Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 2

Dispute regarding providing context to the killings
User:TaraInDC provided context to who was killed saying the assertion that he killed more men than women was often used to deflect the misogyny claim. This seems reasonable and current content is all on topic and properly referenced. It actually seems a bit ironic that the reason #YesAllWomen was created now seems to be playing out on the wiki page for YesAllWomen, with properly sourced content regarding Rodger's misogyny being repeatedly deleted from page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's best not to make these things personal, but on the basis of policy, guideline, among other things. I can understand why Obi removed it all; it's best not to elaborate on these things in great detail unless absolutely necessary. We could link to the main article of 2014 La vista killings instead of going through great pains to elaborate on every significant detail. Also, I'm going to request that you change up the title, as it is indicating that through one revert, an editor was edit warring, which was not the case. Tutelary (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines and policies justify removal of reverenced content which illustrates Rodger's misogyny in an article about a hashtag which arose as a response to those denying Rodger's misogyny and denying misogyny in general? If it is important to add the gender breakdown of those killed, why is it unimportant to provide context to that gender breakdown?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed title to remove "edit war" but given that User:Obiwankenobi has deleted this on topic and properly referenced content 3 times now, without participating in the talk page discussion, it seems "edit war" may have been appropriate.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not quid pro quo - the gender breakdown of the victims is a simple a concise statement of fact that has been repeated in numerous commentaries. The fact that person X on blog Y used this fact to make an argument Tara disagrees with is completely irrelevant and the desire to hide The gender of the victims for what has broadly been termed gender-based violence is ridiculous. More importantly, almost Every single source which attempts to give a final root cause analysis of the reasons for the killings cannot be trusted as a reliable source since for the most part those commenting are not psychoanalysts nor police investigators. The debate is raging and will continue as to what caused this and what should be done and we should cover this incredibly complex debate on the proper article in depth - not this one - regardless of the event which inspired this hashtag it has gone way beyond isla vista so one or two lines establishing the event suffices, vs quoting of cherry picked lurid quotes about his hatred of women (I could cherry pick lurid quotes about his hatred of sexually successful men too). You're trying to prove a point here about Rogers misogyny but that's not the point of this article, and the way it was summarized was one-sided and only covered half of the Debate in any case (it failed to mention the mental health angle which a number of RS have pursued). As such it's a coatrack and undue here, we're better off being concise and letting readers draw their own conclusions vs pushing them in one direction which seems to be your purpose.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The broad context is already included in the article prior to the block of disputed text. The location where each person was killed and the fact that the sorority house he wished to attack was closed are interesting facts about the killings but they don't relate to the creation of the hash tag or its subsequent social media use. In other words, these facts add no relevant context to this article, and while they belong in the article on the killings, they're off-topic (aka heading into WP:COATRACK territory) in this article and need to be removed. The YouTube quote is already covered more broadly as well and including it is WP:UNDUE --Ca2james (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the original edit by Tara was dangerously close to WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK because the information isn't relevant to this. The hashtag mainly began in response to killings in which he killed four men and two women; that's all that's necessary. Even the information on how many he killed or their sex could be considered unnecessary as the hashtag only originated due to the killings. That's it; the number of killings is irrelevant to its origins in this context. Any more detail strays into what should stay on the main article for the killings, which is one of the reasons that there was such a conflict over deletion and merging for this article. If it's really bugging you guys you can leave it as it is with a simple summary of how many he killed, but any more than that is undue and should be left to the main article. (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the content deleted.


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


 * As far as I can see, no one is asserting anything you'd need a psychologist or investigator to analyze. All of it is properly referenced. While I agree it's a bit wordy and needs tweaking, and perhaps it's wordiness could constitute undue weight, I think the context of who Rodger said he intended to kill, and the fact that he improvised when no one was home at that sorority house (or more specifically no one answered the door) is relevant and on topic.  Also, the included quote about his stated desire to "slaughter" those sorority women is reliably sourced and clearly shows his misogyny.  Rodger's misogyny is on topic as part of the #YesAllWoman hashtag evolution was responding to those who denied Rodger's misogyny. If there are quotes or sources that dispute his misogyny it would seem that info would also be on topic, but deleting properly referenced quote that illustrates his misogyny does not seem appropriate as Rodger's misogyny is clearly on topic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to Rhydic's comment. It does seem removing the gender breakdown and simply referring to the number he killed (or just indicating he carried out a killing spree without specifying number killed) would remove the need for any context to that gender breakdown. It seems that quote about slaughtering the sorority women mights still be on-topic in the article, but only if it can be naturally fit in somewhere that makes sense. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * it's a one sided and very incomplete description of the events of that day. Is better to stick to the headlines and leave the detail for the article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Confused. How is Rhydic's suggestion that we just refer to a killing spree perpetrated by Elliot Rodger, with a link to Isla Vista Killing spree page for context, one sided? One sided seems more like insisting the gender breakdown be included in this article, while refusing to allow in context for that gender breakdown, even when that context is properly referenced.   --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant the content you were edit-warring in was one sided. It spends most of its time at the sorority house which he didn't enter, instead of what he did during the other 20 or so minutes of his spree. As for whether or not we mention the genders, I think it is important, but explaining the whole 'context' as you put it is not, since we simply don't have space to do it justice here. He said (and we repeat) that he intended to kill women and men, and he succeeded. The idea that we can't mention the gender of the victims without the obligatory plastering of misogyny all over it is offensive - as is the idea that we should remove mention of genders since someone on the internet used that as an argument to say 'it's notallwomen' or whatever. Let's stick to simple facts here and leave the theorising to the main article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If mentioning the gender breakdown is important, then it seems the context for that gender breakdown would also be important. Additionally, calling it the "the content I was edit warring" is interestingly one sided, considering after bringing it to the talk page, i left your revert in place, even though it lacks consensus and you restored your version multiple times without discussing.  Additionally, I'm not sure I get your assertion that the  "plastering of misogyny all over it is offensive". YesAllWomen is a hashtag about misogyny. Tons of reliable sources have called Rodger's stated motive for the killings and his quotes prior to the killing misogynistic.  Describing the killing as misogynistic seems required by WP:WEIGHT, because so many reliable sources have called it misogynistic.  Now if you can find neutral reliable sources that say it's not misogynistic, that would also be relevant.  Either way, it seems we can resolve the dispute regarding the context for the gender breakdown, by simply referring to it as a mass murder or spree killing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * bobo, I bet the word misogyny exists at least 20 times In this article, and his hatred of women is twice-expressed already, if not more. My point is, it's offensive that every time someone says '4 men and 2 women died' people feel the need to come in and say 'because misogyny!!!' - the facts are simple, the reasons behind those facts will comprise the subject of study for years to come. Pop psychology has misogyny as one of the drivers, but other more thoughtful commentators, including his parents who dealt with him and know him, have pointed to mental illness. Explaining the 'context' as you put it - esp in the clumsy and 1sided way you were attempting - turns this article into a coatrack, an essay I suggest you read - because this article is not about the killings nor is it about Rodgers misogyny, it is about a hashtag, so we should remain short and to the point while giving the key facts - which are, in my mind, he threatened to kill women and men - in his words because he hated them - and he succeeded. I think the most ridiculous position is this quid pro quo - eg 'omg we can't possibly say how many men or women died without giving our full analysis' - no, that's simply not true.