Talk:Collective Shout

Credits

I want to precize here that EvPath was the main author of the newly created page and credit is due to them for the work, so thanks to them for their work and efforts Aristoxène (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I used some information copied from Melinda Tankard Reist in the page, please give credit to the editors of that page.

EvPath (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Group description

Currently cited sources

Here is how the cited non-primary sources describe or introduce the group:

• Some form of the group's own description of being against the objectification of women and girls - RealTime, SMH, Reuters, Mumbrella, PC Gamer, News.com.au, The Guardian
• Activist group or organization - TheAge, SBS, PC Gamer, SMH
• Feminist group or organization - Pitchfork, BBC, SMH
• Anti-pornography group or organization - The Guardian, PC Gamer
• Pressure group - Rock Paper Shotgun
• Radical feminist organization - Vice
• Far-right activist group - Inverse
• Grassroots movement - SBS

Daisy Blue (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I had this issue over at the Talk:Steam (service) page, and I agree that the term "anti-porn" is not well sourced (and I would overlook gaming sources here, they have a clear bias here as nearly all have been critical of these actions). Neutrally, on paper, they are an anti-exploitation/anti-objectification group, which I believe can be said factually - however, these other terms should be treated as labels that need in-line attribution (eg saying "the group has been called anti-porn by multiple sources in the wake of the video game removals" may be reasonable, but I would still be careful with what sources used to pull that. Masem (t) 12:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, two of the cited sources say it's anti-porn only in the headline or subheadline, which is against WP:HEADLINE. PC Gamer and The Guardian do say it's anti-porn in the body though, so I'll add them on the list. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It is pretty clear they are anti-porn, it is just about finding sources that wikipedia will accept.

I dont know if this would be a good source, probably counts as originsl research, but they have an anti-porn tag on their website.https://www.collectiveshout.org/tags/anti_porn

Here we have collective shout saying That being pro-sex is being anti-porn, using we in reference to anti-pornography and saying young people should be free of the global porn industry. https://www.collectiveshout.org/are_you_anti_sex

The guardian reffers to the group as anti-porn in an article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/29/mastercard-visa-backlash-adult-games-removed-online-stores-steam-itchio-ntwnfb

The Australian calling it an anti-pornography campaign on itch.io in article. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/20000-online-games-blocked-after-australian-antiporn-campaign/news-story/18a2f66f586edc76b1107737682928ca

EvPath (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem I have with calling them this is that group itself does not use the anti porn term in describing themselves. Not that anti porn can't be considered as an attributed label, but that should be used in discussing criticism of the group, not as an objective descriptor of the group. Masem (t) 13:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I just gave 2 sources of them saying they are anti-porn, I understand the first one is not a good source but they are rather clear in the second source.

I will find more sources of them calling themselves anti-porn. EvPath (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing The Australian article, but assuming it's not only in the subheadline (which I can see upon searching for the article on the website), do the three sources outweigh the number of reliable sources that describe the group more like it describes itself? Daisy Blue (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Both sources I listed had Anti-porn in the article itself.

Here is collective shout "discussing the harms of pornography" on the anti-porn tag. https://www.collectiveshout.org/pornification_of_our_nation

Saying there is no such thing as ethical porn and tagging the article "antiporn" https://www.collectiveshout.org/there_s_no_such_thing_as_ethical_porn

This article in no uncertain terms is against porn. "Anti-porn campaigners recognise that pornography is the commodification of human sexuality. It is produced by an industry concerned not with liberation or authentic sexuality, but maximising profits.' https://www.collectiveshout.org/whats_the_problem_with_porn_responding_to_common_pro_porn_arguments

While they do not say "we are anti-porn" they continuously reffer to anti-pornography in a way that agrees with them, they have a tag called anti-porn, describe themselves as pro-sex in the same breath as saying pro-sex is anti-porn, and have continuously demonstrated the oppinion that all porn is harmful, usually within an anti-porn tag.

I dont think the label 'anti-porn' is counter to the way they describe themselves, they have expressed the oppinion in their faq that being pro sex is being anti porn and that they are pro sex.

