Jump to content

Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

No discussion/mention of Roof's crediting Wikipedia's Trayvon Martin article

There should be a discussion about Roof's crediting Wikipedia's Trayvon Martin article in convincing him that George Zimmerman was "in the right" and inspiring him to research what Roof calls "black on White crime."

  • Roof, Dylan (June 17, 2015). "Untitled". lastrhodesian.com. Dylann Roof. I read the Wikipedia article [about Trayvon Martin] and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words 'black on White crime' into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Council of Conservative Citizens source:

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It was definitely here before. Not a matter of needing more sources. Sometimes people just reword things. Then sometimes people just delete things. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems pretty tangential to the shooting itself. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If this article is calling racism a motive for the shooting, and he's calling that shooting article a motivation for discovering racism, it seems pretty direct to me. That's not to say Wikipedia's to blame. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. A short mention may be due. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I earlier added this press mention to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin talk page. IMO if we mention Wikipedia at this article, it should be only a passing mention. We Wikipedians may think it's a big deal when somebody cites Wikipedia, but the world at large doesn't really care WHERE he read about the case - whether it was Wikipedia or the New York Times or People Magazine is of no interest or significance to most people. The important thing is that he read about the Trayvon Martin case, thought Zimmerman was in the right, searched Google for "black on white crime", and found the Council of Conservative Citizens. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Note that none of the sources quoted above discusses or calls attention to the fact that he read about it on Wikipedia - as opposed to somewhere else. They all just quote his manifesto "I read the Wikipedia article". The fact that it was Wikipedia is of no interest to any of the Reliable Sources quoted - or basically to anyone except us. --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
How do you know to whom this is significant or not? You can't possibly know that. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If a reporter doesn't find something significant, then it's generally not "fit to print". Though yeah, even reporters aren't entirely sure what other reporters mean when they say that. But I mean if it wasn't significant, they wouldn't have printed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What Hulk said. We take our cue on "significance" from what reporters and Reliable Sources do. All of them quoted that passage from the manifesto so it should be here. None of them made any particular point about Wikipedia being the site where he read the article, so we also should do no more than mention it in passing, as they did. --MelanieN alt (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused on what the alternative to "mention it in passing" is. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The manifesto passage mentioning Wikipedia is quoted in the Dylann Roof article. Short of quoting that entire manifesto paragraph here as well, I think bringing up Wikipedia's Trayvon Martin article gives it undue weight. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We prominently call racism the prime motive for the shooting, and currently say, "The Council of Conservative Citizens, whose website Roof cited as a source for his radicalization..." We know he only cited that as his third step, after reading Wikipedia and Googling "black on White crime". So to lsbel that the "source", rather than the two things that directly led to it, seems the undue thing.
Anyway, my confusion is about the alternative to mentioning it in passing, if we mention it at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we're disagreeing. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, either. But I think I might diagree with Melanie. Hard to tell if she's for saying he read it on Wikipedia, he read it (somewhere) or he read it on Wikipedia and (whatever the alternative to just a passing mention is).
Were you disagreeing with her, too, but I misread the way you indented? That would at least explain that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN. The copy works as is. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood the original question here. From the title of this section, I thought LB was saying, not just that we should mention his saying he read the Wikipedia article - I thought she was saying that we should further explore or make a point of the fact that it was Wikipedia where he read it. Sometimes we do get carried away with our own importance that way. So my insistence on "passing mention" was to make sure that we didn't do that - that we only quote him, "I read the Wikipedia article", or if people prefer, something like "after reading about the Trayvon Martin case, he found the Council of Conservative Citizens website and "was never the same from that day"." I do think something along those lines should be included. We currently say nothing about his description of how he came to be radicalized; I think there should be a sentence in the "Suspect" section, in the paragraph about his manifesto. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So saying something like "after reading "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" on Wikipedia, he found the..." would be getting carried away? I don't think so. He says exactly what he read, and there's a distinct difference between a certain article and the general subject, just as there's a difference between the CCC and general racists. The omission of the source in something like "after reading about..." makes it seem to me like Wikipedia is trying to distance itself. That's not an NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
He didn't actually name the article he read. IMO it was almost certainly Shooting of Trayvon Martin, but there was some dispute at that article's talk page about whether it might have been Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. So it could say "after reading about the Trayvon Martin case on Wikipedia" or "after reading the Wikipedia article about the Trayvon Martin case". --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, just to wrap this up, I propose to add the following to the "Suspect" section, in the paragraph about the mainfesto:

The manifesto describes how he became "racially aware": he read about the Trayvon Martin case on Wikipedia and felt that George Zimmerman had been in the right. He then searched for "Black on white crime" on Google and found the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens. At that site he read "pages upon pages" about black people murdering white people and has "never been the same since that day".

