Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Violence against men category

It qualifies as it was a gendered attack against men for their gender. The edit summaries given by Sceptre are not sufficient imho. Indeed, the edit summary Provide sources that his hatred of men was not out of hatred of women, and we'll talk implies that that it was a gendered attack, so I'm not exactly sure where that fits on the opposing side. However, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/27/no-fact-rodgers-killed-men-women-doesnt-change-fact-misogynist.html describes Rodger as hating men as well, and since it was provoked by this, it makes it a gendered attack. Though I do note that it was primarily against women, the men did and were hated by him, evident by his manifesto and videos. Tutelary (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers didn't hate men for being men, he hated men out of their relationship towards women. There is a strong effort on Wikipedia to not paint this as what it was: misogynist violence. And yes, misogynist violence can hurt men too. These two comment pieces – [1][2] – explain it more than I have the effort or the willingness to. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The articles that you're citing make it quite clear that it was a gendered attack against men as well. Therefore I'm a bit confused on why you're so opposed to the category that qualifies as it. I'm not proposing that we remove the 'violence against women' category, but add the 'violence against men' category. The category text Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys. makes it quite clear that they were killed mainly out of spite for taking women, but that is still considered a gender based attack. He hated men, though not overshadowing your point of misogyny, but he did hate men and that would make this a gendered attack against them, thereby fitting the category. Tutelary (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hitler hated Jews because he thought they were less than human, and the KKK hates the blacks because X, and the Westboro Baptist Church hates the gays because they violate god's law. Who cares WHY these lunatics hate someone? Hatred is not some sort of logical chain that you can perform logical operations o - e.g. X hated Y because of Z, therefore, X didn't really hate Y?? It doesn't make any sense. Many analyses have said that his hatred of women actually derives from his own failings to achieve the masculine ideal. And maybe his failings to achieve the masculine ideal stem from our society. and maybe our society stems from 1000 years of patriarchy. and maybe 1000 years of patriarchy derives from... We don't need to do root causal analysis just to place a category - his clear and often-reported hatred of men and, most importantly, the fact that men were targeted as victims of his violence is the important thing. Even if we accept that men were victims BECAUSE of misogyny, it is still gendered violence against men, and reliable sources POINTED OUT that misogyny can harm men, thus the category is clearly relevant.

The key question is, was any of his violence motivated by hatred for men? Let's look at sources:

• [3]

"But his hatred of femininity is tangled with hatred of other men—and himself"

"As long as masculinity is based in hatred of and fear of femininity, it will be expressed in violence—against men, against gay people, and against the marginalized. And most of all, it will continue to motivate violence against women.”

• [4]

"Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way."

"It is not uncommon for men who resent women to take out their aggressions on other men, but unlike public violence against women, male-on-male attacks slip more easily underneath our cultural radar."

"Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience. This is not ammunition for an argument that he was a misandrist at heart—it’s evidence of the horrific extent of misogyny’s cultural reach."

• [5]

"Sure, we can admit that we hated men, but only if we accept that his hatred for men stemmed from his feeling of entitlement towards women."

• [6]

"The reason why he hated men was because they received the thing he thought he deserved," she said. "He did not think he was entitled to men's bodies. He did not think he was entitled to sexual submission from men. What he was resentful about was that some men got those privileges and he did not. So that was part and parcel of his sexism and part and parcel of his misogyny."

Thus, sources seem to pretty much agree that he hated men, and that he targeted, directly, men that he hated, and several men died or were shot. Now, the bulk of sources claim that the root cause of his hatred of men is actually misogyny. Fine, we don't need to argue that here - the reliable sources are all competing to decide who gets to be the root cause. But you're misunderstanding the category. The violence against women category is not "Violence, based in the final root cause analysis, on misogyny", and the violence against men category is not "Violence, based on final root cause analysis, on misandry". A single level of gendered hatred suffices, and both his manifesto AND reliable sources note his hatred of men - we don't need to to final root cause analysis. If a guy goes to shoot up a school full of girls and shoots the male guard, fine, that's not "violence against men" - but that's NOT what happened here. When the Taliban slaughter girls at a school, we don't say "Well, their hatred of women stems from radical interpretations of Islam, therefore, it's not really violence against women" - NO. From whence that hatred of men derives is not that relevant, it doesn't DIMINISH his hatred of men, and this hatred was expressed very clearly in his manifesto and, begrudgingly in some cases, accepted by reliable sources. The Violence against men category is about gendered violence, men targeted because they were men. The sources above demonstrate that he hated men and that he targeted men that he hated - this was not random. This also does not diminish the misogyny, nor the violence against women. Categories are NOT either/or - we can have both. When someone sets off a bomb in Iraq at a market, and men women and children are killed, we don't call that gendered violence, since specific genders aren't targeted. Here, we do have gendered violence, on BOTH sides (the Srebrenica massacre is a similar example of gendered violence on both sides - men were slaughtered, and women were raped) - thus this was also a case of both violence against men AND violence against women, in both cases based on gender).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers clearly expressed hatred toward men and killed them. However, he indicated he hated a subset of men, sexually active men. According to the sources, his hatred of men was fueled by his rage that other men had sexual access to women, while he did not, so they deserved to be punished. He hated women because they were women and hated men because of their access to women. I'm not sure the "Violence against men category" fits here because he did not seem to target men for being men. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Previously discussed at Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings/Archive_1#Violence_against_men_category. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he hated only a subset of men - see my examples below for "subsets of men" that were nonetheless targeted for violence. Sexually-active men with access to women - and hating them and wanting to kill them - is a classic example of a gendered target. It's not "I wanna kill everyone" - it's "I want to kill people of this gender that did this, and people of that gender who did that"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's look further at Srebrenica - this is a classic example, oft-spoken of, of violence against men - something like 8000 men were massacred. Now, was this done BECAUSE the Serbs just hated men? Probably not. Did they hate everyone, like Rodgers seemed to? Probably not either - I assume the Serb killers went home to their wives and families afterwards and had beers with their friends - like Nazi death camp guards, they were probably rather ordinary people. The Serbs hated muslims, more specifically Bosniaks, and they enacted that hatred by gender-separating the men and boys and slaughtering them, and then later, raping the women. In both cases these are incidences of gender-based violence since the violence was discriminate, but stemming perhaps from a deeper hatred of a whole people. Did the Nazis hate Greek men when they massacred all the men in a village at Massacre_of_Kalavryta? It's hard to say, they were an occupying army, and wanted to punish the village. So maybe they didn't hate all greeks, maybe they just hated the greeks in that village - the massacre of men was unlikely to be caused by hatred of men, but it's nonetheless a prime example of VIOLENCE against men. Sceptre is confusing the root cause final cause analysis of that motivation - with the proximate hatred that he expressed towards men and the direct violence he enacted against them as a result. Now, you may claim "No, it was gender-based violence against the women, but it wasn't gender-based violence against the men, they were just in his way" - but that's not what the sources above state, they state that he targeted men he was jealous of, he targeted men that he hated! The violence against women category is full of instances of violence against women that aren't driven by misogyny - sometimes mental illness, sometimes "extreme interpretations of the Islamic dress code" 2002_Mecca_girls'_school_fire, there are always analysis of proximate and deeper causes, but that doesn't matter for categorization, what matters is whether violence was enacted against people based on their gender, and we have strong evidence that both men and women were targeted accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We can also do a very simplified hypothetical. Suppose a killer posts a video saying "I hate all of you women, I can't stand you. To punish you, I'm going to kill all of your boyfriends and husbands" - and then goes on to massacre their boyfriends and husbands. Articles will say "Well, this was clearly motivated by hatred of women" - ok, fine, but it was still "violence against men"! A more complex version is what actually happened here - he didn't just hate women, he also hated men - perhaps he only hated a certain type of men - e.g. ones who had sex with women - but that's still a pretty broad list, and that list remains gendered, and his violence was accordingly gendered. We should also look for sources to see if this was also racially motivated - I think all of his roommates killed were Asians, and he seemed to despise Asians.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, none of the men he killed was with a woman at the time. As far as we know, he didn't know whether any of them were sexually active. All of them could have been virgins just like him, for all he knew. Whatever the ideas beneath his rage, they didn't seem to affect which men he chose to kill. So it doesn't make sense to form ANY kind of link between those ideas and those killings. Mandruss (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

see the quote above: "Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way." - not all victims were killed, fwiw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's very much the point. He didn't know whether they were virgins or bachelors, he didn't know that those men weren't the ones who had countered him. He killed them because of his hatred for their gender, and that's the point of the category. Look above with Obi's links to the reliable sources, stating his hatred for men. I thought this was a plain cut dispute giving the reliable sources, but it appears to not be. Tutelary (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, none of the women Rodger killed rejected Rodger or even knew him. I think Rodger's stated motive and why victims were targeted matters for the category. The victims who were strangers to Rodger were white, does that mean this belongs in a category "violence against whites"? I'd say no because according to his stated motive he did not target whites for being white. Similarly, he did not target men for being men but he was very clear on targeting women for being women. I saw no sources that indicated Rodger hated men for being men but rather for their (imagined) relation to women. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The root cause of the root cause of the root cause doesn't matter Bobo. He hated men, and RS sources point out that he targeted men, as well as women. Again, I point you to how these categories are being used for every other article - do the Taliban hate women for being women, or because that's how their interpretation of the Koran instructs them, or because that's what they were taught in school? It doesn't matter for the category to apply - if someone targets women for violence, the category fits. He targeted men for violence, that much is clear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

According to that category it is supposed to reflect "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys.". I don't think this case fits. I don't think his violence against men was gender based. I actually don't care that much either way, but personally, if I were to go to that category to find articles on "gender based violence against men", I wouldn't be looking for stories like this. This isn't gender based violence against men imo. I think adding this to the category does a disservice to the category and those who might wish to use that category to find a specific type of article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So his attack on women was gender based, but his attack on men was not? Sources disagree with you Bobo. His manifesto goes into extreme detail on how much he hates men. From CNN: "He also said he despised men who had luck with women and said he would eliminate them, too. "I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer," he added. "It is only fair."" [7]. How can you imagine that this isn't gender-based violence on both sides? This wasn't "I'm going to kill the sorority girls, and any security guards who happen to be in the way" - this was "I'm going to kill women because X, and I'm going to kill men because Y". Both genders were targeted, explicitly. When someone says "I'm going to kill all men", we obviously consider that gender-based violence. If someone says "I'm going to kill all men over the age of 15", that is still gender-based violence. If someone says "I'm going to kill all men who are more sexually successful than me" again, that is STILL gender.. based... violence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: The sources do appear to support that this was a misandrist as well as a misogynist-motivated attack. I support inclusion of the category. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of the category violence against men based on the sourcing and the location he specifically chose to target. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - reading parts of his manifesto as well as RS coverage, this guy hated some men and women, and it's easily demonstrated he lashed out at both. I'll be so bold as to say that making this only about women is political, not encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Question - Have reliable sources used the word "misandry" or "misandrist" to describe Elliot Rodger? I've seen many RS refer call Rodger misogynistic, but only seen the misandrist label given to him by non-neutral groups such as mens rights advocate, blogs, comments section of articles, etc. What I'm hearing from a lot of supporters of the category sounds like "I read his stuff and deemed it misandrist" or "his actions seem like misandry to me" and while that may be a very reasonable conclusion, that's original research or synthesis. To be encyclopedic, we need to simply reflect the reliable sources. Have reliable sources specifically labeled him a misandrist? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The terms 'misandry' and 'misandrist' are not requirements to add the 'violence against men' cat nor any other cat (that I'm aware of). The cat specifically refers to gender-based violence, which is what Rodgers had committed, and Obi had demonstrated a few posts up. Also, I am all for sticking to the sources, which is why we cited them in terms of him hating against men and for the attacks. Though him being a 'misandrist' as demonstrated by reliable sources is not required to add the category, just the demonstration of gender based violence. Also, the sources cited (as you can see above in Obi's post, he demonstrated it rather clearly) that the sources did describe him as hating men. We're not arguing for the addition of a 'misandrist' cat (if such one exists), but purely for the cat already being discussed. One last thing; just because a source is biased does not mean we can't use it. See WP:BIASED. There may be other factors that may disqualify its credibility, but being biased is not one of them. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's undeniable Rodger killed males and was full of hatred, but the violence against men category says it is specifically for "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys." I do not think the reliable sources have established his killing of males was gender based. If we are going to add this to the violence against men category, seems we could go ahead and add Columbine and World Trade Center attack and countless other cases where clearly men were killed and the killers expressed hatred, but seems that category is specifically looking for gender based hatred, and I'm simply trying to determine if the RS state Rodgers had gender based hatred of men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how to parse "gender-based hatred of men" - what other kind is there? Or are you suggesting he harbored gender-based hatred of women, but had no such feelings about men, and just killed them incidentally? Did you actually read his manifesto?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave plenty of examples above of RS who claim that he hated men - and not just individual men, but broad cross-sections of men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Do they use a phrases such as "Rodgers was a guy who hated men"? Seems the sources state he hated men who he imagined had sexual access to the women he felt entitled to. Reading over his stuff, the guy seemed full of hate, but have reliable sources said Rodger hated men or used word "misandry" or "misandrist" to describe him?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the sources I linked at the top, and yes the sources say that. Maybe he didn't hate all men, I'm not sure, but he certainly hated large numbers of them, e.g. any sexually successful man, which is Isla Vista a college party town was probably lots of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• support inclusion of category, per arguments given above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Some excellent arguments above. It's just as worthy of inclusion as the violence against women category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd call it misomania, the syndrome characterized by delusions of persecution and hatred. Not au currant, but most accurate. I don't think a misogynist would lust after women. I don't think a misandrist could have lived with male roommates or have had a relationship with a little brother. But he clearly had portions of misogyny and misandry, just not the complete package in either case. That misomania includes delusions of persecution seems right to me. snug (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: we're not discussing adding the Category:Misandry category here, this is about the Category:Violence against men category. I pointed out elsewhere that many instances of violence against women are not necessarily driven by misogyny, and acts of violence against men aren't all driven by misandry - all that is necessary is someone is targeted for violence based on their gender. The sources above establish this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The category "violence against men" is a subcategory of the "Misandry" category. Similarly, the category "violence against women" is a subcategory of "Misogyny" category. There appears to be some misunderstanding of the category purpose. Just because men (or women) were targeted violently doesn't make the article appropriate for either of those categories. For example, the World Trade Center attack and Columbine are not included in the violence against men or women categories, even though men and women died, because for inclusion in these categories, it needs to be gender based violence. I have not seen any RS that say Rodger engaged in gender based violence against men, but I have seen multiple wikipedia editors arguing that they interpret various things they read in reliable sources that way. I've repeatedly asked for RS quotes that clearly say Rodger was either a misandrist or clearly describe his violence against men as gender based violence. I'm still waiting for such quotes. These quotes are easy to find with respect to Rodger and Misogyny/gender based violence against women, but not so about Misandry/gender based violence against men. All I've seen so far is arguments that editors here think it was misandry or gender based violence against men, but we need to find a reliable sources interpreting it that way, not just wikipedia editors intrepreting it that way. BTW, I'm by no means saying the interpretation is unreasonable, but it can't just be our interpretation. Please find quotes from commentators from reliable sources that clearly interpret Rodger's violence against men as gender based violence and/or call Rodger a misandrist, if you want to place the article in this category. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into that parenting structure of the categories. While violence against men and women can be a manifestation of misandry and misogyny, it isn't always the case - and it's besides the point. You're asking for the sources to say one very particular set of words, and refusing all of the other words the sources are using - like the fact that he targeted men he was jealous of (that comes from CNN), or that he proposed a virus that would eliminate all of the men, or that his manifesto detailed how he wanted to kill the sexually successful men he saw around him, and then, he does so- killing several, wounding several others. And you seem to forget that his targeting of men was not random - he butchered his roommates with a knife, before doing anything else. We're not talking about 9/11 here, this was personal, gender-based violence that both men and women were victims of. i suggest you re-read the sources I provided above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I verify that violence against men is a subcategory of misandry. I also think misogyny and misandry and their subcategories are too small to capture Rodger's issues. A little like convicting Capone on tax evasion. snug (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a misanthropy category for now...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Just putting my thoughts in to this. Does the addition mean he killed men or that he killed them because they were men? from the manifesto (that is generally believed to be his motive) it seems the women were killed because they were women and the attempt at the sorority house was inspired by this. then again, he did seem to kill in discriminatory, which gives the idea that, in intent, he wanted to kill lots of women, but in reality, he killed people on both gender. If anything they should both be removed, although in that, we have the issue that we are removing somebody who frequently contributed to anti-female hate websites and wrote an anti-female manifesto not categorised by his shooting of women. it's sort of like if somebody posted on anti-jewish websites and wrote an anti-jewish manifesto but killed jewish people and non-jewish people in a similar shooting. would Wikipedia categorise by both even though his sentiments were pejoratively against women? he was not a misandronist but he did murder men. How do you categorise by that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Would Wikipedia categorise by both?" I think the answer is no. The vast majority of sources describe this as violence against women, based on evidence such as his manifesto. The rest is really academic; I can't find any sources categorising this as anti-male violence, so that category doesn't warrant inclusion. Secondly, the argument against removing the "violence against women category" — namely "he hated men too" — is a fringe viewpoint of conservative op-eds, and there are much more voices stating that deal with what is effectively a logical fallacy of saying "therefore he wasn't a misogynist". To remove the VAW category on that basis — as has happened several times — is a violation of WP:UNDUE. So is stating that his murder of his flatmates was for any other reason than to turn his apartment into a torture chamber and killing room, as there are no sources to that effect. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While most sources fixate on his anger towards women, there are some that mention he had issues with men as well. That there are more sources focusing on his hatred of women is more a product of the success that women's rights groups and feminist theory has had raising awareness of societal inequality. There are more voices out there who have been educated with that perspective (myself included - I took nearly dozen courses on feminist theory, and women's literature in college). Your hypothesis about why he killed his roommates is interesting, but not really relevant. I'm a little surprised by the pushback on including this category. It's not like we're saying that there was no violence against women - both can coexist.Mattnad (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a hypothesis, it was a well covered aspect of his manifesto; example source. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This has also been discussed as a possible race-based issue that intersected with gender. see [8] - his racist ravings were mostly directed at men of color, not people of color more generally. so it had an intersection of gender + race involved. [9] also covers how he posted specific messages of hate about black and asian men (he considered himself to be "white").--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All which, I hasten to note, still doesn't warrant the VAM category. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support However Obi-Wan please don't mention anything about race being involved, it will take away from the feminists wanting this incident to be solely about women and the female gender. Mattnad they cannot co-exist with feminists, that's not how it works. Feminists thrive on victimhood, that is how they get their power. If males/men can also be victims (in various ways throughout society), then that means feminist women will lose some of their power. If men can also be victims it exposes the feminist lie/propaganda tool of "patriarchy". NotHowItWorks (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• "— NotHowItWorks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@NotHowItWorks:, please consider editing your comment to not group all feminists together. This is an emotionally charged topic, but I think we should focus on our reasons for adding or removing the category without decrying large groups of people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So it's categorized under both violence against women and violence against men? Is there some other gender that he was neutral about? Or is this simply a hate crime by a severely warped individual, driven by jealousy. He even wanted to kill his own brother. That wasn't "gender-driven", any more than were the other mass-shootings in the news the last few years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case. There are other examples of same, but rarely with a spree killer like this. You would never gain consensus to remove this from Category:Violence against women and that category is clearly applicable - the question is was his targeting of the other men based on their gender? I believe so - because he named them as "men" and critiqued their specific sexual access to women, which is a gendered role. He wasn't jealous of rich people, he was jealous of and wanted to kill specifically men ( as well as women, obviously). His brother was a different issue, that one seems more personal to me - so this killing is full of motives of all sorts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have RS that supports this prior to voting?

