the victim' alignment IMO. As for the voluminous info on Rodger on this page, it should be substantially trimmed. Really his name is all that is necessary. I don't object to more, but I do think any info on him should be a lower bound on how much info is reported for the victims. They are far, far, more notable than he is, a point no-one has contested here.snug (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

First, as to "deleted" talk content. For some time, a bot was automatically archiving old talk sections to prevent the page from getting too big. Initially, "old" was defined as no activity in three days; at some point I bumped that up to 15 days; a few days ago I turned off archiving due to low talk activity (all of this was done by modifying template code at the top of the page). So you should be able to find whatever you're talking about on the archive page. A link to the archive page can be found in the history for this page, as each archive activity requires an edit by the bot. Aside from archiving, I seriously doubt anything of any consequence has ever been deleted from this page; certainly not an entire discussion or section.

Kyohyi cited three policies in his first post, but your counter mentions only two words from only one of them, contentious and questionable. Obviously those words aren't the entire argument, or he would have cited only the policy containing them. One of the stronger points of the argument, I think, is in WP:NPF: "include only material relevant to the person's notability" (emphasis theirs). This is not the same as saying, "include only notable material". Are the majors relevant to their notability? No, their notability derives solely from the fact that they are victims of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and they are just as notable whether majoring in art history or needlepoint.

Dude, I totally see the human angle, I was on the other side when this started. I just believe in adhering to sufficiently clear policy unless there is a very compelling reason to deviate. If you feel strongly about it, you should be lobbying for a small "human angle" adjustment to the policies. (Good luck.)

Again, feel free to start a new section on the topic of amount of perp information. Mandruss (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sufficiently clear policy? For the overwhelming majority of people described in Wikipedia, their date of birth has *nothing* to do with their notability. Maybe some birthdays are celebrated, like Martin Luther King, or Jesus, and makes those birthdays notable. But for the most part birthdays have nothing to do with notability. If notability is the criteria for inclusion of information on people in Wikipedia, the vast majority of that information would be deleted. As for the other `polcies': their majors was not `indiscriminate' information; they identified something important about their interests and who they were. There was absolutely no `victimization' in posting their majors. In fact the only quoted policy that comes close to touching this issue is the `all information must be related to notability'. As for the majors contributing to their notability, in fact, for his roommates that they were `nerds' who annoyed Rodger, and who studied together is entirely pertinent to the reason he killed them. That they shared a major, and that that major is so difficult that students regularly do study together is pertinent. So at least for those three even the one (usually violated) policy on information being strictly related to nobility isn't satisfied. In any case, if the policy is to be adhered to, it must also be adhered to for Rodger, and I'll go ahead and start editing info about him. snug (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are overlooking a clear distinction. Rodger is notable by virtue of being a mass murderer. He gets all the trimmings that go with that. The victims are not notable. A list to identify them is all that is required. (It might even be argued that that is excessive ... the victims of 9/11 or WW2 are not listed in Wikipedia, so why should these victims?) WWGB (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't find `mass murderer' as a protected class for notability due to policy. WP:PERP doesn't say that. Rodger's victims were not renowned; as argued here, Wikpedians regard them as scarcely even human. Neither the motivation nor execution are unusual; stabbings and shootings are utterly common in the US. It looks like coverage has already died off. By policy, as far as I can tell, only the crime breaks the level of being notable but the does not rise to the level (yet, anyway, it might later) of distinguishing the perpetrator as notable. That is, if we are following policy here in a consistent and not spotty manner. snug (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The victims are absolutely human. Their death was a tragedy that few can truly understand. The grief and bereavement their families and friends experience is very real and a result of their loss. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Curious, notability is only applicable to the article subject, not to the content within, WP:NNC. I don't know why anyone deleted information on victims based on notability, that criterion is irrelevant. What is pertinent for information within the article is noteworthiness. I can't find many policies on noteworthiness. Simply that; no requirement that the information be directly related to the article's main subject. All of the aspects of the victims that are have been deleted are noteworthy… their dates of birth, their majors, simply because these are aspects that distinguish them as humans from objects; that they were humans is the reason this crime is notable. So I think the policy criteria cited for deleting victims' basic information was false.snug (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The absence of victim information seems to me to give undue weight to Rodger. This article tilts so far to documentation of Rodgers that it loses a neutral point of view. It is true that only 3 of the majors of the victims is related to their selection as victims, but including a modest amount of victim information balances the point of view of the article.snug (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As for noteworthiness of the victims majors, I thought I'd tabulate some info on the presence of their majors in reliable sources. George Chen: over 200 google hits on his name and major, including SF Chronicle, KTVU, The Globe and Mail, and the Omaha Times. Chen Yuan Hong and his major gets over 10,000 hits, including the NY Times, China Post, and various TV stations. Weihan Wang & his major: over 3500 google hits including NBC, The Daily Mail, the BBC, and the LA Times. Katherine Breann Cooper and her major brings over 35,000 google hits, including the SJ Mercury News, LA Times, NY Times, ABC News, Daily Telegraph. Christopher Michaels-Martinez: over 2200 google hits on his name and major, including the LA Times, ABC News, the Daily Mail, NBC News, Huffington Post. Veronika Weiss and her major has the fewest pertinent google hits, but still they are from reliable sources including Southern California Public Radio. I think the case for noteworthiness of their majors is overwhelming. That satisfies Wikipedia policy. There is no policy that inside an article the victims must be notable; quiet the contrary, as documented above. Notability only pertains to starting a new article. Absence of the victim's majors violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View because undue weight is given to Rodger. By the way, the recent UC Regents Resolution in memory of the IV victims identifies them by their majors.snug (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline, including WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, that requires equal recognition of perpetrators and their victims. The victims' majors were not a decisive feature in their death and therefore have no more significance than their shoe size or what they ate for dinner. You seem to be on a crusade for "equal representation for victims" but there is no such requirement. Rodger is notorious/newsworthy/remarkable because of the number of people he killed and the way he went about it. His victims do not get the same attention; they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wikipedia does not memorialise victims by the reporting of irrelevant and insignificant facts. It really is time to move on. WWGB (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy that there must be a neutral point of view. The vast difference between the amount of information between Rodger and the victims gives undue attention to Rodger, and violates the neutral point of view. There is no doubt that the majors are noteworthy and well covered in secondary reliable sources. If those facts were irrelevant and insignificant, reliable secondary sources (including the New York Times, the BBC, etc) would not have reported them. The Wikipedia judgement is not internally by Wikipedians, but is made by the frequency of reporting in secondary sources. If you want to move on, get Wikipedia policy changed; the policy is very clear on these points. I am not arguing for detailed memorial information, BTW. It is the external reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policy that have decided the issue of major, not me.snug (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: If you really want a WP:WIKIBREAK, stop reading Wikipedia talk pages.