Cited to the Gawker article about the manifesto.--MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's accurate and works for me. He searched for "black on White crime", FWIW, not that it made any difference in his results. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting observation! So to him, "black" is lowercase and "white" is capitalized. You're right, that could be significant. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Thanks for that MelanieN! Yes, even the spelling tries to be racist. That "manifesto" is full of spelling, words and phrases used by fascists/racists/white supremacists. I tried the employment of [sic] in this article, but InedibleHulk didn't liked it :-( Like "the Jewish problem" (Hitler wanted the Endlösung as "the solution" of "the problem"), capitalizing white, lowercasing black etc. What I did find odd, was his acceptance of "Jews" once their identify is removed, not very hitler-ish. That is something I haven't read before. Along with him expressing zero interest in living in Nazi-Germany, but still burning and spitting on the American flag. His spelling of Brazil is also curious, very Portuguese. Just a few things set off some flags.--79.223.13.244 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, even the spelling tries to be racist. That would be funny if it weren't so sad. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I added it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. And yeah, I don't like "[sic]", especially now that everything's copied and pasted digitally. Transcription errors are a thing of the past, so making a point of noting an editor's computer wasn't strangely broken just draws attention to the perceived (by Wikipedia) error. It's like editorializing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, except that someone will likely 'correct' it down the road. I can't tell you how many times Pioneerof the Nile's name was "fixed" on American Pharoah's page after his son won the Triple Crown. Don't they know horses can't spell? — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For shit like that, use invisible comments. They're not exactly invisible, just until someone tries to "fix" the thing beside them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Very short quotes like this aren't very editorially favorable anyways. Can we use indirect quotes instead? Then we don't need to perfectly match the verbiage or the spelling. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case I think it's important to use his exact words as much as possible. Paraphrasing always introduces interpretation which can alter the meaning, or which can be accused of altering the meaning. With this guy I think we need to communicate EXACTLY what he said, spelling and all. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on WP:SAY - Roof may or may not be honest in the way that he re-tells his story. The term "racially aware" is used on many racist forums - he may have become more racist because of forums like Stormfront or other neo-nazi websites, but re-told his story to make it palatable to the listener (eg Wikipedia is considered a more mainstream outlet - so saying that it was Wikipedia may have been designed to get more people to read the material he wanted them to read). -- Aronzak (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point. To my ear, there's disingenuousness in his account, as if he were trying to recruit followers by employing an air of faux-innocence. Many have pointed out the "sophisticated" code words and phrases in his manifesto, which hint of a deep immersion in white supremacist culture. Unless he destroyed his computer, in time we will likely find out much more about his web history, and writer that he is, we should not be at all surprised to find out he was an active participant in sites we've yet to learn about. I'm still not convinced he acted independently and without encouragement; that going-in-and-doing-it-all-on-his-own thing rings hollow to me as well, as if he were hiding the fact of having abettors. It will all emerge at trial, if not before. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hints emerging in two recent articles:

Lede sentence

IP 160.x posted this to the renaming discussion above, just before it was archived. I am reposting it here since it is really about the lede sentence, not the article title:

  • Charleston church massacre -

http://mic.com/articles/121619/mt-zion-ame-church-set-on-fire-in-south-carolina http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/733050/opinion-dylann-menace-pinpointing-blame-charleston-massacre http://wtvr.com/2015/07/01/at-least-6-black-churches-in-the-southeast-have-burned-since-charleston-massacre/ http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31609-charleston-massacre-forces-white-nationalists-out-of-the-shadows

charleston church shooting - 82.9 million google search hits charleston massacre - 64.8 million google search hits

It would be dishonest and an intentional manipulation of media to exclude both forms of reference to the event. See Virginia Tech shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.134.104 (talk • contribs)

The diff in question is this. I oppose this proposed change per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE; in this case, neither title formulation is sufficiently recognizable to merit bold format or restating the other - this is a descriptive title. VQuakr (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr. There are lots of formulations; the one used for the title is descriptive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It could go either way and still be fine, to my eyes. Virginia Tech shooting does it the proposed way, Bath School disaster and In Amenas hostage crisis go with one bold title, 2015 Waco shootout bolds nothing.
"Massacre" is common enough, but counting Google hits is useless. The estimated number guesses hundreds of thousands or millions too high, and what's shown in the actual few hundred results is a mix of good stuff, unreliable sources and duplicates. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As for the title, "Massacre" redirects here so it hardly matters. As for the lede, it is not necessary for the lede to quote the exact wording of the article's title. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
No. Just acceptable. But like all acceptable things, it's not accepted unless people accept it. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Prominence of the suspect in this article

