Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requests for comment; Gender breakdown

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

---

Original RFC statement
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)

Additional info provided by 3 editors

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, however two editors have been 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TaraInDC (talk • contribs)

There is a dispute around whether a gendered breakdown of those killed (and when known, those wounded), should be added, and, if such a breakdown is added, whether specifics about those killed/wounded/targeted should be added. Several editors believe a simple gendered breakdown of the victims is needed since the attacks are an example of gender-based violence. In response, 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" [1]; one supporter claims that leaving such information out while maintaining a gendered breakdown of victims would "make it seem that the article is attempting to cast doubt on the effect of Rogers' misogyny on his actions that day." [2]. 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. To date, several versions of the description of the event have been proposed, three of which are listed below. Please use the survey section below to !vote for your preferred version, or feel free to propose an alternative wording. The alternative sentences listed below would be placed in the area marked {INSERT SENTENCE HERE}

Currently agreed upon text:

"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 were sexually active, while he was not.[6][7][8] {INSERT SENTENCE HERE} 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]"

Alternatives proposed for description of victims

1. 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]
2. He killed six people and wounded thirteen more before killing himself.[1][9]
3. 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]--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Header was divided into individual statements instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning - non-neutral RFC header Note to participants in this RfC - the additional non-neutral opinions/comments added above by Bobo and Tara and warred back in multiple times are not neutral and do not reflect the scope requested in this RFC, which is whether to include the gendered breakdown of deaths or not. Two editors are repeatedly disrupting the RFC header and making it non-neutral through their edits. I suggest editors ignore those comments, focus on the RFC question and put their votes below.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC) I disagree - I feel the original RFC did a rather poor job of explaining the conflict and contained loaded language; asking if we should 'disclose' the gender breakdown as if editors were trying to hide something, and describing a brief sentence giving slightly more context to the attacks to avoid giving a skewed perspective as 'thorough detail.' It is *very* typical for RFCs to outline the changes on the table when there have been multiple solutions to the dispute presented, and if you can cite specific wording of my descriptions above that is non-neutral, or if you feel there are others I have left out, please feel free to say so. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) RfC statements are meant to be separated from other discussions as to pose as a NPOV overview of the dispute. Editors are not supposed to add their criteria nor their opinions underneath the RfC statement, as it could be seen as a possibly biased statement and might be a form of campaigning towards one particular side. This is also done out of precedent. Check out the other RfCs and you will see much of the same. In addition, teTutelary (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) If you check edit summary on this talk page, you'll see Obiwankenobi's edits to move my above comments have been reverted by Mr. Granger, a neutral uninvolved party who supported my contributions as appropriate, and who hasn't participated in this heated debate at all (a debate Obiwankenobi has voiced opinion in- see above sections). I disagree that the header is non-neutral, but I'm also completely fine with Obi's suggestion for others to ignore my contributions, if they find it non-neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