snug, you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV. It begins with: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What significant view published by reliable sources comes down on Rodger's side in this thing? NPOV applies where multiple significant points of view exist.   Mandruss | talk   17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The significant view is that the majors of the victims is noteworthy. RS have published a huge amount of minutae on Rodger, which is also a significant view. Since the issue is not notability, but noteworthiness, I guess all the Rodger trivia satisfies Wikipedia policy.snug (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you need to take this to the Crime project. Ask them whether they think the Casualties box should include the college majors, and mention that there is significant RS support for them, as you presented above. I don't think any of us, including you, needs to fully argue a case before them, a la Supreme Court; crime articles are their specialty and I doubt there is any issue here that they haven't already seen and resolved. They might even be able to direct you to an old discussion that resolved this. I hope all of us would accept their judgment; I know I would. It's possible that only one or two of them would feel like engaging the question, or that they wouldn't be able to agree among themselves, in which case that time would have been wasted; but we could cross that bridge if we came to it.   Mandruss | talk   18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure.snug (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had a query up in the crime project for 3 weeks now… no response. My feeling still is… the threshold for information inside an article is quite low (`notability'); it is a bit higher for a specific article (`noteworthy'). It is clear that respected secondary sources included the majors of the victims. So, deleting that information did violate Wikipedia policy.snug (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What noun(s) should be used?

Should we refer to this incident as "Massacre" or a "Killing Spree"? I think we should change the term "Killing spree" to "Massacre". A Massacre is :"deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)". Which is what the perpetrator did and how it has been described in the media:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isla-vista-rampage/isla-vista-massacre-what-do-we-know-about-elliot-rodgers-n114416 It is also how it is described by Elliot Rodger himself. It was one incident. Spree killers usually span weeks: "that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer Elliot killed his roommates on the same day he went to kill people in IV. What do others think? I feel using "Killing Spree" is misrepresenting this event, especially that it lasted several weeks or days. It was ONE day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.232.108 (talk • contribs)

A massacre is committed by a group. WWGB (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Group" refers to the perpetuating party. In this case the party was Elliot Rodgers. Also the article you shared says: and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. Which is what happened in IV.

