Talk:Elliot Rodger

Some of the images included are highly inappropriate:

a) The allowance check from Elliot Rodger's father includes a home address. It should be blacked out, whether or not his father has moved away. Whoever resides at that address may be subject to harassment because of the highly disturbing and contentious nature of Rodger's actions.

b) There is no cultural or intellectual benefit to having a photo Rodger's dead body in this article, and it only provides shock value. It is disturbing, triggering, disrespectful to his loved ones, and may galvanize those who empathize with his beliefs & actions.

c) The photos of Rodger's weapons may be encouraging also to those who would follow in his footsteps, although there is some value to describing and displaying them. ~2026-46232-4 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For "B" and "C", Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that you find them objectionable is not good enough reason on its own to remove them. "A" might run afoul of our policy on biographies of living people, though, particularly this section. Also, please don't post the same thing twice. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and the B and C images WILL NOT be removed. For A however, we should wait and see what other editors say about it. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

No need to shout, @Shoot for the Stars. I don't think "A" should be removed, but the address should probably be blurred. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

what benefit does B add? ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Again Wikipedia is NOT censored. The image has value and provides a good point of how he died. The image is not gonna be removed just because you do not like it. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I only know of one other article that does this, i think you could just explain in words how he died like most of the other articles on shooters. Not trying to be too argumentitive. ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Offensive material it should be removed. Inexpiable (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree with blurring the address in A at the very least. B and C should not be removed as they clearly adhere to MOS:PERTINENCE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. TarnishedPath^talk 00:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

"It is disturbing, triggering, disrespectful"

(Personal attack removed) Acoolusername2025 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

DO NOT insult other editors and call them names. That is unacceptable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with b). The counterarguments about NOTCENSORED are irrelevant. NOTCENSORED doesn't mean you can include any offensive image you want and then say "we don't censor Wikipedia!" The image adds no informative or encyclopedic value. Shoot for the Stars, who added the image, has also indicated that their reasoning for doing so may not be entirely neutral. Rodger went into his attack fully knowing he was going to murder other people. I find it highly perplexing that people are getting offended for a scumbag who murdered innocent people because his body is on Wikipedia. indicates that they believe there's some kind of retributive value here. I'm going to remove the image, and I remind everyone that the WP:ONUS is on the others in this discussion to seek consensus for its inclusion, not for the critics to seek consensus for its removal. Athanelar (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You may find the arguments about NOTCENSORED to be irrelevant; however they are not. NOTCENSORED is policy. The arguments put for removal have been from MOS:OFFENSIVE. MOS are always subservient to policy. An additional argument for keeping the image is MOS:PERTINENCE. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED explicitly states that it is subservient to PERTINENCE, and neither you nor anyone else arguing for inclusion have actually provided an argument as to why the image is pertinent. I'm arguing that it isn't. As others have said, the exact same information is conveyed with text alone. We don't need to see Rodger's half-blasted-off face to know he killed himself via gunshot, so does the image really have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject? Athanelar (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps re-read the conversation because I have specifically called out PERTINENCE in previous comments. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I know you have mentioned it, but you do not seem to have actually argued why it applied. Only saying "the image is pertinent" does not seem to be much of an argument. Athanelar (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject.

The image clearly meets this requirement and is placed proximately such that it is illustrative of the adjoining paragraph. Having the image therefore adheres to this particular part of MOS:IMAGE. TarnishedPath^talk 12:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The image clearly meets this requirement How so? This is the entire claim I'm asking you to prove. What 'clear and illustrative purpose' is served by this image which isn't served by text alone? As others have said, must we now include photos of every serial killer's victims where possible in order to serve as an 'illustrative aid' to the wounds that were inflicted on them? Athanelar (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The section of text talks about how he took his life and the image clearly illustrates that. See WP:OTHERCONTENT regarding other articles. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it does back up the statement that he died, but it's not even clear from the image that the cause of death is self-inflicted gunshot wound because you can't really see it (that's not a request for a more graphic image BTW, in case anyone thinks I'm doing that).

I mentioned Evelyn McHale below, since her suicide photo was necessary in order to discuss how it impacted society as a whole - she's famous because of that exact photo.

This photo hasn't made much of an impact on society at all, to the point that (I suspect) most of us haven't even seen it before. The primary impact comes from his actions before he died.

So I'm again brought back to the fact that I intentionally first read the article without the image, then with the image, and gained no new knowledge or insight from the second pass.