Thank you for this informative article. A concern I feel that maybe could be addressed -- in the introduction section of this article the first paragraph includes a single 21-word sentences about the 9 individuals killed followed by a 118 word paragraph about the suspected killer. In addition, a photo of the suspect is included, however no photos of those killed. It feels this creates a situation where the alleged suspect "achieves" greater prominence relative to those killed. In a situation of assassination and martyrdom such as this I believe the individuals killed should receive greater prominence in the article about this event. Particularly since their martyrdom has put in motion a major social change in American history - the removal of the Confederate battle flag from many government buildings. The individuals killed spent nearly an hour in dialogue with the suspect prior to the shooting. When he pulled the gun from his fanny pack they sought to calm him and talk him down from the act of terror he had planning for six months. Tywanza Sanders threw himself in front of Susie Jackson sacrificing his life as the first martyr. During the suspects bond hearing survivors of the shooting and relatives of those assassinated addressed the suspect with compassion ("praying for his soul") and offering forgiveness. The martyrs of the AME Church shooting have moved our nation forward in addressing a shameful lingering symbol our nation's ever-present original sin. For that reason I believe they should receive greater prominence in this article. Thank you Brawson11 (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The intention is not to glorify the shooter, but simply to summarize the sources out there. If most of the sources speak about the shooter, that's unfortunately what we're going to cover. See WP:DUE for more info. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
As for the image selection, we definitely want to add images of the victims to the article if images become available that are compliant with WP:IUP (free). VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In any mass shooting, the shooter is the most important player. That's not a compliment, but without him, there'd be no event or article. Just people attending church, in this case. Pictures of the victims would be good, but they don't deserve prominence. They didn't do anything notable, it was done to them. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Basically the decision of how much prominence to give the shooter vs. the victims is not up to us. It's up to the Reliable Sources covering the story. If they give us very little about the victims and a lot about the shooter (which is the normal course of news coverage), we may not like that emphasis and we may have our own ideas about who does and doesn't "deserve" coverage. But our opinions don't matter; we have to build the article from what the Reliable Sources give us. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye. The above wasn't my opinion. Just the same fact the media bases their coverage on. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Would a link to this text that more or less predicts this kind of event be a piece of vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.223.103 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. But it would be synthesis. A reliable source needs to connect the two before it's appropriate here. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that'll never happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories

I recently posted the following categories onto the page and they were immediately mass-removed by another editor with little explanation. In general, please try to specify why you are removing specific category tags, especially if they are on-their-face valid (e.g. History of the United States (1991–present)). I'm sure that there may be some legitimate concerns about some of the categories I added but mass-deleting all of them is not helpful either.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of them, such as "Category:Presidency of Barack Obama" might be too generic to be useful. The "terrorism" designation is disputed and better described in prose than in a category where there is no ability to explain the details. "Category:Mass shootings" is a parent category to "Category:Mass shootings in the United States" so we don't need the former. @WWGB: care to explain why you removed the rest? VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Monopoly, you added ten categories. Just now you said "the following categories" but didn't actually list them. So that we know what we are talking about, here they are, with my comments on their appropriateness or not. Other people can add their comments for each category under mine, so that we don't have to keep repeating the list. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The ones presuming terrorism and murder aren't OK. This guy has a trial coming up, where's he's innocent until proven guilty, in a BLPCRIME way. Might not even be charged with terrorism. Fair to keep the "murder cases" one for now, becaue he's definitely been charged with murder. Remember, there's a difference between "killing" and "murder", and that's for judges and juries to decide, not witnesses and suspects.
I'm fine with "disasters". Some are natural disasters, some are (hu)man-made. We have a Category:Man-made disasters, and a guy shooting up a church is certainly an anthropogenic hazard.
"History of the United States" is too vague, even since 1991. "2015 crimes" is much more suitable.
"Political violence" seems right (in an accuracy sense), because a state Senator was killed for being black, but seems wrong to associate violence with the right (in an artificial "spectrum" sense). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: it is not a BLP violation to call the shootings "murders." Saying "a murder occured" (factual, uncontested) is completely different than saying "so and so committed murder." (innocent until proven guilty). This article is about the shooting, not specifically about the accused. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is the guy admitted to the shooting. If we call the shooting murder, we're calling him a murderer every time we call him the shooter. It's not exactly a "bad thing", in this case, since a wise gambler would bet their house on a murder conviction, but still technically a presumption and against the spirit of the policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that these people were murdered is not disputed. If there were no suspects, it would still be a murder. By your reasoning, we should not be calling it a "shooting" either. I agree that we should not call the accused person "the shooter", though. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't disputed, he'd already be convicted of murder. When there's no suspect, it's easier to call it a murder, because you can't slander nobody. We should call him the shooter, because he shot those people. That's the part that isn't disputed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree to. And that clueless *not-terrorism* FBI-Chief was widely ridiculed!! ... he became an object of anger and ridicule. The definition of "terrorism" according to the government's own National Institute of Justice is: "The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.” @MelanieN: That "neither "far-right" nor "politics" applies" remark is a mystery to me. Is "extrem far-right" or "right-wing extremist" more appropriate? Something to read: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/right-wing-extremism-explainer-charleston-mass-shooting-terrorism --79.223.1.168 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) --84.170.81.63 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the above. We know nothing about the guy's political leanings (such as how or whether he votes, whether he donates to or volunteers for political candidates, etc.); his only philosophy seems to be his racist theories. Racism and far-right politics are NOT synonymous, regardless of what the POV piece at Mother Jones says. Our article Far-right politics indicates that definitions of a far-right ideology are all over the map. We should not take it upon ourselves to decide whether the label does or doesn't apply to this guy, and as far as I know, no Reliable Source articles are labeling him in this way. There should be no mention of "far right" in any of the categories - as there rightly is none in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Racism and separatism are both extreme right-wing ideologies. Mother Jones is not a lone voice on this commonly accepted fact. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There are no commonly accepted facts in left–right politics. One side generally disagrees with the other, or at leaat the vocal minority does. There is general consensus on which more specific ideologies fall closer to which end, but those ideologies are individually also vague as hell. Simply calling it neutral "political violence" is best to avoid endless arguments, and avoiding endless arguments is best. For Wikipedia, anyway. The rest of the Internet is a different place. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I got all of these tags from similar articles (e.g. Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and Oklahoma City bombing (a featured article)). If you don't think it's terrorism then please explain why all of those other incidents are but not this? There are plenty of sources stating that it is and (in general) I don't think Wikipedia has a classification problem.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In the Oklahoma case, a government building was attacked in response to government action, with a clear message to the government about using fear to shift tyranny to liberty. Coercion. In the Sikh one, like earlier here, somebody confused investigating something as terrorism with terrorism. In the Baptist one, somebody confused "act of terror" with terrorism, the day after this attack. Pointy timing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second here InedibleHulk, don't just go deleting all of the categories on these other pages because you disagree. First, lets use the talk page. Terrorism is not simply attacks against governments. That's just wrong. Terrorism is violence perpetrated by a person(s) who hold political beliefs that they say justifies their violence. Had the people who carried out these attacks been crazy and just killed people that would not be the case but persons with political beliefs who carry out attacks on civilians in support of those beliefs are practitioners of terrorism. There are plenty of sources calling each of these attacks terrorism. That's enough to include the category tags on these pages.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't delete them because I disagree, I deleted them because they weren't backed by the sources. The 16th Street one was improved, the Sikh one still relies on an early investigation claim. Do you have a source for the definition you just gave? Soldiers kill civilians for their political beliefs. There's more to it than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not all murders are homicides, and not all homicides are murders. That's a court's decision, not a coroner's. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Oh, and real "credible" source you found there! Revmqo (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Which one, Wikipedia or Lawyers.com? In any case, there are many that split the same hair, and explain why it needs to be split. Google for yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: again, these would still be murders even if no suspect had been named. Calling the event murder is no more or less a BLP than calling it a shooting (that is, not at all). We could not, of course, refer to the accused as a murderer without violating BLP. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you source this opinion? The first sentence of murder disagrees with you, when it says murder is killing without justification or excuse. The point of a trial is to listen for these things, then make the decision. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that indicates that there is any suggestion that just cause exists in this case? Since this is not a BLP issue, applies and there is no need for us to be deliberately obtuse. VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I asked first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is obviously trivial to find sources that call the shooting murder. Again, you are splitting hairs for no good reason. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with the above post, but all it reports is that murder charges have been filed, not that murder occurred. WWGB (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if the sources consider the shooting to be terrorism either. Kiwifist (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've brought this (and Aurora) up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Killed v. Massacred v. Murdered

I think that the use of the word killed may not be enough. People are killed in non-negligent car crashes, and people are killed in plane crashes. What happened here was different. This was murder. I support murdered. I also support discussion. See for example, Columbine High School massacre, which I think is similar factually, uses massacre and murdered.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