Killing Spree is incorrect because it refers to several days. The article on Killing Sprees names various individuals who committed a massacre. The murders took place in ONE day not several weeks. What do others think? would it be OK if I change the term? Sorry about editing earlier I am a new female, who loves Wikipedia. I did not know the norms in detail. Thanks for the feedback. 96.247.232.108 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is it written that a spree must last several days? WWGB (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article on killing spree it says: "Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary". Andrew Cunanan is given as an example for spree killing, while Charles Whitman is mentioned in connection with mass murder, and Jeffrey Dahmer with serial killing"96.247.232.108 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is six a "large number" of people? Not to me. It's barely more than "several". Get up to 21, as in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, and you're maybe in massacre territory. Many would say you'd need to be significantly higher than that. And what Rodger called it is beside the point; the perp doesn't get to choose our language for us. Mandruss (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The differences between "Massacre", "Killing Spree," and "serial killings" is more about the time. The article on Killing Spree explains that. Timing is one of the most important elements. Nobody refers to numbers of victims to differentiate spree killings to massacre. It seems to be your personal inference of how it should be.

Also several media sources used Massacre to refer to this event.

How do you define what makes a number of victims high? Also there were 7 people killed not 6. It seems to be downplaying the victims to say that 7 is not a high number :( 96.247.232.108 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And you could make that very same argument about the murder of a single individual --- my cousin was murdered a few years ago, and aren't you downplaying him by saying that 1 isn't a large number? I am truly offended! His killing was a massacre!! Mandruss (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. No need to insult others. In the article of Killing Spree it says that massacre refers to more than one. Do you have a reference about the number of victims that need to exist to be considered a massacre ? It seems it is your own personal opinion no? The articles reference that it's not so much about number of victims but about timing. Using timing, Killing Spree is incorrect here, right?96.247.232.108 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, all of this is wasted breath. What Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources call it. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey, but my sense is the majority call it a "rampage". If you want to call it a rampage, go ahead, you won't get any argument from me. Before you call it a massacre, you'll need to show me that RS prefers massacre over other words/phrases. Mandruss (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RS is reliable source?96.247.232.108 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Si, senor. Mandruss (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources that call it massacre:

1. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isla-vista-rampage/isla-vista-massacre-what-do-we-know-about-elliot-rodgers-n114416
2. http://www.thenation.com/article/180077/yesallwomen-changes-story-isla-vista-massacre
3. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/24/isla-vista-massacre-gunman-stabbed-3-men-to-death-at-home-before-shooting-rampage/
4. http://abc7.com/news/isla-vista-massacre-7-killed-13-injured/76145/
5. http://www.people.com/article/elliot-rodger-parents-tried-to-stop-santa-barbara-massacre

Is this enough? There are a ton that use massacre. I think the majority uses that term to refer to what happened in IV.96.247.232.108 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, "show me that RS prefers massacre over other words/phrases". It's not enough to cherry pick a few that say massacre. Careful choice of Google search arguments usually gives you a good feel for the preference.

"isla vista" massacre -killings -rampage - 57,800 hits

"isla vista" rampage -killings -massacre - 234,000 hits

"isla vista" killings -rampage -massacre - 607,000 hits

Obviously the searches aren't limited to reliable sources, but it says that the Web in general prefers killings over rampage, and rampage over massacre. Hard to justify massacre based on those results unless you want to spend the time separating the RS wheat from the chaff. I don't --- especially since there's no reason to believe that RS would differ to that extent from the Web as a whole. Mandruss (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this phrase:" eliminating the RS wheat from the chaff." Why exactly does Mandruss not want to use "Massacre" ? It seems to be his personal conviction. The person showed you 5 articles that use "Massacre" instead of "Killing Spree". Why is Mandruss now setting a new constraint to the person. By the way, "Isla Vista Killing Spree" has only 56,500 hits, massacre would be preferred following your logic Mandruss. Why did you not mention that? 169.231.35.121 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"isla vista" killing spree -killings -rampage - 57,800 hits 128.111.95.7 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that "Killing Spree" is incorrect in this case right? This incide is obviously a killing. The question is Why does Sr. Mandruss not want to use "Massacre". The person showed 5 RS (based on Sr. Mandruss request) that use "Massacre" instead of "Killing Spree" The person also showed that "Isla Vista Massacre" has MORE hits than "Isla Vista Killing Spree." It seems more that Mandruss is imposing his own will. 169.231.35.121 (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rampage also does not define exactly what Elliot Rodgers did. A Rampage according to Google is only: "a period of violent and uncontrollable behavior, typically involving a large group of people." It says nothing about "murder" Why exactly is there a fight to not call it "Massacre"? It seems more like a personal affair that Mandruss has, right? 169.231.35.121 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Massacre is usually used when there are large number of deaths (although what "large" is, can vary). I'd recommend checking what the more professional newspapers call it. NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. since they have higher levels of editorial discipline.Mattnad (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Input Mattnad. Here are more sources that refer to the incident as a massacre:

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-new-gun-control-bills-introduced-in-response-to-isla-vista-massacre-20140611-story.html

WA Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/05/27/elliot-rodgers-ucsb-massacre-sexual-assaults-and-campus-speech-codes/

Chicago Tribute: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-25/news/chi-santa-barbara-shooting-20140524_1_mass-shooting-shooting-spree-uc-santa-barbara

NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/as-congress-sleeps-more-people-die.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar

Killing spree makes it feel like IV lived months of terror where there were constant shootings and murder. Like what happened in LA with the Night Stalker in the 80s.