survey

• This is the wrong question. The issue is whether we should restrict information on those targeted to the death toll, which gives a skewed picture of the events and makes it seem men were the primary target. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Further, I'm fine with any of the options above save the first: I understand the argument that more detail could cause the section to become overlong, but without mentioning the failed attempt at 'annihilating' the sorority which is generally cited by reliable sources the primary goal of the shooting, including the fact that he killed more men than women is confusing to the reader and gives a skewed image of the attacks. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• While I think it is undue, the best solution if editors strongly feel it is necessary to include information concerning the gender breakdown would be this version of the section where there is proper context for it [3]. However, I feel the best possible version is the current one which does not go into the detail to specify and instead links to the main Isla Vista article where the gender breakdown is explored [4] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Use the contextual version of the article. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not include context. Per my comment below, it's most important to go with RS to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Ca2james (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC) Strike statement as I completely misremembered the text to be added. --Ca2james (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Include gendered breakdown with no detailed context. If necessary, link to the main article. An article about the hashtag should not be describing every single detail on how each individual was killed. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Wording #1 from above, include gendered breakdown, current context suffices we should not give a play by play especially one that prioritized a certain aspect of this story which is cherry picked and turns this into a coatrack. The breakdown of dead and wounded is simple and factual, but the alleged 'context' a small group of editors is proposing to add here is undue and focuses the readers attention on one aspect of a horrific day which supports or aligns with the sentiments expressed by users of this hashtag. It is this a decidedly non-neutral approach to provide context. Neutral context could potentially be framed and added but then it would be much too large and undue weight for this article. Since any attempt to describe who Rodgers targeted must include all plans and all victims, wounded or killed, only focusing on one aspect of the attack that failed is completely biased and misleads the reader. The alternative proposed of hiding the gender breakdown because the poor reader might be confused is ridiculous - I've never yet heard of hiding three words of fact in the interests of - what exactly? Let the reader learn more in the article, a higher death toll of males implies nothing about the motive behind the crime but it is OTOH very relevant to let people know that an attack that had misogynistic motives ended up killing two women - it boggles me people want to hide the fact that two women died. I !vote for wording #1 above accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think a gendered breakdown is necessary; I suppose that would be option #2. Such details would be highly relevant in the main article, but option #1 unnecessarily highlights certain aspects of the massacre that really don't have anything to do with the hashtag. If we do give a gendered breakdown, then I am in favor of the context (option #3), which at least gives the reader some idea of the hashtag's origins. The context is a bit verbose, and I have no problem with its being pruned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm OK with any of the versions except for the version where exact gender breakdown is given and no additional context to that gender breakdown is allowed in.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do whatever the majority of RS do in describing the gender breakdown (I think most don't give one), do whatever the majority of RS do in describing how the killings is part of the origin of yesallwomen, and wikilink to the main page of the killings. --Ca2james (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

YesAllWomen is a hashtag created as a result of the misogynistic nature of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Saying that "7 people were killed" takes away from the fact that the killings were a result of a mentally ill man who hated women, and doesn't give enough information about the shootings. Giving "4 men and 2 women" were killed without context gives the impression that he aimed for men. Giving context, in that he intended to kill many more women, but couldn't, gives the most information as to the rationale for the feminist movement's creation of the hashtag. Without that, you either have a completely gender neutral mass shooting, or a mass shooting perpetrated against men. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That argument hardly holds water because he didn't solely express his distaste for women; he also hated active men. Saying that the killings were misogynistic in nature because Rodger was a misogynist is nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to make an entire summary of something which already has its own article. On top of this, he killed four men and two women (plus himself, which is 5-2), not solely women; to say that the killings were only misogynistic is unfounded because that wasn't the only statement he made or the result of the murders. Whether or not the killings were misogynistic isn't for this article, only the tag's background. Also, just for the record, this is not the article for the shooting.

