Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings

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

Rodger having a separate article

Other mass murderers have their own separate article, there is no reason for Rodger to not have his as well.

TheWikipedia05 (talk)

I agree. Especially with the massive wealth of information there is about him I think a seperate article should exist documenting it all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.253.179 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other less notable mass murderers such as James Holmes and Charles Whitman have their own separate articles. In addition, unlike the previous two, Rodger's attacks have been documented to have inspired other related attacks, including the 2018 Toronto van attack and the 2021 Plymouth attack. Virtually every incel perpetrator has at least referenced Rodger's attack. Rodger is absolutely notable, albeit for the wrong reasons. In this case, the perpetrator's notoriety lasted way past the initial terror following the attack. - TheWikipedia05 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A more comprehensive article regarding Elliot Rodger is warranted because of the impact of his massacre. Arctarion (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. 108.45.170.249 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as he is notable beyond the singular event. He inspired and shaped a widely-discussed incel culture in addition to the above. Enough time has passed since the event that I support him having a seperate page. Also, it looks like there wasn't consensus to merge his page into this article when it was done. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. As the perpetrator of the this crime, Rodger is only notable because of it. WP:PERPETRATOR advises that "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." That goes further than WP:ONEEVENT, because criminals who commit a notable crime may also be notable for the consequential trial and imprisonment for that crime. However, Rodger died from a self-inflicted injuries before he could be apprehended by the police, so his notability is solely for the criminal event he perpetrated. Similarly, his writings do not appear to have any separate notability. If those writings have inspired others then that is notable in the context of the coverage of those perpetrators, not Rodger. Another mass murderer who does not have a separate Wikipedia article is the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings, so the argument cuts both ways. Whether other stuff exists as a separate article, or doesn't exist should not have any bearing in this case. Each case for having a separate article needs to be determined on its own merits, not the merits of other articles which have different circumstances. In this case, Rodger is just notable for this event, alone, and there is no reason to justify a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Other mass shooters/murderers have their own articles such as Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Omar Mateen, Seung Hui Cho, Charles Whitman, Howard Unruh, James Holmes and Nikolas Cruz, most of whom aren’t as well known as Rodger. Rodger has also been mentioned as an influence in multiple killings/shootings such as by Cruz, Alek Minassian, Scott Beirle, and William Atchison. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I forgot to mention that both his father and grandfather have articles. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MountainDew20: One's parents or grandparents having articles are not valid criteria for a person having their own biographic article. Please point to what other notable events in the perpetrator's life would justify a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MountainDew20: Did you read and understand what I wrote? Just because others have their own articles is not a reason for Rodger to have one. What justifies Rodger having his own article, if he is only notable for this event? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you’re going to say there shouldn’t be an article for him because he’s only notable for this, then there shouldn’t be one for Stephen Paddock or Nikolas Cruz or most of the others I mentioned because they’re only notable for the killings they did. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Rodger has had an influence on multiple shootings and killings like I mentioned, much like Harris and Klebold. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MountainDew20: In the case of the Stephen Paddock article, it has survived an AfD process. His act of mass murder is currently the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in United States history. The article about Nikolas Cruz points out that his shooting spree surpassed the Columbine High School massacre for fatalities, and that he had a prior history that meant he came to the attention of police repeatedly and was predicted as a school shooter in the making. Just because a person kills a lot of people does not guarantee a Wikipedia article: an article about the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings has been deleted twice, the deletion discussion revolved around the person only being notable for these shootings, which killed 51 and injured another 40. The while crime is notable, the criminal is not separately notable beyond the crime. Arguing that Eliot Rodger should have an article just because Stephen Paddock or Nikolas Cruz have one is not sufficient, because the individual who perpetrated the Christchurch mosque shootings only has his biography in the article about the crime. Each article needs to stand on its own merits of notability, not depend on the existence, or otherwise, of any other article. If the Wikipedia community decided the articles about Stephen Paddock or Nikolas Cruz or any of the others cited, were best merged back into the articles about their crime, by