EvPath (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The way I've read the material and about CS, they have a stance against porn that objectifies women, but that doesn't mean they are against all porn. So calling them anti porn without explaining their main goals and how their stance on porn sits with that seems too much of a jump. Reist even commented on the itch.io situation their goal wasn't to have all that material removed, just that around rape and incest. CS's efforts clearly can be seen as anti porn by others but I am uncomfortable saying that as a goal without a lot of other context in play. Masem (t) 14:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masem The opinion of the organization (which describes itself as anti-porn) and secondary sources (anti-porn) are very clear – I find the edits that were made are biased and not based on secondary sources. The Guardian states it's anti-porn; do you have anything that says otherwise? If not, that's speculation without any source. Furthermore, I don't see why a movement should be expected to categorize itself when we have quality secondary sources that do so (although CS indeed describe themselves like that)– almost no far-right movement describes itself as such – would that mean they aren't? Follow the sources or provide them, otherwise this debate is pointless and is just harassing a new Wikipedist by using the fact that they don't know how to defend their edits.

Cordially, Aristoxène (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Just because they have an anti porn tag and duscuss their concerns of porn does not mean their principle goal is anti porn. It would be like calling the catholic church as an anti porn group.over anything else. The article should discuss their concerns with porn in the framework they hold that it objectives and exploits women, and that others consider the group anti porn for what it is targetting. But as anti porn is a contentious label, it needs to be used carefully with clear DUE inclusion from high quality reliable sources. Masem (t) 14:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Drawing conclusions based on tags and other statements that do not explicitly say the group is anti-porn would also be WP:OR. Daisy Blue (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masem @Daisy Blue @Daisy Blue Yes and the Guardian does so 'Payment companies such as Visa, Mastercard and Stripe are facing public backlash, including from billionaire Elon Musk, for pressuring online gaming platforms to remove hundreds of games in response to a campaign from an Australian ANTI-PORN LOBBY GROUP.'

This, associated with the primary sources provided (that you can not include but are useful to see that the Guardian is not wrong to categorize them like this) is clear. Aristoxène (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw the whole of your edits since yesterday and I think they all went in the same direction disregarding the secondary sourcces - you didn't provide a single one in this discussion saying otherwise, btw. So stick to the sources and stop removing them and neutralizing what they say. Or provide yours - but you didn't.

Cordially, Aristoxène (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Your assessment is missing WP:DUE, which states that minority opinions (and those sources are currently in the minority of those cited) should be given less weight, whereas the article elevated the description to the first sentence of the intro. Like Masem noted, it could be used elsewhere in the article, but it has to be done organically without going off-topic or giving it disproportionate weight. Daisy Blue (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I should say that there was only a focus on English secondary sources, but this is well documented elsewhere. For example, Le Monde says : 'Presented as a collective fighting against the reification of women, the sexualization of children, and the "pornification of culture," Collective Shout is an ANTI PORNOGRAPHY GROUP formed around the CONSERVATIVE Christian feminist activist Melinda Tankard Reist. This Australian activist, who openly identifies as anti-abortion, is not new to the video game scene: in 2014, for example, her collective supported a petition calling on Australian stores not to sell Grand Theft Auto V (2013), Rockstar Games' global hit.' Aristoxène (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot use descriptors about Reist to describe the group. Masem (t) 14:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I understood your stance, no worries lol. The issue is anti-porn and you have two top 3 media in France and the UK saying the same while describing the group. Where are your secondary sources saying otherwise ? Stay on the sources - your opinion, I mean... Use sources. The issue is that there aren't any supporting your stance, ofc, or you would have provided far ago - now if you continue this comportment without any source, and going on the back of a new Wikipedist who wants to contribute, using their inexperience to push unsourced content and in this case, remove sourced content, I will have to report it, this is unacceptable on an encyclopedia trying to use secondary sources.

Cordially, Aristoxène (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Both the Guardian and Le Monde establish that group fights sexualization of woman and then state is anti porn, which is the context I was talking about. Masem (t) 15:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, they don't establish that, especially Le Monde - Le Monde retakes the CS claim as a claim 'Presented as... they are an anti-porn group' - the 'presented as' is not an assurance of what they actually are, but how they present themselves. Aristoxène (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

But in any case, the removal of anti-porn is clearly not warranted, and in fact EvPath kept in the intro how they described themselves in fact, in kinda the same way as the Monde does - and I don't think they read that source since they don't quote it - they didn't diminish the claim, they used it as a claim, like Le Monde. Aristoxène (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Because, as you said, the manner in which the group presents itself is in fact primary and has no value on the actual categorization of the group - it's a claim, each group does so, some far right movement present themselves as being socialists, for example - does that mean they are ? Aristoxène (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, what was removed was only the secondary sourced content - you kept both the way in which the group described itself and removed at the same time how secondary sources describe the group. This is totally problematic. Aristoxène (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The big issue is that a term like "anti porn" is a contentious label, and per WP:LABEL we should not state it is factual wiki voice. There's no problem with using online attribution to say the group is considered anti porn, but stating it as anti porn without attribution is a problem. At least not without a much larger volume of sources and from distant sources like academic papers.