People are also killed by bullets. The Columbine kids were, which made that case far different from this one, where the killer has an upcoming murder trial. That judge and jury will be the ones to decide if it was murder. Till then, there's a presumption of innocence. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I support "killed" for the time being. "Massacred" is too journalistic and emotional, while "murdered" is problematic due to the ongoing criminal proceedings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I was definitely bothered by some editors--but have since let cooler heads prevail. Killed is fine, but the shooting is labelled a mass murder in sidebox. Moreover, mass shooting links to mass murder. So, the semantic niceties are contradicted.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
They were definitely murdered. Does anyone dispute that? It is just a matter of: by whom? I can understand why we don't use the word on Roof's page or in the same sentence as Roof for an abundance of caution.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
They were unlawfully killed, as a coroner's inquest would say. This does not necessarily translate into murdered without a guilty verdict in a murder trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Granted--working off the premise that we accept the semantic language of the courts.--JumpLike23 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
When we say he was "charged with nine counts of murder" in the lead, we're accepting the legal meaning. To use it colloguially elsewhere would be inconsistent and confusing. It's always wise to use legal terms for legal topics, like we use medical terms for medical topics or spider terms for spider topics. If there's an ambiguous word, Wikilink it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I disagree. Nicole Brown Simpson is a murder victim even though no one has ever been convicted of her murder. Similarly, the victims of this shootings are murder victims regardless of the guilt of the individual currently accused of the crime. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • VQuakr - did the criminal court ever rule that Nicole Brown was murdered? If not, she was not murdered - she was a victim of homicide. I think there's some confusion between the legal term of murder and a more informal term where murder is apparently equal to homicide. For example, manslaughter isn't murder, even if it's a form of homicide. It seems to me that you are judging whether the killings are murder or not. That's not up to you or anyone, even the media. That's for the court of law in the area to decide.
  • O. J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder, but liable for the wrongful death of Nicole. You can read the legal explanation of the difference. starship.paint ~ KO 07:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I know the history. I am saying that she was a murder victim before, during, and after the criminal trial and before, during, and after the civil judgement. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • VQuakr - she can't have been before or during the trial, unless there was a legal ruling already. Going by the article on murder, the definition is the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. There needs to be a legal ruling to establish that 1) the homicide was unlawful and 2) that there was malice aforethought. If you can't provide a source on this legal ruling, then she wasn't murdered - in the legal sense. starship.paint ~ KO 07:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It is circular to go to the article on murder, the legal term, to show that murder is only a legal term - this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. As noted earlier in the discussion, it also means killing in general; ie "murder victim." VQuakr (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: - it's great that you acknowledge that there is indeed more than one meaning of the word "murder". But if you continue to champion for the use of this alternate, loose definition, you're just going to create more misunderstandings - just like Nicole Brown being "murdered" with no murderer. Say Roof is found not guilty due to insanity - then again, these nine people are going to be victims of "mass murder" with no murderer. Weird. starship.paint ~ KO 08:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Weird, but correct. VQuakr (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: - that's "colloquial English correct", but probably legally incorrect. It's up to you - court of law or court of public opinion. Judges and juries - or news agencies and authors. I know where I stand. starship.paint ~ KO 12:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Aye. "Murder" is far and away predominantly a legal concept. That's why our encyclopedia article (not dictionary definition) on it looks like it does, instead of like the one about homicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Murder is a legal concept--according to whom? Plenty of reliable sources refer to events as murders (outside of a court of law). Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered according to hundreds of reliable sources.[1] That is what wikipedia relies, not some bold, unsupported assertion that murder is a legal concept. --JumpLike23 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Coroner lays out detailed theories of killings". USA Today. Retrieved 19 July 2015.
According to the Wikipedia article on murder (and the sources it's based on). I thought I'd made that clear. See also the key word in Category:Murder law by country articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
killed vs Murdered is same difference as Shooting vs Massacre
both fill the bill but one is more emotional than the other... that emotion is subjective and its degree can vary. by removing the emotion the facts can be evaluated more clearly without editorial prejudice. frankly, i tend to classify it as assassinations and terrorism but again those are emotional terms that refer to these innocent victims losing their lives.
we are not here to spread propaganda we are here to chronicle the facts... and yes, anytime a REPORTer uses emotional words where a non (or less) emotional word REPORTs the same facts then the article no longer is reporting facts but becomes emotionally charged propaganda slanted in favor of the writer Qazwiz (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"Assassination" is pretty emotionless, I find. Just means the target was a political figure. But yeah, pop culture may have changed that. It's not just the news media that spins things. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If you kill yourself, the question of whether you were a murderer stops mattering in any serious way. You'll never become a convicted murderer, but there's no soiling your reputation, so if the detectives figure it was close enough, they typically presume you guilty and close the case. There can still be civil action against your estate. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Williams