I haven’t voted because I'm not sure a vote is appropriate yet. If we had reliable sources, even only a few, or even just one, that described this as a gender based attack on men, or referred to Rodger as a misandrist, then a vote would seem appropriate. However, as far as I can see, we have zero reliable sources which describe the Isla Vista attack as a gender based attack on men. Rather, what we have are some editors who have referred to content and quotes in reliable sources, and then come to conclusion that it was misandry/gender based attack on men based on things they pulled out of various articles, while the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. As far as I can tell regarding wikipedia policy, it shouldn't work this way. First we need a reliable source commentator, not a wiki editor, coming to conclusion that Rodger was a misandrist, or that this was gender based attack on men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

re "misandrist", that isn't required - the category is not "Violence inspired by or primarily driven by misandry". The sources are already given above, in any case, illustrating that he hated sexually successful men and targeted them as part of his rampage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, the "violence against men category" is a subcategory of "misandry" and is described as "gender based violence against men and boys." Above, you made it clear that you interpreted things in RS as supporting gender based violence against men with respect to these killings, but as far as I can see, those sources didn't come to that conclusion, you did. We need a reliable source commentator calling it misandry or gender based violence against men. If we can find even one reliable source that does either of these things, I would support a vote, but at present we don't have that. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's plain from how the Violence against Men and Women categories are used that they are not simply intended for any act of violence where the victims were men or women. For the categories to be useful, their scope needs to be observed properly, and that means reliable sources that show that the category is applicable. As of right now including the category is OR. You can't vote to override policy. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We've already discussed the RS above, so I'm not going to repeat them here. It is clear from those sources that Rodgers intended to target males that he hated, his manifesto is full of hatred towards these males, and a number of men were killed or wounded, painting them as bystanders in a purely misogynistic crime is POV and not supported by sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but like I keep saying, I see there are RS quotes above, and I agree that wiki editors here have looked at those quotes and interpreted those quotes to mean either that Rodger was a misandrist, or that this was a gender based attack against men, however, that is the view of the wiki editors only, the reliable sources above do not come to the conclusion that Rodger was a misandrist or that these attacks were gender based violence against men. Unless, I'm missing something. If even one reliable source comes to that conclusion, please link it here and I will withdraw my objection to the voting.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic any hate-motivated violence against someone who has a gender is gendered violence. Sources demonstrate that he hated men who had sexual access to women, but not that he targeted men for being men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, this wouldn't belong in the violence against women category, because he hated mainly women who rejected him. All of his victims were college-age, he didn't shoot at grandmothers or school girls. In both cases, his hatred of a gender was focused on a subset of that gender - attractive women who spurned him, and sexually active men who had access to those same women. Just because there was context to his hatred of men, it remains the fact that he targeted these men because they were men + (their access to these women).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, this wouldn't belong in the violence against women category, because he hated mainly women who rejected him. This is incorrect, and not supported by the sources. The killer's misogyny is well sourced and well supported. The claim that he hated men, or wanted to kill men, specifically for being men is not similarly sourced. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See the sources above, which demonstrate otherwise. I don't think he hated "all" men, any more than he hated "all" women, but he certainly did hate certain subsets of men and targeted them for death.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not relevant what you or I think: what's relevant is what the sources say, and having sources that say that he hated some men for specific reasons is very different from sources saying that he hated men for being men. Hating particular members of a group is not the same thing as hating the group itself. We have sources for this being violence motivated by misogyny, but not for it being gendered violence against men. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, from the CNN source, "The incident made him realize he "was capable of killing them," he wrote. "I wanted to kill them slowly, to strip the skins off their flesh. They deserve it. The males deserve it for taking the females away from me, and the females deserve it for choosing those males instead of me." [10]. He didn't divide the world into "female" and "everyone else who I might randomly kill otherwise on my way to kill females" - instead he had specific targets of men he hated. When he got out of the car and walked into the deli to shoot one man there, he knew he was shooting a man. We have sources above that note that he targeted men he was jealous of, and planned to kill them, and he succeeded in killing or wounding several. He hated a lot of people, but it's not true to state that he only hated "particular" men - he hated broad subsets of men - e.g. basically any college-age man who had sex, which is a lot...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But it's still a logical leap to go from 'he hated men who had sex' to calling this gendered violence against men. The sourcing for the violence against women category is much stronger and does not require that type of logical leap. Calling this gendered violence against men when the targets were men who had sexual access to women is original research, because we have to interpret what sources are saying rather than simply report what they're saying, as we can for the violence against women category. -- TaraInDC (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've successfully avoided this debate, but I'll offer some observations. (1) There is disagreement about the meaning and intent of the categories; (2) Each side has made its position clear and is understood by the other side; (3) Neither side is changing its mind or giving up. We might as well be debating religion or party politics. It seems to me it's time to give up on the debate and seek a determination by an outside group, but I don't know what mechanisms exist for that. Dispute resolution? Mandruss (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It could probably go on like this forever. Since this has been called OR, I brought issue to WP:Original research noticeboard. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with listing this in the category Violence against men. The motivation for the killings wasn't hatred of men (in general), it was jealousy of sexually active men (and extreme anger and frustration towards women), so I don't see a reason to consider it a true gender-based crime. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that also a requirement for Category:Violence against women? e.g., in order for an event to be listed in Category:Violence against women, the perpetrator must have stated and be acting based on a hatred of all women? That's not how the category was used traditionally. Rather, it has been used for instances where people were targeted for violence, IN PART, based on their gender (many other reasons come into violence, such as religious hatred, ethnic hatred, political reasons, jealousy, etc) - do you really think your average garden variety rapist hates "ALL WOMEN" and that his rape of a single woman is an express of hatred of "all women"?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For the category "violence against women", it appears the reliable sources either need to call the perpetrator a misogynist or alternately, reliable source commentators need to come to the conclusion that it was gender based violence against women. We have neither of these with the Isla Vista killings. However, I would not be at all surprised if there are articles in the category "violence against women" that are miscategorized, but that's not a good argument to also miscategorize here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the problem, and maybe this is best solved by having a broader discussion about inclusion criteria for both of these categories. However, it is a complete red herring to say "the killer didn't hate all males, he only hated some of them" - that is not the inclusion criteria, the gendered nature of the relationships these males had with women that he desired sexually was the driver of his hatred and the reason for his targeting of them, he made this quite clear and reliable sources make this quite clear.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys." Based on one reading, which is the one being done here, the violence, which was directed by the killers anger against the gender "women" and the sub-category of gender "men who get to have sex with women," which also involved stabbing and shooting men, it is valid for inclusion - because the category in question was created as a violation of WP:POINT to push a POV. The violence was gender based (against women) and some men or boys. However, I ignore that rule, and remove the category. "men who get to have sex with women" is not a gender. Hipocrite (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion since this debate/conversation has gone on and on and there still seems to be two very differing opinions on what to do. As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) who hated just about everyone if you read his writings. How about we remove both categories, since in some way having them there almost legitimizes Rodger as a sane person. I always felt that neither category was appropriate, and almost sort of silly seeing as how crazy and out-of-touch with reality the guy was. NotHowItWorks (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you points for suggesting a solomonic decision. This may be the way to go, although I don't see how having both makes him appear sane. It's not as if his hatred of both men and women somehow cancels each other out. Still, my mind boggles at the double standard - Rodger hated those women he desired (a subset of women) which prompted violence against some women, but somehow his hatred towards men who had relationships with these same women (a subset of men) did not prompt violence against some men. I can readily accept the duality. I have to questions the logic (and motivations) of those who cannot. Still, if we cannot have one cat, then it would follow we cannot have the other.Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I see it this person Elliot Rodger was a deranged lunatic (most likely suffering from a mental disorder and almost certainly suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder) But it's not about how any of us sees it, it's about how secondary sources see it. That's pretty much Wikipedia Principle Number One. You, presumably not a mental health professional, just based a large part of your argument on your own amateur diagnosis (almost certainly - really?), ignoring the fact that it is well established that Rodger was never formally diagnosed with anything, let alone Narcissistic Personality Disorder!. We simply can't do that. By the way, a mental health professional would never offer a diagnosis without having examined the subject, or if he did he would be putting his career at risk. Mandruss (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss and am concerned that so many still don't seem to understand how it works on wikipedia (or is suppose to work). We don't go by what we, as wiki editors, think is reasonable or fair. We go by the reliable sources. RS have been very clear in calling Rodger a misogynist and this gender based violence against women, so removing violence against women cateogry would be violation of due weight. Zero RS (that anyone has been able to produce) have called Rodger a misandrist or come to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men. All we have are wiki editors cherry picking quotes out of RS and saying those quotes mean to them that it was gender based violence against men, when the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If we were going by reliable sources, then we'd include the VAM category. The tortured logic used to dismiss it is not WP:RS in the least. You can't have it both ways.Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If there was even one reliable source that calls Rodger a misandrist, or one reliable source commentator that comes to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men, the voting would make sense, and keeping category in article while we debate would seem OK too, but currently we have zero such sources. All we currently have is wiki editors cherrypicking quotes out of various articles and saying those quotes mean to them that this is gender based violence against men, while the sources themselves did not come to that conclusion. If someone has managed to find a reliable source that calls Rodger a misandrist or a reliable source that comes to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men, please link it here, as that would significantly change the course of the debate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement in the category that he had to be a misandrist. That's your invention. The category only requires that "men" were targeted because they were men. There's no cherry picking when multiple reliable sources say he "hated men" and there's no dispute he killed several and injured others. It's at this point when the tortured logic, and arbitrary criteria starts to come in that he had to hate ALL men. I'll add that there is no similar requirement for the Violence against women category. So in it you find it attached to articles relating to war such Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be very clear about what's going on here since it's the "elephant in the room", so to speak. The reason there are no RS showing Rodger was a misandrist is because the media and news organizations are going to follow the standard line of thinking, which is that any violent event where women were targeted must mean this was simply a woman-hating misogynist attack. They can't accept any complexity when it comes to gender issues (very politically correct) and can't accept the fact that maybe this lunatic Rodger also hated men. NotHowItWorks (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"There aren't any sources because they're concealing the truth!". Sorry, this ain't conspiracypedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy. That's just the way it is in terms of mainstream media and journalists. And I'm completely sure that Sceptre is neutral and unbiased, she only identifies as a queer, lesbian, trans, feminist activist... NotHowItWorks (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Not, that's uncalled for. We have all types here, and everyone is entitled to participate and everyone is expected to edit according to NPOV no matter how they identify. You may say "Sceptre's edit here appeared to violate NPOV because x, y, z" but picking on sceptre b/c of how they've revealed themselves on their homepage isn't fair, I suggest you strike. Thanks,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Being a new editor, Not, you may not know what Mr. Kenobi means by "strike". It means retracting a prior statement in a discussion. It's considered better form to draw a line through it rather than delete it outright. To do that, you put <s> and </s> around the text you want to strike. Also you might want to read some of WP:AGF. One good way to make Wikipedia fail is to start questioning the motives and objectivity of editors who disagree with us. Mandruss (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. However, to be fair, I've been accused of POV pushing and misogyny more times than I can count since the whole category tree of Category:Violence against men was put up to be deleted, and I've dished out my own accusations of POV from time to time. It happens. However, I do think it is going a step further to accuse someone of POV because of their gender, sexuality, or what not, as opposed to "You're pushing a feminist POV b/c you're an avowed radfem" - we all know that sort of POV pushing happens, but while one can choose their political views, one can't really chose one's gender or sexuality. I guess my point is, you will definitely see and be subject to accusations of POV pushing, and occasionally you may suggest that an editor is pushing a POV - just don't try to tie that POV to their stated or assumed gender or sexuality, that in my mind takes it a bit too far, and makes it a touch too personal. Does that make sense? Of course, it's better to never accuse someone of pushing a POV, but we aren't all saints...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that explicitly state Rodger hated men and committed very violent acts against them. What's at work here is that a few editors have created an artificial threshold (with no similar equivalent in the VAW category) that it must be called "misandry" if we want consider the violence as an act against men and include the category. They are so motivated that they'd rather eliminate the VAM category completely than have any mention that Rodger hated men and women. RS samples below:Mattnad (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women.,
• "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women",
• ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma.

