Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Elliot Rodger

According to his own entry in his blog, he was born in the UK but did not hold UK citizenship, since ever moving to the U.S. at the age of 5 and acquiring U.S. citizenship. Can that be included? --JJHk2000 (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably true, but I don't consider him a reliable source. Wait until this is commented on by some news source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rodgers now suspected in 3 other murders with bodies and a manifesto found at his apartment Should we update the page with this yet (with suspected in 3 others murders) or wait until later? - Sausboss (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think waiting is necessary, there is a current event tag too - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
I updated it - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Father's filmography

father of the suspect directed Oh My God (2009 film), not sure if this can be linked, but created it as it does show notability, separate from these events.(mercurywoodrose) (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Father's notability is irrelevant here. WWGB (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not for you to decide, but solely for the available sources. -- (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


An internet imageboard named Wizardchan keeps being named as a website that Rodger visited, but the source article itself does not provide any evidence at all. [1]

On another website with a similar article, they posted an update which confirms that Rodger never visted Wizardchan at all [2] (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't wait for this page to die down

Just looking at all of the edits constantly removing stuff lol - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

We have not even started with the pro-gun/anti-gun lobbies yet! WWGB (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Save us all, lol - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

User:WikiOriginal-9 and User:WWGB, could you request some degree of page protection? That might be a good way to address these issues. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, you and the users who are reverting each other could discuss it here, or on each other's talk pages. ToBk (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting comment given that you are reverting the same anonymous user. AnupamTalk 00:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted once (who's contributed quite a bit to the article; he's no more anonymous than you or I, just identified by an IP rather than a username.) Judging from his following edit, the two of us don't have a conflict, and thus the discuss-via-edit-comment process worked well. In your case, you reverted 2 different users 3 times over the same material and templated the IP user with a warning, which is a bit different. Additionally, the exact same material you reverted was being editwarred over earlier: [3] (not singling out those users.) ToBk (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point. However, edits by new accounts where information is blanked (Exhibit One & Exhibit Two) without explanation is treated as an act of vandalism rather than a constructive edit. If (or the other SPA accounts which make the same edit) has a reason for removing content buttressed by both the SPLC and LA Times, he/she should state here the reason for doing so. I hope this helps you understand my perspective. That being said, good work on the article. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Serial killer

I doubt that Elliot Rodger qualifies as a "serial killer". Why is this article listed in the Wiki Project for Serial Killers (Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force)? Any ideas? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That project's task force also includes mass murder's and spree killers, the latter of which he falls under. STATic message me! 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Then the Wiki Project's title is a misnomer, I guess. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Elliot O. Rodger

Elliot O. Rodger

In his manifesto, he says his full name is "Elliot Oliver Robertson Rodger" (part one) (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Total number killed

Is it 7 or 10? Are the three bodies found in his apartment included in the previous 7 previously announced as dead? I'm a little confused on this point. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

He killed 6, three at the apartment and three elsewhere - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Yes, Rodger killed 6 people including the 3 people in his apartment. He also died (which makes 7 dead people). (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Title of this article

This article is currently called "2014 Isla Vista shootings."

However, only two of the six people that he murdered were shot. Three were stabbed, and one was run over with a car.

I propose changing the title to "2014 Isla Vista massacre."

What do others think?

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks to the person who changed it! QbR54190dfcv (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It made sense. Wasn't accurate anymore. ToBk (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The title is not NPOV. This should be 2014 Isla Vista killings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how the killing of 7 people needs a title change to come off as more neutral. NPOV is a moot point here, because there isn't 2 sides to argue from. There isn't an argument that makes these murders justifiable (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This was not a "massacre" by Wikipedia's definition: "A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent". To name it "2014 Isla Vista killings" would be far more accurate and factual. (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not, it's become a WP:COMMONNAME in the media: Disturbing Details Released in Isla Vista Massacre, Isla Vista Massacre: Gunman Stabbed 3, Santa Barbara Massacre, Sheriff details Isla Vista massacre, Tearful Plea From Victim’s Dad After College Massacre. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The fact that your preferred media outlets, like TMZ, are referring to the killings as a "massacre" is not at all relevant for how we determine the most accurate article title. Invoking COMMONNAME implies that the common name the media are using is "2014 Isla Vista massacre", which is obviously not the case. -- (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of ridiculous how the incorrect naming of an article then getting copied in the media retrospectively justifies that title. (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree "killings" is more NPOV than "massacre"; I partly moved it to "massacre" just to match the title of 2001 Isla Vista massacre. "Killings" seems more vague, but maybe that is okay to avoid any POV issues. But there are plenty of sources using "massacre", as WWGB points out. I'm also concerned about the point makes directly above me. I'd weakly support a move to "killings", but don't think it's that huge an issue. ToBk (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:POVNAME uses "massacre" as an example of a "non-neutral word that Wikipedia normally avoids", which gives pretty firm backing to the idea that both the 2014 killings and the 2001 killings should be moved to a more neutral title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
And if you read the rest of the passage in WP:POVNAME, it clearly states: In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. The opening sentence also states that "resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors". So, POVNAME would also give pretty firm backing to the idea that the current title reflects the sourcing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The WP:NDESC section applies primarily, not WP:POVNAME. "...a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources" is not met. ToBk (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer 'killings': 'massacre' suggests a lot more than six. Rothorpe (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
And if you read the rest of WP:NDESC, it clearly states: Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. I've seen the descriptive terms - massacre, mass shooting, mass killing, rampage and various other terms used. So, since massacre is commonly used by sources, it appears it fulfills NDESC. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
"Massacre" is too extreme. He didn't "deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)" because he only killed 6 people. (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. "Massacre" is being used by the sensationalist media to draw attention to this case. In more neutral sources (ones we should actually be looking at, perhaps academic sources when they are published) the terminology will likely be quite different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Massacre" is a goofy word to use in this context. It is being used in the mass media to sell ads. Wikipedia does not need to sell ads. Please use a word whose definition correctly describes the event. ("Killings" or "Killing Spree" comes to mind) (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)n0w8st8s
"2014 Isla Vista spree killing" could work, since it's much more specific than "killings". That specific term isn't in the media much, but it's a proper definition and currently in the lede. ToBk (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mind that. Do we have precedent for using that term, though? I know "killings" is common. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't find specific precedent, but we have a few articles like Daniel Gonzalez (spree killer), and of course spree killer itself is the article that describes this general type of event. ToBk (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Youtube accounts

You can tell its him by reading the comments. Besides video game videos and what not, I saw he also had comments on the Aurora shooting, VT shooting, Columbine High School massacre, and 2009 Collier Township shooting. - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

User:WikiOriginal-9, that's an interesting find! Indeed, many of the comments made from those channels seem unsettling. Do you know of any news sources that have reported those channels to be his? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No media that I know of has reported on it, but people on Youtube noticed the connection, "smokinninja911" pointed the Valtharion connection out on this video [4]. I haven't found the connection to TheWoWgenius besides someone in the comments saying it was him, which it most likely is. If you read the manifesto, he had a great interest in World of Warcraft. All three of the channels comments also follow the same pattern, complaining about girls, being rude, WoW, etc. TheWoWgenius has much less activity than the other two channels also - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Googling The WoWgenius brings up interesting results. If you read the manifesto he wanted to get rich fast. If you google "thewowgenius" [5] you see comments that involving making money. Googling Valtharion [6] also brings up World of Warcraft results. There wasn't really anything interesting going through the 10 pages or so of Valtharion Google searches, there is some random [] page with nothing on it. - WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Unfortunately some random YouTube commenters are not really a good source. In reality this guy isn't the first person on the planet to feel a bit undersexed as a young man, so those accounts could be anyones.--JOJ Hutton 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Isla Vista massacre

Now that the name has been changed, what about this page WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Michael Moore.

Yes, Mr Michael Moore apparently blames "disturbed White people" for this: -- (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Who the F'ck is this guy really? I don't know this name without a web search. I first thought about the hiphop artist "macklemore" or whatever. Petesimon2 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you've seriously never heard of Michael Moore? He was the director of Bowling for Columbine and other movies about gun violence in the US. Cyanidethistles (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Moore is essentially [ BLP REVERTED ] - Sausboss (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Accused" perpetrator

The Infobox for Elliot Rodger lists him as the "accused" perpetrator of this killing spree. Aren't most (if not all) sources identifying him as the perpetrator (without the "accused" qualification)? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The other infoboxes don't use the term "accused". It may have been an early edit when he was still being described in media reports as accused. I see no reason why it couldn't be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Linderman - Elliot Rodger's counselor

On page 119 of 141 of his manifesto, Rodger names Gavin Linderman as his counselor (the counselor he was still seeing in May 2014). On the same page, Rodger says that his parents and his psychiatrist Dr. Charles Sophy arranged for him to see this counselor. Linderman has taken down his internet presence. <-- Old version where he describes himself as a "mentor, ally, coach, life instructor, and friend" and "psychosocial rehabilitation specialist."

-- (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the manifesto, Rodger implies that he stopped seeing Gavin Linderman by June 2013 and instead saw two other counselors, Karlin and Sasha in Isla Vista. (Page 120) (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

On page 128, Rodger is onto his fourth counselor, Robert. (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

On page 129, Rodger says he starts seeing a new psychologist, Dr. Randy Gold (Calabassas, CA) while Rodger was staying at his mother's house. (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"the attacker" overload

By my count the article currently refers to "the attacker" nineteen (19) times. To me it gets tiresome reading those two words again and again. Wouldn't it be more readable to replace most of those with "Rodger"? I think that's more like how an equivalent newspaper article would read. It's been well established that Rodger was the attacker, so why keep repeating it again and again? But I'm not prepared to mass change that without at least a little consensus. (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Damn skippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it should probably be changed. For example, Virginia Tech massacre uses "Cho" throughout. WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Changed most of them, may have missed a few though. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This is too easy. (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Roommates killed

Regarding the roommates, the article currently states: "all three men were killed while they were sleeping". I find it quite odd that a group of twenty-something aged college kids are sleeping at 9 PM on a Friday night. Doesn't that strike others as being odd? Also, the source does not say that they were killed while sleeping. The source says that police are looking into that as a theory. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd think it might wake the others up too? WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Yes, the scenario where they are sleeping at 9PM on a Friday while being stabbed sounds highly unlikely. (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts: 1. The article (currently) doesn't state it as fact, only that investigators are considering the possibility. Therefore the article correctly reflects the source. 2. I'm not sure we need to include things the investigators are considering. Maybe better to wait until they finish considering it, and include it only if a reliable source says they concluded that it's true. 3. As I'm sure we all know, it's not our job to ask whether it's plausible or not. (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
At the time of my original post, the article stated – as a fact – that "all three men were killed while they were sleeping". I subsequently went in and changed that sentence, so that it would agree with the cited source. I edited the statement to read that the authorities are investigating the possibility that the three were killed while asleep. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of father's religion changed "British-American filmmaker Peter Rodger" to "British-American Jewish filmmaker Peter Rodger". I reverted with the summary "relevance of father's religion?". re-reverted with the summary "extra accuracy" with no further explanation.

I will assume that meant "more accuracy" or "additional accuracy".

My question is: Is there another British-American filmmaker Peter Rodger, from whom this one needs to be distinguished?

If not, then I ask again, what is the relevance of the father's religion?. (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed reference to the father apparently being Jewish because there's simply no evidence of it. The linked article does not mention it at all, and most of the sites that claim he's Jewish are anti-Semitic white supremacist websites. Greatdanish (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychotropic drugs

I recall reading that Rodgers was on prescription medications. These psychoactive drugs could alter his mental state. Could a list be made of them and their attendant effects upon the human brain? --I think these drugs may be a key to the puzzle. (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a detective agency. If you can recall where you read that, it could be added (if it's a reliable source). But getting into possible effects would be WP:UNDUE and speculative. Look at all of the things drowsiness can lead to, and look at all the drugs (and other things) that cause drowsiness. There are way too many missing pieces, and these "puzzles" are never solved, even by experts. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:07, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Category:Murder–suicides in the United States

? WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

  • I.e. "Should this be added"? Yes, I think. Columbine includes it, as do many more articles — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just used ? instead of spewing a bunch of BS lol, you know what I mean WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Yeah, someone already removed it nevermind WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
It lasted two minutes, not bad. (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted my edit back. It appears that he did kill himself. The tone of the edit summary seemed like it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL, but obviously not. Tutelary (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It's all good haha WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Community colleges attended

Rodger attended Crespi Carmelite High School, an all-male Catholic high school, but left before graduating. According to his manifesto, Rodger then attended Pierce College in Woodland Hills but dropped out and later enrolled at Moorpark College. (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

High school Rodger graduated from

Rodger graduated from Independence High School in Lake Balboa, Los Angeles, California in 2010. Source: (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Links to videos

Why was the direct link to a video of Elliot Rodger's Retribution on removed? Is there a problem with posting two or more videos' links with similar but different content? Petesimon2 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Liveleak is not a reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't be absurd (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So when a major news agency like ABC News copies an exact or almost exact copy a video from Liveleak or Youtube to the new agency's server network and then embed it into the news article...this constitutes a "reliable source" ? For all we know or don't know, the news agency that copies a video can alter and/or cut out video footage. Oh well, I'm not the wikipedian or net'pedian here am I! Petesimon2 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to manifesto

The document "My Twisted World" on, linked in this article, appears to be gibberish or encrypted in some way. Looks like "Funkijty… Kcc gl ny sullhrjia gi tfjs wgrcm ..." Anyone have better?

Cedarviola (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is probably a browser issue with Scribd's overly complicated HTML. I added a link to a PDF version in External Links. ToBk (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
scribd uses DRM to prevent copying of text. they use a DRM font that copies to the wrong letters in other fonts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7580:3A9:ECC9:5A89:7ACD:A3EE (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ToBk, It's Firefox settings -- works in Chrome, so I got to read it. And now I question the use of the term, 'manifesto'. So does James Alan Fox opining in USA Today --

The content does not seem to rise to the level of 'manifesto', it is more of an autobiographical letter or apology. Even though the media uses the term consistently, I don't think it's correct -- it sounds like puffery. And it really does not seem to fit own definition of manifesto. You'd have to read it to see what I mean.

Cedarviola (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Manifesto : a written statement that describes the policies, goals, and opinions of a person or group
I haven't read the whole thing, but I've read enough to know that it's not a "manifesto". It's more of a memoir/rant/how I got screwed up enough to do this. It's useful to contrast to the Unabomber manifesto, which is a completely different animal. I'm not aware of the WP principle that requires incorrect use of this word because it's what the rest of the world is using. What should be used instead? I don't know, maybe memoir or manuscript? (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the NYT article does use the term manifesto but the actual document clearly states in the introduction, "This is the story of my entire life." Which middle school taught me was simply called an "autobiography." However, not reading the full document, perhaps it does get into "manifesto" territory but I'm inclined to believe it should be referred to as simply what it is: an autobiography -- or perhaps -- memoir. I agree that "manifesto" gives it the super-creepy serial killer appeal but that seems antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. I think it should be changed to simply "Online postings" or "autobiography" (with, perhaps, a single reference to the fact that some people refer to it as a manifesto). Here is the NYT Link to the doc. CáliKewlKid (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I withdraw my remarks after reading some of the document where he states outright that women don't deserve to have any rights, and should be quarantined in concentration camps. I feel unfit to judge whether it qualifies as a legitimate manifesto but it does have (however, awful & evil) vaguely political statements and recommendations. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome as a child

"Smith, the former Independence High School principal, first came into contact with Rodger when she worked as a Los Angeles Unified School District behavioral specialist and Rodger was attending Taft High School in Woodland Hills. Smith helped Rodger — who was identified as a child with Asperberger’s syndrome and who received support in the school district for it — get into a smaller school after an incident in which he suddenly became “socially frozen” in the hallway shortly after starting at the charter school in Woodland Hills, she said." Source: (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC) (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Astaire said that Elliot Rodger was never diagnosed with Asperger's (his family "suspected he was on the spectrum"), had no friends, and was very shy. Astaire told the Times, "He was fundamentally withdrawn. The guy on the video was much more confident. That is a guy I never met." Source:
--Diamonddavej (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Racist misandrist

It appears from Rodger's comments that he harbored hatred towards non-white men and this may have been a contributor in the fact that he attacked more men in his spree than he did women, including his three Asian roommates. Is there an appropriate category for this? Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

we don't use categories to tag people as misandrist or racist, per longstanding consensus. Much better to cover such opinions in article text vs categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


I undid the reversal of added info. from Wikipediocracy identifying the killer as a blocked editor. Wikipediocracy does not appear to be a blocked source.I saw this info. on Twitter so it is all over the place and prob. more references about this to come anyhow? (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't use anti-Wikipedia blogs as our only sources on Wikipedia articles. Besides, Wikipediocracy is a very controversial topic on Wikipedia. (I can pull up many wiki discussions involving the Wikipediocracy site, but they are very numerous. Basically, there are a couple dozen discussions here.) --Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The ref is to a forum thread. Zero editorial control, anybody can say anything anonymously without consequence. This would apply to any forum. My personal feeling is that the information is true, but that is beside the point. WP principles require a good source even if you know something to be true. (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, even if it's true, we need to consider whether adding such information is not undue. He was probably signed up to lots of different websites, and he was perhaps even banned from other websites, but we shouldn't catalogue them here. We have to wait to see how reliable sources treat the fact that he (allegedly) made a few edits to wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well-my point is that it is not a blocked source so I am thinking maybe there was a decision there? Also-I added WP as a source to the statement and changed the wording to say, "was identified as"-a blocked Wikipedian. Why don't we see if there are further opinions on this one? The info. came to me via Twitter-I think that Tweets are even less of a reliable source but notice the last revision gave WP link as source24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between reliable sources and URLs which are blacklisted. In any case, any web forum is not a reliable source for such claims. It might be rather hard to actually establish that this is the same person, actually, but journalists may make the connection anyway through circumstantial evidence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty evident that someone made edits to the killer's grandfather's article page--he was insulted that an interesting photo of Africans could have been assumed by readers to be his non-African grandfather. Same editor also blanked Justin Beiber's page. About Wikipediocracy--I recall seeing discussions about it being blocked as a source that is why when it was not-blocked, and they deserve credit for finding the info. I thought it would be OK-but whatev-----OH and also it appears like the incident article is devoting some space to the unusual amount of online presence that has been found for this guy, so I still think being a blocked editor is worth noting. (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Patience. If it's really that relevant, more high quality sources will come.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if this info is reliably sourced, it's not relevant and trivial in nature. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Tend to agree. Of possible interest to Wikipedia community, but not generally. Obi-Wan Kenobi is absolutely right in what he says above. This mini factoid should be treated with extreme caution. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. Epicgenius (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here we go again with using forum threads as sources. It's not a significant fact worth mentioning, and it's definitely not reliably sourced. Move on. Epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mother's name

There have been various configurations of Rodger's mother's name in this article and elsewhere. As a Malaysian of Chinese ethnicity, her birth name was Ong Li Chin (family name Ong, given names Li Chin). In Chinese style, the given names are sometimes run together (hence Li-chin or Lichin). When she married Peter Rodger, she dropped her family name (Ong) and took his. In Western style, the new family name sits at the end of the name string and not at the beginning. It seems she retained the family name Rodger after divorce. So, her name is now Li Chin Rodger (or Lichin Rodger). All of this can be referenced, but that is not necessary on a talk page. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest using the name most commonly given for Li-chin. The usage of "Li Chin" brings up 798K results, but "Li-chin" brings up 15.6M results, and "Lichin" 15.2M results. So, "Li-Chin" is probably the most reliable given name to use in the article.Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Men's human rights activist

It was what he was, wasn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholegood (talkcontribs) 20:07, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. See Activism. (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Several feminist bloggers and the SPLC have tried to link him to the men's rights movement, but I haven't seen evidence of a connection in any mainstream media sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
yeah this seems pretty specious. My understanding is that he was a member of pickup artist forums, and then after being rejected joined anti-pickup-artist forums - I believe men's rights activists are often at odds with pick up artists, the two groups have differing goals, and in any case he couldn't be described as an activist in any way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
They are different organisations. The only real similarity is that on websites that have sections on both there tends to be a lot of crossover in users, like a magazine that has sections of feminism and female dating. That said, most of the studies into this put it at less than a quarter of users, so his views can't be seen as representative of the movement, however similar the anti-female rhetoric -- (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He was not even remotely a Mens Rights Activist. Under any twisted sense. There have been no MRA sites, blogs, groups or even subreddits that he subscribed to or commented on. The most these disgusting sexist people have been able to link him to was Pick Up Artists (something also unrelated to MRA)...through an ANTI-Pick Up Artist group called PUA-Hate. He hated Pickup Artists for, what he claimed, was the reason he failed in relationships.