What does the image add that cannot be achieved by words alone? If we need an image to illustrate every major statement, then our articles would be massive. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. I don't necessarily think we need images for every major statement, even if that was possible, which it isn't. However, when we have content available of this significance to the subjects life I see only benefit in utilising it, as long as MOS:PERTINENCE is met, which in this case it is. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

That page explains that However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting or cause undue weight: usually, less is more and Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject.

I feel that this image is highly distracting and doesn't serve any unique illustrative purpose nor give any understanding that isn't available through the statement that he shot himself.

We don't need to see an image that he shot himself in order to understand that he shot himself. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

All redundant now as the image has been removed and another placed there which has the body covered. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The photo of Rodger's dead body should be removed per Wikipedia:Offensive material. It serves no purpose to the article whatsoever and is just graphic. What's next? Will we start showing post mortem photos of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims in his article? The photo is graphic and should not be there. All the other photos should stay but the dead body is completely unnecessary, I was really taken aback when I saw it and even double checked my browser to see if I was even on Wikipedia and not some clone site. Inexpiable (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Take a read at WP:NOTCENSORED again. This was a violent crime and had violent deaths, so of course there was massive violence. So what do you expect, sunshine and roses? An image cannot be removed just because you find it offensive. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Take a read at this: “Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.” Shoot for the Stars (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

And plus, when talking about photos, I think it’s really disgusting how you compared victims who were murdered by a sick fuck with sick fuck Elliot Rodger who MURDERED people. Dahmer and Rodger’s victims never asked to be brutally murdered. Rodger went into his attack fully knowing he was going to murder other people. I find it highly perplexing that people are getting offended for a scumbag who murdered innocent people because his body is on Wikipedia. There is not even any comparison. I think anyone would find it highly offensive if anyone were to put up pictures of the victims bodies. This is ridiculous. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Pcartoon678 Do not remove the photo until we reach a consensus here. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shoot for the Stars The WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus for including the image if it is disputed; which it evidently is. Athanelar (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK, the image has been there for some time. ONUS applies to those seeking to change existing material, not on those arguing to maintain it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not think it is a strong argument to suggest that displaying Rodgers' body is acceptable purely by virtue of the fact he "deserves" it in some way.

The question is whether it's encyclopedically valuable to show an image of a corpse. Athanelar (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 that the picture of the dead body is obscene and serves no value on the page. It's by far the most graphic thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia and doesn't really serve an encyclopedic purpose. It seems like Wikipedia:Offensive material directly applies here, and I'm curious if anyone other than the guy who FOIA'd and uploaded it disagrees. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED which is policy. TarnishedPath^talk 05:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Please actually read the policy and understand the relevant exceptions to it, which explicitly links to Wikipedia:Offensive material. There is a section titled "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content which seems to be explicitly targeting your interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED doesn't mean "you can include any shock image you want," it means we don't censor encyclopedically-valuable content purely because it's offensive.

The question here is whether this content is encyclopedically valuable, continuously responding with "read NOTCENSORED" is a non sequitur. Athanelar (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I came here to say this too. I saw this image and was surprised to see it's completely unblurred. This adds very little, if anything to the page (what is this image supposed to show???) and is frankly concerning to me that someone would add this. I looked at this user's edit history and it is concerning enough to me that I don't want to sign this with my username. I want to assume good faith here, but this is hard to believe. - ~2026-60433-2 (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The image is able to be used per MOS:PERTINENCE. Also, please don't edit while logged out as it may be considered socking. Please refer to WP:LOUTSOCK. TarnishedPath^talk 05:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

> Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject.

I'm arguing that this is NOT met. Andmcadams (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It clearly is met. The section of text where the image is placed deals with Rodger's suicide. The image is clearly illustrative of the results of Rodger committing suicide. We are better able to understand the subject because we can see a picture of his body after he committed suicide, which is detailed in the ajoining text. TarnishedPath^talk 05:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Concerning haha. All these IPs coming here definitely reeks of sock puppetry. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't make these sorts of accusations - you have a habit of doing this any time the requests for comment go against the changes you want to make. Sometimes it's not an elaborate conspiracy, it's actually just multiple people that independently think your changes are making the site worse. Please respond to the substance of their concerns instead of what you're doing. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s also hard to “assume good faith” when you literally admitted that you’re socking here. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It sounded more like your edit history, FOIA actions and aggressive follow-ups on talk pages made them legitimately concerned about how you'd respond. I don't think that's unreasonable. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

What does my Foia actions have anything to do with this? I request the pictures over a year ago and got them from the Santa Barbara police department. How is that “concerning”? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

