Talk:Charleston church shooting

More than one Charleston

The South Carolina bit should be retained, there is more than one Charleston in the United States alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, this is a clunky title. There is more than one Aurora in the USA, but the cinema shooting article is 2012 Aurora shooting. Charleston is by far most commonly associated with South Carolina.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ianmacm, clunky title, should be changed back. - SantiLak (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "Charleston,SC Church Shooting"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.187.183 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I like having the year in these things. 2015 Charleston church shooting is my choice. Only one Charleston with a church shooting this year. Sure, they were multiple shootings, but that's just a quirk of English, and one Wikipedia has come to accept. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:59, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

I like having the year in these things.

Please see WP:PRECISION.

"2015 Charleston church shooting" is my choice. Only one Charleston with a church shooting this year.

Did a notable church shooting occur in any Charleston in a previous year?

Sure, they were multiple shootings, but that's just a quirk of English, and one Wikipedia has come to accept.

More than a quirk, describing an incident in which multiple people were shot as a "shooting" is the prevailing convention in American English. (In some English varieties, the preferred term is "shootings".) —David Levy 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not exactly bad, as is. The year wouldn't distinguish it from any past Charleston church shootings, but we don't know what the future holds. Maybe we shouldn't consider the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, our convention is to wait until the need for disambiguation arises. (Otherwise, we'd have to use the title "June 2015 Charleston church shooting" until next year – and "June 17, 2015 Charleston church shooting" until next month – given the possibility that another Charleston church shooting will occur in the interim.) —David Levy 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved content over here from 2015 Charleston shooting

I just moved content over here from 2015 Charleston shooting before either this article or that one got too big and we had competing articles. We can sort out details about this as we proceed. KConWiki (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@KConWiki: I agree we can sort out the ideal title later, but as a matter of style, shouldn't there be another comma after "Carolina" (per MOS:COMMA)? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been more than one shooting in Charleston in 2015. Perhaps in should be moved to "2015 Charleston, church shooting. "Church shooting" reflects the name for this event being used by the news media.The "South Carolina" is unnecessary specificity, unless there have been notable "church shootings" in other "Charlestons" in 2015. Edison (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the shooting was at a notable location, why not just use that for the title (as with Charlie Hebdo shooting)? So Emanuel A.M.E. Church shooting, or 2015 Emanuel A.M.E. Church shooting if there have been any other noteworthy shootings there. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable option, but when feasible, we usually base our articles' titles on common usage among reliable sources (thereby maximizing their recognizability to readers). Currently, "Charleston church shooting" better meets that goal. (This is subject to change, of course.) —David Levy 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I know somebody will want to put 2015 in front, but that is not needed. The title we have on the article is what will show up on a google search. If we put 2015 in front it is not as likely to show up, even if we have redirects. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, such precision would be excessive unless another notable Charleston church shooting has occurred. —David Levy 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits required at other articles

For those who understand what needs to be changed properly: South Carolina Senate, Template:South Carolina State Senators, List of assassinated American politicians, Beaufort,_South_Carolina#Politicians_and_leaders, etc. --204.106.251.214 (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

List of assassinated American politicians is  Done. Will get to work on the others ASAP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all four of those pages are now  Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Roof" or "Roff"?

There seems to be confusion over the suspects name. Seeing that in a police briefing the name is spelled as "Roff" I would go with that for the time being, Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Every other source I've seen says it's "Roof". A guy named "Dylan Roof" said on Facebook that he and "Dylann Roof" have been confused for each other in the past (and today's not a good day for it either). "Roff" is likely a typo. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, carry on I just wanted to clear this one up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reloading

This lady says he reloaded five times, but the way she says it doesn't make sense to me. Not sure if it's valid but I thought I'd share it on the talk page.

• https://twitter.com/BillieJeanTV/status/611444475085352961

Bryan (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better source, which also says that he reloaded five times: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/18/us-usa-shooting-south-carolina-idUSKBN0OY06A20150618 71.182.238.146 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone like to add this into the article somewhere?

98.124.121.214 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Will need to wait until the police state the type of firearm he used and number of magazines, if any found, at the scene. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Pistol

Seems there is a dispute on the pistol and if he was given the pistol or he bought it on his own. Current news report indicates he bought it. The gun Roof turned 21 in April, and a short time later he had a gun.