I'm also with putting the group's own stance as being anti exploitation as a claim rather than factual, eg "CS states they are fighting against exploitation of women, though their activities have been described as anti-pornography by the Guardian and Le Monde". But tone here is important, it is not WP's place to be critical of the group. Masem (t) 16:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There are sources, like Reuters and News.com.au listed above, that do not put quotation marks around the group's self-description or present it as a self-description though. On the other hand, the anti-porn description isn't limited to just those two sources. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added a section saying they have been described as anti-porn by multiple news outlets.

EvPath (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Other sources

Listing other sources, including sources introduced in the discussion above.

• Some form of the group's own description of being against the objectification of women and girls - Vice, Engadget, Rock Paper Shotgun, CBC
• Anti-pornography group or organization - News.com.au, Le Monde, CBC
• Feminist group or organization - CNN, The Guardian
• "Organization" - GamesIndustry.biz, GameSpot
• Conservative group - Wired, Polygon
• Activist group - Shacknews, Rock Paper Shotgun
• Pressure group - Eurogamer

Daisy Blue (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Opinion: Whether we use "lobbying group", "pressure group" or "activism group", the matter of what exactly they act in favour of or against should probably be left out of the shortdesc as it's in my opinion not possible to accurately summarize in 40-odd characters. I'm personally in favour of "lobbying group" considering their connections and modus operandi but the current shortdesc added by Daisy is already much better than describing them as either an anti-porn group or an anti-sexualization of women group. --Croomfolk (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

"Australian non profit group" is a very neutral short desc which is all that needs to be said about it in the places the short desc is used (search results) Masem (t) 23:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

From a quick search for "lobby" through all the sources linked above across the two subsections, it shows up only three times. I still think "activist" is fine based on the number of times it appears in the sources reviewed so far. The common self-description is probably not short enough, while "anti-porn" would probably violate WP:SDAVOID, which says we should use "universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional". Daisy Blue (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Additional source calling it anti-porn, 404Media. BootsED (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

This research article does not explicitly say it is anti-porn, but clearly describes it as advocating for a ban on pornography: "But the government had already handed the question of the NCS to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for review and recommendations. CollectiveShout testified to the ALRC ‘we are concerned about the lack of effective enforcement through sufficiently serious penalties to deter those who are making a profit from the pornification of women and girls’ and again recommended a ban on X rated movies (CollectiveShout, 2011b). CollectiveShout has apparently broadened its interests to include literature. It recommended the adoption of an NCS with the ‘primary objective’ of reducing the prevalence and availability of material ‘in all media, which contains images or words that reduce women to sex objects….’" BootsED (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

From looking at the article, it actually uses the group's own description. Headline aside, the only description as anti-porn I see relates to other groups that signed the open letter: "several co-signatories of the letter are anti-porn groups that have pushed for broader legislation against the adult industry". Daisy Blue (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Added contentious topic header

I've added this due to some of the nonsense that's been added and quickly removed on the main article, and to try to keep away similar nonsense. Seen how this came with Gamergate, its going to likely happen here too. Masem (t) 00:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Right wing or alt-right organization?

Discussion about the group

Since LGBTQ+ games have been taken down due to collective shout, could this implicate them as a far or alt-right group alongside their TERF allegations? Homophobia and transphobia are aspects of alt-right ideology. 23.93.172.237 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

We would need far more sourcing that makes this claim, and it if were enough sourced to be DUE, that would still only be included as a label with attribution, not a factual claim about the group. Masem (t) 01:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

In all likelihood, Collective Shout could just as easily be labeled under the far left based on their policies, having gone so far to the left with their ideology that they share more in common with the alt-right than they do with the left. We just don't know. 47.145.113.30 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Far-left would be an absurd statement to make about this group with it's current leader. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Not alt-right, but most definitely christian-conservative. This page mentions them being tied to christian NGOs, and the article on Melinda Tankard Reist says she has spoken at christian events in babtist churches, so it shouldn't require too much to label them as such.

