Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 3

New rfc
I have closed the RFC as some felt the header language was non-neutral so added their own non-neutral language instead. So much as it pains me were going to have to have a whole discussion here just on the wording of the RFC. If we can't agree that the above RFC header language is non-neutral there's zero point in continuing it as it will only cause resentment and grumpiness from one side or another.

My proposed wording is as follows: "Should we provide the gendered breakdown of those killed (and if it becomes available, those wounded), or should we simply state that six people were killed and thirteen wounded?"

I think we should leave the 'context' discussion out, as it's confusing and provides too many options. If the RFC holds that the gendered split of victims should be added, then we can hold a separate discussion about potential language around 'context'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

New language for RFC - upon reflection, I think we should actually give people three choices, rather than asking questions in the abstract. There are the versions and language I propose:

There is a dispute around whether a gendered breakdown of those killed (and if known, those wounded), should be added to this article, and, if such a gendered breakdown is added, whether additional details about those killed/wounded are needed. Three versions of the description of the event have been proposed. Please !vote for your preferred version, or propose an alternative in the survey section below. The text that is changing is bolded.
 * 1) "The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[6][7][8] The killing spree resulted in the murder of two women and four men, thirteen people wounded, and ended with the suicide of the killer.[1][9] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[10][11]"
 * 2) The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive. The killer previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[6][7][8] He killed six people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself.[1][9] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[10][11]
 * 3) The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as a motive.[1][6] The killer, Elliot Rodger, previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who, unlike him, were sexually successful.[7][8][9] In total, Rodger killed four men, including his three roommates, who he fatally stabbed prior to leaving his apartment, and one man who Rodger killed as he fired into a deli, and two women, who he shot outside of a sorority house. Rodger previously indicated the sorority was his intended target. Prior to the killing spree, Rodger said in a YouTube video, "I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there." However, no one answered the door at the sorority house when Rodger attempted to gain entry. [10][11][12] After the killings, some commentators pointed to the killer's history of mental illness, while others believed his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression.[13]

If you have a proposed change to any of the versions, suggest it here, or if you think a fourth should be added.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Meta discussion re: new RFC

 * So you are seeking to gain consensus for your preferred version, and only your preferred version, and wish to prevent discussion on any solutions that have been proposed to the problems with addition of the gender breakdown other than simply reverting that addition?
 * Unilaterally closing the RFC because you didn't like the way it was going was not appropriate. I suggest you revert that and try discuss the matter reasonably, in comments, not edit summaries.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)  (Note: talk page has been refactored since this comment was made: linking for original context -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * no, this is obviously a contentious issue and positions are entrenched so we need to move delicately, that RFC was not the way forward as it didn't present a simple question nor was it neutrally headed. I propose a new RFC just asking if we should add the gender split. If that passes, then we can have a other discussion about what sort of 'context' would be appropriate, if it doesn't pass then it's irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * also it has nothing to do with how the RFC was 'going', I'm not even sure if any new editors had commented already. Anyway the closing was because there was persistent edit warring on the header and Tara even you felt the original header wasn't neutral, thus the whole thing was corrupt.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My commenting here is going to be strictly limited as I'm not done packing for my impending camping trip and it's getting late; won't have Internet for over a week. Nonetheless, the header which was added signified editors as being 'holdouts' was simply not neutral and in my eyes was attempting to influence the readers that the RfC might be frivolous by problem users and to side with the other side. That's not a neutral RfC. I think that a new RfC is in order due to the sheer nature of the RfC having a non-neutral statement. Whether that will be me filing it is in question as well. I've no problem with a new RfC. If the former one is reopened, I think that I might withdraw by myself if needed.Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I say again: it was inappropriate to close the discussion unilaterally. This is not a move you should have taken on your own after absolutely no discussion, especially not just after edit warring over your refactoring of the section.  No, I did not think the original statement was neutral, but I also don't think so little of my fellow editors that I believe they're incapable of reading through the spin and deciding for themselves.  A longer description of the dispute and a list of the options being offered was relevant and important (if you read again, you'll see that the addition of "detailed context" was specifically mentioned in the original RFC, so it's not a matter of expanding the scope.)
 * And attempting to restrict the topic of an RFC to the change you wish to support, and excluding any other solutions, looks to me like an attempt to get your change 'rubber stamped' by the community before any discussion is permitted over how to properly balance the addition to avoid giving a misleading picture of the attacks. There is no reason to have multiple RFCs over a very simple issue: the question is not the inclusion or exclusion of specific details, but how to handle the section as a whole.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, it was also inappropriate for you to add your own version of 'context' unilaterally to the RFC but you did it anyway. People do lots of things unilaterally here. The bottom line is, you think the header wasn't neutral, and I agree, as does Bobo, as does Tutelary. We all agree it wasn't neutral for one reason or another. Rather than try to patch it up which wasn't working well, much better to frame a new RFC here. If you think it's important to have a third option, then propose some language for the RFC that includes your third choice, and well see. To be clear however, any RFC should not make disparaging comments about other editors, nor attempt to describe the whole history of the debate esp in a 1 sided manner. Much better is to frame a simple neutral question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be pedantic about it, Tutelary's RFC was 'unilateral' as well. Adding to a discussion is something most people do 'unilaterally;' closing it prematurely, however, is not something that one heavily involved editor should take upon themselves. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, I didn't close it with a decision, I closed it so we could come to consensus on the wording of the header, which wasn't going to happen in the middle of an active RFC. If you don't have an agreed upon neutral header, an RFC is pointless - eg a waste of other editor's time. I felt Tutelary's version was neutral and importantly concise, but you obviously didn't and you and Bobo warred in blatantly non-neutral content. Rather than wasting more time bemoaning it, why not propose neutral language building on my proposal above and let's move this forward rather than back.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Your decision to unilaterally close an ongoing RFC is simply disrespectful to the other editors who have been attempting to work towards a solution. You are not entitled to singlehandely declare that existing discussion invalid and demand a do-over.  Between once again reverting to your preferred version of the article despite it not having consensus any more than any other recent change to the section, your aggressive refactoring of the RFC and edit warring over those changes, and your abrupt closure of the RFC when your refactoring was disputed by three other editors, your behavior in this discussion has become extremely disruptive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, please stay on topic. We're here to discuss a neutrally worded RFC. OTOH, you're accusing me of all sorts of things that you yourself have just done - e.g. reverting to "your" preferred version of the page, edit-warring over the changes to the RFC above, etc. I am not "declaring that existing discussion invalid", I am putting it on pause while we frame a truly neutral RFC statement/header and question, the discussion will certainly continue after this brief pause in programming. You have admitted above that the statement was not neutral (I disagree but it's irrelevant, as I and Tutelary feel that the additional statements added were also non-neutral, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...), so we actually have consensus that it isn't neutral! If anything, my closure is a sign of respect since I prevent uninvolved editors from wading into a mess and have saved us all a ton of time (RFCs with non-neutral headers have been contested post-facto in the past) - we're much better off framing an agreed upon consensus neutral RFC question here, and presenting a clean face to other editors, rather than continuing the squabble by edit warring over whose version of the events gets to be "above the line" in the RFC. You've otherwise made your views known, repeatedly, but I'd suggest you move on and focus on productive outcomes, like suggesting a modification to the language I proposed above that would include perhaps a third option, which is your preferred solution - e.g. gender + context. We could perhaps frame it as a choice between three versions - one which has gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories, a second which has no-gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories, and a third which has gender breakdown + motives + dominant "cause" theories + play-by-play that includes *all* plans and *all* targets (in order to avoid coatracking/bias/cherrypicking). If you could draft the third, that would be actually useful and would move this discussion forward in a productive fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition in lead
Should the lead of the article contain a proper definition of the term to explain what it actually means? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response
I'm not sure if this warrants an RfC but I agree that an explanation of what YesAllWomen means is missing from the lede --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, we should consider closing this RFC, there are plenty of editors here and I see no dispute (yet). What wording would you propose in the lede?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

