Jump to content

Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.57.218.21 (talk) at 01:45, 7 May 2015 (→‎Reliability of Men's Rights Movement Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice


RFC - Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings

Closing as a consensus against inclusion of the violence against men category. The No votes make the strongest policy-based arguments, reasoning that the genders of those attacked was not a defining characteristic and inclusion of the category may border on soapboxing. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I endorse this closure and would have closed the RfC with the same result myself. Huon (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be included in the category "Violence against men in North America" which is a subcategory of "Violence against men". The category is described here: [1]"

  • No – The article 2014 Isla Vista killings should not be in category Violence against men because RS have not described Elliot Rodger's killing spree as a gender based attack against men. Please see lengthy discussion at the top of this talk page for full discussion, including how quotes taken out of RS to support including this category constitute WP:Original Research, because the wikipedia editors concluded these quotes mean it was gender based violence against men, but if you read the sources, it becomes apparent the RS commentators did not come to the conclusion Rodger's killing spree was a gender based attack on men. Also, the article has never been stable with this category. Its addition has resulted in multiple edit wars resulting in the article being locked down by admins multiple times.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – RfCs can't override policy, so the RfC is defective by design. Sceptre (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't know what sources you guys are reading, but the ones I'm reading say that while he killed men, it doesn't constitute Violence Against Men. There's no way I can see for the category's inclusion to comport with our policies: either the definition of "violence against men" we use is so loose that the category itself does not meet our categorisation guidelines, or we make incredibly selective readings of the sources, which make the article in violation of SYN/NOR/RS/V/NPOV/etc. "Violence against men", although it's not as well defined as its female counterpart, still has a definition based on the gender-neutral term of "gender-based violence". The sources are very clear that this was a gendered attack against women. You either have to be stupid or wilfully ignorant to read those sources as supporting this category.
I'm not sure what definition you are using for this, but I suspect it's a narrow one that excludes most violence including serial killers who target men, prison rape, and war crimes where civilian, non-combatant men are rounded up for execution.Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, this RfC is defective by design. A talk page consensus cannot decide to override our fundamental policies regarding reliable sources and the neutral point of view, so any consensus this RfC results in is illusory and cannot — and will not — bind actions taken in respect of said policies. Sceptre (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Click me for sourcing. Don't wanna disrupt flow.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"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.,

