Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 1

Present or past tense?
It's been about a week or so since this hashtag started to gain traction and it isn't trending anymore on any social network. Given the naturally fast pace of social media and the mainstream media who only make mention of topics like this which virtually always go forgotten relatively quickly, is it not appropriate that this short-lived, slacktivist hashtag be rewritten in the past tense? 107.226.24.237 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I don't think the article should be written entirely in past tense, since the hashtag is still used. But I've changed some of the tenses back to what I hope is a possible compromise. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

A Canadian Toker 04:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cited addition. I tweaked it slightly to avoid weasel words. The example tweets are a bit confusing, and the sentence is not grammatically correct. Are they examples of women posting situations which would trivialize the hashtag, or examples of tweets which are intended to trivialize the hashtag? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Odie, I am unsure if the they are examples of women unintentionally trivializing the hashtag or people intentionally trivializing it. I merely grabbed it from the Isla Vista article. A Canadian Toker 17:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

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

If we are going to maintain the redirect from NotAllMen to this page I think it is important to try and integrate a bit more information about the NotAllMen hashtag and why the YesAllWomen tweeters felt they needed to respond to NotAllMen. I would preferably remove the NotAllMen redirect to this article and remove the sentence talking about it. Thoughts?A Canadian Toker 04:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
 * I wouldn't use the existence of the redirect as the impetus to expand the article in one direction or another, though it could use a bit of background about the other hashtag. There's not really a better place for the redirect to go, so if not here then the redirect could just be deleted since we don't have anything discussing it. This page doesn't need to incorporate NotAllMen just because it's a redirect. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we should remove the redirect. If the NotAllMen hashtag is that noteworthy it should get its own page. I don't think it should even mentioned here.A Canadian Toker 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
 * YesAllWomen was created in response to NotAllMen, so not mentioning it is rather silly. However, YesAllWomen got a lot of coverage, while NotallMen did not, so it's better to keep the redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that not mentioning NotAllMen is silly, although I'm not sure why it's notable enough to deserve a redirect (which implies it will be talked about in depth) or even more than a passing mention. - Shiori (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, redirects do not imply in-depth coverage, merely that the redirect points to whatever we have on a subject. The correct way to approach having a redirect deleted is explained at WP:R.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess "in depth" was a miswording on my part. What I meant was if someone were to do an accidental link to NotAllMen (which everyone agrees shouldn't have an article since it's not notable), and they come here, there is literally only one sentence explaining why they wound up here. At the very least there needs to be a hatnote explaining the redirect. I still prefer the removal of the redirect, though, since it's extremely tangential to the subject matter. - Shiori (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful, but I understand your concern. My primary point was WP:RFD is the right venue for that, and if you think it should be deleted, then I encourage you to begin a discussion there. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Notability?
Not to demean any causes, but this is an article about a Twitter hashtag that is five days old. Are we absolutely sure this fits with the notability guidelines? I mean, five days is an awful short amount of time for something to have "helped illustrate how pervasive the gendered violence, harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination women continue to face around the world."24.152.180.71 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability seems pretty clear to me. Regarding the content issue, I think I've fixed it: []. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the IP editor brings up a good point regarding notability guidelines. Seems reasonable to consider if this should be a stand alone article or should instead be merged into 2014 Isla Vista Massacre page and/or related feminism pages.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how this is notable. It's a little ridiculous to set a precedent to make an article for every hashtag that had some level of attention; for instance, #Bringbackourgirls just redirects to the article on the kidnappings. This should, at best, be a redirect into 2014 Isla Vista killings. Rhydic (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles I've seen about the hashtag consider the hashtag as the primary subject, and only discuss the killings in relation to the hashtag's origin. e.g. Daily Beast, Forbes, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, LA Times. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion articles do little to support the need for this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a way to validate shared sentiment. 59.167.110.137 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconding the examples of stand-alone merit Odie5533 provided as evidence the discussion and the resulting archive have broad cultural implications that readers will find notable. Not sure how to parse "This is an encyclopedia, not a way to validate shared sentiment" in terms of relative subject merit. I guess lots of people think Star Wars, Grand Theft Auto, and The Big Bang Theory are very notable, having contributed to our cultural discourse? If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that wants to argue notability to refuse brief documentation of published social commentary, but clearly does include lots of detailed information about television shows, movies, and video games, the "notability" distinction here is blatantly disingenuous and either random or biased along gender lines. The "op-ed" distinction is also entirely subjective. The articles are from established sources. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I created this, so I should chime in about why I thought it was notable. I agree with Odie that while the movement may have started because of one violent act, it quickly transformed into much more than that. That's why I feel it deserves a page where it's separate from the article about the killings. As a side note (and a response to the social media comment), I think we should consider that social media is a space where a lot of women speak out, unlike on the rest of the internet. Perhaps we should consider some leniency with our idea of notability when we want more representation of women (content-wise and editor-wise) on Wikipedia. Also, though you may consider the references op-eds, they're in legitimate sources that typically meet notability requirements. Jami430 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent on whether this should have an article (although the thought of every transiently popular Twitter meme getting a Wikipedia article is alarming), but it's worth noting that Wikipedia generally expects the subjects of articles to demonstrate notability over an extended period of time rather than in a brief burst of news coverage. If they're still talking about this one two weeks or two months from now, it would clearly be notable; but if the media coverage dies down quickly, it may not pass the notability test after all. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's notable now, then it's notable. See Notability is not temporary. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not feel this article is notable and was surprised to see it even existed. I haven't heard it discussed anywhere in media - at all (but personally obv.). I would support this article being merged into or redirecting to the 2014 Isla Vista killings page. I do not agree that a stand alone article on a twitter hashtag should exist. A Canadian Toker 04:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
 * Major news outlets such as Democracy Now!, NPR , Mother Jones, LA Times ,and others have covered the campaign as a cultural phenomenon. It's not "just a hashtag." It's an online archive of the international population's commentary on women's health and human rights. The page is brief and describes the history and nature of that archive and its social impact. Why is this is a "notability" issue, but pages detailing episodes of The Simpsons and The X-Files pilot episode are clearly notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedic context? ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014
The word "populat" should be written "popular" in the first section.