Sceptre, there is a consensus for inclusion of the category, and claiming that 'there are no sources' when there are at least 20 is misleading at best. Tutelary (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Given the amount of controversy regarding considering these killings a gendered act of violence against men combined with the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Categorisation#Articles, it's more or less clear that these killings don't belong in catVAM even if some sources consider them such. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy does not merely exclude a category from being added. Additionally, what counts as consensus for one article may not count as consensus for another. See the discussion at the very top of the page, where multiple editors !voted to include the category per the sources that Obi garnered. That was the consensus that the editor who reverted was talking about. Additionally, I'd like to hear specific qualms about this category which you're talking about. It's clear from the sources that this was a gendered attack against the men who he was envious about, and a gendered attack against women who would not sleep with them. It easily fits into both categories; violence against men in north america and violence against women. Tutelary (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources that some sources considered it to be gendered violence against men. It's also clear from taking a quick look at reliable sources about the incident that there are more than a few sources that don't consider the shootings to have represented a gendered act of violence against men. And WP:Categorisation makes it pretty clear that in the event that sources disagree about whether or not a cat applies, the cat shouldn't be put in the article. Although WP:Categorisation is only a guideline rather than policy, I don't see a strong enough consensus on this page to overrule it. (Despite my barb against Cla in my editsum, I hadn't noted the existing talk page discussion before changing the cat, as I had just been going through a tree of related cats, or I would've participated in it before making a change.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources do not disagree in that regard. The sources presented equivocate it as violence against men. I'm not going to outline each and every source, as Obi did rather great in that regard, and I invite you to see it at the top of the page. There was a !vote and the consensus to include the category. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The attack brought out a lot of politicized commentary including voices who see things through the lens of gender politics. Feminism has had a longer lead time shaping the perspective of people so there are more voices who see this only from a woman's perspective. That however doesn't mean the other sources that take a middle ground (i.e., he hated men too and murdered them) are incorrect. Rodger's attack was unusual in that he was so vocal about his hatred of men and women and acted on that hatred. In most cases, gendered violence is one or the other. In this instance, it was both. NPOV allows us to include a minority viewpoint if there are sufficient reliable sources supporting it. There are.Mattnad (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post (ignoring the first couple sentences) would be perfectly correct if it were talking about article content, rather than categorisation. You are correct that it is perfectly appropriate (and in fact necessary) to talk about the fact that a good number of sources suggested Rodgers hated men and that his attacks were a form of gendered violence against men for it to be worth including in the prose of the article. We have different standards regarding appropriate categorisation than we do regarding article prose given the differences between article prose and categorisation, and catting this as VAM fails at least two of the three normal article categorisation guidelines (that are in the link I provided above.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a fringe view that this counts as violence against men, and it's telling that the only sources being offered talk about this not being violence against men for its own sake, but violence against men as proxy violence against women: he killed his roommates so he could kill women in his apartment. He hated men who had sexual access to women. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a fringe view point and trying to claim it as such is offensive in its own right; trying to dismiss it as if it's talking about Creationism or Reflexology. Additionally, you're admitting it yourself that it's violence against men. He hated men who had sexual access to women. Even if that were to be true, that is still violence against men. I'm honestly not seeing the controversy in including this category. Additionally, your two person consensus cannot override the wider consensus between (I think) at least 8 editors at the top of the section. See WP:CONLIMITED. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"He hated men who had sexual access to women." Looks like we're all in agreement here that he hated men. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And we know that men who have sex with women is also a fringe group :). More seriously, his reasons for hating men don't really matter if Septre was trying to suggested his hatred of! and murder of men was only about his hatred of women (which is quite a remarkable statement to make). Ergo, while the violence against women category is fine, we cannot include violence against men, because he really didn't hate or murder men.Mattnad (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please review the sources and the arguments at the top of the article, where multiple reliable sources have described his hatred of men--even if that hatred was based on hatred of women, it was still hatred against men. The category is for gender based violence, in which this was, and I feel like a broken record here; you people are not looking at the sources which were presented. The sources stated explicitly that he hated men, and editors are trying to say that they didn't. What sources am I looking at that you're not. Please explain to me your POV and what sources you are looking at. I am looking at the ones on the top of the page.

There seems to be confusion regarding the category "violence against men". When warring armies of men hate and then kill each other, that is not “violence against men”, as the category is defined. As I understand it, the category is supposed to reflect gender based violence against men, similar to the “violence against women” category, so being placed in that category would mean the men were targeted and killed because the killer thought there was something “wrong” or “inferior” about the male gender, similar to a hate crime. Clearly Rodger was jealous of men who got to have sex with women, but jealousy doesn’t typically qualify as a hate crime. Tbe category “violence against men” really doesn’t seem to fit here and is not supported by any reliable sources I've seen. I haven't seen any reliable sources describe this as a hate crime against men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC).

I very much invite you to view the category's scope in itself, as it does very much fit here as the reliable sources have mentioned that he hated men and that he killed them. Even if the notion of 'he only hated men due to the fact that he hated women', that is STILL violence against men. The cat deserves to stay. Tutelary (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Only, the sources at the top of the page as outlined by Obi explicitly mention his hatred of men. Also, what reliable sources are you looking at that I'm not? Tutelary (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said above , hating those you are jealous of isn't typically described as a "hate crime". Being jealous doesn't mean you view that group as wrong or inferior. Jealousy isn't a "hate crime", which seems to be causing confusion because jealousy can lead to hate (and did with here). "Hate crime" is about a specific kind of hate where you find the hated group "wrong" or "inferior". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation of what qualifies for inclusion. So now it's not enough that he heated men. But he had to hate men for a reason that he felt they were inferior or wrong. Well, even with your ever changing rules for inclusion, Rodger qualifies. His writings were full of complaints about how these other men were inferior to him. Per a Psychology Today article "Rodger was not just self-centered, but he developed delusions of grandeur: “Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger… Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent… Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god.” In imagining his attack, he believed, “everyone will fear me as the powerful god I am.”[11].Mattnad (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't my personal interpretation. The wikipedia article for Violence against women refers to it as a hate crime. For the violence against women category, It's not enough for the act to be violent and the victim to be female, it has to be gender based violence against women similar to a hate crime. We should treat the violence against men category the same way. I agree we have wiki editors cherry picking quotes with word "hate" in it from reliable sources, and saying those quotes mean to them this was gender based violence against men or a hate crime against men, but I've yet to see any reliable source that itself came to the conclusion that this was gender based violence against men or a hate crime against men. This is a serious problem.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Bobo I wonder what reliable sources that you are looking at that I'm not. Look at the top of the page where Obi laid out the reliable sources and what they stated. Do you want me to bring his comment down here in the form of collapsed comment due to me constantly bringing it up. The sources do demonstrate the gender based violence against men, which is all that category requires to list. Additionally, this had been discussed and there was a consensus to include the category, not to exclude it. All of a sudden, WP:BRD has been taken to WP:BOLD, no revert due to 'no consensus', but there IS consensus to include the category, and that bit of it is true, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick of having to defend this category. Additionally, the cat's scope does not include the notion of a 'hate crime' nor does it require to, and that is your own additional caveat which has not been reflected in the cat's scope. Tutelary (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're basing your judgment that it must be hate crime, using the Violence against women article as justification, here's what the lede of the article says (emphasis mine), "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered."

Yes some violence against women is a hate crime, but not always, and there's no requirement that it must be similar to hate crime to be considered for VAW. I've noted many articles that are tagged with VAW, but there's no mention of either a gender bias, or hate crime. For instance the first four articles in the US VAW category make no mention of gendered specific targeting or hatred: Amish school shooting, Bear Brook murders, Beth_Doe#Beth_Doe, Charlie Brandt.

But in the end, I don't expect you to change your mind. I'm just making these points for other editors who are not deadset on finding any (and in your case, various and mutable) reason for excluding the Violence Against Men cat.Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"I've noted many articles that are tagged with VAW, but there's no mention of either a gender bias, or hate crime. For instance the first four articles in the US VAW category make no mention of gendered specific targeting or hatred: Amish school shooting, Bear Brook murders, Beth_Doe#Beth_Doe, Charlie Brandt".

Gotta love the hypocrisy of feminists; I just read all four articles and there is no mention that these acts are gendered violence that specifically target females, yet they are in the VAW cat. Rodger specifically targeted males and mentions why in his manifesto, but somehow that's not violence against men. There are also probably at least a few more articles besides just those four that don't belong in the VAW in U.S. category. NotHowItWorks (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't tar all feminists with that brush. We have a few editors who have point of view that's inflexible, but overall feminist thinking allows for, and is starting to address broader gender violence.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mattnad I wouldn't say that all feminists are inflexible ideologues, however most unfortunately are. NotHowItWorks (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel some pages in the VAW category are miscategorised, then remove them, but that has no bearing on this article. The point is, "violence against women" actually has an accepted scholarly definition. I've seen no indication that the spear equivalent has been shown. The only justification is how you're reading the sentence "he hated men who had sexual access to women", which makes me think: are the Westboro Baptist Church's actions not homophobic when they talk about "fag lovers" (i.e. straight allies of LGBT people)? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This issue has come up again out of the blue. Since participating in endless revisions is a pointless waste of time and nobody else brought it here for discussion, I brought the issue here myself.

I don't understand why this should be in the VAW category and not be in the VAM category. The article summary states that Rodger had "a desire to punish sexually active men" and "a desire to punish women for rejecting him". The core issue for him was his relational impotence and jealousy; his hatred of women and men was a byproduct. This wasn't a killing spree where the perpetrator hated women for being women and only killed women - it was a killing spree where he expressed his hatred for both men and women and killed both men and women. If we're going to have this article in a category, it should be either both or neither of them.

I also don't understand how having the article in the VAM category is an NPOV issue as Sceptre alleges or how I'm being absurd by abiding by the majority opinion from the previous discussion on this issue and maintaining the two-month status quo. Rhydic (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"violence against men" is like White History Month; a protest meme creation by the opposition isn't actually a thing, much less a commonality to categorize by. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No comparison, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please do take a gander at the top of the talk page where it was argued ad nauseam for its inclusion, and it was backed up with sources as well demonstrating his hatred of men. I'm not sure exactly where the conflict is, maybe you can elaborate. All in all, why are you also showing up at this article when it's been in here for 2 months with no conflict at all? Tutelary (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I arrived here after seeing Sceptre comment at Arbcom, hadn't seen this editor around for awhile so I checked contrib history, which led here. As for past discussions, not interested in the slightest; I'm well-aware how article owners camp out a preferred subject, which is why I hope fresh eyes will have a better take on the matter. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor who has an article on their watchlist an 'owner' is rather inflammatory Tarc, and I invite you to cease that. I'd also like to ask in addition to saying that is that are you willing to change your mind on the matter? And if so, what would persuade you? Tutelary (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your invitation is declined, and "how will you change your mind?" is a rather condescending approach to take, as it presupposes that you are right and that I just need to "come around". This was a straight-up act of violence against women that you are that you are trying to dilute by claiming with nothing but your own original research that because some males were also killed, that "violence against men" is a thing. Again, White History Month; not a thing. White history is pretty much the entirety of humanity's recording of history, that's why we carved out Black History Month to spend a little time addressing some forgotten aspects of it. Much of the history of violence, from warfare on down to bar fights consists of male violence, not because they're men specifically targeting the other for being a man, just becuase of who they are. "Violence against women" is a specific and targeted attack against a woman for no other reason than her sex. Like night and day. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because editors seem to be extremely hard of thinking these days, let me say this clear: There are no sources that call Rodger's actions "violence against men". Additionally, "violence against women" has a very strict definition, one from years of legal and political work. For the converse of "violence against men" to be accepted, it too must adhere to a similar strict definition, which does not seem to either been given or adhered to in this case. Basically, this is the argument that is being put forward to justify inclusion of the category:

• Rodger hated a subset of men.
• Some men died.
• Therefore, Rodger's actions were violence against men.

This is a clear violation of our policies against synthesis to create original research: "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No matter how hard you try, local consensus cannot override NOR. However, there are plenty of sources that explicitly call Rodger's actions violence against women, which have been previously provided. Have you noticed there is a subsection called "misogyny" but not one called "misandry" in this article?

Furthermore, with those sources, and the existence of sources that completely debunk this notion that it was "violence against men" (again, previously provided), not only is terming it violence against men original research, it is also promoting a fringe theory with undue weight in violation of our neutral POV policy. Again, local consensus cannot override NPOV. Because of these facts, I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's arse what the Holy Forum of Dunning-Kruger this talk page is. NPOV is non-negotiable. NOR is non-negotiable. And I intend to enforce them. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, isn't "some men died" a bit off because he killed 4 men and 2 women - the majority were men? To be honest, I would remove both violence against men and violence against women categories, or alternatively keep both because technically they are valid just not that relevant IMO. Sure, misogyny was discussed a lot after this incident in the American media, but I haven't seen a source that stated that he killed these people just because they were female for no other reason than her sex (remember this article is about killing 6 people, not just about the 2 female). Please point out if there is such a source, I could be wrong. But the conclusion would be rather odd in my opinion because he ended up killing 4 men and 2 women. --Pudeo' 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Roger's rationale for his actions was "retribution" against women. He explained multiple times in his manifesto that "College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure, but in those years I've had to rot in loneliness, it's not fair ... I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me but I will punish you all for it." The women in the sorority house wouldn't open the door, so he targeted people on the street at random. It's unclear why he murdered his roommates, there was lots of speculation in the media, but none of the suspected reasons was that he killed them because they were male. Some sources claimed that there were tensions between the roommates because one of the victims objected to Roger's listening to loud music in the middle of the night. There are innumerable reliable sources stating that the killings were violence against women, because according to his manifesto Rodger was out to get women but couldn't get into the sorority house. By contrast, there are no or very few reliable sources claiming that it was violence against men. It's WP:Fringe right there for you. By your logic ("the majority were men") we would need to categorize all or most armed conflicts and wars, e.g. the World War II, as violence against men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Pudeo doesn't cite a single source. Whereas, well, I'm Feeling Lucky. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that indicate his violence was equal opportunity. One reason we don't have sources that specifically say it was "violence against men" is that early on those sources were excised by editors who argued that those were fringe (read MRM) sources and therefore not permitted. In the misogyny section (which I started) we do permit opinion pieces from people who do have POV that his hatred of men was really hatred of women, but no counter balancing POV even though that exists from what would qualify as reliable sources (still opinion pieces mind you). The question for me is whether there has been coverage of his hatred of men (yes), the violence against men (yes). It's not that complicated really. A reasonable person can accept that he hated both men and women, and acted out on it. I would wonder why there's so much resistance to having a category which really is there to cross reference. Not much more than that.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason the article doesn't have sources that specifically say it was violence against men is because there are no or very few sources that say that it was. Rodger specified in his manifesto that he wanted to "punish" women. The vast majority of RS view the killings as violence against women and as misogynistic. For every source that says that the massacre is VAM I can find ten to twenty sources saying that this was VAW. That's usually a solid indicator of WP:Fringe. For example, we don't add Category:Kenyan people to Barack Obama or Category:Controlled demolitions in the United States to September 11 attacks. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but you can find sources that say this included violence against men. As for your Obama example, that he's not Kenyan is a matter of fact. Whereas whether or not the Isla Vista killings was violence against men (in the narrow sense I think you're using) is a matter of opinion. And those opinions exist. If we move away from a narrow approach to what constitutes VAM (which by the way is not required of the VAW category) then it's hard to argue that he did not commit acts of violence against men, or espouse a hatred for men in his writings as documented in reliable sources such as Psychology Today.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You can find sources claiming that the US government is behind the September 11 attacks and that vaccines cause autism. But those sources make up only a very small percentage of the reliable sources dealing with those subjects. Similarly, the view that the Isla Vista killings were about violence against men, e.g., that Rodger targeted men because of their biological sex, is held by a tiny minority. Ergo WP:Fringe. There are probably no more than ten reliable sources containing a sentence that could be interpreted as saying that the killings had something to do with violence against men. Compared to hundreds of sources that view the killings as an example of violence against women. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment "that Rodger targeted men because of their biological sex" is where reasonable people can differ on the requirement for VAM. He targeted men, but you've made it a very narrow interpretation which frankly I don't see how it differs greatly from his own utterances. Somehow his documented hatred of men is not enough? You call some views fringe because they are not widely discussed but neither is domestic violence against men (which happens but is not covered at all to the degree as when it happens to women). And I come back to a simple point, why are you so concerned that we have this cat here?Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A concern for NPOV adherence is enough. The fact that the category is frankly embarrassing for the encyclopaedia is more. And again, you're engaging in original research. Come back with sources, actual sources, that said that Rodger targeted the men because they were men, and we'll talk. Although you won't find any, because sources have already said why he killed his roommates: not for their gender, but to set up a kill room à la Dexter.. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The category that keeps on giving