[|diff] [|diff] [|diff]

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

Question: is there a notice board to report this to get feedback on policy to reopen this RfC? Or can we just revert the edit that closed it unilaterally and without discussion?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, your additions were not neutral since they characterized two editors as "holdouts", and because they added a cherry picked quote about him wanting to kill blonde sluts, and because they contained a very particular "view" of the discussion - summing up a discussion should ALWAYS be done with extreme care, and in my experience it is best to not even attempt to do so, esp in the header of an RFC. I have been involved in drafting RFCs around contentious issues in the past, and your addition was completely inappropriate, I tried to simply move it to the discussion section but you and others reverted, so rather than continue that useless line of discussion, once it became clear that both you and Tara felt the original statement by Tutelary was non-neutral, the best course of action was to close it and start over in framing the RFC header. Tutelary, who started the RFC, actually agrees on that point. I wish you'd focus on the productive path I've laid out rather than on escalating. Remember, the point of the RFC is to bring in new voices, but we should be very careful to NOT influence their thinking before they hit the page - both your and Tara's above-the-line comments did exactly that and thus polluted the RFC, since we'd had very little outside comment we're much more likely to get a good result if we hit the restart button and start with a statement we ALL agree with. Why exactly do you want to escalate when I'm offering a path of reconciliation and consensus here?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem striking "holdouts" as I can see that can be taken as non-neutral, but the slaughtering "blond sluts" quote was specifically used in one of the debated versions. It wasn't cherrypicked to mislead anyone. It was what was specifically used as part of the context to the killings, in one of the debated versions of the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "path of reconciliation" and I'm confused why you do not see that you actually escalated things here by closing RfC with zero discussion.  It's as if this all has to be done precisely on your terms. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, this is water under the bridge. Tutelary has withdrawn the RFC and requested that we redraft a neutral header. if we want to open an RFC, we need to all agree on neutral language for the opening question, and for any details provided. If you think a better path is for us each to offer our own version of events, then do you really want me to add my version up top as well? And then ask others to add their summary as well? And then spend time during the RFC arguing with each other to help correct each other's comments??? It doesn't end well. I'm not saying this has to be done on my terms, I'm saying that if we're to have an RFC, given the incredibly contentious nature of this debate, it needs to be clean. As of right now, we don't even have consensus on the RFC header, so let's focus on that rather than trying to revive an RFC which was irredeemably compromised. Please focus on positive momentum vs negative complaints.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this all seems to be getting rather ridiculous. The reason for the RfC is . This lack of consensus is illustrated by the multiple sections above. With respect to your question, if you were to comment under my edit summary on an RfC, I may ask you to strike content that was inaccurate or non-neutral but I certainly wouldn't scrap the entire RfC because it was no longer worded only as I personally preferred. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not scrapped the RFC Bobo, I simply put it on hold so we could re-work the opening statement... If you and Tara had spent your electrons on building a consensus opening statement with me, we'd be done already and the RFC would be open. I'm not looking for "Obi's" personally preferred wording - I'm encouraging you to work with me on a consensus header, which usually isn't that hard, if you'd just join me up there, the water's warm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, there wasn’t any specification on what was deemed non-neutral prior to closing RfC on grounds of non-neutrality. This is my biggest problem. I've offered specific language in Tutelary's summary that I find non-neutral, and explained why more detail about the discussion, especially a summary of the changes being proposed, is necessary.  Rather than discuss problems himself, we have an editor removing everything but the 'neutral' summary prepared by an editor who supports his point of view entirely.  And when that wholesale removal of every contributor he disagrees with is disputed, he closes the discussion.  This is simply not appropriate behavior for a collaborative environment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything Tara. I simply put it in the discussion section. You clearly felt Tutelary's summary wasn't neutral, so that's what we're here to fix, rather than having her statement, and hobo's statement, and then my statement, and then CAJame's statement, and so on and so forth. It becomes ridiculous. Whose statement gets to be first? Can you bold it? etc. Its a terrible way to start an RFC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be precise, what actually occurred was you moved content of other editors (myself and TarainDC) to the survey section without our permission. You were reverted by a completely non-involved editor who did not find this appropriate.  Shortly thereafter you closed the RfC unilaterally and with zero discussion, on grounds of non-neutrality, without bothering to specify what you found non-neutral first.   This isn't collaborative editing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, if I need to spell it out to you that It has been argued that without adding context to the gender breakdown, this misleads readers by suggesting men were Rodger's primary target, and that seems to contradict statements Rodger made prior to the shooting spree. (while not providing the counter-argument) or but two holdouts have been very firm in wanting the death count specified by gender and also to wanting no additional context to that gender count added to the article YesAllWomen. (while not specifying WHY) is a neutral way of summing up the very complex debate we had above, then I suggest you may want to rethink what you believe neutral means. Tara's version says Retain the gender breakdown, and balance with more contextual information - subtle, but still leans the reader into thinking "Well, yes, balance is nice, that's much better", etc - and suggesting that "gender breakdown without context" is unbalanced. Especially given that we already HAVE context, in 3 other non-disputed sentences, so the whole notion that we were adding that he killed women and men and not saying anything else is a poor framing of the issue. In any case, it became quite clear to me that both of you felt the original RFC itself was not neutral, so we actually have consensus that the lede wasn't neutral, we just disagree on why. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I chose an expedient path to get to a solution that will be more acceptable to a broader community, and Tutelary has withdrawn the RFC in any case. I've drafted a better RFC lede above, so why not participate there, make suggested changes, and we can reopen the RFC forthwith.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You were completely mistaken with respect to my interpretation of Tutelary's RfC summary. I did not find it non-neutral, but I found it lacked sufficient detail regarding what the dispute was.  This is a perfect example of why you should discuss first.There was no consensus that Tutelary's summary was non-neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. You and Granger felt the original version was insufficient, Tara felt it was non-neutral, I felt your additions were non-neutral, and Tutelary concurred. So between the four of us, none of us like the results. Is that a good way to start an RFC? Nyet. In any case, I'm growing rather tired of rehashing what is done, let's focus on what to do next. If you want to open/reopen the RFC, we're going to need to come to consensus on the introductory statement. Guess what I'm suggesting we work on together above?