TsipiMagen (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Eacheverywoman
Just a note that, apparently, the creator of the hashtag has been receiving death threats and has requested people stop using the hashtag, so some people are moving the conversation to eacheverywoman instead. I haven't found many reliable sources for this yet, but it's mentioned several times in twitter etc. Just a development to keep track of.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should refrain from inflamtory language such as "recieving death threats" unless it is supported by reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting putting this in the article yet. Just noting it as a development.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is citation needed tag repeatedly being added for properly sourced quote?
The quote "too sensitive" doesn't need tag because it's referenced by Salon article:

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

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


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

Merger proposal
The result of this discussion was to keep the page where it is. There are obviously two sides to the arguments here, but there seems to be an larger number of editors who oppose merging the article at this point. If anyone wants to revert me, go ahead, but I am going to boldly close it this right now, since I do not see a merge proposal happening anytime soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)}}
 * Officially disputing closure for now; I'd prefer that an administrator decide on both counts. 3 days I believe is not enough time, but unlike the afd, the !vote here seems to be split more jaggedly than the afd, which was closed on WP:SNOW bounds. However, if an admin were to decide to close this, I would not dispute this again. Tutelary (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Discussion

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


 * Support: for reasons above
 * A Canadian Toker 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS I would suggest merging it into the 2014_Isla_Vista_killings section. A Canadian Toker 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For the following reasons:
 * 1. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia."
 * 2. As noted in the header of this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia."
 * 3. As of today, this hashtag still comes up in the news with regard to broader conversations about gender relations that have expanded beyond the Isla Vista killings, Odie5533 makes a similar point in the notability section of this talk. --Formidiable  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formidiable (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybody can add a Wikiproject, and those are templates automatically added. An article being in scope of a Wikiproject does not automatically make it notable. I'm not gonna comment on your third point, just wanted to note that. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if the article is merged, the redirect would remain, and the redirect could be tagged to those projects. I think only time will tell if this tag has staying power.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Oppose - the current citations already note the hashtag as expanding further than Isla Vista. But regardless, it is premature to enter into notability discussion whilst publicity and discourse of the topic remain high. marp (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be 3 separate ongoing discussions concerning this article. We have a discussion at AfD (which includes editor's suggestions about merging), this discussion here on this talk page about merging, and a separate discussion about merging at the talk page at 2014 Isla Vista killings. If the consensus is to keep the article, then these 2 separate discussions + discussion at AfD about merging will not matter, but if the consensus is to delete the article, then let's make sure that these 2 separate discussions on merging + the discussion at AfD are all taken into consideration. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also a related effort to delete the "#NotAllMen" redirect, being discussed here. Agyle (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - #YesAllWomen is only in part a response to the Isla Vista shootings. Among other things, it's a response to #NotAllMen, which preceded the Isla Vista events by several months. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not close prematurely Just because another discussion happened after it was proposed for merging does not make this discussion void. Consensus will be assessed with both of their regards. Tutelary (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This was a response to perceived misogyny in the Isla Vista shootings, and is otherwise not notable enough for its own article. This would be akin to putting #CancelColbert in its own page, instead of in "Culture impact of the Colbert Report" where it belongs. Also, the merge would allow the perspective necessary for requisite neutrality. --Vreddy92 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to speak up and say I feel incredibly uncomfortable about the idea of taking this topic—one about women discussing times when they've felt intimidation and fear—and redirecting readers to an article about a murderer who wanted to slaughter women (his words). Doesn't this seem problematic to anyone else? Jami430 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a murderer, this is an article about a series of murders, and that series of murders was one of the things that triggered this yesallwomen conversation. If, in the long term, this topic isn't seen to be notable enough to stand alone, then it needs to redirect. A redirect to the relevant section of that page is the most sensible thing (I suppose it could also redirect to a section in the sexism page or misogyny page or something similar, but since the exposition of the hashtag will likely always remain in the article about the murders that's the best place to redirect it if that decision meets with consensus.) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jami430: No, you are not the only person who thought that, and i'm glad you said so. Even if in this case it turns out to  be unavoidable (I don't know), I think it's a shame when we look to policy without even attempting to consider the consequences, that was something that played out quite poorly in how we dealt with "Jews and Communism" as well.  In any case, I just wanted to say, "no, you are not the only person who noticed that problem."   --j⚛e deckertalk 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