"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.”
"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."
"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."
"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."
  • Obvious yes The mere fact that the article had been stable for little over two months with the category and then a single user has to start that fight up again long after the fact is quite frustrating. However, the category has already had its consensus upheld and had been giving reliable sources demonstrating the fact the the hated men not withstanding his hatred of women is already demonstrated by the sources involved. Both cats do and deserve to belong to the article, and the sources above in my hatted comment refer to such. They're not even old sources, they were presented months ago when this issue first propped up, but I'm sick of hearing the 'there's no sources' comments when there sure are. All in all, it's a category and it already has enough sources to warrant a freakin' category. The earlier discussions should be read and understood and with regards to before !voting in this RfC. My comment, Bobo's Rfc statement, Sceptre's comments do not deal with this entire due justice. Read the very top of the page all the way down to the latest flurry to get the full substance of the dispute. As well, as you can see by my little hatted comment documenting the RS statements of Elliot's hatred of men, it is supported by sources. Tutelary (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Rodger's hatred of men is documented by reliable sources and he killed men. The article was stable for months with the category included after the original debate. Between June 28th and September 8th, the only removals of the category were three times by IP addresses (one which had no other contributions, one which only edited in gender-related issues, and one which purged the category "Massacres of men" and other related categories over 40 minutes before disappearing and never being seen again) and once by Sceptre (who has repeatedly removed the category without discussion). There isn't much more to be said. Rhydic (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As I have stated several times, the very fact numerous sources discuss the question of violence against men in relation to this spree killing is proof that it is a defining aspect of this story. Even if most reliable sources are merely objecting to its relevance, the fact it is considered a key part of discussion on the subject suggests it is an appropriate category. I added a piece from the National Post that explicitly addressed the killing in relation to gendered violence against men as well, to make it clearer that this is a legitimate aspect of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if most reliable sources are merely objecting to its relevance, the fact it is considered a key part of discussion on the subject suggests it is an appropriate category." By that logic we would need to add the Category:Controlled demolitions in the United States to the September 11 attacks page because there are RS that discuss and criticize that particular conspiracy theory. There are very, very few sources that see the 2014 Isla Vista killings in terms of violence against men and the majority of the sources that do, reject the notion that this was about violence against men. The belief that this was about violence against men is as WP:Fringe as it gets. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read the refs which do show general hatred of humans, males and females. However, it seems like he hated all women because some rejected him but more those men whom he saw as competition. I'm actually undecided because it sounds like he belongs in the category "Male violence against men more successful with women" or "Competition-driven male violence" or "Dominance-driven male violence" or something that better describes the specific pathology. It's definitely different than the reason he killed women. Something to think about for those into categories. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, by the same reasoning, did he really want to kill all women or just the ones he wanted to have sex with who would not have sex with him? As I recall, he mostly talks about attractive women rather than women in general. He wrote about killing all other men, but did he really mean all other men or just men that were more successful than him in their lives? The issue here is whether violence against men is a defining characteristic of the subject and my position is that reliable sources do treat violence against men as a defining characteristic of this subject. The debate regarding whether it is fair to describe it as violence against women when more men were victims and discussing how the gendered violence against women issue was treated when compared to incidents of gendered violence against men in the past suggests this issue is a defining characteristic of the subject. It was a critical part of the public commentary.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: As The Devil's Advocate points out, the killer's apparent misandry has been discussed in reliable sources and, therefore, the category is appropriate. Also, didn't he kill more men than he did women? Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Object to this RfC because the category has not been adequately defined, providing no basis for argument and reducing the RfC to a simple vote. Likewise, I would object to an RfC asking, "Should Cheddar be included in Category:Cheese?" if that category was defined as "dairy-based food products". This RfC was started with the knowledge of existing efforts to address the larger and prerequisite question. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per RFC responses, try not to be confrontational. Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You and Sceptre don't get to fundamentally ignore this RfC because it suits your purpose, nor can you do it if it's supposedly malformed. The basis of argument is documented quite verbosely at the top of the page. I'm not going to rehash continually arguments which were held months ago. (And at the ado of WP:STICK. The RfC asked a neutral question on whether a category should be included. This category has caused IP editors and others to repeatedly edit war the cat out, even though there was consensus that it should be included. Sceptre is one of these editors, who's even said just in this RfC that they will ignore the results of this RfC no matter what because 'consensus can't override policy'. There are adequate sources, no original research is needed to extract the gender based violence, and all in all, I see Sceptre repeatedly saying I didn't hear that. If their disruption of edit warring continues after this RfC no matter what reasoning they give, they are sure to get sanctions. This dispute ends here. I'm sick of hearing it. Tutelary (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, there are sources that call this gender-based violence… against women. Now go shave your neckbeard off. Sceptre (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tutelary, I don't know who you're confusing me with. I have no agenda here except not putting carts before horses, and I think that's evident enough in my actions. I have yet to add or remove the category, and I have stayed out of this so-called debate except for a few gentle attempts to guide it in a direction that stood a chance of a lasting resolution (such as the above comment). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and Sceptre are both opting to ignore the results of this RfC. Sceptre under some self imposed reason, and you on a technical reason. I've elaborated and the comments have elaborated that this is a long, old dispute and should be resolved in this RfC. Consensus either supports it, or it doesn't. It can be debated using cherry picked diffs, but this RfC will be the hammer that puts the nail in. Tutelary (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I am "opting to ignore the results of this RfC." As I clearly said, I have never added or removed the category. Why would I start doing that because I objected to this RfC? Out of respect for people's time, that's the last I have to say on this, and you're welcome to the last word. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So let me respectfully ask what did you mean by 'object to RfC' then? Just going to disagree with it but otherwise let the Consensus stand if it's clear? Tutelary (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(So much for leaving it there, but you seem to be genuinely interested in understanding what I'm saying.) That's exactly correct. I think the category should be better defined for the benefit of all similar articles, so that the community doesn't have to repeat this going-on-5-month-long dispute for each one. That's the only argument here that I'm inclined to expend energy on. I don't even know what it would mean to "ignore the results of this RfC", for me. I have no position in the local debate, except that it should not be local. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, while the category VAM could potentially later change via RfC, this RfC is for the current description of the category "Violence against men" which includes - This category is for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys...The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic. This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence. [6]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment to Bobo was singled out for hatting. Please view it directly underneath this reply. Hatting originally done by Dreadstar. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see above hat re responding Dreadstar ☥ 22:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a disingenuous summary. The article had been stable for around 2 months until Sceptre removed the cat again and sparked this entire thing back up again. We didn't 'ignore' the discussion as you'd like to claim, we just didn't feel like it should be hashed out in the same discussions which led to the consensus of the cat in the first place. You can see this at the top of the page. Shortly after that consensus, the article was stable, until recently, where Sceptre edit warred the cat back out. Also, appealing to admin Drmies is kind of silly; he doesn't have any more power than the rest of us, and just because an admin said it doesn't mean it's true. I've seen admins who were dead wrong--in the face. Not just a minor wrong, but -dead- wrong. They're humans. Oh, and relating to the cat's description, the proof of gender based violence has been proven via the sources list which I provided...which you can't seem to see. Tutelary (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; as per sources, his reasons for killing the men he did were inextricably linked to their gender. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Mattnad (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No He killed (or tried to kill) men and women, and seemed to dislike both. Category should be used for people who killed men for being men, rather than for being happier people than the killer was. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  • Also no to the "Violence against women" category, for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  • No - What this is is MRM (Men's Rights Movement) dogma, utilized to water down acts of violence against women. Male victims were not chosen specifically because of their gender; those claiming otherwise are misusing and misquoting reliable sources that do not say what these editors claim they say. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Agreed the sources do not fit the definition provided by the category. There is no evidence of gender-based motivation for killing of his roommates (sources say they were "getting in his way") and the other male killed is noted as being an unrelated bystander. The quote highlighted, 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 supports it being a misogynistic attack, rather than targeting men for being men. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is not included on the basis of perceived correctness on the part of editors or even reliable sources. It is about whether this issue is a defining characteristic of the subject. Even people discussing whether it qualifies as a gendered attack against men means "violence against men" is a defining characteristic of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd make it a characteristic of the discussion, not the subject. In any case, you seem to have just made that "defining characteristic" rule up. If we were to discuss whether this qualifies you as a liar, would lying be a defining characteristic of yours? Or not lying? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
I see you were talking about WP:CATDEF. I guess we don't have to discuss whether you're a liar. But note that it stresses a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Not the case here. That there's discussion about whether it was a characteristic just illustrates the inconsistency. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
WP:CAT.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OPINIONCAT. Not to be confused with this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, October 14, 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Ugh. I left this article because of these sorts of arguments. However, LegoBot has summoned me back. I agree with Tarc and PearlSt82. This is an attempt to use the category as soapboxing on Wikipedia. If people want to discuss the misandry and anti-male violence of these attacks, it would be best to do so on a personal blog, where opinion is sufficient. This is not a defining characteristic of the attack. I remain unconvinced that reliable sources back these claims of homicidal misandry. These "violence against [group]" categories are probably more trouble than they're worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the expectation that this must be "misandry" is at the heart of the dispute. By that definition, prision rape should be excluded from the category. I practically minored in women's studies which for the most part argues that misandry does not, and cannot exist (my spell checker certainly takes that point of view). A much more inclusive effort among several editors to develop an RFC that addresses the broader topic was ignored by BoboMeowCat. My expectation is that this will once again be deadlocked because people are bring their own definitions of what the categories should be, rather than consider a holistic approach.Mattnad (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I became aware of the RfC via the NPOV noticeboard. It's pretty obvious from reading what happened that, if anything, it was misogyny. Framing it as violence against men strikes me as some of the strangest soapboxing I have seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it called soapboxing when there are reliable sources elaborating to his hatred of men as a factor in the shooting? I personally believe that both caps belong, but due to the controversy of having a 'violence against men' category, that's why we're having this discussion. You can read the supporting sources just above my initial !vote if you like. Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Tutelary. I hope that you know from past experience that I try to be careful about figuring out the facts for myself, as opposed to being persuaded by unsupported statements, right? My RfC answer of "no" still stands. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep this clean and non-confrontational or I'll change this to a non-threaded discussion and move all the threaded comments to a separate section from the polling section. Dreadstar ☥ 22:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There are differences between general violence and gendered violence. It would be better described as sexist violence. The primary reason that 'violence against women' is included here is due to the manifesto Rodger wrote before enacting the shootings and the way that the attacks were perceived by media sources after its release. Violence against an individual or group is not inherently sexist or racist. This shooting is seen as 'violence against women' primarily because he published a misogynistic manifesto before enacting this. I am not entirely convinced that the Wiki community can competently use the 'violence against men' category so it will not surprise me when they yet again vote for it to remain in an article that it does not belong. Either way I have had my say and may even be surprised for once --5.81.54.163 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • No For many of the reasons expressed by other voters. Looking at another notable killer, Ted Bundy, we see that he is not tagged in the Violence against women category, even though his victims were all women. That makes sense, because his primary motive for murder was not borne of any particular misogynistic worldview. A category for Mass murder makes sense, a category tag Violence makes sense. In this case, the killer expressed specific misogynistic motives for his violence, so the Violence against women tag makes sense. Broadly, we don't add the gender-specific tags to any and all killers that have victims of either gender because the distinction does not aid clarity, further understanding of the topic, and is at best redundant. Finally, one cannot ignore the cultural realities surrounding this specific event, namely the backlash against feminists and the emergence of so-called Men's Rights Activists. The addition of this category is Original Research because no serious academic connection between violence against men as a phenomenon and this event exists. This is a culturally charged topic, adding this category is making a point, not a genuine attempt at encyclopedic examination of the subject. GRMule (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Yes, absolutely they should be. The bot sent me. Absolutely they should be included in that category. Look at the number of North American men they've brutally murdered. How could you justify excluding them? SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Ted Bundy did not, but there are plenty of articles that do casually add the violence against women category without any source that says it was gendered violence. Take a look at Violence against women in the United States category, going down the pages sub list, A to F:
Of the 16 pages in the A to F alpha list, 12 do not meet your criteria for inclusion in the category.Mattnad (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that category doesn't specify any inclusion criteria. Without it, there's no reason not to add whatever anyone wants, though it's implied they should involve women in the United States. It's a shitty category, but the shittiness allows for leeway. The men category is more well-defined, as currently written, and so we have this. If someone improved the other, it'd be in the same boat. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
Won't disagree with you on that. That was why I, and admin and another editor worked on a more expansive RFC that tries to get to the crux of the matter under discussion here and BoboMeowCat didn't like that and opened another simplistic RFC that is doomed to lack to a clear consensus. I took many women's studies courses in college and learned the concept of "gendered violence" is founded on a view that men are perpetrators, and women are victims. So by definition, we can't really have a violence against men category and we see that in the positions of some editors here. That's why I use the topic of Prison Rape to illustrate the absurdity of that position.Mattnad (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see an RfC for eliminating the VAM category, as it seems a worthless category except as a pawn for radical MRM activists. "If women get their violence category, we should too, boo hoo." That is not an appropriate use for Wikipedia categories. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk I think the VAM category is more clearly defined because there have been past disputes regarding the category. There were actually a lot of votes to delete the category back in June which cited misuse as the reason it should be deleted [7]. To hopefully improve the VAW category as well, I just edited the VAW category talk page recommending the same inclusion criteria (with just the genders reversed) be added to the Violence against women category too. [8] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The general VAW category already says it's for gender-based attacks. It was the in the United States one that needed help. That said, if you can improve any category, that's one more better category. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, October 17, 2014 (UTC)
After no objections on the category talk page and relevant WikiProjects, I added an inclusion criteria box to the Violence against women category main page which is similar to the one currently on the Violence against men main page. I linked to it from the VAW in the United States page, so that category is no longer completely undefined and unexplained. [9] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that RfC because I was off doing something else. I'm beginning to figure out that, on this topic, one needs to be either all the way in or all the way out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There is plentiful evidence for this attack as gendered violence against women, but the same can not be said for the claim that it represented gendered violence against men. Per Sceptre, we can't ignore policy, even when we really, really want to. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for the reasons stated here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, absolutely not. Just found this RfC on the noticeboard. Elliott Rodger's shooting was described in nearly all major articles at the time as being directed against women, even though there were also men counted among his victims. His misogyny is described in depth in longform pieces like this New Yorker piece, this Guardian piece, this Washington Post piece, this BBC piece, to name just a few. They all explicitly mention his unhealthy attitudes towards women in particular, that he considered them as less-than and judged himself on his inability to get dates, talk to them or have sex with them, as well as his participation in known misogynist communities online. He specified his motives against women in his manifesto, which was also widely covered in the media. These articles have no such mentions regarding men, and to include Rodger's article in any type of "violence against men" category would downplay Rodger's pretty clear misogynist motivations. This category addition would be unnecessary and bizarre, and likely a sneaky soapbox move by those pushing a "men's rights" POV. --hustlecat (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Absolutely not. So now a bunch of MR advocates are going to supplant policy with !votes, and here we go again. Of course the shooter was not targetting men for being men, as he was women. It's absurd and a fringe absurdity. Admins really need to take a look at the editors here who are advocating for this type of disruption all over the project. Pushing their fringe POV in article after article, and disrupting the project. Dave Dial (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The fact that this has been contested for so long is testament to how uneasy users are to the men's rights advocates appropriation of these killings. Rodgers was heavily invested in the Manosphere and it is important in the coverage of these killings. Of course, these antifeminists are so driven by their hatred of women that they do not care what effects their actions have in the real world, as long as they can one up feminists in a debate --109.148.127.93 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

