Talk:Elliot Rodger/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs) 05:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Introductions and general comments

Hello! I look forward to working with you on seeing this article pass GAN. We'll go section by section, please feel free to post comments/countersuggestions under my posts. Let's begin! Regards,  Spintendo  20:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think a counter needs to be started somewhere in the review showing the number of times the manifesto is the ultimate source. That will help in gauging whether the article meets 3.4 Broad in its coverage and with neutral viewpoints. An article with a ratio of 70/30 where 70 is "reported-on-by-a-neutral-source-who-ultimately-got-that-information-from-the-manifesto" and 30 is "originated-from-neutral-sources-looking-at-info-beyond-the-manifesto" might be problematic.  Spintendo  23:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath could you help with me this part? I’m confused. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What I'm meaning is that most, if not all, of the article comes from legitimate, reliable sources. That is obviously a good thing. But some of those sources are reporting on what has been written in the manifesto. So in essence, the manifesto is being used as the end source for different parts of the article. My initial impression is that the amount of the article which is, in effect, written by him, should be minimized. Perhaps Tarnished Path can give their feedback on this too, the question being, how much of the article should ultimately originate from Rodger and his observations? If this were a living person, there would be issues with that. But because they are dead, does that mitigate how much of their own observations can be used? I look forward to everyone's feedback. As far as a counter for this review page, I meant something like what's shown below as an example. The numbers there are an admittedly very rough estimate by me of the parts which I've reviewed thus far (up to the beginning of the Behaviours with others section) and shouldn't be taken to indicate the article as a whole. (I would also note that the beginning and middle parts would expect to be using much of the Manifesto, while the later parts of the article after he died would reflect OR original reporting, so the counter could balance out at the end. Also it occurs to me that my use of the term OR resembles WP:NOR - but that is not how I'm using the term. When I say "original reporting" what I mean is journalists from reputable sources reporting on facts obtained through their own journalistic investigations and not just by reading through the manifesto).  Spintendo  01:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern about how some of the article ultimately tracks back to the manifesto, even when clarified through reliable secondary sources. I looked through the relevant sections with that in mind and ensured that manifesto-derived material is attributed and balanced with independently reported information, such as police findings and third-party interviews. While some of the early biographical and motivation-related content necessarily references the manifesto, the article as a whole is not centered on his narrative, and if there are any sections that seem overly contingent on it, please let me know. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, and for understanding my concern. I agree with you that the manifesto-derived material is attributed and balanced with independently reported information, such as police findings and third-party interviews. And like I said, the rest of the article that takes place after his death (narratively speaking) is void of manifesto information, which should help to balance it out.  Spintendo  17:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

We've reached the conclusion of my first run through of the article. I will now re-read each section to confirm all "done" suggestions have been addressed and to identify any overlooked issues.  Spintendo  18:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the ping above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

My second run through of the article is largely completed; now awaiting the recent crop of suggestions to be addressed before finishing the final review table.  Spintendo  11:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review: Article sections and subsections

(Note: Y = suggestion addressed by nominator.)

Lead section

• No issues.  Spintendo  20:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Early life section

• Elliot Oliver Robertson Rodger was born in London, United Kingdom, on July 24, 1991 The date of birth is mentioned adequately in the LA Times references, and thus, need not be duplicated with the 2 additional Australian sources. These should be deleted.

•  Done

• to parents Peter Rodger and Ong Li Chin Tye None of these three sources mention the entirety of the mother's name. Two of the references refer to her as "Chin Rogers". The third reference refers to her as "Ong Li Chin Rogers", so that reference should be kept and the name "Tye" should be deleted along with the two extraneous references.

•  Not done The two sources are reliable and present her name as Ong Li Chin

Reply 11-Jan-2026

Im not getting where the name "Tye" comes from. Please clarify the source. Spintendo  01:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done This appears to have been addressed at Special:Diff/1332437237.

• Peter, a British national, is a filmmaker who served as a second unit director on The Hunger Games (2012) all three of these references are for the same date (May 24, 2014) and thus, presumably offer the same information. Meaning, two of them can be deleted.

•  Done

• and who has directed television commercials The ABC News reference adequately covers this claim. The other two should be deleted.

•  Done

• His mother is of Malaysian Chinese descent and has also worked in the film industry; after training in health care, she worked as an on-set nurse during production of The Princess Bride (1987) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) This is practically a word for word copy of the Mother Jones article, so it's unclear why the other two references are included. They need to be deleted.

• Removed one of them.

• She later worked as a researcher for a film company, earning $40,000 a year before working as a personal assistant to a family of philanthropists. This is a word for word copy of the Mother Jones source. The other two references have been added for no effect. These need to be deleted.

•  Not done The Mother Jones source does not mention this information at all. The other two sources do.

Reply 11-Jan-2026

We have three claims here regarding two jobs that need to be clarified.

• Mother Jones : "In recent years she had settled into her job as a trusted personal assistant to a family of wealthy philanthropists"
• The Times: "Elliot's mother, Li Chin, made just $40,000 a year as a researcher for a film company.
• CNN: "and his mother made just $40,000 a year as a research assistant for a film company, according to documents from his parents’ divorce."
• If one source says one thing while the other says another, then I think the prose should reflect which source says what, e.g., "According to The Times, Chin Rodgers was...." etc. The prose as it stands now implies that one profession came "before" the other, but I don't see where any of the three sources mention the other job, let alone a sequence.  Spintendo  01:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done, I've taken the bold step of just removing the sentence as to me it was reading as WP:OR stating that one job came after the other when none of the sources stated that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• His paternal grandfather George Rodger was a photojournalist who was well-known for his images of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. This is adequately covered by the Forward source, so the other two references are extraneous.

•  Done

• Following Rodger's birth, his family moved to Sussex, England, where he enjoyed an affluent and privileged childhood. Li Chin left her nursing career to take care of Rodger and soon bore a daughter, with whom Rodger's maternal grandmother, who later moved into the family home, developed a strong connection Four references are given for these statements, but each reference only verifies parts of the sentences. The part underlined in green is referenced by the first two sources. The part underlined in red is sourced only by the third reference, and the part underlined in orange in sourced only by the fourth reference. Referencing such as this needs to follow WP:TSI.

•  Done

• When Rodger was five, due to his father's directing career, his family moved to Woodland Hills, an upscale neighborhood of Los Angeles This contains four references, yet is adequately covered by the Guardian source alone. The Independent UK source does not even mention Woodland Hills, yet it has been included here as a reference. It, and the other 2 extraneous sources, need to be deleted.

•  Done

• Rodger then attended Topanga Elementary School This is adequately covered by the Whittierdaily source. It's not known why the Patch source has been included here. Patch appears not to be a journalism source, but rather, a news aggregating site. That source needs to be deleted.

•  Done

• Rodger's parents divorced when he was seven years old. This is adequately covered by the CNN source. The other two should be deleted.

Removed one

• Custody of Rodger was split between his parents' homes, and a year after their divorce, Rodger's father married Soumaya Akaaboune, a Moroccan-born French actress. This is adequately covered by the Sydney Morning Herald source. The archived url link for The Times source is useless, as it only shows an archived page explaining that a subscription is required. The purpose of archived links should be to show the full text, not merely an article's headline. The other three sources for this sentence should be deleted.

•  Not done Well, I am sorry I couldn't find another archive of the page. They all have paywall so it is pretty hard to find one.
•  Done, The Times source was not required. Material supported by the other two sources.

• Around this time, Rodger began showing difficulty socializing with others. As an elementary student, he was quiet and withdrawn; he struggled with speech, would whisper answers if addressed, preferred to write information rather than talk, and avoided peer interaction during recess. He often engaged in repetitive behaviors, such as making noises and foot-tapping, and was easily overwhelmed by over-stimulation. Social gatherings like birthday parties made him anxious; on one occasion at Disneyland, he was overwhelmed to tears by the crowds. This is practically a word for word copy of the LA Times source, and yet, two other sources have been provided. These should be deleted.

•  Not done The sources all provide information that is crucial.
• @Spintendo If you are stating that this an almost word for word copy of the LA Times source, that fact alone is more concerning than excessive citations. I couldn't immediately pick up the the word for word copying and when I searched for his step-mum's name I couldn't find it (the about this time is in reference to his father getting together with his step-mum). Can you please provide wording from the source so that we can address any close paraphrasing. Ps, I'm another editor who will be assisting Shoot for the Stars with bringing this to GA. TarnishedPath^talk 05:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: The LA Times text:

From an early age, Rodger struggled with social interactions and displayed anxious behavior, according to the report. In elementary school, he rarely engaged in conversation, frequently whispering when spoken to, preferring to write his answers on paper. He spent his recesses hiding behind a building instead of playing with other children. He was uneasy at birthday parties. During one trip to Disneyland — when he was about 5 or 6 years old — Rodger cried because there were “too many people.”

As I said, it's an "almost word for word". I believe it's sufficiently paraphrased enough that I didn't and don't really consider it to be an issue. My main reason for mentioning it was that the majority of the text could be referenced by the LA Times rather than the other sources as well. If anything, the direction of the phrasing is what's being too closely copied (i.e., mentioning anxiety → whispering → preferring to write answers in that order, just as the LA Times does in that same order). BTW thank you for your input, you are welcome here! Please chime in anytime, it's much appreciated  Spintendo  06:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I've also summarised the section of text to reduce close paraphrasing. @Spintendo, any sections of text you see paraphrasing the source material that close, please bring it up as it needs to be addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do. Again, thank you for your input and help, it's much appreciated!  Spintendo  20:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• In 1999, Rodger's mother filed an affidavit asking for more child support from his father, labeling her son as a "high-functioning autistic child" with special needs. This is cited to RadarOnline and Hollywoodlife.com. However, the information Hollywoodlife obtained was from RadarOnline (they state "according to documents uncovered by Radar Online.") Surely, the need for both references is not necessary, considering one is relying on the other and says so in that source. Hollywoodlife should be deleted.

 Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Rodger's father presented a diagnosis by a doctor, who stated the autism diagnosis was incorrect because the examiner might have missed conditions like depression and anxiety The Times source states "His father hired a doctor, who disputed the diagnosis, saying it failed to acknowledge the possibility of 'depression or anxiety'." The Times is arguably just as sufficient, if not more so, than ExtraTV, in acting as the only reference for this sentence. The ExtraTV source should be deleted. Needless to say, the New York Times Nagourney, Cieply, Feuer and Lovett article described in the next suggestion would cover both claims (the mother's claims and the father's counter-claims). Using that source would eliminate the need for the RadarOnline source and The Times.

   Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• The doctor recommended additional evaluation of Rodger by a child psychiatrist to obtain a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment. As stated above, this claim is adequately sourced by the New York Times. The CNN cite is superfluous.

   Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Rodger had a difficult relationship with his stepmother Akaaboune, whose parental authority he rejected in favor of his biological mother. The Wrap source states "He was shocked when his father took up with a girlfriend who he later married, a Moroccan-born actress named Soumaya Akaaboune." while the Independent source states "After his father remarried, Rodger wrote that his relationship with his step-mother, the Moroccan-born French actress Soumaya Akaaboune, became increasingly tense." Surely, the Wrap source does not offer any additional benefit here in being listed as a reference than the Independent source already does. Its inclusion is superfluous. It's important to note that neither source makes the claim regarding authority being rejected in favor of the mother.

   Done. TarnishedPath^talk 06:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• As he grew, Rodger became self-conscious about his short height and slender frame; he briefly played basketball in the belief it would make him grow taller This sentence needs to adhere to WP:TSI. Since the Whittierdaily source only mentions the height anxiety and not the basketball, that reference should be placed after the semi-colon. The News24 source can act as reference for the information concerning basketball.
  •  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• He also became embarrassed about his mixed-race heritage, which he felt set him apart from his entirely white peers. This sentence includes a reference to this source and to this source which are both from the LA Times Opinion section, and thus, cannot be used. These two need to be deleted.
  •  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• In an effort to blend in, Rodger dyed his hair blonde and began skateboarding, hoping these changes would help him befriend other children. The Wrap source says "His desire for attention led to a decision to dye his dark hair blonde, and to take up skateboarding." The other two sources given here are superfluous. Notably, the LA Times source cited here for this sentence does not mention skateboarding, so the Wrap source is doing both jobs of mentioning the hair color change and skateboarding while the LA Times only mentions one.
  •  Done. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• Despite his extreme social awkwardness, Rodger started to socialize with his more-popular peers and attempted to approach girls. The Wrap source states "The other children are mostly friendly towards him, even the cool kids and the girls. Girls actually paid attention to me. They knew who I was and I didn't feel like I was completely invisible." which seems to approximate this passage of text. The reason for giving the Independent source as a claim for this sentence is not known. Please clarify where in the independent source this claim is verified. Also, a date range is not given for this development, which seems important to give, since it seems like an important step in Rodgers life. The paragraph before this sentence is given mentions 1999, is that still the year that this development occurs? Please clarify in the prose, such as "Despite his extreme social awkwardness, Rodger in 1999 started to socialize with his more-popular peers and attempted to approach girls."
  • Removed The Independent source. And I think you meant News24, not TheWrap?
• He later began experiencing feelings of resentment, convinced that his life was unfair compared to his peers. ABC news states "By the time Elliot reached his 18th birthday, the shy young boy had vanished, leaving behind only resentment and anger." QZ states "But as he grew older, he found himself staring with ever-growing resentment and rage at the things he could see, but not have." Forbes seems to be the only source mentioning a sense of "unfair" as the prose suggests, by saying "YouTube on the other hand was where Rodger expressed his despair, in video after video "vlogging" the unfairness of the world and his not having a woman in his." If we're to take the two main points of this sentence as resentment and unfair, then surely ABC News and Forbes cover it enough so that QZ is not needed.
  •  Done
• Custody of Rodger was split between his parents' homes, and a year after their divorce, Rodger's father married Soumaya Akaaboune, a Moroccan-born French actress. This is given two references, but the references have not been placed according to WP:TSI. The Wrap source needs to be placed after the words "parents homes" (and after the comma) while the Sydney Morning Herald cite can remain at the end of the sentence.

   Done. TarnishedPath^talk 11:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• after training in health care, she worked as an on-set nurse during production of The Princess Bride (1987) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) I'm not sure that "nurse" (using Wikipedia's voice) is the correct term to use here. Li Chin has never held a nursing license in the State of California. If these films were being produced in the UK, then the production companies would have hired local health care workers. Film companies do not take nurses with them to on-set locations out of the country. It's my understanding that these two films were made in the UK. So was Li Chin living in the UK at this time? If she was, then that would make sense to hire her as a local nurse. But if she lived in California during this time, then it's not possible. If this is what the source is calling her, then the prose should reflect that ("...she worked as what [whichever source] says was an "on set nurse" during production of....") If this is what Elliot says she did, then it should state that this is what Elliot says (or was told, or was given to misunderstand, or whatever). Wikipedia cannot call her a nurse, because she has never been a nurse.

@Spintendo: from motherjones "Of Chinese descent, Li Chin Tye grew up in Penang, Malaysia, and moved at age 17 to England, where she trained in health care and later worked as a unit nurse on the productions of The Princess Bride and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. A photo from the late 1980s that circulated online after Elliot’s attack showed her with George Lucas, Harrison Ford, and Michael Jackson. She met and soon married Peter, whose father was renowned British war photographer George Rodger, and Elliot was born in July 1991. When Elliot was 5 and Georgia was an infant, the family relocated to California." When I read this previusly I read it that she was qualified in the UK. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Now see, that would make sense, that she's a UK Nurse working on set. Only people who know that those films were made in the UK would realize that, but since MJ doesnt explicitly say she was a UK nurse, then I guess we'll just have to stick with "on-set nurse", which is adequate. Thank you.  Spintendo  04:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Rodger expressed shock at how quickly his father remarried and came to respect him. This may be technically correct (the expression of shock, and having a feeling of respect) but the nature of the two emotions immediately implies a dissonance. Most people who are shocked go on to express derision at those who shocked them. But here we have someone developing respect after being shocked. That doesn't read right. It needs to be clarified with a coordinating conjunction, for example, "Rodger expressed shock at how quickly his father remarried, but ultimately came to respect him for his decision."

• Changed

• Li Chin left her nursing career to take care of Rodger and soon bore a daughter, with whom Rodger's maternal grandmother, who later moved into the family home, developed a strong connection. This is unclear. To whom did the maternal grandmother develop a strong connection with? If it was with the daughter, why then is that bond between the grandmother and Elliot's sister relevant to an article about Elliot? Also, I would delete the claim about her "nursing career" because she has never held a nursing license in the State of California. Call her a health care worker, health aide, whatever. But not a nurse. Tarnished and I have agreed that she was most likely a nurse licensed in the UK.  Spintendo  17:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Changed to that it was Rodger who had a close relationship

• Rodger's parents divorced when he was seven years old This is given two references when one adequately covers it.

• Done

• He also exhibited repetitive behaviors like noises and foot-tapping. I would Wikilink repetitive behaviors.

• Done

• He viewed his sister as a rival, which according to Rodger, he threw tantrums over issues in which his parents took her side over him. It's not clear why this claim statement is given this source.

• Changed

• His increased difficulty in establishing friendships, particularly with women, led to a sense of isolation and frustration. This section of the article is concerning Rodger's "Early life" - my guess being age 5 through 9 (the next section, Middle years, begins with Elliot at age 10). So I'm not sure how relevant this sentence is. I don't see a 7 year old boy being frustrated by, or having feelings of isolation over an inability to have friendships with women. This sentence should be deleted.

• Removed

• He initially attended Dorset House School, a private, all-boys school in West Sussex This contains 3 references, yet is adequately covered by the Guardian source alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but the second source also needs to be removed, either Argus or the Guardian, they both equally cover this claim. There is no need for both.  Spintendo  01:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

• Rodger claimed that his first friend in the United States was the daughter of British musician Paul Humphreys, and that she was his first and only female friend This claim is given two references. As both confirm the information independently from each other, one can be kept, and the other can be deleted.