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, Rodgers' actual motivations aren't relevant to this article because this is an article about a hashtag, not about the killings or their reasons themselves. Yes, the killings are background information and it's necessary to mention them to provide context. However, the only background needed is the fact of the killings, not an assessment of the killer's motivations or a demonstration of his misogynistic thoughts or a description of his visit to the closed sorority house. All of that is other stuff is WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE for this article, and it appears that consensus is against the addition for those reasons. --Ca2james (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ca2james, I actually agree with your assessment that the only background needed is the fact of the killings. That's why I agreed with Rhydic's suggestion above that we just refer to the killings and not get into specifics,gender breakdown,etc which removes need for context to that breakdown.  As per a previous edit tag summary, it appears TaraInDC  agrees with this as well so it seems we have pretty good consensus to resolve this dispute.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BoboMeowCat, answer this question, and honestly - if he had killed 1 man and 5 women, would you be arguing to remove the gender-body-count here? I would bet large sums of money that you wouldn't, in fact you'd be strongly on the opposite side. As mentioned earlier, the gender break down of the deaths is a well-attested fact. The motive OTOH is much in dispute, and will be for a long time. They are two different things, and it would be quite difficult to add the proper "context" here without this article becoming a coatrack, but it is important to note here that women AND men were indeed killed by this violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Rodger's motive has been widely described as misogynistic by tons of reliable sources. Your responses here suggest you disagree and it offends you but we go by reliable sources. That his target was the sorority house and he improvised when he was denied access has also been reported in reliable sources. Here's just one http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thwarted-in-his-plan-california-gunman-improvised/. To answer question, if he'd killed 1 man and 5 women, but had announced he'd planned to slaughter every single guy on Rugby team because he hated "buff blond jocks", but then wasn't able to gain access to Rugby team, absolutely. I would argue that we should either remove the gender breakdown or provide context to it, especially if it were an article about misandry. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I know enough to know that I'm not smart enough, unlike the vast majority of people commenting on the interwebs, to actually KNOW what was the final root cause of his attacks. Did he hate women? obviously. He also hated men. And he also hated Asians. And he also hated black people. And he hated overall a boatload of things. Was he mentally ill? What was the root cause of his illness? From whence did this hatred of so many people spring? Why was it transformed into violence? Unfortunately he's not alive so we can't interview him, but I assume psychologists and investigators will be poring over material for years and will eventually come back to us with an explanation, vs the lame theories parroted by bloggers who have zero expertise in such matters. My question wasn't about whether you'd argue differently if the whole situation was reversed, it was about whether you'd want the gender-breakdown here if everything else was the same, except the number of victims of each gender. If more women were killed than men, I'm rather sure you wouldn't be arguing for provision of detailed context, because the body count would then align with your personal theory about the killings.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're interpretation is interesting but not really relevant for editing WP. We don't include "vast majority of people commenting on the interwebs", only reliable sources.  It's not really relevant if you know your not smart enough, or strongly believe the reliable sources are written by people who "are not smart enough".  We report the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You made an assumption about my own feelings on the matter. I corrected that false assumption. That is all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree. While it is certainly valid and referenced information, presenting it without the context of how he came to kill so many more men than women misleads the reader. It is misleading because that information alone, without the fact that his intention was to 'annihilate every single girl in the sorority house,' suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims. Undue weight is about not just space, but relative importance. Those five words may not take up much room, but they paint a very different picture of the shootings than a version with no gender breakdown at all or one that offers more context. WP:NPOV instructs us to "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."  If this misleading information can not be addressed by giving it more context due to space or weight concerns, then it needs to be removed.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * i just saw this gem by TaraInDC: the number of men killed is skewed by the fact that he also killed his roommates before he began his shooting spree, posted above on June 12. That is possibly the most offensive thing I've read yet in Wikipedia about this mess - it implies that the slaughter by knife of 3 of his roommates has skewed the statistics somehow, or that their murder wasn't part of the main event and thus they munge up the 'actual' stats. I think some of y'all need to get out of your bubble and realize we are taking about real humans who died, they are not symbols to be manipulated in order to make some broader point. We should respect the dead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that the common argument that misogyny couldn't have been a factor because he killed more men than women ignores the fact that he didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more, he killed more men because his shooting spree was not as effective as he had hoped. Fully half of his victims were killed before the actual shootings (and the calls to the police) began.  Insisting on leaving out any context to the gender breakdown makes it seem that the article is attempting to cast doubt on the effect of Rogers' misogyny on his actions that day.  Given that this article is about the online discussion of misogyny that the killings sparked, this information does need to be put in proper context.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, I understood that point, and I think it's offensive, and you're arguing with the internet which we don't need to do here - that's what twitter is for. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Your notion of 'proper context' is one orthodoxy and a 1-sided story about the sorority. What 'could' have happened is not that relevant compared to what did happen. "He didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more" - that's the whole problem with your argument here - you're trying to say 'well he hated men and he hated women but he hated women more therefore..." But hatred isn't really something you can easily measure quantitatively to compare and contrast, and the one decent analysis I've seen of his manifesto had actually more expressions of hatred for men - as a class and of specific men - than of women. In any case speculation in how it could have been worse should certainly not be placed here, and suggesting that the deaths of his roommates was somehow a separate event and therefore distorts the tally is, again, incredibly offensive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not 'arguing with the internet;' I am explaining why by including the gender breakdown without explaining how he came to kill more men than women the article appears to be advancing an argument in a non-neutral way. Rogers' actual motivations are the only reason the killings are relevant to the article, because it was his comments about women and his attitude towards them that lead to the conversation which is the subject of this article, not the killings themselves.  Including only the gender breakdown but no further information about these victims begs the question of why the killings are seen as misogynistic. Leaving that question there without giving it an answer is inappropriate. Why do you feel the gender breakdown of murdered victims is exactly important enough to be included without context: too important to leave out but not important enough to explain why more men were killed than women?  What exactly does the gender breakdown add to the article?  How would it do a worse job of explaining how these killings came to incite an online discussion of everyday misogyny without them?  -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These killings were widely described as gender-based violence and violence against women, so providing the fact that two women were the unfortunate victims demonstrates that the killer enacted his purpose and succeeded, at least to a degree. It's not "advancing an argument" - it's simply providing a fact. The detailed description of the event and the deep extrapolation on the motive doesn't belong here, please read WP:COATRACK to understand why. I don't believe it's possible to add reasonable "context", certainly not the one-sided "context" you attempted to add -we'd need a lot more space, but taking up that much space would hence go too far in this article. But the fact you'd rather HIDE the genders of those slain is ridiculous. I feel like you think you *know* what was in his head, and you *know* why more men were killed than women, but you don't, none of us do, all is idle speculation, and has no place here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this were an article about spree killings or the history of the neighborhood where the killings occurred you might be correct. However, this is an article about an online conversation on misogyny, so it's important that the section that discusses the killings do a good job of explaining why they sparked such a conversation. Per WP:NPOV, if it's not possible to address the neutrality concerns of including this leading information by editing the article to address the way the events are portrayed, it's better to remove the information.  I don't see what's 'one sided' about my description of the six victims, by the way.  Can you explain?  I understand that you feel it makes the section too long - I actually agree, but feel that it's better to include it than to leave the gender breakdown unexplained, and since the former wasn't favored I went with the latter.  This is a neutrality concern, however, so one or the other does need to happen.
