The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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]
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]
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]
But we actually know what he thought because he wrote it all down in his manifesto. Koopinator (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Well we finally got a separate article, this took way too long but we got it congrats everyone. Genberg47 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 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]
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 ChoShoot 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]
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]
Handcuffed remains - mention in lead is not in body[edit]
The lead section ends with a statement that attending police "... handcuffed his remains." Yet the article ends with the attending police only finding Rodger deceased in his car. There is no mention of them handcuffing his deceased body. Is there a source for this fact? Because otherwise it is extra information that is not in the article. Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}