• Chaned to NZ Herald source

• Despite his extreme social awkwardness, Rodger started to socialize with his more-popular peers and attempted to approach girls. He later began experiencing feelings of resentment, convinced that his life was unfair compared to his peers This is misleading. That section of text was rewritten from a request of mine which stated my puzzlement at including a description of a 7 year old Elliot becoming frustrated at woman not approaching him. I surmised that this should not cause distress in a 7 year-old child. So the prose was re-written to the above. What is misleading is how the prose deftly tries to link a feeling of resentment with not being approached by women, which isn't really much of a re-write. Even though three sources are given for this claim, only one is really relevant: the News24 source, which states: Up until this point, Elliot mostly makes friends when they approach him, or when a parent helps arrange it. When people stop actively approaching him to make friends with them, he becomes resentful at the lack of attention, and treats the world as brutal. His comments upon entering Highschool: From this source we can see two problems with this "re-written" text: (1) The source does not state specifically women not approaching him, and (2) the timeframe around this observation is just before high school. But this section is early life! So I'm going to specifically suggest that this text be deleted from this section (and not rewritten).  Spintendo  02:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

• Rodger developed a close relationship with his maternal grandmother, who later moved with his family. This sounds as if she moved along with his family to different locations. Did she do this? Or did she move in with them? If she moved in and then lived with the family for many years at different locations, then I would word this as "she moved in and lived with family for many years" or something to that effect.
• Rodger viewed his sister as a rival, throwing tantrums over issues in which his parents took her side over him. The text underlined in green is confirmed by The Wrap source, while the text underlined in red is unreferenced—the two other provided archived links to the News24 source are non-functional. (Note: The News24 source appears to have intended to include text from the manifesto. If that is the case, then the claim that his parents took the sister's side needs to be clarified as "According to Rogers, these issues were ones in which the parents took her side... " etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done and put the links as dead for the News24 even though they work fine for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I had another look at these once I was able to gain access to them. The News24 source states He is jealous of his sister when friends play with her. The Wrap source states: At age nine, he writes about being upset when his sister was allowed to bring her friends to his birthday party: “By nature I am a very jealous person, and at the age of nine my jealous nature sprung to the surface…. Jealousy and envy. Those are two feelings that would dominate my entire life and bring me immense pain.” The second News 24 source states This quote about his sister’s birthday party displays both his particular need to show off his status to his family, a trend that carries on throughout the manifesto, and his hypocrisy – when Georgia’s friends attend his birthday, he is upset. When his friends attend her birthday, he does not even for a moment consider it unusual or potentially upsetting for Georgia: “My sister Georgia’s birthday was in November, and on that day my father hired a limo to pick up Georgia and her friends from mother’s house. Charlie and Elijah came over, though John Jo was absent that day. When the limo returned, we all celebrated Georgia’s birthday at the house together. I introduced my father to my friends. It was a very happy experience.” This seems to validate my earlier concern that this claim, where Rodger supposedly "resented instances in which his parents took her side" was and still is not verified by the provided sources. And in any event, what child doesn't view their siblings as rivals? Or throw tantrums over what they perceive to be unfair treatment (especially at ages 2-5)? When you look closer at this claim, it doesn't seem all that extraordinary enough to mention. At this point I'm going to suggest that this entire sentence be removed as not relevant and unverified.  Spintendo  18:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion was that this be deleted as irrelevant and unverified. This was marked as "done" but the sentence, however reworded, remains. Sibling rivalry is common in many families, so I don't see how this is relevant that a sibling rivalry existed in the Rodger family. My suggestion is that this be deleted. Not that it matters, but if you could describe which reference it is that states he hated her when his parents took her side.  Spintendo  02:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Will leave the rest to TarnishedPath per below

Middle years section

• Rodger's mother met Steven Spielberg and George Lucas during her work as a nurse, dating the latter for a short period during the late 1990s, leading to her and Rodger being invited to several red-carpet premieres, including one for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) The New York Times article states "His mother, Li Chin, was a unit nurse on the 1989 film “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” for which George Lucas was an executive producer; that connection gave her son an entree to other red-carpet premieres. He boasted in his manifesto that his mother was a friend of Steven Spielberg’s and even dated Mr. Lucas briefly. (Representatives of Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg had no comment when queried about the connections last week.)" The Wikipedia article text states using Wikipedia's WP:VOICE that Lucas and Elliot's mother dated, when it needs to use Rodger's voice (by attributing it to him). Also, the only information not in the NYTimes article is the mention of Star Wars. The Wrap mentions being invited to Star Wars premieres. CNN also mentions only Star Wars premieres, and it's important to note, that CNN places the claim of Lucas dating Chin Li in quotations and qualifies it by stating "he wrote", placing the voice for the claim as Rodgers. That is something the Wikipedia article needs to do. The Mother Jones source does not mention Star Wars. So three things are being suggested here. (1) This information only needs to be referenced by The New York Times (2) change red carpet premieres to mention Star Wars but not that particular episode and (3) the claim's voice needs to be clarified as being Rodgers not Wikipedia's.

   Done

• Rodger's enjoyment of movies began to wane due to his discomfort with the presence of couples at movie theaters One of the sources given for this sentence is a HuffPost opinion piece and should not be cited. The Indiewire article cited here also appears to be an opinion piece rather than strict journalism. The Wrap source states "He started to hate going to the movies because 'I would start getting jealous of all the young couples of boys and girls.'" I would suggest using only the Wrap as a reference for this sentence.

   Done

• Rodger's social activity decreased during middle school and he immersed himself in popular video games such as Halo and World of Warcraft at his parents' houses and cybercafés Four references are given for this sentence. The WSJ states "He took solace in playing online video games such as "World of Warcraft" at a local cybercafe and on computers and game consoles that his parents bought him, according to his writings and family friends." The Vanity Fair article states " In his manifesto, “My Twisted World,” he noted that video games were his only refuge growing up: I immersed myself entirely into my online games like World of Warcraft. I felt safe there." The Independent source states "He retreated deeper and deeper into the world of online role-playing games, his favourite being World of Warcraft, which he would play for hours, according to the manifesto." The LA Times reference is an opinion piece and cannot be used. My suggestion is that only one source be used, either Independent, Vanity Fair or WSJ (nominator's choice) and that the mention of Halo be deleted (it should be noted here in my suggestion that although none of the sources given for this sentence mention Halo, Rodger himself does mention Halo along with WoW specifically in his manifesto). Additional suggestion: Please note that any URL link that has the word "opinion" in the URL is a clue that the source should not be used. (Use of opinion articles as references will trigger a violation of #4. of the WP:GACR.) By my rough count, 6 (six) additional sources used somewhere in the article have that word in the URL. This includes one from Fox News, Heraldnet.com, three from the LA Times and one from StAugustine.com. It would be of great help if these 6 could be proactively deleted before I get to them in the sequence of my review, since I will inevitably request their deletions once I get there.

  Left the WSJ and Vanity Fair source,

• primarily socializing with others via online chatrooms Three sources are given for this claim. The Wrap does not mention online chatrooms. Theconversation.com article by Jamilla Rosdahl appears to be an opinion piece, and The Trumpet article does not specifically mention online chatrooms.

  All removed

• When he was aged 11, a fellow AOL chatroom user shared sexually explicit images with Rodger, leading to overwhelming feelings of shock and emotion The LA Times link for this claim does not appear to verify it. The CNN reference states "When Rodger was 11, a friend he met through a chat room sent him photos of “beautiful naked girls,” he wrote. “When I looked at the pictures, I was shocked beyond words. I had never seen what beautiful girls looked like naked, and the sight filled me with strong and overwhelming emotions,” Rodger said in his autobiography" My suggestion is that the LA Times reference be deleted, and that the sentence be clarified to state that the explicit images were of women, and that seeing what he called "beautiful girls naked" shocked him with overwhelming emotions. The sentence as it now stands does not state what those images were. Describing what they were helps the reader to understand why Rodger was 'overwhelmed with emotion'.

   Done

• Two years later, while at an internet café, Rodger saw another teenager viewing pornography, which left him shaken and caused him to return home crying. The ABC7 source says "One time while I was alone at Planet Cyber, I saw an older teenager watching pornography ... I walked home and cried by myself for a bit." The CNN source says "The trauma got worse two years later, Rodger said, when he was at an Internet cafe and saw an older teen watching porn. “The sight was shocking, traumatizing, and arousing. All of these feelings mixed together took a great toll on me,” he wrote. “I walked home and cried by myself for a bit. I felt too guilty about what I saw to talk to my parents about it." Since both are referring to the same source (the Rodger manifesto) there is no need for both. One or the other is fine to use.

   Done

• Upon reaching puberty, Rodger developed a high sex drive but began to believe he would never have sexual relationships with women It's not clear why the New Yorker article is being cited here specifically for this sentence. The CNN source likewise does not have anything to say about this specific sentence, although it does mention part of the claim about him believing he would never have a relationship, the CNN source ultimately does not mention "high sex drive" (HSD) during puberty. Only the News24 source mentions both HSD-puberty and "no way I could ever get them". Thus, the News24 source should be kept and the other two deleted.

   Done

• He became known as a "quiet" and "weird kid" who intentionally annoyed classmates, leading to bullying by other students The Independent source states "By 13, Rodger stated, he was known as the 'weird kid' at his school." The BuzzFeed source states "A recurring theme in the document is Rodger's feelings of intimidation from kids he perceived as cooler than him. He also felt intimated [sic] by more popular kids and resented being labeled weird." News24 source states "When Elliot is not elevated to the superior social position he feels he is owed, he begins to react by annoying people on purpose to get attention. This causes him to go from being known as the quiet kid to the weird kid, and he begins to be teased and bullied, though never physically." The NBC News source states "By 13, he said, he was known as the weird kid at his school." 'Suggestion: Given that only the News24 source sufficiently approximates all of the claims in this sentence, the other three sources should be deleted.

  Left the News24 and NBC News sources

• One of his bullies was a blonde girl, which Rodger claimed contributed to the development of his misogynistic attitudes. The Telegraph source states "In his manifesto ... claimed that Miss Moio had teased him when they were children and 'wounded me deeply'". The Independent source states "The document listed one woman, Monette Moio, who Rodgers described as an “evil b****” and alleged teased and ridiculed him. “I hated her so much, and I will never forget her,” Rodger wrote. “I started to hate all girls because of this." the RadarOnline source says much the same as the Independent source. Suggestion: Delete the Telegraph source and either the Independent source or the RadarOnline source (so that only one source is remaining).

   Done Left Radar Online source

• The two paragraphs concerning Rodger's freshman year at Crespi and sophomore year at Taft Charter are over-detailed in their descriptions of the bullying and Roger's response to the bullying. It's notable that in the second paragraph concerning Rodger at Taft, the second sentence describing the additional bullying begins with Rodger again experienced severe bullying as if the word "again" was needed in order to lampshade the repetition. Any repetition ought to be limited. Rodger may have experienced the bullying in a linear fashion, but there is no need for the reader to be given that same information in a linear fashion. For example, we can say:

Roger attended Crespi, where he experienced bullying. He then attended Taft, where he again experienced more bullying.

Or we can say:

Rodger attended Crespi and Taft, where he experienced bullying.

These are abbreviated examples, but I think they describe what I mean to suggest here. My suggestion is that these two paragraphs be combined and their details limited to one or two examples.

• Also, I'd like to draw attention to the mentioning of the playing of Halo and WoW. Reading Rodger's manifesto, I don't see where his description of this is as a negative. I do see in innumerable sources where playing video games is framed by the media as a negative. Arguably, playing video games or playing a physical game of hockey or jogging releases the same endorphins and expends the same amounts of mental energy. If Rodger's bullying had led him to turn to jogging, I doubt any of these sources would be framing it the same way. I believe that the media framing of WoW in the retelling of the Rodger narrative demonstrates a bias in media and society in general that does not rightfully equate traditional sports with electronic sports. So unless Rodger specifically stated that this was a negative, I don't believe that the Wikipedia article should be framing video game playing in the same light as does these sources. The article can accomplish this by slightly rewording certain phrases in the prose, for example:

Rodger again experienced severe bullying, often by male students and in the presence of female students, which led him to continue to spend hours playing World of Warcraft.

can be changed to

Rodger experienced severe bullying, often by male students and in the presence of female students, which led him to increase his partaking in various Esport and gaming-adjacent platforms connected to World of Warcraft.

I look forward to your feedback on this, it's more of a request for feedback than just a rote suggestion for change, so let me know what you think.  Spintendo  05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done I have added and changed around this section

• In 2007, Rodger was diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), a diagnosis involving difficulties in social development that was then used for a different amount of developmental and behavioral conditions now grouped under autism This feels like a run-on sentence, in that too much info has been placed into it (Rodger's diagnosis and the then vs. current state of the diagnosis nomenclature). This needs to be split or part of it deleted, leaving discussions about disorder nomenclature for another article. PDD-NOS can also be WikiLinked, which would save the readers of our Rodger article from having to engage in an extended discussion in the prose (unless they wanted to, then they could click on the WL).

   Done

• His father's filmmaking career severely declined during the 2000s, culminating in the documentary film Oh My God (2009), which bombed at the box office CNN states "His father also failed him, he wrote. 'If only my failure of a father had made better decisions with his directing career instead wasting his money on that stupid documentary.' The documentary – a film about celebrities view of God titled Oh My God – plunged his father into debt when Rodger was a teenager and caused him to stop paying child support, according to court papers. 'My business has not generated any income in over a year,' Peter Rodger said in a 2009 filing asking the judge to modify his $2,000 a month child support payments for his two children. 'As a result, I currently receive no income from any source. I am searching for employment, but have been unable to find a job." The Sydney source states "Peter Rodger also wrote and directed a documentary about religion titled Oh My God, which featured interviews with Hugh Jackman, Ringo Starr, Seal, Bob Geldof, Baz Luhrmann, Jack Thompson and David Copperfield." The New York Times states "Peter Rodger’s career directing commercials was jolted when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks depressed the industry. In a quest that was partly spiritual and partly a failed business venture, friends said, he decided to make a documentary. He visited 23 countries in two and a half years, shooting a film in which he asked people as famous as Ringo Starr and as obscure as Asian schoolchildren a single question: 'What is God?' The film, 'Oh My God,' sold only a handful of tickets when released in November 2009 and cost Peter Rodger as much as $200,000 of his own money, drawn from equity in a home, according to his ex-wife’s court filings, in addition to years of lost income." The New York Times article is clearly the superior source of all three and the other two should be deleted.

   Done

• The film's failure drove Rodger's father into debt and forced him to pause his child support payments The New York Times article mentioned in the previous suggestion can be used as the source for this claim. Additionally, the ref note can be placed at the end of both sentences, negating the need for it to be placed twice.

   Not done Left the Radar Online source as I think it does a better job explaining this

• Rodger's stepmother became concerned with his unwillingness to socialize and made him stop playing his video games causing tensions between the two to escalate. These tensions escalated and Rodger was ejected from his father's house These two sentences are given in total 5 references. But the sentences only contain 4 claims:

Rodger's stepmother became concerned^{Claim #1} with his unwillingness to socialize and made him stop playing his video games^{Claim #2} causing tensions between the two to escalate.^{Claim #3} These tensions escalated and Rodger was ejected from his father's house.^{Claim #4}

Claim #1	Claim #2	Claim #3	Claim #4
Stepmother's concern	Stop playing video games	Tensions escalate	Ejected from father's house

The only reason why 5 references would need to be supplied is an argument that 2 of the references somehow only verify half a claim (and thus would need to be combined). If that were the case, then 5 might be needed to cover all four claims, mathematically speaking. However, none of the claims shown in the table above are capable of being split in half. So that argument would fail. Logically speaking, at most, there should only be four references. Without looking at these 5 references, my guess is that two or more of them have overlapping claims. My suggestion is that the nominator review all 5 sources and choose from among them, those that give the most economical sourcing available. If one of them covers 4 claims, then perfect! We can use just that one. If two of them have overlapping claims, then those two can be used and the other three can be deleted. And so on, and so forth.  Spintendo  05:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Spintendo Everything okay? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done Fixed

• He stated that this marked a turning point in which he began to see sex as something that should be eliminated entirely It's not clear what Rodger means by eliminating sex entirely. From humanity? This could be clarified.

   Done

• and Rodger took up screenwriting and inventing, which he believed would be shortcuts to success, but he quickly gave up when he felt challenged "Took up" makes it sound as if this was something Rodger started doing immediately. So the question is, what did he screenwrite or invent, until at least he apparently felt challenged and then gave up? Also, one could say that a person who felt challenged to be an inventor would take up inventing in order to answer that challenge. However, here we have Rodger being challenged and then quitting. Perhaps this needs to be worded differently. Whom or what was he challenged by? and why did those challenges move him away from those activities rather than towards them?

  Changed

• Disliking high school and determined to graduate early, Rodger attended classes more regularly and earned top grades, graduating from Independence Continuation High School in 2010. It's not clear how attending classes more regularly and earning top grades would enable Rodger to "graduate early". If anything, doing those things would only enable him to graduate on time. On the otherhand, not attending class regularly and getting poor grades would delay his graduation. But good grades and good attendance alone would not enable him to graduate early, because high school doesn't work that way, unless this continuation high school operated in a manner which was distinct from most high schools, which might be the case, as far as continuation schools go. This could be clarified.

   Done

• During this period, Rodger spent increasing amounts of time playing video games, including World of Warcraft, at home, avoiding social interactions. WoW is an MMORPG, meaning situations where the player is working through the games alone are limited. Therefore, describing gameplay in an MMORPG as an attempt at "avoiding social interactions" is arguably problematic. I know the intention was to describe this as avoiding in person, face to face social interactions, as one could say that talking on the telephone is avoiding social interactions; however, it is still interacting with other people. Perhaps this should be clarified.
  •  Done
• Rodger subsequently enrolled at Taft. The larger student body heightened his anxiety, and he was withdrawn after experiencing an anxiety attack during his first week. This reads as if he was withdrawn (emotion state) rather than withdrawn (taken out of school). The sentence should specify which one. Also, 3 references are provided for this claim. All three confirm the information provided, so there is no tangible reason for all three to remain. Please choose two references and delete them.

• Done

• During this period, Rodger spent increasing amounts of time playing video games, including World of Warcraft, mostly at home, and retreated more from in-person social interactions This claim is given three references which all three equally verify. There is no need for all three. Please choose two and delete them.

• Done

• His parents later transferred him to Independence Continuation High School, a smaller program they believed would provide a more supportive environment This should be deleted. A newer suggestion about the mentioning of Independence continuation high school is shown below lower in this section.

• Removed

• While Rodger did not meet the criteria to be diagnosed with autism Note: I know that this was originally a suggestion that I made to remove the additional info about autism out of the article, but how it was rewritten after my suggestion was too opaque. I believe now that a note would be the best solution to explaining the differing diagnoses of autism through the years, because a note takes that info out of the article's main body of text and places it below where it is less obtrusive. Newer suggestion: This claim would be correct the year it was made with Rodger, but as of today, it's outdated. According to Wikipedia, PDD-NOS is an historic psychiatric diagnosis first defined in 1980 and last defined in the DSM-IV but has since 2013 been incorporated under autism spectrum disorder in the DSM-5. Thus, stating that Rodger did not meet the criteria for autism may have been correct at the time, but is no longer correct by today's standards. I think this would make a good note (with a Notes section placed after See also but before the References section) using the {{efn}} template. The note should specify that PDD-NOS was reclassified under autism with the DSM-5. Use this reference: doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2188 for the note, and place the note immediately after the claim that Rodger did not meet the criteria for autism.

• Done

• He urged his mother to marry a wealthy man but she refused to remarry, and Rodger later pursued screenwriting and inventing, believing they could serve as shortcuts to success, but gave up on these pursuits after encountering difficulties he found discouraging. This sentence is very run-on-ish, and could use a re-write. In particular, the fact that he found difficulties "discouraging" (who doesn't?) seems like an odd thing to say.

• Changed

• Disliking high school, Rodger attended classes more regularly and earned better grades at Independence Continuation High School, graduating in 2010. This is another rewrite which is still confusing. People who dislike school may be inclined to visit their classes less often. Either Rodger attended class regularly or he attended irregularly (by missing classes) but there is no "more regularly". The fact that he disliked high school (but liked continuation high school) can be clarified by wikilinking to Continuation high school. As it stands now, it reads as if Rodger—because he hated high school—chose to go more often to high school. That is confusing. My suggestion would be: "Disliking the milieu of standardized high schools, Rodger began attending classes regularly at Independence, a continuation high school, where he earned better grades, eventually graduating in 2010." Note: this newer mentioning of Independence supplants the earlier mentioning of the same school higher up in these suggestions. As it stands, Independence is mentioned at two different locations in the Middle years section of the article, when it need only be mentioned once.

• Done

• Rodger later pursued screenwriting and inventing as possible paths to success but abandoned efforts. I would reword this to "Rodger later pursued screenwriting and inventing as possible paths to success, but eventually abandoned these efforts."

•  Done

• Rodger later pursued screenwriting and inventing as possible paths to success but abandoned efforts. Another point about this sentence. It's given three references. The Business Insider reference, although sounding like an opinion piece, states: After deciding that more money and success would help him with women, he settled on a few possible paths to wealth: one was becoming a screenwriter, but after working at it for a while, he concluded that it was simply too hard, and, besides, even successful screenwriters didn’t really make the kind of money he coveted. He also fantasized about creating a world-changing invention, as Mark Zuckerberg did with Facebook, but the hoped-for idea never materialized. Despite this source appearing as an opinion piece, it seems to cover all the claims in the sentence. It's not known why the other two references are provided. If there is no need for them, they should be deleted.