 * Would the wording 'killed six men and women' be acceptable? -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, you're bending over backwards to avoid mentioning 4 men killed, or trying to negotiate that we can do so, only if we provide some detailed "context" around it. It's irrelevant here. What is relevant is what is ALREADY in the article - e.g. he stated that he hated women and wanted to kill them, he stated that he hated sexually successful men and wanted to kill them, and, guess what, he did succeed in killing several women and several men. This information is not in violation of neutrality, just because someone somewhere on the internet once used it in some argument you happen to disagree with.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, re this suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims. How in the name of Beelzebub can you POSSIBLY know, or can any reliable source seen to date possibly establish, what the "primary" targets were? His diatribes and hate extended far and wide, and he started the day by killing his roommates in a particularly brutal way, using a knife apparently. He threatened men in his online video posted before the attacks, noting that he would demonstrate that he was the true "alpha male" - etc. You're trying to use this article to promote a particular version of the events, rather than presenting a short, neutral summary of the undisputed facts as we know them, and leaving it up to the main article to explore different theories, who supports them, what evidence they have, etc. If we start adding such POV here, there's a risk it will drift from the established consensus neutral view that will arise in the main article. Hence, coatrack.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your repeated references to the essay wp:coatrack are off point, as you are suggesting that adding more information about the women he killed and attempted to kill is tangential to an article about the conversation of misogyny that the attacks spurred when in fact it's the only reason the attacks are relevant to the article at all.
 * I am not claiming to 'know' anything. What I am saying is that including the gender breakdown without including more context suggests something that we can not know: it suggests that his primary targets were men.  Including information about the failed attempt at entering the sorority house suggests that he tried and failed to kill far more women than he did.  That information is important becasuse his violence against women is highly relevant to the subject of the article.
 * By including the numbers of victims and excluding information about the attempt to gain access to a sorority house where he stated he intended to 'kill every stuck up blonde he saw' the article is giving a biased perspective on the killings which appears to imply that the response to them, and their framing as misogyny-motivated, is incorrect or unfair. This is particularly inappropriate here, in an article about the conversation about misogyny that these killings sparked. In this article, we need to describe fairly the elements of the killings that lead online commentators to respond to it in the way that they did. Would the phrasing 'killed six men and women' satisfy you?  Why or why not? -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, you're imagining an imaginary argument that we aren't making in any way shape or form. You're also trying to prove, here, somehow, that his "primary" targets were not men, but women. How do you know? According to one analysis of the manifesto I've read, he first wanted to kill his roommates, then invite people into his apartment to kill them, then he wanted to attack the women at the sorority, then kill people on the street (attractive couples, especially). Which one of those is the "primary" target? This is such a complex issue we're simply better off NOT trying to cover it here. Including the gender breakdown doesn't suggest anything, it's a simple reporting of facts. That you add a layer of interpretation to those facts is your issue, not an issue with the words on the page. I don't think we should hide the gender breakdown, no, but I don't think we should add more lines of context either, in fact we should trim it even a bit more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to 'know' anything and I am not trying to 'prove' anything: what I am saing is that currently the article seems to downplay the elements of the crimes that the community who started this conversation was most responding to (eg the sorority house). That's not appropriate.  If you feel that more detail about the crimes would be undue weight, why insist on stating precicely how many men and women were killed?  Why, again is 'killed six men and women' not acceptable?  This avoids begging any questions without adding to the length of the passage at all.
 * Yes, the gender breakdown on its own absolutely *does* suggest something which, as you keep stating, we can not know. If you would prefer not to get into it here, that's perfectly fine, but we need to avoid the topic altogether, rather than including only information which would lead the reader to wonder why the killings were considered migogynistic without adding information which would answer that question.  The description of the incident is currently not doing a good job of explaining why it got the response it did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the hashtag is related to the killer's misogyny and the fact that he killed women, I think it's important to note how many men and women were killed. The article already says: The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive for killing two women and four men, and wounding thirteen others before committing suicide. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful (refs and wikilinks not included). This already summarizes both his misogyny and his thoughts towards men, providing context for stating the number of men and women killed and background for the hashtag. Including any more about Rodgers' frame of mind or his actions that day or the fact that he wanted to kill more people doesn't add useful or relevant context to this article; adding all that would only shift the focus away from the hashtag to the killings which would be coatracking and undue. The article on the killings are wikilinked so anyone interested in knowing more can easily get that information. --Ca2james (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thus far, there are 4 sentences describing the killings. the first sentence states "killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive". The second sentence, as of my recent edit, is just the basic facts. The third sentence states his self-expressed motives in simple form: "punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful". the last sentence states that some think it was mental illness, others claim it was a product of misogynistic society. Thus, in 3 out of 4 sentences describing the killings, you have misogyny/hatred of women/desire to punish women. It boggles me that you want more, and want to go into the play by play and him knocking at the door of the sorority house. If we do the play by play, we have to do the whole play by play, and that would not be appropriate here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, if the rest of the information about those killed are not relevant, why are the numbers of men and women killed important? Why is 'killed six men and women' not sufficient?  This acknowledges that he killed both men and women without begging the question of why an alleged misogynist killed twice as many men as he did women.  We're opening a line of thought here which we're not finishing properly.  If we don't have room to handle the issue completely, that's fine, but the solution is to leave it out, not to handle it incompletely.  In an article about the online response to the killings, the attempt on the sorority women is every bit as important as the final death toll, if not moreso.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, I fear you haven't read the coatrack article carefully enough. We're not "begging" any questions here, and as I noted above, 3 out of the 4 sentences describing the event ALREADY describe his misogyny. You're attempting to paint a more detailed and very particular picture of the killings here w.r.t the hashtag, e.g. "this is a description of the killings as viewed through the lens of those who created and responded to this hashtag" - that's very inappropriate and a coat-rack like attempt, because it means you're trying to paint a picture of the event that supports the creation of the hashtag - but when we do so in wikipedia's voice, it makes it seem like *that* is the neutral, consensus description of the event itself. Attempting to describe the whole event neutrally, which would really be required if one wanted to provide so-called "context", would be out of place here, as several others have mentioned. Above you're arguing for deleting a few words that would leave the gender split ambivalent, whereas I (and others) were arguing for the deletion of over 1000 bytes of slanted material. It's not the same thing in any way shape or form. As to why an alleged misogynist killed twice as many men as he did women that is and will be fodder for endless online conversations and disputes to come, we certainly aren't going to resolve that in a few sentences here, and FWIW my personal feeling is that we will resolve it by realizing that things are more complex than they initially seem, and the psych-101 diagnosis of "misogynist", while factually correct, is woefully inadequate in describing the motives, the mental states, and the various circumstances that led to this terrible tragedy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact, this article is begging a question, whether you intend so or not: without context, the statement that the killer killed more men than women leads the reader to wonder why the killings were considered to be motivated by misogyny at all. I am *not* attempting to give "a description of the killings as viewed through the lens of those who created and responded to this hashtag," I am attempting to give the information that is most relevant to the reaction that people using this hashtag had to the killings.  It has nothing to do with the coatrack essay: I am not attempting to 'support' the hashtag, I am attempting to fully explain why a killer who murdered four men and two women spurred a conversation about misogyny.  wp:coatrack is an essay.  WP:NPOV is policy, and it states that we should "remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."  This information does mislead the reader by giving only half of the story of the killings - the final death toll - when in fact the other events of that day had far more to do with the online conversation this article discusses than the death toll did.  If we are set against giving more information on the killings and the attempted 'annihilation' of all the women in the sorority house, then we must remove the gender breakdown as well.