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I am impending on my camping trip where I will have no access to the Internet in any context, please consider this my unambiguous Withdraw Former RfC as proposer, under neutrality concerns. I won't be able to participate in the discussion for the new one in this critical phase, but I do support a new one being drafted, and the old one staying closed. Again, this is just to make unambiguous my statement regarding it, since I am the one who crafted the original RfC. Tutelary (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the close was inappropriate and is not supported by consensus, and that the RFC should be re-opened. The discussion does need to continue, and at this point it would be inappropriate to either start again, discounting the contributions of those who have already commented, or to replace the initial summary with the one Obi is busily drafting above or another, rendering the existing comments nonsensical as they are addressed to a different conversation. This is not Tutelary's dispute, it's the page's.
 * Obi's behavior has not been conducive to collaboration. His pleas to 'move forward' from his inappropriate close are a transparent effort to deflect criticism away from his behavior and to exert control over the path of the discussion.  It's rather self-serving to hold a conversation hostage and then declare it 'water under the bridge.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to open the old RFC, given that Tutelary has withdrawn, what will you use as the header? And, given that you have taken your decision to add your preferred headings, will you make edits I suggest to your headings that you provided to make them more neutral, or will you pick and choose? Also, will I be allowed to provide my own heading/description of the events up top? Can my version come first? If my version is not neutral in your mind and you suggest changes, am I obligated to take them into account, or can I make my own decision on that matter? Should other participants be able to add their summaries to the top of the RFC at any moment? Can I propose my own list of "versions" of the article for people to choose from? Should we wait to re-open the old RFC until we've all had a chance to comment on and change each other's versions of the events? An RFC is not "here is a big messy debate, here are twenty views on that debate, hey new editor, sort it out" - instead an RFC should be framed briefly, neutrally, and should be focused on a simple question the reader can provide feedback on, whereas I count a great many options for the reader to comment on in the header of the now-closed and withdrawn RFC above. And if we're talking about transparency, then your and esp Bobo's edits to the RFC header were a rather transparent effort to tilt readers towards a particular reading and particular conclusion. If you want to re-open up the RFC above, then I expect to be able to place my own summary of the arguments to date and my own list of proposed versions to choose from. However, I think for the reader this would be an extremely bad idea - the shorter the better... The whole process of negotiating what is said in that header - that is what I've started to discuss above, a discussion you seem content to ignore and would rather complain about behavior here. Let's move forward please. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't believe that Tutelary is entitled to withdraw in this case, as I explained why the withrawl was disruptive to an ongoing discussion. If we abandon the RFD and start a new one on the same issue at this point, we only discount the opinions of those who have already participated.  I believe that your approach to what you saw as issues with the RFC was inappropriate: removing everyone's comments but Tutelary's wholesale and then closing the RFC when that approach did not work.  It's your way or the highway with you, it seems. Again, asking us to 'move forward' by ignoring your disruption and allowing you to control the discussion on this page is transparently self-serving. -- TaraInDC (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, I'm looking for a compromise here but I'm not seeing it from you. Thus, it appears it is your way or the highway as well. You want to 1) reopen the old RFC even given that 2) you feel the opening statement is not neutral. That doesn't make sense. If we focus on the end result, we want an RFC with a simple question that can engage readers without biasing them. Given your unwillingness to leave your and Bobo's biased summaries out of the lede, the only corrective I can think of that is fair would be to 1)  allow me to place a summary in the lede of my version of events and my own proposed set of changes - I would ask to put mine first, alongside Tutelary's and 2) at the same time, to open a discussion with proposed changes/strikeouts of your and Bobo's opening. Of course you'll ask to make changes and strikeouts to my opening, and perhaps of Tutelary's since you found it decidedly non-neutral, and half of the RFC will be devoted to us arguing about the header of the RFC. Are you signing up for this? Do you really think it will lead to a better result? A much better alternative is for us to work together on a single, simple consensus statement which I've started above. You keep saying 'removing everyone's comments' but that's not what I did, I simply moved them, and have demonstrated above why they were patently not neutral, and Tutelary agreed. If we start a new RFC with a better and more targeted question we can ping anyone who participated and ask them to weigh in on the revised question, so there's no concern with missing their voice and, importantly, we will be able to attract new voices since complex RFCs scare people off while simple crisp ones do not.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Should we disclose the gender breakdown of the deaths and wounded (if it ever comes out)? The article was edited to give thorough detail on each death, and a resulting heated discussion ensued, including whether to include a gendered breakdown in any instance. Also in dispute is whether to include thorough context on each death as a result of the gendered breakdown. Tutelary (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add some details, the current dispute seems to have arose because some editors feel it is important to specify that Rodger killed 4 men and 2 women, instead of just stating Rodger killed 6 people, and then linking to 2014 Isla Vista killings page for those details. It has been argued that without adding context to the gender breakdown, this misleads readers by suggesting men were Rodger's primary target, and that seems to contradict statements Rodger made prior to the shooting spree.  So such context was added (ie that Rodger specifically said he planned to slaughter every "blond slut" in sorority house, but improvised when he was unable to gain access to sorority house).  This context has been objected to. Multiple compromises have been suggested and agreed on to various degrees by talk page participates, but two holdouts have been very firm in wanting the death count specified by gender and also to wanting no additional context to that gender count added to the article YesAllWomen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the solutions to the dispute that have been offered are as follows:
 * Retain the gender breakdown (added here). Add no further information on specific victims or targets.
 * Retain the gender breakdown, and balance with more contextual information (eg this revision or the one reverted here).
 * Remove the gender breakdown, replace with 'killed six men and women' or something similar.
 * Make no reference to the gender of victims; state that the killer 'killed six people' or return to the pre-June 9 language of 'killed seven people including himself.' This is the approach taken in the lede on the main article: gender of victims is not mentioned until later in the article, where there is space for more context.