•  Done

• Rodger's stepmother became concerned with his unwillingness to socialize and made him stop playing his video games, causing tensions between the two to escalate. This is given three references. The NYTimes states: The boy hardly spoke, spending even more time immersed in his video game; at home, he fought with his stepmother when she told him to get offline. So it's not clear why the other two references have been provided, as this seems to cover all the claims. If there is no need for them, they should be deleted.

•  Done

• Disliking the milieu of standardized high schools, Rodger began attending classes regularly at Independence, a continuation high school, where he earned better grades, eventually graduating in 2010. As I suggested earlier, continuation high school should be Wikilinked. You might even Wikilink Independence, although, as it's a stand-in link and not a direct link (none exists) it would not be necessary.

•  Done

• Rodger wrote that he read online discussions about teenage sexual activity that intensified his feelings of envy, leading him to view sexually active peers as enemies.[30] He stated that this marked a turning point in which he began to believe that sexual activity should not be allowed for others.[30] There does not need to be two refnotes to number 30 in these two sentences. One placed at the end of the second sentence is sufficient.

•  Done

Later life section

• Rodger's father referred him to his friend master builder Karl Champley, and Rodger worked for Champley in construction for a time The application of the archaic term master builder referring to the individual's level of expertise in construction seems out of place being mentioned here. Was Rodger's official workplace relationship here that of apprentice? The two terms seem to necessitate each other, however, Rodger's work title for such a short time would appear irrelevant. If that's the case, then so would be the mentioning of Champley's role, which need only be referred to as an employer in construction

  Changed but left Karl Champley in as he is notable to mention

• Seeing his friend as weak, Rodger eventually revealed his thoughts of taking over the world and killing people. Revealed to whom, the friend?

   Done

• By age 18, Rodger had ceased his mental health treatment and refused to take his prescribed medication This is given three references. TheWeek source appears to be a paraphrase of an LA Times opinion article, and thus should not be used. The RadarOnline reference says that this claim originated from a "source close to the family". I would use that reference alone, and change the wording to indicate that it was "according to a source close to the family, as relayed to RadarOnline, by age 18 Rodger had ceased..." etc.

• Done

• Rodger soon enrolled at Moorpark College, attracted by its smaller size and appealing aesthetics This claim is adequately covered by ref note 46 (Ventura County Star). There is no need for the other two references.

• Done

• Rodger took comfort in the knowledge that his best friend, whom he had known since childhood, was also a virgin, but could not understand why his friend was not angry with women, as he was. Seeing his friend as weak, Rodger eventually confessed to him his thoughts of taking over the world and killing people. Their friendship grew strained, and Rodger's friend began to distance himself. This is given five references. The Mirror source does not appear to confirm anything listed here. The News 24 source (part 4) states James, as his oldest friend and also a virgin, is a comfort to Elliot. However, he cannot understand James’ lack of interest in exacting revenge on the world, and concludes James must be inferior as a result. The News24 source (part 5) states James, meanwhile, after 14 years of being Elliot’s one constant friend, is finally too disturbed by Elliot, and ends the friendship. Thus I would keep the dual News 24 sources and delete the other three references.

• Done

• Rodger shared his disturbing fantasies with other friends, which led those friends to also distance themselves This is somewhat of a repeat of the information above, and since it does not mention any of these other friends by name or position in Elliots life (i.e., "best friend") and because Elliot ostensibly had no friends to begin with, it's an insignificant detail that ought to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• I have left this in as this Hollywood Life source states "Elliot Rodger: Friend Philip Bloeser Said He Had No Idea He Was Friends With A ‘Mass Murderer’. Elliot was incredibly shy and awkward his entire life and it was clear he had issues, but there was never anything to suggest he was capable of this,” Philip told The Daily Mail. “He never displayed anything even bordering on violence or aggression. If I’d had even the faintest idea I would have done something. Back in January he posted something slightly worrying on Facebook. It wasn’t extreme or aggressive, but he seemed depressed,” he continued. He went on to say that he had reached out to Elliot’s mother, Li Chin Rodger, about Elliot’s worrying behavior, and Li Chin told him that he was already “being treated for mental health problems."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I see, but the prose speaks of "other friends who distanced themselves" whereas Mr. Bloeser sounds more like a concerned, yet uninformed friend who reached out to Rodger's mother, rather than one who distanced himself.  Spintendo  20:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have changed it to match the source. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Rodger enrolled at Los Angeles Pierce College but soon left after seeing too many happy couples, causing him feelings of anger. This is given three sources. The Wrap source states "He enrolled and dropped out of Pierce college. His mother told him to get a job but instead Rodger spent his days at Barnes and Noble reading books, trying to self educate, but grew enraged every time he saw couples. “Whenever I saw this I got so overcome by envy and heartbreak that I went to the bathroom to cry.” This text does not indicate that the happy couples he saw were at Pierce College. The Ventura County Star source qoutes the manifesto, with Rodger saying of Moorpark College "I also saw a lot more beautiful girls there than I ever saw at Pierce," going on to state "But ... that sense of hope only lasted a few days. 'Moorpark soon became a place of loneliness and despair, just like any other place I've attempted to thrive in.' Rodger ... wrote he was filled with envy at a couple in one of his classes. 'I couldn't stand seeing that damnable couple in my class anymore. I never understood what that pretty girl saw in her brute of a boyfriend.' The VC Star source seems to indicate that it was Moorpark, and not Pierce, where his viewing of "happy couples" made him uncomfortable. If that is the case, this sentence should be corrected or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been changed to Rodger enrolled at Los Angeles Pierce College but soon left but the three references still remain. The Wrap states: He enrolled and dropped out of Pierce college. With The Wrap seeming to cover the sentence, it's not clear why the other two sources have remained. If these are not needed, they can both be deleted.  Spintendo  18:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

• When his half-brother began to show signs of sociability despite his own social disadvantages at that age, Rodger grew envious but enjoyed his company nonetheless. It's not clear what is meant by "signs of sociability". News24 states Elliot’s younger brother shows signs of becoming social and popular, and Elliot feels twinges of jealousy, but he still likes his brother as, 'He was one of the few people who treated me the way I wanted to be treated, with respect and adoration.' This source makes it much clearer what our prose in the Wikipedia article is trying to say. Let's reword this part of the text to better reflect that. I would suggest "Rodger's jealous feelings over his half brother's supposed popularity were mitigated by the half brother's "adoration" of Rodger." If we use only the News24 source, the other two cited sources for this claim should be deleted.

• Changed

• Rodger's father referred him to his friend Karl Champley for construction work, and Rodger worked in construction for a time. This claim contains three references when only the ABC7Chicago source need remain. It covers all of the claims adequately (by directly quoting the manifesto). The other two sources should be deleted.

•  Done

• He was hopeful at the prospect of meeting blonde women and showing a potential girlfriend around his new campus. This claim is given two references, when only the VC Star source should remain, as it adequately covers the claims in this sentence. The other source should be deleted.

•  Done

Santa Barbara subsection

• In an attempt to reduce his isolation, Rodger's parents decided to send him to college in Santa Barbara This could not have been their only motivation for him going to college. The standard motivation of generally wanting to send a child to college also remains there, so the phrasing which suggests reducing isolation was the only motivation worth mentioning seems wrong here. In essence, his parents sent him to another college because the last one didn't work, and the only true motivation here is that they find a college that works for him so he can graduate. How that college works (whether through reduced isolation or whatever) is really immaterial and secondary to him just finishing college in the first place. The mentioning of it being "an attempt at reducing his isolation" should be deleted.

   Done

• They agreed to pay for his apartment and college classes, and were optimistic participating in a college community would encourage Rodger to make friends Again, the parent's motivations absent any reasoning is odd. What is it about community colleges that led them to believe they alone would increase sociability? Because they are generally smaller in scale? Or am I reading this wrong, and the parents believed that the college community would increase his sociability. If that is so, why then, didn't Moorpark College work? The prose said Rodger did not like it there and dropped out. Was there no college community at Moorpark? I think the article mentioning the parents' decisions and their motivations behind these decisions but not giving the thought processes informing their decisions is problematic - in other words, mentioning that the parents thought a college community might work for Rodger in one paragraph, even though they already had evidence from Moorpark (described in another paragraph) that the college experience didn't work. This can be confusing for the reader. If these are two fundamentally different college experiences (Moorpark vs Santa Barbara) then it would be helpful for the reader to know this. If the parents were operating under that assumption (of a different college experience) then that would be informing their decisions. The reader should know this as well perhaps.

   Done

• Rodger agreed to the plan after watching the crime drama film Alpha Dog (2006). Thinking about the film, Rodger believed moving to Santa Barbara would give him the chance to attend parties and lose his virginity But if Rodger is being informed by the film, wouldn't this also necessitate him being kidnapped? I'm not really following his thought process here, which seems schizotypal at this point, so I'm not sure what benefit the article has in mentioning each stray mal-informed thought he has. Ditto to phrasing such as "believing ...chance to ... lose his virginity.." Suffice it to say that by this point, anything Rodger did, day to day, was done with that goal in mind, so repeating the motivations and beliefs seems unnecessary.

   Done

• Rodger began to believe the only way he would get a girlfriend was to get rich. This mentioning in the ninth paragraph of the Santa Barbara section, is mirrored in the seventh paragraph of the Middle Years section, which stated Rodger harbored a fixation on becoming rich, believing it to be the key to gaining attention from women. One of these should be deleted.

   Done

• he believed women were wrong for rejecting him, and blamed men who were more successful than him for their rejection. This mentioning, in the fifth paragraph of the Santa Barbara section, is repeating what has been said in previous paragraphs in other sections; only the geography has changed.

   Done

This has been reworded to Rodger soon began developing a deep hatred towards the people of Isla Vista, seeing himself as a sophisticated person deserving of relationships with attractive blonde women; he believed women were wrong for spurning him and resented men he viewed as more socially successful This is still a repeat of information that has already been described. In the early years section there is He later began experiencing feelings of resentment, convinced that his life was unfair compared to his peers. His increased difficulty in establishing friendships, particularly with women, led to a sense of isolation and frustration. in the later life section He was hopeful at the prospect of meeting blonde women among others.  Spintendo  10:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

• Rodger's parents decided to send him to college in Santa Barbara. They agreed to pay for his apartment and college classes. Rodger agreed to the plan after watching the crime drama film Alpha Dog (2006). After watching the movie, Rodger believed moving to Santa Barbara would change his social circumstances. This entire passage needs only 2 sources, News24 (for the Alpha Dog source) and ABC News, rather than the nine it has now. It would also stand to benefit from having a quote from the father: "I thought that by putting him out there and giving him independence and integrating him into a normal society would very quickly help develop the skills that I thought was lacking in him." This explains the choice in colleges somewhat (not entirely, the parents are still not shown in any of the sources explaining why one college experience is better than another, but that's on them). The quote comes from the ABC News source

  Partly done. Put the News24 in the "paid for rent" part as the ABC News doesn't mention them paying his rent. Also left in the Radar Online source, as it does a better job explaining it.

• After enrolling at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), he was angered when one of his roommate's black friends said he had lost his virginity at the age of 13. Rodger retreated to his room in tears and called his mother, expressing his frustration over the attention black men received from blonde women instead of him. The ColorLines source for this claim cites New York Daily News. The New York Daily News reads like an opinion piece (it is written by Michael Kimmel and Cliff Leek, identified in the piece as "in the Sociology department as Stony Brook University") The Sun Sentinal source does not appear to confirm everything in this prose (there is only a quote that mentions race in the form of Rodger asking himself a rhetorical question). The Radar Online source only tangentially mentions being upset but nothing about calling mom. The News24 source mentions all of it (the original source for all of these is of course the manifesto). I would suggest having News 24 source this prose and the others deleted.

   Done

• While eating with his father, Rodger noticed a Hispanic man seated with a blonde woman and became jealous after seeing them kiss. He said he nearly confronted the couple and considered pouring soda on them, but refrained because his father was present, stating that the incident left him feeling humiliated and believing he deserved blonde women. QZ covers both of these sentences. G/O Media, who controls Quartz, is generally reliable. The information, again, is coming from the Manifesto, so the source is irrelevant. At some point we'll need to determine how much of the Wikipedia article is merely a reprint of the Manifesto, and what that means for the article. For now, I would suggest using just the QZ source for this prose and deleting the other 2 references.

   Done

• Rodger found it difficult to form relationships with several roommates and chose to spend much of his time alone The DailyNexus states "He enrolled in SBCC and lived in multiple apartments with various roommates that he did not previously know. Despite the move to Isla Vista, the suspect continued to have difficulty interacting with his peers." The New York Times states "Elliot O. Rodger was a young college student who had few friends, detested his roommates and spent much of his time alone." Thus, I would delete the Daily Nexus and Santa Barbara Independent sources and use just the NYTimes for this claim.

   Done

• When he shared a room with two Hispanic roommates, he would call them racial slurs and insist he was "superior" This claim can be sourced to the NBC Los Angeles reference. The other four sources listed for this claim can be deleted.

   Done

• Rodger started to have thoughts of killing women and couples, envisioning himself murdering them to death while they were engaged in sexual activity. "Murdering them to death" should be changed to "murdering them" or "killing them". I would also suggest clarifying that the "they" having sex whom he would kill is the hypothetical couple.

   Done

• In February 2013, Rodger called the police to report that someone had dented his car door while it was parked. He claimed that the owner of a white BMW had repeatedly dented his vehicle's door and that he confronted the person, who then apologized and promised to be more careful. Rodger contended that he didn't believe the damage was intentional, but later claimed he found additional dents on his car. A police officer and a sheriff's deputy inspected both Rodger's vehicle and the white BMW but found no damage on either car. This seems fairly trivial, I'm not sure what it adds to the article or how it enhances a reader's knowledge of the subject, except to suggest that Rodger—seemingly uncontented with his usual crop of problems—appears to have begun inventing newer ones out of thin air.

   Done

• In March 2013, Rodger purchased a SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,179.48 in Burbank The NYTimes source states "Mr. Rodger wrote that he had bought a second handgun in the spring of 2013, a Sig Sauer P226. 'It is of a much higher quality than the Glock and a lot more efficient,' he wrote. He paid $1,100 for the gun, $400 more than he had paid for his first gun." It's highly unlikely that 3 other sources are needed to verify that the gun was purchased in Burbank. I would suggest (a) decreasing the price paid for the gun by $79.48 so that it reflects the NYTimes price (b) deleting the city of purchase in the prose and (c) deleting the other three references.

  Partly done Left in the Buzzfeed News source as it explains that this was the weapon he used on his shooting rampage.

• With these plans in mind, on March 11, 2012, Rodger boarded a first-class airplane I would change this to "Rodger boarded an airplane" or "Rodger travelled to whichever city for a concert" b/c if the detail has to be here (that he flew) it would make sense to give the city.

   Done

• With these plans in mind, on March 11, 2012, Rodger took a private limousine to attend a private Katy Perry concert, tickets for which his family were given by friends. This is referenced by 3 sources, but the CNN source adequately covers all of the claims. The other 2 sources should be deleted.

   Done

• The next day, Rodger went to the red-carpet premiere of The Hunger Games with his father and stepmother, where he met Jack Ross, the 16-year-old son of the film's director Gary Ross This sentence is given 3 sources. One of them, Business Insider, reads like an opinion piece. The Wrap source covers both of the main elements of the sentence, being the premiere of Hunger Games and the meeting of Gary Ross' son. The CNN source only verifies the Hunger Games premiere. I would suggest deleting the business insider source and the CNN source and keeping the Wrap source for this sentence.

   Done

• Rodger started to amass funds for his planned attacks, saving up to $5,000 to buy supplies The New York Times source states "“These prices were of no concern to me,” he wrote, because he had more than $5,000 in his bank account meant to fund what he called his “Day of Retribution.” There is no need for the CNN source nor The Telegraph source as references for this claim, when the NYTimes source adequately covers all of the elements. The other two should be deleted. Also, the claim states that Rodger "started to amass funds" yet also says he saved up to 5,000 dollars. So at this point in the timeline, how could he already have 5,000 dollars yet had just begun saving the money? It would make more sense to say that he began saving the money, then stating in parentheses that (he eventually saved 5,000 dollars). The parenthesis help to clarify that the amassing of the total amount of 5,000 was a later development. Otherwise, this information is unclear, especially when the prose at this point appears to be going month by month (for example, the next pertinent phrase states "the following month while walking alone in a park...")

   Done

• The following month, while walking alone in a park, he saw college students playing kickball. Rodger was overwhelmed with envy when seeing blonde women interacting with men; he purchased a Super Soaker and filled it with orange juice. He returned to the park, yelled at the students and sprayed them. These sentences have 9 ref notes attached to them; the first bunch of ref notes has 2 cites, the second bunch has 4 cites, and the third bunch has 3 cites) One of the ref notes is to the NYTimes (which appears in all three bunches of ref notes) and it states "Mr. Rodger also wrote of watching “a flock of beautiful blonde girls” playing kickball one day with “fraternity jocks” in a public park. The sight so enraged him that he drove to a local Kmart and purchased a water gun, filling it with orange juice. He described what happened next, after he returned to the park: “I screamed at them with rage as I sprayed them with my super soaker.” So it's unclear why all the additional ref notes have been added to these claims when they are all suitably covered by the NYTimes. The others should be deleted.

   Done

• In August 2012, Rodger's father gave him The Secret by Rhonda Byrne, a self-help book that promotes the law of attraction. Motivated by its principles, Rodger spent a month meditating in his bedroom, imagining himself walking through a park alongside a beautiful woman This claim has the same Business Insider source from earlier which reads like an editorial. I would delete that source and retain just the CNN and The Week. (Although The Week itself sounds a bit like an editorial, I appreciate its dual suggestions that The Secret is 'drivel' and that new editions of it should include the Rodger Manifesto as a 'teaching example'. I leave it to the nominator to decide whether or not it should be retained as a source.)

   Done

• The following month, Rodger broke his laptop computer in rage after failing to win a $120 million Mega Millions jackpot. While traveling to Oxnard the next day to purchase a replacement laptop, he visited a shooting range to learn how to use a firearm, believing his "Day of Retribution" was now possible It's unclear from this prose what it is that made Rodger's belief that the day of retribution "now possible". By the time of his trip to Oxnard, the prose suggests he was already believing that the day was possible. But did that day become possible in Rodgers eyes because he failed to win the Mega Millions? From my understanding, it was his not winning any lotteries that increased his acceptance of the day of retribution being at hand. Also, this is further complicated by the prose from the next section which states "Fueled by resentment over the house party incident and his repeated rejections by women, Rodger concluded his only recourse was to enact his "Day of Retribution". But if the day of retribution were already at hand by the time of his trip to Oxnard, how is it that the house party had become (by the time of this next passage of text) "his only recourse". It seems that the article is giving differing dates and motivations for what was either "a day now becoming at hand" or a day being "his only recourse". It seems that perhaps each and every development added itself together to all be evidence for the day being "at hand" or as a "recourse", so mentioning each one (or at least more than one) is confusing in the prose. Perhaps this (or the next mentioning of the Day in the Mental health and further planning section) need to be rewritten to specify which one was a paramount 'moving factor' so to speak (the incident at the house party or the trip to Oxnard or the failure to win the mega millions).

   Done

• Still hopeful of becoming rich, Rodger drove to Arizona in November 2012 to buy tickets for the Powerball jackpot, which had been raised to $500 million. Despite driving to Arizona four times, Rodger failed to win, further angering him. Thinking this meant he would remain a virgin, Rodger began to prepare for his "Day of Retribution", choosing the city of Isla Vista as his target. In December 2012, Rodger bought a Glock 34 Long Slide semi-automatic pistol for $755.57 at a firearms dealer in Goleta, California. These 4 sentences are all given ref number 43, this CNN source, as a reference. I think it would be economical if we limited the ref notes to just the CNN source, since it covers all of the claims here. Furthermore, the ref note could be placed (only once) at the end of the fourth sentence, since it covers all of the claims coming before it.