 * Your framing of my description of the event a 'slanted' is puzzling. What, precisely, is slanted about it? Is it factually inaccurate?  Does it leave out relevant information as your preferred version does?  You're making too much of the length issue: your preferred framing of the killings does not get precedence simply because it's shorter.  My proposal of 'six men and women' is shorter still, and also accurate.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, this isn't productive. I, and I think most other people who !voted here to keep the gender breakdown above, do not feel that such a simple, factual description of events misleads the reader in any way shape or form. We have given plenty of reasons for the reader why this hashtag was started - e.g. that Rodgers avowed a hatred of women, and wanted to punish them, and succeeded in killing two and wounding several others. That's more than enough. What is slanted about the material you attempted to add is it spends the majority of the text (3 out of 4 sentences) talking about the sorority house, and very little time talking about the other events of the day. Your addition was 4 whole new sentences with a play by play - a very particular angle on the play by play, actually, that, as you say, highlights the sorority attack as being a key driver for this hashtag.. Please don't compare the "length" of that addition with one word here or there, its apples and oranges.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the statement that the killer killed more men than women leads the reader to wonder why the killings were considered to be motivated by misogyny at all. yes, and I think that's fine if the reader wonders that, and then clicks over to the article to learn more. The reader will always be "wondering" about something or another - perhaps the reader will wonder why he butchered his roommates with a knife, or what led to his hatred of attractive women and sexually successful men, or why the mental health system failed him, or what influence PUAHate had on him - the reader will wonder lots of things, and it's not our job to provide the reader with pat little answers and simple explanations - especially when those explanations actually hide deeper truths.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, and I think that's fine if the reader wonders that, and then clicks over to the article to learn more.Well this is where I disagree: leaving that question open leaves this article wanting in terms of providing a balanced explanation for why the reaction to the killings was as it was.
 * In fact I did not add a 'four sentence play by play;' I added one sentence detailing who each of the victims was in only slightly more detail than the previous version did. There was more text added afterwards before you reverted both me and BoboMeowCat, but please don't misrepresent what I added.  If you believe the addition was too long, that's perfectly reasonable, but the same information can easily be relayed in fewer words.  You also, incidentally, appear to have padded the character count by including references, which take up nearly half of the removed material and make the change sound considerably bigger than it was.  How can one sentence that breaks the victims down slightly further, from just 'four men and two women' to 'three men he stabbed at his apartment, two women he killed when he was denied entry to the sorority house, and one man he killed when he fired into a storefront' be such an unreasonable addition? -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The most obvious reason is that you don't describe any of the wounded, who are just as much victims as the others, just luckier to have survived. The description of the victim in the deli is inaccurate, since there are several contesting stories about whether he entered the deli or didn't, as opposed to your initial addition which had him blindly shooting and randomly hitting a man by chance. It's OR pushing a point. We don't know the gender breakdown of the victims, but if we ever get it we should add that too. This was a complex event with complex factors behind it. I think the text that is there now reaches a reasonable compromise of providing context and details without going so deep as to become coatracky. Again, I'm boggled that you find this unbalanced, when 3 OUT OF 4 SENTENCES about the killing describe his misogyny. What more do you want?? There's plenty of explanation there already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't describe any of the wounded? Neither does the gender breakdown currently in the article.  That information is not available, as when last I checked around half the injured victims' names had not even been released.  That *would* be undue weight as it actually would require a 'play by play' and would doubtless get far too long.  If leaving out details of the wounded is a strike against my version, it's a strike against yours as well.  If you're concerned about how the victim in the deli is portrayed, and if there is substantial reason to think that this cited detail is in question, we can remove 'fired into' and simply say 'was shot while standing in a deli' or something along those lines.  It is not 'original research' to say he fired into the deli: that was what the source I read stated and I had not seen anything to conflict that.  In other words, you are arguing against including the information at all by nitpicking specific wording.  All of these can be fixed if there's reason to fix them.  That's no cause to remove the sentence altogether.
 * It seems strange that you are calling your preferred version (that is, the gender breakdown with no further information currently in the article) a 'compromise' between your position (including the gender breakdown with no further information) and mine (removing it or providing more context.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, we do describe the wounded, we give the exact number of wounded. As I mentioned, if we had the gender breakdown of the wounded, I would add this as well - GIVEN that this is widely described as a gender-based hate crime, and said gender-based hate crime was the key inspiration for the hashtag. I still cannot comprehend why you want to actually hide the fact that he murdered two women! Saying that there's "no further information" is simply ridiculous, I suggest you read the article again. There are four sentences. Four. Three of them describe his misogyny in one way or another. The fourth gives the toll. That is plenty. I suggest you spend your time improving the coverage of the event in the actual article, since you seem quite concerned that we get these details right. Here is not the place. This is an article about a hashtag, lest that be forgotten.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at one of the sources Bobo provided above:, which sums up the attack in 10 bullet points; only one of them is about the sorority. In the running text, around 26 paragraphs/sentences are devoted to other aspects of the attack, vs 7 devoted to the sorority. Thus, the additions of Tara + Bobo are UNDUE, and as they've both admitted above, intended to make a point about one theory re: the motive. If we describe the events only through those he killed, as Tara proposes, that gives a very incomplete picture of the day, because he certainly intended to kill more than 6 people - but Tara admits above that giving the description of those he wounded would make it "far too long". Therefore, we should skip inclusion of the play by play completely here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep focusing on how this or that sentence does or does not mention misogyny as if mentioning it elsewhere in the article 'earns' the right to ignore relevant information. That's not the case.  Yes, the other sentences do frequently reference his opinions on women. They also reference his resentment towards men.  How is that relevant?  What's important is how this specific sentence frames this specific piece of information.  Why is the gender breakdown so important that it must be mentioned in a short summary of the killings in this article, but not important enough that any further context on these victims is worth mentioning?  Again, I am only dividing these victims into three groups instead of two: that is not all that much more detail. Why does stating that he killed four men and two women do a better job of explaining the relevence of the killings to the hashtag than saying he killed six men and women without stating the gender, or than detailing a little more about what happened and where he went during the shooting spree?