By the way, it was, by a two to one ratio, perpetrated against men, not women. Rhydic (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As an addendum, the first paragraph of the Origin section already sums up his mental illness, hatred of women for "rejecting" him, and his hatred of active men. It doesn't need repeating. It's concise and already matches pretty much all the points you want to add from a neutral standpoint. Rhydic (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"By the way, it was, by a two to one ratio, perpetrated against men, not women" And comments like these are exactly why using the gender breakdown with no further context is an NPOV problem. Some users want to retain this information and exclude other information about the attack because they believe that this cherry picked statistic proves something important about the killings. After killing his roommates (who apparently died because he wanted to turn his apartment into a killing chamber, and not because they were male - they were male because they were his roommates) he was locked out of the sorority where he had intended to kill "every blonde slut he saw" and improvised by first killing two women in a targeted killing, and then injuring many more and killing one man in a final act of random violence. If we want to provide information which would seem to support Rhydic's view that these killings were not motivated by misogyny, we must include this other information about these targets which explain why the killings sparked the discussion about misogyny that it did. The misogynistic aspect of the killings is the only reason they're even relevant here, and we can't whitewash that. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"because they believe that this cherry picked statistic proves something important about the killings." But then you're starting to get into cherrypicking which killings are relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. Either way, I've already suggested to basically trash the breakdown and leave it to the actual article on the killings instead of repeating the same irrelevant information all over the place. By the time you get the breakdown in ~THE PROPER CONTEXT~, you'll have summarized almost the entire killing spree, where the murders happened, why they happened, and how they happened, which is all information that should stay in the main article. I'm not denying that there wasn't some kind of misogynistic driver for the murders, but I am saying that it's going to wind up as undue weight because this article is about a hashtag; trying to make a contextual gender breakdown opens up the potential to rack up (heh puns) so many WP:COATRACK violations that it's not really even worth mentioning. If people want to know more about the killings, the main article is already wikilinked at the top of the Origin section. This article is about a hashtag, not a summary of a killing spree with some cute factoids about a hashtag tacked on. This was one of the main arguments for merging the article. It's almost impossible to get any kind of summary without it being WP:UNDUE; merging it would have allowed a lot more leeway as the information would already be in the article. Rhydic (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I rather agree that more detail, especially on the level of the last version that was removed, feels like a digression here, and think that avoiding the topic, as the main article's lede does, is a better solution to avoid the section getting overlong: my only concern is that if we include any information on who was targeted, we need to talk about more than just who the killer successfully murdered in order to avoid making it seem that men were the primary target rather than the primary vicitims. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I've changed my position a bit from the previous discussion. My first issue with the contextual version is that it isn't clear to me why the play-by-play is important when I read it; the cherrypicked (I say this because the entire day isn't included; nor should it be) play by play doesn't contribute to an understanding of his misogyny in my mind. My main issue with the contextual version is that I don't think that we need to try to explain why "only" 2 women were killed because that's heading into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory along with some WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE, unless there's a WP:RS that also links this kind of context with the gendered breakdown of the dead. Is there such a source? I know I've found some sources (I don't know if they're reliable) that link his written and/or video manifesto with the creation of the hashtag but I haven't seen any that link the hashtag with an explanation of why "only" 2 women were killed.struck; I was completely wrong about this. My second concern is one of weight. --Ca2james (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of source are you looking for? Do you have reliable source that only focus on those actually killed and don't mention the other contextual information? Here's one by the Washington Post that specifically addresses the 'he killed more men than women' argument as it relates to the hashtag. -- TaraInDC (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more that address the gender breakdown and why it doesn't tell the whole story:

• The National Post: "Elliot Rodger might have killed more men than women, but the first three men were his room-mates, a prelude to the purposeful carnage. According to his own words, the women were more to the point."
• New York Magazine; "And even though Rodger killed more men than women on his way to the sorority Alpha Phi, where no one answered the door, his target — “all women for rejecting me and starving me of love and sex” — is a disturbingly and persistently common one.
• CNN: "In fact, Rodger's killing spree shows that men can also be victims of hostility toward women: Four men were among those killed, including his two roommates, "the biggest nerds I had ever seen," Rodger said."

One recurring theme in these articles is that the failed attack on the sorority is as relevant to the killings as the gender of those killed. You'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't treat it as the primary target. It's well established by the sources above that the gender breakdown alone gives a skewed perspective of the attacks and makes it seem that men are the primary victims. Calling this original research is simply absurd. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are some good sources that I hadn't seen. I apologise for calling it original research and everything; my head remembered a different version than you'd added. I've struck that whole comment out above.

I'd be content to see the article reflect these sources to say that the killings appeared to be misogynistcally driven even though he killed more men than women, since he started his spree by killing his male roomates and was prevented from killing the sorority members he targeted when no one answered the door. I don't think the quote is necessary and I think we need to keep the context brief if it goes in. --Ca2james (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the wrong article to get into root cause analysis. We already state in the first sentence his stated motive was hatred of women and we state in the second that he hated women and men and in the third we state sources claim it was driven by misogyny. That's three different ways, no more is needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Ca2james, so you mean something along the lines of the revision Chess recommended in the survey section above? -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

part of me now thinks we should close this RFC down, as the purpose is to bring in new users but the non-neutral header continually warred back in has made the whole RFC suspect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