PUA-Hate is an SRS (Shit Reddit Says) clone and has a great deal of Feminists members and has more in common with a Feminist group than any other.

Should we include the claim he was a Feminist in this article then? I suggest you take your disgusting appropriation of this tragedy and realise that no, not all women have been harmed by men, not all men (just like not all black people are criminals) are like that and twice as many men were targeted and killed by a mentally disturbed kid who wanted to "wipe out all men from the face of the Earth". (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC) CaseyYippie

Violence against men category

Considering the recent edit warring over this, could we please discuss the inclusion / exclusion of the "violence against men" category? Pros? Cons? On my talk page, Dougweller has taken issue with it as a possible BLP violation, whereas Slenderdan has supported its inclusion owing to the fact that the perpetrator "spared no one based on gender" (in other words, did not target exclusively women). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • (I was just posting the following, addressing the same issue, and we had an edit conflict. I don't think a vote is necessary before any discussion, however.) There seems to be a dispute going on in the article about the inclusion of Category:Violence against men in North America. Despite all the reverts, no one has yet made any attempt to discuss the issues here on the talk page, and you all look to be talking past each other in the edit summaries, so I'll get it started. It appears to me that some editors want to include the category to balance out the Category:Violence against women in the United States inclusion, since there were male victims. As far as I can tell, this does not seem to fit the intention of these categories, since much of this article discusses that the perpetrator's motivations were anti-women, while the violence perpetrated against male victims was not motivated by gender bias. At least, that is how Category:Violence against men defines the scope of the category: "Articles on the topic of gender-based violence against men or boys." Dominic·t 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Re: Voting. You're right. I've removed the subheadings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
And Slenderdan is busy adding this to, for instance, Andy Warhol where there is some justification but I don't see it as appropriate as it suggests that AW was someone violent against men, and George Stinney who was suspected of killing 2 girls - a possibly wrongful execution doesn't qualify. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In his manifesto, he condemns women and the "obnoxious guys" who went out with them. So, he does appear to have been both a misogynist and a misandrist. Four of the six deaths were men. So, both categories are appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's the quote from his manifesto which supports my point that both categories are appropriate, "I wanted to kill them slowly, to strip the skins off of their flesh. They deserve it. The males deserve it for taking the females away from me, and the females deserve it for choosing those males instead of me." Cla68 (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Both categories are not appropriate, pg 136 of his manifesto: "The first strike against women will be to quarantine all of them in concentration camps. At these camps, the vast majority of the female population will be deliberately starved to death. That would be an efficient and fitting way to kill them all off. I would take great pleasure and satisfaction in condemning every single woman on earth to starve to death" Come on people, he is not talking about putting all men in concentration camps to be exterminated. If someone wants to cite a quote from his condemning ALL men, and questioning their intelligence as he does do so on pg 117 stating women ALL are "incapable of reasoning", and "are like a plague". Pointing out SOME men as "obnoxious" is hardly misandrist. (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
My !vote is that both categories are appropriate, as the violence was received by both genders, and that he actively condemned both genders, albeit for different reasons. Tutelary (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the violence against men category is appropriate, because the violence wasn't perpetrated towards men because of their gender, it was perpetrated towards women, and men in relation to women. No matter how you cut this, Rodger's crime was in its very nature steeped in a hatred of women, not in a hatred of men. Sceptre (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Going back to what User:Cla68 said, he condemned both genders and ultimately, this was not a one gender attack based violence. He shot both men and women. Tutelary (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not our job to interpret primary sources, and I think that is a good thing based on how some people here are doing it. No one has yet cited any secondary sources. The real questions we should answer are: Are there any reputable sources that establish that this event was motivated by bias against women? Are there any reputable sources that establish that this event was motivated by bias against men? Dominic·t 15:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Going to need a citation where he condemned men. I have given the exact pages (117,136) where he stated that women are flawed, without reason, bestial sub-human, should all be killed in concentration camps except for a few used for forced breeding. Killing a few males ALSO out of anger, jealousy, or because some are obnoxious or he had a history with some individuals (his roommates) is not in any way the same. We have primary sources; exclusively quoting from news sources that quote from the exact same primary sources we have access to is flawed. (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Three of the four men who were killed were simply a means to "secure the entire apartment for [himself] as [his] personal torture and killing chamber", for the act of killing people in "phase one" of his "Day of Retribution". From that, he planned a massacre of the entire Alpha Phi Sorority House, which was the whole point of the killing. After leaving the sorority house, he then planned to run down any people in his way to the centre of Isla Vista before massacring everyone, specifically aiming at couples. No matter how you try to argue this, this is a premeditated misogynist attack, with the men killed simply because they were obstacles to killing more women. Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
He exclusively did not like men or women. He has made remarks on both, and therefore the categories would be justified. Also, he said this

If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be. Which strongly and heavily implies that he loathed men as well, which would make it a gendered attack. Tutelary (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrast him to Richard Speck, Robert Hansen, etc., who killed exclusively women. The question of whether Rodger killed the men incidentally or not is a matter of interpretation of his writing, which, as Dominic said above, is not what we're supposed to be doing. I would disagree in particular to "the men killed simply because they were obstacles to killing more women". I don't see anything in the secondary sources to support that, in ANY of the four cases. How were his roommates obstacles to killing more women? How about the guy outside the Deli Mart? Again, using secondary sources please. Absent any secondary sources to the contrary, he was neither misogynist nor misandrist, but a misanthrope. His rage was at the human race in general, if for different specific reasons. (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the roommates were not targeted as a result of their gender, but he does go on to say this about his "first phase": This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I’ve had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did.[7] Based on that statement, I think it's too early to tell if the violence against men category is suitable yet. We need some secondary sources, but I think that statement could be construed as a gender-biased remark. Having said that, I think we are also dealing with two different scenarios as well, one being his written manifesto and what he envisioned his retribution to be, and second, the actual killings. I think his writings are somewhat gender-biased, but it would appear that the initial male victims were not killed solely because of their gender, and the other male victim was random in nature. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That is a threat of gendered violence based on their gender, he saw men who dated women as people who stole all the 'good' women from him, and him murdering and stabbing them as he saw them as disposable, and wanted them dead. Yes, the majority of the manifesto was about the hatred of women, but I really do think both categories are applicable here. Tutelary (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

yo trying to make this about violence against men is a really embarassing and transparent attempt to downplay the misogyny here. you really shouldn't. (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I myself am a woman so I understand firsthand about misogyny on the Internet. My own userpage has been vandalized based on my gender. Trust me, I get you. Though this discussion should be based on the content and the circumstances, not the editor who proposed X or took Y stance. That just leads to animosity. Tutelary (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that his threats sound gender-biased, but my next question would be is if the violence against men category includes threats as well, or is it just exclusively for actual killings and/or violence based on gender. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, he did not view men as lesser flawed beings. Was he jealous or angry at SOME men? Yes. That is not misandry! Who died vs who was wounded vs who was shot at count is not an issue. Only women did he state were universally lesser, unable to reason, deserved no rights, and should be killed en mass at concentration camps. That is unmistakeable misogyny. (Pg 117,136 My-Twisted-World-manifesto) (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to view men as "lesser flawed beings" to be a misandrist. Misandry is just hatred of men (whatever the reason), just as misogyny is hatred of women (whatever the reason). There are many different reasons why one might hate a whole class of people. Viewing a class of people as inferior is just one reason. Since he apparently fantasized about killing all the world's men (simply because they are men), did in fact kill more men than women, and even killed himself (himself of course being a man), I think there's a case to be made that this is also violence against men. There was a sexual component, sure. But, as we're always told, there's a difference between gender and sexuality. I think it makes more sense to call this a heterosexually-motivated incident, rather than a misogynistically-motivated incident. If the perpetrator were a woman but all the other facts were the same, would we be so quick to label this a misogynistic incident? Bearing in mind all the misandry (in addition to the misogyny) that the perpetrator spouted, I don't think so. Renren8123 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
He specifically stated that he hated men, and some of it was men whom he considered racially inferior to him, for being able to have relations with women that he felt that he deserved. He also hated all who he considered popular--I vote that hating men is valid for this guy. (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC) edited to add-plus what his manifesto had in store for women, would be awful for all humans, men included, so even his woman-hating was an ultimate man-hating plan24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
So now any desire to kill multiple people that includes males in that number, is now misandry? "I want to kill everyone" - That's misandry? When a male commits suicide, we are counting that as misnadry also? Evidently that's what some here would like the article to convey. Was he a racist? Yes. Misandrist for killing males (and we for some reason aren't counting shot & wounded here!) When his target was a sorority house? No. His stated ideal world is only men, the majority of women killed, with a few women contained "like the plague they are" for forced breeding (pg 136) ---"so even his woman-hating was an ultimate man-hating plan" Wow. So putting all women in concentration camps is an "ultimate man-hating plan" to you? I hope this article remains monitored; looks like it's going to need it.Kaldar5 (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
yeah that was exactly my point. Putting women in concentration camps would be bad for men too. it is a man-hating idea. Also-I think his plan there was to ration-out sex with women only to himself or men whom he thought deserved it?-Not sure about that exactly, but yes his misogamy was man & woman & racially hate criminal. (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
His comments about whether you would take a pill and have all the other men killed in the world is somewhat misandrist and misogynist, yes. Though labeling him something is not what this is about. It's about the category addition of 'violence against men'. Based on his manifesto, there seems to be gender related violence on both sides of the coin. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole thread is mostly off-topic. Wikipedia doesn't care what anyone here believes based on their reading of a primary-source manifesto. Can anyone cite a reputable secondary source from the mainstream media that establishes this was an act of anti-male gender bias? No one has provided any sources yet at all. Dominic·t 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See my response below. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
What he said. ^^^^ (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
This is still a current event, one that happened over a busy holiday weekend. Give the media outlets time and they will be sure to have a line-up of "experts" and numerous other talking heads giving their expert analysis this week sometime. As for this thread being off-topic, yeah that happens a lot with current event articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm waiting for. Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Define "Off topic", please. This is about improving the article and stopping possible edit warring over a category. Sounds on topic to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that there will be citations in reputable sources claiming that this was misandrist violence, because it wasn't: it was misogynist violence; the manifesto, as reported by sources, make that strongly clear. There's probably more (disreputable) sources claiming he was gay. One wonders that if Marc Lepine killed a few men, that we'd be having this same discussion. Cynically, I think we would. Sceptre (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • support adding the "Violence against men" category. It seems clear this was gender-based violence, and the killer expressed his hatred and rage at men as well as women in his diatribe. It is perfectly acceptable to read a primary-source manifesto and derive such a conclusion, that doesn't violate anything as far as I can tell, you don't need a phD in gender studies to read it that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Most sources designate it as misogynistic violence and the gendered aspect comes from this. It would be WP:ORIGINAL to designate the manifesto itself as misogynistic or misandronistic. It is the newspaper articles and press coverage that designates it as misogynistic and that is why it is relevant for this categorisation. We are here to summarise the event as it happened and as it is reported. When we get sources that describe it as misandronistic violence, they will become part of the narrative of events. Until then, this is not an opinion piece, and should be written and categorised as sources represent it -- (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

More than one perpetrator?

"Multiple witnesses say they saw two people inside the suspect's vehicle, however, during the press conference, Sheriff Brown would neither confirm nor deny whether there was a passenger in the car."

"One woman identified as Sierra [Swartz] told Sanchez she was approached by two men in a black BMW. The driver flashed a small black handgun and asked '"Hey, what's up?"'" (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is always speculation (and often long lasting insistence) of a "second shooter" in these things. It never pans out (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the second subject some witnesses reported was Satan.ACanadianToker (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control and Mental Health Section

It seems to me that this section is not neutral and pushes strengthened gun control. I have added the following to that section "Elliot correctly assumed that his student victims would not be armed. He originally sought to carry out his attack on Halloween of 2013 but reconsidered because "There would be too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who could hinder my plans."[1]" I think that his manifesto lends credence to the good-guy with a gun argument that the NRA and others responded to the Sandy Hook massacre with. I realize that this section is tied more closely to mental health however I feel that my addition helps to balance out the POV in it. It would be helpful to hear others' comments and views.ACanadianToker (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that his writings are representative of the logic of the broader debate. Most shootings do not involve mentally ill spree killings, and the gun control debate is centered right now on background checks for mental illness, not the abstract notion that criminals might think twice about shooting / attacking / robbing someone if they thought more people were armed with concealed weapons. A cop is not just a person with a gun, but a representative of law and order - was he concerned about them being armed, or being more likely to try to stop him because that's their job. We really don't fully know why he felt that way.Mattnad (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to claim to be ontop of the current media discussions/debates about it. In my reading of his manifesto that line meant that the cops would be able to physically stop him with their firearms. - i.e. Halloween would not be a good idea because there would be too many cops with guns. ("it would have to be on a normal weekend" p 110) I realize that his meaning is something we will never know - that being said I thought it was relevent given the 'good guy with a gun' discourse in the afermath of other shootings. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rodgers, Elliot. "My Twisted World" (PDF). p. 110. Retrieved 28 May 2014. 

Aftermath Section

The last sentence of the aftermath section stated that Rodgers' therapist had 'mistakenly' told his parents that the shooting they had heard about on the radio was unrelated to Rodgers. I deleted the word mistakenly. The source cited only states that the therapist had told them it was unrelated. I understand the mistaken (given our knowledge of his involvement) however do not feel it should be there. As the source does not mention the reason why this information was relayed to his parents it is important that we don't read too much into it. It could have been a mistake, or it could have been a professional decision to tell them that information considering they were driving. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat reasonable to me. I'm not attached to the word. It's Rodger not Rodgers, btw. (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction^ ACanadianToker (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoax article

It seems that a story related to this is based on someone just making things up and messing with a reporter.


This the story: [9]

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That was addressed in earlier talk section: Hoax material in perpetrator section (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

From where did he get the weapons?

Where did he get the weapons from? The article should mention it. -- (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

When the sources release it, then it will probably be in the article. All I saw was that they were legally possessed. Thats all the sources reveal at this time.--JOJ Hutton 14:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ammobox (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Rodger bought one of the handguns in Goleta, one in Oxnard and a third in Burbank. In his rambling manifesto, Rodger said he needed three guns “in case one jams.” He said he planned on killing himself with two simultaneous shots to the head.

The one purchased in Goleta was from Goleta Gun and Supply. My first act of preparation was the purchase my first handgun. I did this quickly and hastily, at a local gun shop called Goleta Gun and Supply. I had already done some research on handguns, and I decided to purchase the Glock 34 semiautomatic pistol, an efficient and highly accurate weapon. I signed all of the papers and was told that my pickup day was in mid-­December.

One on the handguns was purchased at Shooters Paradise of Oxnard, Ventura County's largest indoor shooting range, in Oxnard, CA.

Kevin White, manager of Shooter's Paradise, says he remembers the transaction with Elliott Rodger.

It happened back in February.

White says there was nothing unusual, and that Rodger went through the customary 10-day waiting period to receive the gun.

White says he and the store are not responsible for the tragedy.

"It happens from time to time. But what about the guy that sold him the knives or the swords that he used? Or what about the guy that sold him the car that he was in driving around and hit people? I mean, do they feel bad, or did they know he was going to do something bad with it? I mean, we sell tools or items. It's no different than the guy who sold him the knife that he used," White said.

The firearms shop Shooters Paradise of Oxnard sold Rodger a gun just before the killings, manager Kevin White said.

Rodger had an Isla Vista address and wasn't acting strangely when he bought the gun, White said.

White, an alum of UCSB, said he spoke briefly with Rodger about Isla Vista.

There was a 10-day waiting period -- no red flags arose in the background check -- and then Rodger picked up the gun, White said.

The manager pointed out that a gun wasn't the only weapon used in the killings.

"It happens from time to time, but what about the guy who sold him the knives or the swords that he used, or what about the guy who sold him the car that he was driving around and hit people?" White said.

CNN also carried the response by Kevin White to concerns that as a gun seller, he was in part responsible for the shootings.

The one purchased in Burbank was from Gun World.

No word on where he purchased the weapon(s) used to kill his first three victims or where he bought the BMW also use as a weapon.

If the world considers that significant, it will be picked up by more than a single local news station. I'd be inclined to wait for a higher quality source, rather than rush to get it into the article. My personal feeling is that it's of little interest to anyone except those who would boycott or torch the place for selling him the gun. (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

YouTube Videos

Approximately 14 hours after the crime, YouTube removed his 'Retribution' video but not before it was copied and posted by several other YouTube users. - Two days later, YouTube remove all of his other videos leaving just his interests in Pokemon and DocumentaryKingHD. - Five days later YouTube replaced 14 of his videos including "Life is so unfair because girls dont want me," "I'm Awesome," "Elliot Rodger's Adventures, driving to the beach," "Dancing in the car, Elliot Rodger style," "Why do girls hate me so much?," and "Balcony Vlog, reminiscing about childhood." 'Retribution' remains removed.

Ammobox (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be a notable aspect of the story: [10]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done Has been incorporated into article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

EW prevention, misogyny POV

"women risk losing the legitimacy of their concerns"

To my eyes, this is clearly (and blatantly) POV. Opinions please. (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: It's not only that phrase, I have the same objection to most of the paragraph. (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add 2: Beginning with "Some commentators" doesn't fix the problem. That's the old Faux News "Some sources say" trick. (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you disagree with this, but quoting one of the cited articles " refusing to acknowledge this act as what it is – extreme – and instead using it as a proxy for all harms against women we risk losing legitimacy for a conversation about #EverydaySexism, miss the opportunity to talk about the real need for mental health and gun reform, and do a grave injustice to the six people who lost their lives at the hands of this one man." [11]. Yes it has a POV, but no more of a POV than other comments that are included in the mix. I'll add the author, Samantha Levine, writes extensively on women's issues.
The second article states (among other things) " the #YesAllWomen movement grows...More members of the Twitterverse are coopting the hashtag and attaching it to concerns that seem relatively trivial. The perilousness of ubiquity with a hashtag—or any buzzword, for that matter—is that people can too easily forget its origin. #YesAllWomen began as a way to somehow find empowerment and positivity after a brutal murder in which a gunman killed six people and then himself. You wouldn’t think people needed to be reminded of those horrific details, but some of the tweets suggest otherwise." [12].
Your objection is your POV, but the paragraph is an accurate representation of counterpoint found in reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've never been fond of those attributions either that start with "some people". My feeling is that if a POV statement like this is going to be included, it should be attributed to the person saying it. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll retract the comparison to Faux News, which I made in haste. Their trick was to say that while never naming the sources. Sorry. Still opposed to the paragraph. (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I think if we allow POV opinions as long as they include attribution to some opinion site or another, we just turn the article into a forum thread. That's not what WP is for or about. (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The "some commentators" was an attempt to provide context. New reports are also just as single sourced as others. Open to suggestions. We can make it more declarative and just say "A counterpoint...." There are two articles written by two different women.Mattnad (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's deemed appropriate to carry on that debate at Wikipedia, perhaps it would be more appropriate to do it in the YesAllWomen article. The debate has become larger than the Rodger killings, which only sparked it. (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I follow - are you suggesting we move the talk to that area, or remove the counterpoint? It's a couple of dozen words and strongly connected to the topic in the subsection. Frankly, the YesAllWomen article is a stub. Mattnad (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm suggesting moving the article content --- yours and most of the rest related to the issue --- to the other article. This article could retain a very small section summarizing the issue, with a "Main article" tag referring the reader to the other article. It may be a couple of dozen words now, but will it stay that small? I doubt it. The other article isn't a stub. It's a small article because it was started relatively recently. So there's plenty of room to explore this issue to whatever detail people desire. (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
How about we keep it here for now since the hashtag is principally known for this event, although it can change overtime. Twitter is a fickle ecosystem and most of the response can be fairly attributed to a response to the killings, as do the counterpoints which reflect on the Santa Barbara events. You may be correct in the longerterm, but I'd say lets wait and see. It's only been a couple of days.Mattnad (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Pending further discussion. I've already rescued it from removal by someone else. (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I did my best to protect the stuff from major change by, including doing reverts and referring him to this talk. Apparently he doesn't know, or doesn't care, how things are supposed to be done, so there's nothing more I can do. Sorry. (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. Mattnad (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"Comments and coverage of misogyny as the root cause have spawned criticisms of oversimplification and distortion of the events which included the killings of men and mental health issues."
No offense, Mattnad, but that sentence needs some major work. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but then you have the benefit of already knowing what you're trying to say. For example, does it mean "criticisms which included", or "the events which included"? Are you talking about killngs of men by other men, or killings by men? And so on. I could help with a rewrite if you like, if I better understood what you're trying to say. (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No offense taken. It was badly written on my part. I like what you've done to improve.Mattnad (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments Misogyny Versus Social Media Response to Violence Against Women

I have made a large edit to the section previously titled "Comments on Misogyny" as it was off-topic and not neutral. However, it keeps getting removed.