 * Nobody has 'admitted' that they 'intend to make a point.' Please stop casting aspersions on other editors in this way, it's getting quite inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have Tara. Bobo: (Tara) saying the assertion that he killed more men than women was often used to deflect the misogyny claim; Also, the included quote about his stated desire to "slaughter" those sorority women is reliably sourced and clearly shows his misogyny.; Tara: It is misleading because that information alone, without the fact that his intention was to 'annihilate every single girl in the sorority house,' suggests that men were his primary targets, rather than his primary victims.; he didn't kill more men because he wanted to kill men more, he killed more men because his shooting spree was not as effective as he had hoped. You've done it again below, noting that mentioning the genders of the victims is some sort of ploy, but actually it's just a fact which seems inconvenient to you, so inconvenient that you'd rather hide it if you could, or transform it into a story about the sorority shootup that didn't happen. You and Bobo have stated many times that you're trying to use the play-by-play to illustrate that he really was a misogynist, that he INTENDED to do X, Y, and Z, and that he was thwarted from doing so, and therefore the actual number of killed doesn't match what was actually in his head. It's OR, because you're cherry picking sources and cherry picking language to make a very particular point about misogyny being the root cause, and playing a massive game of what-if. Admittedly, that what-if is the interpretation parroted by people who use this tag, but it's not the consensus of serious reliable sources, which are now looking at personality disorders, a long history of mental illness, and other factors besides misogny. We don't get into any of that here, we state, in several different ways, a quick summary of his stated intentions, and the results. That's more than enough.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've stated that I am seeking to 'avoid' making a point about the killings by providing more relevant information. That is not the same thing as seeking to prove a point myself.  You are describing my actions inaccurately by saying that I have 'admitted' to doing something inappropriate when that is simply not the case.  You are once again using severely loaded language here: why do you think that this information is so 'inconvenient' to me if not because you think it proves a point?  I think that the current article is inappropriately biased by using this information without context, because it implies that men were the primary targets, and including the failed 'annihilation' of the sorority house paints a very different picture. That's a fact, too.  Is it 'inconvenient' to you?  -- TaraInDC (talk)
 * No, Tara, it only demonstrates that men were the primary murder victims, and as noted below, I believe its possible women were in the majority of the wounded - if I felt that was an inconvenient fact, why would I promise to include it here if ever released? A great deal of ink was spilled on this 4-men-dead fact, including a number of sources that said "See, misogyny hurts men too!" - so there are all sorts of interpretations and spins off that fact, all of which are off-topic here. Besides the failed annihilation of the sorority house, there was also the failed chamber of death in his apartment that no-one was lured to, and the failed potshots he took at pedestrians, and many other things besides. We can't spend time, esp in this article, speculating on how much worse it could have been, we can only thank heavens that those sorority girls were smart enough to not open the door! I don't think you believe your position is inappropriate, and you've been very open and upfront about exactly why you want to add this information to the article, I just think the result, including the text you proposed and the additional text Bobo proposed, would be inappropriate coatracking here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In absence of any other information, while it only demonstrates that men were the primary victims, it does suggest that men were the primary targets: why else would they outnumber women two to one? I am not suggesting that we spend more time in the article on how much worse it could be, only that we need to either give a bit more information, or a little bit less.  Again, I ask why the gender breakdown is so important.  I've explained why I think the information isn't useful as it is, and why I think that removing it or expanding on it would be a better application of NPOV. What, exactly, does the gender breakdown alone add to the article that outweighs the fact that it gives a skewed perspective on the killings by ignoring details like the killer's intent to 'annihilate' the women in the sorority house, one of the more important factors that have lead to these killings being seen as motivated by misogyny?  -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because facts are more important than speculation. The worded-by-committee "6 men and women" is just awkward, and has little to recommend it. As has been stated umpteen times, this was widely described as gender-based violence, and sources covered his hatred of certain types of women (and of certain types of men). Thus, avoiding mention of the gender breakdown is, frankly, odd. This wasn't a failed plot that never made it outside of his head - he actually went out and succeeded in killing and wounding a heck of a lot of people. That you think speculation on what-could-have-been is more important, not in the main article but specifically here in an article about a hashtag! - is problematic, to say the least.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your framing of my comments as 'speculation on what-could-have-been' is getting insulting. I am not speculating on anything.  I am stating a cited fact, and one that is very relevant to the reaction that the killings received.  I am not suggesting we say 'a whole lot more women totally would have died if...'  I'm suggesting that if we are to include the gender breakdown, we also include other information about the killings that might help explain why a 'misogynistic' killer killed twice as many men as women.  Avoing a mention of a gender breakdown may seem 'odd' to you but when we're unwilling to put that breakdown into any sort of context then we seem to have painted ourselves into an 'odd' corner.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, you absolutely ARE speculating - your whole POINT is speculation - your claim is that we really need to tell the story of the failed sorority attack, because if that attack would have succeeded, many more women would have died. The bulk of the text that you and Bobo were reverting into the article, it was about the sorority, so if you want to talk about implication, you are strongly trying to imply that the context of the failed sorority attack is crucial because it COULD have been much worse, and more women COULD have died, so don't pay too much attention to the actual toll, let's look at his plan. How exactly, in a very short space that we have available in this article, do you intend to demonstrate "why a 'misogynistic' killer killed twice as many men as women" - especially if you intend to ignore those he wounded! (as a side note, I personally hate this "twice as many" angle - mathematically it's true but if the dude in the deli had been a woman, it would have been even steven - it's literally a difference of one death...) but to your question, it is quite a difficult question! To answer the why, you need to map out the whole day - what were his plans, where did they go wrong, and you need to detail other scenarios. You're a big fan of the failed sorority what-if, which is indeed an important part of the story, but it's only ONE part of the story, and he had plans both BEFORE and AFTER the sorority to kill others (indeed, he executed some of those plans). How much time would you spend detailing his plans with the roommates? Who was he going to invite back to his killing room? How many might have died had he succeeded? Attempting to explain to readers here, in the wrong article to boot, WHY Rodgers only killed two women and not twenty and why he killed four men and not ?? is completely off-topic and could not be handled by anything less than several paragraphs of detailed prose and would likely consist of a fair amount of speculation and original research to boot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is reported in reliable sources that Rodgers said he planned to target that sorority and improvised when denied access. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thwarted-in-his-plan-california-gunman-improvised/ It appears you think including that info, as it is reported in the reliable sources, would cause readers to speculate that if he had access to the sorority he would have killed more women, but that doesn't seem like a valid objection. BTW, your interaction with TaraInDC seems to be getting close to violating WP:Civility. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also reported in reliable sources that he planned to turn his apartment into a killing zone. It is also reported in reliable sources that he ran over several pedestrians, and shot at half a dozen others. I'm not opposed to mentioning the sorority if we also mention other aspects of his complex plan, and I'm not opposed to mentioning the circumstances of those killed if we discus the circumstances of those wounded. But doing all that ends up being too much, and doing only half of it violates neutrality because we're cherry picking one aspect of the attack to make a particular point about the validity of this hashtag.