It was just one day of terror. Great feedback. Thank you all for your time. 184.186.226.99 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed that in the discussion here people refer to Elliot Rodger as a mass murderer. Why do you refer to him as a mass murderer but do not want to call it a massacre ? Don't mass murderers produce massacres?

Would it be ok to change "killing spree" to "massacre" ? Thank you all for your input.128.111.95.7 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As indicated above, a massacre is committed by a group, not an individual. WWGB (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Several massacres have been committed by individuals, e.g., Virginia Tech Massacre.

here is a list of massacres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres

Many were conducted by individuals. Many had less than 7 deaths. Check out for instance, Capital Hill Massacre, seems very similar to Elliot Rodgers case. What do others think? As we discussed previously, the term "group" refers to the perpetrating party. In this case, it is Elliot.

Should we change the name from Killing Spree to Massacre? Why is there a fight? You guys are calling him a mass murderer already. I didn't see anybody reference the "killing spree Murderer." 128.111.95.7 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys is it ok if I change the crime from "Killing Spree" to "Massacre." Plenty of evidence has been given to support massacre.

Let me know! 96.247.232.108 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No it's not, for all the reasons stated above. Let me state it one more time. A massacre is committed by a group. One person is never a group (go check a dictionary). Please move on. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition of Massacre from Oxford dictionary is literally just: "An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of :people" It says nothing of having to be done by a "group"

Wikipedia defines a series of events as Massacres. Several (more than 20) were conducted by ONE individual.

There are more than 1,000 Google hits for "Isla Vista Massacre" than "Isla Vista Killing Spree"

I understand you don't care that it is incorrect to call it Killing Spree because you do not live in the community, but I do.

MASSACRES ARE COMMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS TOO. Again, Please see all of the massacres that were conducted by ONE person. See the Capitol Hill Massacre

Is it ok to change "Killing Spree" to "Massacre"?

Could someone please help? I really feel that I am being discriminated :'( I understand you don't care and think its a trivial issue. It is not trivial for me. It is incorrect to call it "Killing Spree."

It is documenting the event incorrectly. JackGann (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Massacre "A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force". Per Merriam-Webster, a "group" is "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship". This was not a massacre, despite what sensationalist reporters might like to call it. It was an individual spree killer on a killing spree. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition of Massacre in Wikipedia includes individual btw ;) Also checkout the Massacre events. Many were done by one individual, with less than 5 deaths. But all of them according to you, are simply "sensational reporting" and have no merit, correct? Also crime specialists define that the difference in Killing Spree and Massacre is not WHO did the crime, but the time. As mentioned before. Killing Spree refers to several days/weeks. The killings here all happened on ONE day. Killing Spree is actually much more sensational. It implies that a region went through weeks, almost months of constant killings. Isn't that much worse than a ONE day event? It is your personal opinion that Massacre is more sensational than Killing spree correct? and that is why you do not want us to change it?

Killing Spree is defined by the specialists as killings that happend over almost a month period: ", Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary". Andrew Cunanan is given as an example for spree killing, while Charles Whitman is mentioned in connection with mass murder, and Jeffrey Dahmer with serial killing.[8]

In Serial Murder, Ronald M. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes define spree murder as "the killing of three or more people within a 30-day period" and add that killing sprees are "usually accompanied by the commission of another felony"

My issue with calling it a "Killing Spree" is that it is incorrect, it makes it feel as if Isla Vista was terrorized for weeks. It is documenting the event incorrectly. Killing Spree seems much more sensationalist than "Massacre" JackGann (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Massacre only included "individual" for 30 minutes because you added it without consensus. It has since been reverted. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

JackGann:

1. There are more than 1,000 Google hits for "Isla Vista Massacre" than "Isla Vista Killing Spree"
   1. "Isla Vista Massacre" -wikipedia - 21,000 hits
   2. "Isla Vista killing spree" -wikipedia - 74,900 hits
2. You have used different IP addresses, saying things to make it appear that the different IP addresses were different people. Now you have created an account with the following statement on its user page: Young blond Californian College Girl pretending to be a Guy on Wikipedia so people will hopefully listen :'(. These actions, taken together, are tantamount to sock puppetry. Deliberately trying to deceive other editors is not a good strategy at Wikipedia.
3. You have repeatedly accused other editors of discriminating against you, not caring, etc. Please see WP:AGF. If you continue to edit Wikipedia articles, you will have other editors disagreeing with you a lot. This does not mean they are discrimating against you or not caring.
4. Most new Wikipedia editors stick to areas like spelling and grammar corrections for some time, while they learn about how Wikipedia works. There is a lot to learn. You are taking an aggressive stand on a controversial subject while showing that you know very little about Wikipedia's principles.