What specific changes need to be made to this so that we may continue the discussion without any further edit warring on this talk page? -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As one of the contributors above, I suggest striking part of my comment. Specifically, I would like to strike "two holdouts have been very firm" and change this to "a couple editors prefer".  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it, it's your comment. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) delete Bobo's statement entirely. We should not and need not sum up the debate. It is too one-sided. Her statement should be iced.
 * 2) modify your statement to provide 3 (or possibly four) simple options that are spelled out for the user - eg the actual article text - without attempting to sum up what the differences are between them - simply provide the text, don't attempt to make comparisons with other articles
 * 3) propose slight rewording of Tutelary's statement as you suggest until you agree it is neutral - or delete entirely since she withdrew and use a tweaked version of the language I proposed above --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all four are different enough to warrant inclusion - which would you eliminate? I don't agree that we should include large blocks of text with specific language.  We should be discussing approaches to the problem, not enforcing specific wording.  Bobo's addition offers important information about the actual issues under discussion.  Bobo is working on modifying the language: it's more helpful to state specifically what you think is wrong than to demand that the text be stricken entirely. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * disagree. We should absolutely not try to sum up the debate- it's very difficult to do neutrally. If I were to copy edit Bobo's text to make it more neutral every single line would be changed. It's simply not worth it. If you want to list all 4 fine, but 'general approach' doesn't cut it when every word is edit-warred over. We need to present clear choices for the users that at least we agree with, but at the same time we shouldn't have a 'descriptor' text for each version which isn't neutral as you have it now. Let the text speak for itself. See my proposal above for a much better way. One of the problems is your approach of saying 'gendered breakdown without context' but there IS context in the article already re his motivations. If a vaguely worded RFC ends up saying 'yes provide context' then we're back to square one discussing exactly what context means and how to do so neutrally: thus you guys needs to sign up in advance to 'context' language that you like. But a warning - editors will not !vote for your version if it looks like coatrack so I'd suggest time working out some really neutral 'context' language that briefly covers all of his intended targets and all of those killed and wounded, not just those that bolster the point of the hashtag.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is every word 'edit warred over?' I think that deciding on an approach is important: if we invite contributors to !vote on specific language then we put ourselves in a position where the language can not be changed without another RFC, even when it does nothing more than improve the flow of the paragraph or adjust the section to adapt to other changes elsewhere in the article.  We need to decide what information about the targets should be included first, then we can decide on wording. So I don't agree that your proposal is a 'much better way.' This should be a discussion, not a vote on A, B, C or D.  Frankly, given that you have been the most vocal objector to including any information about the targets other than the gender breakdown of those killed, it's actually a little troubling that you are predicting more problems to come from any consensus achieved from a version of the RFC other than  your own.  And please stop putting the word 'context' in scare quotes.  It's getting old. -- TaraInDC (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. If we come to agreement to add some "vague" amount of context, that is just a recipe for further POV pushing - we've already seen the POV edits both you and Bobo have pushed with a very particular version of the events with an explicitly admitted goal of illustrating that the whole thing was driven at the root by misogyny. That is the root of this problem, actually. I am all for including lots of information about the targets, but upon reflection it became evident that including that information here would be undue, but choosing to leave some of that information out to cherry pick the parts of the story that you prefer would violate neutrality. We have discussed enough, way more than enough in fact, and we have, or can quickly come to, several specific options. I'm willing to sign my name behind one of them, so why don't you draft another one that you and Bobo prefer, and then we'll see what the community thinks. A vague finding of "Yes, we should add some context" is for all intents and purposes useless, since context already exists in the article describing his motives and putative causes of the event, and would just lead to further argumentation here as you add wording about the failed attack on the sorority, and others attempt to add wording about other aspects of his attack that you revert, etc etc etc. The only way to end this is to agree on SPECIFIC LANGUAGE - and then keep said language without substantive changes until some stronger consensus forms to tweak it further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to stop misstating other editors' arguments right now. For the last time I have not 'admitted' to a 'goal of illustrating that the whole thing was driven at the root by misogyny.'  I have stated that I feel the wording which includes only the number of men and women killed, with no other information about targets, gives a skewed, non-neutral picture of the attacks. No more putting words in other editors' mouths, please and thank you.
 * We are not here to get people to vote on one version over another. We're here to get people to help decide what level of detail is permissible about the victims and targets of the attacks.  I don't agree that the summaries I offered are 'vague.'  I think they are as succinct as possible while still getting the point across, but if you can propose brief, neutral additions to the descriptions of the proposed solutions please feel free to do so.  I think that voting on specific wording is not productive and not conducive to the improvement of the article, especially given that participants may themselves have input to offer on wording. Your insistence on controlling the structure of an RFC that's already well under way is obstructive.   -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * well, you've made that position abundantly clear. Let's move on, repeating it is rather useless. If you want this to be a broad, free ranging discussion about how much detail to put about what, then an RFC is inappropriate. Thus, I suggest we revert to the text pre-dispute, and continue the discussion until we can come up with a few versions you guys actually agree upon. Otherwise bringing more editors into the middle of this mess via a corrupt RFC is absolutely not going to be effective and any consensus that so arises will be of little worth - especially given the extant RFC which you seem to put some much stake in actually disparaged two editors and the positions they held, in the intro!! It's quite stunning. I think new participants are welcome to propose new wording but we should let them do it, and otherwise offer specific suggestions for them to vote on. Tara you may not realize it but you are also acting in an incredibly controlling fashion, deeming that the RFC must be worded in your way, and that perhaps my suggestions if reasonable may be heeded. Who put you in charge? No one. The RFC was started by someone else, who reverted your additions and withdrew the RFC, so the RFC is dead. Get over it. You need to learn about consensus forming which I am attempting to do, and I have an open offer on the table to write a new fully consensus based RFC which you and Bobo have repeatedly rejected. That is disruptive as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * additionally, Bobo for example was quite clear in one of their early reverts, stating: "Please stop deleting properly referenced on topic content which illustrates Rodger's misogyny" - so Bobo admits that they are adding specific details of the killing to align with the 'misogyny' theory supported by proponents of this hashtag. As mentions umpteen times it's classic coatracking - I'm not putting words into people's mouths I'm simply stating the conclusions that follow from the arguments y'all have made here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you reread my contributions above you will see my point is (and has always been) we should go with the reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources have described Rodger's motive in the massacre as misogynistic. From your edits to this article, as well as your contributions to talk page, I'm getting that you disagree that misogyny is a good summary for his motives, but this isn't about my opinion, or your opinion, we should go by the reliable sources, giving due weight in proportion to what is presented in the reliable sources. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * please take a look at the first sentence, which no-one has disputed. It lays out his motive. The second sentence also gives more detail on his motive. The content we've been disputing is not about motive! it's about 'how much description do we get into re the specifics of who was killed where and why and who else did he plan to kill but wasn't able to (and by the way, filter that whole thing to just focus in the women because this page is about women)'. There is a huge difference between describing a simple fact, and attempting to 'contextualize' that fact with cherry picked evidence based on cherry picked sources couched in claims of due weight. You guys have been completely transparent about actually why you wanted a one-sided summary of the attacks on this page, and now you're backpedalling. Anyway, we aren't any closer to a solution - based on Tara's latest it seems we can't even agree what the RFC is for - eg to agree upon which wording should be used or to share our feelings on a general approach. Again, given the tendentious nature of this discussion anything less than a specific set of wordings is going to leave us wanting. They had an RFC just to determine a single sentence describing Jerusalem, so we're in a similar pickle here. We should elaborate specific wordings we support and provide them neutrally for new editors to pick from (those new editors can also be encouraged to propose new language). If you look at the RFC I've proposed above this is very close to the direction i was going. This whole ownership of comments in the RFC header is the real problem we need to get way past that.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was obstructive. I was disheartened to return to look for updates to the RfC that I had contributed to a few days ago and see one editor (Obi) attempting so thoroughly to control the debate - insistent on closing the original RfC without consensus, drafting a new one without consensus to begin a new one, edit warring to keep the original RfC (that he disagrees with) closed, engaging the many editors who disagree with his views in an antagonistic manner, and misrepresenting the views of those whose arguments disagree with his own in order to derail the debate. I think this editors behaviour on this talk page has been very disruptive and not the way to attract uninvolved editors into the debate --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reopened the RFC. Since both Tara and Bobo seemed unwilling to make the changes I had suggested to the header and didn't see any significant problems with the neutrality of their statements, and since they were also unwilling to work with me on a joint/consensus RFC header, and felt the RFC should be reopened -- even if the person who started the RFC had withdrawn it and the editors participating on this page still have no clear consensus on the purpose of said RFC -- I had no alternative but to simply add my own opening statement and goals for the RFC, and divide the RFC header into individual statements, that way there will be no confusion as to whether there is a consensus RFC statement - because there isn't. I suppose we will see what other editors bring to the table, and hopefully we can nonetheless have a productive discussion. I'm sorry for causing the drama, I really did think my solution would have been better, and I think the current RFC is going to be a mess, but the other editors here seemed very tied to the particulars of their RFC header additions. Any reading of consensus on from previous discussions is debateable, and thus I have reverted to the version of the wording pre-discussion here. Once the RFC has finished in 30 days, we will ask a neutral closer to assess consensus w.r.t the wording, but until then per BRD the previous wording should stay.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a mess, as you state, because you made it a mess. You reopened it in drastically different format with comments completely out of order from when they were added and with headers difficult to follow.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The main difference is, I added my own header comment, and I placed it next to Tutelary's since we feel similarly so it felt reasonable to have our two statements together, and then yours and Tara's. Everything else is aligned in the same order. If you have suggestions on how to improve the header please, suggest away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is completely absurd. Your proposed wording had gotten no traction, and there was at least some discussion going on in the second section geared towards reworking the original language rather than re-writing it completely.  There's no deadline.  The damage you did by closing the RFC was done, and there was absolutely no call to make matters even worse just because your proposed language was not gaining consensus. It was particularly inappropriate to place your heavily biased and unsupported comments, and your instructions to contributors to vote on one of your proposed versions of the article, above the comments which were originally part of the RFC: talk pages, you may have noticed, are typically kept in chronological order.
 * You have to stop taking such disruptive action. This is a collaborative project: you can not just run roughshod over the opinions of other editors. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, Tara, did you get consensus for your additions to the header of the RFC? I don't recall that. Did you agree to make the changes I suggested to your header of the RFC? I don't recall that either. Do you have specific suggestions for how to improve my comments? I'm certainly willing to listen. Also, there were repeated calls for me to reopen the RFC, both on this page and on my talk page and elsewhere on the wiki. Yes, there's no deadline, but I was getting rather sick of being lambasted for putting the RFC on hold in order to work on a better opening statement. I didn't see any progress happening there, so decided to just reopen it with your statements intact that you seemed loathe to change; if you want to modify your statement please feel free, and if you'd rather ask people to !vote on the list of options you proposed as well, go ahead and do that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FFS, will you relax? It's a Sunday.  Why the rush?  The damage from closing the RFC was done: if I thought it was a good idea to simply re-open the thing with no further discussion about how it should be re-opened I'd have done it myself rather than starting a discussion about it.  I was hoping to figure out how to adjust it to ensure there would be no further disruption.  Your additions are extremely biased, and your decision to place them above those that were made as the RFC was being opened is completely inappropriate. -- TaraInDC (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tara, you seem to forget that you and others have been blasting me on this page and elsewhere for putting the RFC on hold. So please don't blast me for re-opening it. If you have suggestions on how to make my additions less biased I'm listening, please tell me what you'd like to change. I already explained that putting my comments next to Tutelary's, especially since she has formally withdrawn from the RFC, made more sense, since we saw eye to eye. Perhaps we could do the first 15 days of the RFC with our two entries on top, and the last 15 days of the RFC with yours and Bobos on top?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, in the interest of peace and goodwill, I've moved my statement below yours and Bobo's so you can enjoy the pride of first placement, we'll switch the order after 15 days just to be fair. Cheers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree to your proposal to eventually move your comments to the top of the section, as they are overlong, contain a very poor summary of the solutions being proposed and direct instructions for editors to choose one of your three versions of the section. By adding the longest of proposed versions of the section with more detail on the killers' targets as the only solution to the dispute other than removing the gender breakdown entirely or restricting information on the targets to the gender breakdown alone you create a straw version of other editors' arguments.  This is just one reason why I find your insistence on making this RFC into a vote on specific language unproductive. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to suggest a fourth option which is shorter, I'd be happy to add it to my list. I think cycling the order of comments is only fair.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think continually refactoring an in-progress RFC is disruptive, and I don't think that your approach is productive, so I'm certainly not going to contribute to it. As I said, this is only one issue with the approach you have chosen.  You had an opportunity during your out of process close of the RFC to contribute to a full rewording of the statements but the discussion didn't move quickly enough for you: at this point, you need to leave the section alone. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