On Thursday, investigators did a trace of the handgun used in Wednesday's shooting and determined that it was a .45-caliber handgun Roof purchased from a Charleston gun store in April, two law enforcement officials told CNN's Perez and Bruer.

Roof purchased a Glock .45-caliber model 41, which holds 13 rounds, a federal law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation said. Witnesses have reported that Roof reloaded a number of times.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-suspect/index.html ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

Why do we have jeb and Clintons statements here? I really don't see any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.191.11 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One was in Charleston that day, one cancelled his Charleston trip. What Cornell Brooks is doing here, besides not liking it and fitting into the pre-established racism narrative, is the harder question. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

But why does that mean it should be added?

I'm generally against Reaction sections, so the simple answer is nobody should have been added. But that ideal always gets swamped by Wikipedians' and the mainstream media's love of the stuff. While the section indeed exists, it only makes sense to limit it to the sorts of people known for public responses and somehow connected to the general thing

Same but at least Obama and local politicians make sense.

Clinton and Bush aren't as connected as Joseph P. Riley, Jr., but at least one was there, and one's trip there was directly affected. Rand Paul doesn't even have that much. He's just connected to Clinton and Bush, and this isn't the United States presidential election, 2016 article.

Obama and Haley make sense, since they figuratively run the state and country where this happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul was in Washington, which has nothing to do with Charleston. I removed his relatively lengthy reaction, which was re-added and later thrown out with some bathwater. Figured this is the best section to mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Neither do Clinton or bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.191.11 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a fine compromise, or does comparing him to Obama and "the founding fathers" really add something useful to this topic? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

And will this stop at Rand Paul, or do these attempts to score points matter, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else see how fucked up this is, or am I crazy? We know he's addressing the shooting, because it's in a reaction section. We know he's talking to a bunch of Christians about a church shooting, so why is his political difference from Obama the relevant thing, not salvation and straying from the Church? We say what he thinks won't fix it, but not what he thinks will, even though it's the essence of the speech.

This is why Wikipedia shouldn't let uninvolved politicians talk. Someone always tries to spin it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Just read through the current version and how it is listed now is sufficient with short statements from the mayor, governor and president. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Clinton met him the day he was shot. I think her thoughts are very relevant here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What did she say? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence currently included is sufficient. We don't need a bunch of campaign quotes on the page and Clinton shouldn't get special treatment to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.191.11 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Clinton did not met him the day. --91.10.56.188 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Black lives matter cause in backround

I have removed the mention of the black lives matter cause and the black teens killed by police in the backround. It isn't related, this involved no killings by police but a troubled man. If someone wants to re-include the info please provide a source on how these past events are linked or relevent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A source connecting it to an attack that didn't use guns and happened half a century ago in another state is also needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's called racism. The purpose of racism is much clearer when we call it "white supremacy"!--91.10.1.219 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

They are very much related. Emanuel has long been a site for community organizing around these issues, both historically and recent issues like the shooting of Walter Scott. It has even been previously attacked for being a notable site for black community organizing. And even if that wasn't the case, it is still important to contextualize this shooting through the long history of racially-motivated attacks on politically-active historically black churches in the US. We do this with the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, for example, discussing the role that church played in desegregation efforts and other events across Birmingham at the time, even though the bombers didn't ever explicitly that was why they attacked that particular church.

This isn't WP:OR or WP:SYN on my part -- I've added 4 reliable sources to the article that specifically discuss these links. And as those sources point out, calling the shooter a "troubled man" distorts this context and makes it seem like it was a random shooting that could have otherwise happened at any mall or post office -- rather than an attack by someone who wore pro-apartheid insignia (among other things) on a central site of black organizing in the south. Not knowing about Emanuel's history and connections to these movements and issues is what makes the shooter seem like nothing more than a "troubled man," and so we should include that context in the article early on. Staeiou (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One deals with alledged racism by cops though while this deals with racism by a lone wolf killer. The KKK and the 1963 bit fit as they were church attacks by known hate groups. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is the growing racism over the past years. The killings of black men are racially charged. The connection is racism, the demonstrations New York, Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri are against racism. The Black Lives Matter movement is a anti-racism movement. The Charleston church shooting is White supremacist Terrorism. --91.10.29.190 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Racism is a large scope, how do you explain the black police officers involved in the Baltimore incident? We should keep this as a neutral point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Racism hasn't suddenly grown since Trayvon Martin, just the 24-hour news coverage of it. That's also the charged part. That connection will carry through to this, even if the part about white police doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