All of the above is making people very annoyed with you. I would strongly suggest either giving up on this issue or looking into dispute resolution. If dispute resolution does not get you what you want, that won't mean that people are discriminating against you. Best wishes.   Mandruss |talk  06:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss.

1. So I was using the term isla vista" massacre -killings for the search, which was used previously by another editor.
2. I work at different spots on campus so I have different IPs. I never claimed to be more than one person. Sorry is it wrong to use different IPs to edit wikipedia?
3. I used a guys name because I do feel it is tough to be heard as a girl. There are several studies that show the hostil environment on Wikipedia so It is a big issue. I don't think it's fair to call this :sock puppetry. What is wrong with using a guy's name online?
4. So as a new female newcomer you feel I should be limited to correcting commas? right? I did take the time to show why it is incorrect to call this crime a "Killing Spree" I also found RS that call it :"Massacre." Why do you feel that was not enough? Because I am female? because I am new? Do you think that type of behavior from your part, will limit Wikipedia in the long run? Basically you are :deciding WHO gets to contribute knowledge. It is not enough to show RS, explanations; knowledge of the subject etc. Basically its people who have a certain profile. Right? People that fall out of :that norm just don't get to contribute. What do you think about that?

Thanks JackGann (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seek dispute resolution, unless there is someone else here who wants to continue this with you. I'm done.   Mandruss |talk  06:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, JackGann, some of your earlier edits point to an IP address at University of California, Santa Barbara. If that is the case, you have way too much WP:Conflict of interest to even consider editing this article. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ha ha! ok :'(

Does anybody out there want to help change "Killing Spree" to "Massacre" I mainly would like to see from the more experienced editors how they would fight for something like this so I can learn.

Any help is appreciated. Also do you guys think I should change the self presentation of myself on my wiki profile? Would I get accused of sock puppetry? or that I am assuming bad things about ::others?

thank you JackGann (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Only Wikipedia defines massacre as being committed by a group; that distinction is in no dictionary definition that I can find. Since Wikipedia is not a Reliable source for itself, the arguments that Wikipedia defines massacre as being committed by a group are moot. Massacres have been committed by individuals. Other arguments as to what quantity of people killed may apply, however.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Killings involving only 3 murder victims have been defined as massacres, see e.g. Milltown_massacre It is my understanding it has more to do more with the time between the murders. Thanks Jack 184.186.226.99 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is called Milltown Cemetery attack, not "Milltown massacre". WWGB (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

But the first sentence of the article notes that it is also referred to as the "Milltown massacre".—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 19:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well.... let me make another suggestion. There's a case to be made for both "killing spree" and "massacre". I'd be hard pressed upon consideration to why one is better than the other. But when I step back a little, the violence was not exclusively killings - Rodger harmed others who survived. If we step away from the sensational language, we might want to consider "attacks" or "rampage" instead of what's been discussed. Thought I'd include these ideas to see if we can break through the debate here.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. There's a case to be made for both "killing spree" and "massacre". I'd be hard pressed upon consideration to why one is better than the other. I wouldn't be hard pressed at all. To claim that six deaths constitute a massacre is ignorant of or choosing to disregard world history (of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to pretty much everything), ignorant of or choosing to disregard the dictionary, trying to further an agenda, or some combination of the three. I'm not closed-minded, but I tend to respond negatively to lame arguments, and that's all I've seen here for massacre to date.
2. It would help if we could establish what's more important here: what makes sense to most of RS, or what makes sense to the few of us. I'd vote for the former, and the Web likes "killings" and "killing spree" over anything else we have discussed. So far, the RS support for massacre presented in this section has consisted of cherry picking, rather than a fair and unbiased survey of all RS. Cherry picking is neither logical nor fair play.
3. The closest dictionary definition for rampage I can find is: "a period of violent and uncontrollable behavior, typically involving a large group of people." In other words, a mob or riot. Neither rampage nor attacks says anything about killing, so they fail to reflect the most significant aspect of this case.
4. The person who started this discussion, and has been the only strong supporter of massacre, is a local resident and possibly a UCSB student, and is in no position to be objective about anything regarding this case. We shouldn't even be in this section, and I move to close this discussion unless someone else wants to take over in favor of massacre. Enough is enough.   Mandruss |talk  21:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the main issues that I see with using "Killing Spree" is that the term refers to murders that occurred for DAYS, WEEKS. Massacre refers to an event that occurred pretty much all in one day.

When you read "Isla Vista Killing Spree" it makes you think that it was an event that last for weeks. That the community was terrorized for weeks. Which is incorrect. It all happened in ONE day.