   Done

• Rodger scheduled his attacks to take place around Halloween 2013, but he realized the heightened police presence during the holiday would thwart his plans. I would change this to read as "Rodger initially scheduled his attacks to take place around Halloween 2013, but he realized the heightened police presence during the holiday would likely thwart his plans."

   Done

• He began to plan his attacks for sometime in November 2013 Change to "He replanned his attacks for sometime in November 2013."

   Done

• Rodger's parents decided to send him to college in Santa Barbara and agreed to pay for his apartment and classes. This is given three references. The News 24 source states Elliot’s parents realize he needs direction. They organize him a life coach, and they convince him to go to college in Santa Barbara. Elliot has wanted to go to Santa Barbara since watching a movie called Alpha Dog The CNN source states It was his working mother’s generosity to her adult son, including paying his rent and the gift of a used BMW 328i, that allowed Rodger to live in the college community of Isla Vista These two are sufficient enough. I had previously suggested pairing this down to 2 references.

   Done

• His father stated that he believed giving Rodger independence and incorporating him into a social environment would help him develop socially. I had originally suggested using the actual quote from the Rodger father. What was re-written is still not any better than just using the quote from the father ("...incorporating him into a social environment would help him develop socially.." is a bit inarticulate) so I'm gently suggesting it again: "I thought that by putting him out there and giving him independence and integrating him into a normal society would very quickly help develop the skills that I thought was lacking in him." That quote comes from this ABC News source.

  Changed

• When he shared a room with two Hispanic roommates This probably should read as them sharing an apartment, not a room.

   Done

• The roommate asked to be assigned a new apartment At this point in the prose I'm not sure it's clear whom is being "asked" to assign a new apartment for this person. This could be made clearer which authority is being asked, in other words, who is coordinating the apartment dwellings. Later in another section it states "In September 2013, he was assigned a random apartment, where he gained two new roommates" but at this point It's not clear who the assigning authority is. Another point: If the college is the one doing the assigning for the apartment buildings, then the earlier need for different references where one states that the parents paid for the apartment and another which states the parents paid for college would be irrelevant (in other words, paying for one thing—college—gets you the other thing—the apartment)

  Changed

• In January 2012, while driving past a bus stop, Rodger attempted to engage two blonde women by smiling; when they did not return the smile, he turned his car around and splashed them with his latté. This is given three sources. The Washington Post article reads like an opinion piece, and probably shouldn't be used. The Forbes article states: When he was 20, after two women at a bus stop didn't smile back at him when he drove by, he turned his car around and splashed them with his Starbucks latte, taking pleasure in it staining their jeans, driving away quickly before they could get his license plate. The CNN source states Rodger wrote that he splashed two “hot blonde girls” with his Starbucks latte at an Isla Vista bus stop after they 'didn’t even deign to smile back' after he smiled at them. Thus, either the Forbes piece or the CNN source should be used, but not both.

  Done

• Rodger soon developed an obsession with designer clothing, purchasing items in an attempt to elevate his status This is given three references. Buzzfeed states While in college he also began wearing designer clothing and seemed confused and angry that the women he found attractive still apparently preferred other men. News 24 states Elliot becomes more and more obsessed with clothes, and starts to wear exclusively designer items. The LA Times states: He obsessed over designer clothes and began playing the lottery, even driving to Arizona to buy Powerball tickets because the game wasn't available in California. He wrote about what he would do with his winnings. 'I will be able to fully indulge in everything I'm passionate about: exotic cars, luxurious mansions, expensive clothes, and of course, sex with beautiful girls' Thus I would choose one of these sources as the reference and delete the other two.

  Done

• He began saving money for his planned attacks (eventually saving up to $5,000) to buy supplies,[72] money he had saved from gifts from his grandparents and the $500 monthly allowance from his father.[21][43][54] Ref note 21 (LA Times - written by Serna, Mather, and Covarrubias) does not confirm the information for which the ref note has been placed. Ref note 54 (LA Times - written by Mozingo, Covarrubias, and Winton) states Rodger wrote that he first began to plan his "Day of Retribution" in the spring of 2013. He bought his first gun at "Goleta Gun and Supply," a Glock 34 with $700 he had saved from money given to him by his parents and grandmothers. the CNN source states He bought his three handguns with money saved from gifts from grandparents and the $500 a month his father sent him, according to Rodger’s writing. Thus, I would use the CNN source for this portion of the sentence and delete both of the LA Times citations. For the first portion of this sentence, the NYTimes source (ref note 72) which has already been placed is adequate.

  Done

• Still hopeful of becoming rich, Rodger drove to Arizona in November 2012 to buy tickets for the Powerball jackpot, which had been raised to $500 million. Despite driving to Arizona four times, Rodger failed to win, further angering him. This reads oddly. It starts by describing one drive to Arizona in Nov 2012, but then states "despite driving to Arizona four times..." So did these 4 trips to Arizona all take place in November? If so, I would reword this to Still hopeful of becoming rich, Rodger drove on four separate occasions to Arizona in November 2012 to buy tickets for the Powerball jackpot, which had been raised to $500 million. Rodger failed to win, further angering him.

  Changed

• In March 2013, Rodger purchased a SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,100 in Burbank I would link this to the preceding paragraph and change the wording so that it reads as: "He purchased another handgun, a SIG Sauer P226, in Burbank for $1,100 in March 2013." That way, both sentences would read as "In December 2012, Rodger bought a Glock 34 Long Slide semi-automatic pistol for $755.57 at a firearms dealer in Goleta, California. He purchased another handgun, a SIG Sauer P226, in Burbank for $1,100 in March 2013." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

   Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The wording has been changed, but the two sentences have been placed in separate paragraphs. My initial suggestion was meant for both of the sentences to be right next to each other in the article, since the wording was modified to complement each other. (I could have been clearer about that in my initial suggestion. My apologies.) Additionally, these two sentences have a combined ref note count of five sources amongst them. Is it possible to reduce that number to 2?  Spintendo  00:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• Changed and left in the LA times source as it explains the price for the guns.

• Rodger initially joined them for social activities but after a few outings, he began to distance himself. One of the roommates suspected Rodger possessed a firearm after hearing a clicking sound from his room numerous times. Both of his roommates moved out in June 2013, having become uncomfortable living with Rodger. This is given three references. I would suggest using only the Time Magazine source, and deleting the other two. None of the three sources seemed to confirm that "Rodger initially joined them for social activities but after a few outings, he began to distance himself".

  Changed the source to add that Rodger joined them for activities for a few times

• While traveling to Oxnard the following day to purchase a replacement, he visited a shooting range to learn how to use a firearm, which he later described as reinforcing his belief that his planned “Day of Retribution” needed to proceed This reads as if simply visiting a shooting range reinforced his belief that this day needed to proceed. I could see this happening if he had never been to a shooting range, and after going once, he realized a nascent ability to shoot well. But was that the case here? Our clue is the text "....to learn how to use a firearm..." So was this his first time at a range? That should be made clearer if that was the case (that it was his first time).

  Changed

• While traveling to Oxnard the following day to purchase a replacement, he visited a shooting range to learn how to use a firearm, which he later described as reinforcing his belief that his planned “Day of Retribution” needed to proceed The CNN source states: Rodger “threw a wild tantrum, screaming and crying for hours on end” when he did not win the Mega Millions $120 million jackpot on September 11, 2012, he wrote. “I had the knowledge, in the back of my mind, that the Day of Retribution was very possible now.” So the CNN source seems to indicate that it was failure to win the lottery which reinforced his belief that the day should occur, rather than his trip to the shooting range. To sum up these two suggestions, I think that it (1) should state that the trip to Oxnard was his first visit to a shooting range and (2) either mention his "re-inforcing" as coming from losing the lottery rather than the trip to the gun range, or don't mention it at all.....claims of "reinforcement" are spotty anyways to begin with (Elliot seems to make anything and everything a "reinforcement" of the day) and should probably just be avoided. But I'll leave that up to nominator's discretion. Final suggestion (3) keep one reference for this claim and delete the other two.

  Changed

• He replanned his attacks for sometime in November 2013 This is worded perfectly, but it's unclear why this has three references. One should be retained and the other two deleted.

   Done

• Rodger's parents decided to send him to college in Santa Barbara and agreed to pay for his apartment and classes This claim is given two references. The News24 source states: His parents pay for his college, his car, his allowance, and, once he moves, his apartment. This would seem to adequately cover all of the claims in this text, so the News24 source should be kept and the other reference should be deleted.

   Done

• On June 4, 2011, Rodger moved into the Capri Apartments in Isla Vista near the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) campus This claim is given two references. The Daily Nexus states: "On the morning of May 24, authorities obtained a search warrant for Rodger’s apartment at unit #7 of 6598 Seville Road, then known as Capri Apartments..." and "According to the report, Rodger moved to Isla Vista on June 4, 2011 ..." These two passages of text demonstrate that the Daily Nexus is adequate enough for the claims mentioned here, and that the other reference should be deleted.

   Done

• That same month, Rodger saw another couple kissing at a food court; he followed them in his car and splashed them with iced tea. This is given three references. The Ann Coulter article is an opinion piece, and shouldn't be used as a source. Buzzfeed and CNN both equally reference this claim, so one should be chosen and the other deleted. Also it's unclear, if he saw this couple at the food court, how he followed them with his car (was it a drive-in food court?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 08:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

One reference has been removed, but my suggestion was that two references be removed. Either the CNN source should remain, or the Buzzfeed source should remain, but both should not remain. There need only be one source for this.  Spintendo  19:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done

Incident at house party section

• On July 20, 2013, Rodger was intent on losing his virginity days before his 22nd birthday; he drank vodka to ease his nerves before attending a house party with the hope of engaging with women. As he entered the house, Rodger saw an Asian man talking with a blonde woman. Rodger became angry and deliberately bumped into the man as he walked by them. Frustrated by his inability to talk with women at the party, he climbed a 10-foot (3.0 m) ledge and pretended to shoot people with his finger. He began insulting a group of women around him, and when he attempted to shove them off the ledge, a group of men pushed Rodger off, resulting in him getting a fractured ankle. While attempting to leave the party, Rodger realized that he had lost his sunglasses. Still intoxicated, he attempted to return to the party but mistakenly entered another house, where he was assaulted by the occupants, sustaining bruises and scrapes to his forearms, elbows, and knuckles, and a swollen left eye. Following this incident, Rodger also ended up losing his necklace and returned to his apartment. This narrative is a bit choppy. I would suggest focusing on the two main events of the evening:

"On July 20, 2013, Rodger was intent on losing his virginity days before his 22nd birthday; he drank vodka to ease his nerves before attending attended a house party. with the hope of engaging with women. As he entered the house, Rodger saw an Asian man talking with a blonde woman. Rodger became angry and deliberately bumped into the man as he walked by them. Frustrated by his inability to talk with women there at the party, he climbed a 10-foot (3.0 m) ledge and pretended to shoot people with his finger. He began insulting a group of women around him, and when he attempted to shove them off the ledge, a group of men pushed Rodger off, resulting in him getting a fractured ankle. While attempting to leave the party, Rodger realized that he had lost his sunglasses. Still intoxicated, he attempted to return to the party but mistakenly entered another house, where he was assaulted by the occupants, sustaining bruises and scrapes to his forearms, elbows, and knuckles, and a swollen left eye. Following this incident, Rodger also ended up and a losing his lost necklace. and returned to his apartment."

(Presumably, the lost sunglasses could also be added to the end of this final tally of Rodger's indignities at the house party contretemps, but they are already mentioned earlier in the prose as his reason for re-entering the secondary mistaken-for house.)

• Partly done: left in the parts where he bumped into the man and showed up at the party drunk. I feel like those two parts are important to keep.

• Rodger claimed that he was pushed off the ledge by four men after insulting one of their appearances. He stated that he then went to the front yard of another house and sat down on a chair, where he was approached by approximately ten men who told him to leave. Rodger claimed he was grabbed by them and dragged to the house's driveway, where the men began hitting and calling him a homophobic slur; he remarked he struck one of them once before being further beaten. The police would classify it as a possible hate crime. When asked why he did not call the police, Rodger said he did not know who to contact. A deputy remarked on Rodger's dishonesty, deeming him too timid to tell the truth. A man at the party confirmed Rodger instigated the incident, noting he acted strangely and did not talk to anyone. A neighbor saw Rodger returning home in tears, swearing to kill his assailants and contemplating suicide. The sheriff's office concluded Rodger was the instigator, and the investigation was closed without further action. Rodger was not arrested nor further interrogated. Ref note #90, the LA Times source, covers all of these claims adequately (except the claim "A neighbor saw Rodger returning home in tears, swearing to kill his assailants and contemplating suicide." which seems out of place - as it doesn't give a date for this) so I see no reason for the additional cites in these claims. They should all be deleted and the LA Times source placed at the end of this prose.

   Done For the part neighbor part, this source says: "Chris Pollard, a neighbour, tried to calm him, but Rodger got angry – “I’m going to kill them. I’m going to kill myself,” he yelled. Afterwards, Rodger chastised himself for nearly giving himself away. But his real secret life was being played out online." This source says: "A neighbor interviewed by CNN after the massacre would recall seeing Elliot when he came back from Del Playa Drive, beaten up and sobbing uncontrollably. According to the neighbor, Elliot said, “I’m going to kill all of them. I’m going to kill myself.”

Ok, thank you for clarifying that, so those two details, what the neighbor heard Rodger say and how the neighbor tried to console him, are both important, and because those two important bits come from two sources, Mother Jones and CNN (the CNN source mirrors the MJ source except for that consolation detail) they should both be kept in then.  Spintendo  17:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Upon entering, he saw an Asian man speaking with a blonde woman and deliberately bumped into him while walking past. This claim is given three references. The Ann Coulter article, as I mentioned earlier, is an opinion piece and should not be used as a source. Although there has been no finite decision on the reliability of Psychology Today, past discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard such as this one, another one and this one seem to cast doubt on the appropriateness of many of its articles, which some editors have compared to a blog. I would not be inclined to use it as a source. As for Quartz, this discussion didn't seem to find any issues with it so far, so I would suggest using the Quartz source for this claim and deleting the other two.

  Done

• Frustrated by his inability to interact with women at the party, Rodger climbed a 10-foot (3.0 m) ledge and pretended to shoot people with his finger. He then insulted a group of women, and when he attempted to shove them off the ledge, a group of men pushed Rodger off, fracturing his ankle These claims are given no less than 6 total references. Among those 6 references is the Wall Street Journal, which states: "Last summer, he showed up alone and drunk to a party and started pretending to shoot people, insulting a group of students and, then enraged when a group of girls allegedly ignored him, trying to push them off a 10-foot ledge, he wrote. A group of boys at the party ultimately threw Mr. Rodger off the ledge and beat him up, which left him on crutches, he wrote. This source is more than adequate for these claims, the other 5 sources can be deleted.

  Changed to the Mother Jones source as it did a better job explaining it

• While attempting to leave, Rodger realized he had lost his sunglasses. Still intoxicated, he attempted to return to the party but mistakenly entered another house, where he was assaulted by the occupants, sustaining bruises and scrapes to his forearms, elbows, and knuckles, a swollen left eye, and losing his necklace before returning to his apartment This is given three references. The LA Times says "He tried to go back to find his missing Gucci sunglasses, he said, but stumbled into the yard where the fight later happened. "A whole group of the obnoxious brutes came up and dragged me onto their driveway, pushing and hitting me," he wrote. " Two suggestions here: (I) this prose could be shortened. In particular, subjective wording such as "realized that he had lost" and "while attempting to leave" and "mistakenly entered" need to be deleted. These can simply be described as "went looking for his sunglasses", and "entered", and (II) the LA Times should serve as the source for these claims, and the other two sources should be deleted.

  left in the ABC News source as the LA Times source doesn't mention Rodger losing his necklace

Mental health and further planning section

• Hindered by his fractured ankle, he postponed his planned attacks until early 2014 Because the prose had earlier in the Santa Barbara section mentioned a timeframe from whence Rodger had planned for his attacks but then suffered a date change due to circumstances beyond his control (see my earlier suggestion under that section for "He replanned his attacks for sometime in November 2013.") I'm wondering if this further date change should be reflected in the prose by stating something like "Hindered by his fractured ankle, he again postponed his planned attacks until early 2014." That way the reader can more easily see that this was a sequence of plans, made and then remade, more than a handful of times. Without stating "again" in the prose, it reads that perhaps this was his first postponement when it was actually the second postponement thus far.

   Done

• Later that same month, Rodger's family invited Humphreys's daughter to their home for dinner. What month would that be? I know that this section starts off by stating August 2013, but because the prose then delves off into the discussion of a time change (to "early 2014") the reader could do with being given a gentle reminder that it's still August we're referring to. Perhaps "Later that same month August, Rodger's family invited Humphrey's...." Also, the last mention of Humphrey by this point was way back in the Early life section, so perhaps his name could be Wikilinked here once again.

   Done

• Rodger's parents sought more professional help for him, leading to therapy sessions with controversial psychiatrist Charles Sophy, who began treating Rodger in late 2012. Do we know how many sessions this practitioner had with Rodger? The manifesto says that Rodger stopped seeing him immediately after being prescribed Risperdal. The Wikipedia article states that their sessions lasted one year (from late 2012 to late 2013). If both are correct, then it's extremely odd that a psychiatrist took an entire year to see a patient before prescribing them one single medication. If in fact it was less than 5 sessions, I don't know that his being mentioned by name is relevant. It could be stated that a psychiatrist of the Rodger parents choosing prescribed Risperdal which Rodger refused to take. Also, it sounds odd describing the physician in this sentence as both "professional" and "controversial". I know that the word "professional" is being used here to describe what the parents felt that they wanted, so it's in their voice (as it should be) and not Wikipedia's, but it still reads weird when combined with the description of him as being "controversial" (using Wikipedia's voice, also as it should be). So the question is, what do we do when we're describing him correctly in both instances but it still doesn't sound right?....Perhaps leaving out his name altogether would help, because then we don't even need to go into any of those details. Let me know your thoughts on this.

   Done I left in Charles Sophy as he is notable.

• Sophy prescribed the antipsychotic drug risperidone, which Rodger decided not to take after researching it online This is linked to the suggestion above. I think that saying it was a psychiatrist of the Rodger parents choosing who prescribed Risperdal which Rodger never took, is sufficient enough. Sophy need not be mentioned if their sessions were of minute number and importance. (This begs the question: if Rodger thought so little of Sophy's drug recommendations, why then email him a copy of the manifesto? My guess is that he sent his manifesto to a person Rodger likely viewed as being a fame-chasing dilettante, and that Rodger felt so little of Sophy that Sophy's only useful attribute was as post-death messenger.)

   Done

• Linderman suggested moving away from Isla Vista would be beneficial for his mental health, but Rodger dismissed the idea Linderman's suggestion is unclear. So Rodger met with him, and his only suggestion of import was to leave town? That is literally all that is being said about this therapist (who is not WL because they are not, I assume, independently notable in Wikipedia). Or did he recommend what Li Chin eventually offered (help him find a residential treatment center where he could get therapy every day, or he could move back home and receive intensive treatment from a therapist and social worker) but is given no credit for (in the Wikipedia article)? If the answer is no, his only advice was to leave town, then his input and its mentioning in the article ought to be deleted. If the answer is yes, then Li Chin's Ultimatum (as it were) needs to give proper credit as coming from Linderman (or being inspired by).