break

 * I have a problem with the way the statement by Obi is worded, particularly the parts that say two editors have attempted to add "context" about the attacks that focuses almost exclusively on the failed attack on the sorority - because in their view such description "illustrates Rodger's misogyny" and Several other editors have opposed these additions, suggesting they are WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK, since they focus on only one part of the attacks and promote the "misogyny" cause as opposed to other causes explored in sources. It is completely NPOV and reads like an attempt to convince new editors to side with himself. Is it possible to have one written from an unbiased perspective? It feels like it belongs below in the threaded discussion --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion on how to reword that sentence that would be more neutral? Also, do you have similar suggestions for how to correct the neutrality issues esp in Bobo's post?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would do it by describing what the four options are rather than criticising the points of other editors. Having re-read it, I think I also agree with them being the same significant issues with Bobo's post. If anything, I think the RfC should just be the one by TarainDC, as it explains what the options are clearly and with links to diffs --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that this has been the most poorly organised RfC I have read yet on the website. It is not surprising that there have been no new contributors so far --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's largely because the reactions to the options themselves are quite confusing to read. I don't understand why you are so strongly towards including a gender breakdown of the deaths for men and the deaths for women but so strongly against providing a real context for this. It's not like you are against the inclusion of a gender breakdown, which would make more sense to only slightly supporting it, or like you are for a detailed exploration of this breakdown, which would warrant its inclusion in the first place. It seems so misleading to me and I'm confused as to why you feel strongly enough about this to act so disruptively --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also completely boggled that people feel so strongly that we must hide the gender breakdown unless a full play by play is provided, but I guess there's no accounting for taste. As to your other comments, I agree, but it proved impossible to convince other editors here to move their non-neutral statements, and it also proved impossible to draft a shorter, tighter, single consensus (thus unsigned) RFC header - Tara and Bobo seemed quite attached to their specific contributions and especially their specific location at the top of the RFC, so this is what we're stuck with. I wouldn't be opposed to context if this was a simple crime - eg he walked into a classroom, shot the male teacher and 5 female students. But this was a complex crime, a year in the planning, with at least 10 separate crime scenes. To summarize only part of that day here in a non-neutral way, which all of the proposed 'context' versions to date have been, is undue - for example they all left off the wounded, who only survived by the grace of god and not due to any intention of the killer. We could summarize all of it, but then it would be undue; it seems ridiculous that providing a single simple fact that even by itself is incredibly germane requires a paragraph or two of baggage. Thus I felt if we couldn't compactly describe the events, we should leave the detailed description of the events out. As to my motivation, I suppose I am not convinced other editors are being neutral in their edits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it proved impossible to convince other editors here to move their non-neutral statements, and it also proved impossible to draft a shorter, tighter, single consensus (thus unsigned) RFC header - Tara and Bobo seemed quite attached to their specific contributions and especially their specific location at the top of the RFC, so this is what we're stuck with. Enough with the spin.  There was a productive if slow conversation going on about rewording the existing RFC.  The 'location' of comments wasn't even a question until after you added yours above those of editors whose opinions you disagree with.  We're 'stuck with' this mess because you could not wait and work on a consensus version when you were the one who wanted to discuss it in the first place. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you're obviously very sensitive to the specific positioning of statements in the RFC header, which I suppose I understand as readers might be expected to read the earlier comments first and skip the later ones; hence I think it's only fair that we cycle the order of the comments after 15 days. That you feel so strongly about the position only underlines the reasoning to do so; if it didn't matter you wouldn't care, and if it does matter we should do so in order to give some semblance of balance. But no need to worry - 15 days is a long time, we don't need to discuss this further, a lot may happen before then. As for the rest we'll have to agree to disagree on the extent to which productive discussion was likely to lead to any changes to your texts, and there was enormous pressure to reopen the RFC, alas... Honestly Tara you're really making quite a big deal out of where we are now - which is the same RFC with the same headers you liked so much, and a neutrally worded addition of mine - at least as close as I could muster. Surely you can see that if each statement by itself isn't perfectly neutral, at least the result is balanced? I think this topic is played out. Let's just stop tweaking it, I think your suggestion was wise, and move on. -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "There's no accounting for taste" says the person who has spent days aggressively pushing for a version of this article that is against consensus so that it doesn't "align with the 'misogyny' theory". I honestly don't understand why you think it would be better to settle on a version that wouldn't explain as well why the events inspired the hashtag. This isn't even the Isla Vista shootings article --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for striking your uncalled for personal attack. I've been critiqued for responding too much here, so if you want to ask me further questions you can do so at my talk page. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just tweaked the re-opened RfC to remove what seemed to be excess headers. Readers don't care that the statement was from BoboMeowCat or Obiwankenobi etc, and statements are signed at end anyway.  Hopefully, this might make it a bit easier to read, and we'll start getting participation again.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Obi-Wan Kenobi?!? Only minutes after I tweak RfC, to make it easier to read, you have to come in and "fix the indent", which actually un-fixes the point of making it like a threaded discussion, which seems easier to read. It's a minor thing, but it seems you are dominating this talk page, even after assuring admin Dennis Brown you'd take a breather, and go edit something unrelated for a weak. Yet you are still very active here and also still very active on main topic article for this page 2014 Isla Vista killings. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Bobo, I'm not editing the RFC further, I was responding to a specific question and discussion around my edits, I wanted to hear the IP out. As to my tweak to the indent level, while I appreciate you were trying to help, that change had the effect of making it look like my comments were a response to yours, but they were not. I think it's best if we just leave it as is, warts and all. Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, I was referring specifically to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYesAllWomen&diff=614158648&oldid=614157967, where you "fixed indent" on the RfC, minutes after I tweaked the RfC, to make it more readable in a threaded discussion format. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yup, understood, I can see your goals and I think it's a good faith effort, although honestly the version I had proposed with headers for each statement was easier to parse to my eyes, and changing it to threaded suggested I was responding to your edits, when in fact I was not at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I let your good faith efforts on the RfC go for over 20 hours, to give self time to think about it, and to not knee jerk react by rushing to undo or tweak your efforts, yet within minutes, you had to "fix" my changes because you think it's for the best. With all due respect, is there any chance you could back off a bit? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bobo, I don't plan to make further edits to the RFC for a while, nor respond to questions here, if you have a concern please bring it to my talk page. If you leave my extant comments as they are, you can consider me disengaged. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, please amend your proposed solutions to make it clear that these are the changes proposed by you, and not by discussion participants at large. They currently give the impression that these are options that have been worked on by consensus rather than written entirely by you. As I have mentioned before, your proposed changes amount to a straw man argument, as they leave out the option to say that 'six men and women' were killed, and use the longest possible version of the contextual edit, which would seem to give more credence to your claim of 'undo weight' than using a shorter version like the one I linked in my summary of proposed solutions. I see that this is already misleading participants. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Tara, if you look above I've asked you several times for alternative wordings which you repeatedly declined to provide. As for the three choices, those seem to be from my reading of the edit history the most frequently - added versions, I didn't invent them from whole cloth. Of course people are free to propose shorter wording, or use your list of diffs to pull ideas - I could perhaps edit my statement to refer to your list? Nevermind, I'm done editing the RFC, it will have to stand as is. If you have further questions or requests, feel free to ping me on my talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This was actually the point to the indentation, which Obi recently removed from RfC to "fix" it. The indentation made clear this was contribution of a specific editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point, I made a minor indent tweak + added spacing which may help. Feel free to kill the whitespace if you don't like it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hashtag Activism
I was wondering if anybody had any qualms if I removed 'social media campaign' and replaced it with 'Hashtag Activism'. I believe that this hashtag was a form of that rather than a 'social media campaign' so to speak. Tutelary (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer "social media campaign". This was a more a campaign to raise awareness than activism or a call to action.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