• Please hammer this out... again. I've protected the page owing the wide-scale (I count six or seven editors) edit warring it has again caused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to me that the above discussion already established consensus to include, but I will say that I think the very existence of the debate in reliable sources merits the category's inclusion. This has clearly sparked a discussion over whether an act of violence that primarily targets men can at the same time be described as a problem of violence against women to the exclusion of considerations about violence against men. In this manner "violence against men" is a defining characteristic of the event.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override WP:VERIFY. If when the lock is lifted there are still no RS where the reliable source commentator, as opposed to just the wiki editors, come to the conclusion that this was a gender based attack on men, or that Rodgers was a misandrist, the category needs to be removed so this article can be in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Also, please list sources where the possibility that this was a gender based attack on men or that Rodger's was a misandrist was even debated. I don't recall any such sources outside of men's rights blogs which do not seem to meet criteria for reliable source. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The category is not "acts of misandry" or "gender-based attacks on men", but "violence against men" so it comes down to whether reliable sources devote any significant discussion to this event with regards to violence against men. Seems to me that reliable sources do just that, even if many only criticize the idea as an excuse to avoid discussing it as a case of violence against women. It still figures into the discussion of violence against men and thus belongs in the category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the development of this article, and witnessed this debate at the time, but I'm an outside observer now. I'll offer one outside observation. I can't recall the last time I saw a new argument in this debate. It's the same ones over and over. Rinse, repeat. Can anyone see that this is not going to be "hammered out", to quote Crisco, in this forum? This needs to be decided elsewhere, and the losers need to accept the result and move on to the next life-and-death controversy. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• At this point I'd probably recommend a (binding) RFC. Edit warring over this category has led to the page being protected... what, 3 times now? And how many ANI threads? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend the RFC focus on how to use the categories of Violence Against Men, and Violence Against Women, and propose that the treatment be uniform for both. The arguments that we must have a reliable sources stating it was gendered violence against men for inclusion in that category is not required in the least for Violence Against Women. I've reviewed a random sample 20 articles tagged with the VAW category and the vast majority have no reliable source stating it was a "gendered based" attack . Those who are comfortable with that status-quo make no effort at all to clean up the VAM category using the same WP:Verify requirement. IMHO those advocating exclusion of the VAM also conflate misogyny with VAW even though they can be distinct, depending on the situation. So they demand that VAM must also be an instance of misandry - a word so rarely used that my browser's spell checker thinks it's a mistake.Mattnad (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With this specific case, their are plenty of sources which describe it as a gender based attack against women and describe Rodger as misogynist. VAW category supported by RS here. While it is off-topic, and shouldn't affect this article or this debate, I'm vaguely curious where and when you think VAW is being misused. If it is being similarly misused, that seems like a problem that needs to be addresses. For example, the World Trade center attack shouldn't (and isn't) categorized as VAW, even tho lots of women died there)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the RFC should only apply to this article, since this debate centers on how and when to use a category. You have yourself participated in discussions about that very thing. But since you asked, we can apply your requirement that a reliable source has to state that violence was "gendered" or misogyny to the Violence against women in the United States category, going down the pages sub list, A to F:

• Arroyo Grande Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Bear Brook murders no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Beth Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Bitter Creek Betty no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Charlie Brandt no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Buckskin Girl no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Caledonia Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Campbell County Jane Does no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Christy Crystal Creek no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Clark County Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Death of Jennifer Ann Crecente while an example of domestic violence, not a single source characterizes it was gendered violence, misogyny, or another of the explicit requirements you've requested relating to VAM. Personally I think it does qualify as VAW, but would not make it over the bar you've set.
• Kendall Francois while an example of a serial killer that murdered women, I could not find in article sources stating it was a "gendered attack" on women, misogyny etc. It's obvious to me that this was gendered violence, but we have no source that explicitly says that, so according to your criteria, it's original research. Using your criteria, it's not enough that he targeted women, we need a source that says he did that because they were women.

Of the 16 pages in the A to F alpha list, 12 do not meet your criteria for inclusion in the category.Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Again, there is one, and only one, way that this category will stay: with reliable sources that term it as violence against men, to the numerical level of sources that term it as violence against women . Anything else is original research or POV pushing, no way around it. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Written like a true consensus builder. There's a difference between your dictates (seeped in quasi academic language), and what's reasonable for encyclopedia. This is not about justification because other stuff exists. This is justification because that's how it's handled in wikipedia. Only recently have some argued for a different approach. I've documented the norm for how this category is used, not the exception.Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That "quasi-academic language" is known by normal people as "Wikipedia policy". You cannot build a consensus to ignore Wikipedia policy. And I will continue to remove the category if it is in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Wikipedia policy per WP:RS is not applied to category use generally. A category is a cross referencing tool, not article content. You've invented rule out of whole cloth. The only requirement for a category is that it must be verifiable. Well, it's verifiable that there was violence against men. It's verifiable that Rodger "hated men" (per numerous mainstream sources including Psychology Today) and expressed plans to kill them. As to the "why" which you've centered on, that's really more for the articles on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories have never been exempt from Wikipedia policies. You can find sources that, say, call the Labour Party conservative (especially under Blair/Brown), but we don't put them in that category because it would be an NPOV violation. You can't even find sources that this was specifically "violence against men". Sceptre ^(talk) 22:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that categories do not require a reliable source. They just need to be verifiable. You've proposed that a source say it was specifically "violence against men". That's your view, but it's a very narrow view that if the same were applied to articles where "violence against women" is used, many, if not most would fail that test. In my view, your tying to politicize a category, using the concepts of gender studies. We may decide to go that way in an RFC, but that remains to be seen. However, since you've so strongly voiced this view, care to start scrubbing the use of Violence Against Women using the same criteria? That would demonstrate that you believe what you write.Mattnad (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not incumbent on me to do extra work to make sure this article comports with policy. I'm going to say this very clearly: bring actual sources or the category goes. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's let the community come to a consensus on that. We know where you stand.Mattnad (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, because the community does not have that competency without vastly changing how the encyclopaedia works. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess Crisco 1492 is incompetent for suggesting a community consensus and supporting an RFC. Rhydic (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONSENSUS, we're kinda bound to try and find one - no matter how it turns out. If nobody except Matt is interested in drafting an RFC, then I may have to ask him to help me draft one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that an RFC is necessary as there doesn't seem to be any activity here (which is apparently an excuse to ignore consensus). It doesn't look like you're going to readily find anyone else here to help you with the RFC, though. Rhydic (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is work being done on it. There's a draft and we've asked uninvolved administrators to weigh in on it.Mattnad (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you posted the first draft about 3 hours after I replied. Looks great so far. Thanks. Rhydic (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCat, Mattnad: if you both believe it better to have an RFC on the categories themselves in general, I'm all for it. Does anybody feel up to drafting it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm up for it, but I'd like to see we BoboMeowCat and I can work together on it. Bobo, if you're up for that, we can create a sandbox off of your or my user page and collaborate on it.Mattnad (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad,Rhydic, Crisco 1492, Drmies I actually think the RFC should be short and sweet. No commentary to sway anyone one way or the other, but we can link to this talk page for past discussion and debate on the issue. I think we should just word the RFC as follows:

"Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be in the category Violence against men [12]?" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Except the RFC is trying to decide more than that: when should it be applied? In all applications, not just the one article (although the controversy here showed the need for the RFC) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I really think that is beyond the scope of this RFC. The issue here is should the article 2014 Isla Vista Killings be in the category Violence against men or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, as I did months ago. I think the phrase I used was "cart before horse". I think it's always better to attend to the bigger picture and the long term; that might be more difficult, I don't know, but the cost:benefit is lower. As far as I can tell, this debate started on May 26. If the categories had been better defined from the beginning, it likely would have ended on or about May 28. Imagine what you could have been doing instead, between May 28 and October 1. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This argument has cropped up elsewhere. Why limit it to this article? In a broader context it provides guidance for the long run.Mattnad (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I understand the desire to keep this local. The larger debate could easily be a POV train wreck. I guess I'm just not cynical enough, yet, to assume that would be the case. It would certainly need strong moderation. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• A draft is already on my talk page, if anyone wants to look. As I've stated above, it's meant to answer the wider question (it's also hopefully going to be enough to avoid forcing further RFCs on similar topics). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, Drmies, Answering a wider question does not seem appropriate for this RFC. Although, we can use people's reasoning for voting one way or the other to think about larger questions, but at this point, we cannot assume the larger issues can be summarized by the rather limited input of the two opposing sides debating this issue for this article, so should not attempt to get voters to choose between those arguments. The RFC should really just be simple and not attempt to sway readers with either sides arguments. It should simply state: "Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be in the category Violence against men [13]?" --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I'm having trouble understanding your second sentence. The larger RfC would be comprised mostly of people who know nothing about this article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's actually the Violence against Men in North America category. Arkon (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not debating if the 2014 Isla Vista killings occurred in North America or not. We should keep it simple for the RFC readers, If they agree this is an instance that falls under the larger classification of "Violence against men", I think we can all agree where these crimes occurred for proper sub-categorization. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want the RFC to be focused on this article and what is included on it, you need to actually use the category that editors are attempting to add. Otherwise the larger focus RFC that Crisco and others are working on makes much more sense to me. Arkon (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The long multi-month debate has been whether or not this constitutes "Violence against men", not whether or not this occurred in North America. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The category that is being added is Violence against Men in North America. What is so hard to understand? Arkon (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it's unneeded, but I suppose we could word it: "Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be in the category "Violence Against Men in North America", which is a subcategory of "Violence against men" [14]?" The link to the main page is needed because that is the page that defines the main and sub categories --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason we need to take this up to a higher level is that the core arguments against inclusion apply to other articles as well. I think at its core is the expectation that any "violence against" category has to conform to "gendered violence" and have a RS stating that. The problem as I see is two-fold. 1) Some obvious articles where women are victims of violence, even gendered violence, do not have a reliable source that covers it that way, and 2) "gendered violence" is an academic view that typically excludes the possibility that men can be victims since gendered violence is by definition perpetrated by men against women. To illustrate the point, |here's a sample definition. Would you argue that prison rape should not qualify for a VAM given there's no WP:RS that calls it "gendered violence"? My view is that an RFC needs to consider whether or not we should adhere to this very academic definition. We might. But to constrain the RFC to this particular page misses the broader question.Mattnad (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The violence agains women category is not the issue here (or at least it shouldn't be) but I do notice the list of low traffic articles above that reportedly have no source that supports gendered violence for inclusion in the VAW category. If you check the refs and confirm this to be the case, simply remove the category VAW from those articles. The 2014 Isla Vista Killings is a high traffic article, and it's important we get this article right, without drifting into activism regarding the violence categories, which unfortunately seems to be occurring. We need to avoid WP:ADVOCACY. RFC should simply ask: ""Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be in the category Violence against men [15]?"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're assigning your interpretation to categories whose definitions leave too much room for interpretation, as are all the others in this discussion. Feeling strongly that those definitions should be established first is not (necessarily) activism or advocacy. How do I know that? Because I feel strongly about that and I haven't an opinion on the rest of it one way or the other. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobomeowcat, I think that advocacy is coming more from the perspective that "violence against" must conform to a narrow definition. As I've volunteered, other editors may indeed agree with you, but to me that defies common understanding of the terms, and the utility of the categories to help cross reference articles. I note that you didn't answer whether or not Prison Rape is violence against men, even if there's no RS that uses your preferred terms. I use this example since it lays bare the problematic nature (to me anyway) of your view on this. So, is Prison Rape violence against men in your view whether or not there's a RS?Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(pinging users involved in debate-Mattnad,Rhydic, Crisco 1492, Drmies,Tarc,Sonicyouth86,Sceptre)

This is getting confusing. Bringing prison rape into it, which has nothing to do with the 2014 Isla Vista killings, only further illustrates wp:advocacy concern for the Violence against men category may be coming into play. (FYI-personally, I think many articles about cases of prison rape would likely meet criteria to be placed in VAM category, but I think we should focus on the 2014 Isla Vista killings article). Honestly, I think the opposition to a simple question format for the RFC also illustrates advocacy because it appears to shows desire to sway readers toward preferred position, which we probably all would like to do, but that's not the point of an RFC. It seems best to just clearly state the question. Simple and clear is better such as: "Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be in the category Violence against men [16]?"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Except the question has been asked again and again here. No consensus has held. This speaks to a more general issue with the category and perhaps even how we deal with violence targeted at persons of a certain gender in general, one which we need to work out, rather than making 40 or 50 individual consensus which are often at odds with each other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That simple and clear question is, I think, where this discussion began on May 26. Why would that RfC be any different from this discussion? (Btw, I'll assume your omitting me from the pings was a good-faith oversight.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Mandruss omitting you was accidental. The difference is there would be more eyes on it and hopefully a clear consensus one way or the other instead of hopeless stalemate. However, if the issue is really a desire to change or clarify the VAM category, perhaps an RFC to change the VAM page would be more appropriate. [17]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer a broader, less involved audience for this particularly because some very relevant views have been brought up that have ramifications beyond this page which could help other articles. The community may decide that we should restrict the use of the category where it conforms to "gender violence" as you have advocated as well as the related requirement that a reliable source must refer to it as such. It would be nice to get the views of other editors. I'm not sure why you're so keen on keeping it only to this page, but I think it would be good to get some of this sorted out so the community has something more concrete to consider the next time this debate comes up.Mattnad (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• A broader audience/RfA risks becoming an inevitable trainwreck. A smaller one risks being dominated by those who've made up their minds about this particular article, this particular case. In principle a local RfC can serve as a precedent, but not one which easily translate to all other relevant articles. I disagree slightly with Crisco: a local RfC can produce a decent consensus which might hold, for a while anyway; but that this is a larger problem is clear, and thus it is appropriate that it be addressed in a larger forum. For now, the category should stay out of the article; Sceptre's point, above, is well taken. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rodger was crystal clear about his motivations when he wrote and repeated some version of his mantra "I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me but I will punish you all for it." The vast majority of RS frame the killings as violence against women, yet here we are discussing the massacre as violence against men. It's mind-boggling, especially because there aren't any reliable sources stating that he specifically targeted men. By the way, the two drafts of the proposed RfC misrepresent the arguments of editors on both sides. It's also interesting that both arguments contain the "specifically targeted" criterion, which means that the VAM category would be excluded if either argument is found valid because Rodger didn't specifically target men. He went after women (that's why he drove to the sorority house) but he didn't go after men. He didn't kill his roommates and the man in the deli because they were men, he killed them because he had beef with his roommates and because the deli patron was right there, meaning that Rodger had the opportunity and used it (in the sense that opportunity makes the criminal), as opposed to specifically going after the victim because of his biological sex. Had Rodger written extensively about wanting to "punish" men for perceived insults and had he driven to a fraternity house, then we might be justified in calling the resulting murders violence against men. Even if we wanted to add the category, we really can't because there aren't any RS to support the violence against men designation. Sorry for the TLDR comment. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article for ten days due to edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, please see talk page discussion section "The category that keeps on giving" above and consensus (including admin input from Drmies) that category "Violence against men" should remain out of article for now. Please use admin privilege to edit cat out while article protected. Recent edit warriors restoring this category ignored talk page discussion on this issue, and one user's edit summary showed they didn't even bother to read talk page discussion at all prior to repeated reverts. [[18]] [[19]] Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre's edit doesn't become consensus just because they have another user revert any revertions of the original. Additionally, the cat is already supported by existing sources and consensus, and you need consensus to take it out, not the other way around. The way of the RfC has been discussed but no one has proposed it as of yet. The article was stable for two months until Sceptre started this whole back up again. Tutelary (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCat, I suggest you start an RfC on this, consensus can be then judged from that. Dreadstar ☥ 00:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Done.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, RfCs cannot override fundamental Wikipedia policies. Then again, Wikipedia policies don't seem to apply to the MRA neckbeards that infect these articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which policy are we talking about Sceptre? If it's policy based then it's easy. Dreadstar ☥ 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  Pick one of the "fundamental policies". Chances are that the category's inclusion breaks it (if not RS/V, then definitely NPOV). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  I cannot let you leave that up to me at this point. How does the category violate RS, V and NPOV? Dreadstar ☥ 00:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  "Violence against men", to be useful as a category, has to have a parallel definition to "violence against women" (as a sidenote, the lack of a given definition for VAM makes categorisation difficult). There are no reliable sources that describe Rodger's actions as Violence Against Men, because it factually wasn't. Any sources that deal with the dead men make clear that the murder of his roommates were a conduit to an agenda of violence against women. And even if a mythical source could be found that substantiated that neckbeard fantasy, it would either run afoul of our reliable source rules. Even if it was a reliable source, the category's inclusion would be giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. The entire argument for the category's inclusion is basically pleading to the dead roommates coupled with incredibly selective reading of sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2014

The file File:ElliotRodgers.jpeg has been deleted from Commons, and is currently showing up as a redlink on this page. Please remove it if possible. Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Pure housekeeping and unrelated to the dispute which led to protection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny Section

I have changed the misogyny section. I reorganized it and expanded it with some information from NotAllMen. I deleted a few sentences about YesAllwomen statistics (eg. how many tweets it had at its peak etc.). What I've changed is below:

The killing spree, videos, and written manifesto of Rodger sparked conversations about broader issues of violence against women and misogyny in society. Prior to the killing spree, Rodger indicated in online postings and YouTube videos that he would punish women for denying him sex and he would also punish men who had access to sex with women, while he did not. This motive and Rodger’s apparent sense of entitlement to sex with women has been described as misogynistic. Mary Elizabeth Williams, a staff writer for Salon, took issue with the media labeling Rodger as the "virgin killer", claiming that it reinforces gender roles with a "not so subtle insinuation ... that one possible cause of male aggression is a lack of female sexual acquiescence". Amanda Hess, writing for Slate, argued that even though Rodger killed more men than women, his motivations were still misogynistic because his reason for hating the men he attacked was that he thought they stole the women who he felt entitled to.