   Done changed it

• During his treatment with Sophy, he prescribed the antipsychotic drug risperidone This should be reworded as During his treatment with Sophy, he was prescribed the antipsychotic drug risperidone OR During his treatment with Sophy, he Sophy prescribed the antipsychotic drug risperidone

   Done

• Rodger's mother later bought him a used 2008 black BMW 328i Coupé for $40,000, I know that this is what the two sources kind-of say, but there is no way a used 328i cost Li Chin $40,000. That was the price of a new 328i coupe in 2014. My belief is that the sources (which both state it was a "$40,000 BMW") were speaking of the car at its original price. Similar to someone talking about "$50,000 Porsche", when people refer to cars in this way, they usually mean the new price (for verbal effect). No one says "she was driving a $15,000 Audi" in order to stress the affordable value of the car at that price. For verbal effect, when people speak of a "such and such priced car" they inevitably mean the higher price for the semantic effect. Long story short, I don't believe that this price should be included in the article since it was likely a semantic effect meant by the sources. If we have to get technical about it, the sources never explicitly state that 40K is what she paid for the car. They merely state that it was "a 40K car." That is large enough of an ambiguity to drive a 328i through.

   Done

• Rodger's father sought assistance from his friend Dale Launer, a filmmaker who is known for his work on relationship-themed movies, to improve his son's interactions with women. Launer agreed to help, and he and Rodger communicated via email and met in person; however, Rodger found Launer's guidance to be ineffective. His mother enlisted the help of an agency that provided three counselors. Instances where Peter and Elliot are mentioned in the same couple of sentences describing an event—especially when those sentences begin with Peter's communications (contacting Launer) and end with Elliot's communications (with Launer)—can quickly become muddled. This section of text in particular: The reader can easily misread that Peter is the one doing all the contacting throughout this small section. But the third sentence uses a pronoun which, if one was thinking it was Peter, becomes confusing when it seems to be ostensibly mentioning Peter's mother ("his mother enlisted..."). (Oops!) Perhaps this could be re-written to better clarify whom is contacting who, and be sure to use first names when both Rodgers are mentioned in the same section of prose (dealing with the same event).

  changed

• he connected well with two male counselors but became jealous when they became social It's not clear how a counselor "becomes social". It's usually a tenet of counseling that counselors do not involve themselves socially with those that they counsel. With that in mind, it's not clear what the prose is suggesting here; was Elliot's counseling relationship compromised?

  changed

• He formed a connection with a female counselor but was offended by the suggestion that he required paid female companionship, comparing it to being with a prostitute. This is given three references, however, only the Mother Jones article is necessary to source these claims. The other two sources should be deleted.

   Done

Behavior with others subsection

• The following semester, Rodger enrolled in classes but quickly withdrew from them. In September 2013, Rodger was assigned a random apartment, where he gained two new roommates: 20-year-old Weihan "David" Wang and 20-year-old Cheng Yuan "James" Hong. As Wang's mother helped her son move his belongings into the apartment, she urged the three to take care of each other, advice which Rodger quickly rejected. This paragraph is problematic in that it contains little in the way of substantial information. What exactly does "quickly withdrew" actually mean? Technically speaking one can enroll in classes and then "quickly withdraw" before the scheduled classes even begin to meet. One could also attend a couple classes and then withdraw. My point is that the reader does not gain any vibrant information in this retelling. Wang's mother and the pro forma farewell she gives is also irrelevant; worse still is the almost facetious accounting that Rodger ultimately failed to adhere to the mother's verbal contract of the three because all three are no longer living, not to mention the fact that what Wang's mother was offering was nothing Rodger needed to reject. He could (and did) simply ignore it as motherly pleasantries rather than some sort of mandate to either assent to or reject. Describing the eight-month time shift from move-in to murder as "quickly rejected" is also debatable.

  Changed it

• In October 2013, Rodger's envy of his half-brother intensified upon learning from his stepmother he had secured opportunities to appear in television commercials. This sentence is given three sources. The first source is Inside Edition, which states "And we're learning more about Rodger's family, who he also targeted for death in his manifesto, "My Twisted Life." His cute six-year-old half-brother, Jazz Rodger mugged for the camera in a YouTube video. His parents were hoping to find him roles in TV commercials. A screen test has surfaced for a movie role by Elliot Rodger's stepmother, Soumaya who appears in the french version of Real Housewives. Elliot Rodger targeted them both for death, saying in his video, "I decided I would have to kill him on the day of retribution. I will not allow the boy to surpass me at everything, to live the life I've always wanted." Nowhere in this text does it say that his mother had "secured opportunities" to appear in television commercials. The Hollywoodlife source repeats what is Rodger's voice from the manifesto saying "My step-mom, Soumaya began to boast that my brother was recently signed by an agent to act in T.V. commercials" but Rodger doesn't offer anything beyond a second hand claim. "Securing opportunities" is also vague. It needs to explain that his jealousy originated from what he was told in a second hand claim that the sibling was "recently signed" by an agent (ostensibly for commercials, but an agent can book for anything) The second source reads like an editorial, as it's written by an author with a background in psychology rather than journalism. That leaves us the HollywoodLife source which I think covers what is essentially info from the manifesto. So two of these sources should be deleted and the claim specified that Rodger was vaguely told of the sibling being signed by an agent.

  Changed it

• Additionally, he devised a plan to kill his stepmother by stabbing her in the neck due to their strained relationship and finding she would get in the way. This reads as if their strained relationship was what motivated him to stab her specifically in the neck (as opposed to stabbing her elsewhere) "by stabbing her in the neck due to their strained relationship". Perhaps this prose could be altered slightly so that the words "due to" don't come directly after his plan of action. Also, it's not clear what he was afraid of her "getting in the way" with. The day of retribution in general, killing her, or killing her son (his step-brother)?

  Changed

• Rodger began plotting to murder his half-brother, fearing his sibling would surpass him in popularity with girls and social status. This sentence is giving three references. Inside edition and the Independent both give the same section of text from the manifesto, so It's not clear why both sources are being used here. Also, the Closer source says "The 22-year-old added that he would also have to kill his infant brother, because he already felt the boy would be more popular with girls than him." And yet the Inside Edition source states "One photo speaks volumes of Peter Rodger embracing his young son, Jazz, while Elliot distances himself from them." Is this the same step brother who got signed with an agent, the infant? I didn't realize Jazz was an infant during this time. Are Jazz and the infant two different people?

  Changed

• Additionally, he devised a plan to kill his stepmother by stabbing her in the neck due to their strained relationship and finding she would get in the way. Rodger planned to commit the murders while his father was away on a business trip, as he was concerned he might hesitate if confronted with the task of killing his father as well. Both of these sentences are given ref note 106, which is the Telegraph source. If both sentences are covered by that source, then it's unclear why four other sources have been added to the mix. If none of those four specifically are referencing additional information that the others do not provide, then they should be deleted (or else follow WP:TSI to indicate which specific parts they are referencing).

  Changed

• According to Wang, Rodger was antisocial and spent most of his time either out of the apartment or alone in his room Since Wang was killed, whom did Wang tell this to, and when? Also, since "out of the apartment" and "alone in his room" (a.k.a., in the apartment) are the only two metaphysical possibilities, it makes little sense to reiterate that "most of his time" would be doing one or the other (as one could then ask rhetorically, where else Wang expects him to be? It's a bit like saying—of a person who lives in an apartment—that they spend most of their time either in the apartment or outside of the apartment. So then what, what is that saying about the person?) Wang's comment that he was "antisocial" presumably was indicating that Rodger was antisocial with Wang, as how else could Wang know what Rodger was doing when he was spending 50% of that "most of his time" outside of the apartment and therefore not in Wang's presence? I know that this is merely what the source is stating, but when you look at it logically, Wang's observations (that Rodger spent most of his time either in the apartment or outside the apartment) don't really tell the reader anything valuable or noteworthy when closely examined. This information initially sounds more valuable than it really is, which I suspect is why it was mentioned by the sources to begin with.

  Changed and I presumed this all happened before Wang was murdered which the sources state.

• On January 15, 2014, Rodger and Hong got into a fight when Rodger accused Hong of stealing three of his candles that were valued at $22. The conflict began when Rodger became irritated by Hong's cooking; Rodger took his measuring cup and rice bowl, and Hong retaliated by taking Rodger's candles in an attempt to initiate a trade. Rodger then called the police and placed Hong under a citizen's arrest. After officers arrived, Hong said that Rodger had taken his possessions and tampered with other items in the apartment. Rodger denied the allegation, and police later found the candles on Hong's bed. After refusing to return the candles, Hong was arrested and charged with petty theft and warned against further contact with Rodger or he would face additional charges I don't know that the contretemps over the candles needs this detailed of an explanation. Can't much of the minutiae be left out, or at least re-sequenced? The first sentence starts off with what seems to be the sentinal event - Rodger's accusations that Hong stole from him, but the second sentence revises that and gives another sentinal event - that of Rodger stealing the measuring cup. I would suggest either summarizing what happened or placing it in sequence from the beginning sentence and not the second sentence (e.g., "The conflict began when..." should not be in the second sentence after already describing some of the event's details in the first sentence)

  Changed

• On January 15, 2014, Rodger and Hong got into a fight when Rodger accused Hong of stealing three of his candles that were valued at $22.[90][115][116] The conflict began when Rodger became irritated by Hong's cooking; Rodger took his measuring cup and rice bowl, and Hong retaliated by taking Rodger's candles in an attempt to initiate a trade.[90][101][117] Rodger then called the police and placed Hong under a citizen's arrest.[101][118][119] After officers arrived, Hong said that Rodger had taken his possessions and tampered with other items in the apartment.[90][101][114] Rodger denied the allegation, and police later found the candles on Hong's bed.[90][101][114][120] After refusing to return the candles, Hong was arrested and charged with petty theft and warned against further contact with Rodger or he would face additional charges[90][121][122] Ref note 90 (the LA Times source) is repeated in all of the citation bunches above (I've left the copy-pasted numbers in to show this). All of the bunches that is, except for one: the bunch immediately following the claim regarding citizens arrest does not contain a ref note 90. This is curious, because that information about the citizen's arrest also appears in the LA Times source. The ref note's curious exclusion notwithstanding, what is clear is that all of these sentences are adequately covered by the LA Times, and that the other ref notes can be deleted.

  Changed

• Their parents grew concerned about their interactions with Rodger, but they reassured them that they were alright. This sentence contains too many pronouns - they and their and them - which needs to be clarified and less confusing.

  Changed

• By January 2014, Rodger contemplated launching his planned attacks during Valentine's Day or Deltopia, a spring break event in Isla Vista in early April. He dismissed these dates due to heightened police presence and his realization he required additional time for preparation Words like "contemplated" used along with "dismissed" make it seem as if a significant amount of time occurred between his contemplation and his dismissal when apparently it was nearly simultaneous. I would reword this as "In January 2014, Rodger imagined launching his planned attacks during Valentine's Day or Deltopia, a spring break event in Isla Vista in early April, but dismissed those dates due to an anticipated heightened police presence and the additional time needed for preparation."

  Changed

• By January 2014, Rodger contemplated launching his planned attacks during Valentine's Day or Deltopia, a spring break event in Isla Vista in early April. He dismissed these dates due to heightened police presence and his realization he required additional time for preparation. Rodger eventually chose to mount his attacks on April 26. In February 2014, Rodger called his sister while drunk and wandering alone through Isla Vista while complaining about women ignoring him. Rodger's sister reassured him and calmed him. Concerned about his social isolation, she became worried the social scene in Isla Vista would further damage her brother's mental health. In February 2014, Rodger bought another SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,132 in Oxnard, in case the other two firearms jammed. Throughout February and March of that year, Rodger visited gun ranges and made multiple ammunition purchases. On two separate occasions, Rodger visited the library at SBCC, where a librarian helped him find books about serial killers and mass murderers. He read the books in the library but never checked them out. I don't know that these last 3 paragraphs of text really belong in the "Behavior with others" subsection, maybe the info about the sister's phone call, but not the other information. Perhaps it could be moved elsewhere.

   Not done no where else to put it as after that it talks about his online activity and after April-May 2014

• Hong and Wang were angered by Rodger's actions but refrained from confronting him, concerned it might worsen their living conditions. Their parents grew concerned about their interactions with Rodger, but they reassured them that they were alright. Hong and Wang distanced themselves from Rodger, and signed a lease for a different apartment for the following semester. These three sentences should all share the same reference, that being the LA Times. The other 4 sources should be deleted.

  Changed

• Rodger began to plan to murder Hong and Wang, finding them irritating and feeling they would obstruct his attacks. The Joan Walsh piece for Salon.com reads like an editorial, and ought not to be used. The LA Times source can be the sole reference for this. However, it does not state when Rodger began planning to kill his roomates (nor does any of the other two sources). The LA Times repeats the manifesto, saying "I knew that when the Day of Retribution came, I would have to kill my housemates to get them out of the way," Rodger wrote. "If they were pleasant to live with, I would regret having to kill them, but due to their behavior I now had no regrets about such a prospect. In fact, I'd even enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept." This doesn't really state that he felt they planned to "obstruct his attacks." He says that he wants to "get them out of the way" but it's not clear if this wanting them out of the way was because they were irritating or because he felt they might obstruct his plans. It may have been that he simply wanted them out of the way because they were irritating. So this asks a good question: were the roommates killed because he found them (a) irritating (b) potentially obstructive, or (c) both? After reading the sources, I don't believe Rodger placed any agency in the roommates potentially obstructing his attacks if only maybe just to delay or hinder him, but not by going to the police or anything like that. I could be wrong. I look forward to your feedback on this.

  I changed it

• He read the books in the library but never checked them out. This reads as if Rodger read the entire books at the library, which I highly doubt. Perhaps he "looked at" or "leafed through" the book or "glanced at" or "browsed the book" but to read entirely, I don't think so. The Independent source states "A librarian at SBCC said she assisted a person believed to be Rodger locate books on serial killers and mass murder." To locate something is quite different than reading it. The CBS and AP sources likewise state "A librarian told investigators that she helped him look up books on serial killers and mass murder two to three months before the rampage". Again, no reading being done here. If anything, the sources all suggest that the only thing being "read" was an electronic card catalog. Saying that Rodger "read them" puts frankly more intellectual agency into his actions than they deserve. The fact that he couldn't look up these book titles himself says something (he's a student at college, but needs a librarian to do a book search?) perhaps he wanted for some reason for the librarian to see him searching these titles. Needless to say, people deprived of attention may seek it in unusual ways. In any event/long story short, this claim could be simplified as the librarian helped him search for these titles and to leave "reading" out of the prose.

  Changed

• Hong and Wang's parents grew concerned about their sons' living situation, but they reassured them that everything was fine. This was reworded to lessen the pronouns, but it still needs some polish. I would suggest: "Hong and Wang's parents grew concerned about their sons' living situation, but their sons reassured them that everything was fine."

 Done TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• In January 2014, Rodger imagined launching his planned attacks..." I would reword this ever-so-slightly to By January 2014, Rodger had imagined launching his planned attacks

 Done TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• In September 2013, he was assigned a random apartment, where he gained two new roommates: 20-year-old Weihan "David" Wang and 20-year-old Cheng Yuan "James" Hong. This is given three sources, but I feel that the NBC Bay Area source is the superior of the three. The other two ought to be deleted.

  Also left in CNN source as the NBC Bay Area source doesn't mention when they move in

• Rodger planned to commit the murders while his father was away on a business trip, as he was concerned he might hesitate if confronted with the task of killing his father as well. This is given three sources. The Telegraph source states: He intended to carry out the killings while his father, Hunger Games assistant director Peter Rodger, was away on business. The Standard source states: London-born Rodger planned to kill both while his father Peter, an assistant director on the blockbuster film The Hunger Games, was on a business trip. The Washington Times source states: In part of his manifesto, Rodger worried he would be forced to kill his father, Hunger Games assistant director Peter Rodger. 'What if father is in the house to stop me? Would I have to kill him too? That would be too much. I felt sick to my stomach. It would be too risky to try to kill him. I might hesitate at the last second.' It's important to note that the Washington Times attributes their reporting to Telegraph. Thus, I would use the Telegraph source as named by the Washington Times (not necessarily the Telegraph source used here in the citeref) and delete the other two sources.

  Done

• According to Wang, Rodger was antisocial and largely withdrawn from him and Hong This is given three sources. The NBC Bay Area source is sufficient, and the other two can be deleted.

  Done

• Wang filed a complaint with the building's management stating that Rodger played loud music during the night This is given three sources. The LA Times Ryan, Mather, and Flores article states One of three roommates allegedly slain by Elliot Rodger was planning on moving out of their Isla Vista apartment because of conflicts they were having, the victim’s mother told KNTV Monday. UC Santa Barbara student Weihan “David” Wang was upset by loud music Rodger played in the middle of the night and had decided to move to another apartment for the next school year, his mother, Jane Liu, told the station. This is sufficient for the claim, and the other two sources can be deleted.

  Done

• By January 2014, Rodger had imagined launching his planned attacks during Valentine's Day or Deltopia, a spring break event in Isla Vista in early April, but dismissed those dates due to an anticipated heightened police presence and the additional time needed for preparation. Rodger eventually chose to mount his attacks on April 26 These two sentences are worded perfectly, but they have been given 3 references (the first set of notes for the first sentence is duplicated in the second sentence, so 6 ref notes altogether) when the CNN source is perfectly proficient on its own to handle everything here. The other two sources (and four of their ref notes) ought to be deleted.

  Done

• In February 2014, Rodger bought another SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,132 in Oxnard, in case the other two firearms jammed. I would reword this to In February 2014, Rodger bought a second SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,132 in Oxnard, in case either of his other two guns jammed. Also, the NYTimes source for this claim is sufficient on its own. The other two references can be deleted.

  Also left in the LA Times infographic source as the New York times source doesn't mention the price or date he bought the last gun

• On two separate occasions, Rodger visited the library at SBCC, where a librarian assisted him in locating books about serial killers and mass murderers. The Independent source is sufficient enough on its own to handle these claims, the other two sources can be deleted.

  Done

• In February 2014, Rodger bought a third SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,132 in Oxnard, in case the other two jammed. I had initially suggested that this be reworded to In February 2014, Rodger bought a second SIG Sauer P226 handgun for $1,132 in Oxnard, in case either of his other two guns jammed. But now it states "a third SIG". I thought Rodger had 2 SIGs and one Glock. Please double-check this.

   Done

Online activity section

• Rodger had a social media presence, sharing selfies on his Facebook profile, on which he showed himself enjoying luxurious plane rides and attending movie premieres. Rodger also frequently shared posts on Twitter and Google+, often posting pictures of himself alongside his car and posts about feeling lonely. On his personal blog, Rodger portrayed himself as a "sophisticated, polite gentleman," describing his difficulties in socializing and connecting with others in Isla Vista. He would drive around the city, and secretly record women and couples while complaining how lonely he felt while seeing them. Rodger expressed his grievances about being a lifelong virgin on platforms such as YouTube. This needs to follow WP:SS a bit more. As it stands, it elaborates too much on naming each particular platform while giving examples of what was boasted about or complained about. Those complaints and/or boasts largely mirror prose regarding Rodger's complaints and/or boasts already mentioned elsewhere in the article. The above text contains, for example:

1. the article's overall third mentioning of "movie premieres"
2. the article's overall second mentioning of "feeling lonely"
3. the article's overall second mentioning of "being a gentleman"
4. the article's overall fourth mentioning of his "social difficulties"
5. the article's overall fifth mentioning of "disliking couples"
6. the article's overall sixth mentioning of being "a virgin"

I believe it could stand a tighter summary.

• Changed

• On the week leading up to April 26, Rodger uploaded twenty-two videos on YouTube, describing his loneliness and frustration due to his unsuccessful attempts at attracting a girlfriend. In the videos, he would question why women would prefer "inferior" men over him, questioning why his perceived good looks, high end clothes and expensive car failed to garner any attention or acknowledgment from them, with video titles such as: "Why do girls hate me so much?", "Being lonely on Spring Break sucks", "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me", and "My reaction to seeing a young couple at the beach, Envy". The only thing that need be mentioned here in this passage of text are the video titles (which speak for themselves). Giving a brief summary of what each video talked about in the prose (e.g., "....describing his...." or "In the videos, he would....") is redundant.