Commenting on the validity of certain responses to the killing does not bear mention. And if it does, we should mention critiques of all responses, not the the response that focuses on Rodger's issues with women. While we mention the responses that focus on it being considered gun control and mental health issues, we do not critique then, and rightly so. As such, critique of other responses should be taken out.

My current edit reads far more neutral and I request that we keep this edit in while continuing to discuss whether or not to give more mention to Rodger's issues with women.

My current edit reads-SledgeRiprock (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Response to Violence Against Women

The killing spree, videos, and written manifesto of Elliot Rodger have subsequently sparked conversations about broader issues of gendered violence and misogyny in society[91][92] and on May 24 the Twitter hastag, #YesAllWomen[1] was created as an avenue for people to share their experiences of gendered violence and sexual assault, fear, everyday sexism, and to shoot back against those who did not believe Rodger's actions were rooted in misogyny.[93][94] The hashtag has since spread worldwide with most of the tweets coming from the U.S. and U.K., however it has also seen activity in many other countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, and Qatar. So far, the hashtag has reached 1.5 million tweets and 1.2 billion impressions and it peaked at 61,500 tweets on May 25.[95][96] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SledgeRiprock (talkcontribs) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the content that you propose to remove was off-topic. The gendered debate following the shooting has been a huge part of the news coverage and your proposed edit removes roughly half of it. I think, rather than posting your edited version of the section, you should explain what it is in the removed content that misrepresents the sources and is not neutral -- (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The section have further evolved, with more than one editor working it and so far agreeing on the scope and that it accurately represents the sources.Mattnad (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoax material in perpetrator section

The Daily Mirror got hoaxed by some forum person - see here where they confess to it. Note at the end where it says "added to Wikipedia".

I haven't read the whole thing. Somebody involved with editing this article needs to identify the hoax material and pull it out. — Scott talk 10:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the website you linked above. It sounds unlikely, but where do you get the 'hoax' idea from? There is some text in the perpetrator section sourced to the UK Mirror paper, so that could be it. --220 of Borg 11:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I took a shot at it and kind of got lost in the maze. Maybe you could help out a little more with the heavy lifting. If the Mirror has posted a retraction on their site, give us a link. A comment in a forum is not a retraction. If it's false and they fail to retract, then they shouldn't be considered a reliable source. (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, whoever added the false info did it in this edit. Ah, sneaky, isn't it? Anyway, I've removed it because of the speculation — there's no real source that his posting on the Bodybuilding site definitively happened, just a source that claims that it may have happened. Epicgenius (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Epic! Genius! Yep, that's the text I had in mind. ;-) --220 of Borg 14:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Glad to help. Face-smile.svg Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this. On one hand we have a citation that says one thing, and on the other hand we have OR from a web forum that claims the citation is a hoax? I think removing the information about creatine is against Wikipedia standards. (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If the web forum post is itself invented, that would be an extraordinary degree of meta-trolling, which I don't think those guys are up to and it strains credulity to even try to believe that. More importantly, especially now that this whole claim has been put into doubt, we need a great deal more reliable sources other than the Mirror which came to the same conclusion and did separate fact checking; absent that the material should be gone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
There's really not a whole lot of mainstream coverage about this angle of the story. I found this source talking about the story being a hoax and this article from Men's Health talking about the "truth about the weightlifting supplement and its effect on mental health" in relation to this incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The Mirror has taken the story offline [13] and The New York Post which ran the story as well has taken their story down too.[14]. It would appear that this has been put to rest for the time being. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Two or three roommates

Currently in the sub-section Killing spree, it states that: The killing spree started at Rodger's apartment on Seville Road, where three men, later revealed to be his roommates, were found stabbed to death. And then in the section Victims, there is some ambiguity as to who was actually Rodger's roommates. According to Wang's mother, her son was a roommate and wanted to move out, [15] and I have seen multiple RS stating that Chen's name was on the lease for the apartment, but his father said that his son did not live at the apartment and was only visiting his two friends.[16]. And the LA Times is reporting that "according to classmates" - Wang, Chen and Hong were close friends as well as roommates.[17]. In light of all the contradictory sources, I suggest we take the phrase "later revealed to be his roommates" out of that opening sentence in "Killing spree" and leave it to read: The killing spree started at Rodger's apartment on Seville Road where three men were found stabbed to death. This is factually correct and then discussion about who was and who wasn't Rodger's roommates can be discussed in the "Victims" section, until we get some more confirmation through reliable sourcing on this. Thoughts? Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. IIRC at least one was not a roommate... At any rate your suggestion would solve any ambiguity. ACanadianToker (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be to omit anything where there's so little RS agreement. Especially in a case such as this, where maybe 1 in 100 people will ever care whether the third guy was a roommate or not (I certainly don't). That said, I've only been at this for four months or so, so I don't know how well my preference jives with WP principles in this case. Whatever you do, I promise not to revert. Mandruss (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiping entire "See also" section?

An anon IP just wiped the entire "See also" section. I don't have strong feelings either way, but thought there should be consensus on the Talk page first on this decision. [18] -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Blanking. It seems like there should be a 'See also' section based on similar tragedies, in order facilitate readers of the article to peruse for other, similar articles and tragedies. Tutelary (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no valid reason to eliminate the "See also" section. I am replacing it. Its specific contents can be debated, yes. Blanket removal, no. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The editor's edit summary states: A "See Also" list of similar tragedies seems in really bad taste, unless there's a concrete connection. This is incorrect. There need not be any "concrete connection". In fact, quite the opposite. According to the Wikipedia MOS: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" (emphasis added). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose See also sections are very common in articles of this nature. I agree that the specificity of what is included is open for debate and consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - One issue with the "See also" section is that it spuriously links numerous crimes from other locations to this. We have a template for shootings in the United States, and the Ecole Polytechnique shooting, though done with similar motives, had a dissimilar location and execution. I had trimmed some of these, but they were readded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say "spuriously"? And which links are you referring to? Did you see the comment that I made above? It said: According to the Wikipedia MOS: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" (emphasis added). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
A function served admirably better by the template at the bottom as well. We are giving prominence to... a postal shooting that is completely unrelated? A number of cases of violence against women, which is not necessarily NPOV? Also, read a bit further in WP:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant [and] should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" (a greater degree of relevance than is shown in the current section; would a "comprehensive article" on these killings link to the postal shooting?). Furthermore, make sure this section meets all parts of the MOS, i.e. "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." You can't just pick and choose which parts of the MOS you want to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You have not indicated which specific links you would like to see removed? Or are you saying all of them need to go? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I boldly removed several yesterday. That's a pretty good start to figure out my opinion. Reconsidering, Lepine / the Ecole Polytechnique shooting have similar enough motives that people may compare the two, and the 2001 killings might be good to link owing to the same locality. However, the postal killing, for starters, is just a bit too far afield. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I am guessing that the postal killing is linked because it was in the same town or same county (Goleta). If this is a town with few, if any, murders and acts of violence, I can see why the postal killing is included. Nonetheless, a "See also" section is to provide tangentially related articles; they do not need a direct relation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The question you should be asking yourself is "does the section reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic"? It's unlikely that all of these would be in linked in-text in a comprehensive article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi I wiped the see also section earlier. imo unless any of these links grant further insight into this particular event, they have no place here (and if so, that should be motivated well enough so it's not just an entry in a list). I don't think a list to a bunch of totally unrelated spree killings helps anyone who wants to explore this topic, it's just basically going "you liked this terrible tragedy? then you'll also love these!" (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your assessment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • trim the section, we should not have a listing of "other similar and interesting spree killings in the same general area" - instead use the template which has all recent shootings in the US. There may be little left after the purge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to trimming. However, this was a spree killing more so than just a "shooting in the US". I did not yet look at that template you refer to. But, if it is only for "shootings in the US", then that would not contain other (non-shooting and/or non-USA) spree killings that are relevant for the "See also" section. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Trim - Per my above comment. Focus on "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" per the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Rodger's Wikipedia edits

I don't presently see a reliable media source for this, but User:ElliotR1 appears highly likely to have been Elliot Rodger. This is based on (a) the first edits made by this account were to George Rodger, (b) the username ElliotR1 was reportedly used on OKCupid, according to [19], (c) at least 7 of 20 (I need to recheck some I thought weren't sex-related) of the account's edits were used in unsuccessfully trying to remove the image from footjob and successfully removing an image from fellatio. (I've taken the liberty of reverting this; see that page's talk for more) For the five attempts to remove the footjob image, ElliotR1 was blocked on February 22, 2013: see User talk:ElliotR1. An anonymous IP ( nominally in New Jersey pursued the fellatio removal on March 2 here - I don't know it was Rodger for sure, but a closely adjacent anonymous IP (Special:Contributions/ attempted to re-remove the footjob photo on July 5 2103, so I am suspicious that at least some of the edits of both of these and perhaps also may be Rodger; there could be more. Rodger was later blocked for a reversion [20] made on July 20, the day he tried to shove girls off the balcony.

I realize of course that we can't run out ahead of reliable sources, but I think it's worth setting this down and continuing the examination for other possible accounts or logged-out edits so that we are prepared to work with this material accurately as it becomes better known. Though, yes, in part it's just that as a free speech partisan I believe that censorship and violence are indivisible. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length in section "Wikipedian?", above, and a consensus was reached. If you feel you have something that might change the consensus, please put it there. Mandruss (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mass Stabbing"?

What exactly qualifies as a "mass" stabbing, because stabbing three people does not sound like a "mass stabbing" to me. ( (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

I changed it to "multiple stabbing", which I hope will be an acceptable compromise between "stabbing" and "mass stabbing". Mandruss (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Machetes, hammer

Rationale for removing these from the main infobox.

The sources, both UK, begin with "believed to have used a machete and hammer". They then go on to say that those items were removed from his apartment by police. They don't say (1) that they were found anywhere near any of the victims, (2) that there was anything on them to indicate they had been used in the attacks, or (3) that any of the wounds suffered were consistent with a machete or a hammer. To me, they fail to justify their initial statement, and they fail to justify inclusion of these weapons in the infobox. The body text discusses them as a possibility --- and I will change that to "may have been used". Mandruss (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that The New York Times briefly mentions the retrieval of these items from the apartment, but they don't say anything like "believed to have used" them. And they definitely don't use them as the sensational headline of any article, as both UK sources did. I think we're looking at a case of UK tabloid journalism. Mandruss (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Content which violates BLP and WP:Primary

Removed content only referenced by an unpublished primary source (the killer’s manifesto) which created BLP concerns because the deleted content included improperly referenced content regarding living persons (the killer’s sister and the killer's stepmother), presented as fact. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo News rendering problem

Some Yahoo News pages used as sources don't render in my browser. I'm using IE11 since my Chrome is broken. If this happens for others too, I'll delete those citations. The pages include this one and this one. Can a few of you check these out for me? Thx. (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The links worked fine for me, I use IE11. Have you updated your IE recently, and how did you manage to "break" Chrome. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
My IE is current as far as I can tell, there are no pending updates in Windows Update for IE. As for Chrome, it's a long story that we don't need to get into (much). I've been trying in vain to find a resolution via the "Chrome community", but you know how that goes. I suspect registry corruption, so I may look into trying to locate and delete all of Chrome's entries and try another install. Failing that, I'm stuck with IE (or Firefox) for the duration. Thanks for caring. (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Works on Firefox.Mattnad (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Works on Firefox for me with scripts disabled. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rodger biography

Either wikipedians have not read Rodger's autobiography, or they are clearly lying. Rodger never stopped receiving mental help (new psychologists, new counselors, new social skills coaches), until he stopped for the last few days, obviously. The claim that he refused mental help after 2012 is false. All the rest is highly POV, except that the only POV we don't get, is Rodger's. Truth is, his POV has the best sources (Manifesto), while all other claims are doubtful hearsay from tabloids etc. I've started trying to balance things out a bit, adding Rodger's explanation why he at some point in his youth became "compulsively obsessed with proving to everyone that [he] wasn't poor". His side of the story can't be mentioned without refering to the on-going conflict he had with his stepmother, who eventually kicked him out, when he was 18, which is 4 years before the killings. I read and I understand that writing about real living people is very delicate, and that according to Jimmy Wales, "no information is preferred to false information." But here, I'm not claiming anything unverifiable. He was bullied at Pinecrest for living in a "poor" house (his mother's), and was eventually kicked out of his father's house by his stepmother (though he says later that she got his father to kick him out). This is not my "opinion". Just trying to balance out a very POV biography. Yes, he murdered 6 people. But I don't think it's too early to analyze coldly what lead to it, instead of using Wikipidia as an outlet for distraught people, and mental health professionals who won't admit they failed. Please check my source (Ctrl+F the pdf Manifesto, I can also state the pages numbers, though it's usually not required) and help improve what I added instead of vandalizing all the research I made. Memory.-- (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason Wikipedia frowns on using primary sources for content in articles is because of the very passage you wrote in your last sentence - "all the research I made". Wikipedia doesn't allow editing of articles that is based on an editor's original research. Try and find some secondary sources that are reliable that have discussed these very same issues that you raised in your edit, then you will have a better chance of inclusion of the material. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Even to my fastest skim looking over it just now, it seems like there's a lot in that biography that deserves to be mined. His description of dropping up to $700 a month on the lottery - if there is really anybody out there looking for warning signs, you know somebody doing that is heading for a crack-up. His over-the-top rape-eugenics philosophy deserves a showcase (he repeats three variants on "If women had the freedom to choose which men to mate with, like they do today, they would breed with stupid, degenerate men, which would only produce stupid, degenerate offspring.") Of course, it is better to have secondary source discussion than editors cherry-picking favorite quotes from a primary source, and I think that should be feasible, but no matter what... hearing from the subject is always good in a biography. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Not only does his bio section need to be pruned, there are other sections with bloated material as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sex of the surviving shooting victims

Has this been reported in any media yet? So far every source I can found establishes them simply as unnamed, unidentified number of victims. (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC) CaseyYippie

Does it matter? Once the spree started, the violence was pretty random and opportunistic based on what has been reported.Mattnad (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, he indiscriminately killed men and women. We should not downplay the losses of either gender. He may have fantasised about committing femicide but as soon as he acted it seemed clear he just wanted to kill as many people as possible -- (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Diagram Rodger made

Here is an image Rodger allegedly made and uploaded to his own Facebook, purportedly detailing his plans for an "Eliot Rodger Revolution". Worth putting the article? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No IMHOMattnad (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
No, not encyclopedic. But somewhat interesting anyway. Mandruss (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The article for that is [21]. Searching for the "Elliot Rodger Revolution" turns up a range of useful commentary, not necessarily about this image, so it may be a notable phrase. Let's just hope it's not contagious. (Hmmm, I'm almost thinking that's worth a See Also....) Wnt (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead

I re-wrote the first paragraph in the lead to be more in line with WP:LEAD. I also think a second paragraph summarizing his manifesto and retribution video is warranted in the lead as it is a notable and relevant part of this story. There is plenty of content already in the body of the article to support a summary in the lead if another editor wanted to tackle it (meaning I'm too lazy right now to do it). Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Opposed to manifesto in the lead, since the article title is about the killings and the manifesto is secondary to the killings. If that makes any sense. Opposed to exchanges of gunfire with police in the lead, since I think it's too much detail for the lead. I'd just say something to the effect that (1) the spree ended when his vehicle crashed into another, and (2) he was found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Mandruss (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I think of the lead as the Cliff Notes for the article---for someone who only wants the basic facts. That person doesn't care about the manifesto, or the gunfire exchanges which had no effect on the outcome. Mandruss (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:LEAD suggests that we summarize, which is what I did. I summarized the content that is in the Section titled Events and it's sub-sections; Killing spree and Police response, attacker's death. The single sentence about the exchange of gunfire and his death are merely a summary of the "Police response, attacker's death" sub-section. I don't see an issue with that. My suggestion about the manifesto and the video was because it was a significant and relevant part of this story that is evidenced by the content that is devoted to it that is currently in the body of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe there should be a very brief summary of the manifesto in the lede. Not only is it integral to almost every coverage of the shootings in the media, it is also generally accepted to be his motive -- (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll change my position after sleeping on it. It occurred to me that I've seen much longer leads in lots of high quality articles, so apparently my feelings are at odds with the community. I say take a first shot at it, and all of us can work on the lead over time as we have the rest of the article (which I think is looking fairly good). Mandruss (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article is looking fairly good. The story has received commentary from all sorts of angles but I think the article here is actually one of the more neutral summaries -- (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The 2nd and 3rd sentence in the 2nd para of the lead need to be re-worded to reflect the appropriate chronology of the spree. The way it currently reads implies that immediately after stabbing his roommates, he shot at bystanders and hit four people with his car. However, according to the source provided, [22], the Sheriff says that after stabbing his roommates, he then drove to the sorority house first where the next killings took place and then drove to the deli, rather than "speeding around Isla Vista shooting at bystanders and hitting people with his car". The killings at the sorority house and deli took place before he was speeding around and shooting and hitting people with his car. A minor inconsistency that can be easily remedied. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Did my best. In the number shot outside the sorority house, I deliberately omitted the graze injury; if I received a graze injury I wouldn't consider myself shot. The "victim" herself stated that she didn't even bleed. I don't even think that needs to be in the article, but whaaaaaatever. Mandruss (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course the next objection will be that it mentions two of the non-fatal shootings while omitting the remainder of them. Starting with the number in the lead infobox and doing some arithmetic, I think one could deduce that number as two five. And one might reasonably surmise that they both all occurred after the deli. However, I haven't seen a source that specifically says that. Further, I think even doing the arithmetic would be considered OR. It's a conundrum or a sticky wicket, depending on one's side of the pond. Mandruss (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Correction, that's five. I think. Making the conundrum/sticky wicket that much worse. Mandruss (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Label as Misogynistic

We have had multiple edits both adding and removing reference to "misogynistic", We have also had attempts to label this event as "misandrist", and a "violence against men" tag. I expect this to continue to be a problem on this article.

Southern Poverty Law Center refers to this crime specifically as misogynistic, and misogyny motivated. SPLC-Misoynistic posts point to motive

Southern Poverty Law Center has a very long history as a non-profit civil rights organization that deals with and brings hate crimes to light in the United States. They are used by the FBI and police for both information and training, are highly regarded academically, and sited nationally as authorities on hate crimes, hate groups, and events.

Elliot Rodger's manifesto, videos, motives, and personal posts on misogynistic hate sites were, in fact, misogynistic as per Southern Poverty Law Center.