Comments and coverage of misogyny as a root cause have spawned criticisms of oversimplification and distortion of the events which included the killings of men as well as women and mental health issues. Chris Ferguson, a psychologist writing in Time, argued that laying the blame on misogynistic culture glosses over how Elliot Rodger was one particular mentally disturbed man (see above). This line of thinking led to some using the #NotAllMen hashtag to express their belief that not all men as misogynistic and not all men commit murder. NotAllmen, in turn, encouraged the creation of the Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen on May 24 as an avenue for women to share their experiences with everyday misogyny and sexism. Emily Shire criticized some #YesAllWomen tweets as trivial in the context of a mass murder, citing examples such as "I’ve never seen a hot husband with a fat wife on a sitcom."Some women, such as Samantha Levine, a columnist at The Daily Beast, argued that women who conflate everyday sexism (e.g., their experiences with dress codes and men whistling at them) with Rodger's violent attacks, risk trivializing these more serious incidents.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC) (removed citations for ease of reading - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC))

There is nothing wrong with overlap between articles, it happens all the time. The only question to be asked is whether the content belongs in this article or not, and the strong consensus before everyone moved on was that the content you removed did belong. I don't see anything that changes that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding overlap, the #yesallwomen article is really a stub that has little context outside of this article. There was a discussion to delete it, but the consensus was to wait an see whether it warrants its own article over time. There are some editors who feel it deserves its own article, but so far there has been little added outside of the shootings except for some commentary on it, which is for the most part covered in this article too.Mattnad (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, I didn't remove a lot. the hashtag spread worldwide, reaching 1.5 million tweets and 1.2 billion impressions, and peaking at 61,500 tweets per hour on May 25.

and to respond to those who did not believe Rodger's actions were rooted in misogyny A number of men writing for mainstream media publications such as Salon, Forbes, and The Daily Beast also wrote in support of the #YesAllWomen hashtag and the importance of highlighting Rodger's possible misogynistic motivations If anyone feels strongly about it I'm open to their inclusion. My main goal was to expand the section to include NotAllMen information as well. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've never cared much about that area of the article, as I don't have a dog in that fight. I might have just kept my mouth shut, but it smelled like someone waiting until everyone else has lost interest, and then trying to sneak in a POV change. I was severely sleep-depped at the time, and my sense of smell might have been impaired. Anyway I'm involved elsewhere, so I'll bow out now and let these cards fall where they may. Or is it chips? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I see you deleted a bunch of refs. I've since learned that it's better to comment out unused refs, as that makes things a lot easier if a ref is needed later. See Shooting of Michael Brown for the "standard" way of doing that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Post Scriptum The section has since been expanded, I really like what was added to it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This section does not appear neutral. It should go without saying that gendered massacres targeting males such as in Srebrenica and a school massacre carried out by Boko Haram are off topic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How is bringing up points from a reliable source that explicitly challenges the focus on the females victims and uses examples to make that point as off topic. Removing it, if anything, would be a deliberate whitewash on your part and violate NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Brought to NPOV noticeboard for outside opinions on this section. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In particular, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Misogyny section of 2014 Isla Vista killings article. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I proposed new language, in a new section below, to try to end this POV dispute and bring normalcy to the page. The new language observes that there was a debate over misogyny and its role, quotes the journalists currently quoted, notes the function of the two hashtags, and then points out that factually, he was aiming for a sorority and but couldn't get in so went elsewhere. Trying to distinguish between whether misogyny or mental illness was the "root cause" is an exercise in metaphysics, and that isn't the proper function of the page. WP:SYNTH, WP:OR & WP:NPOV. We should get the facts out, note what's noteable, and let readers make up their own opinions. There are plenty of pages on misogyny, and we link to them from here; no-one reading this will fail to note the role of misogyny or lack for resources to find out more about misogynistic culture. We should not have any concern that the page somehow glosses over the presence of misogyny or its role in the incident. Are there any comments on the language I proposed below? Djcheburashka (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh - and so there's no confusion about this, I also leave out the "violence against men" and Boko Haram stuff. Once the section is made just-the-facts, there's no need to try and "balance" it with "men's rights" stuff. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New article

Considering a new article, 2014 Isla Vista killings category war (looking for RS, especially something that reports number of man-hours to date).

This is approaching comical. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be on the Lamest edit war as the '5 month slow grinding category edit war with a perverse nature to it'. This really shouldn't be even happening. Let the RfC conclude and put this to rest. Tutelary (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually that title might be misleading. How about 2014—2015 2014 Isla Vista killings category war? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be a pretty good theme for a Wikipediocracy article ;) --109.148.127.93 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Or maybe an XKCD comic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, it could be subtitled The Neverending Violence against men Story. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How a small community of Wikipedia editors attempted to redefine gendered violence without any academic backing... and succeeded? --109.148.127.93 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Now now, this is the npov-we're-all-in-this-together-levity section. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the only article this has happened to. Category titles can be very politically charged. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, which is particularly interesting considering that 99% of Wikipedia readers wouldn't know what a category is, or how to make use of one. I was a reader for years before I started editing, and I didn't know what a category was until my edit count was in the thousands. I still don't use them, aside from tracking cats. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's often seen as the only way to push ideology without needing strict sources to back your opinion. It is also the only place when you can say that something is definitively something or definitively not something. If it is tagged "violence against men" then, in the eyes of many, it is about "violence against men". It lacks subjectivity and ultimately shows the biggest problems with the category system. There have been attempts to curb this by not including individuals/media in these categories. I think they should go one further and remove events too. This proves that the community will not follow referencing and WP:OR in situations like this --109.148.127.93 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering the amount of time spent, the ill will generated, and the tendency to use them to push agendas, compared to the miniscule benefit, categories in controversial areas seem a net negative of some magnitude, and the best thing we could do for Wikipedia would be to get rid of them altogether. Like that's ever going to happen, but it's worth saying anyway. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion controversial categories like this should be deleted and turned into lists. Would this article remain on an article list concerning gender-based violence against men? It is unlikely, there are no reliable sources that evidence this. It doesn't really scream "misandry" when you read his manifesto. Of course it is a form of violence perpetuated against men, as are any shootings that involve men as targets, but they don't often qualify as violence against men, neither do shootings that involve women as targets as violence against women. If these two categories were turned into lists, you would be able to remove the few articles that are put in for agenda-based reasons and they would be more consistent as forms of navigation. To be honest, after a year or so editing in this field, I hate the whole topic area, the whole "violence against..." thing doesn't always work in the context of real world scenarios, although there are many important examples of it, there are also things used as examples in these areas of study that don't really fit --109.148.127.93 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how changing from categories to lists would make it any easier to remove agenda-based entries. It would simply move a war to a different theater. Anyway, one man's agenda is another man's righteous fight against agendas, as has been seen on this page and many others. Notwithstanding people's inability to see it, there is no objective reality in these areas. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes exactly, that's why we have WP:OR and WP:RS, something that the category on this page does not meet. Wikipedia editors aren't experts, we are meant to just summarise the work of others. Most advocating yes spend their time here trying to edit in anti-feminist material to various pages - despite the fact that most anti-feminist material is fringe. Do you get it now? These people are editing against sources, as if they know better --109.148.127.93 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What I think about the categorization question matters not a whit, as I'm deliberately staying out of that fight. As I said, I think the categories are a net negative and they should be eliminated, which makes any OR or RS arguments moot as far as I'm concerned. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Unusual reference labels

I propose using the more standard reference labelling, with quotes and spaces: e.g. "Fred Bloggs" rather than no quotes and full-stops (periods) in place of spaces Fred.Bloggs. Quote marks and spaces is a widely used standard, whereas joining words together affects readability, and can be done in many ways, leading to confusion and error (for example Fred-bloggs, FredBloggs, Fred_bloggs, Fredbloggs, Fred-Bloggs). I also propose avoiding the camel case, if required the work and the identifying text can be separated with a colon and a space ": " - as we would in standard usage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

• If one has the attention to detail to manage much editing at all, Fred.Bloggs is a piece of cake by comparison. Sure there are ways to screw it up; there are also ways to screw up "Fred Bloggs"——"Fred  Bloggs", "FredBloggs", "Fredbloggs", "fredbloggs", need I go on? In my personal opinion, if someone reads those clear and simple instructions and types Fred_bloggs, they need to be taken out back and put out of our misery.
• Since we established this article's list-defined refs and naming convention, I've yet to see one new ref put in the reflist instead of the body. I come right along and clean it up, and I don't mind doing that. Fixing the kind of errors you speak of wouldn't be any different from what I'm already doing, and there's very little ongoing ref activity here in any case.
• "Fred Bloggs" can be split by a line break in the editor, diffs, etc. Fred.Bloggs can't. I think that's a more serious readability issue.
• I haven't noticed this standard usage that you refer to. Actually, I see extremely little consistency in anything regarding refs.
• CamelCase is a technique becoming more popular in modern programming languages. Why is that, if it's a bad thing?
• Perhaps D'Ranged 1 would like to comment. It was his idea, although I wholeheartedly support it. The two of us collaborated for two or three days on the naming convention, so there was certain amount of thought put into it. We agreed from the outset that the quotation marks were something to be avoided.
• I've only been at this for about a year, but this is the only article I've seen that has any widely-followed naming convention at all. Wouldn't it be more useful to address that problem than to quibble about the details of this convention?
• Cheers,   Mandruss |talk  14:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes CamelCase is a programming convention, as indeed is linking with underscores and running words together. It is important that wiki-code be as clean as possible for non-programmers. The best way to do this is to follow as much as makes sense normal spelling, normal spaces and use normal words.

I agree about LDR, and I implemented them in Fort Hood Shooting, and the London Bombing articles to name but two. They are particularly useful when the article is in flux.

Using quote marks is good, because if spaces are introduced the refs won't then break. (Defensive programming, if you will.) Given that we are using quotes, the need for strange separators vanishes.

A naming convention is nice, and I don't oppose that, indeed I suggested ways to preserve it, increase readability, and not invent a new function for the full stop.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

The statistics show that using quote marks is so widespread as to be a substantial majority, if not the standard. As of 6th of November there were 9,487,852 lines of text containing a named reference, in 6,333,465 there was a name in quotes. 1,493,957 had a space in the name (which, of course, was quoted), whilst a mere 21,813 had a name of the form foo.bar (without quotes).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Rich, you'll never be accused of giving up too easily. At my age I've seen too many cases of a substantial but wrong majority to give much weight to such an argument. There is too strong a case to be made for no quotes. It has worked well in this article, as well as others such as Shooting of Michael Brown. Further, I've found that Wikipedia doesn't give much weight to consistency of internal coding between articles. Based on my observation of other editors, I'm guessing that a very large part of your "majority preference" comes from editors who think the quotes are required, rather than a conscious and considered opinion that they are better. Another large part of it no doubt are cases where the quotes are in fact required, because the editor wanted a reference name containing blanks—also nothing more than personal preference. I've seen more than one article where each refname was identical to the citation's title, a ridiculous waste of space and added clutter; these are part of your majority preference. If there has been a discussion on the issue among experienced editors, where a consensus for the quotes was reached, please link to it. But, as always, I'll quietly bow to a local consensus for change if you can get one (although I've never considered 2-1 sufficient consensus for a disputed change, as the sample size is a bit too small). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Misogyny Section

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

Misogyny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings be included in the category "Violence against men in North America" which is a subcategory of "Violence against men". The category is described here: [20]"

• No – The article 2014 Isla Vista killings should not be in category Violence against men because RS have not described Elliot Rodger's killing spree as a gender based attack against men. Please see lengthy discussion at the top of this talk page for full discussion, including how quotes taken out of RS to support including this category constitute WP:Original Research, because the wikipedia editors concluded these quotes mean it was gender based violence against men, but if you read the sources, it becomes apparent the RS commentators did not come to the conclusion Rodger's killing spree was a gender based attack on men. Also, the article has never been stable with this category. Its addition has resulted in multiple edit wars resulting in the article being locked down by admins multiple times.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• No – RfCs can't override policy, so the RfC is defective by design. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: I don't know what sources you guys are reading, but the ones I'm reading say that while he killed men, it doesn't constitute Violence Against Men. There's no way I can see for the category's inclusion to comport with our policies: either the definition of "violence against men" we use is so loose that the category itself does not meet our categorisation guidelines, or we make incredibly selective readings of the sources, which make the article in violation of SYN/NOR/RS/V/NPOV/etc. "Violence against men", although it's not as well defined as its female counterpart, still has a definition based on the gender-neutral term of "gender-based violence". The sources are very clear that this was a gendered attack against women. You either have to be stupid or wilfully ignorant to read those sources as supporting this category.

I'm not sure what definition you are using for this, but I suspect it's a narrow one that excludes most violence including serial killers who target men, prison rape, and war crimes where civilian, non-combatant men are rounded up for execution.Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• In any case, this RfC is defective by design. A talk page consensus cannot decide to override our fundamental policies regarding reliable sources and the neutral point of view, so any consensus this RfC results in is illusory and cannot — and will not — bind actions taken in respect of said policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Click me for sourcing. Don't wanna disrupt flow.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women., "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women", ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. [21] "But his hatred of femininity is tangled with hatred of other men—and himself" "As long as masculinity is based in hatred of and fear of femininity, it will be expressed in violence—against men, against gay people, and against the marginalized. And most of all, it will continue to motivate violence against women.” [22] "Rodger’s male victims included men he envied as well as roommates he perceived as getting in his way." "It is not uncommon for men who resent women to take out their aggressions on other men, but unlike public violence against women, male-on-male attacks slip more easily underneath our cultural radar." "Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience. This is not ammunition for an argument that he was a misandrist at heart—it’s evidence of the horrific extent of misogyny’s cultural reach." [23] "Sure, we can admit that we hated men, but only if we accept that his hatred for men stemmed from his feeling of entitlement towards women." [24] "The reason why he hated men was because they received the thing he thought he deserved," she said. "He did not think he was entitled to men's bodies. He did not think he was entitled to sexual submission from men. What he was resentful about was that some men got those privileges and he did not. So that was part and parcel of his sexism and part and parcel of his misogyny."