They are however seem to be engaged in a civil war with the gamergate crowd, which is hilarious. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that there is some civil war going on is insane. They are certified as Feminists. https://www.collectiveshout.org/our_team

"Caitlin is a ... co-founder of the Feminist Academy of Technology and Ethics. Her writing has been featured in the Guardian, Huffington Post, ABC, Sydney Morning Herald and Arena magazine, and she has been interviewed on The Project, ABC’s Lateline and Triple J Hack."

Those are all Far Left organisations. Or does reality warp according to the needs of the moment? You don't like her, therefore she is Hitler?

"Melinda Tankard Reist, Movement Director. ... Melinda has appeared on ABC’s Q&A and The Gruen Sessions and many other TV and radio programs." The ABC does not allow conservatives to speak. No member of Gamergate has ever had a voice on that channel. It is notorious for calling for things such as the removal of whites from Australia, and the claim that aboriginals appeared here 500,000 years ago spontaneously and just hung around in a utopia until the whites came over in order to oppress them.

https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/shop/p/9781876756758

"

We respectfully acknowledge the wisdom of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their custodianship of the lands and waterways.

The lands on which Spinifex offices are situated are Djiru, Bunurong and Wurundjeri, Wadawurrung, Gundungurra, and Noongar.

We also acknowledge the many women throughout history who have fought for women’s freedom and the freedom of lesbians, often at the cost of their lives. "

Does that sound like white OR black supremacism? Patriarchy OR female superiority? Heteronormativity OR queer propaganda?

Claiming that she is a member of Gamergate, because No True Feminist could do something you don't like, is the sort of doublethink I expect from Leftists, but it is sad to see it tainting Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3463:6701:5072:EAED:DF3A:216D (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: previous user : founder is an anti choice Christian conservative. This group can call themselves feminists all they want, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to or should take that at face value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddbard (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Government agencies' role in No Mercy's removal

@Masem, could you clarify where that part comes from? I'm not seeing it in the cited PC Gamer and The Australian articles where the relevant quotes are as follows:

• "A petition to ban the game No Mercy from sale, which ultimately led to the developers pulling it from Steam."
• "Collective Shout already has forced the developers of a rape and incest simulation game, No Mercy, to withdraw it from gaming platforms after 70,000 people worldwide signed a petition for it to be banned. Ms Tankard Reist said Steam had refused to ban the game before the developer withdrew it."

Daisy Blue (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Its relatively easy to find sources around April 2025, such as , , and Masem (t) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair, as long as that type of synthesis is acceptable. Daisy Blue (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, its clear that the devs of No Mercy pulled the game due to mounting gov't pressure (the first link I provided), they say that explicitly. We know now that CS was pressuring Steam to remove this game too. Masem (t) 03:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2025

2804:56C:D590:BC00:5126:9536:927F:A2F2 (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Collective Shout is an Australian anti-censorship activist group founded in 2009 by Melinda Tankard Reist. It describes itself as "a grassroots movement challenging the objectification of women and the sexualization of girls in media, advertising, and popular culture."[1] While they have focused on campaigns challenging adult material that they claim objectifies and sexualizes women and girls, some news and advocacy organizations consider their agenda to be anti-pornography and currently in favor of game censorship.[2]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That they have recently come into the news due to what's happened with games is not something that needs to be in the first paragraph, as it still falls into the perception they are anti-porn but not anti-gaming. Masem (t) 13:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As a note

There is currently a draft for the topic "financial censorship" over at User:SilviaASH/Financial censorship that once its main space, we can offload much about the steam/itch.io stuff there, because CS's role in the larger picture right now is now becoming less significant. Masem (t) 05:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I see, that makes more sense. VintageVernacular (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"Current and future censorship"

Putting the issue of MOS:RELTIME aside for a moment, I'm not sure which part of the two cited sources this is backed by, @Masem. From looking for the word "censor" in the articles, I don't see it in the body of The Guardian article, while Wired says the following:

[Collective Shout] has recently targeted payment processors for Itch and Steam, urging the banking services to stop doing business with those platforms because of the content they host, a tactic known as financial censorship.

This part is not about "concerns" but it is a characterization, and we already have a "concerns about financial censorship" part in the intro, backed by a different source.

Conservative groups sometimes use these financial institutions to put pressure on companies to change their services. Insiders in the adult entertainment industry, which has seen similar campaigns lobbied against platforms like PornHub and OnlyFans, call these tactics a form of censorship that can hurt, not help, vulnerable creators. Itch’s mass removals, which are being enforced on a widespread scale with apparently little consideration of context, have already affected some developers who are queer, female, or people of color, even for award-winning projects.

