Talk:2014 Isla Vista attacks

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Premeditated Chaos (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 22-year-old Elliot Rodger murdered six people during the 2014 Isla Vista killings because he claimed women rejected him and he had never had sex?

• Source: The Independent

• • ALT1: ... that 22-year-old Elliot Rodger murdered six people and injured fourteen others during the 2014 Isla Vista killings because he was a lifelong virgin and believed women had rejected him? Source: BBC
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/It's Only a Game (collection)

Improved to Good Article status by Shoot for the Stars (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC).

• comment: would suggest waiting to see if Rodger's article passes GAN for a double hook. Roast (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the idea of linking a horrific real-life murder spree that took the lives of six innocent people as a cute little bite-sized "fun fact" to be in incredibly, incredibly poor taste. CornyDude22 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to this running in principle - one of the WP:DYKAIMs is to showcase the range of our content and that includes topics like this one - presenting what are the deranged rantings of an incel on the main page is a bit much. I have struck the two hooks, and suggest that @Shoot for the Stars: propose something else; I suggest ALT2: ... that six 2014 killings committed by Elliot Rodger sparked discussion of broader issues of violence against women and misogyny? or perhaps something about California's first red flag law. You may also wish to see if either WP:GARC or WP:GARP would take Rodger's article so this can run as a double nom.--Launchballer 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• ALT3 ... that the 2014 Isla Vista killings led to California enacting a red-flag law, which allows family members to petition courts to remove weapons from persons deemed a threat?

• Source: The Independent

TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I doubt anyone will listen to me, but do not run this DYK. Reject it. There's some weird, incel, cult-like devotion to this topic, and in the past, I've read that perpetuating coverage of this topic can lead to an increase in stochastic violence. Like I said, I doubt many will agree with me, but that's my controversial take. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I question any coverage leading to increases in "stochastic violence" given that there has literally been a metric fucktonne of coverage on this already. Additionally WP:NOTCENSORED. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Stochastic Gender-Based Violence: How Incels Justify and Encourage Sexualized Violence Against Women. (2025) Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that piece talks about an increase in stochastic violence resulting from incels communicating in their forums. Which is not hard to understand. I lurked for a bit in incel forums just after Minassian ran over a bunch of people in Canada and they are truly sick demented fucks, who egg each other on. I can easily imagine those sorts of forums being a contributing factor. However, I couldn't see anything in that article which states that news reporting leads to increases in stochastic violence. TarnishedPath^talk 06:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that Rodger's GA began being reviewed yesterday and I intend on reviewing the articles as a pair.--Launchballer 16:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

• - gtg. Long enough, new enough. Sources checks out. Prose is good. BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There were valid points were made in opposition but the consensus is clear here. (non-admin closure) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

---

2014 Isla Vista killings → 2014 Isla Vista attacks – The term "killing" is inappropriate for this article as it is usually used for notable homicides that have either been found to not be murder, notable homicides that have ongoing trials, or notable homicides that are not or have not been criminally tried. The term "attacks" is more appropriate as it has been found to have been a misogynist terrorist attack. Pondering my orb (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The word "attacks" is used here, and seems most appropriate to describe the event. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 21:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose attacks is too vague. Attacks can include property damage, bombings that killed no one, whatever. The notable factor here is that several people were killed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Objection During the terrorist attacks, the Isla Vista Deli (IV Deli) had glass damage on their windows from the shots Rodger fired.

IShowSammy (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. This fit the description of a terrorist attack, so it should be treated as any other article on the subject. Will also note there were people who were injured but not killed, so "killings" do not encompass all of the victims. Hsnkn (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Most terrorist incident articles are not titled "attack" in our articles, so how would this bring us any closer to "any other article on the subject"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Specifically referring to those named under WP:NCWWW. Hsnkn (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure? Is this an exception? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom; The term "killings" do not sound right, and this article is a part of misogynistic terrorism. As per WP:COMMONNAME, we shall change this title to 2014 Isla Vista attacks per the nomination. The article is clearly describing about an attack and we shall perform a swap to have "2014 Isla Vista killings" redirect here while "2014 Isla Vista attacks" is the main title.

IShowSammy (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Yes they were attacks. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd actually prefer the proposed name, but per WP:COMMONNAME it appears "Isla Vista killings" is much more common than "Isla Vista attacks". It sucks sometimes what the media and coverage chooses for the common name, but it is what it is. Raskuly (🐰) 00:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Objection WP:COMMONNAME, also known as Use commonly recognizable names, is a policy where COMMONLY RECOGNIZABLE NAMES are supposed to be used on this article. Your reason states that "killings" are more common than attacks. This article is about a mass misogynistic terror murder that included property damage and many got wounded due to the BMW being used to run people over. This classifies as a terrorist attack and therefore, as you say per WP:COMMONNAME, this should become 2014 Isla Vista attacks. Please do not make frivolous requests here. IShowSammy (discussion) 01:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CIVIL, but in short be nice to other editors. Isla Vista killings appears to be the commonly recognized name. The rest of your comment you appear to have misinterpreted my comment and the guideline. Thanks. Raskuly (🐰) 02:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and WP:KILLINGOF are sort of conflicting with another in this specific case, but COMMONNAME also leans in favor of attacks. It says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Per nom, "killings" is ambiguous/inappropriate given how killing is used to denote non-murders/killings with ongoing trials/non-trialed killings.

Much love, rock on!

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support - Some people were not killed and just injured. JaxsonR (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per ArkadenBoden's reasoning. "Attacks" is also pretty frequently used and it actually helps improve the reader's understanding because of the implication of "killings". Raskuly (🐰) 15:44, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME—27 of the references in the article's reflist call it a "killing" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) as opposed to only 11 references that call it an "attack" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Libido Sanguinis (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 8 August 2026

2014 Isla Vista attacks → Isla Vista attacks – One of the most notable terrorist attacks in the United States that should pass WP:NOYEAR. Before anyone mentions the 2001 Isla Vista killings, that is nowhere close to being as known as this attack and searching for "Isla Vista attacks" only shows the one in 2014. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support regardless of notability the event can easily be described without the year and adding a year when it isn't needed for disambiguation nor an intrinsic part of the event like 2026 East Surrey Council election per WP:PRECISION and User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation is not helpful and suggests there was another attack in a different year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support: Directly above rationale is critically incorrect, and doesn't understand that events have their own naming guidelines (WP:NCE) while elections are covered under WP:NCELECT. It would not be against WP:PRECISION to include a year as it is quite clearly stated that Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria, but I think this event passes WP:NOYEAR and is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think alongside the École Polytechnique massacre, this is the incel/misogynistic terrorist attack and as such is defining and can manage without a year. Raskuly 🐰 00:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)