• Obvious yes The mere fact that the article had been stable for little over two months with the category and then a single user has to start that fight up again long after the fact is quite frustrating. However, the category has already had its consensus upheld and had been giving reliable sources demonstrating the fact the the hated men not withstanding his hatred of women is already demonstrated by the sources involved. Both cats do and deserve to belong to the article, and the sources above in my hatted comment refer to such. They're not even old sources, they were presented months ago when this issue first propped up, but I'm sick of hearing the 'there's no sources' comments when there sure are. All in all, it's a category and it already has enough sources to warrant a freakin' category. The earlier discussions should be read and understood and with regards to before !voting in this RfC. My comment, Bobo's Rfc statement, Sceptre's comments do not deal with this entire due justice. Read the very top of the page all the way down to the latest flurry to get the full substance of the dispute. As well, as you can see by my little hatted comment documenting the RS statements of Elliot's hatred of men, it is supported by sources. Tutelary (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - Rodger's hatred of men is documented by reliable sources and he killed men. The article was stable for months with the category included after the original debate. Between June 28th and September 8th, the only removals of the category were three times by IP addresses (one which had no other contributions, one which only edited in gender-related issues, and one which purged the category "Massacres of men" and other related categories over 40 minutes before disappearing and never being seen again) and once by Sceptre (who has repeatedly removed the category without discussion). There isn't much more to be said. Rhydic (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes As I have stated several times, the very fact numerous sources discuss the question of violence against men in relation to this spree killing is proof that it is a defining aspect of this story. Even if most reliable sources are merely objecting to its relevance, the fact it is considered a key part of discussion on the subject suggests it is an appropriate category. I added a piece from the National Post that explicitly addressed the killing in relation to gendered violence against men as well, to make it clearer that this is a legitimate aspect of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Even if most reliable sources are merely objecting to its relevance, the fact it is considered a key part of discussion on the subject suggests it is an appropriate category." By that logic we would need to add the Category:Controlled demolitions in the United States to the September 11 attacks page because there are RS that discuss and criticize that particular conspiracy theory. There are very, very few sources that see the 2014 Isla Vista killings in terms of violence against men and the majority of the sources that do, reject the notion that this was about violence against men. The belief that this was about violence against men is as WP:Fringe as it gets. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I read the refs which do show general hatred of humans, males and females. However, it seems like he hated all women because some rejected him but more those men whom he saw as competition. I'm actually undecided because it sounds like he belongs in the category "Male violence against men more successful with women" or "Competition-driven male violence" or "Dominance-driven male violence" or something that better describes the specific pathology. It's definitely different than the reason he killed women. Something to think about for those into categories. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, by the same reasoning, did he really want to kill all women or just the ones he wanted to have sex with who would not have sex with him? As I recall, he mostly talks about attractive women rather than women in general. He wrote about killing all other men, but did he really mean all other men or just men that were more successful than him in their lives? The issue here is whether violence against men is a defining characteristic of the subject and my position is that reliable sources do treat violence against men as a defining characteristic of this subject. The debate regarding whether it is fair to describe it as violence against women when more men were victims and discussing how the gendered violence against women issue was treated when compared to incidents of gendered violence against men in the past suggests this issue is a defining characteristic of the subject. It was a critical part of the public commentary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes: As The Devil's Advocate points out, the killer's apparent misandry has been discussed in reliable sources and, therefore, the category is appropriate. Also, didn't he kill more men than he did women? Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Object to this RfC because the category has not been adequately defined, providing no basis for argument and reducing the RfC to a simple vote. Likewise, I would object to an RfC asking, "Should Cheddar be included in Category:Cheese?" if that category was defined as "dairy-based food products". This RfC was started with the knowledge of existing efforts to address the larger and prerequisite question. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Per RFC responses, try not to be confrontational. Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You and Sceptre don't get to fundamentally ignore this RfC because it suits your purpose, nor can you do it if it's supposedly malformed. The basis of argument is documented quite verbosely at the top of the page. I'm not going to rehash continually arguments which were held months ago. (And at the ado of WP:STICK. The RfC asked a neutral question on whether a category should be included. This category has caused IP editors and others to repeatedly edit war the cat out, even though there was consensus that it should be included. Sceptre is one of these editors, who's even said just in this RfC that they will ignore the results of this RfC no matter what because 'consensus can't override policy'. There are adequate sources, no original research is needed to extract the gender based violence, and all in all, I see Sceptre repeatedly saying I didn't hear that. If their disruption of edit warring continues after this RfC no matter what reasoning they give, they are sure to get sanctions. This dispute ends here. I'm sick of hearing it. Tutelary (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Why yes, there are sources that call this gender-based violence… against women. Now go shave your neckbeard off. Sceptre (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Tutelary, I don't know who you're confusing me with. I have no agenda here except not putting carts before horses, and I think that's evident enough in my actions. I have yet to add or remove the category, and I have stayed out of this so-called debate except for a few gentle attempts to guide it in a direction that stood a chance of a lasting resolution (such as the above comment). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC) You and Sceptre are both opting to ignore the results of this RfC. Sceptre under some self imposed reason, and you on a technical reason. I've elaborated and the comments have elaborated that this is a long, old dispute and should be resolved in this RfC. Consensus either supports it, or it doesn't. It can be debated using cherry picked diffs, but this RfC will be the hammer that puts the nail in. Tutelary (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I never said I am "opting to ignore the results of this RfC." As I clearly said, I have never added or removed the category. Why would I start doing that because I objected to this RfC? Out of respect for people's time, that's the last I have to say on this, and you're welcome to the last word. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me respectfully ask what did you mean by 'object to RfC' then? Just going to disagree with it but otherwise let the Consensus stand if it's clear? Tutelary (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(So much for leaving it there, but you seem to be genuinely interested in understanding what I'm saying.) That's exactly correct. I think the category should be better defined for the benefit of all similar articles, so that the community doesn't have to repeat this going-on-5-month-long dispute for each one. That's the only argument here that I'm inclined to expend energy on. I don't even know what it would mean to "ignore the results of this RfC", for me. I have no position in the local debate, except that it should not be local. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss, while the category VAM could potentially later change via RfC, this RfC is for the current description of the category "Violence against men" which includes - This category is for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys...The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic. This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence. [25]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My comment to Bobo was singled out for hatting. Please view it directly underneath this reply. Hatting originally done by Dreadstar. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

see above hat re responding Dreadstar ☥ 22:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a disingenuous summary. The article had been stable for around 2 months until Sceptre removed the cat again and sparked this entire thing back up again. We didn't 'ignore' the discussion as you'd like to claim, we just didn't feel like it should be hashed out in the same discussions which led to the consensus of the cat in the first place. You can see this at the top of the page. Shortly after that consensus, the article was stable, until recently, where Sceptre edit warred the cat back out. Also, appealing to admin Drmies is kind of silly; he doesn't have any more power than the rest of us, and just because an admin said it doesn't mean it's true. I've seen admins who were dead wrong--in the face. Not just a minor wrong, but -dead- wrong. They're humans. Oh, and relating to the cat's description, the proof of gender based violence has been proven via the sources list which I provided...which you can't seem to see. Tutelary (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes; as per sources, his reasons for killing the men he did were inextricably linked to their gender. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Mattnad (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• No He killed (or tried to kill) men and women, and seemed to dislike both. Category should be used for people who killed men for being men, rather than for being happier people than the killer was. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Also no to the "Violence against women" category, for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - What this is is MRM (Men's Rights Movement) dogma, utilized to water down acts of violence against women. Male victims were not chosen specifically because of their gender; those claiming otherwise are misusing and misquoting reliable sources that do not say what these editors claim they say. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - Agreed the sources do not fit the definition provided by the category. There is no evidence of gender-based motivation for killing of his roommates (sources say they were "getting in his way") and the other male killed is noted as being an unrelated bystander. The quote highlighted, Elliot Rodger targeted women out of entitlement, their male partners out of jealousy, and unrelated male bystanders out of expedience. This is not ammunition for an argument that he was a misandrist at heart—it’s evidence of the horrific extent of misogyny’s cultural reach supports it being a misogynistic attack, rather than targeting men for being men. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The category is not included on the basis of perceived correctness on the part of editors or even reliable sources. It is about whether this issue is a defining characteristic of the subject. Even people discussing whether it qualifies as a gendered attack against men means "violence against men" is a defining characteristic of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That'd make it a characteristic of the discussion, not the subject. In any case, you seem to have just made that "defining characteristic" rule up. If we were to discuss whether this qualifies you as a liar, would lying be a defining characteristic of yours? Or not lying? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you were talking about WP:CATDEF. I guess we don't have to discuss whether you're a liar. But note that it stresses a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Not the case here. That there's discussion about whether it was a characteristic just illustrates the inconsistency. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OPINIONCAT. Not to be confused with this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. Ugh. I left this article because of these sorts of arguments. However, LegoBot has summoned me back. I agree with Tarc and PearlSt82. This is an attempt to use the category as soapboxing on Wikipedia. If people want to discuss the misandry and anti-male violence of these attacks, it would be best to do so on a personal blog, where opinion is sufficient. This is not a defining characteristic of the attack. I remain unconvinced that reliable sources back these claims of homicidal misandry. These "violence against [group]" categories are probably more trouble than they're worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the expectation that this must be "misandry" is at the heart of the dispute. By that definition, prision rape should be excluded from the category. I practically minored in women's studies which for the most part argues that misandry does not, and cannot exist (my spell checker certainly takes that point of view). A much more inclusive effort among several editors to develop an RFC that addresses the broader topic was ignored by BoboMeowCat. My expectation is that this will once again be deadlocked because people are bring their own definitions of what the categories should be, rather than consider a holistic approach.Mattnad (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. I became aware of the RfC via the NPOV noticeboard. It's pretty obvious from reading what happened that, if anything, it was misogyny. Framing it as violence against men strikes me as some of the strangest soapboxing I have seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it called soapboxing when there are reliable sources elaborating to his hatred of men as a factor in the shooting? I personally believe that both caps belong, but due to the controversy of having a 'violence against men' category, that's why we're having this discussion. You can read the supporting sources just above my initial !vote if you like. Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Tutelary. I hope that you know from past experience that I try to be careful about figuring out the facts for myself, as opposed to being persuaded by unsupported statements, right? My RfC answer of "no" still stands. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Keep this clean and non-confrontational or I'll change this to a non-threaded discussion and move all the threaded comments to a separate section from the polling section. Dreadstar ☥ 22:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• No There are differences between general violence and gendered violence. It would be better described as sexist violence. The primary reason that 'violence against women' is included here is due to the manifesto Rodger wrote before enacting the shootings and the way that the attacks were perceived by media sources after its release. Violence against an individual or group is not inherently sexist or racist. This shooting is seen as 'violence against women' primarily because he published a misogynistic manifesto before enacting this. I am not entirely convinced that the Wiki community can competently use the 'violence against men' category so it will not surprise me when they yet again vote for it to remain in an article that it does not belong. Either way I have had my say and may even be surprised for once --5.81.54.163 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — 5.81.54.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• No For many of the reasons expressed by other voters. Looking at another notable killer, Ted Bundy, we see that he is not tagged in the Violence against women category, even though his victims were all women. That makes sense, because his primary motive for murder was not borne of any particular misogynistic worldview. A category for Mass murder makes sense, a category tag Violence makes sense. In this case, the killer expressed specific misogynistic motives for his violence, so the Violence against women tag makes sense. Broadly, we don't add the gender-specific tags to any and all killers that have victims of either gender because the distinction does not aid clarity, further understanding of the topic, and is at best redundant. Finally, one cannot ignore the cultural realities surrounding this specific event, namely the backlash against feminists and the emergence of so-called Men's Rights Activists. The addition of this category is Original Research because no serious academic connection between violence against men as a phenomenon and this event exists. This is a culturally charged topic, adding this category is making a point, not a genuine attempt at encyclopedic examination of the subject. GRMule (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — GRMule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

So Ted Bundy did not, but there are plenty of articles that do casually add the violence against women category without any source that says it was gendered violence. Take a look at Violence against women in the United States category, going down the pages sub list, A to F:

• Arroyo Grande Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Bear Brook murders no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Beth Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Bitter Creek Betty no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Charlie Brandt no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Buckskin Girl no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Caledonia Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Campbell County Jane Does no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Christy Crystal Creek no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Clark County Jane Doe no RS saying it was a gendered attack
• Death of Jennifer Ann Crecente while an example of domestic violence, not a single source characterizes it was gendered violence, misogyny, or another of the explicit requirements you've requested relating to VAM. Personally I think it does qualify as VAW, but would not make it over the bar you've set.
• Kendall Francois while an example of a serial killer that murdered women, I could not find in article sources stating it was a "gendered attack" on women, misogyny etc.

Of the 16 pages in the A to F alpha list, 12 do not meet your criteria for inclusion in the category.Mattnad (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, that category doesn't specify any inclusion criteria. Without it, there's no reason not to add whatever anyone wants, though it's implied they should involve women in the United States. It's a shitty category, but the shittiness allows for leeway. The men category is more well-defined, as currently written, and so we have this. If someone improved the other, it'd be in the same boat. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Won't disagree with you on that. That was why I, and admin and another editor worked on a more expansive RFC that tries to get to the crux of the matter under discussion here and BoboMeowCat didn't like that and opened another simplistic RFC that is doomed to lack to a clear consensus. I took many women's studies courses in college and learned the concept of "gendered violence" is founded on a view that men are perpetrators, and women are victims. So by definition, we can't really have a violence against men category and we see that in the positions of some editors here. That's why I use the topic of Prison Rape to illustrate the absurdity of that position.Mattnad (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see an RfC for eliminating the VAM category, as it seems a worthless category except as a pawn for radical MRM activists. "If women get their violence category, we should too, boo hoo." That is not an appropriate use for Wikipedia categories. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk I think the VAM category is more clearly defined because there have been past disputes regarding the category. There were actually a lot of votes to delete the category back in June which cited misuse as the reason it should be deleted [26]. To hopefully improve the VAW category as well, I just edited the VAW category talk page recommending the same inclusion criteria (with just the genders reversed) be added to the Violence against women category too. [27] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The general VAW category already says it's for gender-based attacks. It was the in the United States one that needed help. That said, if you can improve any category, that's one more better category. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

After no objections on the category talk page and relevant WikiProjects, I added an inclusion criteria box to the Violence against women category main page which is similar to the one currently on the Violence against men main page. I linked to it from the VAW in the United States page, so that category is no longer completely undefined and unexplained. [28] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that RfC because I was off doing something else. I'm beginning to figure out that, on this topic, one needs to be either all the way in or all the way out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• No. There is plentiful evidence for this attack as gendered violence against women, but the same can not be said for the claim that it represented gendered violence against men. Per Sceptre, we can't ignore policy, even when we really, really want to. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• No, for the reasons stated here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not. Just found this RfC on the noticeboard. Elliott Rodger's shooting was described in nearly all major articles at the time as being directed against women, even though there were also men counted among his victims. His misogyny is described in depth in longform pieces like this New Yorker piece, this Guardian piece, this Washington Post piece, this BBC piece, to name just a few. They all explicitly mention his unhealthy attitudes towards women in particular, that he considered them as less-than and judged himself on his inability to get dates, talk to them or have sex with them, as well as his participation in known misogynist communities online. He specified his motives against women in his manifesto, which was also widely covered in the media. These articles have no such mentions regarding men, and to include Rodger's article in any type of "violence against men" category would downplay Rodger's pretty clear misogynist motivations. This category addition would be unnecessary and bizarre, and likely a sneaky soapbox move by those pushing a "men's rights" POV. --hustlecat (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• No - Absolutely not. So now a bunch of MR advocates are going to supplant policy with !votes, and here we go again. Of course the shooter was not targetting men for being men, as he was women. It's absurd and a fringe absurdity. Admins really need to take a look at the editors here who are advocating for this type of disruption all over the project. Pushing their fringe POV in article after article, and disrupting the project. Dave Dial (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• No The fact that this has been contested for so long is testament to how uneasy users are to the men's rights advocates appropriation of these killings. Rodgers was heavily invested in the Manosphere and it is important in the coverage of these killings. Of course, these antifeminists are so driven by their hatred of women that they do not care what effects their actions have in the real world, as long as they can one up feminists in a debate --109.148.127.93 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — 109.148.127.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RFC commentary

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

Mattand, I actually started this RfC at the specific request of the admin who recently locked the article down. [29]. Regarding the RfC with language about changing or clarifying the inclusion criteria for Violence against men cat, I didn't ignore it, and I don't oppose it, but an RfC to change or clarify the Violence against men category should be for the Violence against men category page. This RfC is asking whether or not the 2014 Isla Vista killings article meets the current criteria for the Violence against men category described here: [30]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And two other admins suggested we take a different approach. That's 2 against 1, and yet you picked the one that suited your views.Mattnad (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, one admin was discussing RfC regarding the categories. Last I heard was considering putting notices on both VAM and VAW category talk pages.[31] The other admin you referred to actually recommended the category Violence against men stay out of the 2014 Isla Vista killing article for now. [32] Unfortunately, this didn't happen. The category was re-added, an edit war ensued and article locked down (again) so an immediate RfC regarding current category inclusion criteria was started--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

That's a pretty serious accusation and in my view crosses the line. You might want to temper/edit your comments. Accusing someone of misogyny because you disagree with them is pretty low. Arguing for an article's inclusion in a category is pretty far from a "hatred of women" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Have you no sense of decency, madame?Mattnad (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess so far I'm a misogynist racist neckbeard. I wonder what other titles I can get? Rhydic (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the shoe fits. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It's also notable that some editors resort to casting aspersions at other editors they don't agree with, essentially equating all of them as "MRAs" or "misogynists" to argue that they are somehow wrong here. I've been around long enough to recall when women who championed equal opportunity were called man-haters, even though they were often making relevant points about social inequality. I personally have no interest in the men's right's movement, or any of the related pages here on Wikipedia, but that hasn't stopped the innuendo being freely dished out by some editors. One can interpret violence against men as a category more broad than the academic theory that defines "gendered violence" without being a misogynist or MRA. And even if someone is an MRA, are they not people? If you cut them, do they not bleed? Are their views forbidden in wikipedia any more than those who have a different (and equally radical) perspective?Mattnad (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not intended to suggest those involved with men's rights shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia, and it wasn't intended to question their humanity. My only point regarding the men's rights movement, with respect to WP, is that on some issues the men's rights movement seems to have viewpoints that do not match what is reported in reliable sources, and therefore, if supporters attempt to incorporate those viewpoint into wiki articles, it ends up not meeting our WP:Verify requirement. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Bobo, just let the RfC finish in the article in present place, alright? Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 9 November 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.