This is talking about conservative groups in general rather than Collective Shout specifically, in relation to past campaigns. The second sentence is about Itch without explicitly attributing the "mass removals" to Collective Shout. In fact, The Guardian directly contradicts the notion ("Itch.io’s swift compliance, however, meant removing not just the content in Collective Shout’s claim but all NSFW adult content from browsing and search – at least temporarily.").

Stabile alleges that these groups are “prone to making sensational claims” that do not always accurately portray the full picture. “By using these inflammatory terms and making broad-based claims about the content, they're able to effectively censor [content] by debanking it,” Stabile says.

Same issue as in the previous quote ("these groups"), and attributed to a single individual. Moreover, the same quote is followed by Collective Shout's Roper pushing back.

Consume Me developers Jenny Jiao Hsia and AP Thomson say that although they expect their game will be reinstated, it is “completely unacceptable that payment processors are conducting censorship-by-fiat and systematically locking adult content creators out of platforms like Itch where they can be fairly compensated for their work.”

Developers' view of the payment processors' actions. Again, this is not about Collective Shout. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

All this sounds like its stuff far better for the proposed financial censorship draft, since they're about this problem in general, and not the specific case of CS. Right now we don't otherwise have a good mainspace target for this stuff, and we shouldn't be overloading the CS page with this type of analysis or commentary because it has nothing to do with CS (I know a lot of ppl are still upset at CS for being the initiating group, but really the debate has moved onto the payment processors as the "bad guys" in the issue) Masem (t) 12:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Describing Collective Shout as an anti-pornography activist group

Collective Shout is founded by self-described and well-known Australian anti-pornography activists (they've published multiple books and given lectures criticizing pornography and pushing for it to be outlawed). Their group's actions have resulted in the removal of pornography and adult content in games and media. News media widely calls it an anti-pornography group. It's time to call a spade a spade. My additions doing so were reverted. Here is the note I used in this description:

The group was founded by anti-pornography activists Melinda Tankard Reist and Caitlin Roper, and is widely described by news media as an anti-pornography lobbying group, as well as by specialized gaming and LGBTQ+ media.

Failure to label Collective Shout as an anti-pornography group despite abundant secondary sourcing, instead using primary sources from Collective Shout's own website describing it in the lead as merely "a grassroots movement challenging the objectification of women and sexualisation of girls in media, advertising and popular culture", raises significant appropriate sourcing concerns and violates policy on false balance. BootsED (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Masem. BootsED (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

BootsED (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

SPADE is an essay. We need to write neutrally. Yes, a lot of recent sources are calling them anti-porn, but they're also describing the group as anti-exploitation. Because of the focus of recent events on this group over Steam/Itch.io stuff, we need to be very awre of criticism of the group from WP:RECENTISM. It's absoutely fair that we do not put the group's reported goal as a fact (we attribute it) and that we immediately address the anti-porn labels so that right now, it is neutral in tone. If five or more years down the road the group is continued to be called anti-porn on a regular basis, then maybe it makes sense that RECENTISM no longer applies. Masem (t) 03:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I am aware SPADE is an essay. RECENTISM is also an essay. There is an abundance of reliable secondary sources that describe the group as anti-porn not just regarding the recent Steam/Itch.io stuff, but have described it as anti-porn dating back to its founding. For instance, see this article from 2015: "While there has been speculation for some time that Zoo Weekly has suffered low sales, it is a victory that Collective Shout, Australia’s most vocal anti-porn campaigners, is claiming as its own." BootsED (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Like many of the other sources, that article has both the anti-exploitation and the anti-porn elements as part of describing CS. Focusing just only on the anti-porn label without considering what else the same sources are saying regarding anti-exploiting is taking a POV view of the matter.