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

Merge tag
Why was the previously deleted merge tag re-added? The consensus on the articles for deletion page discussion was to keep this, at least for now. If it were to be deleted, content could have been merged into 2014 Isla Vista article, but the consensus was to keep the article so it seems merge discussion tags should be deleted.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who officially contested. Although I note WP:CONLIMITED, I believe that deletion and merging are two different things, and should be decided in both of their regards. Additionally, the close was done by a non-admin under certain criteria such as WP:SNOW (or the implication thereof). If an admin decides to close this merge discussion and assess consensus, I will not contest it again. Tutelary (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is some value in keeping this open. Ktr didn't close this on CONLIMITED, the reasoning read to me more like SNOW. (If the reasoning had been CONLIMITED I probably would have supported keeping it closed, I think that's a straightforward application of policy, and Ktr is a respected long-term contributor here. The claim you need an admin bit for that doesn't move me, and I'm speaking as someone who has one.)  As a "what is the consensus here locally, on the merits question, I can even see the argument for closing... it doesn't have a snowball's chance of closing "merge".  But it might still close "no consensus" or "don't merge", and there's some value in waiting to find out which it is.   (Bias disclaimer:  I've opined above strongly in favor of "do not merge.") --j⚛e deckertalk 16:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge Tag siege
Why should there be a third chance for this tag? CCC is for next year, or at least next quarter, not the day after. Tutelary and, afaict, Joe Decker are, in the section, both ignoring the  started in the  section. Why would CONLIMITED apply here? There is nothing to trump. There is no need for the wider Articles for deletion/YesAllWomen AfD to trump the limited talk page discussion, as the talk page discussion is against merge. There are twenty three people at the AfD who want it kept, vs three who wanted it merged, and eight at the discussion who specifically vote against merge, vs three again. Adding the merge tag yet again is tendentious forum shopping. Anarchangel (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am doing this due to the merge tag being added before the article was nominated for deletion. In addition, the discussion is not yet closed officially, as I disputed a closure by an experienced editor because I believe the discussion is not straightforward like the afd. I acknowledge that it will likely lead to a not merged result, and I accept that. I just want it to be officially closed by an admin, as it isn't WP:SNOW like the afd. If you wish, you could seek an uninvolved admin at WP:AN to close the discussion. You have my word I will not dispute an official admin closure. Tutelary (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, gee, thanks. You'll just "dispute" the other 31 people's consensus, then. Anarchangel (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was going at. I've already explained why I disputed it, and the afd I believe has an official consensus response by a wide variety of editors. I just want this merge discussion to be officially assessed by an admin and then closed. The WP:CONLIMITED mention was an acknowledgement that the afd was stronger. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've misread me entirely. I believe that if you examine everything I've said on this page, my view will be clear.   Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Was that to me or Anarchangel? If so, which response? It seems out of context. Tutelary (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Anarchangel misread me entirely. I conveyed that poorly, sorry about that.  I'll break that out below.  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * As the admin who closed the AfD, I should have been a little clearer. I saw absolutely no consensus to merge this article into 2014 Isla Vista killings. If needs be, I'll amend the closure to state that, but I'm pretty sure you guys can resolve this here without doing that. In short; "Keep, with no consensus to merge" - A l is o n  ❤ 22:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is any argument on what the AfD said. What is lacking, if I understand your intent correctly, so far is an uninvolved admin, like yourself, hatting the merge discussion arguing that the AfD decision takes precedence over that the merger discussion per CONLIMITED. I would love to do it myself, but I've expressed an opinion on the question on the merits, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I could add my comment, I could request an uninvolved admin (who I can see in blue on my watchlist due to a userscript), using a neutral message to request the hatting of this. I just really thought it should have been formally closed, which was why I was so adamant about it. No intent to cause anybody any stress or fret about anything. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ok - ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 23:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