NotAllMen Redirect
I have edited the first few lines of this article to change the way that the #NotAllMen redirect is displayed. This article says virtually nothing about the NotAllMen twitter hashtag/meme. Furthermore, while the current hat note says that NotAllMen hashtag is often contrasted with YesAllWomen there is zero contrast between the two in this article. I did two things to the hatnote: First I redlinked Not All Men and I deleted the contrast part of the sentence. Please see below. I would appreciate others' input on this matter.

Personally I recommend complete deleting the redirect.

A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well Learning more about wikipedia redirects.... I will be posting this suggestion on the relevent page on the grounds that this article says nothing about NotAllMen- having a redlink would be preffereable. A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the RFD template that was included here, to avoid miscagetorization and possible confusion. The relevant RFD discussion can be found here. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As per the discussion, the NotAllMen redirect to this article has been removed as NotAllMen has now become an article in its own right. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

History of mental illness
Bobo is opposed to the language of 'history of mental illness' claiming 'no diagnosis.' I think it's irrelevant - a simple search of 'rodgers "history of mental illness"' shows dozens of hits from reliable sources that use exactly this term. He was in therapy since childhood and 'history of mental illness' is exactly the phrasing certain sources use in their commentary. Weakening this by saying it is just a belief of the commentators vs a simple fact is inappropriate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove reference to mental illness, simply made it accurate with sources. Many believe his actions were "rooted in mental illness" (my wording).  We can't say "pointed to his history or mental illness" (Obi's words) because according to the sources, he was not actually formally diagnosed with a mental illness, although I agree he probably was mentally, we can't just say that in contradiction to RS.  Many reliable source commentators say they believe he was mentally ill, but they don't "point to" a diagnosed history of such, because this doesn't exist.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * no claim is being made to 'diagnosed history of such'. RS use the exact wording 'history of mental illness'. I think you're inferring something that isn't there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your most recent revert restored "pointed to the killer's history of mental illness" which is technically inaccurate, because there is no such diagnosed history to point to. This is why I tweaked it to say, "commentators believed his actions were rooted in mental illness" which is supported by sources, but you keep reverting this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * we should report what sources say. If they call his long engagement with mental health professionals and history of being seen and treated by mental health professionals a 'history of mental illness' there's no problem using those words. You are inventing a concept that someone cannot have a history of mental illness without a formal diagnosis - that is not how reliable sources treat mental illness. I can be sick, miss a week of work, and never have a formal diagnosis but it doesn't mean I wasn't ill. If you like we could add a footnote that explains he never was formally diagnosed but that would probably be undue in the running text.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like BoboMeowCat's wording. While he may have been treated for mental illness we can't, and neither can other sources, claim that his actions were a result of mental illness. Whether or not he was diagnosed with mental illness or received treatment for mental illness is moot. This article should not point to any mental illness as the genesis of his actions. That is not supported by any body, least of all the people who claim he was motivated by misogyny, social exclusion or sexual frustration (i.e. isla vista shooting page). A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the sentence as posed is making any claims, we are attempting to reflect in a single sentence an overview of how sources have treated the cause. It simply states that RS commentators have POINTED to his HISTORY of mental illness. This is a completely fair reflection of the sources - that's exactly what they do. Bobo's wording weakens that considerably, turning it into a pure "belief" that mental issues had anything to do with this massacre and making it seem like Rodger's mental illness was simply an invention. But his history of interventions for mental illness is well documented and well known, and the commentators on this case are referring to that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We are discussing his motive on a page about a twitter hashtag. "commentators believed his actions were rooted in mental illness" is a better reflection of his RS understanding of his motive as it doesn't exclude other potential motives un related to his mental health treatment (i.e. misogyny). "Pointing" to something infers causality. No RS can prove causality, only propose - because of this it is unfair to create that inference on this page. Furthermore, he has no documented history of mental illness, only a history of treatment. (unless I am mistaken?) A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Perhaps 'history of mental health issues' could be a satisfactory compromise? A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. I just think the other wording made it seem like an invention of the journalists, that he had mental health issues, vs a simple fact. But FWIW, plenty of reliable sources DISAGREE with you - and they state that he DID indeed have a documented history of mental illness. The fact that a precise diagnosis was not granted does not change that. This opposition to the term mental illness seems a bit like OR.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have edited to 'history of mental health issues'. I would welcome BoboMeowCat's input, as well as others. If it remains an issue I would encourage a bold. A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear to anyone who watches his Youtube vids or reads manifesto that Rodger likely was mentally ill, or had "mental health issues", but the fact remains he was not diagnosed as mentally ill, and we honestly have no idea what issues his therapists said he had, or even if they specifically said he had issues (although if he acted in therapy like he did on Youtube, hard to imagine they wouldn't note serious issues). Anyway, according to RS, he has a history of seeing therapists.  We could say he had history of seeing therapists, but that seems awkward.  I honestly don't understand what is the problem with saying "some commentators believed his actions were rooted in mental illness". That is accurate and makes the point. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes a much weaker point - it suggests that commentators are grasping at straws and blaming some perhaps non-existent mental illness and that they perhaps have no justification for, it's only a "belief". Saying they point to his history of mental illness or mental health issues is a much clearer statement of the facts and reflects how RS treat this. RS don't say "I believe this was caused by mental illness" - the RS that talk about this actually and figuratively POINT to instances of mental health treatment, drugs, events, etc that happened in Rodgers life.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with your suggestion, BoboMeowCat. For all we know it was a non-existent mental illness. For example if he was receiving treatment for Aspergers syndrome the mental illness of asperbers doesn't technically exist anymore. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Obi, if accuracy and sticking to the RS makes some point you desire in article "much weaker" it seems maybe you have some bias issues. Honestly, it in no way makes it seem like "grasping at straws" to be true to the RS and say "commentators believed his actions were rooted in mental illness".  We can't treat mental illness as a forgone conclusion, with no actual diagnosed mental illness. Also, the stated motive of Rodger wanting to punish women for not having sex with him and wanting to punish men who got to have sex with women makes mental illness seem believable. I can't imagine anyone reading about a spree killer with that particular motive, and then reading that multiple commentator believed this was rooted in mental illness, and then concluding they were just "grasping at straws". I think my wording made it clear that many believed mental illness a very likely factor, and with good reason, without being inaccurate and pointing to something not actually reported in RS to point to. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How do reliable sources defending the 'mental illness' explanation cover this?
 * 1) "A lifetime of social difficulties and mental illness set the stage for Rodger’s crimes. Yet his immediate homicidal motives were rooted in envy and hatred for others."
 * 2) "It's very apparent that he was able to convince many people for many years that he didn't have this deep, underlying obvious mental illness that also manifested itself in this terrible tragedy."
 * 3) "The problem is that when you look closely at the evidence available so far, Rodgers’s mental health really does appear to have been a much bigger factor than any cultural explanation...If we mix this up — if we treat Rodger primarily as a creature of misogynistic culture rather than prolonged, under-treated mental illness — we miss an important difference between everyday misogyny in all of its ugly forms and the sorts of massacres perpetrated by the Elliot Rodgers and Adam Lanzas of the world."
 * The POV problem is the statement that "RS said Rodgers was mentally ill" is somehow inaccurate. If we said "Rodgers was diagnosed as a psychotic" - ok, that's inaccurate. But to say "RS pointed to a long history of mental health issues" is completely accurate and reflects how RS actually covered this. The long history of mental health issues was not a belief, it was a simple fact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't diagnose people as mentally ill. Doctors and psychologists do and didn't here.  We have tons of commentators who believe this was rooted in mental illness, which doesn't surprise me at all, because after watching Youtube vids and reading manifesto, that Rodger had mental issues seems pretty clear to me.  I do find it surprising that Rodger was not diagnosed with a mental illness but apparently he wasn't.  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Media Organizations' discussion of this article
I have added the following to the top of the page:

This article came up right under Jezebel in a google search for this wiki page. It directly discusses this wiki page.

A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are they a reliable source? Two Wikipedia articles currently link to them.   No article for them yet.    D r e a m Focus  13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Killer's name
Is there a reason why Rodger's name doesn't appear once in the article? Suggested text: " in which the killer, Elliot Rodger, cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as one of his motives for the massacre. Rodger previously indicated..." --Neil N  talk to me 15:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering this article relies so heavily on the Isla Vista shooting for context I think having the perpetrator listed makes sense. A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the 'hatred of women part' so it now reads "cited resentment over his sexual rejection as one of his motives for the massacre." A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was an accident that the killers name was absent and I think name is better left out of article. The RS do not make Elliot Rodger a focus of the hashtag. The focus is more on the misogyny many believe the 2014 Isla killings represented and how "misogyny affects all women". Besides, Rodger appeared to be seeking publicity and fame with the youtube vids and online manifesto, and YesAllWomen intentionally didn't give it to him, and instead moved the focus to what the promoters of the hashtag believe is the societal problem of misogyny and how "all women" experience it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you want the name left out so as to better go with the spirit of YesAllWomen. That doesn't seem very NPOV. I think when a notorious criminal has committed a notorious crime, mentioning his name in connection with the crime is perfectly reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally his name would be absent. With a mention of a criminal act, however, it is only logical that the perpetrator of that act be mentioned as well. ^^As for the revert of my edit that removed the 'hatred of women' part, I would say that describing his motivation at all really has no place in this article. Furthermore the 'hatred of women' as being is primary motive seems to contradict the Isla Vista page. Really though, discussion of motive should not be on this page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has some place in the article because clearly the promoters of the hashtag believe the killings were motivated, at least in part, by misogyny. Misogyny is focus of the hashtag. So mentioning that the killer cited a hatred of women seems on topic for this article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not care what Rodger or YesAllWomen "want". No agenda-less report discussing the killing is going to go out of its way to avoid naming the killer. --Neil N  talk to me 08:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think the whole description of the event should be trimmed down to a single, very short line here, and let the main article deal with it. Otherwise we will have editors trying to tilt or focus the description of the events towards one that justifies this hashtag.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better to just give issues due weight with respect to RS. The RS repeatedly mention misogyny as a main factor in killing spree, and this is a hashtag about misogyny, so misogyny is on topic and needs to be discussed according to WP:DUE.  With respect to killer's name, we could review the sources specifically about the hashtag and see how often they mention his name and what they say about him. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should probably trim down the origin section. The first paragraph contains quite a bit of Original Research.  More specifically any discussion of the isla vista shootings doesn't belong.  The first sentence is acceptable but the rest of that paragraph doesn't belong. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bold. I removed some. Don't think it was very relevent, and everything it said can, and is being said, in far fewer sentences.

The hashtag started on May 24, 2014, after a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, in which the killer, Elliot Rodger, cited a hatred of women and a history of rejection as one of his motives for the massacre. Rodger previously indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who were sexually active, while he was not. He killed six people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself. Not All Men has been an internet meme since before the Isla Vista killings, used to satirize the "not all men" argument in discussions about misogyny and sexism. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That bold edit seems to have improved article but you left in part about Rodger’s mental issues. This was debated issue when we did an involved summary of the killing spree (but arguably reasonably included then) but now, with only details directly related to the hashtag’s creation, saying Rodger had mental health issues is off topic as this doesn’t tie into the origin of the hashtag so removed it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)