Here is again the definition that criminologist give to "Killing Spree":

Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary".

Good discussion. Thank you for taking the time in this.JackGann (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, the FBI states that the general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

However, WWGB, the FBI symposium dismissed the distinction between serial and spree murders:

The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement.

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.

References

In reading the article, it would seem that, for purposes of law enforcement, serial murder and spree murder are defined identically and are used to describe separate events; it would seem that Isla Vista falls more into the category of mass murder, which would lend more weight to referring to it as a massacre.

Perhaps the best solution would be to refer to it as "mass murder"?—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Mass murder" has the advantage in that it's less sensational. I can endorse this. Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Google search hit counts

	nytimes.com	washingtonpost.com	latimes.com	msnbc.com	cnn.com
"isla vista" "rampage" -wikipedia	887	1,150	8,120	125	2,250
"isla vista" "killings" -wikipedia	503	466	19,100	30	312
"isla vista" "massacre" -wikipedia	639	158	8,860	21	511
"isla vista" "killing spree" -wikipedia	42	224	60	5	272
"isla vista" "mass murder" -wikipedia	9	121	134	10	191

Rankings (5=highest preference)

	nytimes.com	washingtonpost.com	latimes.com	msnbc.com	cnn.com	average
rampage	5	5	3	5	5	4.6
killings	3	4	5	4	3	3.8
massacre	4	2	4	3	4	3.4
killing spree	2	3	1	1	2	1.8
mass murder	1	1	2	2	1	1.4

Notes:

1. I can't think of another approach to the question that isn't cherry picking of one form or another. You can find support or reasoning for any of these alternatives, and there's no way to decide which support or reasoning is more meaningful. (This is an inherent flaw in any debate without judges, and the Wikipedia model seriously overestimates people's ability to be persuaded. Wikipedia debates are like criminal trials without juries, where the prosecution and the defense are expected to decide between them who presented the stronger case. How well do you think that would work?) We can go round and round using that approach, until all but one of us has given up out of sheer exhaustion (last-man-standing is a poor excuse for consensus). Or, we can seek some kind of arbitration, knowing that we might not like the results (you can't keep arguing when the arbitration doesn't go your way). Or, we can agree to go with something like this---something cold, objective, and admittedly arbitrary. We can put this to bed at long last, and move on to other important things. I vote for that.
2. The search arguments included "isla vista", so these results are specific to this case. Any conclusion reached here can't be transferred to other articles. For example, the title for VA Tech includes massacre, and it's very possible that's what RS prefers for that case. The number of dead is considerably higher.
3. I was unable to get any hits from the TV broadcast networks, nbc.com etc. I can only guess this is because they don't leave their stories up as long as the other sites.
4. I don't know enough about the various UK news sites to distinguish the tabloids from the RS. If anyone cares to suggest a good one, I can add it. Please don't suggest the Mirror or the Telegraph, I'm familiar enough with them. BBC.com gave hit counts that were too small to be significant.

My take on the results:

1. While these sites prefer rampage to killings, the difference is only 0.8. That's less than one ranking position, and not enough to justify standing the dictionary definition of rampage on its head. The article's title should stand. However, rampage is used twice in the article's body, and I'm not strongly opposed to that.
2. Based on these results, it's hard to make a case for either of killing spree or mass murder in the body---neither of them makes it as high as 2.0, which would be next-to-last. Therefore I'd vote for limiting the body to rampage, killings, and massacre, with a fairly even distribution, and with an attempt to suit the word to the context.   Mandruss |talk  20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

After more than a week with no activity, this discussion appears to have gone to sleep. I'm not entirely sure what is supposed to happen when a discussion goes to sleep. I think some would say, "Nobody has objected to my proposal (the last one), so there is an implied consensus for it". I'm inclined to say that there is no consensus for any change to the article in this area. Going back to sleep.   Mandruss |talk  23:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to use "Mass Murder" instead of "Killing Spree." Should I change it in the body? There was a good discussion about why "Mass Murder" was the better term to use to refer to this crime. According to the great FBI definitions provided by D'Ranged, we saw that "Killing Spree" was an incorrect term to use in the article. D'Ranged thus suggested using "Mass Murder." Mattnad agreed for the term, considering it was less sensational. Currently the article is using another sensational term to describe the Isla Vista murders: "Killing Spree." Would it be ok to edit the article to include the changes we have discussed? (Mainly refer to the crime as "Mass Murder") JackGann (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at and understand the tables above? They show that mass murder comes in last in terms of what reliable sources use to describe these events. Until someone shows me why that shouldn't matter, or shows me that the tables are very incorrect, we do not have a consensus here. Consensus is more than a simple vote. You also have to look at the strengths of the various arguments, and no experienced editor would dispute that RS is one of the stronger arguments at Wikipedia. I don't claim that it's the only argument that matters, or I would have already changed the article according to RS preferences. As I see it, what we have here is a stalemate, and that happens sometimes. When there is a stalemate, the article remains unchanged. I know it's frustrating as hell, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've aged about 5 years in the year I've been actively editing here.