I move that any further mass removal of "Misogynistic" within the article first be discussed on the talk page to avoid edit wars WP:EW

Please discuss possible addition of "Misandrist", gender specific body counts, ect in a different talk page topic section with your citation. Thank you. Kaldar5 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

He seemed to equally hate men and women alike, and in the attack killed two women as opposed to four men. In his Manifesto he complains a lot about women choosing "dumb brutes" to date and how modern men and women are evil. There seems to be as much evidence to label him misogynist as there is to label him misandrist. Both labels could be applied, or he could be described as a general misanthrope. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
He expressed hatred and anger towards men only insofar as he perceived them as monopolizing the sex and attention from women that he was entitled to. The death toll is a red herring without knowing a) the gender of the people who crossed his path during the spree, and b) the gender breakdown of the wounded victims (which I have not seen reported). It's plain for those who have eyes to see that this attack was motivated by misogyny, so I would support keeping a discussion of misogyny---properly supported by reliable, third-party sources, of course---in the article and any discussion of misandry out. SS451 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Misanthrope probably is a better label since he did express hatred towards both women and men. He was also selective in his hatred towards women, specifically saying that it was "white" women he was attracted to. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Further agreement that Misanthrope is more accurate than misogynist. Also see: ACanadianToker (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's an interesting read too: A lot of people claiming the misogynist are typically quoting one or two paragraphs out of the whole without looking at the rest of the content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Worth a mention, I think, being the only cold, analytical approach to the question in the subsection. I added it. Mandruss (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
WWGB immediately reverted, citing RS and OR. If the fact that it's a blog makes it un-RS or OR, then much of the rest of the subsection needs to be removed. As blogs go, this one looks fairly high quality to me. WWGB, could you explain here for the benefit of us uninitiated? Mandruss (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The anonymous blogger conducted original research and then self-published it. There are so many alarm bells the noise is deafening! WWGB (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a source conducting original research - indeed it's what we rely on, so it's rather daft to critique the source for having done OR. What isn't acceptable is the fact that it's an anonymous blogs. Blogs are only accepted as RS under very specific circumstances, and anonymous blogs not tied to outlets with editorial control are never acceptable as RS as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the more thorough, less dismissive and condescending response. I'll accept yours as the more accurate one. Mandruss (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the blog makes interesting points, and I seriously doubt any of the other reporters have done that sort of research. What seems clear to me is, Rodgers hated many people, including women (perhaps not all women, but large swathes of them), and men (maybe not all men, but only sexually successful ones). Misanthrope is a fair title, but one could also call him a misandrist and a misogynist. I do think the violence and hatred against certain men that he exhibited is not being given enough coverage, so we'll have to wait to see if more sources come along covering that angle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"Misogynist" is one perspective on the events, but if used should refer to specific portions of his writings and video where applicable and not the attacks which were demonstrably indiscriminate by gender. At a high level for the article, we should not be overusing the term.Mattnad (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Identity of Therapist

There were a few places in sections 1.3 (Aftermath) and 3.3 (Manifesto and Online Posts) that referred to Charles Sophy as Rodger's therapist. This therapist received Rodger's manifesto by email. However, the news articles that are used as references do no mention Charles Sophy by name.[1][2] While Sophy apparently treated Rodger at one time, according to "My Twisted World" Rodger had not seen him since September.[3] There is also at least one other person mentioned in the manifesto who could be considered Rodger's therapist. Therefore, unless an article can be found that mentions Charles Sophy by name as the one who received the manifesto via email and was in contact with his family on the day of the incident, I suggest that we refer to this person using the more generic term "therapist." Danni Ruthvan (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good move imo. Actually I would be happier without identifying Sophy at all. Sandy Hook, VA Tech, and Columbine --- all mature and high quality articles --- refer to a psychiatrist or psychiatric care without naming the people involved. I would be interested in the motive of anyone who wanted to know that information. Mandruss (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Less is more. This is an encylopedia after all - not a tabloid.Mattnad (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going ahead with this change. 2-0 will have to suffice for a consensus. The only dissenter I'm aware of declined to participate in this discussion. Mandruss (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Facebook page deleted

I think his Facebook page got deleted, I can't find it anywhere on the site. WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Why are we linking to Facebook? Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Third paragraph in lede? The current links are these:
Lee, Dave. "BBC News - Gunman Elliot Rodger's videos removed by YouTube". Retrieved May 30, 2014. 
Kashmir Hill. "Elliot Rodger's Videos Were Removed From YouTube, But Only Temporarily". Forbes. Retrieved May 30, 2014. 
Are these not considered WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't concerning the YouTube video; it's concerning Facebook... Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Where are we linking to Facebook? What is this section about? It sounds like the OP is suggesting we might want to include the fact that his Facebook page got deleted. If so, count me opposed. Mandruss (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
We're not linking to Facebook. We're not mentioning Facebook. WikiOriginal-9 is only obliquely suggesting that we should mention Facebook. Facebook is not YouTube. .. and this bit is already crossed out Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it should be included, just thought someone might want to know WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Somewhat related: [23]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you already know this, but if there's any confusion I was referring to his real personal Facebook page WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
I searched for a source but failed to find one. Do you have one from a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
[24] it says facebook removed it WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
[25] WikiOriginal-9 (talk)
Yes, Forbes seems perfectly RS. That second source provides an interesting appraisal of what his Facebook Page was actually like. Perhaps more relevant than the fact it was removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I was on his page before it got deleted, it was basically just a bunch of pictures. I don't remember any friend activity on the page. I don't think he had any "weird" likes either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Killing spree: play-by-play

My feelings are that we don't need a play-by-play of the driving part of the spree, at a level of detail that allows the reader to follow it on a map. To me, that has a sensationalist feel that doesn't belong at Wikipedia. I think it would suffice to provide a complete outline of the events, omitting street names, turns, and directions. Apparently, the community disagrees, since it's been in the article for over a week, including review by more experienced editors than me.

If we're going to have that, it should be clear and complete, to the degree supported by sources. It is currently neither clear nor entirely complete. The best way to do that is with a map, and I know an editor who enjoys making maps and has done one for me before. That would be "own work" and could be included without a copyright issue. The map in this article could be used as a basis, and it seems accurate as far as I can tell.

Comments? Mandruss (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Add: I see two discrepancies between the map and the article as it now stands. The article says there were 8 non-fatal shootings, whereas the map shows only 6 (the black "person" symbols). The missing two are:

  • The graze wound victim at the sorority house.
  • The boyfriend of the graze victim. The text annotating the map does not mention this. The only source I have seen for this is a quote of the graze victim saying her boyfriend had been wounded. This would need to be resolved before making the map.

Also, the map does not show non-gunshot injuries, probably because (1) not enough is known about their locations, and/or (2) it would clutter the map and make it difficult to read. Comments on that would also be appreciated. Mandruss (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has added this sentence to the second para in the Killing spree section; He then drove around Isla Vista in his car, which includes a hot link to a map of the various crime scenes [26], I didn't check the map for accuracy, but that sentence is worded a little odd - under the circumstances, and I don't think a hot link should be included like that, I think a "note" there would work better or maybe putting the "map" in the external links section. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that you changed this, putting a Note at the end of the subsection. I agree with you about the hot link (or whatever the correct term for that is). At the same time I doubt many people will see the Note at the end of the subsection (I didn't see it, until I worked backward from your link in the Notes section). But some sort of a map is critical to one's understanding of the events (again, if we really need that level of understanding). The best overall solution is our own map, a thumbnail of which could be included alongside the text. But that's not going to happen if I'm the only one who feels this way. I would need both a consensus and some help with research, since I can't do it alone. Mandruss (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the "note" is rather obscure, but absent our own map at the time being, this is a reasonable solution. We could use geographical coordinates WP:GEO to pinpoint the area, but this lacks the specific details we are looking for. I agree that a map created specifically for this article is by far the best option, we could request that one be made for this article, but they seem to have a backlog at the moment. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done some of the editing of the play-by-play. I think the Daily Nexus map is the best, and the Santa Barbara Independent play-by-play is the best written description. I think that a map in the article would help a lot. snug (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Tried to edit the play-by-play. About the best I can do with it, not really satisfied, there is a bit too much detail. Some of the details are important, though. Two details hard to include… a number of witnesses reported more than one occupant in the car. One witness to Rodger's crash at the end said Rodger got out of the car and was shot, then kicked (to test whether he was alive) by a deputy. Already it may have too much detail, so these details seem way too much. snug (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we delete mention of Aspergers and Autism Spectrum Disorder?

According to reliable sources this claim is disputed. The fathers lawyer claims he was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome (which is a colloquial term and former diagnosis for an Autism Spectrum Disorder) while a long time family friend says that he was not diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Right now the article states both verifiable claims. I don't think Wikipedia should mention a psychological diagnosis that is not sourced by a qualified psychologist and especially one that is disputed.Edkollin (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And just to be clear, not just "a psychologist" but rather the one who made said diagnosis, if any. Absent that, no mention of a diagnosis belongs in the article. But I'd also like to see a few more opinions. Mandruss (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The only source for it seems to be second- or third-hand.Darmokand (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Disagreed. His mother and a teacher of his affirmed that he was diagnosed with Asperger's. However his father and a family friend (people who weren't very close to Elliot), disagree with the diagnosis, but the family friend assumed he could have been on the spectrum. According to his manifesto, he had a social skills counselor provided by his mother. His neighbor described him as having difficulty giving eye contact and was "shaken" during introductions, which is a classic symptom of autism. Nashhinton (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I had difficulty "giving eye contact" throughout much of my life. My left eye turned out and I was extremely self-conscious about it, and it was less noticeable if I avoided eye contact. This is a great example of one of the reasons why the judgment of non-professionals is not useful. If anyone has "affirmed" that he was diagnosed, why haven't they produced the name of the professional who diagnosed him? Mandruss (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good NY Times article on mental issues history

This article goes into great detail on Elliot's history with mental issues, from the time he was 9 years old. I recommend using the source in the article if it isn't already. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Already used in two places. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Used in two places for the names of high schools, not for mental health. Notably, regarding mental health, it says that the mother filed an affidavit saying he was high-functioning autistic, but it doesn't say whether that was her opinion or the formal diagnosis of a professional. It goes on to say that her assertion was disputed by a psychiatrist --- and, lo and behold, it actually provides that psychiatrist's name. Mandruss (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Misogyny" section

The section on misogyny should be removed. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the subject's pathology was to be hostile to men and women. This defines him as being a misanthrope rather than a misogynist or misandrist. The focus on the feminist viewpoint is intellectually dishonest.

Pencilsketcher (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC) PS

I would rename the title to something like Alleged Rodger Misogyny and Misanthrope as reflective of wider societal issues. The killings did cause a wider debate and the it was not Misogyny POV is mentioned.Edkollin (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A very large number of reliable sources have described Rodger as a misogynist and/or have called his manifesto and motive for killing misogynistic. Whether you, I, or anyone else editing here is convinced Elliot Rodger was really a misanthrope is actually irrelevant. Enough reliable sources have related the killing spree to misogyny that WP:DUE justifies a section on this and removing this section would violate due weight.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He posted an anti-women manifesto, was part of an anti-women online hate group, and his intention was to kill everyone in a sorority house. He was clearly misogynist. Keep the section, and keep the agenda out of it. Just because he ended up killing more men doesn't change his intention, and the police have not released the genders of the 13 other people he wounded aside from a select few (two additional shooting victims were female, and several others were struck with his car). In any case, it doesn't matter. His intent and the subject matter of his rants are the reason this is seen as a misogynist attack. (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We keep the section. The attacks generated the responses. Also, we should keep all views on the response including RS that were had some critiques about it to maintain NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny part is full of feminist's bias, and should be removed or cleaned really really well. Feminism is comparable to the national socialism and can't be held as neutral point of view. Feminism is always biased. -- (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Manuscript is incorrect term

Manuscript is not the correct term here at all. Please stop reverting back to it. 'a book, document, or piece of music written by hand rather than typed or printed.' Rodger wrote his thoughts in Microsoft word and therefore it is typed and not a manuscript by definition. (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you using British English or American English? This article is in American English. Note that each of the following is the first definition listed. How many do you need?
    1 a written or typewritten composition or document as distinguished from a printed copy; also : a document submitted for publication
    1 the original text of an author's work, handwritten or now usually typed, that is submitted to a publisher.
    1 A book, composition or any other document, written by hand (or manually typewritten), not mechanically reproduced. Mandruss (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition provided by the IP editor seems to have come from this google search [27]. Our article here on Manuscript appears to be similar in it's definition. I have no preference either way. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In the Manuscript article, please see the second paragraph of the section "Modern variations". While a citation is needed, the statement has been allowed to remain for over four years, by who knows how many scholarly reviewers. Mandruss (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just a matter of preference and consensus. When I think of the word manuscript, the first thing that pops into my mind is in relation to publishing companies and the thousands of manuscripts they receive each year. I seriously doubt that any publisher would reject a manuscript solely on the basis that it was typed and not hand-written. Ernest Hemingway used a typewriter for his manuscripts, in the early 1920’s he used a portable folding Corona Number 3. And in today's world of publishing, almost all authors now use a pc with word-processing software, and some publishers ask that the manuscript be submitted on disk. Additionally, here is a list of authors and writers who had notable relationships with typewriters from WP Typewriter. So yeah, it would appear the IP editor is wrong, it doesn't make any difference whether a manuscript is typed or hand-written or created via word-processing software in order for it to be defined as a manuscript. Updated - I just checked my version of Microsoft Word and it has a "manuscript template". Just a wild guess here, but it stands to reason that other word-processing software offer that template as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, additionally, manifesto is the more dominant term in reliable sources, so we should defer to that. Tutelary (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for YesAllWomen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the AfD discussion was to keep the YesAllWomen article and the merge discussion is closed at the talk page at YesAllWomen with the consensus being opposed to a merge.

A Canadian Toker 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's early for #YesAllWomen, but I suspect it will whither and be a one time hashtag that's only relevant from the context of this atrocity. That written, there's no hurry yet to merge. I think we can see how it plays out for the next month.Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the merge of YesAllWomen being incorporated into this article. If anything, the content should be merged into that article, or in the alternative - the content in the section in this article should be pruned. Two of the three paragraphs in that section are nothing but opinion's of not so notable commentators anyway.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and agree with everything Isaidnoway said. I spoke (since archived) in favor of moving the content to the other article as soon as the controversy became about more than Elliot Rodger. Mandruss (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The YesAllWomen article fails on notability (at least right now) as it's only known as a response to this event and has already fallen out of the news cycles. See WP:PERSISTENCE. If anything, the separate article should be eliminated and relevant content merged, into this article.Mattnad (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Defer to the broader discussion at AfD. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I posted this here only to direct people to the broader discussion on the YesAllWomen Talk page here A Canadian Toker 16:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talkcontribs)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Death of Rodger

Here are the 5 accounts I've found.

  1. From the UCSB Daily Nexus at 10:27pm the night of the murders, May 23[1]:

    According to fourth-year communication major and eyewitness Tyler Jordan, the suspect was shooting out of his car, but tried to escape and was taken down by nearby Isla Vista Foot Patrol officers.

    “The suspect looked like he jumped out of the car and was gunned down by IVFP,” Jordan said in an email.

  2. Same article, second witness[1]:

    Fourth-year political science major Niklas Svennefiord, who was at his house on Del Playa at the time of the incident, corroborated Jordan’s story and said that the suspect, a man in a white shirt, crashed into a nearby black jeep.

    “I heard a couple gunfire shots — I thought they were fireworks — so I didn’t think about it, but I was pretty startled and then I heard a car hit into another car so I look up into my little window that’s in my shower and I see a guy try to flee and the cops shoot him,” Svennefiord said.

  3. Expanded version from the second witness, 5:16 a.m. May 24, early the morning after the murders[2]:

    One local resident and UCSB student, Niklas Svennefiord, said he saw the suspect flee from police, from his house at 6585 Del Playa Drive. The suspect, a man in a white shirt, crashed into a nearby black Jeep, he said.

    “I heard a couple gunfire shots. I thought they were fireworks, so I didn’t think about it, but I was pretty startled and then I heard a car hit into another car. So I look up into my little window that’s in my shower, and I see a guy try to flee and the cops shoot him,” Svennefiord said.

    Svennefiord said the suspect then continued to flee from police and also said that he believes one of his best friends was killed.

    “I see a guy try to flee out of the car and the cop shoots him and then runs up to the car, seriously, and runs up to the car, looks into the car and the guy tries rolling around, and the cop kind of kicked him to make sure he was down,” Svennefiord said.

    While saying the situation was “a little obscure,” Svennefiord said it appeared as if the whole incident ended in front of his house on the 6500 block of Del Playa.

  4. Different version from the second witness, 2:18 a.m. May 25[3]:

    Leaving the scene of the crash that night, fourth-year political science major Niklas Svennefiord said he saw the suspect flee from police, as he watched from inside his home on the 6500 block of Del Playa. The suspect, a man in a white shirt, crashed into a nearby black Jeep, he said.

    “I heard a couple gunfire shots. I thought they were fireworks, so I didn’t think about it, but I was pretty startled and then I heard a car hit another car. So I look up into my little window that’s in my shower, and I see a guy try to flee and the cops shoot him,” Svennefiord said.

    Svennefiord, who also said that night that he believes one of his best friends was killed, said the suspect then continued to flee from police.

    “I see a guy try to flee out of the car and the cop shoots him and then runs up to the car, seriously, and runs up to the car, looks into the car and the guy tries rolling around, and the cop kind of kicked him to make sure he was down,” Svennefiord said.

  5. From Sheriff Bill Brown at his May 24 Press Conference[4]:

    The deputies approached the crashed vehicle and determined that the suspect within that vehicle was dead from an apparent gunshot wound to the head. A handgun was recovered from within that vehicle.

  6. From the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office May 24 Press Release[5]:

    The suspect’s vehicle then collided with several parked cars and came to a stop. Responding deputies immediately removed Rodger from the car and handcuffed him. They discovered Rodger was dead with an apparent gunshot wound to the head.

It is fairly unclear whether Rodger exited the car first, or at all, or was found dead in the car. Perhaps that is just the nature of eyewitness testimony in the heat of the moment. I think the national media locked into statement 5 above, the one made a the press conference by Sheriff Brown.

Not that it matters much. I suppose the final report will clarify what happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snugspout (talkcontribs) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Staff Report, "Shots Fired in Isla Vista", UCSB Daily Nexus, May 23, 2014, 10:27 p.m. (retrieved Jun. 8, 2014).
  2. ^ Wenzke, Marisa "Shooting Spree Results in Seven Dead" UCSB Daily Nexus, May 24, 2014, 5:16 a.m. (retrieved Jun. 8, 2014).
  3. ^ Wenzke, Marisa "Witnesses Share Accounts of Tragedy in Isla Vista" UCSB Daily Nexus, May 25, 2014, 2:18 a.m. (retrieved Jun. 8, 2014).
  4. ^ Sheriff Bill Brown, Press Conference, May 24, 2014
  5. ^ SBSO Press Release 5241402, May 24, 2014

Consolidation of "Twisted" sources and citations

The article currently cites the manifesto six times, resulting in six separate entries in the References section. Two of those cite a PDF document at, one a PDF at, and the other three a unique format at I would like to consolidate these to use one source and a single entry in the References section, using the RP template to indicate page number for citations where one is specified. My purpose for this talk section is to decide which version of the document to use.

I don't know which version will be more likely to be around for the long term. The ones not chosen could be kept in External links as backups.

The versions seem equally readable to me. They all allow zoom level adjustment for me (in the case of the PDFs, that may depend on your browser and what plugins you have installed). They all have a search function, but I can't figure out how to use it effectively in the version. That alone causes me to favor one of the PDF versions. Is it reasonable to assume that pretty much everyone has Adobe Reader installed? Mandruss (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Archive the web pages. works for some PDFs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco 1492. Absent any discussion, I used my best judgment. I used an archive copy that already existed at Wayback Machine ( It was archived from a PDF at DocumentCloud. This is a cloud service used by multiple major news organizations (it doesn't much matter where the original resides, since the archive copy is expected to exist "forever"). As described above, I used the Rp template for page numbers. Where a page number is specified, it appears as superscript immediately following the citation number, as [76]:136. The version and one of the other PDFs remain in External links. Mandruss (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Perpetrator infobox, Killings section

The data in the Killings section duplicates information in the lead infobox, and I propose removing it for that reason. This would be consistent with Sandy Hook, whereas Columbine and Aurora don't even have separate perpetrator infoboxes.

Why would they include those items in the template, if they didn't expect you to use them?