  Changed

• He also ... expressed a sense of superiority due to being half-white. Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but this claim contradicts the earlier claim that his being half-white made him feel "embarrassed about his mixed-race heritage, which he felt set him apart from his entirely white peers." So did he view this is a negative or a positive?

  Changed

• The last 2 paragraphs of this section could be summarized better. As it stands, the mentioning of individual search terms in the penultimate paragraph could be summarized instead of listed individually, and the repeating of his views in the last paragraph could be limited (e.g., stating both that "Rodger expressed racist views.." then giving one or two examples of those racist views seems unwarranted).

  Changed

• When Rodger told his father about the forums, his father confronted him, warning him that the content was negative and inappropriate and that he should not visit them. Rodger also informed his mother about the forums, though she did not give them much attention. Rodger later claimed that when he sent his parents a link to PUAhate.com, neither of them reviewed the forum's posts. These sentences have been removed from this section, however, I feel that their inclusion is important here. They show the level of disinterest with which the parents viewed Rodger's accessing this content, notably the mother ("...though she did not give them much attention....") and the father ("his father confronted him, warning him ... that he should not visit them...") and the duo's lackadaisical, self-centered approach to parenting ("...when he sent his parents a link to PUAhate.com, neither of them reviewed the forum's posts.") These should be restored.

  I have restored them

• Medication prescribed to Rodger by psychiatrist Charles Sophy This is the caption for an image posted near to this section. It states that the medication was prescribed by Sophy. According to Rodger, Sophy only prescribed Risperdal and Rodger stopped seeing Sophy after receiving that prescription. If that is the case, where does this prescription for Lexapro come from? It's dated 11/07/2012. I thought it was odd that a psychiatrist would take 12 months to prescribe a medication, now I see that he prescribed one almost immediately after first seeing Rodger. Now that makes sense. So what Rodger implies in his manifesto about how insignificant Sophy's treatment of him was and Risperdal being the only medication of note was untrue. I think mentioning Rodger's Risperdal refusal (in the Mental health and further planning section) while leaving out the Lexapro is confusing

  I have removed the picture as I could not find Lexapro being mentioned in any sources or Rodger's manifesto.

• Rodger recorded himself driving around California in his BMW while dancing to music I've seen at least one of these videos, and car dancing it's not—to me it looks more like car winking. Are there other videos where dancing is more prevalent? If not, then should we be labeling it as such? If the source reference is labeling it as dancing, then I'd say, let's name that source and take the claim out of Wikipedia's voice (lest Wikipedia be accused of not knowing how to dance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been changed to In additional YouTube videos, Rodger recorded videos of himself driving around California in his BMW and moving to music from artists including Whitney Houston, George Michael, and Phil Collins Can we describe this as him driving around Southern California in his BMW listening to music from artists including Whitney Houston, George Michael, and Phil Collins? That seems to be what he's doing. I'll agree to "dancing" if he's doing something resembling "dancing", but I'd like to see the video.  Spintendo  04:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion withdrawn  Spintendo  22:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Rodger maintained an active online presence across multiple social media platforms, where he posted photos and videos expressing resentment toward women and frustration over his perceived social rejection. This is given three references. But it is unclear why this is so. This is the first sentence of our Online activity section, and as such, functions somewhat as this section's "thesis statement", which is akin to a main summarizing sentence; The following sentences in this section buttress their first sentence with corroborating claims; each of those corroborating claims have their own references. Thus, the first sentence should not need any references to sustain it, because the references from its following sentences sustain it. And so it should be with this section. The claim in the first sentence is that "Rodger maintained an online presence" by posting videos. The following sentences talk about those videos and briefly mentions their content. The following sentences also mention the videos posted where Rodger is in his car, and also mention the videos that he searched and/or researched, as well as the online forums where he posted comments/questions/communications with other forum participants, all of which have their own references. Thus, the need for references in the first sentence is negated, and thus the references there can be safely deleted. (Note: Not all sections have thesis statements—and if they do, they may not always be the first sentence. I'm describing it this way because it just so happened that this particular Online activity section had a very recognizable intro thesis statement—the only one in the entire Rodger article, as it happens—outside of the lead section, of course.)

   Done

• In the week before April 26,[1][42][98] Rodger uploaded twenty-two YouTube videos with titles such as "Why do girls hate me so much?", "Being lonely on Spring Break sucks", "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me", and "My reaction to seeing a young couple at the beach, Envy".[98][99][100] This has six references (3 refs in one bunch, and there are two bunches). My guess is that the straddling of the two bunches is because the source that gives the dates is different from the source that gives the titles. But that still leaves 4 outstanding references (unless each one is naming a particular video) but if that were the case, then the ref notes would be behind each name, and they arent here. If you could elaborate on what each reference is doing, that would be helpful (with the goal of deleting any extraneous/duplicate citerefs).

  Left in two sources

• Rodger conducted online searches related to mass violence, including research into Nazi figures such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, as well as searches referencing Nazism, torture methods, racially charged topics, and knife attacks This is given three references. The Daily Nexus (which is taking its info straight from the Sheriff's Office Report) seems to be sufficient enough for these details. The other two references should be deleted. I would also suggest that the other items which Rodger searched and are mentioned extemporaneously in the Daily Nexus also be mentioned here ("...search history that indicates a particular interest in luxury automobiles, celebrities, “Adolf Hitler and the law of attraction" "Nazi curbstomp" and "Holocaust of black people...")

   Done

• Rodger also posted comments expressing racist and misogynistic views, including resentment toward interracial relationships. This is given three references. Again, the Daily Nexus seems sufficient to use as the only source for these, the other two can be deleted.

   Not done The Daily Nexus source doesn't state this. I used two other sources instead.

• He posted his videos to forums like Bodybuilding.com; while some users mocked him as desperate and insecure This is given three references. The NYTimes states: One poster on Bodybuilding.com, another website where he shared his views, noted that Mr. Rodger had taken down a video titled “Why Do Girls Hate Me So Much?” This person said the video had made him look like a serial killer. “I’m not trying to be mean, but the creepy vibe that you give off in those videos is likely the major reason that you can’t get girls,” he wrote. Forbes states: On a forum on BodyBuilding.com, users were even more confrontational. When Rodger complained this month about seeing a "short, ugly Indian guy driving a Honda civic [with] a hot blonde girl in his passenger seat," other users responded to say that he was racist, that his jealously was ugly and that the secret to getting girls was to "be fun to be around" not to have money and a BMW. A user who went by the handle dtugg was especially critical of Rodger. The WSJ states: On a body-building forum where Mr. Rodger was a prolific poster recently, he attracted attention in the past week for some of his outrageous posts and links to YouTube videos, according to a cached web page viewed by The Wall Street Journal. One forum user, who had seen Mr. Rodger's YouTube video titled "Why do girls hate me so much?" on May 18, called it "serial killeresque." The user from Hawaii counseled Mr. Rodger in the forum, "I'm not trying to be mean, but the creepy vibe that you give off in those videos is likely the major reason that you can't get girls." It sounds to me like the responses Rodger got from that community was that he was ignorant, bizarre, and a racist. In any event, I believe the WSJ and the Forbes source are reporting identical stories, so its a choice between the two of them. The NYTimes and whichever second source is not chosen can both be deleted.

   Done

• Rodger subscribed to multiple YouTube channels associated with the men's rights movement that posted content advising men on attracting and talking with women. This is given three references. The HuffPO article reads like an editorial and should not be used. CTV states: Rodger also subscribed to several YouTube channels that feature videos offering men advice on how to attract and pick up women. The Indypendent reads like an editorial, which I wouldn't use. CTV should be the only source for this, and the other two should be deleted.

   Done

• He had a second YouTube channel named "Valtharion". This is given three sources. The Vice source specifically warns that the information may be spurious, based on where it came from. Inside Edition is practically tabloid television. I cant access Globe and Mail. If you could post what they say about this, it would help hone my suggestion. As it stands, this is a detail I would omit from the article, unless another source comes up.

Changed to Splinter News Source

WP:JEZEBEL states that contentious topics ought not to use this source as a reference, but as Rodger clearly had racist ideas, I don't have a problem with using it.  Spintendo  19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Awesome

Police welfare check section

• Li Chin looked him up online and found one of his videos he had posted on YouTube Do any of the sources describe which video it was that she saw? When the police arrived to question him, his response referred to videos plural ("....When the police arrived at Rodger's apartment, he said the videos were his way of expressing...") so it would be interesting to know which video she claims she saw and perhaps why she didn't notice any of the others that the police apparently did notice.

  Changed

• He did so, told her he was fine, and handed his phone to one of the deputies. The deputy asked his mother if the videos caused her concern about Rodger harming himself or others. After she said she was not concerned, the deputies handed Rodger back his phone and he told his mother he would call her later. This is truly fascinating. So according to Li Chin, when she couldn't get a hold of Rodger, she looked him up online and found one of his videos. This video "disturbed her" so much that she called Lindermann who notified the police. Then, when the police spoke to her on Rodger's cell phone, they asked her "if the videos caused her concern about Rodger harming himself or others" to which, she apparently had a change of heart about the video she had just watched, and told the deputy no, she was "not concerned". One minute the video she was watching concerns her, the very next minute, it doesn't concern her. I see that one ref note, #142 (the Santa Barbara Independent) covers all of this information. It additionally states that the police did not view the videos, which raises the question of how the police could ask Rodger questions about something they themselves never saw. This makes one wonder just what kind of theater of the absurd-type interaction occurred that night between these 4 people:

—(Li Chin on phone w/ police) - "Yes, is this the police? I need a welfare check, my son posted disturbing videos."
—(Police) "Disturbing videos? Alright maam, well check it out."
—(Police @ Elliots) "We heard you posted some disturbing videos..."
—(Elliot) "Well they were my way of relieving stress, and besides, they're not really all that disturbing .."
—(Police on phone to Li Chin) "Well Maam, what do you say about that? He says they're for stress relief, do you think they're disturbing?"
—(Li Chin) "Not anymore."
—(Police) "What's that maam? You say they're no longer disturbing?"
—(Li Chin) "Not anymore."
—(Police to Elliot/Li Chin) "Okay, we'll have Elliot call you later."
—(Policeman 1 to policeman 2) "So tell me, what were in those videos, disturbing stuff?"
—(Policeman 2 to policeman 1) "Dunno. Never saw em."

In any event, I think because ref note 142 is persistent in the different bunches, the others could be deleted.

• Changed. But it is absolutely crazy that the police did not even bother to look at the videos after Linderman and Rodger's mom told them about them. The police failed so bad on this one. Six people dead because they refused to see one video.

• In April 2014, Rodger extended his preparations by visiting two additional gun ranges This is given three references. The LATimes source (authors Serna, Mather and Covarubias) states He made two separate ammunition purchases in March and visited two gun ranges in April, a month before the shooting. This seems sufficient enough for this claim. The other two references should be deleted.

   Done

• After posting videos to his YouTube channel in the week leading up to April 26, he hoped a woman might see his videos and ask him on a date. Because this did not happen, Rodger planned to finish writing his manifesto and upload a final video minutes before starting his attacks This is given three references. The Times Herald Record seems suffiecient to handle these. Additionally, this prose from the Wikipedia article states he hoped a woman might see his videos and ask him on a date. Because this did not happen, Rodger planned to finish writing his manifesto I would be very cautions about using the term "because" here using Wikipedia's voice. This could easily imply that because one thing didn't happen, another thing occurred. But we don't know that much about the situation to know this for sure. Also, it states "After posting videos to Youtube......he hoped a woman might see his videos and ask him out". But him hoping for a girl to ask him out didnt just happen after posting the videos (like the prose implies) because Elliot's default state of being was always wanting a woman to ask him out. I would just state that After posting videos to his YouTube channel in the week leading up to April 26, Rodger planned to finish writing his manifesto and upload a final video minutes before starting his attacks."

   Done

• "... to allow recovery from his cold and more time to live" If this is how Rodger words it, "more time to live", then I would place it in quotations and delineate that this is how he words it. Also, I believe that the NYTimes source is sufficient enough for these claims, and that the other two can be deleted.

   Done

• On April 30, 2014, Rodger's mother became worried after she had failed to contact him for several days.[2][121][122] Li Chin searched for Rodger online and found videos he had posted on YouTube. Becoming disturbed by the content, she tried calling her son again, but he did not answer. She then contacted Linderman and told him what she found.[2][123][124] Linderman contacted a crisis hotline and spoke with a staff member, voicing concerns about Rodger mentioning self-harm, causing the staff member to request a welfare check on Rodger.[2][123][125] In this passage of text there are three bunches of references. In all three bunches, cite ref number 2 appears. That would seem to indicate that the number 2 citeref verifies everything in these passages, and would also seem to suggest that the other sources can be deleted.

   Done

• When the police arrived at Rodger's apartment, he said the videos were his way of expressing his social difficulties in Isla Vista and that he had no intention of hurting anyone or himself The number 2 citeref is sufficient for these claims, the other two sources can be deleted.

   Done

• Because they did not enter Rodger's apartment, watch his videos, or check whether he owned any weapons, they determined he did not pose an immediate risk to himself or others.[2][123][129] The deputies determined Rodger did not meet the criteria for an involuntary hold and provided him with information on local support services.[2][123][130] Ref number #2 again appears in this text which has been given 2 bunches of the exact same three sources. Cite ref 2 should be used and the other two sources should be deleted.

  Used the Santa Barbara Independent source as it does a better job of describing it

• He retained possession of a gun and several loaded magazines close at hand, and intended to use them if police returned.[1][134][135] Rodger removed most of his videos from YouTube, believing the way he acted on them had raised suspicion that could potentially ruin his plans.[127][136][137] Rodger planned to repost the videos in the days leading up to his attacks in May.[1][127] The following day, Rodger's mother contacted the counseling office at SBCC to report the incident, but was unable to speak to anyone. She felt relieved after hearing from her son again and planned to meet with him a few weeks later at Montecito with his sister.[2] This is essentially minutiae which could be summed up better. Suffice it to say, Rodger and his mother experienced the three R's: (a) relieved police didn't intervene (b) removed the videos (c) rebuffed when calling SBCC. We don't need the whole song and dance, just the basics to move the story along. The R's we dont need to mention: (1) Retained the guns - because the attacks eventually took place, we dont need to be told Elliot retained his guns; (2) Reposted his videos, because we're going to be told in a later section that he reposts them, the reader doesn't need to be told here that he will repost them; (3) Relieved she was going to meet with him and his sister, because whatever this woman thinks she's being relieved of is something we don't need to know (or should be suspicious of, coming from her mouth, actually - I wouldn't trust Peter or Li Chin as far as I could throw them) This should all be re-written to be briefer (and hopefully using only one reference).

  Changed

• As pressure mounted in anticipation of his planned attacks, Rodger took Xanax to alleviate his anxiety. The claims about Xanax taken for "such-and-such reason" are always problematic, because those reasons can never be proven/disproven. For that reason, these types of claims should never be in Wikipedia's voice. Let's look at it another way. Let's say that Rodger was taking a multivitamin (because getting enough vitamins makes you healthier, and being healthy contributes to lowered stress levels, and having lowered stress levels means less anxiety). Could we then say that the vitamins were taken to lower anxiety? If we could, would taking a vitamin be relevant? If not vitamins, what about coffee? We know that Rodger went to starbucks in the time between killings, for a caffeine fix. We also know that people get their caffeine fix in order to prevent anxiety from not having their caffeine fix. So then, could we say that his starbucks run was to lessen his anxiety? Probably not, but that illustrates my point hopefully. The question of the Xanax prescription is even murkier. Was his Xanax prescription written "PRN" (as needed)? If it was, and Rodger had a legitimate need for the medication, then mentioning him taking a legitimate med doesn't seem right. It's normal for a patient to take anxiety medication when they have anxiety, even if that anxiety comes about because that person is planning on killing people. So mentioning it for mentioning's sake doesn't seem right.

  Changed

• Rodger was relieved after the police officers left because a search of his apartment would have uncovered his firearms and manifesto, and thwarted his attacks. These claims are given three references. The Independent source quotes extensively from the manifesto. The Scripps News source aggregates information from other sources, and thus, shouldnt be used as a source (or at least serves better as a lead to other sources when one cannot be found) The ABC news source also quotes from the manifesto. That source is also interesting for the information that it gives regarding the therapist and his apparent inability to call police after seeing the videos. This inability was in contravention to his duty to perform a Tarasoff warning after seeing the videos. Oddly enough, there is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article. In any event, I would use the Independent source as the reference and delete the other two.

   Done

Final planning section

• I don't know that this section is necessary. It merely repeats what is said in other sections, specifically, his views towards women. It's also not clear whether the reader needs to know about the details inherent in each of his "phases" of attack. If the Manifesto is linked in the External links section, this ought to suffice if the reader wishes additional information.

   Not done I think this section is important as it describes Rodger's manifesto and what his original plan was.

Fair enough, but as far as (1) "...it describes Rodger's manifesto..." the article ought not to be a rote repetition of his views, especially when the reader could be given a link (in the External links section for example) to the manifesto and could read more about his views for themselves (I say "more about" because the article already gives a good impression of those views in the sections we've already covered), and (2) "...and what his original plan was.." his "original plan" as it were, was to kill other people, a plan which did not demonstratively change from its initial conception. Any appurtenant details which Rodger hoped to accomplish but did not do so are secondary to the fact that his original plan (to hurt others) was carried out. Providing those never-realized plans as counterfactuals (a.k.a., "what might have been") does not substantively add to the reader's understanding of what did happen (which is Wikipedia's mandate) and in any event, those never-realized plans could be read by the reader by clicking on an external link to the manifesto, if one were to be provided in an External links section.  Spintendo  20:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Incidents before attacks section

• When a male driver was attempting to reverse out of a parking spot, Rodger used his car to block the driver's exit. The man's female partner, who was watching from her vehicle, witnessed the fight from their respective cars. Rodger told the man: "You're lucky to be an Asian guy dating a white girl. It's too bad she is such a horsefaced slut". Rodger then drove off. After the male driver related the incident to his partner, she decided to pursue Rodger in her car. Upon catching up to him and attempting to confront him, Rodger said nothing, leaving the woman feeling uneasy and causing her to leave. As she drove away, she noticed Rodger speeding through the parking lot, almost hitting several cars. The woman's recollection does not logically cohere. How did Rodger know they were a couple if they were in separate cars? It says after the first confrontation with the boyfriend, "Rodger drove off", and the man calmly took time to "relate the incident to his partner," and she made the decision to "pursue Rodger in her car." She caught up to him, felt uneasy, and then drove away. But at this point Elliot is still in the parking lot. I thought the woman said he drove away and then after discussing it with her boyfriend she caught up to him—in the same parking lot—and was made to feel uneasy. At this point Elliot presumably escaped from the parking lot a second time. That's quite a large parking lot. I think this needs to be clarified/rewritten so that it makes sense and describes better that these events all occurred in one parking lot. As it reads now, it sounds like the pursuit took place across half a city.

  Changed

• Throughout May 2014, Rodger drove across Santa Barbara and Montecito, enjoying his final weeks of life It's not clear what is meant by "drove across"... could this mean "drove throughout? The claim "enjoying" is also hard to visualize in a person so clearly anhedonic. If those are his words, let's describe it as such. Also, this claim is given 3 references, but the LA Times should suffice. The other two should be deleted.