RFC commentary

For the record, BoboMeowCat ignored the majority of editors who worked on alternate language and agree with it. Not exactly a consensus driven RFC. Not nice.Mattnad (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mattand, I actually started this RfC at the specific request of the admin who recently locked the article down. [10]. Regarding the RfC with language about changing or clarifying the inclusion criteria for Violence against men cat, I didn't ignore it, and I don't oppose it, but an RfC to change or clarify the Violence against men category should be for the Violence against men category page. This RfC is asking whether or not the 2014 Isla Vista killings article meets the current criteria for the Violence against men category described here: [11]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And two other admins suggested we take a different approach. That's 2 against 1, and yet you picked the one that suited your views.Mattnad (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one admin was discussing RfC regarding the categories. Last I heard was considering putting notices on both VAM and VAW category talk pages.[12] The other admin you referred to actually recommended the category Violence against men stay out of the 2014 Isla Vista killing article for now. [13] Unfortunately, this didn't happen. The category was re-added, an edit war ensued and article locked down (again) so an immediate RfC regarding current category inclusion criteria was started--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC could also have been worded like this, "Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings NOT be included in the category "Violence against men in North America" which is a subcategory of "Violence against men". I think either way is fine, except that the original wording indicates that it is somehow different to include a category that otherwise wouldn't be a big deal. In my experience, whenever editors revert war over a category in a non-BLP article, there is some idealogical narrative motives behind it. It seems to me that one "side" doesn't want it because they fear it dillutes the message that this spree was an act of misogyny, while the other side disagrees with that perspective. Of course, that doesn't apply to everyone here. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between here, Gamergate controversy, and discussions about the Gender Gap Task Force, a serious argument can be made that there is a significant contingent of Wikipedia editors who are, to put it bluntly, misogynists of a serious degree. Both this article and the Gamergate article are riddled with the same kinds of editors (and sometimes the same editors) who want to push a minority viewpoint into this article despite the crushing majority of sources, even partisanly conservative sources, to the opposite. I mean, fuck, when the Raping Dickwolves guys at Penny Arcade think that Gamergate is basically a cover for harassment… time was when Wikipedia functionaries didn't take too kindly to misogyny. Sceptre (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty serious accusation and in my view crosses the line. You might want to temper/edit your comments. Accusing someone of misogyny because you disagree with them is pretty low. Arguing for an article's inclusion in a category is pretty far from a "hatred of women" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Have you no sense of decency, madame?Mattnad (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so far I'm a misogynist racist neckbeard. I wonder what other titles I can get? Rhydic (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the shoe fits. Sceptre (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable that the majority of community input (from non-previously involved editors) has been "no" votes. The only "yes" vote I see from an editor not seen previously involved in the category dispute is from SW3 5DL. Actually, I think this explains a lot of the dynamic of frequent edit wars here. There's been previous commentary of men's rights supporters involvement, and I'm not sure if that is fair or not, but clearly, those who think the category should be in this article are disproportionately closely watching this article, while wider community seems to disagree that category belongs here. Category is currently in article because category was being edit warred back and forth when the article was locked down with cat in place, and it almost seems futile to remove it again. History has shown there will just be another edit war. This happened once before when the article was supposedly "stable" with the cat in place for a little while, because this also occurred after the article was locked down due to edit warring over category, and it was locked down with the category in place that time too. Hopefully, this RfC will result in a "yes" or "no' answer, at least with respect to the current VAM category inclusion criteria, because I don't think this dispute will end any other way. The dispute has been recurring for a long time now.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also notable that some editors resort to casting aspersions at other editors they don't agree with, essentially equating all of them as "MRAs" or "misogynists" to argue that they are somehow wrong here. I've been around long enough to recall when women who championed equal opportunity were called man-haters, even though they were often making relevant points about social inequality. I personally have no interest in the men's right's movement, or any of the related pages here on Wikipedia, but that hasn't stopped the innuendo being freely dished out by some editors. One can interpret violence against men as a category more broad than the academic theory that defines "gendered violence" without being a misogynist or MRA. And even if someone is an MRA, are they not people? If you cut them, do they not bleed? Are their views forbidden in wikipedia any more than those who have a different (and equally radical) perspective?Mattnad (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not intended to suggest those involved with men's rights shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and it wasn't intended to question their humanity. My only point regarding the men's rights movement, with respect to WP, is that on some issues the men's rights movement seems to have viewpoints that do not match what is reported in reliable sources, and therefore, if supporters attempt to incorporate those viewpoint into wiki articles, it ends up not meeting our WP:Verify requirement. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for Misogyny Section