This article has also been mentioned in a meta kind of way in popular culture on jezebel which could go in the in popular culture section as well? I think it is relevant as the article is about the hashtag as well as about the page about the hashtag. Lathomas64 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good article. Great comments section, too. In which one intrepid reader notes Wikipedia's page for the Youtube video Charlie Bit My Finger. Which apparently is very, very notable. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as this topic is socially relevant it will be attacked by MRAs, and as long as it is new it will be questioned by WP regulars. A 2007 video has the benefit of years of notability vs. days. There are always people who question the notability of something in the early days, esp. something internet-famous. The deletion and merger requests are groundless, but please be careful not to lump the WP deletionists in with the MRA nutjobs. There aren't a lot of WP articles on hashtags so this is a little ground-breaking. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All points well made, well taken, and much appreciated, JohnnyMrNinja. The "hashtags aren't real" issue seems to be partly driving the debate, and that's understandable. Speaking as a publishing professional (my actual job for the last decade, in actual life), I think it's useful to understand large-scale Twitter projects like this as collaborative, crowdsourced digital publishing products (kinda like Wikipedia). In the same vein, Wikipedia has had its own fight for legitimacy compared against print media. As has any web-based publication. In re: the "test of time" element, good point. Odie5533 directed us to Wikipedia's own definition of notability: If it's notable now, it's notable. Wondering how many articles or what other kind of criteria would serve to prove "notability." ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * events, such as a global uptick in use of a twitter tag to have a conversation are inherently ephemeral, and even if documented in a hundred sources they do not necessarily merit an article - otherwise the wiki would be awash in current events and news of little long-term significance: this tag is too young to make that judgement -- if people are still talking about it in a few months time then it could be kept. Plenty of articles have been deleted after it became apparent the phenomenon described was just a flash in the pan. If you see other articles that are not notable or ephemeral, please send them to AFD - just the way Wikipedia works is when many eyes are on something the rules are applied in a more strict fashion than the barren Unwatched wastelands. As far as I can tell this is the first article about a hashtag so we are breaking new ground - if this becomes a movement and has a conference and has an NGO set up behind it etc then the hashtag itself becomes just a social media channel to something larger, I think it would be strange for a hashtag-only article to remain for long - it must either evolve or die.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific example of a conference/NGO/other result is insightful in terms of notability, and a great idea for moving online activism into offline spaces. Not sure how opening up the possibility of page creation to discuss a ton of "hashtag" pages is (1) terrible or (2) very likely to be any more of a problem than other unimportant/not-quality types of submissions. How does Wikipedia deal with page creation in terms of volume, people hours, etc.? The ephemeral aspect of digital publication, esp. public platforms, is tricky, agreed. Super especially this item, which as noted is an unusual example all around. It has elements of a digital publishing project (Twitter can certainly be defined as a digital publishing platform) and a protest "event." The term "slacktivism," as applied by another user, is pejorative and subjective. If the participants intended to act in a civic engagement context, then it was civic engagement, even if observers don't define the action of online speech sufficient as such. A kind of parallel could be made to the Occupy movement: public space (online space) is being occupied to lay bare complex, intersecting cultural issues (public health, gender inequality, women's health, misogyny, mass violence, etc.) in an ongoing, open-ended discussion. That said, Thought Catalog has compiled a selection of material into an ebook and is donating proceeds to National Organization of Women, which is at least an addition to the pop culture section of the article. The "In popular culture" section is a great addition, btw. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesnt really have a mechanism to deal with people hours, as it's all volunteers - which is why I tend to be a deletionist or Mergist vs an inclusionist. We simply don't have enough editors anymore to police and improve the articles we have so we should be parsimonious about creating new ones. if yesallwomen remains a hashtag that trended for a few weeks in may, the article will likely be deleted and redirected to the shootings or to a subsection of 'sexism in popular culture' or something - (in the same way #Bringbackourgirls would likely be redirected to the kidnapping.) in order to survive long term as a stand-alone topic we need to have some sort of evidence of longevity and impact per WP:lasting- are people talking about this in books written a year or two from now, etc. many of the Arab spring movements started with hashtags, but they became much more, the hashtag only goes so far (which is why people call it slacktivism). I don't think a parallel with occupy is apt, since that was actually colonizing a real space. You cant virtually take over the presidential palace and have a virtual coup, you have to actually do it. It is