  Changed

• After Rodger drove away from the lot, the man informed his partner of what had occurred. The woman then followed Rodger within the same parking lot in an attempt to confront him. How can the woman "follow Rodger" within the same parking lot which Rodger has just "drove away" from? That doesn't seem physically possible. Is the prose suggesting that after his confrontation with the woman's boyfriend, Elliot lurked around the parking lot long enough for the woman to get out of her car, walk over to her boyfriend in his car, get debriefed by the boyfriend on what just occurred, then return to her car just in time to begin chasing him through the parking lot? This encounter was initially hard to describe, and unfortunately it remains as such.

  Changed

• After a brief encounter in which Rodger did not respond, she left feeling disturbed But she wasn't disturbed chasing a complete stranger through the parking lot trying to confront him? She may have told the media she felt disturbed, but I suspect there's not much in the world which disturbs her. I don't see the value in recounting her claimed feelings for this Wikipedia article. Needless to say, we have an account of her and Elliot's actions according to her alone—a skewed account, at that—which should be enough w/o having to delve into her feelings.

  Changed

• "...while others compared him to the fictional serial killer Patrick Bateman from the film American Psycho (2000) .... " This claim is given three references. I would not use the Jezebel source, per WP:JEZEBEL, while the Forbes and New Yorker sources seem to indicate one individual calling him this. I would delete the word "others" and state that it was one individual who made the comparison, while using only the Forbes source and deleting the other two.

   Done

Attacks section

• Despite initially selecting May 24 as the date for his attacks But this wasn't the initial time frame Rodger had imagined his attacks as occurring. His dates changed frequently, and I think that needs to be reflected in the prose, simply as stating "Rodger frequently set and then reset the dates for his attacks so much so that the last date with which he felt would be the right day to begin, May 24, was itself superseded when Rodger commenced his actions a day earlier on May 23."

  Changed

• Before beginning his attacks, Rodger visited a pizzeria called Giovanni's Pizza It's enough just to state that he visited Giovanni's Pizza without having to explain that the business is a pizzeria, since it's already in the name of the establishment what type of establishment it is.

  Changed

• Rodger stabbed Hong, Wang, and their 19-year-old friend George Chen to death in their apartment, ambushing each one separately as they each entered. The sequence of them entering the apartment is unclear. Wang and Hong both lived there, and presumably might have entered separately on their own. But Chen did not live there. Was he coming over to visit one of the two? At first one might presume that all three came home together, but this would not be possible for Rodger to take all three simultaneously. Likewise if 2 arrived together. So the only likely scenario is that each roommate arrived home alone, was killed, and then Chen arrived to visit one or both, and he was killed as well. This arrival sequence (if it is correct) should be explained better in the prose.

  Changed

• He had tried to clean the apartment and hide evidence of the earlier stabbings as each victim entered using bathroom towels and paper towels, which were soaked in blood. This should be reworded as After the first stabbing, he tried to clean the apartment and hide evidence prior to the second victime's arrival by using bathroom towels and paper towels, which were soaked in blood. The prose also needs to indicate whether or not Chen was anticipated, since he did not live there and Rodger would not necessarily have been expecting him, unless he had prior knowledge of Chen's movements (which should also be reflected in the prose).

  Changed

• Hours later, at around 7:30 p.m., Rodger went to a Starbucks and bought a triple-vanilla latte This is really getting down into the minutiae. Was that a grande or venti? Did he pay cash or credit? I'm not sure that these enhanced details need bearing out. Perhaps we could leave it at "Rodger made a purchase at Starbucks."

  Changed

• In the video, Rodger said he was frustrated at remaining a virgin at 22, that he would "punish" women for rejecting him despite being a "supreme gentleman", stating that he was targeting the Alpha Phi sorority house, and expressed his hatred for sexually active men. This is again, a rote repetition of Rodger's extreme views and ideations which are already described elsewhere in the article. The video's description need only state that Rodger "repeated his complaints regarding his various suffered indignities and his desire to effect retribution for having received them" or something to that effect.

  Changed

• Rodger shot and wounded several pedestrians from his car and struck others with his BMW. Do we have quanitites with these claims? How many is "several"?

  Changed

• Before commencing his attacks, Rodger took Xanax. Is it established in any sources who prescribed the Xanax, if it was a prescription? Since Elliot presumably had no friends, I would imagine it had to be a prescription, or how else would he have obtained it? If this is a prescription, I don't know that it needs to be mentioned that he took it, since an individual's daily medication regimen would not be immediately pertinent to his actions (for example, did he also take a multivitamin? If he did, is that something we would need to know?)

  Changed

It's still not clear whether this was a prescribed medication or one taken by him illicitly. Do the sources elaborate on where this was obtained?  Spintendo  18:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it was a prescribed medication by a doctor. Doesn't say who prescribed it, though. According to this Radar Online, it states: "The Xanax had been prescribed to Elliot by a family doctor". And this Radar Online source says: "Some of the Xanax had been prescribed to Elliot by a family doctor, reveals the law enforcement source — but exactly which one remains a mystery". Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It's an interesting thing to ponder. We know of the one doctor who prescribed Risperdal that Rodger did not take. I doubt the Xanax would have come from him, unless it was prescribed before the Risperdal (psychiatrists who prescribe a medication that the patient refuses to take would not be inclined to prescribe another medication, as medication compliance is usually required for the doctor to continue providing their services). On the other hand, Xanax and Risperdal could potentiate each other, although it's not unheard of that they might be taken together. A secondary doctor prescribing either of these alone would have requested a list of other medications the patient was taking. The possibility that certain doctors were misled/lied to about other doctors and medications is highly likely, considering the father and mother's aloof parenting skills coupled with an obscurant style of communication (i.e., Li Chin and the "no longer disturbing videos" debacle).  Spintendo  22:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe the statement is supported by the sources. It only reflects what is documented (that Rodger took Xanax before the murders) and does not speculate about prescribing physicians or other drug interactions. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree with you: that here we have vague sources supporting a vague statement. But do those sources say how it was determined that he took Xanax? I'm guessing a chromatographic mass spectrometry benzodiazepine assay, but do the sources explicitly state this? If any source does state this, I would bet it's the police/gov't officials' report. Govt reports love giving these details because their mandate is to be thorough, whereas news media (who need to keep their audience's attention) not so much. My point being, if we have a government report source giving this detail that he took Xanax, I would prefer we use that as the only source and not any others (because those others undoubtedly got that info from the government/government employees, like a coroner or medical examiner); I don't envision RadarOnline performing their own post-mortem blood assays. If the answer is "the police told RadarOnline" well, the police dont do blood assays either. The coroner does. Long story short- Is there an official report that touches on this detail that can act as the end-all be-all source for the Xanax claim? Also, whomever the claim comes from, it needs to be in their voice, not Wikipedia's (unless its a medical examiner -the person who took the test-their claims can use Wikipedia's voice. If it's the police speaking for the M.E. to radaronline, then let's say "According to the police, the M.E. determined Rodger had taken Xanax, which, also according to the police and as told to RadarOnline, was prescribed to Elliot by an unspecified Rodger family doctor for use as an anxiolytic."  Spintendo  01:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This is superior because it gives the reader the best level of detail:
According to the police, the M.E. determined Rodger had taken Xanax, which, also according to the police and as told to RadarOnline, was prescribed to Elliot by an unspecified Rodger family doctor for use as an anxiolytic.

1. The red part tells the reader who the approximate source of the first detail is, but not the ultimate source
2. The orange tells the reader who is the ultimate source of the first detail (who performed the test)
3. Green tells you the approximate source of the second detail
4. Blue tells you there was no ultimate source for the second detail, only that it was ultimately relayed to Radar Online from the approximate source alone
5. Purple tells you that info according to the approximate source

 Spintendo  02:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Notes

Added your suggestion in Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• He looked up pornography online and searched the terms "quiet silent kill with a knife" and "how to kill someone with a knife" before practicing stabbing on his bed sheets and pillows.[36][77] Rodger armed himself with two knives and first ambushed and stabbed Wang when he returned to the apartment. Wang suffered fifteen stab wounds and twenty-three slashes while attempting to defend himself, after which Rodger moved Wang's body to Wang and Hong's shared bedroom and attempted to conceal it.[35][36][77] Rodger then ambushed and fatally stabbed Hong when he entered afterward; Hong sustained twenty-five stab wounds and twelve slashes while attempting to defend himself. Rodger also moved Hong's body to the same shared bedroom and tried to conceal it.[35][36][77] Later, 19-year-old George Chen, a friend of Hong and Wang who had come to visit them, entered the apartment and was ambushed and stabbed as Chen attempted to defend himself. Chen sustained ninety-four stab wounds and eleven slashes. His body was left in a bathroom.[36][77][184] After the first stabbing, he tried to clean the apartment, which was covered in blood, and hide evidence before the second victim's arrival by using bathroom towels and paper towels, which were soaked in blood.[35][36][185] Ref note 36 (Santa Barbara Independent) is seen in the above passages of text as the most persistent source for this information. Per WP:TOOMANYREFS, it would be a good idea to delete the others, and to place only ref note 36 at the end of this entire passage of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Partly done left in some sources as the Independent doesn't cover the number of incision wounds they got, how George Chen was visiting them, and how Elliot looked up how to stab and kill someone on the day of the massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe there's a better way of displaying these so that they arent repeated so often in the text. Why don't we move 34 and 70 and place them both after the words "in the bathroom". Then remove all the 36's including the one after the words "soaked in blood" but leave the final 36 after the words "showered". That way, TSI is preserved. (Note that refnote 166 remains unmoved). It would look like this: Spintendo  22:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The citation movement is illustrated above. All refnote 36's have been moved (red arrows) and are now represented only by the final 36's positioning. Two instances of refnote 34 (in blue) and one of refnote 70 (in green) have been moved and are now represented only by their final positionings.

•  Done

• Rodger pulled up to them in his car and opened fire, killing 19-year-old Veronika Weiss and 22-year-old Katherine "Katie" Cooper while severely wounding a third woman. These claims are given three references. The Mother Jones and Independent Santa Barbara sources confirm all of the information in the claims (MJ's confirms the first two victims' names while ISB confirms the details of the third girl who survived). The third reference is therefore unneeded, and can be deleted.

   Done

• Rodger changed out his blood-soaked clothes, then tangled them in his bedsheets and showered It's not clear what is meant by "tangled them".

  Changed

Vehicle search subsection

• Rodger used only one of the Sig Sauer P226 pistols,[47] the one purchased in March 2013,[77] which was later found on the driver’s seat of his BMW.[47][186] The other two handguns were unfired.[47] I've left in the ref notes to show how disorganized these are. The only citation of note is number 47, which covers virtually all of the claims here. The date of the gun's purchase being reiterated is unnecessary. Thus, the sentence should be reorganized like so: Rodger used only one of the Sig Sauer P226 pistols which was later found on the driver’s seat of his BMW. The other two handguns were unfired.[47] Notice that ref note 47 has been placed at the end of this passage of text, as it reliably sources all of the claims here.

  Changed

Victims killed subsection

• 20-year-old Weihan "David" Wang (July 6, 1993 – May 23, 2014) The listings of these could use the {{dob}} and {{dda}} templates combined with {{spnd}} to display the victim's birth and date ranges if you like. Those templates will also calculate the age of the victim at death. For example:

  Changed

Markup	Renders as
Weihan "David" Wang, {{dob|1993|07|06}}{{spnd}}{{dda|2014|05|23|1993|07|06}}	Weihan "David" Wang, (1993-07-06)July 6, 1993 – May 23, 2014(2014-05-23) (aged 20)

• I see that most of the victims are given ref note #202 (Daily Nexus source) that should be sufficient on its own for this section. The number of gunshots/stab wounds ought to have been placed in the Attacks section when the victims were first mentioned there. That way, there is no need to repeat that information in this section. If the victim's legal names were already referenced in the Attacks section, there is no need to have them referenced a second time in the Victims section.

  Partly done left in some sources as the Daily Nexus source didn't mention the year they were in college. The attack section also doesn't mention the full names of the last three victims. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath section

• Li Chin then called Rodger's father, who was dining with friends, and told him what she had found. Li Chin, alone, drove toward Isla Vista while his father, stepmother, and their friends traveled in another car. Is this saying that Rodger's father took his dinner companions with him to investigate Elliot's whereabouts?

  The Mother Jones source states that their friends went with them to Isla Vista.

• The manager told her there had been a shooting and car chase, and they would have to wait until morning to check. This reads as if the manager was claiming that because a crime happened in another part of the city, they would not be able to handle Li Chin's request. So the question is, does the source elaborate on what it was, about the shooting and car chase, that prevented the manager from checking whether Rodger was in his room? Is it normally the case that all crime across the city of Isla Vista would prevent the manager from performing requested acts such as checking on apartment residents? Would a burglary for example, in north Isla Vista, prevent the manager from checking on the residents in apartment 4B?

  Changed

• Devastated by the news of Rodger's death This detail should be omitted, or else placed in the parents WP:VOICE, and not Wikipedia's

  Changed

• his parents thought he was a victim and didn't know he was the perpetrator of the incidents until hours later, when they saw reports on the internet This makes it sound as if law enforcement never made an official, face-to-face, detailed explanation to the parents that their son was the perpetrator. The Reuters source states "Peter Rodger said he was devastated by news that his son was among the dead but did not learn he was suspected of being the killer until seeing it reported hours later on the Internet. The Independent source states "Mr Rodger's father said at the time that he had initially believed his son had been a victim in the attacks. He only subsequently learned that he was the main suspect. This week he released a statement saying he respected how investigators did their jobs and treated his family after the attack." The second source above is important for two reasons: (a) It only states that the father "learned subsequently" who was the perpetrator but does not state that this info came from the internet, as the Reuters source does; and (b) the father delivers a public display of comity in the Independent source with his "shout out" to law enforcement for their treatment of him which he "respected". That does not sound like someone who was initially ghosted by the police in the first hours after the event. It's likely that these two saw Elliot named as the perpetrator on the internet, that the police told them about it before they saw it on the internet, and that they just forgot about the police telling them. So with regards to the claim of "saw it on the internet", we have a tie here (one says internet, the other says only "subsequently"). Are there any other sources that confirm or deny this?

  Changed it

• Li Chin then called Rodger's father, who was dining with friends, and told him what she had found. But Li Chin hadn't found anything, rather, all of these things had to be pointed out to her. Back during the police welfare check, Li Chin had searched online and indeed found a video on her own initiative (the one which initially was disturbing but then suddenly became no longer disturbing). But in this instance, she had to be led to water in order to drink, so to speak. We should not assign actions to her for which she did not undertake.

   Done

• Li Chin was shocked by the inquiry because Rodger had never shown any interest in guns. Mark Follman, the author of the MJ piece, uses the term "startled" which, on its face, is of less intensity than "shocked". I would state that Li Chin recounted to a reporter that she was "startled" (placed in quotations) by the question about guns. This wouldn't count as WP:SCAREQUOTES because it's a direct quotation.

   Done

• She told the detective that Rodger had social problems and saw a therapist, and that she had been unable to contact him. But Li Chin had regular contact with her son, so when she claims she was "unable to contact him", what she meant was at that moment in time. This should be made clear, e.g., She told the detective that Rodger had social problems and saw a therapist, and that for the past <insert how many> hours she had not been able to contact him.

   Done

• The detective instructed Rodger's parents to meet them at a parking lot near Isla Vista. Li Chin arrived there first, and was followed by Peter, Akaaboune, and their friends. The parents and their retinue's arrival sequence at the parking lot is minutiae which should be left out of the article.

   Done

Incidents after attacks subsection

• Li Chin grew concerned about her daughter's safety and arranged for her to stay with relatives abroad temporarily. Li Chin and Peter later stayed at a hotel and met with friends at a restaurant to talk about their situation Li Chin's concern and the Rodger's hotel/restaurant plans are trifling details which add nothing of consequence to this section. The Rodger sister was (at the time of this event) a 19 year old adult woman. Is the article suggesting that Li Chin infantilized her adult daughter to such a degree, that she had to send her on vacation to the U.K. to assuage her own anxiety? If the passage is to be left in, those contextual details should be included (her age, that she was an adult, and that her mother's "fear" as it were, only lasted a few months, as indicated in how long she was "abroad" for)

  Removed

• Rodger's father and stepmother would relocate to Tangier, Morocco, staying at an upscale hotel owned by Akaaboune's father, Abdeslam Akaaboune; Peter later started sharing photographs of the city on Instagram. Who knew it only took the deaths of 7 people to reveal Peter Rodger's inner photog. Needless to say these details should be omitted, no matter that they effectively advertise the father's "new life" afterwards, I don't know that's what the reader needs to know. The article on Columbine spends a few lines of prose mentioning the mother of Klebold in her afterwards (controversial) role as semi-spokesperson for mental health issues. I don't see Peter Rodger's life as Tangier artiste meriting that same mentioning.

  Removed

• Li Chin started reading about violence prevention, and later reached out to others affected by mass violence. She subsequently got in contact with Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was shot and killed during the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and the two soon developed a close bond. Five years after his attacks, Rodger's mother researched mass shootings online and learned about threat assessment. She took part in threat assessment sessions, sharing her experiences to help others identify warning signs of those in mental distress. Li Chin later participated in further training sessions, including ones conducted for school districts and corporate groups. I don't know that these details are appropriate for the Elliot Rodger article. The Isla Vista attacks article, yes, they would be appropriate there (even though they aren't, apparently. The info should be moved there, because it seems much more relevant there). But this article's focus is Elliot, not Li Chin, so the mentioning of her life after the event seems over-inclusionary.

  Removed

• The Incidents after attacks section ought to be subsumed into the Aftermath section. I don't believe there is great need for there to be two different sections.

Y Done.  Spintendo  00:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Peter stated that he learned subsequently that his son was the perpetrator after reports identified him. Following his attacks, police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) conducted search warrants at the homes of Rodger's parents, first at his father's home in Woodland Hills and then at his mother's house in West Hills. Due to his attacks, Rodger's family received intense media attention and death threats, forcing them to move every two days I think Peter's shoutout to law enforcement thanking them for everything they have done for the family after the attacks should be placed somewhere amongst this text. The Independent source (I can't remember which one it was this source) stated "This week he released a statement saying he respected how investigators did their jobs and treated his family after the attack."

  Done

• In a June 2014 interview, Peter told journalist Barbara Walters that although Rodger had a long history of social problems and had gone through years of therapy, he did not believe his son was capable of murder. He stated his son was good at hiding his true emotions and described him as an "incredible liar". This is given three references. But since the claim originates from an interview the father gave to Barbara Walters, we really only need whichever source her interview was published in (this would include wire reports of the interview). One of the three sources given for this claim is indeed a wire service, Reuters. So this source is the only one that we need to keep and the other two can be deleted. Also, the citeref for the Reuters source is displaying a Deprecated archival service CS1 maintenance error message regarding the viability of the archival service used to store an archive of the webpage. Another archival service should be used for the link in order to clear this error message.

  Cannot find any archive sites that will let me archive the link

Reactions on social media subsection

• After the attacks, PUAHate closed its forums, causing its members to go to other chatrooms and forums. It's not clear why this site being closed for maintenance is relevant. Looking at this from the perspective of the Wikipedia article reader, the reader is told that Rodger visited this site, but it was unclear what Rodger gained by going to this site. Support from others? Doubtful, as the Wikipedia article states how Rodger received opprobrium from other users of the site after posting content/comments. If the sources indicate that Rodger was receiving more positive feedback from PUAhate's users (making the site more relevant to Rodger) then those sources (if they exist) need to be brought to Wikipedia along with Rodger's (positive) interactions with them. As it stands, I don't see that it's relevant mentioning a website that Rodger was excoriated upon closing for maintenance in the wake of his attacks.

  Removed

• On social media and in the comments on Rodger's YouTube videos, some men empathized with Rodger's views and difficulties; some said being ignored by women was a valid reason for murdering women. This needs a timeframe applied. Rodger's Youtube videos were no doubt deleted by YT shortly after the attacks. So when were these comments left?