I did this after it was raised in the POV-dispute discussion. Just my attempt to help out:

Misogyny

The incident informed discussions about broader issues of misogyny and gendered violence.[110][111] Rodger is generally described as misogynistic because he expressed extreme anger toward women,[113][114][115][116] and said online in postings and YouTube videos that he intended to punish women for denying him sex and men who had access to sex with women. But, Rodger killed more men than women. This led to discussion about the role of misogyny and gender in the killings. Mary Elizabeth Williams, a staff writer for Salon, disagreed with a "not so subtle insinuation" in certain news coverage "that one possible cause of male 'aggression is a lack of female sexual acquiescence".[117] Amanda Hess, writing for Slate, argued that even though Rodger killed more men than women, his motivations were still misogynistic because his reason for attacking the men for "stealing" women he felt entitled to.[113] Writing for Reason, Cathy Young countered that "that seems like a good example of stretching the concept" of misogyny "into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma" and noted Rodger also wrote many hateful messages about other men.[118] Chris Ferguson, a psychologist writing in Time, argued that laying the blame on misogynistic culture glosses over how Rodger was one particular mentally disturbed man.[123]

Debate over the role of misogyny in the incident led to a rise in the use of the #notallmen hashtag to express distance and disapproval of Rodger's extreme views toward women. Others objected to the use of the hashtag as threatening to divert the discussion away from the subject of misogyny.[112][124][125] Hence the creation of hashtag #YesAllWomen on May 24 to assert that regardless of what proportion of men act toward women in a manner consistent with Rodgers, all (or most) women experience such treatment from men at various points in their lives.[126][127][124]

Factually, according to his manifesto, Rodger' intention was to kill the people inside a sorority house where the targets were largely female.[121] Since he was not able to gain access to the sorority, he then sought out victims in less gender-specific locations.[122]


My concept here was to strip it down, make it more "facty," and clarify at the top what the debate is about. I think we should point to #notallmen and #yesallwomen, but they have their own pages so we don't have to replay the whole debate about them. Same with the first paragraph -- perhaps we should link to a page discussing debates over misogyny, but we don't have to lay out the entire misogyny debate here just because this incident was one small part of that debate.