It's probably even more frustrating when you live nearby and have a personal connection to the events. If something like this happens where I live, I'll make it a point not to get involved in the article about it, for that very reason.

Btw, both arguments support the removal of "killing spree". Problem is, they disagree on what to replace it with. I see a little irony in the fact that the person who argued long and hard for "massacre" objects to "killing spree" because it's sensational.

Also, please note that my proposal isn't everything I would have preferred. It includes some use of "massacre" in the body, and I don't like the word for the reasons I (and others) have previously stated. But I'm willing to accept it because it goes with the RS package.   Mandruss |talk  00:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Perpetrator Information

The perpetrator is not notable, although his crime is. By the policies discussed above concerning the information posted for victims, only information that pertains to his crime is encyclopedic. I propose removing the entire section `Early Life and Education'; all reference to the names of his parents and step mother, grandparents, and relatives; their names have nothing to do with the notability of the crime. His date of birth is irrelevant, although his date of death is marginally relevant. His middle names are not related to the notability of his crime. His location of birth is irrelevant to the crime. The name of the screenwriter who counseled Rodger is not pertinent to notability. snug (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

snug, I think you can expect a fight if you enact these changes. For example, his parents were significant in both his "manifesto" and the rush to stop him before he killed. His father's background goes to his indulgent lifestyle and why a young kid can drive and wound with a BMW. It's not as simple as removing an entire section. Every fact needs to be assessed as to relevance to the crime and background. WWGB (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's common on Wikipedia to have biographical information when it's covered extensively by RS. More important, it provides context to other parts of the article that address his motivation. There are many other articles about notorious killers that include background sections. See John Wayne Gacy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Ted Bundy, Charles Whitman, Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that his parents were named in his autobiography is hardly notable. That his parents rushed to stop him doesn't relate to the notability of his crime. That there was an indulgent lifestyle can be communicated without giving the names of his parents etc. The killers mentioned by Mattnad pass the level of sustained attention defined by the policy WP:PERP, but Rodger does not satisfy that policy. Again, if we respect policy consistently, only information related to the notability of the crime (at this point of time) can be included.snug (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

His parents involvement has been covered by reliable sources as part of the narrative of the events which are covered in too much detail. Most of this article is not notable if we want to be narrow about how to cover the event. That written, Wikipedia articles sometimes become a repository of much more detailed information on sensational events than other sources. The article could use a lot of trimming, but I suggest you wait until people lose interest so you don't get the gatekeeper mentality. Sauce for the goose..... Mattnad (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry What is the gatekeeper mentality?184.186.226.99 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

snug's point is that (1) in the case of the college majors, written policies won out over other arguments, including but not limited to what's "common on Wikipedia", and (2) there is nothing in the written policies that implies they should be applied to victims but not perpetrators. Whether snug is really suddenly a believer in the rule of written policy, or is simply being WP:POINTy because he feels strongly about the college majors, is something only he can decide for himself. But there's a double standard being applied here --- look to policy for the victims, look to what's common for the perp. Why is that? Aren't we just looking whichever direction happens to support what we already want? Mandruss (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nearly, Mandruss. An old consensus on victim's information was not considered and a new consensus was made without reference to the old consensus. If I was being WP:POINTy I'd have edited the article already, I'm taking the recommended route and discussing here. There is a deeper issue… do criminals become notable because of their crime, or is only the crime notable? Then I guess the defacto policy is that: info that helps understand how the crime came to pass is acceptable, because it is the crime that is notable. Incidental info on the perpetrator and the victim not specifically to the crime is not acceptable.snug (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Re prior consensus: I told you in the college majors discussion how to find the archive page. If there was a prior consensus, you can give us a link to the appropriate section of the archive page. In any case, I don't know of a rule that says a consensus can't be reversed by a later consensus. Anybody who says, "You can't talk about that, it has already been decided" is just wrong, and if they decline to participate in the new discussion that's an implicit concession as far as I'm concerned; they shouldn't complain about the results. This assumes that the new discussion has new arguments; there's no point in simply re-hashing the old ones.

The rule is that you can't do an edit that violates the current consensus. This means that we could reach another consensus for putting the majors back in.