No, just like I wrote in the article: "But Beirich says such groups have been growing over the past 10 years and "for several years South Carolina has been the place with the highest density of hate groups." Why you both - InedibleHulk and Knowledgekid87 - do not want to admit it is racism? --91.10.29.190 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying this isn't racism, this isn't related to police brutalism though which is the other core drive for the black lives matter cause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This police "brutalism" is related to racism. Because of intensifying civil strife over the recent killings of unarmed black men and boys, many Americans are wondering, “What’s wrong with our police?” Remarkably, one of the most compelling but unexplored explanations may rest with a FBI warning of October 2006, which reported that “White supremacist infiltration of law enforcement” represented a significant national threat. ... Please read to the end. --91.10.29.190 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The attack on Emanuel AME cannot be divorced from the broader targeting of black bodies in the US. It follows last week's horrific events in McKinney, Texas, where vivid images of policemen manhandling and sitting atop black youth intensified frustration among African Americans. Moreover, it takes place amid a broader context of both public and private violence against black American communities, which spawned the Black Lives Matter movement. --91.10.20.166 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

According to a childhood friend, Roof went on a rant about the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the 2015 Baltimore protests that were sparked by the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody. --91.10.20.166 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the problem was vivid images of racism, rather than racism itself. Same deal with Abu Ghraib (and worse?). It was the pictures that did the damage, allegedly. No cops killing Rachel Dolezal, but the racism storyline remains. The illusion is the common thread here, not the police.

That's not to say cops killing blacks is imaginary or a small deal. Just that they kill too many of every race, and help many black people as well. Wouldn't know it to see it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding info from IP user: 91.10.20.166 I would suggest that non-biased information be used. SPLC has been deemed biased and considered a hate group of their own. And using stuff from thegrio.com is not credible. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Again comparing this event to the cop killings is not linked both can be considered racism yes but per WP:UNDUE it adds un-needed weight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear (and I wasn't, exactly), these same things can be included by just changing the apparent connection from killer cops to the media's recent obsession with white-on-black violence. You don't even have to change the sources or most of the words. Just your mind. Signed this late InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

But you delete it completely! It's not up to you to measure the weight! --91.10.20.166 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problems with "Abu Ghraib" were the committed war crimes, not the fotos nor the reporting! The photos were _not_ worse than the crime. No. And the problems with the dead black men like Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, John Crawford, Dontre Hamilton, Ezell Ford, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Michael Brown and Walter Scott, were dead men, not the racist reporting. --91.10.20.166 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Worse for the government, I mean. Of course the abuse sucked more for the victims.

If getting killed by cops is worse than getting killed by cops in the news, why does nobody get Twitter outraged about these people? Or pick any other month, if those 40 are poor examples. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

I want to discus the "Black lives matter" cause in backround to this crime. --91.10.20.166 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what we're doing. The background only exists onscreen. If you insist on thinking it's about actual killer white people, these are completely separate incidents. There's no real ongoing pattern or continuum specific to blacks. The connection is in the outrage, and the outrage comes from the news to the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Neither my point of view (and neither my mind) is relevant here in this discussion. Nor yours. I have identified four references and quoted them. --91.10.20.166 (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your narrative argument might have more credence if you were registered as a user and not just commenting as an IP address. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, please, just play by the rules and learn to life with IPs/minorities. Behind some are really nice and well-educated girls ;-) --91.10.20.166 (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is completely contrary to policy to disregard the legitimate input of IP editors just because they are IP editors. Please cease and desist from counterptoductive ad hominem attacks, ThurstonHowell3rd, and address the substance of their input. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, if they had substance to their input regarding the shooting at the church vs pushing racism as the whole of the article, maybe. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe!? So, you do not allow me to play? This was racism. This was a guy with a Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa badge on his jacket, this ties him to those who have made the emblems a symbol of so-called white resistance. I have nothing other than just sadness that once again we have to peer into the abyss of the depraved violence that we do to each other, and the nexus of a just gaping racial wound that will not heal but we pretend doesn’t exist. The Confederate flag flies over South Carolina, and the roads are named for Confederate generals. That’s racial wallpaper. We are steeped in that culture in this country and we refuse to recognise it. And we’re going to keep pretending: I don’t get it, what happened, there’s one guy lost his mind. Nine people were shot in a black church by a white guy who hated them, who wanted to start some kinde of civil war. I’m confident, though, that by acknowledging it, by staring into that and seeing it for what it is, we still won’t do anything at all. Yeah. That’s us. The reluctance to label domestic shootings of this kind as terrorism, led to a disparity of response between when we think people that are foreign are going to kill us and us killing ourselves. If this had been what we thought was Islamic terrorism we invaded two countries and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and millions non-American lives, and now fly unmanned death machines over six different countries. Nine people. Shot in a church. What about that? Eh. What are you gonna do? Crazy is as crazy is, right? And the white guy’s the one who feels like his country’s being taken away. I cannot believe how hard people are working to discount it. → Yepp, not my wording ;-) Thx Jon Stewart for playing with me: Daily Show's Jon Stewart on Charleston shooting: 'This was a terrorist attack' --91.10.20.166 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