your argument it would follow that an article about Eliot Rodger also need to be merged back because the justification for him having a separate article would no longer exist. Please feel free to check why it was argued that each mass shooter or killer should have a separate article, and if there are very good reasons that parallel Eliot Rodger's crime then that may be a reason for having a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said though, he has been mentioned as an inspiration by multiple mass shooters and killers in general and was responsible for the rise of the “incel” movement, I feel like that would be enough to warrant an article but if it’s not, that’s fine. MountainDew20 (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @MountainDew20: Do you have reliable sources for that assertion? An editor's feelings should not come into consideration, because that would be editorializing, as then an editor is injecting their opinion into an article. That goes against the core policy of WP:NPOV. Be careful where you tread on this issue. If the perpetrator of this crime has inspired others, and given rise to the "Incel movement", then it is those others that should get credit for participating in that movement, which appears to have happened after Rodgers death. I do not believe a separate article is needed to discuss Rodgers reasons for committing his crime, because his state of mind is part of the crime, too. How others have interpreted his thoughts and actions might be grounds for having a separate article, such as Incel, but that does not mean Rodger, himself, should have his own biography. Everything that ought to be said about Rodger, can be included as part of this article, under the section about him. To do otherwise is duplicated effort. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly belive that there is more than enough information that could be written in his own article. We got YouTube video manifesto's, life experiences, previous encounters with police such as when his mother called police on him for his videos, his legacy, his online life and likely more. WP:BIO1E state that people notable for 1 event may be eligible for their own article as long as media coverage on the individual is significant enough, which there is a lot of media coverage on rodger to this day. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elizzaflanagan221: However, I think WP:PERPETRATOR overrides WP:BIO1E in notable crimes. Eliot Rodgers is only notable in association with the crime he committed, and he was dead afterwards, so he doesn't have a secon chance at being notable for being tried for his crimes. While others may have been inspired by his manifesto and say it gives rise to the "Incel movement", Eliot Rodgers didn't participate in doing so. It is only because he committed this crime that his manifesto even comes to light. Wikipedia needs to have a very good reason to justify having two articles about this person, having his own section in one is enough, as any other article is merely going to be a duplication of effort. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Of the supporters of this proposal, none are extended-confirmed (with the exception of Chamaemelum, who is banned from the site by the community). Unless there is a legitimate, policy-based split proposal (preferably by editors who actually have technical permission to edit this EC-locked article), it's unlikely this will happen. Wracking talk! 06:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. IMO, I think Rodger might warrant an individual article eventually given the long standing social influence of the case, but the sources are not there now. Also this page should be improved before that even occurs, we have no deadline, and given the state of the article now I don't think a split is beneficial. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BIO1E states that people notable for one event are still eligible for their own article as long as there is still a large amount of media coverage and information about them. I certainly stand behind the fact that Elliot Rodger is one of the most well known mass murderers since columbine.
Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many other killers have their own articles, and most of these people are less culturally significant than Rodger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JusticeAccount3 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1][2] This should be added to the Depiction in popular culture section. Sipiso (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Croll, Ben (September 3, 2023). "Director Bertrand Bonello Explains the Shocking, Incel Inspiration for 'The Beast,' Starring Lea Seydoux, George MacKay (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. Retrieved October 10, 2023.
  2. ^ Nayman, Adam (October 6, 2023). "NYFF61: Animal Style". Film Comment. Retrieved October 10, 2023.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I believe an article for Elliot Rodger should be created because there hundreds of sources talking about how Rodger is considered the found of the "incels" and how his attacks STILL inspire other mass murders to this day. For example The Daily Telegraph stated: "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"

It's hard to understand 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 still considered a “leader” to incels and how his attacks still cause similar ones to this day. He is definitely more notable that other mass murderers like Seung-Hui Cho and Dylann Roof who have their own articles. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did create a draft of the article with over 100 reliable sources talking about his life and other reasons why he is notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Notable mass murderer and the draft is very well made.
Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings&oldid=1221952985"