And you literally came here from the Jason Bateman RFC. So you admitting to watching my history and then you coming to an article that is COMPLETELY different from Batemans because I edit it is concerning in itself. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Might I ask that we talk about the article, not the ones who edit it? This thread was started because a user was concerned that some of the images were inappropriate. I don't agree with them, but I do understand where they're coming from. Accusations of sockpuppetry and talking about a user's past are not elements of a constructive discussion about article content. I'd like to ask everyone to keep the temperature down and remember that we all want to improve the article, not make it worse. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s just weird how all of a sudden these IPs that have never edited anywhere else are piling in the talkpage. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider three temporary accounts (two if you discount the editor who didn't want to reveal their username) a pile-on, given the infamy of the article subject and that one of them seemingly followed you from somewhere else. I also think it's quite possible that the one who started this discussion (and hasn't edited since) was just a casual reader who was surprised by the images. But again, I'd rather the article be discussed here, not editor conduct. (Oh, and I wasn't talking to you specifically, in case that wasn't clear.) Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I doubt the three TAs are the same person. They are in different locations and using different ISPs. ~2026-60433-2 however has explicitly told us that they intentionally edited while logged out. That I think is going to result in a WP:SPI. TarnishedPath^talk 08:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how often you get this kind of feedback, but your response here is an incredible microcosm of what's wrong with the Wikipedia community, and why new people don't engage on talk pages. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Wikipedia community is that editors are held to account for violating policy? Go cry me a river. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

In regards to b (photo of Rodger's dead body): Graphic images of this nature should only be used if it substantially increases our readers understanding of the article topic, and if text alone can not achieve that purpose. The text in question — He then crashed his BMW into a cyclist and was found dead by police from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head — is more than sufficient for our readers to understand that Rodger killed himself with a self-inflicted gunshot to the head. And the absence of the graphic media in no way diminishes our readers understanding of the article topic. MOS:OFFENSIVE states it should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. I'm not seeing any compelling reason for how its inclusion serves an encyclopedic purpose, because excluding it does not cause the article in any way whatsoever to be less informative relevant or accurate. And it certainly does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject, nor is it essential for the article's educational value.— Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the corpse photo. As Isaidnoway notes, it adds nothing to our understanding of the topic (which is why such photos are relatvely scarce in our articles: unless there's something particularly notable about the means of death (example), their inclusion is rarely neccesary. I also disagree that WP:ONUS—also policy—ceases to apply after a certain period; if it did, it would be effectively pointless in the longterm. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Agree with removal - it doesn't add anything to the article, which has plenty of images. I don't think Wikipedia should be censored, disturbing images will be on here but this is still an encyclopedia.

I first read the article without the image, then with the image and gained no new understanding of the subject from that photo.

This isn't like the Evelyn McHale photo, it's inclusion does nothing for the article beyond adding shock value.

If someone can explain how its inclusion makes the article better, I'm happy to reconsider. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI the same editor that put the original gory photo on the article has placed another photo of this person's corpse on the article. ~2026-59637-0 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

His body is LITERALLY covered by a sheet so YOU CANNOT SEE IT AT ALL! The photo has been used in the 2014 Isla Vista killings and other wikis for MONTHS and no one has complained about it. You just trying to start issues is not going to work bub. And the fact you came here from stalking my contributions because of the Jason Bateman image is super concerning. Those two things have absolutely nothing in common. Stay away from my account. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath what do we do here? Your input would be appreciated. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see how MOS:OFFENSIVE would apply to the new picture, given that we can't actually see the body. Has anyone removed it? What is their argument for doing so? TarnishedPath^talk 08:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned by the new photo - basically neutral since it's not as disturbing but still doesn't add a lot of value. I don't mind if it stays. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I think someone said above that the image currently has too many images (Blue Sonnet?). I do agree with that. The pictures of a cheque written by his father (even though the address has been blurred), of a lotto ticket, of a prescription, of his life goals, the screenshot of his posting on Bodybuilding.com and a screenshot showing the upload of his "retribution" video are all quite banal. TarnishedPath^talk 09:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

They also crowd sections of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The article is a bit intimidating to read on mobile at least, when all the sections are expanded it takes me half a dozen swipes to get to the bottom!

I'm not sure how much use the cheque picture is? I'd argue that the current image of the body is of more value to the article than a cheque. We know his parents were well off already, there's a photo of his BMW that helps illustrate that point too.

Same with the life goals, they're images of text, so we could argue that the text is/should be in the article and pictures just clutter things up. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)