Talk:Elliot Rodger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewer Note[edit]

Accepting as per rough consensus on article talk page of crime, Talk:2014 Isla Vista Killings. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Risperidone[edit]

I was surprised to see that Rodger had been prescribed with risperidone. I have been taking risperidone for several years now, since my psychiatrist diagnosed that I suffer from a schizoid personality disorder. Any idea why Rodger was prescribed with this medicine? He was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, not with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder as most people who use this medicine. Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many doctors throw prescriptions like risperidone at any patients reporting psychiatric problems, just like many doctors eagerly prescribe opioid painkillers to any patients who claim to be experiencing any amount of pain. It's essentially to get rich quick.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spree Killer or Mass Murderer?[edit]

What would be the best classification for Elliot Rodger's rampage? There was no 'cooling-off' period during the attacks, so the problem arises when deciding whether or not his rampage occurred in one location or in multiple ones. He stabbed his three roommates in his apartment only to kill another three people while driving in his car. On one hand, you could argue that the Isla Vista general location represents one single location, but on the other hand, Rodger was very mobile during the killings, and bodies were found at multiple individual locations. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

The relevant guidance is at MOS:LEADBIO. This subject is primarily notable for being a murderer; that his murders were influenced by some toxic ideology is relevant, but we're putting the cart before the horse to describe has anything else in the lead sentence. As has been said elsewhere, we don't describe Charles Manson as a hippie first and foremost. Girth Summit (blether) 18:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would be helpful to have two descriptors as opposed to just one. Omar Mateen is described as both a mass murderer and domestic terrorist. Rodger was not just a mass murderer; he committed his crimes for ideological reasons, hence why ‘incel’ should feature in the opening sentence. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original version of the article - it just says mass murderer. This is the version of the article that was accepted at AfC - it says incel and mass murderer. I see you have reinstated 'mass murderer', which is at least an improvement on the version you were edit warring to reinstate, which just had 'incel'. Why you would want to remove the descriptor 'mass murdered' from the lead sentence of an article about a mass murderer is difficult for me to understand. Girth Summit (blether) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way is to have the descriptor be 'mass murderer' with the qualifier 'incel'. It explains the reason for his notability (notoriety) and also describes the subject's motives quite well. It also avoids the awkward juxtaposition of 'and'. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really explain why you repeatedly reverted my edits to remove the phrase 'mass murderer'. Given that you know your edits are contested, I don't know why you didn't leave Jayron32's text in place until this had been discussed. Girth Summit (blether) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I added the phrase in the first place. In fact, when I got the article approved, the article used both descriptors (as it does now). The issue is that mass murderer, alone, is incomplete. I had simply reverted the article to its original form, before you came to edit, until it had been sufficiently discussed. Now, since I (re)added both descriptors, I trust that's OK now? TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S.: Dylann Roof, another mass murderer who committed his crimes for ideological reasons, has multiple descriptors in his article’s opening sentence. He is described as a white supremacist first, a neo-Nazi second and a mass murderer third. I think we should follow a similar style here. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you can find one other article at Wikipedia doing the wrong thing doesn't mean that this article should also do the wrong thing. --Jayron32 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