-- reopened with one addition to the header--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@TaraInDC: I don't see a suggestion by Chess above that differs from the original proposed context. I want to follow what RS do, which seems to include a very brief description of why he killed more men than women. My main issue with the proposed context is that it's too long and is partly covered by the existing text, which is a weight concern. I guess in theory I support a short bit of context but not the one that's proposed. --Ca2james (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The version I was thinking of was this: In total, he killed four men, including his three roommates who he fatally stabbed prior to leaving on his shooting spree and one man who was killed as he fired blindly into a deli, and two women, who were shot outside of the sorority house which he had intended to be his primary target, after he was denied entry to the building. I'm not sure how we could get it shorter than that, though I'm open to ideas. I don't think any of it is covered in this article but I might be missing something. I agree that it feels somewhat like a digression, but I feel more detail is necessary if we are going to insist on mentioning the gender breakdown at all. In particular, I think mentioning the sorority house is crucial. -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm still not convinced that we need to include a gender breakdown or context at all. There are enough reliable sources [5] [6] [7] that talk about his writings and video as part of the origin for the hashtag that I think the issue of who and how he killed each person can be avoided in this article (as long as the main article is still linked).

If consensus goes towards giving a gender breakdown, then I really don't think that we need to describe how each person was killed. Am I right that the point of the context would be to explain why the killings are viewed as misogynistic even though he killed fewer men than women, which is clear in the gender breakdown? If so, then describing how each person was killed doesn't, to me, support that aim because it's just a play-by-play. I see basically two approaches to adding relevant context: either describe why he killed more men (he started with his male roommates) or describe why he killed fewer women (he planned to kill women in the sorority but couldn't get in). I guess there's a third approach, which is to do both, but even doing that isn't the same as doing a play-by-play like you're suggesting. Does that make sense?

All that said, if a gender breakdown and context was to be included (and just to repeat, I don't think it's needed), I'd support something like this for the first paragraph 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 by them 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 were sexually active, while he was not. He wounded 13 people and killed himself after killing four men, including his three male roommates, and two women. He had planned to kill more women but was prevented from killing the sorority members he targeted when no one answered the door there. 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. --Ca2james (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My goal isn't to describe how each person is killed per se, but to describe how he came to kill so many more men than when our sources say that his killings were motivated by misogyny. So it's not so much how they were killed as where and why. I think the way you've gone about hitting on the salient points in your version above is useful for sure. Perhaps we say something like "killed his three roommates before leaving for the Alpha Phi sorority house which he intended to be his primary target; when residents would not open the door for him, he began a shooting spree which ended in the deaths of two women, one man and the shooter himself and left 13 injured." That breaks the events down into three main stages without going into much detail about the individual deaths. This does sort of imply that all 13 injuries were from gunshot wounds when a number were other injuries, but I'm not sure that's too big of a problem. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well, honestly, I still think that's too much detail. The RS indicate that the misogyny comes mainly from Rodger's writings and videos and only give very brief explanations for why more men were killed than women. Looking at the sources and quotes you posted way above (reproduced here), none of them are going into too much detail to explain why more men were killed than women:

• The National Post: Elliot Rodger might have killed more men than women, but the first three men were his room-mates, a prelude to the purposeful carnage. According to his own words, the women were more to the point.
• New York Magazine; And even though Rodger killed more men than women on his way to the sorority Alpha Phi, where no one answered the door, his target — “all women for rejecting me and starving me of love and sex” — is a disturbingly and persistently common one.
• CNN: In fact, Rodger's killing spree shows that men can also be victims of hostility toward women: Four men were among those killed, including his two roommates, "the biggest nerds I had ever seen," Rodger said.

I accept that we need to explain why more men were killed than women, but I'm very hesitant to add more detail than the RS are adding (and I think that even my suggestion above might be too much detail). Do you see what I mean? --Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that those articles are a good yardstick to use for the level of detail we should include in this article, because they're all commentary on a current event, and appear to be written with the assumption that the reader already has some knowledge of the killings. We can't do that here. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be very careful if using wikipedia voice. Attribute the information to a notable source as needed. This could easily jump out of the realm of encyclopedic into the realm of advocacy. The people involved can effectively advocate their own cause. They don't need wikipedias help.Be cautious.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

See Also Section

The see also section, in my opinion, contains links that are tenuously (at best) linked to this article. I have deleted the ones I felt didn't belong, and that change was reverted. It goes without saying that this is an article about a twitter hashtag. I would like to hear others' thoughts on whether the see also links are relevent to this article.

