Talk:Collective Shout

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Credits

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Group description

[edit]

Currently cited sources

[edit]

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

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

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

Other sources

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Added contentious topic header

[edit]

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)[reply]

Right wing or alt-right organization?

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Government agencies' role in No Mercy's removal

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Its relatively easy to find sources around April 2025, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4] Masem (t) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, as long as that type of synthesis is acceptable. Daisy Blue (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2025

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

As a note

[edit]

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)[reply]

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