Take a look, for example, at Charles Whitman. In that case, the perpetrator infobox is the lead infobox, so there is no duplication. Mandruss (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to have the data on the killings in both infoboxes. The Perpetrator section is set up as link for Elliot Rodger and may be the only section read by some visitors. Similarly, many people only read the beginning of an article and may not even get down to the Perpetrator section. I think a better example is the Virginia Tech Massacre, where a separate page was later created for the Perpetrator. That may or may not happen here, but I support leaving both infoboxes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Another good example of this is the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page, which also has two infoboxes, it doesn't repeat the killings data, but "Adam Lanza" is not a wiki link but Elliot Rodger is, so people less likely to only be reading Perpetrator section in that article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Like the Supreme Court, I give a lot of weight to precedence. The reason for that is pretty much the same: the status quo represents the collective wisdom of many who have come before. Also, consistency between articles is a good thing. To me, these things weigh heavier than the desire to accomodate the occasional lazy reader. If I want to go right to the perpetrator, I can click "Perpetrator" in the TOC. Can you direct us to a couple of similar articles that use your technique? Mandruss (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is different than the Supreme Court, in that it is constantly evolving with the goal of most accurately and clearly providing information to the readers. Either way, the current info box is modeled after very similar cases, the Virginia Tech massacre and the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings, but honestly, I don't even think that's the best argument for keeping the spree killing data in Rodger's info box. The best argument seems to be, when another wiki page provides a link for Elliot Rodger (and I'm sure it will happen if it has not already) the reader will be referred directly to the perpetrator section of this article. Readers unfamiliar with Elliot Rodger and this case should not be presented with an info box styled in BLP format, but rather in spree killer format. Rodger was a spree killer, so that format most accurately provides the relevant information to the readers. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Would be copycat killer

Is this relevant for a mention in the responses section?

Keshav Bhide Threatened To Kill Women, Said Elliot Rodger Was 'Perfectly Justified': Cops

University of Washington Student Who Idolized Elliot Rodger Arrested

Seattle Police Arrest Man Who Claimed to Be ‘Next Elliot Rodger’

It's a definite response to the shootings, albeit a hugely disturbing one -- (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily grant it inclusion into the article, as verifibility doesn't mean inclusion, but it's something to keep an eye on. Tutelary (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. sketchy. I don't think we should write it up here, though, unless it can pass muster as an independent article, otherwise this article will become a holding ground for lots of other copycat events. Thus far, luckily, we have threats and an arrest, which is I suppose the best possible outcome in such a situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If multiple reliable sources report this as connected to Isla Vista Killings/Elliot Rodger, then it should go in the article, but seems like only a line or two. There's not much content here because fortunately he was arrested before carrying out plan of copycatting Rodger.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm seriously hoping there aren't many copycat events, at least not enough to warrant a series of them included in article. I mean, don't get me wrong, there have been quite a few articles (and many comments) written in support of his actions online on websites connected to the ones that he posted on, but this seems to be the only person who considered acting these out. Here are some more sources (although it seems the Time Magazine article is the best one):
Student Arrested for Plotting UCSB Copycat Crime
‘Everything Virgin Killer Elliot Rodger did was justified’ University of Washington student Keshav Bhide is alleged to have said before his arrest
The University of Washington Just Avoided a Repeat of the Isla Vista Mass Shooting
'Everything Elliot did is perfectly justified': Student who idolized Virgin Killer arrested for threatening to murder women
Police: UW student planned mass killings, promised to ‘only kill women’
University of Washington student threatened to kill women online, praised Santa Barbara killer: cops
Man Arrested Who Claimed to Be 'Next Elliot Rodger'
All things considered, if we were to include it, it should probably be a sentence or two in Responses, probably at the bottom -- (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be opposed. I'll be surprised if we hear anything about this after tomorrow, outside of the tabloids. Anyway, to put it in Responses would be a departure from the existing nature of that section. Controversy, debate, memorial service, political reaction, and ... copycat threat? Mandruss (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It could fit in misogyny. You have a point that the story may blow over though. Maybe we should wait a day or two before making any deliberate changes to the article? If a good source publishes an article piece comparing the two then it could work out, but if it stops at the initial coverage then it may be undue -- (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Plan for Knives and Hammer

I think this quote should be added to his plan, because he was not planning on using a gun. ""After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats." [28] James Michael DuPont (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Only adds lurid, tabloid, insignificant detail. He planned to do a lot of things that he didn't do, including firing 400 more rounds than he did. But thanks for talking about it first. Mandruss (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Add: And I'm not sure what you mean by "he was not planning on using a gun". In that case, (1) why did he spend $2900 on guns, and (2) was he planning to drive around killing people with machetes, a knife, and a hammer? Mandruss (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I was referring only to the quote of his plan, so let me retract that, good point. On signifcance, I think it is significant because he did kill people with a knife in the apartment as planned. James Michael DuPont (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but he didn't "lure people into his apartment". Nor did he knock anyone out with a hammer or slit anyone's throat, as far as we know. I don't see what makes that quote any more noteworthy than any of the many other wild threats he made. That said, we don't have a consensus here; if you feel strongly about it, be WP:BOLD, give it a shot and see if it flies. Just be sure to source it, obviously.Mandruss (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
oh, I was under the impression he did do that. Maybe some day I will find time to look into this. Thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See also

When I was on the article a few weeks ago the See also had a list of similar misogynistic shootings such as the ecole polytechnique massacre. Do you know what happened to the list and why it was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There were several edits to that section on 11 June (see View history). Ecole Polytechnique ultimately went away in this edit. Mandruss (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't agree with removing Thor Nis Christiansen. Christiansen preyed on IV residents, with Attias and Rodgers the only multiple killers in IV.snug (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems reading through that the list contained other mass-shootings inspired by misogynistic motives. Was the remover challenged for this? it seems to be a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is no immediately obvious connection to the main article content, hat notes should be used. I've added them several times and had them reverted. Without them its just a random link. I've also added See also category links that cover a vast array of shootings and spree killer so as to not violate WP:UNDUE with regard to many of the entries. Furthermore, there seems to be considerable debate regarding the misogynist and/or misandrist based motives. See also sections are not to be used as an "end run" around no consensus for inclusion or decisions that an editor does not like. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Clarification on the roommates is now available in the LA Times article.[1] Can simplify discussion of victims now.snug (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, the victims section should be slightly expanded with a bit more information on each victim, just a bit. The article feels too asymmetric... too much info on Rodger, too little on the victims.snug (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We could try something like in the infobox here. Gives "just a bit" more while keeping things neat and uncluttered. Mandruss (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is a step in the right direction. Probably an explanatory sentence in the `victims' section for each group would be useful. That Hong & Wang were (randomly selected) roommates and Chen lived on campus that frequently visited; how they died remains unexplained. That the 3 TriDelta sisters were walking home, that Martinez was getting a sandwich. Probably their majors & home towns could go in the info box.snug (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Sandwiches? Home towns? That is just non-notable minutiae that has no place in an encyclopaedia? I will strongly oppose. WWGB (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the sandwich only arose because it described the activity of one victim prior to death. I agree it is not particularly notable in describing him, but describing his actions prior to being shot has some merit. It is the incident that is notable, not the people, I guess. But one could definitely question the degree of detail about the perpetrator; he is not in any way notable, he is merely notorious. One could fairly conclude that the description of the victims could be bounded from below by the description of the perpetrator. I suppose I can put up with details about the perpetrator, but very minor descriptions of the victims should be OK.snug (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
While it's possible to cross a line into tabloid territory, and I think the article does that to some extent, most articles of this type attempt to understand the tragedy by exploring the background of the perp. I think there's something to be said for that, and I disagree with the notion that it favors the perp over the victims. It's just a fact that Rodger's background is more relevant to the subject than those of the victims, who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mandruss (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should limit the biographical information about the victims as well. It is unfortunate that murderers get more press than their victims, but I suppose as Mandruss points out, the story isn't really about the victims, who were unlucky and did nothing wrong - people are interested in why this happened, and to understand that you need to understand the killer, so much more ink will be spilt on him than on his unfortunate victims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Kate Mather (Jun 20, 2014). "UCSB friends were victims of circumstance". Retrieved Jun 21, 2014. 

Victims DOB?

I considered just removing this outright, but that might become unrevertable and there would be a certain amount of work to put it back in. So let's get consensus here first.

The question is simple: Given that we already have ages, what do the DOBs add that justifies the increased length of the box? This seems clearly excessive to me. Mandruss (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
For those to whom precedence means anything, the following similar articles have two things in common: they include victims boxes, and those boxes don't include dates of birth. VA Tech, Columbine, Luby's, UT Austin. Mandruss (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm against DOB being reported, it is excessive detail. The victims' ages are sufficient to place them in a particular age group. The reader's understanding of the topic is not enhanced by further detail of the exact date. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
oppose DOB of victims. This is undue detail. The age is useful, since the demographic targeted seems to be pretty tightly bounded to college age students. But date of birth isn't needed - and more importantly, these are not public figures so in the interests of privacy we should absolutely not put their dates of birth here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
support DOB of victims. The added length is trivial, and Wikipedia is not paper. Their dates of birth are public and published already; for private living people, like the surviving victims, propagating DOB is inappropriate; but once people have passed, dates of birth are generally freely available. At the moment, the DOB may seem excessive detail, but years from now it will not be; there is substantial value in this information. Agree that in some other cases DOB not present, but I view that as a shortcoming in those articles. I keep track of the age of my car and my pets in years; for people generally (at least in the US) the specificity of the DOB is appropriate. snug (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
strong oppose WP:BLP applies to any living person (or recently deceased) mentioned in an article, whether or not that person is the subject of that article, and we must have regard for the subject's privacy. WP:DOB says: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. I see no encyclopedic value in listing their dates of birth. In fact, I believe it's an invasion of their privacy (and their families privacy) and as such, we should err on the side of caution and remove their dates of birth immediately.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Good points. They apply to the perpetrator too, I assume. Deleting all DOB would be fine with me.snug (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've removed all of the DOBs in the Victims box. I agree with snug that the privacy issue would also apply to the perp, but I suppose the perps in these things are seen to deserve less privacy consideration. And again I give weight to precedence and all of the aforementioned articles give the perps' DOBs. Anyway it's a separate issue and could be discussed further, or not. Mandruss (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for removing perpetrator from Victims box

  1. After this edit, the rest of the names in the box are in alphabetical sequence by surname. This makes as much sense as the attempt at chronological sequence, considering that a good part of the chronological sequence is unknown (apartment deaths).
  2. To me, it doesn't seem appropriate to place Rodger in the middle of that alphabetical sequence.
  3. The box is in a section titled "Victims". Is Rodger to be considered his own victim for the purposes of this section?
  4. None of the body text in the Victims section refers to Rodger's death. Therefore, according to the body text, he is not his own victim. The box should be consistent with the body text. Mandruss (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The perp was not a victim. His death is properly reported elsewhere in the article. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Support also.snug (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Perpetrators DOB?

I see no encyclopedic value difference between the perps' DOB and the victims' DOB. Precedence does not convince me; a precedent that supports veneration of a perpetrator of a gruesome crime is not a good one.snug (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would dispute the notion that to include DOB is to in any way honor or elevate the perp --- let alone venerate him (you might want to look that up). The date of birth is shown on the first line of the article on Adolf Hitler. Better to stick to the privacy question. As for precedence, I would have thought the above might have changed your view on that just a little. It turned out that the right thing to do, as you came to agree, was consistent with the precedent. That just might be true in this case, too. Mandruss (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A ton of collaboration by very experienced editors goes into the design of infobox templates, and infobox criminal includes a birth_date field. I would have a serious problem with the suggestion that you, or I, or any of us here has better judgment than they did in choosing to include that. Mandruss (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much is gained from the actual date of birth, vs just the year. That said he is now by default a public figure, he very publically declared a great deal about himself - unlike the victims - so I don't think a presumption of privacy can work here. This article is now acting as a mini biography for him - he's probably notable enough for a bio of his own, but it probably won't happen - that said a birthdate is standard practice for a biography thus while I don't see a lot of value in it I don't see much reason to delete either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I was more convinced by the policy aspect mentioned before… that until about 2 years after death, no DOB. So much for Hitler, we are way more than 2 years past his death. Seems to me there is a conflict between policy and precedent in this case. Using a DOB is a mark of respect for people; that is why (at least in US culture) we celebrate birthdays, put dates on tombstones, etc. I don't feel it is proper to show more respect for the perpetrator than the victims. By any measure of notability, the victims exceed the perpetrator, although the victims notability is meager; the perpetrator is merely notorious.snug (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Point taken as to Hitler, and he was a bit more of a historical figure than Elliot Rodger will ever be. It was a bad comparison. Following text retracted But you didn't respond to the point about the infobox template. As I see it, you can't hold your current position without claiming to be smarter than that group of very experienced editors. I'm wondering whether you actually believe that or are just ignoring that point. Mandruss (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Following is a list of articles taken from Category:Criminals of Los Angeles, California. These are common criminals, much more like Rodger than Hitler. Each one shows date of birth (actually very few of the articles in the category don't show date of birth). But these differ from Rodger in one respect: they are all still living, according to the articles. I don't see any evidence that anyone is concerned about showing them undue respect, or violating their privacy. Rodney Alcala, Kenneth Bianchi, William Ray Bonner, Doug Clark, Tiequon Cox, Nino Durden, Heidi Fleiss, Jesse James Hollywood, Patricia Krenwinkel, Barry Minkow, Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, "Freeway" Rick Ross, Joe Saenz, Victor Salva, Sanyika Shakur, John Floyd Thomas, Jr., Chester Turner. Mandruss (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're not swayed yet, there's not much else I can say. I'll of course respect the consensus.
strong oppose removal of perp's DOB, for reasons already stated. Mandruss (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is no doubt that publishing this perp's DOB until something like 6-24 months after their death violates Wikipedia policy, as documented above. There are two justifications: 1)it has been done before, although the perps mentioned in the above list who are still alive are non-sequiturs; but in any case the underlying thinking is 2)we want to punish perps; concerns about theft of their identity can therefore be disregarded. Wanting to punish perps by including information of no encyclopedic value doesn't seem to me to be an attractive use of Wikipedia.snug (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll confess to failing to look deeper into the "policy" you refer to until now. I'm not sure why; call it temporary insanity. Now I'm having trouble finding this policy that so clearly supports your position ("above" is kinda vague). It's also notable that Mr. Kenobi didn't see that strong policy connection. Please clarify for me. Mandruss (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The policy I think. Personally, I lean toward inclusionism, Wikipedia's not Paper, after all. I would have included just about everything; for me, being a victim of a high-profile crime is sufficiently notable for most Wikipedia thresholds. But in the long haul it is clear that the Wikipedia community disagrees with me. snug (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page for three days owing to the edit warring (four reverts in 24 hours, four different editors; blocking would be a bad idea). Please discuss the category on the talk page, rather than reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Full page-protection wasn't really necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There have been 2 or 3 edit wars to date, some really nasty and most including the same editors, over this category; these edit wars seem to be on a biweekly or triweekly basis. I stopped things before they became an issue. Would it have become an issue? Perhaps yes, perhaps not (probably yes IMHO). But I see protection as more preventative than punitive, and any possible edit war was prevented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the edit war regarding the "violence against men" category has resurfaced, and considering this edit war has recurred many times, it seems reasonable. It seems to me the category should be out of article while we discuss, given concerns raised regarding lack of reliable sources to support category, and concerns raised regarding article not meeting WP:Categorization guidelines for the category, but it's also clear that editors feel strongly about keeping this category for this article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not how WP:BRD works. The category was given consensus at the top of the page by numerous other editors. WP:CONSENSUS is one of Wikipedia's strongest policies, and if you want to exclude it, you'll need to change that exact consensus. Tutelary (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is clear consensus on the talk page to include the category. So, the editors who kept violating WP policy by removing the category should have been blocked or banned instead of protecting the page. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding we can't vote to override WP:VERIFY. There have been serious concerns raised by multiple editors regarding whether RS support this category. Seems content this disputed should be out while we discuss. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The dispute only continued recently, recently like yesterday or the day before. Before that, for a period of 2-3 weeks the article was in a stable state with the cat in place. Additionally, categories are not content on the page; but they do need verification, which is why I'm going to point you to the top of the page, where Obi outlined the sources and what they say about his hatred of men; this due weight certainly supports the category. I'm not seeing any other category in this which requires more sources than this one to verify; and you still want to exclude it. Anywho, please defer to the section already to be had about it, might as well centralize the discussion. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I actually didn't remove category, but I've raised concerns regarding sourcing for category. Anyway, I don't think anyone is disputing there are multiple quotes above, taken out of reliable sources, that Wikipedia editors have interpreted to mean this was an example of misandry or a gender based attack against men, the problem is, the sources themselves didn't come to that conclusion. This has been called original research. I tried taking dispute to Original research noticeboard, but we didn't really seem to get any fresh eyes on the issue, editors from here just made the same argument over there and the dispute has continued....on and on and on. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Where's there requirement for the VAW category that sources must say the act was misogyny for it to be used? Oh.. there isn't one. Sounds like BoboMeowCat has a different, and much narrower inclusion critereon for the VAM category. How about we make a deal. You can start first by cleaning up the VAW category to meet the equivalent threshold, and then you can come back here and make that case that a reliable source use the term "misandry."Mattnad (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I move that we allow the cat, suspend this debate, and all participants become founding members of a project, Violence Categories Cleanup.
  • Phase I: Better define violence categories
  • Phase II: Identify and uncat articles not meeting the new definitions
This debate seems very much cart before horse. Even if it ever ends, it will still be repeated again and again for similar articles in the future. Life's too short, my friends. Mandruss (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea honestly. Arkon (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Would that just move the same debate, the same voices and rationales, the same stalemate to a different venue? Maybe. But, being at a higher level with a broader scope, (1) it would be more worthwhile, and (2) it might attract other experienced voices who can't be bothered with the cat fate of a single article. Mandruss (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally think it would be a good idea. The core of the disagreement is definition. At least on the VAM category, there has been an effort to restrict it to gendered violence unrelated to combatants in war. Despite that effort, some editors argue that a RS must state it was "misandry" - a word so rarely used that spell-check software doesn't recognize it. On the VAW side, there is no equivalent requirement, or an attempt to to set limits, so we have the category being applied to instances like this one where a single body was discovered, with no known motive or perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a bit confusing. It seems like putting article that doesn't fit inclusion criteria, into the VAM category, because you think there are articles in the VAW category, that similarly don't fit inclusion criteria is WP:POINT. However, that being said, I do think both categories could likely benefit from having inclusion criteria better clarified. Regarding inclusion criteria, I haven't seen anyone argue the words "misogyny" or "misandry" need to be used for either of these categories (but the use of such words by reliable sources to describe the perpetrator would seem like strong evidence that these categories may be appropriate, considering the VAM and VAW categories are subcategories of the Misandry and Misogyny categories). The inclusion criteria for both categories specifies "gender based violence against men/women" and the article for Violence against women compares it to a hate crime. Kevin Gorman seems knowledgeable regarding categories and interested in topic, maybe he could help us clarify appropriate inclusion criteria for both cats.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I don’t agree with your assertion that nobody is setting a requirement for that a reliable source states an event requires “misandry” to permit inclusion. Some samples from BoboMeowCat: [29], [30], [31],[]
And then here some others: [32], [33]
There are plenty more. The arguments against inclusion is that unless someone explicitly says it was gendered violence, usually expecting that the word “misandrist” be used, it is not. So it’s not enough that “Rodger Elliot hated men” – we must have someone saying it was misandry. Even war crimes are not on the table for this category, when men and boys are targeted, because it was not hatred. Rather, it is argued they were targeted because they could be combatants (notwithstanding many women who participated in Partisan conflict during WWII for instance)Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what I said was a reliable source calling Rodger a misandrist would be one way to justify inclusion in the category. I never said it was only way. Other ways would be RS coming to conclusion this was a gender based attack on men or reliable source describing this as a hate crime against men. Jealousy isn't usually considered a hate crime.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Subjects should be treated in accordance to how they are treated in reliable sources, rather than attempted to be bent in to a weird artificial equivalence based on what editors perceive as logical pairings. If one subject is treated differently than another subject in its presentation in reliable sources, then its Wikipedia article either does the same thing or is poorly written. Because of the unique nature of categorization and their limited ability to convey nuance, we have a special set of guidelines about how to handle them - of particular relevance are Wikipedia:Categorisation#Articles and WP:SUBCAT. For an article to be appropriately categorised, the category must be a defining characteristic of the topic of the article, which for our purposes is a characteristic "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" to the topic. The problem this article runs in to is that although many reliable sources do speak about it as an act of violence against men, more than a few do not - hence failing the consistency test. WP:SUBCAT is relevant to many articles in the VAM/MAM tree as it specifies that articles should not be placed in both a parent category and its own subcategory unless the subcategory is eponymous, which MAM is not.
The recent push towards inappropriate categorisation is part of a broader and much longer lasting push to inappropriately promote the agenda of the men's rights movement on Wikipedia. This entire broader topic area is infested with advocates who should be topic banned under the existing article probation, but uninvolved administrators are consistently unwilling to enforce the terms of the probation. I'm sure I could get sanctions put in place if I asked an uninvolved administrator through a private channel, but I don't think that doing so is appropriate or should be necessary, and view it as a pretty disgusting failure of a significant portion of the administrator base aware of the MRM situation that they're unwilling to take actions necessary to allow good faith contributors to be consistently driven off be relentless POV-pushers who contribute nothing of value to the encyclopedia (who are also frequently organized off-site, in ways we've documented many times before.) Hope the first paragraph helps, but I'm fucking off of this entire topic area - given that there's apparently no interest in retaining good faith contributors to the topic area over malicious trolls, Wikipedia deserves the shitty articles it'll end up with, even if the rest of the world doesn't. (Articles related to MR content used to, quite literally, state things like 'antidowry laws are legal terrorism' and 'feminist organizations use the fear of domestic violence to oppress men.') Now that I'm avoiding the topic area and most previously productive contributors are either avoiding the topic area completely or have substantially reduced their participation in it, I imagine the quality of related articles will fall sharply once more. Good luck, you'll need it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment I've been trying to stay on my self-imposed wikibreak but have made a few contribs here and there, and wanted to add a few thoughts to this discussion. 1) If enforcing strict inclusion criteria to this category is important, then I do agree that the same strict enforcement should be applied to the VAW category - even if the inclusion criteria themselves are slightly different because VAM and VAW are not the same nor do they derive necessarily from the same societal structures. We should all be editing from NPOV in spite of our own personal feelings, and when people who have !voted to delete a category then start to empty it (while not applying the same standards to similar categories for another gender), that looks rather POINTY. 2) We have just completed a very tendentious and full-of-personal-attacks discussion on the very existence of the VAM category structure, which was ultimately kept. Nonetheless tensions are still high, and those tensions are bleeding over into discussions here.
Therefore, I suggest we should put this discussion in abeyance because it seems to be going in circles, and all go back to editing other topics, and agree to neither conduct mass additions nor mass removals of articles from these obviously contentious categories for now, and enjoy a bit of the summer. Then, in a months time, when tensions have simmered somewhat, we can all gather at the Gender bias project (or somewhere else) and start discussing a set of inclusion criteria that would apply to the VAM and VAW categories and associated subcategories, a discussion that could eventually be brought to a broader RFC. Questions could include, for example - if a husband kills or mutilates his wife, should that be added? If a wife kills or mutilates her husband, should that be included? What about a serial killer who only targets women - should they be included? What about a serial killer who only targets men or boys - should that be included? What about a man who molests a number of girls? Should that be added? What about a priest who molests a number of boys? Should that be added? Should the Category:Rape category be a subset of VAM and VAW, or should it only be a sibling, under Category:Gender-based violence, and what would such a change imply re: dual parenting/dual categorization of a given case of rape? Should we make an explicit list of things which are NOT qualified to be in these categories? For example, a fight breaks out between the teams at an all-women's basketball match - are those sorts of things out? Or, a bunch of (all male) soldiers in Iraq are captured and executed - is that out since they are soldiers? The problem is, there are many definitions of VAM and VAW - and categories are generally designed to be more inclusive than exclusive, which I think we should be here. For example, VAM is sometimes defined in the statistical sense of violence where males are the victims and a great many discussions of VAM cover the inherent violence against men due to their preponderance in military service, including forced conscription; other times it is focused on sexual or gender-based violence and combatants are excluded from such analysis; the same is true of violence against women - the broadest UN definitions would cover any violent act in which a woman is the victim as "violence against women", whereas other analyses look at whether the woman was targeted because of her gender or unequal power relations, etc. In practice, categorization is often decided by navigational utility, and demanding that sources use a particular phrase before allowing a category goes against much categorization practice that happens here without dispute. There are no easy answers here, and we're certainly not going to solve it on this page, and I personally no longer care that much whether the VAM category remains or is removed here. It might actually be a useful olive branch to extend to those who detest these VAM categories to remove it from this article while awaiting a broader consensus, which could then be applied back on this article once those broader discussions complete. I just don't see the current back and forth here as likely to produce much light vs lots of heat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Obi: though I appreciate a lot of your post, most of the questions you pose are already explicitly covered by our categorisation guidelines, which have been in place for eons and were put in place for a reason and after significant discussion. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Unless the basketball fight you mention is consistently defined across sources as a gendered act of violence against women, of course it doesn't belong in the category. Kevin Gorman (talk)
I agree of course on the basketball, I was just giving that as an example, and that maybe we should have a list of things that, in general, don't qualify - e.g. "murdered woman found, no clear gendered motive = no inclusion in the category"; "soldiers killed/wounded = no inclusion in category", etc. Those categorization guidelines are guidelines, and we regularly have more constrained or specific inclusion criteria for categories that go beyond, and also that may limit, those same guidelines; we also have some categories that are all-inclusive, in that for certain set categories, all instances that fit a certain minimum criteria are included, even if that same criteria is not DEFINING for example. A very famous example is Category:American women novelists, which has been packed full of every female to ever pen a novel, if if being a "woman novelist" is not defining of their oeuvre. The guidelines you cite also don't necessarily help us in determining whether a clear incidence of domestic violence of a man battered by his wife should ONLY be in the Category:Domestic violence category, or should it also be in the Category:Violence against men category, given one is the subset of the other. We often have partial diffusion of categories, for example, and things are diffused to multiple places simultaneously. The current structure and gendered nature of this violence complicates things, esp since we have neutral children. It's all quite complex, and our guidelines only help us so much in sorting it out- thus my call for a broader discussion, but later when tempers have cooled.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean for the discussion to spill over into this section as well. I was only making the point that full page-protection wasn't really necessary as it won't solve the problem. This discussion has been ongoing since this article was created and there is still no resolution and the edit war has been slowly percolating the whole time too. Since there has really only been a small group of editor's that have been discussing this issue, maybe a more realistic solution, rather than full page-protection, (which has resulted in the same arguments by the same editors), would be to initiate a RfC for a broader input from the community, or some other dispute resolution process that is available for us to pursue to try and reach a binding consensus. Any thoughts about expanding this discussion to the broader community? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The argument made above by someone, which I'm repeating, is that we should take this discussion beyond this particular article first, since there seems to be a lot of disagreement over inclusion criteria more generally, and whether "misandry" must or must not be mentioned as a driver, and the extent to which RS must describe an event as "VAM" or "VAW" in those precise terms in order to qualify. But I also think tensions are too high to have that discussion rationally, which is why I'm suggesting a break of a month before digging into such inclusion criteria, during which anyone interested can start by reading up on the various sources we have for VAM and VAW.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I still think a RfC could help guide us in the right direction - whether it be in the direction of a discussion about "inclusion criteria" for the category VAM or whether it be in the direction of trying to obtain a consensus as the VAM category stands right now. Either way, it's a step forward in resolving this, rather than the stalemate we currently face. I don't think the tensions are that high that this dispute can't be resolved by asking for a broader input of other opinions from the community. If other editors think a month cooling off period is warranted, then I can get behind that too, the lake is looking pretty good right about now. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Isaidnoway, I agree that an RfC is a good idea. Considering drive-by posters, not just talk page participants, keep removing category (which doesn't surprise me because the cat doesn't really seem to fit to me). However, every time category is removed, it's restored and edit wars keep recurring. Clearly, the issue isn't going to just go away and an RfC with a clear decision on category for this article seems needed. I also agree with Kevin Gorman that the category violence against men appears to be being used by some editors as part of the men's rights movement. Clarifying inclusion criteria and applying MRM probation sanctions to those who repeatedly abuse inclusion criteria might help. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Martinez major