Re amount of perp information, allow me to suggest that you raise the question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. For that matter, you could ask them what they think about the college majors, too, since most crimes have victims (I'd suggest separate talk sections). Actually one or both questions might already be addressed on the related project page, I don't know. Mandruss (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That WikiProject assumes that the perp is notable. As far as I can tell, criminals are only notable if there is a sustained interest in the crime. That hasn't been proven yet for Rodger. Until that is proven, he is not notable, and wouldn't fall under that project. Indeed the use of the perpetrator box assumes notability, which isn't yet satisfied for Rodger. As for the discussion, I would think those who propose a change might have a responsibility to examine the record. In any case here is my best reconstruction… we removed the DOB but retained the majors: when the victims DOB was removed.snug (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the project would refuse to engage the questions until you established notability. If they would, they should change the project to Crime and Notable Criminal Biography. When, at the article level, there's prolonged debate without much progress (and I think this qualifies), it seems appropriate to kick it up to a higher level (an informal arbitration). We're interested in how the larger community feels about it, and that seems a relatively easy way to get closer to that. Mandruss (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I'm feeling the need for a WP:WIKIBREAK, so Wikipedia will have to find a way to survive without me for a week or so. See ya's. Mandruss (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the issue is not notability, but noteworthiness, which seems to have been settled by secondary reliable sources, I withdraw the suggestion of trimming the perpetrator info.snug (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link to description of perpetrator's online activities

@Tutelary: [19] does not follow per WP:ELNO #11 as your edit summary seems to imply. #11 has exception for sites controlled by recognized authorities which meet our notability criteria, such as Wikipediocracy. --Chealer (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The recognizable authority is not an organization, but an individual. as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) So no, we can't include blogs from just anyone, and I opt to exclude as it's the personal analysis of the author who's not an admitted psychologist or an expert in the field. I would also like to add that it likely fails #2 as well, as it's largely unverifiable research. Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Organizations are composed of individuals.

The notability in question here is the site's. You're free to oppose inclusion, just please use proper edit summaries. --Chealer (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Tutelary, unless it's shown that Wikipediocracy is specifically accepted in this situation. In my book, a site whose mission it is to bring down Wikipedia doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.   Mandruss |talk  02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what makes you think the site's mission is to bring down Wikipedia, and how that would impact its authority anyway. --Chealer (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then I retract that as irrelevant, and I still agree with Tutelary for the reasons s/he gave. For Wikipediocracy to be notable as an organization, it would have to have some editorial control over its content.   Mandruss |talk  04:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but do you have any evidence that it does not? --Chealer (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree, it doesn't matter whether I have any evidence or not. You would still disagree. Therefore I won't argue that point.

I don't think you would disagree that the essay in question is an opinion piece. In my view, this article already has too much opinion. What it does have is clearly identified as opinion, consists of very brief quotes with attribution (usually one sentence), and has been accepted as notable enough and signficant enough to include. See Misogyny. All of that represents far more widespread debate than one person's views on one obscure topic. I believe all of it comes from people who at least give a full name, rather than "Jack S.", and most or all of them are recognized opinion writers or other journalists. The 'ocracy essay fails on multiple counts.   Mandruss |talk  06:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I do disagree. The post is mostly original research. Evidently, it is written with considerable speculation/opinion.

I do agree more information on the author would be best.

I won't comment on the state of this article, but neutrality is always desirable. It is certainly true that the post is not as neutral as it could be. At the same time, it is very thought-provoking, and unfortunately, it is exclusive, so as with many external links, we have to find a balance between keeping the reader in safe hands and failing to provide important information. The perpetrator's manifesto, for instance, is not perfectly neutral, yet we do link to it. --Chealer (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We link to it because it's directly related to the article and is referenced multiple times. It's an encylopedic benefit for a reader to click on it and read the killer's reasoning and own personal reflection. With your link, it's a person making judgements and unverifiable research about Elliot's supposed reasoning and Wikipedia activities. The person is not a psychologist nor an expert. If they were, I might advocate for linking to it or even including it in the article. "Psychologist X suggested that Elliot demonstrated severe Y which may have influenced the killings". But it's not. What unique encylopedic benefit does linking to your link have? Tutelary (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's also "an encylopedic benefit for a reader" to learn on the killer's activities shortly before his last. The research is verifiable. What makes you say the person is not a psychologist or an expert? Besides the direct benefits of "linking to my link", the addition also brings a touch of neutrality to the section, which used to consist of nothing more than a description from the perpetrator's own point of view. I for one do not assume the perpetrator's publications are reliable and neutral. --Chealer (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes you say the person is not a psychologist or an expert? Beg pardon? Since when is a writer assumed to be an expert until proven otherwise? I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.   Mandruss |talk  21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone assumed the writer is an expert. But a reason is needed to say the opposite. --Chealer (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason to say the opposite is that no verifiable credentials have been presented.   Mandruss |talk  21:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that constitutes a reason, I say with reason that you lack the expertise necessary to weigh in on this matter. --Chealer (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)