Virginia shooting: Bryce Williams claims Charleston attack was 'tipping point' after which he bought a gun

Could this be mentioned in the article, as it is a high-profile case which happened very soon after the Charleston shooting. It is ominous, as Roof wanted to stoke ethnic conflict, and this African American man accepted him on that offer. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

He also cited Columbine and Virginia Tech and claimed that Jehovah told him to act. Dyrnych (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for mentioning it, but it shouldn't be overplayed. It is clear that this man, "Bryce Williams" or Vester Flanagan, was deeply troubled. He also cited Seung-Hui Cho as an inspiration. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hate crime"

We have a minor edit war going on in the infobox as to whether or not we should categorize this as a hate crime in the infobox. I'm persuaded by the argument that, as hate crime charges are pending in court, this is currently a matter for the courts to decide. It's not hard to make an educated guess as to what that decision might be, but it's not our place to second-guess the courts. -- The Anome (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Murder conversation

After applying the most recent changes to this article (removing the murder category on the basis that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty) on other articles of murder cases with ongoing trials, it has come to my attention by Daniel Case that this is not the way to go. This is in spite of the fact that a previous discussion on the matter did not reach a proper consensus. So I guess I should raise the question: should this article be put in murder categories? Versus001 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would say no, but not for the reason you've been edit warring over. It's already included among the massacres and mass shootings categories, some of which are subcategories of murder categories already. I would also remove Category:Murder trials since not only has the trial not begun yet, it's not the subject of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how many ways I can say that a murder is impossible unless the killer murdered people, and that whether the killer murdered people is a decision for the jury in a murder trial. That's the whole point of the court scheduling one instead of just convicting him. Barring a jailhouse suicide, that trial will happen, and pre-trial monkey business has commenced, so there's no harm in acknowledging this in the categories. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If we had, or have, a separate article about the trial, it can go in that category. (I grant that the current population of the category doesn't reflect that, but it should be pared down to the articles which are just "Trial of ..." or "X murder case").

Hey, while you're still on this high horse, why let the category be called "murder trials"? Shouldn't it be "homicide trials" to better preserve the defendant's presumption of innocence? Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Homicide isn't a crime. There is no Category:Homicide trials. I hope this is the last time I have to explain this distinction to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, for anyone who's interested, this conversation is still up. Warner Sun (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Murder conversation #2

Can't believe this topic is being brought up AGAIN. Just because an event is being called a murder doesn't mean it's implicating any suspect as the murderer. Someone definitely killed all those people; there's no way any other circumstances led to those deaths. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this event being called a murder, by reliable sources? If not, Wikipedia shouldn't either, even if you do. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, by multiple reliable sources such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC News (to name only a few of the many, many sources that contain this description). Dyrnych (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright then. It's not the right thing to do, but it's a thing you can do. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The person who killed all those people is clear. It was Roof. That's not the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reporter with Dylann Roof 'scoop' exposed as serial fabricator

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roof-reporter-exposed-as-serial-fabricator/article/2582260

71.182.240.203 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

While that's interesting, it doesn't look like we cite the article with the fabricated quotes or otherwise include the claims made in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Added section on unity rally

I added a section on a unity rally. I am new to wikipedia but here is the official source for anyone more knowledgeable who wants to add an official citation. It's important to remember the unity of the local community: http://abcnews4.com/archive/watch-bridge-to-peace-event-live-on-abcnews-4-or-stream-it-live — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.236.95 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism denial

The Oxford English Dictionary describes terrorism as "The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". To suggest this event, intended to trigger a race war in the eyes of the perpetrator was not terrorism is transparently disingenuous, outrageous and borderline racist. Why are the Charlie Hebdo shooting or the Murder of Lee Rigby allowed to be listed in "terrorist incidents" categories and this incident not? The other two involved Muslims. Simple as that. When even the words of the Attorney-General are ignored to prohibit the inclusion of this article in the Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2015, you know with certainty an agenda is involved, namely the legitimisation of black lives and the minimisation of white supremacist terror. AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You DID read the link I provided in my edit summary, right? Warner Sun (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and interestingly a number of editors agreed with me. AusLondonder (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Care to provide the names of said editors? Warner Sun (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find them yourself. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure where they exactly said their support for such categories being included without names, so you're going to have to point them out to me. That way I can browse their histories and verify what they said. Warner Sun (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
20,000 Wikipedians can agree with you, and it wouldn't matter unless a reliable source does. If you mean these ignored words (from a spokesman, not the Attorney General), note how clearly the article says this was only a maybe, in June. This is October, facts are clearer now and no terrorism charges have even been laid, much less proven. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's your reliable source - Stratfor's analysts had it pinned as domestic terrorism right off the bat. If the US' go-to intelligence consultancy isn't good enough, nobody is.
Charleston SC: Another Reminder of Domestic Terrorism 86.93.227.7 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