Accuracy

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

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

rollback

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

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

Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

Is Anne Theriault best described as a 'feminist' or a 'journalist'?

Hi! I thought using 'feminist' as a qualifier for a journalist as opposed to, y'know, journalist was a bit odd so I changed it. Arkon reverted me. Arkon- why did you revert me? You didn't leave an edit summary. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

She's actually a "feminist blogger" according to her byline in the cited article.Mattnad (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing accuracy, I'm disputing why it's her political views that are made more important than her occupation or experience. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The MRA connection is pretty weak based on the tiny amount coverage it received. Therriault was making some leaps of opinion which may have been influenced by a broader agenda to tar Mens Rights Activism with the murder spree. For instance she called PUAhate an MRA forum. A Salon article on the other hand states is was a forum for men who hated pick up artist forums because they didn't work (not MRA in the common understanding). As an editor, I think the qualification is useful to help the reader to know a little more about her perspective on things if we are going to include it. Given that she explicitly has the "feminist blogger" title in her by-line, she also wants people to know that. I don't think an infrequent opinion blog necessarily elevates her to journalist which connotes more professionalism in reporting than we'd expect from opinion pieces.Mattnad (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well said, agreed. I've reverted the IP's edit, which lacked consensus. 199.167.138.49 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Blogger is not journalist, despite the inability of increasing numbers to see the difference. Does she have a degree in journalism? What news organizations has she reported for? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In the source cited she is writing for The Huffington Post. I think both "feminist" and "journalist" could apply here.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I can live with that provided it's both, ie, "feminist journalist". I've read a lot of her other pieces, and she's definitely coming from a more hard core feminist POV, which is why it's helpful and relevant to include "feminist". One of her recent articles argues that online harassment of women should be called and treated as "terrorism". That's a pretty strong opinion.Mattnad (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rage over seeing an Asian guy talking to white girl

I came across this Asian guy who was talking to a white girl. The sight of that filled me with rage. I always felt as if white girls thought less of me because I was half-Asian, but then I see this white girl at the party talking to a full-blooded Asian. I never had that kind of attention from a white girl! And white girls are the only girls I’m attracted to, especially the blondes. How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from them? I thought with rage.

I suggest that this article include this quote from Elliot's manifesto, because it reveals his belief that white girls thought less of him because he was half-Asian, and it reveals his seemingly related anger at Asian males. Since he deliberately murdered three Asian males and tried to target white females, his feelings about Asian males and white females are both very relevant for understanding his motivation, making this quote invaluable for understanding Elliot's selection of victims.--Ephert (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you would need some somewhat solid secondary support for that evaluation, and I mean more than some obscure blog posts. Even with that, it would be better to paraphrase the secondary with attribution, and cite both it and the appropriate page of the manifesto. With a click or two, the interested reader could go right to the primary source. (I think this applies to most of the manifesto quotes currently in the article, but other stuff exists and we needn't make that problem even worse.) WP:PRIMARY. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Men's Rights Movement Sources

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

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

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

The sources are reliable enough, but you're pushing the envelope on saying or suggesting he was a member of the men's right's movement. Participating in forums is not the same as being a member. At most we could say he was active in certain forums. My personal understanding is that his pathology was focused more on personal issues than the broader issues of men's rights. In his writings and videos, he expresses a hatred towards women and some men which is not the same as advocating for certain rights which are more legal and political. When I read the articles, they don't say he was an MRA member. Rather, he vented on some sites/forums. Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: I guess on the whole, the sources say that he was active in forums, but they all state that they are "Men's Rights" forums. If I am correct, Wikipedia should include anything widely referenced from multiple sources. (i.e. Elliot Rodger was a member of a Men's Rights forum called PUAHate and was subscribed to several Men's Rights Youtube channels.) Also two articles say he was an MRA:

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

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

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

@Mattnad: I'm not sure it would make sense to state that he was an MRA, but I believe as per Wikipedia policy, it could be said based on the sources that he visited and watched Men's Rights and Pickup Artist websites and videos. I saw that someone else reverted your edits. 147.215.1.189 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't think this is that important to the article. I thought it was fair to say he was "associated with", rather than an MRA member, given the sources. When you look at the preponderance of the coverage, a handful of speculative articles on this narrow area was not that conclusive to me. One of the articles from the Huffington Post misunderstood what PUAHate was and drew conclusions that were stretches (IMHO). It was really more of an opinion piece on how evil MRAs are, rather than any evidence of what Rodger was, or wasn't. Arguably, it was more about the politics of MRAs and not Rodger himself. It got picked up and repeated a couple of times. Since it was mentioned in reliable sources, I didn't see the harm in including that, better qualified. But from a bigger editorial perspective, it's tangential and represents a tiny fraction of the coverage. I'm not going to revert it back myself for that reason.Mattnad (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There's some off-site canvassing and coaching by MRAs to whitewash this article. There are an abundance of sources that link Rodgers to the men's rights movement. Besides the HuffPo and NY Post articles already mentioned, there are:

• Fell, James S. (May 29, 2014). "The Toxic Appeal of the Men's Rights Movement". Time.
• "Elliot Rodger's links to the Men's Rights Activist movement". NewsComAu. May 26, 2014.
• Roy, Jessica (May 28, 2014). "Elliot Rodger's Online World: A Primer on Men's Rights Activists". Fusion.
• Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia (May 25, 2014). "Why Elliot Rodger is being linked to the men's rights movement". Daily Dot.

The removal of any mention of men's rights from the article (and the demand for a primary source from Rodgers) are not based in policy. Mattnad's rewrite of the men's rights connection was a good start that we should try to improve on. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources report Rodger's was associated with men's rights movement, so I agree it should be included in article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that Elliot Rodger subscribed to Men's Right's youtube channels because it is factually incorrect. His Youtube account is still up, and you can see his subscriptions here: https://www.youtube.com/user/ElliotRodger/channels. You'll notice that there are no men's rights channels on the list. None of the sources for the claim are able to identify a specific channel that is associated with the Men's Rights movement. That's because he did not subscribe to any Men's Rights youtube channels. Egalitarian activist (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research- we stick with what the reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may inquire, how is a primary source unreliable and yet a secondary source that has no MRM sources listed as evidence can be reliable? In fact, I have yet to see any supposed evidence of Elliot Rodger's involvement with the MRM. Maybe a more direct source of information of the forums used or Youtube channels he subscribed to would be helpful as from looking at the primary source, there are no channels that the MRM tend to associate with and multiple MRA's have actually shown criticism of this claim (Most notably Karen Straughan's 'Elliot Rodger, the MRM and Detroit' and bane666au's 'Propaganda of Toxic Feminism') 121.210.129.173 (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the MRM connection is tenuous at best, and may qualify as a WP:Fringe viewpoint given the sources we have on this topic.Mattnad (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you believe that the MRM connection "departs significantly from the prevailing views", or do you believe that it's covered in excess of the prominence it has in reliable sources? It's easy enough to confuse the two, but they're quite distinct. PeterTheFourth (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of it. While it was covered as a tangent, no source except for a couple opinion pieces say he was an MRA. One opinion piece included in this article as a source comes from the Huffington Post which is as close to self-published as you can get and still qualify as a reliable source. It was written the day after the shooting had a lot of speculation and factual errors in it. From an editorial perspective, there is no prevailing view on this at all, but there are a political opinion pieces on the matter. Ergo Fringe.Mattnad (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth What I'm asking is how you can consider the primary source unreliable when I have found no evidence of the claims he associated with the MRM but rather it seems to me that people have confused MRA's with PUA's. This is (to me at least) at best a misunderstanding and at worst is propanganda for Anti-MRA's as bane666au has claimed. I personally believe that if we are going to make this association a part of the page we should at least add the critisims the MRA's have given. 2001:388:6080:777:119A:454C:AD7E:F1E4 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's no prevailing view on it, you're looking for WP:UNDUE, Mattnad. In that case, we'd seek to only cover it in relation to the prominence this fact has received in reliable sources. Do you believe it's excessively covered in the article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth I have yet to see you address my question, how is a primary source unreliable compared to the secondary source with no viewable evidence? I will need clarification with either a reasonable explanation or another article that has direct names at least. It seems very unbalanced in my opinion to see him listed as an 'MRA' by a 'reliable source' without a shred of a counter-argument by an MRA in the least. At this point in time, I agree with Mattnad that this may be a WP:Fringe. 121.210.129.173 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, how exactly was he an MRA? these pages that he wrote to are not MR movements:

   -RSDFreetour (a pickup artist motivational speaker)
   -The Player Supreme Show (more PUA stuff)
   -PUAHate (evidently the pickup artist tips didn't work for him)

just because the articles say "these are roughly MRA pages" they were MRA pages in reality? 79.166.49.17 (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Our reliable sources would disagree that those do not fall within the umbrella of 'Mens Rights Movements'. While you're free to add that they were also 'pick up artist' related if you can source it (e.g. preferably not to a blog on slate), please don't remove the statements which are sourced to RS such as Time. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would disqualify a blog on Slate while keeping Therriault's blog as a reliable source. Seems like a double standard.Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lambeth

Re: [33]

Another source: "He was born in August 1991 in Lambeth, South London, the scion of a family steeped in photography and the cinema." [34] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.132.155 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I don't doubt the accuracy. Here is another source. I did object to the use of IMDB as a source.
The question is not one of accuracy but of relevance. Per "less is more", we (some of us more than others) try to limit content to information that is relevant to the article. For example, we have an infobox field for religion, but we don't use it for Rodger because his religion is not relevant here. Likewise, how is Lambeth's unique character relevant here? I know it's just one little 7-letter word, but those little words add up. The city (London) is the standard way of showing a place of birth, but I don't feel we should be more precise without relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not considered to be an accurate source by Wikipedia. Parsley Man (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

seperate page for elliot rodger

I seen Cho Seung-Hui, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Marc Lepine have pages seperate from their respective attacks. Considering the vast amount of autobiographical and motivational information from his manifesto, videos, internet postings and people who knew him speaking, we should really create a seperate page for the perpetrator, considering how long that section is. Cbswagman (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Cbswagman (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Rodger definitely has one of the more transparent pasts of a lot of mass shooters, so I feel that it would make more sense to expand upon what's mentioned in his manifesto in his own page. Plus, having separate pages would help to give a more objective viewpoint of RodgerTimecubefloortile (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

I agree. We have more than enough material for a separate page.2001:14BB:180:1788:9DC3:65D5:276B:E65D (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're all free to go make the page for Elliot Rodger. Just click on the link and edit away. ("Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.") PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Other cases have been treated like this one, with an article only for the incident. These include Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Adam Lanza), San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (James Huberty), and Luby's shooting (George Hennard). Yet others have an article for the killer, but none for the incident - Charles Whitman (1966 UT Austin tower massacre), Richard Speck (1966 Chicago murders of 8 student nurses). If we cherry-pick, we can show precedent for any of the three choices we want. Different groups of editors see different cases differently, and Wikipedia gives low priority to inter-article consistency of this type (that's why we have so little of it). This is the gist of WP:Other stuff exists. Each case should be judged in isolation from the rest.
Many would oppose a split here per WP:BIO1E. That guideline gives one example of what it considers a "highly significant" event. That is the assassination, by Gavrilo Princip, that led to the start of World War I. I choose to be guided by that example, and I don't think the Isla Vista killings compare to that assassination in significance. Elliot Rodger will not be covered in history books.
User:Dr pda/prosesize shows this article's "readable prose size" as 27 kB, well within the guidance at WP:SIZERULE. So article size is not a problem. I don't know of any Wikipedia guidance that says we should create a separate bio article simply because we have enough material for one, so the size of this Perpetrator section is not a consideration either. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

After the attacks, there was a widespread discussion on the issue of misogyny, gun rights and there were even articles created for NotAllMen and YesAllWoman, which seem like unhistorical aspects of the killings compared to the perpetrator. He is no less notable than, say, Marc Lepine, who also generated a discussion about misogyny in his day. Cbswagman (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

After the attacks, there was a widespread discussion - Elliot Rodger will not be covered in history books.
there were even articles created for - He is no less notable than - Each case should be judged in isolation from the rest. WP:Other stuff exists.
I based my reasoning on Wikipedia guidance and a widely-accepted essay; you based your reasoning on ... well, your reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

>Elliot Rodger will not be covered in the history books

You said this already. Though I realize "Other Stuff Exists" is meant to discourage splitting articles on the basis that similar articles were, the fact is that Marc Lepine is a good example of someone less historically notable, not "covered by the books" as you say, with his own article, and that elliot rodger is a good historical case study of mental health, misogyny, video game addiction and various other factors. Earlier you also said that different groups of editors see different cases differently, so i propose that we put it to a vote. Cbswagman (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, you said that many would oppose a split per WP:BIO1E. One section states: "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." considering the hashtags NotAllMen and YesAllWomen, created in the wake of and as a response to the killings, have their own articles, as well as the discussion on misogyny, mental health, etc. the killings sparked, it is safe to assume that the coverage of the event is large enough to warrant a split, according to BIO1E. Cbswagman (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Excessive detail in birth location

Re: [35] [36] [37]

@SamSennett: We need a better reason than "just because". Please respond to my reason for removing this information. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Plenty of wiki articles that delve into far more detail than this. If you feel the need to remove it, go ahead. SamSennett (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Plenty of articles about people have the exact district of the city or hospital where the person was born mentioned in the biography section. I guess these details are being deleted because the person concerned is a murderer and hence, according to some, doesn't deserve to have his biography fully listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.33.75 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

First you claim, that first 3 victims were found day later. But after you claim, that his parents were informed at arrival to city, that their son killed 6 people.

Police at that time didn't know about first 3 killings, they know only about last 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.206.248.44 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

PUAHate

PUAHate redirects here but I can't figure out why. There doesn't seem to be anything here about PUAHate. Should I delete it? List it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? If there is a connection to this article, can someone add the relevant info? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-is-puahate-a-look-into-elliot-rodgers-anti-pickup-artist-hangout/

It seems to have been a small narrow-interest online community frequented by Elliot Rodger and others who shared some of his ideas, which appears to have collapsed in the aftermath and under the weight of Rodger's atrocity.