[This discussion is dependent on the resolution of "Majors in Casualties box: yes or no", below.]

It is perhaps an indicator of the quality of the article that we are reduced to discussing such minor points as this (the cat debate notwithstanding).

Until yesterday, the Casualties box showed Martinez as "undeclared", since this is what the source says (UCSB newspaper Daily Nexus). Then Kieronoldham changed that to English Literature and cited a source. I came along and "improved the edit" by making the new ref conform to the rest of the article.

After some further and belated research, I think "undeclared" was better after all, since (1) all the sources I can find that indicate English lit say he was "studying English literature", which I don't think is the same as a declared major, and (2) I believe declared major is the intent of the Casualties box.

However, before I revert to "undeclared", I wanted to get some other opinions, if any exist. Mandruss (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "motive"

We've been back and forth on this several times in the history of the article. I would like to try for a formal consensus in the hopes of stabilizing that field value.

Imo, a criminal motive is something one hopes to gain or accomplish by committing his crime(s). Motives include money (e.g. Madoff), ethnic cleansing (e.g. Hitler), Jodie Foster's approval (Hinckley), vigilante justice (e.g. lynch mob), cover-up of other crimes (e.g. bumping off the witnesses), and revenge/retribution/punishment (e.g. Gary Plauche).

Social isolation, female rejection, and sexual jealousy, the previous contents of our Motive field, are causes, not motives. Rodger did not hope to gain any of them; he already had plenty of all three.

The current field value is: Revenge for sexual and social rejection

Comments please. Mandruss (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Would think having a reliable source, preferably one that doesn't have a political ax to grind, to guide us (ie, He killed his roommates because he wanted to bring women back to torture them without interruption, even though he made no effort to capture any of his female victims during the spree). I personally cannot even fathom a guess at his motive since he was mentally ill, which perhaps is the most accurate "motive" of all.Mattnad (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying "Revenge for sexual and social rejection" doesn't accurately reflect the gist of a majority of RS? I think it does that while avoiding the areas of controversy, thereby maintaining NPOV. Precisely following the above definition, it avoids those nasty Greek m-words, since they aren't things one can "hope to gain or accomplish". It's important to note that motive doesn't imply fact, only Rodger's perception of fact. Mandruss (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a bad attempt. But then there's his suicide.... In reading psychological assessments, [34] and [35], the view is more nuanced. But I personally wouldn't object to what you've proposed. I just wonder if if we can reliably propose his motive. Leave it out?Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Call me stoopid (wouldn't be the first time), but I don't see the problem. If, in fact, it accurately reflects the gist of a majority of RS, and I haven't heard you contest that, then we're not proposing anything. We're simply reflecting RS as we're supposed to do. Mandruss (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. By the way it's spelled "stupid" ;) 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, one down. Could I get your explicit support then? At this point I'd be happy with a consensus on the definition of the word motive, as boldfaced above. That alone would have precluded most of the changes in the field to date. Mandruss (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal - per talk above. Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

With an eye toward bolstering my case, I looked into definitions of "motive" elsewhere, such as Motive (law) and Wiktionary (sense 4). To my dismay, I found that most of them give looser definitions than mine, many even including the word "cause" in the definition. Since I believe one has to abide by authoritative sources even when he strongly disagrees with them, I'm withdrawing this whole discussion. I'll leave the current contents of the field, but I'll bite my tongue if someone changes them back, or to something else outside my definition (which is not to say that I'll tolerate anything in that field). Moving on. Mandruss (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand you withdrew your proposal, Mandruss, however I have since changed the field. I added the word unclear so it now reads: "Unclear; revenge for sexual and social rejection" I basically followed the explanation for motive that was used in Seung-Hui Cho A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, in fact I kind of like it. Mandruss (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to start a discussion on inserting an image of Elliot Rodger into the 'perpetrator' section, as it is encyclopedic for people to see the shooter in this instance. For precedent, see other major shooting articles, like Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting and 2012_Aurora_shooting. Tutelary (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a particular image in mind? Mandruss (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Since we may be allowed to use fair use regard in this, it's not limited to simply freely available images. Although if we do use the 'fair use' exception, someone else will need to write a fair use rationale for it, as I'm not really qualified to do so. I don't have any particular image in mind, though it does need to necessitate 'not over the top' criteria. So him smiling I think wouldn't be appropriate. Just to start this discussion off, how about this image? (Though a fair use rationale may disqualify this one, as I believe it might qualify for only low-medium resolution images.Tutelary (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I generally think images add to an article, but I've yet to be inclined to learn all that copyright crap. I'm even less qualified than you, I'm sure. This article has been a pretty lonely place for a few days, so you may have to seek help with that elsewhere. Mandruss (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a search a while back looking for images for this article at WM, none of Rodger I could find, plenty of Isla Vista and the college campus though. It's really a fairly simple process to upload an image, if you use this upload wizard, it pretty much walks you through it step by step. For example, in this photo of Lanza, if you look below it, you will see a section titled "Summary", these are the questions you will have to answer when you upload the image through the wizard. Immediately after you upload an image under the fair use rationale, it will be tagged for review, and usually if it's going to be deleted for some reason, it's actually pretty quick. The "purpose of use in article" and "not replaceable with free media because" questions are really important to get right as the answer to those questions will be scrutinized closely. This policy WP:IUP is a good place to start.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image and given it a fair use rationale. I'm not sure if I botched it or not, I guess we'll have to see. Though I know the resolution is a problem...I don't know how to fix that. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice try. The image was deleted, and along with it my path to the related talk page. I would have been interested in the rationale, if any additional was given. Where is the copyright issue when the image was a screen shot from a video whose author is deceased? Did his parents inherit the copyright? Mandruss (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I challenged the deletion in this post: User talk:TLSuda#Wikipedia:Files for deletion.2F2014 June 16.23File:Elliot Rodger Screenshot From Youtube Video.jpg; the closing admin gave an expanded explanation for the deletion. I still disagree with the decision, but fear it will stand.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 20:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. For me, it was mostly about article aesthetics---in the Internet age, we're used to having some pictures mixed with the text. I'd bet money that most GA articles have a tasteful number of images. I'd also bet money that many of the images in GA articles aren't critical to one's understanding of those articles; they merely enhance understanding, or even just enhance aesthetics. But there will always be an abundance of Elliot Rodger photos just a Google away, for those who want to know what he looked like. Mandruss (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

:::::I added a picture. It is a result of fair dealing (fair use). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Le sigh. Is it copyright if it violates LiveLeak's terms of service? Better to be safe and respectful of copyright. I'll try again soon. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Perpetrator Information

The perpetrator is not notable, although his crime is. By the policies discussed above concerning the information posted for victims, only information that pertains to his crime is encyclopedic. I propose removing the entire section `Early Life and Education'; all reference to the names of his parents and step mother, grandparents, and relatives; their names have nothing to do with the notability of the crime. His date of birth is irrelevant, although his date of death is marginally relevant. His middle names are not related to the notability of his crime. His location of birth is irrelevant to the crime. The name of the screenwriter who counseled Rodger is not pertinent to notability. snug (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

snug, I think you can expect a fight if you enact these changes. For example, his parents were significant in both his "manifesto" and the rush to stop him before he killed. His father's background goes to his indulgent lifestyle and why a young kid can drive and wound with a BMW. It's not as simple as removing an entire section. Every fact needs to be assessed as to relevance to the crime and background. WWGB (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's common on Wikipedia to have biographical information when it's covered extensively by RS. More important, it provides context to other parts of the article that address his motivation. There are many other articles about notorious killers that include background sections. See John Wayne Gacy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Ted Bundy, Charles Whitman, Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator.Mattnad (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that his parents were named in his autobiography is hardly notable. That his parents rushed to stop him doesn't relate to the notability of his crime. That there was an indulgent lifestyle can be communicated without giving the names of his parents etc. The killers mentioned by Mattnad pass the level of sustained attention defined by the policy WP:PERP, but Rodger does not satisfy that policy. Again, if we respect policy consistently, only information related to the notability of the crime (at this point of time) can be included.snug (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
His parents involvement has been covered by reliable sources as part of the narrative of the events which are covered in too much detail. Most of this article is not notable if we want to be narrow about how to cover the event. That written, Wikipedia articles sometimes become a repository of much more detailed information on sensational events than other sources. The article could use a lot of trimming, but I suggest you wait until people lose interest so you don't get the gatekeeper mentality. Sauce for the goose..... Mattnad (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry What is the gatekeeper mentality? (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
snug's point is that (1) in the case of the college majors, written policies won out over other arguments, including but not limited to what's "common on Wikipedia", and (2) there is nothing in the written policies that implies they should be applied to victims but not perpetrators. Whether snug is really suddenly a believer in the rule of written policy, or is simply being WP:POINTy because he feels strongly about the college majors, is something only he can decide for himself. But there's a double standard being applied here --- look to policy for the victims, look to what's common for the perp. Why is that? Aren't we just looking whichever direction happens to support what we already want? Mandruss (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Nearly, Mandruss. An old consensus on victim's information was not considered and a new consensus was made without reference to the old consensus. If I was being WP:POINTy I'd have edited the article already, I'm taking the recommended route and discussing here. There is a deeper issue… do criminals become notable because of their crime, or is only the crime notable? Then I guess the defacto policy is that: info that helps understand how the crime came to pass is acceptable, because it is the crime that is notable. Incidental info on the perpetrator and the victim not specifically to the crime is not acceptable.snug (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Re prior consensus: I told you in the college majors discussion how to find the archive page. If there was a prior consensus, you can give us a link to the appropriate section of the archive page. In any case, I don't know of a rule that says a consensus can't be reversed by a later consensus. Anybody who says, "You can't talk about that, it has already been decided" is just wrong, and if they decline to participate in the new discussion that's an implicit concession as far as I'm concerned; they shouldn't complain about the results. This assumes that the new discussion has new arguments; there's no point in simply re-hashing the old ones.
The rule is that you can't do an edit that violates the current consensus. This means that we could reach another consensus for putting the majors back in.
Re amount of perp information, allow me to suggest that you raise the question here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. For that matter, you could ask them what they think about the college majors, too, since most crimes have victims (I'd suggest separate talk sections). Actually one or both questions might already be addressed on the related project page, I don't know. Mandruss (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That WikiProject assumes that the perp is notable. As far as I can tell, criminals are only notable if there is a sustained interest in the crime. That hasn't been proven yet for Rodger. Until that is proven, he is not notable, and wouldn't fall under that project. Indeed the use of the perpetrator box assumes notability, which isn't yet satisfied for Rodger. As for the discussion, I would think those who propose a change might have a responsibility to examine the record. In any case here is my best reconstruction… we removed the DOB but retained the majors: when the victims DOB was removed.snug (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems unlikely that the project would refuse to engage the questions until you established notability. If they would, they should change the project to Crime and Notable Criminal Biography. When, at the article level, there's prolonged debate without much progress (and I think this qualifies), it seems appropriate to kick it up to a higher level (an informal arbitration). We're interested in how the larger community feels about it, and that seems a relatively easy way to get closer to that. Mandruss (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I'm feeling the need for a WP:WIKIBREAK, so Wikipedia will have to find a way to survive without me for a week or so. See ya's. Mandruss (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the issue is not notability, but noteworthiness, which seems to have been settled by secondary reliable sources, I withdraw the suggestion of trimming the perpetrator info.snug (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Subsection titles in Responses