fantastically easy to ignore a twitter discussion... A bit harder to ignore protesters in the main square or legislation change - I'm not demeaning the conversation but for now that's all it seems to be, a conversation. Some movements start as this and become more, and some fizzle, I'm sure if you looked you could find half a dozen hashtags which got some modicum of coverage, trended, started a big discussion, and then petered out - this one seems bigger but only time will tell if it has real influence - remember the half life of a tweet is no more than ~ 30 minutes. You have critiqued above some of the pop culture articles we have, but there are also oodles that we *don't* have, especially ones about ephemeral trending memes and hashtags, and random comings and goings of celebrities and various trends. Sidebar: f you see lame articles, send them To the chopping block, I see it as another way of improvng the wiki to ice bad or trivial articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Framing the concept of "notability" as tangible result or event seems like a good starting place. I think there's room for discussion re: "colonizing a real space": Memes inhabit, are transmitted, and affect human culture groups to inhabit "real spaces" in more than one way. But I get the parameters of the concept as used here. Thanks for the insight into Wikipedia's editing/curating processes. Online repositories are definitely influential on offline culture, and it's important to have these discussions about how we participate in content vetting and sharing. I appreciate the conversation and the work that goes into making these things work. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of bias that I was talking about, the idea that this is only "a conversation" and that it would need to be something with some sort of physical presence or even lasting impact to maintain notability. Planking didn't feed the children, Doge didn't bring peace to Ukraine, and Slender Man had an article well before the attempted murder. We even have articles about simple conversations, even if they don't change the world. Notability is notability, simple as. It is my opinion and the opinion of several other editors that there are enough RSs to pass GNG. If there is an argument that reliable secondary sources can't be found then let's have it, the rest has no relevance. I am a deletionist as well, but the idea that a type of topic can never be notable by default is ludicrous.
 * Also, the point of the hashtag is to highlight misogyny and rape culture. That's what it's doing, so, yes, "slacktivism" is dismissive and disrespectful. A woman talking about her sexual assault to the world is not an easy thing, especially when she knows she will be attacked by MRAs and trolls. But that's the sort of thing they're doing. Not everything important changes a line on a map or warrants a tax deduction. Of course, none of that has anything to do with WP:GNG. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  09:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * this is somewhat new ground, of course there are lots of examples of articles we shouldn't have, but that's an otherstuffexists argument. Anyway this isn't the afd, by my point is for now this isn't yet a movement despite what ppl at jezebel would have you believe, so as an event (which is the best description) it needs to show WP:lasting impact to be kept as a separate article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. If this gets known outside of the shootings, then it can remain as a separate article.  Right now it's too soon to tell, but since the article is here, we can wait and see what happens.  If in a few months, it becomes unknown, then perhaps it makes sense to merge, possibly with it's own subsection in the Isla Vista article and use a redirect.Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw my addition re: the anthology compiled by Thought Catalog was deleted because there's no evidence that it's important that someone made the ebook. Apologies! I thought the section header was "In popular culture," not "In popular culture, as vetted by evidence-based dissertations regarding popular culture artifacts pertaining to their relative cultural merit" ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should be more parsimonious about such sections, and only include things which other sources believe are notable. Otherwise, how do we separate "A few bloggers on jezebel held a hangout where they discussed yesallwomen" and "A gawker writer published a PDF of her favorite sayings" and "Some company published an ebook".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. And I'll assume that was the reason for deleting my addition of the Melissa Harris-Perry segment, also? I mean, she's even noted as notable in Wikipedia! Praytell, Obi-Wan Kenobi: What sources do you personally accept as viable sources to provide evidence that A Thing Exists and Is Relevant to People Who Utilize Wikipedia? Spelling out that obviously short list will save all the other writers and editors a lot of time. I thought part of the process of determining notability as a stand-alone article included the hashtag being discussed as its own phenomenon, not just tangential to the Isla Vista murders, which the MHP segment goes toward. I detect shifting goalposts. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the hashtag is discussed as its own phenomenon, then add that to the content section of the article, with the source - e.g. during a discussion with Melissa Harris-Perry, she said that xxx. That's fine. OTOH, the "popular culture" section should be populated with instances where the meme made it to some other place, and someone noticed it. E.g. suppose the new star wars movie has a whole scene called "YesAllWomen" - but if no-one writes about it, we shouldn't add it here. But, if several RS discuss the fact that the new star wars movie has a scene about "yesallwomen" then that would be an appropriate addition. The fact that some talking heads spoke about it makes for a good source to add more content, but doesn't make for a good addition to the "in popular culture" - since a meme like this is spreading very far and wide and fast, so we should only capture the uses of it in other domains that are noted by some other reliable source. Otherwise the whole thing can become trivialized, e.g. "Cafe press started selling yesallwomen shirts, Starbucks offered a $10 coupon if you tweeted yesallwomen, Colbert made a joke about yesallmenareidiots, etc"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification re: your editorial decision and apologize for my defensive tone in the above comment. As you noted, discussing this is tricky due to, among other things, nebulous and open terms for content creation and editing both here and in other online spaces. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need to explicitly list the gender of the slain victims?
A added a gendered description of the slain victims. When I removed it, I called it undue in my edit summary, but I was reverted. I ask now: do we really need this? I think not, but I would like to hear other opinions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's undue, as the majority of sources which have covered this, even in the context of YesAllWomen, have pointed out that 4 men and 2 women were killed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE refers to the substantial amount of coverage to things only covered in non-reliable sources. It has other meanings, but that's what it means in this case. For example, giving Scientology a spot on the page 'Science' discussing it as the truth and what not, and then sourcing it to blogs would obviously be undue weight, while in addition to the quantity of reliable sources stating the opposite. In this case, there are multiple reliable sources stating the gender of the victims, and I think that it should reflect here. I can be swayed if there is a coherent point on why it shouldn't be included. Tutelary (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant given the origins of the hashtag. I cannot see a reason why we would not include the genders.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the shooting. For this discussion, however, please do note the gender of the victims is often mentioned as a way to subvert attention from misogyny as Rodgers's stated reasons for killing those particular men, whom he deemed his sexual rivals: "People try to talk about the misogyny behind the shootings, and someone, frankly a male, steps in to write about how more men were killed than women by Elliott Rodgers. They believe this somehow proves that Mr. Rodgers wasn’t a sexist, it seems. . . . Simply put, his orientation toward men was rooted in his perspective that women were objects of sexual conquest and men were alpha or beta competitors standing in the way of his sexual release" . ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While this article is not specifically about the shooting, it does say that this hashtag was a response to the shooting, and at the bare minimum, we should give users the context behind the shooting, which includes the genders of the victims. Additionally, we're not going to omit something just because someone else finds it personally objectionable with comments such as They believe this somehow proves that Mr. Rodgers wasn’t a sexist, it seems which are not particularly relevant comments. Tutelary (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, we shouldn't omit facts such as who was killed. I certainly am 100% for facts. The article I just cited also discusses facts regarding the killer's motivations per the killer's own "manifesto" as well as video and textual artifacts. Apparently, other digital publishing projects within popular culture, and well-researched and credible work from established news sources are merely opinions and neither notable nor relevant. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can discuss the other changes of why your edit was reverted on a new section of the talk page. This is about including/excluding the genders of the individuals, to which I !vote to include. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also !vote to include because facts, as I already stated. Merely pointed out the ways discussion of gender in this case is being used as derailment, and that the source I cited to that effect was not any less valid than any other "personal opinion" re: notability and relevance. ElectricRebelMedia (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I welcome you to readd it with reference to WP:BOLD, and when reverted, start a new talk page section related to it. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been re-added by Obiwankenobi. I followed Obiwankenobi's addition with a referenced statement regarding how Rodger publicly indicated he would punish women for denying him sex and that he would also punish men for having access to sex with women, while he did not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the genders are relevant and should be there.  D r e a m Focus  05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In a vaccum, without clarification that he intended to kill far more women but wasn't able to because the women at the sorority house didn't let him in when he pounded on the door, and that the number of men killed is skewed by the fact that he also killed his roommates before he began his shooting spree, it sounds like an attempt to minimize the effect of his mysoginy on his motivation to commit mass murder. Going into all of that feels like undue weight.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