It was proposed to merge Elliot Rodger into 2014 Isla Vista killings, and so I started this discussion to discuss the suggestion. P.S: I suggest we do a poll once enough people have contributed or enough time has passed. @Gorden 2211, SporkBot, WizWheatly, DanCherek, Auric, Robert McClenon, Dimadick, PerpetuityGrat, Black Kite, Charles Essie, Rodw, AgeOfPlastic, Maanshen, DaveTheBrave, ZI Jony, Sergei zavorotko, Girth Summit, Serial Number 54129, Jayron32, Suffusion of Yellow, Liz, Cullen328, Antandrus, Zzuuzz, Ivanvector, and Modulus12: TheWikipedian05 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merger, at least at this time. I accepted the article because there was rough consensus at the parent article talk page to accept the article, which was essentially a split. To merge the two articles three weeks later would be churning. At least, I am against merging without going through a full community consensus process, in particular Articles for Deletion, since the merger will be a back-door deletion. Either nominate the article for deletion, and discuss merger, or don't merge, and don't waste time with a merge poll other than by AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the redirect. Redirecting is a good and accepted way to deal with problematic content. My view is that, per WP:BIO1E, there is no good reason for a separate article about this murderer, since all encyclopedic information about him can easily be covered at 2014 Isla Vista killings, the article about the horrific crimes that he committed. Many such murderers yearn for the type of notoriety symbolized by a dedicated Wikipedia biography (and this mass killer clearly yearned for such attention). It is far better to cover such killers in articles about their crimes, instead of in freestanding biographies that may well be seen as glorification by many disturbed individuals. I understand that other editors may disagree, but this is my strongly held opinion. The notion that scraping through the disfunctional AfC process represents consensus that this biography should continue to exist is spurious. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, per Robert McClenon, this would not to nominate WP:AfD. Maanshen (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect (obviously, perhaps). Per multiple policies: WP:BLP1E (People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. No RS discuss him in any other context than the IoV killings), and WP:BASIC is subservient to BLP1E in any case (Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event).
    Regarding the splitting proposal and discussion which led to the creation, while it may be possible for a local consensus to support the creation of such an article, due to the nature of the subject and the policy implications, I think such a consensus would have to be far stronger than resulted from that discussion. Specifically, consensus was 'formed' after a proposal, which one other editor supported, and two commentators remained neutral about. While no one actively opposed, both neutral comments expressed more criticism than support for the proposal, and its only independent supporter is an editor of one month's tenure and ~70 edits. I find this phenomenally weak consensus for a topic of this notoriety. SN54129 15:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There was no need for a split here. Half of the parent article is about the perpetrator (which means that content is now effectively duplicated) and like SN54129 I can't see anything near a consensus at that discussion which would be needed to create an article like this. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bump to AfD - that would be the correct venue to discuss this topic's suitability for a standalone article, versus merging or redirecting to the formerly parent article. Also per Robert McClenon, to avoid having a parallel history situation without a firm consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was pinged, so I'll express an opinion, which I don't hold very strongly. As I suspect others have pointed out, the WP:PERP guideline is the most relevant, where it says, "[don't write a separate article] if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". That's the only relevant criterion in my opinion, whether the article about the event could contain the same relevant information. We do have that article, and the biographical material currently remains in that article. I could see a case being made for a proper split, instead of the fork we are currently seeing, in order to rebalance the article about the event. However, I think both articles would need to be worked together. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The bio article seems sufficiently notable for a notorious criminal. I don't see why we can't have spin-off articles about a spree killing. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect/merge. All of the useful information on the perpetrator is already in the article on the murders, and it isn't too long. No need for a separate article per WP:BLP1E. --Jayron32 12:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

In this recent revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elliot_Rodger&oldid=1083003255 @Black Kite: said

No, as noted below this article is a BIO1E issue, and a discussion which attracted practically no participation *and was closed by the person who started it* cannot be used as justification for re-creating it

This is confusing as I do not see where @TheWikipedian05: had retracted this proposal, it looks like consensus is to keep this page. MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite would have been referring to this discussion, which you cited in your edit restoring the article. I can also tell you as an uninvolved editor that the discussion on this page does not represent a consensus to restore the article. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is a redirect[edit]

This page is now a redirect to the section in the 2014 Isla Vista killings article about the perpetrator of 2014 Isla Vista killings. The policies at WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:BIO1E apply to this redirect and these advise against creating a separate article. Please improve that section of the 2014 Isla Vista killings article in preference to attempting to create a separate article here, again. To avoid disappointment and frustration, before attempting to create a separate article, again, such a proposal needs to be discussed at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings and achieve a consensus agreement. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

IMO The article should reviewed to get rid of phrasing which appear to read his mind: "was eager to distance himself from girls", "Rodger developed a deep resentment towards the people in Isla Vista", "seeing himself as a sophisticated person", "He believed that women were wrong" etc., etc. I understand that this might be taken from newspapers. But an encyclopedia has different style standards: we report should facts, not guesswork to produce fancy narrative to attract readership. - Altenmann >talk 06:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Elliot Rodger[edit]