In the absence of a PUAHate article (I can't say I'd think it noteworthy) I reckon anyone searching for such could do worse than land on this article. Keep it say I. Captainllama (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, considering that they will find nothing here about it. Such a redirect essentially says "PUAHate is somehow associated with a mass killing", with no clarification. List it and let a larger miniscule fraction of the community decide. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have listed it here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 6 Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit 2014 Isla Vista killings

I don't think my edit of the page ((2014 Isla Vista killings)) was "unsourced and irrelevant", the source was already there, which was Elliot's Rodger's manifesto page 100. On page 100 he clearly says it was latte coffee. Why did ((User:Mandruss)) revert my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikrewrwe (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First, you are confusing two different incidents sourced to two different pages. "Latte" was in fact unsourced as to the man and woman on page 87. That's the edit I reverted. More important, for either incident we don't need more than one word to describe what he threw. We need to be specific enough to say that he threw some kind of drink (he didn't throw a book or a hammer), but any more than one word would be superfluous and irrelevant. It matters not whether he threw black coffee, coffee with creamer, or latte, and it matters not whether he threw a Starbucks product, one from the corner convenience store, or a coffee he made at home. We don't waste words including stuff that doesn't matter; hence "irrelevant". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

World of Warcraft's Role

Why no mention that Elliot Rodger got completely detached from reality due to playing online games? I.e. parents buy addictive games and believe their child will grow up into correctly functioning individual. Did Elliot's parents ever seek psychiatric counseling, as Elliot became more crazy with each day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaSadkov (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

We go by weight of coverage in reliable sources, not by own our viewpoints. See WP:WEIGHT. I certainly haven't read all of the available coverage, but I don't recall seeing any discussion of that in reliable sources in the months following the article's inception. If you can link to three or four such sources here, that would be enough to consider some brief mention. Blogs, forums, and other opinion fail the "reliable" test. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, seems a very strong POV. Koncorde (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What does? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the first comment. Yours is entirely reasonable. Koncorde (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Large part of ER's manifesto is dedicated to WoW, which Elliot Rodger himself blames for getting more detached. Then you can google "Elliot Rodger World of Warcraft" and get lot of news reports on that. I guess most news haven't mentioned WoW to avoid being sued by Blizzard or maybe they blackmailed Blizzard with something like "pay us or we state that WoW turns kids into mass murdering psychopaths". I believe an award winning research could be done on how playing these games, where child gamer kill creatures for hours, affects child's sanity (i.e. how his empathy changes on MMPI-like psych tests). NikitaSadkov (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the burden of finding (and reading) the sources is on the person who wants the content added. I'm not that guy—I don't care enough about this to make that effort—but I'm willing to contribute a little more time to this if you can identify suitable sources with enough weight. If there is little RS coverage, our opinions of why that is are not relevant to what we do as Wikipedia editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a seriously deep well of investigative journalism and psychological studies that already exist, none of which have found any evidence to suggest video games interact with personality, other than where pre-existing issues already exist. Koncorde (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a citation about his YouTube channel deletion

Following this event, Eliott's YouTube channel was deleted on May 25, 2017. I think this is true, but it's unreferenced. MW131tester (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was added without a reference and then removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Incel see also link

@Mandruss: I'm curious why you removed דוג'רית's addition of Incel to the "see also" section as "extremely tenuous". Typically cites aren't used in See also sections, so I won't try to add them there, but Elliot Rodger and incel are pretty closely tied: see the incel article. (Full disclosure, I did start the article and have continued to actively edit it). If you ctrl-f "Rodger" in that article you'll see that there are seven references alone that mention Rodger in their titles—I haven't gone through the rest to see how many mention him in the body text. If you need me to list those references here I'm happy to, just let me know—just trying to save 10 minutes of work or so. :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "Not getting any" doesn't automatically make one a member of the incel "online subculture". The word does not occur in his lengthy manifesto—don't you think it would be seen at least once if he had been part of said subculture? Did he ever post in an incel forum? If so, that isn't mentioned in this article. My impression is that the incel subculture has adopted Rodger, not the other way around, and the RS you refer to is simply reporting that. This phenomenon is more about the subculture than about Rodger, who was dead before the subculture ever heard of him. So it isn't necessarily wrong or inconsistent to include Rodger at Incel but omit incel here.
That said, if somebody wanted to add prose about the subculture adopting Rodger, I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. It would depend on what and how much. But nothing incel should be added to See also, External links, lead, or infoboxes if there is no mention of it in body prose.
These mass killings always have ripple effects that continue for years or decades, at some point we have to draw a line, and there is always wide disagreement as to where the line should be. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I now see that there is already a small amount about incel in the article, representing the "extremely tenuous" connection I referred to. I think it's too tangential to the article subject (a mass killing), and I would prefer it weren't there. The incel online subculture had absolutely nothing to do with the killings as far as I can tell, it merely exploited them for their own self-interested ends (apparently, something to akin to "See what you make us do?"). Many attempts to get incel into this article are part of that, very likely, just as any group or movement tries to use Wikipedia to further their agenda. I haven't investigated closely but I would wager that most of the editing of this type has not been done by experienced Wikipedia editors who have contributed in a number of diverse topic areas. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rodger was active on an incel forum called "PUAHate" (shut down after the Isla Vista killings), and he mentioned it in his manifesto. You're right that the connection between Rodger and current incel communities is largely due to their adoption of him as a sort of martyr, but I do think that's still a relevant link. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

PUAHate was not an incel site per se, per PUAHate. It was a general misogyny/women-bashing site. I'm known for wanting to stay close to the subject and avoid the ripple-effect-tangent-chain trap, and as I said the incel subculture had nothing to do with the killings that are the subject of this article. If this were a bio of Rodger that would be different.
Absent more participation here, I would more easily accept edits from you than from editors with 120 edits in their history, provided your edits added some quality encyclopedic prose. The currently existing prose is trivial nonsense about another perp posting "All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!" on Facebook—and blockquoted, no less. Big deal. I don't think he passes the RS test. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's all fair enough—thanks for your explanation. As an aside, I do know this topic area is plagued with SPAs trying to push an agenda, but I think it's fair to AGF with דוג'רית—they have over 30,000 edits to he.wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

PUAHate became SlutHate, which seems to in turn have become RedPillTalk.com, a game denialist lookism community with a looksmaxxing component. A lot of the same people who hang out on such sites are also active in the incelosphere; for example, LooksMax.org and Incels.is are owned by the same guy and moderated by some of the same people. Lookism.net is a site similar to RedPillTalk.com and LooksMax.org, and it uses incel terminology such as "coping". Also, Incel.is used to have a ratings megathread, much like these looksmaxxing sites.

What differentiates Rodger's belief system from that of the modern incelosphere is that, while he was apparently a game denialist (hence his membership in PUAHate), he didn't talk about a lookist blackpill; instead, in his videos he seemed mystified as to why girls didn't like him, and he even called himself beautiful and talked about his style and manners (which suggests a belief that women care about a man's personality; this is contrary to the incels' blackpill, which says that the halo effect causes women to consider good-looking men to have a good personality). If someone were to show up at an incel site and talk the way Elliot did, he might get kicked off.

Incels' opinions differ as to whether Elliot was bad-looking enough to be truly incel; some say his problem was that he was an Asian man in southern California, where there is lots of competition from good-looking white men for the blonde girls Elliot preferred. Some consider him a mentalcel, although the existence of mentalceldom is disputed in the incelosphere.

If some incels claim him as their own, that reflects that they consider inceldom to encompass a larger group than those who belong to their subculture. The reliable sources may say that inceldom is a subculture, but that's because those scholarly and media articles are not written by people who belong to the incel subculture and share its views.

There's certainly some overlap between Rodger's views and some views that are common in the incelosphere, such as the belief that it would be better if women's sexual decisions were made for them by men. But this is a belief also shared by many manosphere figures such as Roosh V who are not part of the incelosphere. It's also shared by quite a lot of traditional religious cultures that have nothing to do with the online manosphere. MW131tester (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@MW131tester: Just as a heads up, you've replied to a thread that's eight months old. Do you think something should change with respect to the inclusion of the Incel "see also" link? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If somebody wanted to mention somewhere in the article that Elliot has become a patron saint of a lot of incels, there are probably reliable sources to back that up. I wouldn't be opposed to putting a link to incel in the "see also" section since, as with the Toronto van attack, most articles surveying the incel movement will mention the Isla Vista killings and how incels are always posting praise and memes about it (actually, they probably do that more with Rodger than with Minassian). MW131tester (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Do you have any thoughts on this? I'm finding myself somewhat convinced by MW131tester's points. Also, Rodger did self-identify with the incel community; he posted on PUAHate saying "empower all incels of the world to take action against those who would oppress us" ([38]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: My thoughts are largely the same as above. If reliable sources connect incel to the killings—with the "reliable" bar set fairly high—then we should include some content; otherwise, we should not. I haven't done exhaustive research on the question, but I don't think that RS exists and it's not on me to prove the negative. Based solely on your Huffington link, we could include Rodger's statement as a quote (not blockquote), but that statement alone doesn't justify going any further with incel (no matter how many times it was reported). Even if there are probably reliable sources to back up the idea that Elliot has become a patron saint of a lot of incels (after the fact), that's not enough; this is an article about the killings, not about Rodger or his legacy. If anybody feels he and his legacy are sufficiently notable, they are free to try a BLP, but in my view such content is too tangential to the subject of this article. Most of MW131tester's comments look like OR-like reasoning to me; for our purposes, it matters not how convincing they are. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Much of them are OR, which I've not put much weight in. But they are correct that Rodger (and the killings) is mentioned very, very often in connection to incels. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm still waiting for links showing that reliable sources connect incel to the killings in sufficient quantity to pass WP:WEIGHT; absent that, this discussion is somewhat hypothetical and pointless. My perception is that 95% of this exists only in internet forums, blogs, etc, which are not reliable sources. Either of you are welcome to prove me wrong. I reiterate that Rodger typed the word incel zero times in his lengthy manifesto—despite the word being in his vocabulary, as the Huffington quote shows—which strongly suggests that it was not a significant factor despite the desire of certain internet factions to make it one. Absent strong RS support, it is clearly OR reasoning for us to connect dots between things like PUAHate and incel, on Rodger's behalf. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Eight references that are currently used in Incel mention Rodger just in their titles. I've included some particularly relevant quotes from some of them. I'll also note that it seems like a lot of the websites discuss PUAHate as being home to incels (in addition to other subgroups), and I have included those quotes as well:

• BBC: "Elliot Rodger: How misogynist killer became 'incel hero'"
• The Los Angeles Times: "How Elliot Rodger went from misfit mass murderer to 'saint' for group of misogynists — and suspected Toronto killer"
• The Guardian: "'PUAhate' and 'ForeverAlone': inside Elliot Rodger's online life" Incel is short for “involuntary celibates”: people who define themselves solely by their inability to sleep with women. It is a definition Elliot Rodger used for himself.
• The Sydney Morning Herald: "Elliot Rodger: How Hollywood tried and failed to save a mass killer" He was also a contributor on websites for male so-called ‘‘incels’’ - involuntary celibates - most notably on PUAhate, channelling hatred of successful ‘‘PUAs’’ or ‘‘pick-up artists’’. He wrote in his manifesto that he had discovered ‘‘a forum full of men who are starved of sex, just like me’’. What he read ‘‘confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are’’.
• Forbes: "The Disturbing Internet Footprint Of Santa Barbara Shooter Elliot Rodger"
• The New York Times: "Before Brief, Deadly Spree, Trouble Since Age 8" On PUAhate, a site that was taken down after the murders, Mr. Rodger expressed his disgust at women, questioning how they could resist his charms. He would urge other “incels” — or involuntary celibates — to fight back. “One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system,” he wrote. “Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”
• The Washington Post: "Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger" But Rodger’s extensive digital footprint, as well as his stomach-turning YouTube send-off and 137-page manifesto, suggest that he may have identified himself differently: as an “incel,” or involuntary virgin; as an aspirational, if frustrated, pick-up artist; and as an adherent of the so-called “manosphere” — that corner of the Internet where boys will be boys, girls will be objects, and critics will be “feminists,” “misandrists” or “enemies.”; While Rodger evidently followed a number of pick-up sites and YouTube channels, his most notable postings were on a site called PUAhate — a forum for malcontents complaining that the “game” didn’t work. There, and on other forums, Rodger identified as an “incel, or “involuntary celibate” — a virgin who couldn’t get girls, even after taking “the red pill.”
• Newsweek: "Elliot Rodger's father 'very sad' Toronto van suspect Alek Minassian referenced son"

I'm actually thinking it probably makes more sense to just include some text in the article body about Rodger being an incel. That will render this discussion moot, since there'd be no need to repeat it in the see also section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, provided the content is very brief, like one sentence. I think it should be treated like the many other details that have no connection to the killings but are included in the article anyway, like who his father is. I think any more would be WP:UNDUE, all things considered. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a brief sentence about it here. Thanks for working with me on this! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Los Angeles killings" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Los Angeles killings. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Relevance of World of Warcraft?

The "Mental health and social problems" section at the time of writing notes that he became addicted to World of Warcraft, but then makes no later reference to it nor any larger connection to videogames in general. It does not relate to the surrounding text and certainly doesn't make sense under the current section. It would make more sense under the "Early life" section, though it really just appears (to me) to be an attempt to imply there's a connection between World of Warcraft and his behavior, which isn't noted elsewhere in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Isla_Vista_killings&oldid=844919344. This appears to be the first introduction of the edit, and the justification given in the edit is simply that it was mentioned in the manifesto. User.tmp (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Misogyny comment relevancy

The final line of the 'Misogyny' section is this: Someone created the Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen on May 24 to express the idea that all women experience misogyny and sexism, although not all men are sexist.

I don't see why "... although not all men are sexist" is relevant to the #YesAllWomen hashtag. The hashtag is explicitly about all women experiencing sexism. It has nothing to do with any concession towards men not being necessarily sexist. The hashtag is pertinent to the experience of women, and in my opinion it does not need to be framed in the experience of men.

My proposed edit to the section is this:

Comments and coverage of misogyny as a root cause have generated criticisms of oversimplification and distortion of the events, which included the killings of more men than women and Rodger's mental health issues.[100] Some writers used the #NotAllMen hashtag on Twitter to express the fact that not all men are misogynistic and not all men commit murder. Others criticized use of this hashtag, as it was considered to derail from discussion of the issue of violence against women.[89][101][102] In response, the Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen was created to express the perspective that all women experience misogyny and sexism.[101][103][104]

Transfixedonwhy (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

Given the reason of the attack was because the perpetrator hated women to the point he fantasized complete gendercide, shouldn't this be classified as a terrorist attack? 2001:8003:AD66:D400:F906:A88A:273F:1921 (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, so please provide reliable sources that describe it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a citation for this in the following document, and I am open to feedback about the applicability: DiBranco, Alex (February 10, 2020). "Male Supremacist Terrorism as a Rising Threat". International Centre for Counter-Terrorism. The Hague. No misogynist killer articulated the terroristic intention behind his selected target more clearly than 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who set out on his "War on Women" to "punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex." The autobiography he left behind—which has been taken as a manifesto for the incel ideology—spells this out. Jno.skinner (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jno.skinner: I absolutely think it's worth saying, with in-text attribution, that the ICCT has described it as an act of misogynist terrorism. I don't think we should describe it in wikivoice as a misogynist terror attack unless/until it is widely described that way in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: that makes sense to me and I've changed the text accordingly Jno.skinner (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to ... TheWikipedian05 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

---

... split this page into a separate page called Elliot Rodger.

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.

I propose that the sections dealing with Elliot Rodger's life be split into a separate page called Elliot Rodger.

• Support – TheWikipedian05 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Rodger has achieved enough notoriety post-attacks to warrant a separate article. Many incel terrorists, from Alek Minassian to Jake Davison, have referenced Rodger's attacks. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Justice prosecuted an incel making threats to random women who, seven years after the killings, made yet another reference to Rodger. - TheWikipedia05 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - Chefs-kiss (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If so the article would need to include noteriety section. Also in addition what would be included? Would the Attacks section be included, then would you delete it from this article? Also do keep in mind that many people might be motivated to commit hate crimes due to noteriety. Also I suggest we keep an eye on it because it might have edit warring. - Chefs-kiss (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It would include all the information in this article that deals with Rodger's life personally. A notoriety section would definitely be added as it's important to contextualize the attacks and mention the impact they had on subsequent incel-related attacks. It'd be a good idea to have it be protected or semi-protected lest it get vandalized. - TheWikipedia05 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / Neutral - Need to consider the fact that "giviing" Elliot a wiki page will move the focus onto him and away from the attacks. We should think about the Contagion effect. Size split: sure. Content split: be careful. L32007 (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A separate page would have to be done with caution. It shouldn't become a rallying point for Rodger's 'supporters', so locking it and/or placing it under a protected status would help. - TheWikipedia05 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support – Elliot Rodger and by extension the context of his life/upbringing/manifesto as well as his internet footprint are pretty frequently referenced, even somewhat outside of the direct context of the attacks. It’s deserving of its own article because of how notable his name/impact is and constant references to him online. Also his YouTube videos are something that would belong on his page and not be necessarily this page, Sydpresscott (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Under the Contentious Topics procedure, and to combat sockpuppetry, I have protected the article and the talk page. The article is subject to extended confirmed protection, and this talk page is semi'ed. The protections do not expire, the first year of them is logged as a CTOP action. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Classification of far right

Why have the killing themselves not been classified as a far right act? Chefs-kiss (talk)

Good question. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Please add to the see also ..

• 2022 University of Idaho killings

2603:7000:2143:8500:5978:8C9B:FB08:CC35 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"== he's widely considered the founding father of the modern incel ideology ==

i'd like to mention this, at least in the section that talks about his personal legacy and impact JoeyCoffin (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Legacy and impact" is a rather disturbing way to put it. Please remember that the article is about the murders, not the perpetrator. If anything, a neutrally-worded discussion is better placed at Incel, not here. Use the talkpage there first, and check to see if it's not already covered. Acroterion (talk)' 11:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

'

This should go under his seperate Wiki page, which doesn't exist yet, instead of here. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Beast (2023)

The recent French science fiction film The Beast (2023 film) has a character based on the perpetrator of these attacks and contains scenes recreating his YouTube videos. This should be added to the Depiction in popular culture section. Sipiso (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Timeline article

would it be worth making a timeline article similar to the Timeline of the Virginia Tech shooting. I feel like we could go a lot more in depth with the timeline of the events leading up to the shooting and the shooting itself. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of "virgin killer" under "other names"

I can't edit the article, please someone add it!!!

Several sources and some of the public gave him this nickname. Please!!!!! Octalh (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)