We clearly cannot factually call them "anti-exploitation" because of the number of sources that call it anti-porn, but the same works in reverse of why we shouldn't call them factually "anti-porn" (in other words, the "anti-exploitation" element is not a FRINGE issue, and both anti-porn and anti-exploitation as applied to the group have roughly equal WEIGHT, keeping in mind the number of very recent sources over this latest issue.) So the solution is to use a basic objective description (Australian activist group), and then in the next sentence, explain the dichotomy of the sources, with attribution to who says what. That keeps the undeniable fact that many sources call them "anti-porn" as early as possible, but with a tone appropriate to convey that the purpose of this group is unclear between what they say about themselves, and what others say about them. This keeps us in the neutral tone middle ground without ignoring what many RSes say about the group. Masem (t) 04:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, but the majority of sources that call them "anti-exploitation" are not saying they are anti-exploitation, they are simply saying something along the lines of, "Collective Shout, an organization that says it is against the exploitation of women". The sources are thus not saying they are actually anti-exploitation. However, they are saying things along the lines of, "Collective Shout, an anti-porn group". The first is quoting the organization exactly, the other is the article saying so in their own voice. BootsED (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

A number of the articles linked above in #Group description use their own voice to say the group is against the objectification or sexualization of women: Reuters, Mumbrella, News.com.au, The Guardian. Vice, Rock Paper Shotgun. So if anything, it begs the question of whether putting the quotation marks around the description in the intro or presenting it as a self-description is appropriate or necessary. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

In regards to your statement on anti-exploitation, they are simply citing the group's description of itself. They are not saying it is anti-exploitation. They are saying it is anti-porn. BootsED (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I've added some more sources to the Group description discussion above that describe it as an anti-porn organization. BootsED (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the sources that describe them as anti-pornography are generally higher-quality - they're largely academic and go into more depth on the group, whereas the sources cited for their self-description tend to be more cursory news reports. Based on that I think we should primarily be describing them as an anti-pornography group in the lead, and only mentioning their self-description in the body, if at all. See my argument in more depth at Wikipedia:Avoid self-descriptions. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Of the three relevant sources cited by BootsED in this section, I don't see any that is academic. There is one paper cited by them in #Other sources, but the highlighted part about Collective Shout recommending a ban on X-rated movies (which is already covered in this WP article) amounts to cherry-picking, because it's merely one of the activities covered by the paper. Other activities covered by the paper do not relate to pornography and include CS lobbying against "tweenage push-up bras" (p. 84) or, in the context of literature, "reducing the prevalence and availability of material ‘in all media, which contains images or words that reduce women to sex objects….’" (p. 93). Moreover, the paper actually introduces Collective Shout by its own description (p. 84), which is in line with your essay. Daisy Blue (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Page for the itch.io and Steam game removals

Is there enough material from news and other such sources to create a page for the removal of games at the behest of credit card companies and Collective Shout by Steam and Itch.io?

And if so, what would the article be called? Is this changeable? ash (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

We have a draft in progress User:SilviaASH/Financial censorship. Masem (t) 12:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant the specific incident Is this changeable? ash (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

That draft is covering this incident, as it doesn't make sense for a whole page about that yet; too many unknown aspects to it. Masem (t) 16:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, once there are more knowns (and presumably some time passes to see the effects afterwards) I'll consider it

Thanks for your input Is this changeable? ash (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting sources on founding year

The article currently cites several different sources for the founding year of 2009. Several sources cite 2009, including the Evans-Thirlwell/Rock Paper Shotgun (2025) source with "Founded in 2009, Collective Shout..." as the founding date, as does the Litchfield/PC Gamer (2025) source with "Collective Shout began in 2009...". The organization's "History" page itself states "Collective Shout began in 2009." (https://www.collectiveshout.org/history) However, the Gleeson/Women's Studies International Forum (2013), a paywalled academic source that is also cited in the article as a source, states, "In 2008 Tankard Reist formed CollectiveShout." The Gleeson source is currently used to support a 2008 founding date on the Melinda Tankard Reist page.

The Hills/The Age (2012) source is a source cited on a sentence that has a 2009 date of founding but appears to reference other facts in that sentence, as the article does not offer a date of founding of the organization.

WP:Conflicting sources states: "If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both." If we consider the sources above and the Gleeson/Women's Studies International Forum (2013) to be a WP:RS, then WP:CF dictates both years should be included. Once there is a consensus on how these dates and the conflict sources should be handled here, Reist's article should also be updated to reflect that consensus. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:Conflicting sources is an essay though. WP:BALANCE, which is a part of the WP:NPOV policy, seems to suggest that the sources need to be "relatively equal in prominence" for both statements to be documented on Wikipedia. If we find that the majority of sources say the organization was founded in 2009, shouldn't we just go with that? Another option is adding a note to say that there is a source that contradicts that, but that's just how I would compromise if needed rather than something I can attribute to a policy. Daisy Blue (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)