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rodger's stated plan to slaughter all those "blond sluts" in the sorority seems more on topic than that other stuff in this article. This article is about the hashtag #YesAllWomen, which was inspired by interpretation that Rodger's killing spree arose out of misogyny. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem that way, doesn't it. Wouldn't it be nice if we could tell just part of the story, just describe the parts of his plan that are presumed by us to be important to this hashtag and that support the points the hashtag tries to make, and leave the rest of those pesky facts out? It would be nice, and it might flow nicely in a blog post, but it's a bad idea for a neutral encyclopedia. I don't think there's any doubt that misogyny played an important, perhaps determining role, in the events, but I think it's also clear that the story is bigger than just misogyny. An attempt to paint a "misogyny-is-the-final-root-cause" picture of the events here, while we busily build a more neutral version elsewhere, is the real problem.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is not based on speculation any more than yours is. My 'entire point' is that we should not 'invite' speculation based on an incomplete view of the evidence.  My argument is that 'what could have been,' as you insist on putting it, is important to what makes the killings relevant to this article.  It's not original research to state a fact.  I'm not advocating adding commentary on any of this in the article itself, so it's very inappropriate for you to call my justifications for why I feel this information is relevant 'original research.'  These are simple, cited facts intended to give more context to the gender breakdown.  Your point about the man in the deli is exactly the issue: without that information it seems that more men were being targeted.  With that information, it's much clearer. I am not saying that any of these details are important, only that if we invite the question, we need to answer it as well. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A complete view of the evidence is too much for this article. A skewed view of the evidence, concentrating on the failed sorority attack, is a classic coat-rack. So there isn't really any reasonable way to add the "context" you desire - either you put it all in (and that's too much), or you focus on just the sorority (thus, UNDUE), or, you leave it out entirely, and let the article explain the details. Do we know if he specifically targeted the man in the deli, vs the other customers? Did he know he was shooting a man? Why was that one man shot, and not the others? Who did he target for running over with his car - was it only women? Only men? Only jocks? We still don't know. Who did he take potshots at on the street? You're trying to paint an incomplete picture of an incredibly complex series of events in the name of context, and focusing on just the dead while ignoring the wounded (who were clearly, like the others, marked for death). OTOH, your other option of purposefully hiding the information about the # killed by gender, which takes up a very tiny amount of space, is ridiculous, and the only reason you've expressed for doing so is because you believe the fact of the # killed may cause a reader to speculate. Let them speculate away! That is not our problem. If we leave the genders out, the reader may speculate "how many women did this misogynist actually kill"? only that if we invite the question, we need to answer it as well - yes, and if we answer the question we have to discuss who he wounded, and where, and why, and we need to discuss why he killed his roommates, and we need to discuss who he planned to bring back to his apartment, and a great many other things - in other words, we don't get to pick and choose what exactly we discuss if we go down the path of "context" - otherwise we end up painting a non-neutral picture. If you don't realize how one-sided a focus on the sorority attempt is by now, I don't think I can say anything to convince you. what makes the killings relevant to this article - yes, you've made this point before - the problem is, the way you are framing "context" is "an incomplete view of the events of the day focused more on motive and plans than actual facts, and dwelling deeply on his intended massacre of sorority girls which was thankfully thwarted" - that is the very definition of a coat-rack.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I support including the genders of the people killed because if we don't, the reader is likely to assume that either all men were killed or all women were killed. The additional details regarding the sorority and video and roommates aren't needed needed because there's already an explanation included as to why he wanted to kill men as well as women. Although the hash tag was created in response to the killer's misogyny, there's more to these killings than that misogyny and this article isn't the place to discuss that. --Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the locations of the killings do not seem relevant to the creation of the hashtag, but the fact that he planned to slaughter every "blond slut" in the sorority seems relevant to the creation of the hashtag. Not sure how the gender breakdown is relevant to the creation of the hashtag. I mean maybe it is. Did the hashtag evolve in part because people used fact that he killed more men than women to attempt to deflect feminist arguments regarding misogyny. More importantly, do reliable sources report this? If so, that would clearly seem relevant to this article and should be included. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I support including the genders of the people killed because if we don't, the reader is likely to assume that either all men were killed or all women were killed. Not if we say "killed six men and women." This avoids the issue of why he's considered misogynistic if he killed more men than women altogether, and allows the reader to learn more by clicking through to the main article. It is not coincidence that the gender breakdown is so often cited, and other elements of the killings often ignored, by people making the types of arguments to which this hashtag is a response. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that as the article sits, where it elaborates on in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The spree resulted in the killing of two women and four men, wounding of thirteen others, and ended with the suicide of the killer. is the way that it should be done. It's concise and it doesn't attempt to portray any side as more or less important. I believe rather firmly that going and elaborating on every single little detail of what happened is irrelevant and may violate balancing aspects. The 'main article' function should be underneath the 'origin' header if having that article in context is needed. Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark my words - at some point the wounded list is going to come out, and we'll see that 75% of the wounded are women. Then people will be clamoring to put that information here. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that more of the wounded are women than men, based on some of the accounts I've read. It's hard to tell though. We also have eyewitnesses who were shot at but missed, a number of those were women too. For the record, if we do get a gender-breakdown of the wounded, we should put it here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this as if it proves some bias on the part of anyone with the temerity to disagree with you, but this is part of the problem: we simply know more about the dead than the wounded, and by making a point of stating the gender breakdown of the dead without giving any more information about the shooting or other targets we are only giving one facet of the story. We're ignoring the wounded because we don't have cited information about them, but we are also ignoring targets who were not killed, but whose targeting is known to be a significant factor in the shootings having the reaction they did. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, as it stands, we give a rough description of the stated motive. We give more detail on the motive, and the online videos, etc. Then we state the outcome. Then we state the dominant interpretations coming out that explain this mess. You (and later, Bobo) are suggesting giving a play-by-play, but not of the whole thing, but focusing on the sorority, and only discussing those killed (not those wounded). That's UNDUE, and a coatrack, because you're not even summing up the description of the event in the main article, you're focusing on a particular part of the whole event in order to prove some point about about this hashtag. That's not how a good article is written IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am not suggesting giving a "play by play." I am suggesting giving slightly more detail on each death rather than giving the gender breakdown with no further context. I am also suggesting an alternative; removing the breakdown and stating that he 'killed six men and women.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already explained, and others have as well, why neither of these options is viable in my mind - its silly to give details on each death if we don't give details on the wounded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's my point: giving only the gender breakdown of those killed, when no information is available on the wounded and we're unwilling to offer enough space to give the numbers we do have any context is, in a word, silly. Why is it 'silly' to give these details on the dead if we don't have them for the wounded, but not the details which you are advocating including in the article?  -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We provide what info we have. We could certainly provide more context into who he killed exactly, and why, and when, and who he wound, exactly, and why, and when, but you yourself admitted that would be too much. It is quite common, when atrocities such as this occur, to sum them up briefly in terms of the human toll, which is what we do here. When people speak of 9/11, they usually talk about how many died in the towers, and how many died in the planes - the background, the motive, etc - thats a much more complex story. This is commonplace. When you have instances of gender-based violence, then the death toll is typically split by gender. Again, this is commonplace.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I second this - it's strange to read the victims segregated into gender (as 2 women and 4 men) and then to read 13 people later in the sentence. I can't imagine the value in doing this unless it is to deflect the misogyny claims --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 13 are the wounded, for whom we don't have a gender split yet. If it becomes available, I think we should add that as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break
