Talk:Elliot Rodger

Aftermath section

I recently made an edit to this article to remove the Aftermath section, which was reverted by @Shoot for the Stars. I already explained my reasoning in my edit summary, but I'll do it again. The text of the Aftermath section is already included in 2014 Isla Vista killings. Keeping that text is thus problematic, due to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It's not a good idea to state so much of the same information twice across two articles.

This should be straight-forward. Elliot Rodger is a biography article about Elliot Rodger's life. 2014 Isla Vista killings is an article about Rodger's attacks and their aftermath. While the aftermath was caused by Elliot Rodger, most of it isn't relevant to Rodger's life, since he was dead at that point. I'm not opposed to having a small summary section summarizing the aftermath and describing the final state of Rodger's body, but the current ~9242 bytes of text is overkill. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The aftermath is directly relevant to their life. If their life had not have occurred, neither would have the aftermath. We can discuss how much detail we should go into the aftermath, but your logic is fundamentally flawed. TarnishedPath^talk 21:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

My logic is not flawed. I said that it's reasonable to have a section summarizing the aftermath. We both agree that there should be an aftermath section, but we seem to disagree on how big it should be. I think a smaller size would be better to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Furthemore, I'm not saying that the Aftermath should not be on Wikipedia at all. I fully support stating the complete Aftermath in all its detail inside 2014 Isla Vista killings. The issue is WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which you and @User:Shoot for the Stars have not addressed at all.

Elliot Rodger states the background and biographical information that led up to the attack, as well as the attack itself. The attack article describes the attack, its aftermath, reactions, and legacy. Everybody who wants to read the full aftermath is logically going to click and read the attack article. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I recently found out that the reason why Shoot for the Stars never replied to my comments on this talk page since April 14 is because he was blocked from editing Wikipedia. After exploring his editing history and such, it became clear to me that the reason why Shoot for the Stars was adamant about including the aftermath of the attack section into this biography article is because he wanted to the article to reach good or featured article status. Supposedly, the information on the attack aftermath would make this biography article look more comprehensive when the article is judged by itself.

However, he did not explain that this was his intention. Nor did you. Instead, you both rebuffed my comment as aggressively as possible, even though I had a good point about how Wikipedia should try to prevent redundant forks. Given that the most logical option for building an optimal encyclopedia should be for the aftermath of the attacks to be exclusively listed in the attacks article, the best approach would be to simply explain in the good article nomination that the attack aftermath section was excluded from the biography article because it's already included in the 2014 Isla Vista attacks article, which is already at good article status. This would simultaneously avoid the redundant fork problem, while ensuring that the biography article's chances at being evaluated as a good article are unharmed.

For perpetrators who died by suicide at the ends of their most famous crimes, the perpetrator biography articles can generally be thought of as prequels to the crime articles. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded to my arguments, so I deleted the Aftermath section again, after waiting five weeks for someone to respond. My edit is supported by Wikipedia's content guidelines, like WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

On Talk:Adam Lanza#“Legacy”?, a strong and unopposed consensus determined that there was no reason to mention the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article in Adam Lanza's biography article.

For similar reasons, it's better for the aftermath of Elliot Rodger's attacks to be mentioned exclusively in 2014 Isla Vista attacks. There is absolutely no point in duplicating the same exact content again in the biography article. People can already read about it inside the attack article, if they want to. Anybody who reverts my edit is obligated to explain how their revert does not violate WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions:While the aftermath was caused by Elliot Rodger, most of it isn't relevant to Rodger's life, since he was dead at that point. By that same logic, the Reactions on social media subsection also ought to be deleted, since those social media reactions came after Rodger's life had ended. You'll see in the GAN which I reviewed where I argued unsuccessfully for the elimination of that section. Much of that information, if not all of it, is already described in great detail in the Incel article and thus, is itself a WP:REDUNDANTFORK.  Spintendo  13:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I actually think that section is less problematic, as far as WP:REDUNDANTFORK is concerned. Currently, the Reactions on social media subsection uses Template:Excerpt to transclude information from 2014 Isla Vista attacks, so there's only one copy of that information across both articles, even if the information is currently displayed in both articles. The aftermath section that I deleted did not use the excerpt template, which made it problematic.

You're technically right that the logic that I stated for deleting the Aftermath section applies for the Social Media Reactions section too. However, I once again think that that section is less problematic to show in the Elliot Rodger article, since some of it talks directly about Elliot Rodger, like how some incels refer to him as "E.R." or "Saint Elliot", or how people commented on Rodger's difficulty forming relationships. I view the Aftermath section as less about Elliot Rodger and more about the attacks themselves, since the Aftermath section doesn't talk about Elliot Rodger's life or his cultural significance.

I hadn't read Incel#2010s until you linked it, but you're right that there is some redundant fork issue between 2014 Isla Vista attacks and the Incel page. I don't know how best to resolve it though. Transclusions seem complicated to me when they're focusing on specific paragraphs, rather than an entire section. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Misspell (preceived)

In the motives section of Rodger's information at the start, perceived is misspelled. ~2026-25805-71 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Removal of uncovered corpse photo

Opening a discussion section for my removal of File:Elliot Rodger dead body.jpg, a police photo of Rodger's uncovered corpse, added yesterday by Funchier. This article is already festooned with images, many also derived from the Santa Barbara PD, and has a photo of his covered body in situ next to his crashed car, conveying more useful information in association with the text; given there's a good photo of him in life at the top, all the uncovered photo adds is gore. I'm tempted to tag it on Commons but not sure what their policy is for photos that like this one are marked "do not duplicate" and were obtained via a FOIA request. But if it remains on Commons, readers can find it there. I consider it unnecessary shock coverage on-wiki. (Full disclosure: I was made aware of its addition in a post on Wikipediocracy, where it was noted without comment.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I was completely unaware. I see that discussion ended with the majority favoring leaving it out, and I gather that was in part because it was replaced by the photo showing the car and the covered corpse. 06:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yngvadottir (talk • contribs)

@NeoSyria, I see that you've readded the image, so perhaps you'd like to join this discussion? I'm not sure how I feel about it myself, but many editors in the discussion I linked were for its removal. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll revert my edits; I didn't know that there was opposition to it. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Mislabeling in the opening Paragraph?

Wondering why he is portrayed as a Terrorist of British American descent when the consensus indicates, at least in my belief, that he is of hyperborean descent and a recognised American Hero, winning 2 purple hearts for his heroic sacrifice in the second Incel War.

just desired some clarification in that regard, ty! ~2026-40381-53 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Victim Name Misspelled (Cheng Huan Yong)

It is spelled Cheng Yuan Hong. Source ~2026-40331-31 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)