  Changed. And surprisingly, only Rodger's retribution video was deleted. His whole YouTube channel was not fully deleted until after the 2018 Toronto van attacks, which is just insane to think about.

• Incels refer to Rodger as a "saint" and a "hero", celebrating "Saint Elliot Day" on every anniversary of his attacks. The YourTango source for this claim reads like an editorial and should not be used as a source. The QZ source is unclear where their information is originating from, possibly reddit (Some of the incels’ idols are seen as having taken the black pill, most notably Santa Barbara mass murderer Elliot Rodger, who is often referred to (only semi-ironically) as “Saint Elliot” for having “martyred” himself to the incel cause.) - but does not elaborate whereupon "some of the incel's idols" comes from or how they came about to hear these claims. The Grazia source does not use the word "saint" or "st elliot day" anywhere in the article. The CNN source bases their claim on a NYMag/Intelligencer article which only states He has become something of a martyr and taboo joke within the 4chan ecosystem. The Esli Chan article (S2CID 252876225) is quoted, but from the quote you can see that the claim does not originate with Chan's research, but with "Squirrel, 2018" (Squirrell T. (2018). May 31: A definitive guide to Incels part two: The A-Z incel dictionary ) whom Chan cites. The link that Chan gives is to a blog ostensibly run by Squirrel. So in a very roundabout way, we have one source out of many that makes this claim, and that source appears to be original research/self published which would mark it as 2C of the WP:GAC.

  Replaced them all with The Cut that states: "Elliot Rodgers, also known simply as ER by his admirers, has emerged as the patron saint of online misogynists. His likeness has inspired countless memes that straddle the line between lulzy irony and utter sincerity (one widely circulated picture depicts him as a literal saint, his face Photoshopped into a religious painting). ER’s admirers on 4chan and Reddit also celebrate “Saint Elliot Day” on May 23, the anniversary of his murder spree. Others write strange tribute songs to honor their murderous hero. There are Elliot Rodger T-shirts, and Elliot Rodger T-shirt unboxing videos." And Jezebel states: "On message boards where incels like Rodger gathered, he wasn’t just a martyr, he was hailed a saint. May 23 marked “St. Elliot’s Day.” “May he rest in peace,” one incel wrote in a now-deleted 2017 Reddit thread. “Let us not be sad. Today is a day to celebrate… the retribution.” Another called Rodger a “sweet prince." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoot for the Stars (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Normally if a section from a previously accepted Good Article was quoted within a GA-nominated article I was reviewing, I would not re-review that section since it had already been reviewed by another editor. But in this case, the GA review of 2014 Isla Vista killings was performed by an editor with only 86 edits to their name and covered in a time span of only 24 days, much of that time during which the reviewing editor was preoccupied with illness after attending a conference. In my opinion, that review was woefully inadequate for an article of that size and complexity. Reading through the material that has been placed here from that article now, I don't see good reason for it to remain. The prose in this section illustrates tributes that others in the social media sphere have ascribed to the killings. Though the intention for including these may have been to spotlight their misaligned outpourings of affection rather than highlight them, they still come off as almost laudatory, which raises WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. I'm curious to know from the nominator (and anyone else who wishes to opine) why this information is relevant, and look forward to their feedback on this.  Spintendo  18:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Notes

I see no issue with the section in general; although I do think that the first two paragraphs could perhaps be summarised a bit better and adjusted for tone slightly. Also perhaps some editing of the whole section to adjust tone. TarnishedPath^talk 01:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Tarnished, and as we near the end of this GAN, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all your help with this review, it's been much appreciated. As to your point, I think that would be a fair compromise, a good re-write of the section. Taking just a rough count of the major claims within it, I count 10 that showcase individuals or websites which offer a laudatory look at Rodger and his actions, and 4 claims describing negative responses to his actions. I think this could be better balanced. (I must admit, seeking "balance" when it comes to arguments for/against support of those who kill people does seem odd, but perhaps not as odd when one factors in the non-related support that people largely have for industries such as the military, whose purpose is to kill people....but that's an argument for another day.)  Spintendo  02:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

When you state that it could be better balanced (for want of a better termanology), that was exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking the coverage of laudatory responses could be reduced.

I will have a look at summarising it after the children have gone to bed later this evening (I'm at work at present). TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

See, I should listen to my own advice. There is "balanced" and there is "unbalanced", but there is no "better balanced". LoL My mistake! What I should have said, is that it should do a better job of being balanced.  Spintendo  03:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo, as a small start in adjusting the tone, I've changed the section heading from "Legacy" to "Reactions on social media" and made it a subsection of the Aftermath" section. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo, please see Special:Diff/1339877493/1340378794. Have a read of the section and let me know what you think. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Reading that section of text, I counted roughly 7 claims which highlighted support for Rodger, 2 claims which pointed out non-support, and 3 claims which I'd have to categorize as neutral because they resist binary, manichean categorizations—such as the mentioning of the dueling Twitter hashtags and those mentioning a third "villain" so to speak—such as gun control laws and mental illness. That being said, I still feel there's room for improvement.  Spintendo  18:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll have another look tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 23:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm tired from today. I won't look at this tonight but will try and have a look tomorrow. I don't think any of us are in a rush here anyway. TarnishedPath^talk 09:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had the energy to do much serious content work recently (I've got three books staring at me for work I want to do on Daniel Andrews and Ben Roberts-Smith).

I'll try and have another go at this tonight. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo, please have a look at the section now and provide your thoughts. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've read the newer text. My count is 6 pro, 1 anti and 2 neutral. Let's recap our progress thus far in re-writing from the original version:

Version	Pro-Rodger	Anti-Rodger	Neutral
Original	10	4	0
First rev.	7	2	3
Second rev.	6	1	2

Each step in the revision process seems to take us down in claims by 1 or 2. That is good when it comes to pro-Rodger claims, but not so good when anti-Rodger claims are concerned. The only category which seems to be growing/holding is the neutral claims, although I suspect that is only because my first read of the original version didn't really consider some of the claims as being neutral. But when the choice is To Blame Rodger/Not Blame Rodger and the person chooses mental illness, you really have to say neutral, because blaming mental illness neither absolves Rodger nor does it indict him as a free actor with regards to choice. In any event, I'm not sure what else can be done here. But the section is not acceptable as is. Acceptable for the 2014 attacks article perhaps, but not here in an article which is already massively Rodger-POV oriented and now we ought to mention that others view him as a god (for what is essentially WP:BLP1E) is hard to stomach. My suggestion is a one-sentence blurb about his influence on others (who would remain unnamed) using the LA Times source as the reference. If the reader wants to learn more about Rodger's fan base, that LA Times article is a great starting point, which the reader would have access to by clicking the link in the References section (it would have to be an archive link from archive.ph another archive service as LATimes is paywalled and archive.org is down for now). That's how I would do it.  Spintendo  19:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is how I'm counting claims as highlighting pro/anti/neutral Rodger stances in the Reactions on social media subsection:

Counting of pro/anti/neutral Rodger claims

Rodger’s crimes brought increased public attention to the online “incel” (involuntary celibate) subculture, within which some members have portrayed him in explicitly celebratory terms. Posts in these communities have included tribute songs, merchandise featuring his image, and memes depicting him in quasi-religious imagery.¹ Some users refer to him as a “saint” or “hero” and mark the anniversary of the killings as “Saint Elliot Day.”² Within these forums, his name was often abbreviated as “E.R.” and his attacks have been cited as an inspiration by individuals involved in or suspected of other acts of mass violence, sometimes described as “going E.R.”³

After Rodger’s attacks, which authorities and commentators characterized as motivated by misogyny, some Twitter users used the hashtag #NotAllMen to emphasize that most men do not share such views or engage in similar violence.¹ Other users argued that the attacks should not be viewed primarily as misogynistic because Rodger killed more men than women,⁴ or contended that mental illness and gaps in U.S. gun control laws were more significant contributing factors.² The hashtag drew criticism for shifting attention away from broader concerns about violence and discrimination against women. In response, the hashtag #YesAllWomen was used approximately 1.2 million times on Twitter, surpassing earlier hashtags that highlighted sexism and violence against women.¹

On October 1, 2015, Chris Harper-Mercer killed nine people and injured eight others at Umpqua Community College before taking his own life. Prior to the attack, Harper-Mercer referenced Rodger alongside other mass killers in a manifesto, describing them as "people who are elite, people who stand with the gods".⁵ On April 23, 2018, Alek Minassian killed eleven people and injured fifteen others in Toronto by driving a van into pedestrians. Before the attack, Minassian posted a message on Facebook referencing an "Incel Rebellion" and praising Rodger using language common in online incel forums⁶

 Spintendo  01:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the third paragraph as being celebratory. With regards to the first paragraph, there is a difference between acknowledging that others have celebrated him, and thus summarising that, and celebrating him ourself. I don't see anything in there in which WE celebrate him. TarnishedPath^talk 02:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not we or others celebrate him, the essence of the claim remains the same: a description of someone who has taken pleasure in Rodger's actions, rather than a description of someone who has experienced pain because of his actions. When we illustrate several examples of one, and only one or 2 of the other, my feeling is that the article might appear to be expressing a bias that it might want to avoid.  Spintendo  18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to have to leave this to @Shoot for the Stars, because I personally don't feel confortable completely gutting the section—which someone else has worked hard on—when I don't see any major issue with the section. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they would be willing to resolve the issue. The article as a whole has an almost insurmountable issue when it comes to neutrality and following WP:SS. If you look at the article for Ted Kaczynski (another serial killer with a manifesto and Featured article status) the entire section about Kaczynki's life from birth to adulthood before his attacks is 1,809 words. Here in the Rodger article the sections on his childhood leading up to the attacks is 5,988 words. And Kaczynski didn't begin his bombings until he was 35. The sections on his diaries and manifesto are only 8 paragraphs long. The legacy section which talks about those inspired by him, does not name individuals. It's brief, and to the point.  Spintendo  02:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying this article has underlying issues? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

User talk:TarnishedPath I don't really have time for this anymore. The review has been going on for almost two months, and new issues arise every day. I think it would be best if you took over, because I'm going to start studying for school again and don't have time to keep this up. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

One of the criterion of WP:GACR is that articles are broad in coverage. If we have RS covering the subject's early life, I don't know why we wouldn't cover it.

If we are going to compare to Kaczynski, has there been as much coverage of his formative years as there has with Rodger? TarnishedPath^talk 07:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Tarnished brings up a good point. Broad in its coverage means that it addresses the main aspects of the topic and that it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles, allowing for shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.) To give you an example of how an article could do a better job at following summary style, see the portion of text excerpted below from the Rodger article:

Non-Summary style

Summary style

After finishing middle school, Rodger attended Crespi Carmelite High School (Crespi) and later William Howard Taft Charter High School (Taft). During his time at both schools, he reported experiencing severe bullying by other students, which contributed to anxiety and social withdrawal. On the last day of Rodger's freshman year, a classmate spoke about having sex with his girlfriend. Rodger did not believe him, causing the classmate to play a voice recording of himself and his girlfriend having sex. Following Rodger's subsequent outburst, his mother picked him up in the school's main office; it was the last time he would leave Crespi. Rodger subsequently enrolled at Taft. The larger student body heightened his anxiety, and he was withdrawn from the school after experiencing an anxiety attack during his first week.

After completing middle school, Rodger was unsuccessfully enrolled in a succession of high schools, notably Crespi Carmelite and Taft Charter, where Rodger experienced anxiety due to either a larger student body, bullying by other students, or experienced resentment in episodes where Rodger's lack of sexual experience fell short of his own or other student's expectations.

This way, the reader is delivered the main aspects of information (which schools he went to, what he experienced there, and what was the outcome) but presented in summary style. Wide swaths of Elliot's childhood ought to be condensed in this manner. Another way of following summary style would be to link to other articles where the subject is explained in detail. The Reactions on social media subsection, for example, discusses aspects of the Incel culture. But this is the Elliot Rodger article, and discussions on Incel subculture should be summarized here and linked to other articles. This could be done with a hatnote link ({{Main article|Incel}}) along with a summarized description of the people involved, rather than the 3 paragraphs which are there now. To Stars: I hope these recommendations do not discourage your active participation, though I understand if your studies preclude you from participating (the month of March being an odd time traditionally for studies to begin). That being said, I hope you can continue with the nomination.  Spintendo  17:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I regrettably have to ask that you fail this nomination. I do not have time to rewrite this whole article, and go section by section to make it "broad". As this nomination has already been going on for two months, and a lot of changes have already been made, I don’t feel like rewriting the whole article then having more issues presented. Unless TarnishedPath says that he feels like picking where this is at, please fail and close this. Shoot the the Stars (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

And I don’t know why you’re comparing this article to a featured article. This article was up for GA nomination so the criteria is way less strict than FA. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

While the review was appreciated, Spintendo, Kaczynski's article is at FA. They have way, way higher expectations than GA. This article is up for GA. Also, I do really wish that you had brought up that the article has "insurmountable issue[s]" when it began two months ago. I spent countless hours rewriting each section over these two months, and now you say that it has even more issues. It would basically require a whole rewrite of the article. That is a waste of time for everyone here. TarnishedPath said they are to busy to work on this article. Please fail and close this nomination. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Notes

I apologize if my way of editing was unfamiliar. In my estimation, you cannot judge an entire article until its constituent parts are each at their best. If certain parts of an article are unclear, or vague, or do mot make sense, how is someone to judge that article as a whole? The best way to improve something as a whole is to ensure that each particular part is at its clearest and most informational. That is why you and I spent as much time as we did cleaning each constituent part to make sure that its evaluation was at its most advantageous. Now that each part is at its clearest, we come to the final review table, which asks, does the article meet WP:SS and WP:N? When I look at the article in its clearest state thus far I can see that it doesn't meet those standards. Next step, is to ensure that it does by re-writing and subsuming different parts into a more summarized whole. We couldn't have been expected to clearly summarize something which had unclear or vague constituent parts to it, now could we. My dedication to finishing the review with the article passing GAN is absolute. I'm prepared to stay with the review and to offer guidance on rewrites until the job is finished, though I understand if others are not so enthusiastic and/or have time constraints. Remember, I said that the issues here were "almost insurmountable". It would be a shame to have invested almost one whole year now in the wait for GAN just to see it fail. I don't want to see that happen. As far as comparing an FA article to a GA, it was not meant as a 1:1 comparison, rather, as an ideal to strive for. The Kacszynski article's req at FA was comprehensiveness, which it met while still being shorter and more summarized than the Rodger article. That is something which should spur a greater move towards excising parts in the Rodger article which are superfluous, something which can easily be done through teamwork, which I'm prepared to do.  Spintendo  16:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo: thank you for the clarification and for your willingness to help improve the article. I appreciate the time and effort you've invested throughout this review, but after considering the amount of time and revisions that would be necessary to satisfy your concerns, I still want you to close and fail this review. The nomination was open for two months and a lot of rewrites had already been done for it. And now that you bring up issues that are "almost insurmountable", that would require more months of rewrites and editing. TarnishedPath and I do not have time for that. I will probably come back to this in the future when I have more time and open a peer review. But in the mean time, please close and fail this so it doesn’t take up space in the GA queue. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am also sorry, but it is very very frustrating after two months of investing all this time I had, only for more issues to be brought up. I do not want to stay on one GA review for months and months. It's already been two months and rewriting the whole article from scratch from your issues is just not feasible. That is something that requires more work outside of GA. I know I waited over a year, and it was a waste honestly. Please close and fail this so we don't waste anymore of your time or others. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

References section

• Currently, 21 sources in the References section are displaying the same Deprecated archival service CS1 maintenance message. Those sources' |archive-url= parameters should all be updated with URLs using a different archive service (See WP:ATODAY for more information on this.)

Notes

• Done

External links section

• The article should have an External links section, with links to the manifesto and the sheriff department's official report on the incident. The post-mortem image of Rodger which was recently discussed on the talk page, if the image's webpage is still active on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, it ought to be immediately archived here or here and the link to the archived image can be placed in the External links section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spintendo (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added a section with a link to the commons category (where the picture of the body is). I don't expect the body will be taken down from Commons any time soon. I've requested archiving at archive.md, however it might not work. web.archive.org states that it has an archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20260214173118/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elliot_Rodger_dead_body.jpg; however when clicked it is blocked by wikimedia. I expect the same might occur with archive.md. I'll leave adding the other stuff to Shoot for the Stars as he can probably find it faster than myself. TarnishedPath^talk 04:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You or Stars might try archive.ph as well, they work sometimes when archive.org fails or is blocked. The use of that archive service is now deprecated on Wikipedia per WP:ATODAY.  Spintendo  04:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I'll leave the sheriff's report and the manifesto to SFTS. TarnishedPath^talk 05:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Just a nitpick here, but I would make the Commons link the first last link and make it unbulleted (because it has an icon). The sheriffs report (bulleted) should come first followed by the two manifesto links and then the image link (all bulleted) The titles don't need quotation marks, and the dates should be published dates (except the image, in which the published date is unknown or not relevant). Accessed dates can be placed using {{retrieved}}, which also has a |via= parameter in which the source can be placed, e.g., The New York Times, etc..

@Spintendo:, please see Special:Diff/1339909534/1339930947. Regarding titles having quotation marks, that is added automatically by the cite template. If you want that changed then we'd have to not use the template altogether and use bare urls, which I don't see as an improvement. Let me know what you think. TarnishedPath^talk 01:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I was suggesting something like this:

External links

• Isla Vista Investigative Summary Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office (Official Report) — February 18, 2015, Retrieved February 22, 2026 – via Los Angeles Times.
• The Manifesto of Elliot Rodger May 25, 2014, Retrieved February 22, 2026 – via The New York Times.
• Transcript of Elliot Rodger's Retribution May 24, 2015, Retrieved February 22, 2026 – via Los Angeles Times.
• Post-mortem image of Rodger Retrieved February 23, 2026 – via megalodon.jp.

   Media related to Elliot Rodger at Wikimedia Commons

 Spintendo  17:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done TarnishedPath^talk 23:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Toolforge report

• View the report here.

GA review: Article size

Changes made to the article since the start of GAN

metric	start	end	change
Word count	9,023	8,382	−7.10%
References	364	194	−46.70%
Refnotes	737	435	−40.98%

Notes

GA review: Final review table

Final review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article had WP:TOOMANYREFS, with several sentences containing upwards of 3 or more references (see article size section above). Gave suggestions that the refnotes should be minimized wherever possible to the absolute minimum necessary. Thus far 167 extraneous unique references and 281 extraneous refnotes have been deleted. (2a. Layout style guideline links to Notes and references where it states For how to generate and format these sections, see Wikipedia:Citing sources where a subsection suggests that inline citations avoid clutter.)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Where citerefs were found in bunches not adhering to WP:TSI, suggestions were made to re-place the notes into their correct positions within the prose. (2b. requires WP:TSI be followed) Example (not from Rodger article) of prose citerefs not adhering to WP:TSI, violating 2b of WP:GAC
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article would benefit from having much of the details of Rodger's upbringing placed into summary style. As it stands, the article delves too deeply into Rodger's details written in his manifesto. Provided example of how this re-write might look: Example of proposed Summary Style in the Rodger GAN (See Final planning section suggestions.)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	A vast proportion of the article is essentially Elliot Rodger's point of view, as written by him in his so-called "manifesto", with innumerable sources describing it, quoting from it, and analyzing it. Normally this would trigger neutrality issues, as there is very little presented here to counter Rodger's dramaturgical pathos. As these passages have been reported on by RS's, a modicum of their inclusion ought to be permitted. That modicum could be attained if those mentions were efficiently summarized instead of described in great detail. By describing Elliot's POV in great detail with very little opposition described, the article appears to tilt in his favor (unintentionally). (See Reactions on social media subsection suggestions.)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	5. WP:CT/GG procedures apply (see WP:ARBGSCT)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.