Since we don't yet know the gender split of the wounded, I'd support including "killed six men and women and wounded 13 others" in this article with no other additions. There is something weird about breaking down the dead by gender and not the wounded. --Ca2james (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is probably the simplest solution for now. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this, it is quite strange to make the distinction anyway, but if it is to be done then it should be part of a more comprehensive coverage --80.193.191.143 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about this because I tend to read that as 12 people total were killed (6 men and 6 women). Why not just leave it as "killed six and wounded 13 others"? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to want to specify that both men and women were killed, and I don't read it that way myself; I've heard the construction 'X number of men and women' used elsewhere pretty regularly. If it were twelve people total the natural way to say it would be 'six men and six women.'  Can you think of a clearer way to express it? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear enough and it definitely avoids contributing to the morbid death count competition that some websites have made it out to be --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can live with it.  I agree it is grammatically correct as written.  Because there’s now good consensus, I’ll update page.  I realize we still have 1 rather vocal objector, but unanimous agreement not always possible. As we have already had some edit warring on issue, I would ask objector not to change it without consensus to change it, and would also ask newcomers to the discussion to participate on talk and gain consensus prior to changing.   Additionally, the above discussion shows good consensus to not add timeline/locations/other details of the killings either (ie that he first killed roomates, then people outside sorority after failing to gain access to sorority house etc).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't live with it, because this is a gender based attack, and it's only natural to include the gendered numbers between them. To attempt to combine them together negates the entire thing. As I said before, I wish for the article to remain the way it is. It shows the amount of people and the brief context which is needed without providing undue weight towards either side. This would ultimately also convey mixed messages to the reader, who would once again need to know how many of each gender was killed, because you conformed them both into one number. Additionally, it should be noted that Obi has been blocked for 36 hours for something wholeheartedly unrelated to this discussion, and it should be given courtesy not to continue without their input on the matter; especially since they were the main objector. Tutelary (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making the argument that it is important to include the information that more men were killed than women, because it was a 'gender based attack.' That seems to suggest that you believe this information is relevant because it says something about which gender was being attacked. Why is it so vital to include one fact which makes it seem that men were the primary target, but insist on excluding other information (one sentence that briefly described the three sets of killings and where they occurred) or any other information that shows why these attacks sparked a conversation on misogyny? This is a 'show don't tell' issue: we are saying 'the attacks have been considered misogynistic,' informing the reader of a fact, but the only detail about the killings themselves we are offering seems to show the opposite.  That's not appropriate, especially not when the misogynistic aspect of the attacks is the only reason it's included in the article.
 * Frankly, the two of you have been extraordinarily inflexible through this process: there have been multiple objections to including this information with no further context, and multiple solutions offered to the neutrality issue it presents, and none of it is acceptable to the two of you. We are trying to work with you here.
 * I disagree that this discussion needs to grind to a halt because one participant has been blocked for edit warring. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not making it seem it's more important that more men were killed than women. I also do not believe that the information is relevant because it says something about which gender was attacked, I think it's just generally given to be encyclopedic to give the genders in a gender based attack, whatever the count. I would still be advocating for the exact same thing if the counts were flipped; 4 women and 2 men. I would still be advocating to list both genders in that regard and their numbers in deaths. That's not the problem. The problem is the possible original research and the background context which is not needed in the regard of the article. Describing in great detail how each person was killed in an article about an Internet hashtag is just wholeheartedly unencyclopedic in that regard. I also believe that there is no reason to euphemize or combine the numbers to say '6 men and women' unless there is an absolute and good reason to. From what I've read in the discussions, there does not seem to be an overt reason for doing such. This is a 'show don't tell' issue: we are saying 'the attacks have been considered misogynistic,' informing the reader of a fact, but the only detail about the killings themselves we are offering seems to show the opposite. That's not appropriate, especially not when the misogynistic aspect of the attacks is the only reason it's included in the article. Having each specific and grisly detail on how they were killed and what aspect of Elliot's efficiency is not encyclopedic and is certainly undue weight. That's why there's a 'see also' section in the origin section, to provide readers with the link to the thorough background context if desired. This is not the article to do so. I disagree that this discussion needs to grind to a halt because one participant has been blocked for edit warring. I never said it had to, just gave the option. While I am one person and Obi and I share some of the main concerns, there may other falters or instances which may warrant a larger discussion. I am also certainly open to a neutrally worded RFC which Obi mentioned for a wider community consensus. Tutelary (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per extensive arguments already given above, due to the gender-based nature of this hate crime, we should give the gender-based breakdown of the murder victims, and of the wounded if we ever get that information (I've done some more research, at least two were men and at least one was a woman).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the previous discussion was all that strong a consensus - it seems rather split to me - but even if it were, consensus can change, so the existence of a previous discussion does not prevent a new one from coming to a different conclusion. Bear in mind that this discussion comes after we've spent some time discussing, and rejecting, other alternatives to address the neutrality concerns cited in the previous one. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been a mess, so if you want to propose new language that eliminates the gender breakdown, I'd suggest proposing it in a new section below, and making a neutrally worded RFC on the matter to bring in a broader consensus. You would have to cogently defend why, in one of the most horrific instances of gender-based violence in recent history, in an article about an online hashtag that catalogued gender-based violence against women and that was inspired by the gendered hatred expressed by the killer, we at wikipedia have nonetheless decided to leave the victim count ungendered since those simple facts as we know them may cause readers to speculate!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be fair to presume that you strongly support including this gender breakdown of one of the most horrific instances of gender-based violence in recent history because they were more male victims than female victims? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, I would support it no matter the count; as I stated above, if more women than men end up being wounded (we may know this soon, as some victims have already come forward and been profiled), I would strongly support putting that count in too. As I mentioned earlier, some have argued that "misogyny hurts men too", and they give rafts of statistics on how misogyny can also hurt men - so from those sources' POV, pointing out that men died is just as important as pointing out that women died. No matter what our feelings about the root final ultimate cause, a proximate cause was clearly gender-based hatred, misogyny was clearly a driver, and we should not hide the basic facts in the interest of not confusing our poor readers. Ultimately, the fact that there are more men than women victims is happenstance, it could have easily turned out differently - for example, if instead of three women outside the sorority, it happened to be three men standing there, or if his roommates had invited a woman to stay over instead of a man, or if a woman was in the deli that caught his eye instead of a man, or if some of the other wounded had died, all it takes is a single victim changing gender and the count would be equal, so ultimately it's arbitrary, but it is nonetheless a fact that we shouldn't hide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is largely happenstance. In fact, you put it very well yourself when you said that "for example, if instead of three women outside the sorority, it happened to be three men standing there, or if his roommates had invited a woman to stay over instead of a man, or if a woman was in the deli that caught his eye instead of a man, or if some of the other wounded had died, all it takes is a single victim changing gender and the count would be equal, so ultimately it's arbitrary". I'm not totally against the inclusion of the gendered figures but it is strange to do so without the context that you removed in this edit: --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the famous "context". Of the 4 sentences in that diff, 3 discuss the sorority. That's the problem with that "context" - it only covers one particular part of that day, thus it's UNDUE and attempts to reframe the whole story of the attacks to focus on a particular aspect of the attacks that creators of the hashtag and defenders of the "misogyny caused it" theory used to defend their points. Indeed, those arguing for this "context" want to tell the sorority story here for exactly that reason, since it bolsters the whole point of the hashtag. Read WP:COATRACK to understand why this is a bad idea. As I said, if we include context, we'd need to include it all, including descriptions of those he wounded, shot at, ran over, etc, but then it becomes way too long, so better to leave it out entirely, give the very basic facts, and let the play by play happen elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it was the part that he planned in his manifesto. You seemed to be suggesting earlier that there was prevalence in the idea that "misogyny caused it", in fact, you said "misogyny was clearly a driver". Are you going back on this? Your argument here pretty much confirms my previous sentiment that you support including the gender breakdown because they were more male victims than female victims and that you yourself are trying to debunk the idea that the killings were motivated by misogyny --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * did you know he planned to kill his roommates in his manifesto too? And turn his room into a killing chamber? He also planned to slaughter jocks and alpha males who he despised, he also planned to murder attractive couples. Yes, I think there's no dispute misogyny was a driver - he hated the hell out of the college women he was denied access to, but, it should be noted, he also hated the hell out of men, especially those with girlfriends. Did misogyny "cause" it? That is much more up for debate. I don't know, neither do you, and neither do most journalists opining on this story. We may never know, but our best bet is to wait for professional psychologists and investigators to piece together exactly what happened and dig into his family life and history to uncover the (potentially many) root causes of this. I think the one phrase we have here now, which is "After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression." is a pretty good summation of the current state of discussion on this matter, at least we probably can't do much better in a sentence. There seem to be two dominant narratives - the "it's the misogynystic culture that caused this" vs "it's a deep history of mental illness that manifested itself in misogyny but could have also manifested itself in other forms of hatred and violence". I think this page is an especially bad place to try to lean towards one interpretation of root causes, since our goal here is not to validate or defend the hashtag, it is to describe as neutrally as possible the circumstances behind it and the reaction to it. Again, since the events of the day are so complex, any attempt at a summary of those events, especially one that prioritizes the attack-on-women-that-didn't-succeed, is undue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you yourself are trying to debunk the idea that the killings were motivated by misogyny yeah, that's a cogent accusation. That's why I'm spending all my time here arguing over 3 words on a wikipedia page for a hashtag. That would be the best way to debunk the misogyny theory, wouldn't it?? Actually I'm kidding, that's actually the most ridiculous accusation I've heard all day, no, all week. I'm here to ensure NPOV here, that's it, and it all started when someone added some decidedly non-neutral language...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "neither do the bloggers at Jezebel" - did you really have to go there? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * fair enough I reworded.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

What if we added context in a similar way? We could change this second sentence in the Origin section: "The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful." to include one or the other of his quotes, and then include the gender breakdown later? Possible quote choices are (I know the sources aren't great but they're what I first found and these quotes are everywhere): At first I thought this should work to provide context for the gender breakdown but now I'm not sure. What do you all think? --Ca2james (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All of those beautiful girls I’ve desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy. All of those popular people who live hedonistic lives of pleasure, I will destroy, because they never accepted me as one of them. I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer. It is only fair. Mashable
 * "You girls have never been attracted to me," Rodger said in his final video. "I don’t know why you girls aren't attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice... I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman." Chegg blog


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


 * My concern with the current version is primarily that we are providing details about the events themselves that do not agree with what we are telling the reader about those events. While that is in part because the only gender breakdown we have is for those killed, and not those wounded, I am less concerned about the numbers themselves than I am about the skewed perspective of the attacks that it gives: we're telling only part of the story. I think this can be rectified by including what information we do have about others who the killer targeted, although it can also be solved by removing the gender breakdown.  In fact, the lede of the main article does not mention the gender of the victims at all (saying he 'killed six' rather than 'six men and women' or 'four men and two women,) and instead saves the more detailed information for later in the article where it can be given the proper context.  The sentance that I added here was an attempt to complement the gender breakdown, as some editors were adamant that it stay in place.  While those quotes are all potentially useful and illuminating, I think that they only add to the length of the section without addressing what I see as a wp:weight problem.  So I think that if we're willing to increase the size of the section, it should be by adding details about the people the killer targeted. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reserving my post. 1 Am where I'm at. Will respond when I wake up. Tutelary (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Started an RfC which is what was suggested earlier on but never really elaborated on. It's a complex issue and I feel that wider community input will be helpful in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert
Tutelary, if you were opposed to rewording to remove the gender breakdown, why didn’t you respond to the multiple arguments for removing gender breakdown during lengthy discussion? Your participation here has been minimal, yet I see you reverted what seems to be strong consensus edit with summary (no consensus- 3 editors disagree, but that is misleading edit summary because at the time I made edit, of the editors who had voiced an opinion, it was 5 in support and only 1 objector. Obiwankinobi was the only objector, while myself, Rhydic, TarainDC, Ca2James and IP 80.193.191.143  had reached agreement on content and even the exact wording.  Even if we include you, who has recently rejoined the discussion that is still 5 to 2.   Not sure how you counted 3.  While we may at some point regain consensus to specify the genders, that info should stay out of the article while we discuss.  Especially considering there was never strong consensus to put it in the article in the first place.  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, while there are valid arguments on both sides, it would be unfair to claim consensus when it seems to be strongly against the objector --80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)