I'm not entirely sure if I'm just missing something here, but these don't read properly. "Immediate reaction(s)" and "Congress" make sense, but I don't understand how Misogyny, Gun control and mental health, and Memorial services work; it implies that these are all entities capable of responding to events. I figure it would make more sense if they were reworded, e.g. "Debate about misogyny" and "Gun control and mental health reform proposals" or something of the sort. The contents of the sections themselves seems to be pretty relevant and decent, but the titles don't seem to match the context. Maybe the Responses section could be renamed to "Aftermath" or something and the existing subsection in Events could be moved somewhere else and renamed or merged. Thoughts? Rhydic (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Debate about misogyny" isn't strictly correct, either, since the subsection only talks about the small fraction of that debate that was triggered by the killings. Same for the gun control and mental health. So it comes down to where one chooses to draw the line on correctness. I for one have never had a problem reading those section names as:
[in the area of]Misogyny
[in the areas of]Gun control and mental health
The memorial services, as I see it, were in fact responses to the killings. Mandruss (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"Debate over misogyny" seems to contradict the reliable sources. It implies that there is significant debate regarding whether or not Rodger's writings/videos etc were misogynistic and whether or not his misogyny played a role in crime. This does not appear significantly debated by RS. Arguing that the crime is about more than just misogyny has occurred, but this doesn't make misogyny "debated".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
They were just basic suggestions of ways to reword it to make more sense grammatically and had no bearing on sources. My point is that it reads like misogyny was a response to the killings or that misogyny made a response to the killings. Rhydic (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ok. In that case might be simpler to retitled the above section to something like: "Responses, discussion and legislation"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe just change "Responses" to "Reaction"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This has been sitting a while with no comment, so I went ahead and renamed the section "Reactions and discussion" as that seemed to fit best with the content. Rhydic (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of link to description of perpetrator's online activities

@Tutelary: [36] does not follow per WP:ELNO #11 as your edit summary seems to imply. #11 has exception for sites controlled by recognized authorities which meet our notability criteria, such as Wikipediocracy. --Chealer (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The recognizable authority is not an organization, but an individual. as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) So no, we can't include blogs from just anyone, and I opt to exclude as it's the personal analysis of the author who's not an admitted psychologist or an expert in the field. I would also like to add that it likely fails #2 as well, as it's largely unverifiable research. Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Organizations are composed of individuals.
The notability in question here is the site's. You're free to oppose inclusion, just please use proper edit summaries. --Chealer (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Tutelary, unless it's shown that Wikipediocracy is specifically accepted in this situation. In my book, a site whose mission it is to bring down Wikipedia doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.   Mandruss |talk  02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what makes you think the site's mission is to bring down Wikipedia, and how that would impact its authority anyway. --Chealer (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then I retract that as irrelevant, and I still agree with Tutelary for the reasons s/he gave. For Wikipediocracy to be notable as an organization, it would have to have some editorial control over its content.   Mandruss |talk  04:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but do you have any evidence that it does not? --Chealer (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you disagree, it doesn't matter whether I have any evidence or not. You would still disagree. Therefore I won't argue that point.
I don't think you would disagree that the essay in question is an opinion piece. In my view, this article already has too much opinion. What it does have is clearly identified as opinion, consists of very brief quotes with attribution (usually one sentence), and has been accepted as notable enough and signficant enough to include. See Misogyny. All of that represents far more widespread debate than one person's views on one obscure topic. I believe all of it comes from people who at least give a full name, rather than "Jack S.", and most or all of them are recognized opinion writers or other journalists. The 'ocracy essay fails on multiple counts.   Mandruss |talk  06:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I do disagree. The post is mostly original research. Evidently, it is written with considerable speculation/opinion.
I do agree more information on the author would be best.
I won't comment on the state of this article, but neutrality is always desirable. It is certainly true that the post is not as neutral as it could be. At the same time, it is very thought-provoking, and unfortunately, it is exclusive, so as with many external links, we have to find a balance between keeping the reader in safe hands and failing to provide important information. The perpetrator's manifesto, for instance, is not perfectly neutral, yet we do link to it. --Chealer (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
We link to it because it's directly related to the article and is referenced multiple times. It's an encylopedic benefit for a reader to click on it and read the killer's reasoning and own personal reflection. With your link, it's a person making judgements and unverifiable research about Elliot's supposed reasoning and Wikipedia activities. The person is not a psychologist nor an expert. If they were, I might advocate for linking to it or even including it in the article. "Psychologist X suggested that Elliot demonstrated severe Y which may have influenced the killings". But it's not. What unique encylopedic benefit does linking to your link have? Tutelary (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's also "an encylopedic benefit for a reader" to learn on the killer's activities shortly before his last. The research is verifiable. What makes you say the person is not a psychologist or an expert? Besides the direct benefits of "linking to my link", the addition also brings a touch of neutrality to the section, which used to consist of nothing more than a description from the perpetrator's own point of view. I for one do not assume the perpetrator's publications are reliable and neutral. --Chealer (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
What makes you say the person is not a psychologist or an expert? Beg pardon? Since when is a writer assumed to be an expert until proven otherwise? I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.   Mandruss |talk  21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone assumed the writer is an expert. But a reason is needed to say the opposite. --Chealer (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason to say the opposite is that no verifiable credentials have been presented.   Mandruss |talk  21:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If you think that constitutes a reason, I say with reason that you lack the expertise necessary to weigh in on this matter. --Chealer (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Majors in Casualties box: yes or no

[Text moved from "Martinez major" on 17 July.]

Delete majors All of the majors should be removed. They were not relevant to the selection of victims, there is no notability due to them, and they are no more relevant to this article than the clothes that the victims wore. Just because certain trivia is known does not mean it has to be reported here. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Second WWGB. All majors should be removed. Student or not is relevent, what major is irrelevent. A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this isn't going my way, but let's wait a little longer for more opinions before we change it. 2-1 isn't much of a consensus. I'll put something in this editsum that might get people's attention in watchlists until the next update to this page. Mandruss (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete Majors - As above I would like to see them deleted. I would have preferred a bold though - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
What is "a bold"? Mandruss (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep majors I suppose I should add my reasoning here. As to relevance, the article contains loads of other (uncontested) things that aren't strictly relevant. For just one example, what is the relevance of the names of the high schools Rodger attended? Wouldn't it be equally relevant to say only that he attended at least three high schools? When Rodger threw coffee on a couple, is it relevant that they were outside a Starbucks? When he sprayed a group with a Super Soaker, what is the relevance that they were playing kickball, and at Girsh Park? Who cares where they were and what game they were playing there? He didn't spray them because they were playing that particular game, as far as we know. It seems to me that the relevance objection is used selectively. If we like something that's not strictly relevant, or at least don't dislike it, we don't complain about relevance. A relevance argument should not be used as cover for I just don't like it, even if done unconsciously.
It's not uncommon to give a small amount of personal or biographical information about victims, especially ones who died. See Virginia Tech massacre#Norris Hall shootings. That box gives more personal information than we are here, including hometowns. Mandruss (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep majors - They were all UCSB students and data regarding majors was reported by RS and also it humanizes the victims. If we are going to have a victims box, a bit of info that sheds light on who the victims were should be included.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete majors - Unencyclopedic and unrelated to the reason for their killings. This needs pruning, as Mandruss pointed out, and the majors are one of the easier things to take out. "Humanizes the victims" sounds like a "right great wrongs" argument. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If you think info reported by reliable sources that helps you get to know who someone was is "right great wrongs", seems we have a lot of editing to do with respect to info on Rodger. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(Need for general pruning was not the point of my argument, so perhaps "pointed out" is inaccurate.) Mandruss (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Kind of agree with Bobo's RS argument; RS decides what's significant. However, AFAIK the school news site is the only RS that reported all of the majors, all of the others mentioning only one or two in passing, such as Martinez was "studying English literature", for example. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Mandruss (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
None of WP:BLP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM (part of WP:BLP), and WP:NPF (part of WP:BLP) apply, as we're talking about people who are deceased. Mandruss (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
WP: BDP is a part of BLP, and extends BLP to the recently deceased. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
From WP:BDP: "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." Mandruss (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Read all of BDP not just what supports you're point of view. Fyi the whole policy:
"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people."
Emphasis Mine. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, cascading exceptions. Nothing confusing about that! You win. (Also please don't attack my tactics, I'm as fair and honest as anyone around here). Delete majors Mandruss (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

5-1 for delete is a strong consensus. Majors are out. Mandruss (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, I support their removal. I hoped we could retain their years (i.e. junior, sophmore etc). Am I to understand that the above policies would preclude that? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you show how the aforementioned policy pages preclude the majors but allow the years? I'm not seein' it; on the other hand, I have recently shown a hopefully temporary difficulty with reading comprehension. :) Mandruss (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm for including the majors. By any standard, the victims are far more notable than the perpetrator. I thought including the majors was the result of an earlier discussion where we pared back other information on the victims, but then the consensus was to leave the majors. Odd that that discussion seems to have been deleted from this talk page. There have been many accusations already that the victims aren't real and that this whole incident was faked somehow. Minimal information on the victims is one minor step toward keeping the truth in play. There is way, way too much information about the perpetrator in this article. His date of birth, his schooling, etc… all should be deleted. In fact, what is included about the victims *should be an upper bound* on what is included about the perpetrator.snug (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't even acknowledge the policy cited above, snug, I assume you feel consensus carries more weight. I disagree, since the policy represents a greater consensus. In any case, there's no consensus here to override the policy. Any conspiracy theorists are best ignored, in this case as in any other, provided they stay out of the article content. Amount of perp information is outside the scope of this section. Mandruss (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've acknowledged BLP in the posts on this talk page that have been deleted on this subject, when the first consensus (deleted) was reached that has now been reversed by the second consensus. I don't think students' majors are contentious or questionable, so I think there is no violation of BLP. So I do see that the consensus overrides policy in this case. Generally when you are a college student your major is a reasonable portion of your identity. Including that information is a tiny nod toward acknowledging that the victims were humans and not merely objects to be wiped out like figures in a video game. First we removed their birthdays because of worries about identity theft. To me birthdays are a significant difference between humans and objects in US culture, but I thought the policy had some sense, although the identity theft argument applies equally well to the perpetrator, and his birthday was not removed, presumably to encourage theft of his identity; no other reason is sensible, as he is less notable than the victims. Now removing their majors goes beyond policy to a `trash the victim' alignment IMO. As for the voluminous info on Rodger on this page, it should be substantially trimmed. Really his name is all that is necessary. I don't object to more, but I do think any info on him should be a lower bound on how much info is reported for the victims. They are far, far, more notable than he is, a point no-one has contested here.snug (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
First, as to "deleted" talk content. For some time, a bot was automatically archiving old talk sections to prevent the page from getting too big. Initially, "old" was defined as no activity in three days; at some point I bumped that up to 15 days; a few days ago I turned off archiving due to low talk activity (all of this was done by modifying template code at the top of the page). So you should be able to find whatever you're talking about on the archive page. A link to the archive page can be found in the history for this page, as each archive activity requires an edit by the bot. Aside from archiving, I seriously doubt anything of any consequence has ever been deleted from this page; certainly not an entire discussion or section.
Kyohyi cited three policies in his first post, but your counter mentions only two words from only one of them, contentious and questionable. Obviously those words aren't the entire argument, or he would have cited only the policy containing them. One of the stronger points of the argument, I think, is in WP:NPF: "include only material relevant to the person's notability" (emphasis theirs). This is not the same as saying, "include only notable material". Are the majors relevant to their notability? No, their notability derives solely from the fact that they are victims of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and they are just as notable whether majoring in art history or needlepoint.
Dude, I totally see the human angle, I was on the other side when this started. I just believe in adhering to sufficiently clear policy unless there is a very compelling reason to deviate. If you feel strongly about it, you should be lobbying for a small "human angle" adjustment to the policies. (Good luck.)
Again, feel free to start a new section on the topic of amount of perp information. Mandruss (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sufficiently clear policy? For the overwhelming majority of people described in Wikipedia, their date of birth has *nothing* to do with their notability. Maybe some birthdays are celebrated, like Martin Luther King, or Jesus, and makes those birthdays notable. But for the most part birthdays have nothing to do with notability. If notability is the criteria for inclusion of information on people in Wikipedia, the vast majority of that information would be deleted. As for the other `polcies': their majors was not `indiscriminate' information; they identified something important about their interests and who they were. There was absolutely no `victimization' in posting their majors. In fact the only quoted policy that comes close to touching this issue is the `all information must be related to notability'. As for the majors contributing to their notability, in fact, for his roommates that they were `nerds' who annoyed Rodger, and who studied together is entirely pertinent to the reason he killed them. That they shared a major, and that that major is so difficult that students regularly do study together is pertinent. So at least for those three even the one (usually violated) policy on information being strictly related to nobility isn't satisfied. In any case, if the policy is to be adhered to, it must also be adhered to for Rodger, and I'll go ahead and start editing info about him. snug (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You are overlooking a clear distinction. Rodger is notable by virtue of being a mass murderer. He gets all the trimmings that go with that. The victims are not notable. A list to identify them is all that is required. (It might even be argued that that is excessive ... the victims of 9/11 or WW2 are not listed in Wikipedia, so why should these victims?) WWGB (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't find `mass murderer' as a protected class for notability due to policy. WP:PERP doesn't say that. Rodger's victims were not renowned; as argued here, Wikpedians regard them as scarcely even human. Neither the motivation nor execution are unusual; stabbings and shootings are utterly common in the US. It looks like coverage has already died off. By policy, as far as I can tell, only the crime breaks the level of being notable but the does not rise to the level (yet, anyway, it might later) of distinguishing the perpetrator as notable. That is, if we are following policy here in a consistent and not spotty manner. snug (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The victims are absolutely human. Their death was a tragedy that few can truly understand. The grief and bereavement their families and friends experience is very real and a result of their loss. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Curious, notability is only applicable to the article subject, not to the content within, WP:NNC. I don't know why anyone deleted information on victims based on notability, that criterion is irrelevant. What is pertinent for information within the article is noteworthiness. I can't find many policies on noteworthiness. Simply that; no requirement that the information be directly related to the article's main subject. All of the aspects of the victims that are have been deleted are noteworthy… their dates of birth, their majors, simply because these are aspects that distinguish them as humans from objects; that they were humans is the reason this crime is notable. So I think the policy criteria cited for deleting victims' basic information was false.snug (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The absence of victim information seems to me to give undue weight to Rodger. This article tilts so far to documentation of Rodgers that it loses a neutral point of view. It is true that only 3 of the majors of the victims is related to their selection as victims, but including a modest amount of victim information balances the point of view of the article.snug (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As for noteworthiness of the victims majors, I thought I'd tabulate some info on the presence of their majors in reliable sources. George Chen: over 200 google hits on his name and major, including SF Chronicle, KTVU, The Globe and Mail, and the Omaha Times. Chen Yuan Hong and his major gets over 10,000 hits, including the NY Times, China Post, and various TV stations. Weihan Wang & his major: over 3500 google hits including NBC, The Daily Mail, the BBC, and the LA Times. Katherine Breann Cooper and her major brings over 35,000 google hits, including the SJ Mercury News, LA Times, NY Times, ABC News, Daily Telegraph. Christopher Michaels-Martinez: over 2200 google hits on his name and major, including the LA Times, ABC News, the Daily Mail, NBC News, Huffington Post. Veronika Weiss and her major has the fewest pertinent google hits, but still they are from reliable sources including Southern California Public Radio. I think the case for noteworthiness of their majors is overwhelming. That satisfies Wikipedia policy. There is no policy that inside an article the victims must be notable; quiet the contrary, as documented above. Notability only pertains to starting a new article. Absence of the victim's majors violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View because undue weight is given to Rodger. By the way, the recent UC Regents Resolution in memory of the IV victims identifies them by their majors.snug (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline, including WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, that requires equal recognition of perpetrators and their victims. The victims' majors were not a decisive feature in their death and therefore have no more significance than their shoe size or what they ate for dinner. You seem to be on a crusade for "equal representation for victims" but there is no such requirement. Rodger is notorious/newsworthy/remarkable because of the number of people he killed and the way he went about it. His victims do not get the same attention; they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wikipedia does not memorialise victims by the reporting of irrelevant and insignificant facts. It really is time to move on. WWGB (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia policy that there must be a neutral point of view. The vast difference between the amount of information between Rodger and the victims gives undue attention to Rodger, and violates the neutral point of view. There is no doubt that the majors are noteworthy and well covered in secondary reliable sources. If those facts were irrelevant and insignificant, reliable secondary sources (including the New York Times, the BBC, etc) would not have reported them. The Wikipedia judgement is not internally by Wikipedians, but is made by the frequency of reporting in secondary sources. If you want to move on, get Wikipedia policy changed; the policy is very clear on these points. I am not arguing for detailed memorial information, BTW. It is the external reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policy that have decided the issue of major, not me.snug (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Note to self: If you really want a WP:WIKIBREAK, stop reading Wikipedia talk pages.
snug, you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV. It begins with: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. What significant view published by reliable sources comes down on Rodger's side in this thing? NPOV applies where multiple significant points of view exist.   Mandruss | talk   17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The significant view is that the majors of the victims is noteworthy. RS have published a huge amount of minutae on Rodger, which is also a significant view. Since the issue is not notability, but noteworthiness, I guess all the Rodger trivia satisfies Wikipedia policy.snug (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, you need to take this to the Crime project. Ask them whether they think the Casualties box should include the college majors, and mention that there is significant RS support for them, as you presented above. I don't think any of us, including you, needs to fully argue a case before them, a la Supreme Court; crime articles are their specialty and I doubt there is any issue here that they haven't already seen and resolved. They might even be able to direct you to an old discussion that resolved this. I hope all of us would accept their judgment; I know I would. It's possible that only one or two of them would feel like engaging the question, or that they wouldn't be able to agree among themselves, in which case that time would have been wasted; but we could cross that bridge if we came to it.   Mandruss | talk   18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure.snug (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had a query up in the crime project for 3 weeks now… no response. My feeling still is… the threshold for information inside an article is quite low (`notability'); it is a bit higher for a specific article (`noteworthy'). It is clear that respected secondary sources included the majors of the victims. So, deleting that information did violate Wikipedia policy.snug (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, I've since gotten the same non-response from other projects, on other questions. Apparently the value of Wikiprojects as community resources isn't what I thought it was. Live and learn.
I've seen mention of one or two victims' majors in a few news articles, but the school's news site is the only place I've seen all six majors listed in one place. The majors might understandably be more significant to them than to the rest of the world's reliable sources. I asked this question on 17 July, above, and never got a response.
Anyway, I don't know how one could hope to get a reversal on this when you and I are the only people who can spare the time to discuss it. If you boldly put the majors back in, someone will immediately revert because it goes against prior consensus. It's a dilemma that I've seen before, and I'm still waiting for someone more experienced to show me the way out of it.   Mandruss |talk  03:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What noun(s) should be used?