However, here are some reliable sources labelling the attack "terrorism":

Could someone clarify why Curtis Culwell Center attack or the Charlie Hebdo shooting or the Murder of Lee Rigby were terrorist incidents, apart from the race and/or religion of the perpetrators. AusLondonder (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please frame your argument in the context of our content policies, not other articles, in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is discussed at Charleston church shooting#"Terrorism" terminology; the short version is that since the alleged perp has not been charged with terrorism we do not present it as a terrorist attack in Wikpedia's voice. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
May I also add that you HAVE to read what was discussed here. Believe me, this wasn't the first time the topic has been brought up. Warner Sun (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Further discussion here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
YGBFKM. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charleston church shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

About jury selection in "Legal proceedings"-section

Within the "Legal proceedings"-section, it says (at the time of this writing) "Jury selection will start on January 17, 2017", citing this as the source for that claim. However, as far as I can tell, said source doesn't mention the date January 17, 2017. It does, however, mention the dates June 28 and July 11 ("The 600 potential jurors will report to the Charleston Clerk of Court June 28" and "The trial against Roof is set to begin July 11"). Should another source replace said source since the source in question, as far as I can tell, doesn't support the claim this article makes? Here is a source I got from the Dylann Roof-article which does mention the date January 17 ([1])(Although that source says that the trial will begin Jan. 17, with jury selection to begin in early December). Could that source replace the earlier source?Heart of Destruction (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 court appearance

The article says Roof and Meek were due in court that month, but is written in the future tense. It needs to be updated with information on what happened with them then. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charleston church shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Pursuant to WP:MERGEINIT I propose that Dylann Roof be merged into Charleston Church Shooting. I think that the content in the Dylann Roof article can easily be explained in the context of Charleston Church Shooting, and the destination article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Roof will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I have asked why there is a Dylann Roof article on Talk:Dylann Roof as it is not in line with WP:CRIMINAL nor WP:SINGLEEVENT . No editor on the Talk:Dylann Roof has responded . Hmcst1 (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to suggest there is no decent reason for Dylann Roof to have his own Wikipedia page. WP:PERPETRATOR says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." It's a point that has not been rebutted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed with the above. Somebody should just be WP:BOLD and do it. I'm now changing my vote to Disagree based on menaechmi's argument below. One more thing not mentioned there is that Dylan Roof has some post-sentencing details (eg, he got beaten up in jail) that I don't think should be merged elsewhere. Homunq (࿓) 20:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree - He is a very notable person. Most other notable criminals they have their own article. Let the page stay. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I wanted to agree with you here, because you have a decent rationale, and I would agree with you probably using WP:BLP1E or WP:SINGLEEVENT (and personally, I think he shouldn't be venerated with articles). Unfortunately, the subject is notable for more than one event. He's notable for 1) the shooting, 2) the manhunt, 3) the trial, 4) The Confederate flag controversy, 5) having both the federal and state governments seek the death penalty.
Also, WP:CRIMINAL specifically says "The criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies... The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event." Which certainly applies.
WP:BLP1E has three conditions that exclude separate article from being made when all are met: 1) Sources cover Dylann in more than one context 2) Probably a low-profile individual 3) The event is significant, and his role was substantial. He meets 1/3 of the requirements for not having a separate article. Looking at the other articles, I actually think the Perpetrator section should be merged into Dylann's article. menaechmi (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Much of the content isn't necessary from an encyclopedic standpoint, and I do believe Wikipedia has made a mistake, following the media, of giving too much attention to these perpetrators who want to become martyrs. We shouldn't be helping them with that. The motivation of the crime, racism, is not noteworthy or unusual. A mass murder isn't either, unfortunately. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the murder of a state senator is not unusual in these types of shooting? It's not a "mistake" to document history. The murders of elected officials and their perpetrators are always history. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The trial and the death penalty makes it three events, so "one event" does not qualify. Exactly the same as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Timothy McVeigh, simple really. Not withstanding the state flag changes making this historic and the fact that an elected official was killed, sometimes criminals make history, we cannot change it only document it. GuzzyG (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In response to GuzzyG and menaechmi the trial and death penalty follow on from the murders. Commit a murder you can expect to be caught and face the penalty of law they are not separate unrelated events . Everything that Roof now does, and everything that happens to Roof is in the context of what he did when he shot those people in the church Hmcst1 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Also the fact that Roof is the murderer of a State Senator doesn't promote him. Not even all S. Carolina state senators have their own wikipedia bio so it is perverse for wikipedia to give you a bio page if you murder one. Here is a list of members of the South Carolina Senate, there are 46 members only 30 have been accorded a wp page. Hmcst1 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC) In response to menaechmi you've removed the opening caveat to the sentence from WP:CRIMINAL that you quote. The sentence opens with "Where there are no appropriate existing articles,..." . Removing those words reverses it's meaning. There is an appropriate wikipedia article. Charleston Church Shooting. I'm not quite sure what you mean by pointing to WP:BLP1E that content policy only instructs for when there shouldn't be a biographical article, it doesn't instruct that there should be. Hmcst1 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC) In response to AlaskanNativeRU You haven't named other criminals but having searched a couple of names (James Holmes springs to mind) I've found that what you are saying seems to be the case. Precedent is no substitute for policy however. It seems to me that many other criminals are equally undeserving of a wikipedia bio for largely the same reasons as this one. Hmcst1 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmcst1, I was actually too thinking of James Holmes. Along with Ted_Kaczynski, Timothy_McVeigh and others. I think in this case it is deserving to have a wiki article for Dylann Roof but I do understand the other side being brought up. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd oppose a merger. It seems to me he deserves his own article. - Phone Charger (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC) :: Thanks for your contribution, but can you point to any relevant wikipedia content policy to support your view ?Hmcst1 (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Suppport Seeing as there, for some reason, is also the article Trial of Dylann Roof, it is reasonable to merge Roof's article into the shooting and trial articles. If his article is kept, the trial article should be merged into it, as most of its content is duplicated and not notable independent of the defendant's biography. Reywas92Talk 22:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Despite the depravity of Roof's crime, he is still notable, and should have an article. I suggest obtaining feedback from the broader community at WP:AFD or WP:PM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. Notability isn't the issue here, nor the depravity of his crime . Our guide should be wikipedia content policy in WP:SINGLEEVENT WP:CRIMINAL and WP:PERPETRATOR. Notability isn't the sole determining factor in whether there should be a wikipedia page on a subject or not.Hmcst1 (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed

I have closed the RFC found here in the archives. [2]

Lede does not say Dylann Roof is a white supremacist

The lede/first sentence appears prominently in Google search results. It must include the fact that Dylann Roof is a white supremacist to convey immediately the well established motive for this hate crime.

Current lede: "The Charleston church shooting (also known as the Charleston church massacre[6][7][8]) was a mass shooting, that took place at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States, on the evening of June 17, 2015."

I propose: "The Charleston church shooting (also known as the Charleston church massacre[6][7][8]) was a mass shooting, in which white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine African Americans at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States, on the evening of June 17, 2015."

The second sentence will have to be revised accordingly.

I will make this revision shortly, but I am posting first to the Talk page to avoid unjustified reverts to the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmerlis (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought our approach on mass shootings was not to highlight the perpetrator, but to emphasize the victims. I disagree with naming Roof in the first sentence of the Lead, and maybe he should not be named at all in the Lead. In some mass shooting articles, the perpetrator is not named in the Lead. Now that it is a few years later, this article appears unbalanced as an encyclopedia article, by the great amount of detail and content given to Dylann Roof, who also has a separate article devoted to him, and to the blow by blow account of the proceedings of the prosecution. This is not supposed to be a newspaper article. What is the summary information that is most important? What was the influence of these events on the church, city and state?Parkwells (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Neo-fascist terrorism

[3] looks straightforward to me. @GenQuest: what's your reason for reverting? VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: A quick term search indicates that as of this writing, the somewhat contentious term, "neo-fascist," is not mentioned in the article body at all. Please understand, I'm not saying Roof isn't that. He very well may be. That being said, if the preponderance of reliable sources describe him as such, then the description "Neo-Fascist" and it's citation should have appeared in the article before adding a cat to that affect, thereby verifying that the statement has been vetted and is indeed accurate —and is not a BLP issue. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@GenQuest: We identify him as a white supremacist and terrorist in the lede. Those sound effectively like synonyms to "neo-fascist" to me so whether the actual search term appears in the article doesn't seem relevant. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, that is the definition of original research on your part. Find a reference. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Categories should be uncontroversial and clearly supported by article text and citations; we've had this sort of thing before where the category runs into problems. Nobody is going to argue with Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans given Roof's ramblings on the subject, but "neo-fascist" is more WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charleston_church_shooting/Archive_3&oldid=1136606111"