Hope this was helpful. Djcheburashka (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of stripping it down in principle. I wasn't aware there was a POV dispute @Djcheburashka: could you post a link please? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

In the opening paragraph that provides a synopsis of the spree killing, the article states that he stabbed three at his apartment, shot three women at a sorority house (killing two), shot at a couple, killing the man, and then killed a male at a deli. However he only killed seven, including himself. So someone can't count.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.212.29 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That error was introduced on December 10 by an IP user, and you were the first to catch it (he shot at the couple, wounding the man and grazing the woman). Nice work. I have reverted all of that user's changes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

I just rolled back a series of edits by user: Libertarian12111971. These edits were made in good faith and may also be sound. But it is impossible to know since not a single explanation was given via edit summary. References were removed, facts changed all without benefit of reasons that other editors could follow when looking them over. Please feel free to add back in but also please let us know what you are doing & why. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the revert. That was a lot of consensus, both explicit and de facto, to overturn in less than two hours without discussion (I note that 0.8% of the user's edits are in article talk, so they don't discuss much at all). I'm not sure edit summaries would have helped much, unless they were very clear and specific, not simply vague things like "copy edit" or "unnecessary". That said, some of them are perfectly justifiable changes and I would support them if they were done in individual edits with a clear edit summary rationale for each. Reducing the number of edit operations is not the goal. For your part, I'd suggest creating the talk page section first, then linking to it in the editsum for your revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religion parameter has been removed here as not relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Men's Rights Movement Sources

I would just like to confirm with experienced editors whether those sources are reliable

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Isla_Vista_killings&type=revision&diff=661059909&oldid=659369067

Ylevental (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are reliable enough, but you're pushing the envelope on saying or suggesting he was a member of the men's right's movement. Participating in forums is not the same as being a member. At most we could say he was active in certain forums. My personal understanding is that his pathology was focused more on personal issues than the broader issues of men's rights. In his writings and videos, he expresses a hatred towards women and some men which is not the same as advocating for certain rights which are more legal and political. When I read the articles, they don't say he was an MRA member. Rather, he vented on some sites/forums. Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: I guess on the whole, the sources say that he was active in forums, but they all state that they are "Men's Rights" forums. If I am correct, Wikipedia should include anything widely referenced from multiple sources. (i.e. Elliot Rodger was a member of a Men's Rights forum called PUAHate and was subscribed to several Men's Rights Youtube channels.) Also two articles say he was an MRA:

(http://nypost.com/2014/05/26/killers-links-to-the-mens-rights-activist-movement/) "A survey of his subscribed channels reveals the 22-year-old was a Men’s Rights Activist, or MRA" (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/elliot-rodger-shooting_b_5386818.html) "We don't know whether Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. What we do know is that he was a Men's Rights Activist, or MRA." But I don't know what's right for Wikipedia as I am starting out.

If it personally bothers you, then I would suggest emailing or petitioning the article writers. Ylevental (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me at all. I personally have no stake in the MRM. The NY post article is uncredited which is strange, and the Huffington post piece is an opinion of a self-described "feminist blogger" according to her by-line. So IF we were going to include this, we'd want to qualify as opinion and the source. Just a side comment - she writes, "We have no evidence yet that he suffered from any kind of mental illness or was under any sort of treatment." This article was written pretty quickly after the event since there's ample evidence he was mentally ill. Quick opinions on the matter may not be the most reliable. Whether or not they think he was an MRA is not much more than a footnote, if that, on the atrocities that he committed. To me, it's not really that relevant in the broader context.Mattnad (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a user, I yearn for some honesty to return to Wikipedia, instead of this whole "I didn't write it" excuse. It is defamatory to men to claim that Elliot Rodger was in any way related to Men's Rights. He did not visit men's rights forums. He did not subscribe to men's rights videos. He did not express men's rights viewpoints. He did nothing for men. He did nothing in the name of men. He HATED men. Just because some easily-led people in the media perpetuate these defamatory claims made by misandrists, that doesn't warrant them being reported as fact in any encyclopedia, and certainly demands balance in the form of statements from (here's a surprising idea) representatives of actual men's rights groups. In the US, the most notable group would be A Voice for Men. Here's one thing they had to say about it: (OOPS, I can't link it because this site is on a blacklist... how convenient) I've long ago learned not to trust Wikipedia articles for anything but the hard sciences, but I'm still going to call out bias when I see it. Disgusted.24.57.218.21 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings&oldid=661189999"