• Domestic violence
• Hashtag activism
• Misogyny
• Rape culture
• Sexism
• Slacktivism

• * #1reasonwhy Not discussed at all in this article
• * Feminism This article is within the scope of the project, why the link?
• * Mass murder This is a hashtag article, not the Isla Vista Article
• * Rape YesAllWomen get raped? or is this article about cultural/social issues?
• * Violence Against Women Act What does this have to do with the hashtag?

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the above links seem relevant to the article. Most of them seem so highly relevant just reading the lead shows they fit. Exceptions might include #1reasonwhy (but as another sexism/misogyny related twitter hashtag I'm ok with including it). I disagree that the see also section is too long but if we need to cut stuff to remove tag "slacktivism" should probably go because it's non-NPOV and would technically be included under Hashtag activism.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal of all of the links stricken by A Canadian Toker, with the exception of Feminism, which has a direct connection to the article's topic. I also support the removal of Slacktivism, which, to the extent that it is not redundant with Hashtag activism, is non-neutral (as you pointed out, BoboMeowCat). —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I can see argument for removing "rape" as it seems redundant with "rape culture" and also "violence against women act" seems redundant with "domestic violence". I think there might be an argument for keeping 1reasonwhy as a similar hashtag but I'm not terribly attached to it honestly. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I also feel fairly ambivalent about 1reasonwhy. The fact that it redirects to a section of Women and video games, rather than having its own article, makes me lean towards removing it, though. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That’s a good point regarding 1reasonwhy not having it’s own article and “mass murder” does seem covered by linking to Isla Vista killings page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:ALSO "as a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body", so it seems links for "sexism" and "misogyny" should also be removed because they're already specifically linked in article. Depending on what counts as a revert, I might end up over 3RR if I remove them, so will leave this to another editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with the removal of the Slacktivism link. I appreciate your input, BoboMeowCat and Mr. Granger. I would welcome others' views as well. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I added Women Against Feminism because it was reportedly started party in response to this campaign and it imitates much of the same style. Also, it treats much of the same subject matter. Cla68 (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strike that. It appears that Women Against Feminism started BEFORE the Elliot shooting, so YesAllWomen appears to have copied them, not vice versa. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good fit either way, both are Twitter campaigns relating to Feminism topics or feminism itself. Very closely related, and reasonable to link in a see also section. Tutelary (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

IP 94.175.85.144 seems to be intent on removing Women against Feminism and Who needs feminism? Even though they're both related to feminism and both social media campaigns. Tutelary (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think having Women Against Feminism and Who needs feminism is a good idea. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter user @gildedspine

I notice the hashtag creation has been credited in the article to Twitter user @gildedspine. Is this claim referenced? This info appears to have been slipped into an already heavily referenced paragraph, but I do not notice that any new references were added. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The ref recently added says it appears to have been started by user @gildedspine, but not that this user actually took credit for it. Given that this is unconfirmed by @gildedspine (whoever that is) changed back to anonymous twitter user.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need personal confirmation for what RS says by primary sources. We don't personally ask whether Robin William's is really dead just because we're in doubt of all the media sources at the beginning of the event. (Though that is a special case, and may be a BLP vio to include it when we're not sure.) I've reverted. WP:BRD. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote out of the source "It appeared to be started by @gildedspine, who wrote, “I’m going to be tweeting under the #YesAllWomen hashtag. Let’s discuss what ‘not all men’ might do but woman must fear.”[8]. So according to this one source, it merely appeared to be started by twitter user @gildedspine (who didn't confirm or give her real name so she's still anonymous). Adding this anonymous twitter user's online handle adds zero value to article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We reflect on what the RS say. Do you have more RS stating that the user was an 'anonymous female twitter user' or do we have more stating their Twitter handle? Ultimately, I think it's an encyclopedic benefit for the reader to understand exactly who started or had appeared to start it. Also, the bit about 'appeared to be'. That's what news sources tend to say when they're not sure of something, or something's just recently happened. 'It appears to be purported by ISIS terrorists...' and what not. Then the article should be reflected in that, that's what I agree with. 'The hashtag appeared to be started by @gildedspine' would be good, then. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)