So. I have spent enough time on this, I think! I am going to change the article, and add citations to it. But if other people want to refine what I've done, please feel free. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * actually if you search topsy.com you can see that the hashtag was first used around 5 years ago, and for several years was used straight up. I think we should go with the sources that say it was first used as a defense, and then later used in a mocking fashion. Or we could just say 'the phrase notallmen' was used without getting picky about who used the actual hashtag first and whether it was straight or not - ultimately it's of little import. Apparently someone traced not all men to the 1800s.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotAllMen&src=typd The earliest #NotAllMen tweet is is 4th May 2011, a minority are from late last year and early this year, and the majority are from May 24 onwards. Almost all the ones before May 24 are using it as an argument.Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * actually the first usage is several years earlier, but I agree it was used as an argument and not mockery for many years. Use topsy to search not twitter. If our primary source research contradicts what secondary sources say we should consider them unreliable.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. We stick to the sources even if they're wrong. Verifiability, not truth. Tutelary (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * that's just an essay, and widely disputed. If our research demonstrates clearly that the hashtag was first used in 2009 we should not state in wikipedia's voice that it was first used in 2014. Part of deciding on the reliability of sources is triangulating the evidence and driving whether to trust or reject a source. Not all sources are equal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While not evidence one can put in an article, I suspect the term gained some notoriety as early as 2009. My suspicious derive from .  Where that meme is coming from......  would take the sort of analysis we rely on secondary sources for. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not in citation tag
I added that tag because the sentence 'women were his primary target' are not supported by the two sources given, which do indeed support the former statements, but not this latter statement. Tutelary (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reworded and added quote regarding targeting sorority. Also added another citation.  Removed tag because text no longer includes unsupported statements. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No longer contesting as no longer applies. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)