Black Kite stated there needed to be a discussion before this article can get created. I made this article because Elliot Rodger is the one who shot the incel community into the mainstream and has made people inspired to do attacks like his almost ten years later. [1] [2] [3] [4] There are multiple articles talking about his mental health [5] [6] [7] [8] and Rodger's rampage also inspired and made women talk about sexism and misogyny and stared the hashtag #YesAllWomen. [9] [10] [11] [12]. He also caused the hashtag #NotAllMen, where men said they didn't have the same viewpoints like Rodger and wouldn't murder women because of it. [13] [14] [15] [16]. They also looked into his online life and how he was racist, hated women and talked bad about them, and was already looking to murder these poor college students [17] [18][19]. His rampage also brought forward more calls for gun control and inspired multiple laws that are now enacted [20] [21][22] [23]. Also talked about how mental health sources needed to be updated as well [24] [25] [26]. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to create a clear and concise question for this RfC. Something like "Should there be an independent article on Elliot Rodger?", so these arguments can be discussed under a "Yes" vote.
That being said, based on what I see so far, I would vote No on such a question. This person is featured enough in the original article and the information here might as well go there. Is a new article really required or beneficial? Were you concerned about the length of the original article? As I review WP:PAGEDECIDE I'm compelled to think that redirection is a good option, given how this person's notability is primarily due to the subject of the original article. I am not seeing how more clarity would be provided by a separate article.
Ender and Peter 02:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EnderandpeterThen why are there articles for mass murderers like Dylann Roof, Stephen Paddock, and Seung-Hui Cho? All these people’s notability are for the mass murders they committed like Rodger. Why do they have articles? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RFC should probably be withdrawn and the topic discussed per WP:RFCBEFORE. Once that's sorted out then a brief neural question could be asked per WP:RFCST if necessary. - Nemov (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this should be withdrawn. After some local discussion, we could start a split discussion, which is a non-RFC process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pulled it. I note that Shoot for the Stars also started an unnecessary RfC at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#Update to article; so, Shoot for the Stars, please read WP:RFC particularly (as advised by others) WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair to Shoot for the Stars, they were advised by an admin as seen in this diff — Wait - we need a discussion before this article which has been claimed to be BIO1 is resurrected. There have been multiple ones previously - an RfC is clearly required (emphasis mine). So they started an RfC as advised would be clearly required. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Isaidnoway, I only opened an RfC after the admin informed me that I was required to if I wanted to create an article for this person. Redrose64, Nemov, and Firefangledfeathers, so why again is this RfC unnecessary when an admin clearly told me that I needed to open one if I wanted to create this article? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss, yes; jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, no. RfC is an instrument of last resort, used when all other reasonable methods have failed. I see no indication of such failure. Whether Black Kite is an admin or not should not make a difference. See WP:BRD: you were bold, Black Kite reverted you, now discuss. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it does make a difference, Shoot for the Stars was simply following Black Kite's advice, now you are doing the same thing, follow my advice per BRD, now discuss. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have an issue with creating the RFC, but both were malformed. A better understanding of the process would have yielded a brief, neutral question which is helpful for comment. Nemov (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, I was not trying to be "bold" and I don't understand why you call this a "failure"? I was merely just trying to create an article I thought was notable due to all the reasons I provided above along with the sources I found and passed WP:BIO1E, like articles for mass murderers like Steven Paddock and Seung-Hui Cho. I created the article and I was told in the diff that an RfC was clearly required before I could create it. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:BOLD edit was this one. My use of the word "failure" is in reference to my previous sentence, viz. RfC is an instrument of last resort, used when all other reasonable methods have failed. Please demonstrate that you tried several alternative methods of resolving the dispute before you reached for RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, again, I only did it because an admin told me to and nothing was "bold" from me creating an article. You saying it doesn't matter if it's an admin that told me is just ridiculous. Editors are clearly required to follow admins' rules, and I was doing just that. An admin told me that an RfC was clearly required if I wanted to create the article. I am still wanting to create this article as I believe Rodger is notable like Steven Paddock and Seung-Hui Cho Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is it written that Editors are clearly required to follow admins' rules? The community makes the rules, not the admins. Admins are, for the most part, just ordinary editors with a few extra tools - such as the ability to block problematic users, to delete and protect pages, and a few other things. I don't see the right to make rules among them. Nor do I see the right to give orders that others must obey. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, okay, I understand. I now know that if I want to do an RfC, I have to do other methods before doing it. All I want to do now is just see if I can create the article for Elliot Rodger because I believe he notable like Paddock and Cho. I spent a long time finding all the sources and putting information in the article that proves Rodger is notable like Cho and Paddock to have his own article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging some editors from the previous discussion to get their opinion. I didn't notice there was already a draft opened, so I have submitted the Elliot Rodger article I created finding high quality, reliable sources and added information on why he is notable in the article: Cameron Dewe, MountainDew20, Elizzaflanagan221, PARAKANYAA, Robert McClenon. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look: I will say my opinion, which is the same for basically all high profile cases: whether perpetrators of high profile crimes should have their own articles is more a matter of WP:PAGEDECIDE than notability. Most of the perpetrators have notability on their own, and are discussed at length with regard to their history/background/motives - however, it is a matter of discretion as to whether that improves the page. The matter of whether someone should have their own page is an editorial decision and should only be done when splitting will benefit the page in question.