Should we refer to this incident as "Massacre" or a "Killing Spree"? I think we should change the term "Killing spree" to "Massacre". A Massacre is :"deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)". Which is what the perpetrator did and how it has been described in the media: It is also how it is described by Elliot Rodger himself. It was one incident. Spree killers usually span weeks: "that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" Elliot killed his roommates on the same day he went to kill people in IV. What do others think? I feel using "Killing Spree" is misrepresenting this event, especially that it lasted several weeks or days. It was ONE day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

A massacre is committed by a group. WWGB (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
"Group" refers to the perpetuating party. In this case the party was Elliot Rodgers. Also the article you shared says: and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. Which is what happened in IV.
Killing Spree is incorrect because it refers to several days. The article on Killing Sprees names various individuals who committed a massacre. The murders took place in ONE day not several weeks. What do others think? would it be OK if I change the term? Sorry about editing earlier I am a new female, who loves Wikipedia. I did not know the norms in detail. Thanks for the feedback. (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Where is it written that a spree must last several days? WWGB (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In the article on killing spree it says: "Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary". Andrew Cunanan is given as an example for spree killing, while Charles Whitman is mentioned in connection with mass murder, and Jeffrey Dahmer with serial killing" (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is six a "large number" of people? Not to me. It's barely more than "several". Get up to 21, as in San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, and you're maybe in massacre territory. Many would say you'd need to be significantly higher than that. And what Rodger called it is beside the point; the perp doesn't get to choose our language for us. Mandruss (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The differences between "Massacre", "Killing Spree," and "serial killings" is more about the time. The article on Killing Spree explains that. Timing is one of the most important elements. Nobody refers to numbers of victims to differentiate spree killings to massacre. It seems to be your personal inference of how it should be.
Also several media sources used Massacre to refer to this event.
How do you define what makes a number of victims high? Also there were 7 people killed not 6. It seems to be downplaying the victims to say that 7 is not a high number :( (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And you could make that very same argument about the murder of a single individual --- my cousin was murdered a few years ago, and aren't you downplaying him by saying that 1 isn't a large number? I am truly offended! His killing was a massacre!! Mandruss (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. No need to insult others. In the article of Killing Spree it says that massacre refers to more than one. Do you have a reference about the number of victims that need to exist to be considered a massacre ? It seems it is your own personal opinion no? The articles reference that it's not so much about number of victims but about timing. Using timing, Killing Spree is incorrect here, right? (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, all of this is wasted breath. What Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources call it. I haven't conducted an exhaustive survey, but my sense is the majority call it a "rampage". If you want to call it a rampage, go ahead, you won't get any argument from me. Before you call it a massacre, you'll need to show me that RS prefers massacre over other words/phrases. Mandruss (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
RS is reliable source? (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Si, senor. Mandruss (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable Sources that call it massacre:
Is this enough? There are a ton that use massacre. I think the majority uses that term to refer to what happened in IV. (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, "show me that RS prefers massacre over other words/phrases". It's not enough to cherry pick a few that say massacre. Careful choice of Google search arguments usually gives you a good feel for the preference.
"isla vista" massacre -killings -rampage - 57,800 hits
"isla vista" rampage -killings -massacre - 234,000 hits
"isla vista" killings -rampage -massacre - 607,000 hits
Obviously the searches aren't limited to reliable sources, but it says that the Web in general prefers killings over rampage, and rampage over massacre. Hard to justify massacre based on those results unless you want to spend the time separating the RS wheat from the chaff. I don't --- especially since there's no reason to believe that RS would differ to that extent from the Web as a whole. Mandruss (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't understand this phrase:" eliminating the RS wheat from the chaff." Why exactly does Mandruss not want to use "Massacre" ? It seems to be his personal conviction. The person showed you 5 articles that use "Massacre" instead of "Killing Spree". Why is Mandruss now setting a new constraint to the person. By the way, "Isla Vista Killing Spree" has only 56,500 hits, massacre would be preferred following your logic Mandruss. Why did you not mention that? (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"isla vista" killing spree -killings -rampage - 57,800 hits (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that "Killing Spree" is incorrect in this case right? This incide is obviously a killing. The question is Why does Sr. Mandruss not want to use "Massacre". The person showed 5 RS (based on Sr. Mandruss request) that use "Massacre" instead of "Killing Spree" The person also showed that "Isla Vista Massacre" has MORE hits than "Isla Vista Killing Spree." It seems more that Mandruss is imposing his own will. (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rampage also does not define exactly what Elliot Rodgers did. A Rampage according to Google is only: "a period of violent and uncontrollable behavior, typically involving a large group of people." It says nothing about "murder" Why exactly is there a fight to not call it "Massacre"? It seems more like a personal affair that Mandruss has, right? (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Massacre is usually used when there are large number of deaths (although what "large" is, can vary). I'd recommend checking what the more professional newspapers call it. NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. since they have higher levels of editorial discipline.Mattnad (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the Input Mattnad. Here are more sources that refer to the incident as a massacre:
LA Times:
WA Post:
Chicago Tribute:
NY times:
Killing spree makes it feel like IV lived months of terror where there were constant shootings and murder. Like what happened in LA with the Night Stalker in the 80s.
It was just one day of terror. Great feedback. Thank you all for your time. (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed that in the discussion here people refer to Elliot Rodger as a mass murderer. Why do you refer to him as a mass murderer but do not want to call it a massacre ? Don't mass murderers produce massacres?
Would it be ok to change "killing spree" to "massacre" ? Thank you all for your input. (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As indicated above, a massacre is committed by a group, not an individual. WWGB (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. Several massacres have been committed by individuals, e.g., Virginia Tech Massacre.
here is a list of massacres:
Many were conducted by individuals. Many had less than 7 deaths. Check out for instance, Capital Hill Massacre, seems very similar to Elliot Rodgers case. What do others think? As we discussed previously, the term "group" refers to the perpetrating party. In this case, it is Elliot.
Should we change the name from Killing Spree to Massacre? Why is there a fight? You guys are calling him a mass murderer already. I didn't see anybody reference the "killing spree Murderer." (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys is it ok if I change the crime from "Killing Spree" to "Massacre." Plenty of evidence has been given to support massacre.
Let me know! (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No it's not, for all the reasons stated above. Let me state it one more time. A massacre is committed by a group. One person is never a group (go check a dictionary). Please move on. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition of Massacre from Oxford dictionary is literally just: "An indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of :people" It says nothing of having to be done by a "group"
Wikipedia defines a series of events as Massacres. Several (more than 20) were conducted by ONE individual.
There are more than 1,000 Google hits for "Isla Vista Massacre" than "Isla Vista Killing Spree"
I understand you don't care that it is incorrect to call it Killing Spree because you do not live in the community, but I do.
MASSACRES ARE COMMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS TOO. Again, Please see all of the massacres that were conducted by ONE person. See the Capitol Hill Massacre
Is it ok to change "Killing Spree" to "Massacre"?
Could someone please help? I really feel that I am being discriminated :'( I understand you don't care and think its a trivial issue. It is not trivial for me. It is incorrect to call it "Killing Spree."
It is documenting the event incorrectly. JackGann (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Massacre "A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force". Per Merriam-Webster, a "group" is "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship". This was not a massacre, despite what sensationalist reporters might like to call it. It was an individual spree killer on a killing spree. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The definition of Massacre in Wikipedia includes individual btw ;) Also checkout the Massacre events. Many were done by one individual, with less than 5 deaths. But all of them according to you, are simply "sensational reporting" and have no merit, correct? Also crime specialists define that the difference in Killing Spree and Massacre is not WHO did the crime, but the time. As mentioned before. Killing Spree refers to several days/weeks. The killings here all happened on ONE day. Killing Spree is actually much more sensational. It implies that a region went through weeks, almost months of constant killings. Isn't that much worse than a ONE day event? It is your personal opinion that Massacre is more sensational than Killing spree correct? and that is why you do not want us to change it?
Killing Spree is defined by the specialists as killings that happend over almost a month period: ", Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary". Andrew Cunanan is given as an example for spree killing, while Charles Whitman is mentioned in connection with mass murder, and Jeffrey Dahmer with serial killing.[8]
In Serial Murder, Ronald M. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes define spree murder as "the killing of three or more people within a 30-day period" and add that killing sprees are "usually accompanied by the commission of another felony"
My issue with calling it a "Killing Spree" is that it is incorrect, it makes it feel as if Isla Vista was terrorized for weeks. It is documenting the event incorrectly. Killing Spree seems much more sensationalist than "Massacre" JackGann (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Massacre only included "individual" for 30 minutes because you added it without consensus. It has since been reverted. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. There are more than 1,000 Google hits for "Isla Vista Massacre" than "Isla Vista Killing Spree"
    1. "Isla Vista Massacre" -wikipedia - 21,000 hits
    2. "Isla Vista killing spree" -wikipedia - 74,900 hits
  2. You have used different IP addresses, saying things to make it appear that the different IP addresses were different people. Now you have created an account with the following statement on its user page: Young blond Californian College Girl pretending to be a Guy on Wikipedia so people will hopefully listen :'(. These actions, taken together, are tantamount to sock puppetry. Deliberately trying to deceive other editors is not a good strategy at Wikipedia.
  3. You have repeatedly accused other editors of discriminating against you, not caring, etc. Please see WP:AGF. If you continue to edit Wikipedia articles, you will have other editors disagreeing with you a lot. This does not mean they are discrimating against you or not caring.
  4. Most new Wikipedia editors stick to areas like spelling and grammar corrections for some time, while they learn about how Wikipedia works. There is a lot to learn. You are taking an aggressive stand on a controversial subject while showing that you know very little about Wikipedia's principles.
All of the above is making people very annoyed with you. I would strongly suggest either giving up on this issue or looking into dispute resolution. If dispute resolution does not get you what you want, that won't mean that people are discriminating against you. Best wishes.   Mandruss |talk  06:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mandruss.
  1. So I was using the term isla vista" massacre -killings for the search, which was used previously by another editor.
  2. I work at different spots on campus so I have different IPs. I never claimed to be more than one person. Sorry is it wrong to use different IPs to edit wikipedia?
  3. I used a guys name because I do feel it is tough to be heard as a girl. There are several studies that show the hostil environment on Wikipedia so It is a big issue. I don't think it's fair to call this :sock puppetry. What is wrong with using a guy's name online?
  4. So as a new female newcomer you feel I should be limited to correcting commas? right? I did take the time to show why it is incorrect to call this crime a "Killing Spree" I also found RS that call it :"Massacre." Why do you feel that was not enough? Because I am female? because I am new? Do you think that type of behavior from your part, will limit Wikipedia in the long run? Basically you are :deciding WHO gets to contribute knowledge. It is not enough to show RS, explanations; knowledge of the subject etc. Basically its people who have a certain profile. Right? People that fall out of :that norm just don't get to contribute. What do you think about that?
Thanks JackGann (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Seek dispute resolution, unless there is someone else here who wants to continue this with you. I'm done.   Mandruss |talk  06:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, JackGann, some of your earlier edits point to an IP address at University of California, Santa Barbara. If that is the case, you have way too much WP:Conflict of interest to even consider editing this article. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
ha ha! ok :'(
Does anybody out there want to help change "Killing Spree" to "Massacre" I mainly would like to see from the more experienced editors how they would fight for something like this so I can learn.
Any help is appreciated. Also do you guys think I should change the self presentation of myself on my wiki profile? Would I get accused of sock puppetry? or that I am assuming bad things about ::others?
thank you JackGann (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Only Wikipedia defines massacre as being committed by a group; that distinction is in no dictionary definition that I can find. Since Wikipedia is not a Reliable source for itself, the arguments that Wikipedia defines massacre as being committed by a group are moot. Massacres have been committed by individuals. Other arguments as to what quantity of people killed may apply, however.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Killings involving only 3 murder victims have been defined as massacres, see e.g. Milltown_massacre It is my understanding it has more to do more with the time between the murders. Thanks Jack (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is called Milltown Cemetery attack, not "Milltown massacre". WWGB (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
But the first sentence of the article notes that it is also referred to as the "Milltown massacre".—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 19:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well.... let me make another suggestion. There's a case to be made for both "killing spree" and "massacre". I'd be hard pressed upon consideration to why one is better than the other. But when I step back a little, the violence was not exclusively killings - Rodger harmed others who survived. If we step away from the sensational language, we might want to consider "attacks" or "rampage" instead of what's been discussed. Thought I'd include these ideas to see if we can break through the debate here.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. There's a case to be made for both "killing spree" and "massacre". I'd be hard pressed upon consideration to why one is better than the other. I wouldn't be hard pressed at all. To claim that six deaths constitute a massacre is ignorant of or choosing to disregard world history (of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to pretty much everything), ignorant of or choosing to disregard the dictionary, trying to further an agenda, or some combination of the three. I'm not closed-minded, but I tend to respond negatively to lame arguments, and that's all I've seen here for massacre to date.
  2. It would help if we could establish what's more important here: what makes sense to most of RS, or what makes sense to the few of us. I'd vote for the former, and the Web likes "killings" and "killing spree" over anything else we have discussed. So far, the RS support for massacre presented in this section has consisted of cherry picking, rather than a fair and unbiased survey of all RS. Cherry picking is neither logical nor fair play.
  3. The closest dictionary definition for rampage I can find is: "a period of violent and uncontrollable behavior, typically involving a large group of people." In other words, a mob or riot. Neither rampage nor attacks says anything about killing, so they fail to reflect the most significant aspect of this case.
  4. The person who started this discussion, and has been the only strong supporter of massacre, is a local resident and possibly a UCSB student, and is in no position to be objective about anything regarding this case. We shouldn't even be in this section, and I move to close this discussion unless someone else wants to take over in favor of massacre. Enough is enough.   Mandruss |talk  21:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the main issues that I see with using "Killing Spree" is that the term refers to murders that occurred for DAYS, WEEKS. Massacre refers to an event that occurred pretty much all in one day.
When you read "Isla Vista Killing Spree" it makes you think that it was an event that last for weeks. That the community was terrorized for weeks. Which is incorrect. It all happened in ONE day.
Here is again the definition that criminologist give to "Killing Spree":
Fuller and Hickey write that "[t]he element of time involved between murderous acts is primary in the differentiation of serial, mass, and spree murderers", later elaborating that spree killers "will engage in the killing acts for days or weeks" while the "methods of murder and types of victims vary".
Good discussion. Thank you for taking the time in this.JackGann (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, the FBI states that the general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── However, WWGB, the FBI symposium dismissed the distinction between serial and spree murders:

The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement.

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

  • one or more offenders
  • two or more murdered victims
  • incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
  • the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.[1]


  1. ^ Morton, Robert J.; Hilts, Mark A., eds. (September 2005). "Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators" (PDF). Contributors: Johns, Leonard G.; Keel, Timothy G.; Malkiewicz, Steven F.; McNamara, James J.; Mellecker, Kirk R.; O’Toole, Mary Ellen; Resch, David T.; Safarik, Mark; Showalter, Armin A.; Trahern, Rhonda L. U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. p. 9. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2014.  |section= ignored (help))

In reading the article, it would seem that, for purposes of law enforcement, serial murder and spree murder are defined identically and are used to describe separate events; it would seem that Isla Vista falls more into the category of mass murder, which would lend more weight to referring to it as a massacre.

Perhaps the best solution would be to refer to it as "mass murder"?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Mass murder" has the advantage in that it's less sensational. I can endorse this. Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Google search hit counts
"isla vista" "rampage" -wikipedia 887 1,150 8,120 125 2,250
"isla vista" "killings" -wikipedia 503 466 19,100 30 312
"isla vista" "massacre" -wikipedia 639 158 8,860 21 511
"isla vista" "killing spree" -wikipedia 42 224 60 5 272
"isla vista" "mass murder" -wikipedia 9 121 134 10 191
Rankings (5=highest preference) average
rampage 5 5 3 5 5 4.6
killings 3 4 5 4 3 3.8
massacre 4 2 4 3 4 3.4
killing spree 2 3 1 1 2 1.8
mass murder 1 1 2 2 1 1.4


  1. I can't think of another approach to the question that isn't cherry picking of one form or another. You can find support or reasoning for any of these alternatives, and there's no way to decide which support or reasoning is more meaningful. (This is an inherent flaw in any debate without judges, and the Wikipedia model seriously overestimates people's ability to be persuaded. Wikipedia debates are like criminal trials without juries, where the prosecution and the defense are expected to decide between them who presented the stronger case. How well do you think that would work?) We can go round and round using that approach, until all but one of us has given up out of sheer exhaustion (last-man-standing is a poor excuse for consensus). Or, we can seek some kind of arbitration, knowing that we might not like the results (you can't keep arguing when the arbitration doesn't go your way). Or, we can agree to go with something like this---something cold, objective, and admittedly arbitrary. We can put this to bed at long last, and move on to other important things. I vote for that.
  2. The search arguments included "isla vista", so these results are specific to this case. Any conclusion reached here can't be transferred to other articles. For example, the title for VA Tech includes massacre, and it's very possible that's what RS prefers for that case. The number of dead is considerably higher.
  3. I was unable to get any hits from the TV broadcast networks, etc. I can only guess this is because they don't leave their stories up as long as the other sites.
  4. I don't know enough about the various UK news sites to distinguish the tabloids from the RS. If anyone cares to suggest a good one, I can add it. Please don't suggest the Mirror or the Telegraph, I'm familiar enough with them. gave hit counts that were too small to be significant.

My take on the results:

  1. While these sites prefer rampage to killings, the difference is only 0.8. That's less than one ranking position, and not enough to justify standing the dictionary definition of rampage on its head. The article's title should stand. However, rampage is used twice in the article's body, and I'm not strongly opposed to that.
  2. Based on these results, it's hard to make a case for either of killing spree or mass murder in the body---neither of them makes it as high as 2.0, which would be next-to-last. Therefore I'd vote for limiting the body to rampage, killings, and massacre, with a fairly even distribution, and with an attempt to suit the word to the context.   Mandruss |talk  20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

After more than a week with no activity, this discussion appears to have gone to sleep. I'm not entirely sure what is supposed to happen when a discussion goes to sleep. I think some would say, "Nobody has objected to my proposal (the last one), so there is an implied consensus for it". I'm inclined to say that there is no consensus for any change to the article in this area. Going back to sleep.   Mandruss |talk  23:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to use "Mass Murder" instead of "Killing Spree." Should I change it in the body? There was a good discussion about why "Mass Murder" was the better term to use to refer to this crime. According to the great FBI definitions provided by D'Ranged, we saw that "Killing Spree" was an incorrect term to use in the article. D'Ranged thus suggested using "Mass Murder." Mattnad agreed for the term, considering it was less sensational. Currently the article is using another sensational term to describe the Isla Vista murders: "Killing Spree." Would it be ok to edit the article to include the changes we have discussed? (Mainly refer to the crime as "Mass Murder") JackGann (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you look at and understand the tables above? They show that mass murder comes in last in terms of what reliable sources use to describe these events. Until someone shows me why that shouldn't matter, or shows me that the tables are very incorrect, we do not have a consensus here. Consensus is more than a simple vote. You also have to look at the strengths of the various arguments, and no experienced editor would dispute that RS is one of the stronger arguments at Wikipedia. I don't claim that it's the only argument that matters, or I would have already changed the article according to RS preferences. As I see it, what we have here is a stalemate, and that happens sometimes. When there is a stalemate, the article remains unchanged. I know it's frustrating as hell, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've aged about 5 years in the year I've been actively editing here.
It's probably even more frustrating when you live nearby and have a personal connection to the events. If something like this happens where I live, I'll make it a point not to get involved in the article about it, for that very reason.
Btw, both arguments support the removal of "killing spree". Problem is, they disagree on what to replace it with. I see a little irony in the fact that the person who argued long and hard for "massacre" objects to "killing spree" because it's sensational.
Also, please note that my proposal isn't everything I would have preferred. It includes some use of "massacre" in the body, and I don't like the word for the reasons I (and others) have previously stated. But I'm willing to accept it because it goes with the RS package.   Mandruss |talk  00:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! So basically we have reached a consensus that "Killing Spree" is incorrect. But we are unsure with what term to replace it with. The options according to you are: 1) rampage; 2)killings; 3)massacre; and 4) mass murder. The definitions of rampage and killings seem too generic right? They do not offer much information about the actual crime. I think we could use these two terms throughout the article, but we need a more specific term to describe the "attack type", and the first sentence of the article, correct? Thanks for the discussion. JackGann (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My proposal was, and is, to go solely by how reliable sources refer to this specific case, with no other considerations or reasoning. I believe that the five websites in my tables are a fair and objective representation of RS. No one has disputed that or my methodology. I chose them before I chose the nouns to propose, not the other way around. In other words, I didn't cherry-pick them.
  • My proposal is to (1) leave the title unchanged, and (2) "limit the body to rampage, killings, and massacre, with a fairly even distribution, and with an attempt to suit the word to the context."
  • By "body" I mean the prose text, not the contents of the "Attack type" field in the infobox. I don't have a problem with leaving the infobox alone.
  • Instead of "A killing spree was perpetrated", the first sentence could say, "A series of killings was perpetrated", killings being one of the three magic words.
  • The body uses "shooting spree" in a few places, when referring to just that part of the events, and we could either leave that as is or come up with something better. I see that as a separate and independent discussion, since what we're really talking about is how the article characterizes the entirety of the events.
  • Even if you agreed to my proposal, that wouldn't be enough. At least two other editors, D'Ranged 1 and Mattnad, advocated "mass murder" just before they left this discussion, and it wouldn't be appropriate to declare a consensus unless they agreed to it or said they don't care anymore. Since I used the {{User}} template to refer to them, they will both get a notification, and they can either respond or ignore, as they see fit.   Mandruss |talk  06:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)