Talk:Elliot Rodger/Archive 1

Archive 1

First sentence

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

In that case, it would be helpful to have two descriptors as opposed to just one. Omar Mateen is described as both a mass murderer and domestic terrorist. Rodger was not just a mass murderer; he committed his crimes for ideological reasons, hence why ‘incel’ should feature in the opening sentence. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This is the original version of the article - it just says mass murderer. This is the version of the article that was accepted at AfC - it says incel and mass murderer. I see you have reinstated 'mass murderer', which is at least an improvement on the version you were edit warring to reinstate, which just had 'incel'. Why you would want to remove the descriptor 'mass murdered' from the lead sentence of an article about a mass murderer is difficult for me to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the best way is to have the descriptor be 'mass murderer' with the qualifier 'incel'. It explains the reason for his notability (notoriety) and also describes the subject's motives quite well. It also avoids the awkward juxtaposition of 'and'. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why you repeatedly reverted my edits to remove the phrase 'mass murderer'. Given that you know your edits are contested, I don't know why you didn't leave Jayron32's text in place until this had been discussed. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Uh, I added the phrase in the first place. In fact, when I got the article approved, the article used both descriptors (as it does now). The issue is that mass murderer, alone, is incomplete. I had simply reverted the article to its original form, before you came to edit, until it had been sufficiently discussed. Now, since I (re)added both descriptors, I trust that's OK now? TheWikipedian05 (talk) 1:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: Dylann Roof, another mass murderer who committed his crimes for ideological reasons, has multiple descriptors in his article’s opening sentence. He is described as a white supremacist first, a neo-Nazi second and a mass murderer third. I think we should follow a similar style here. TheWikipedian05 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because you can find one other article at Wikipedia doing the wrong thing doesn't mean that this article should also do the wrong thing. --Jayron32 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

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

Consensus?

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

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

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

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

Now that this is a redirect

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

Reviewer Note

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