No one has presented a convincing argument as to why that would benefit the page as it stands now. IMO, there is enough material on Isla Vista that a separate article on Rodger could be made: I'm of the opinion that if the main Isla Vista page was of FA level comprehensiveness, then that would be beneficial, to split. We aren't there yet, and I oppose any split unless the main page is improved first. Everyone here seems to want to split because he has some special notoriety, when the bigger issue should be, does a split improve anything? If an article on Rodger is to exist, it should be out of the gate high quality and justifying its existence apart from the main page through content.
tldr improve main page first then we can talk PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasonings, but I believe Rodger is notable because there are multiple reliable sources that talk about how Rodger made the incel community known to everyone in world, still has a big following almost 10 years later, and mysotnist attacks are happening more. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] There are also dozens upon dozens of reliable sources talking about how his name gets mentioned whenever there are any mass murders or planned mass murders like the 2018 Toronto van attack almost ten years later [32][33] [34] [35]. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I do not dispute that. The problem is, like all the people who are notable for one event, his notability is so intertwined with what he did and what he did is so intertwined with him that they are dualing topics. The main article as is functions as both.
If we split now, we will have two worse articles. Unless it is extensively planned as part of an effort to improve both, it will likely be the same. I do not dispute that he is notable (people's continued misunderstandings of BIO1E frustrate me to no end: by the reading of how many people argue, someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark David Chapman or John Hinckley Jr. would be just as "non-notable") but the issue is one of page quality.
It is perfectly possible to create a better article about these topics that is split, and IMO a hypothetical "best quality" version about Isla Vista would necessitate that: but haphazardly splitting without a lot of planning and discussion about where we want these articles to go and which covers which will make things worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also agree that he intertwined is with his crime, there are multiple articles talking about his mental health [36] [37] [38] [39]. Also started the very famous #YesAllWomen [40] [41] [42] [43] and made the hashtag #NotAllMen famous again. [44] [45] [46] [47]. They also looked into his online life and analyzed the websites he visited that gave him his evil, misogynist views. [48] [49][50]. His rampage also brought forward more calls for gun control and inspired multiple laws that are now enacted [51] [52][53] [54]. Also talked about how mental health sources needed to be updated as well [55] [56] [57]. I also did try to improve the 2014 Isla Vista killings but was reverted by an admin. If the article were to be created, I would use the best, quality sources and describe why he is more notable than other mass murderers. His case was really the first misogynistic killing that went mainstream and have inspired other people to do similar attacks like his almost 10 years later. 04:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
You have not addressed the main point I'm making, which is that the article as is adequately serves to address these points about Rodger. Unless the article is significantly improved there is simply no point to having an additional article on him - what new is there to add? Unless there is a clearly delineated scope between what is and isn't, it fails to accomplish anything besides having an article for the sake of having an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have significantly improved the article if you look at past attempts of people who have tried to create it. There would be new information to add because like I said before, there are mass murders almost every year that mention his name or more "incel" stuff that happens because Rodger's attacks. Unlike Stephen Paddock and Seung-Hui Cho who for some reason have their own separate articles despite being only known for their killings, I think there is a point because Rodger has a cult following to this day almost ten years later and many famous murderers have mentioned his name, like Alek Minassian. Not a lot of mass murderers have cult following like Rodger does. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i believe the article should be made Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be created. This reliable source literally says “Elliot Rodger, considered a leading figure in the incel movement.”
The same source also said: "The term incel was initially coined in the late 1990s by a gay Canadian woman known as Alana, who was struggling to find romance. But by 2012, the community had morphed into a place for men who believed they had been wrongfully denied sex with women and that their masculinity was under threat.
In 2014, it then turned violent when Elliot Rodger – considered the ideological founder of the movement – stabbed six people in California before killing himself. Rodger left a YouTube video and a 137-page manifesto, which blamed women for rejecting him.
The attack inspired copycat killings across the world, before spreading to the UK in August 2021, when Jake Davison, 22, killed five people in Plymouth after looking at incel threads online." I don't understand how Rodger is not notable when there are still literally hundreds of sources like the one above, getting released almost ten years to the date of Rodger's rampage talking about how he is considered a “leader” in the Incel movement and how his attacks still cause similar ones to this day. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elliot_Rodger&oldid=1220646668"