UTC)

IP person. I read what you have written but you are letting your enthusiasm take over. Perhaps you should take a break and let some additional facts of the case be brought public. And Jon Stewart? The actor? Death to Smoochy? ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi ThurstonHowell3rd, I am resilient, cool and calm  ;-) Please, I did not count Jon Stewart a reference, he is a comedian. I was not enthusiastic, just a little sarcastic. I did not quoted him as a reliable source in the article. --79.223.25.2 (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism/supremacy angle

This article may explain why some are insisting on adding "terrorist" and "white supremacist". It also may encourage more to follow, facts be damned.

Might be prudent to start a section on the media coverage, where we can discuss (and source) this perceived double standard. Makes more sense than continually reverting people who are trying to make some sort of social point with poor or no sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

• He is white and not a muslim, so he can't be a terrorist. Only mentally ill. 96.40.122.44 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general sentiment, and what the section would be about.

But that's not why he can't be a terrorist on Wikipedia. That's down to both reflecting the sources and how hate crime and mass murder are different from terrorism. You don't need a wider political goal to murder a bunch of black people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Please note that 16th Street Baptist Church bombing is described as an act of "white supremacist terrorism." This certainly fits our definition of terrorism: "violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic, religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)." Dyrnych (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the ideological goal? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

How is advancing white supremacy not an ideological goal? Assuming the accuracy of "You rape our women and you're taking over our country. And you have to go," that's unambiguously an ideological statement. Dyrnych (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And then he made the people he was talking to go. That's why most murders happen. Getting rid of someone. That was the goal, not a means to that goal. Terrorism would be demanding their deportation (or something), and using killing as a consequence if the demand isn't met. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

It could also be terrorism if the killer was part of a designated terrorist organization, regardless of individual motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the meaning of terrorism (despite my own contribution to that discussion), but you cannot seriously believe that Roof was referring only to the people in the room rather than black people in general. Dyrnych (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he almost certainly meant blacks in general. That only makes him a racist, not a terrorist. I meant he only made some of them go. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

I believe that when the details come out, we'll be in a better position to gauge the RS take on this. Keeping in mind, of course, it's not up to us to determine what should and should not be labeled terrorism. However, if early accounts about his statements are accurate (i.e. specifically targeting black people..the "I had to do it" quote), then I think this is likely to accrue some domestic terrorism references. Hate crime and terrorism are not mutually exclusive; they have overlap. If a hate crime is for a stated political purpose, as it may be in this case, I would expect the RS to go the terrorism route, and I see no reason to avoid that label.12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when it's sourced, there's nothing Wikipedia can do. Even 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa was called "terrorism" in the infobox after the right RCMP report came out. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The word "terrorism" seems to have mysteriously vanished from that article, within the past couple of hours. Skotticus (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to say editors should keep in mind WP:TERRORIST. Terrorism, terrorist should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point, but citing policy against using Wikipedia's voice to call something terrorism is a vastly different thing from stating that it manifestly can't be terrorism because he was just acting out of white supremacist motives. Dyrnych (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Again if this is widely reported as a terrorist act then okay but we cant be WP:SOAPBOXING our views on what is and isn't terrorism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your policy argument. I disagree with the previous argument that had been advanced. Dyrnych (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what is or isn't a terrorist here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And I'm certainly not arguing with you about that definition. Dyrnych (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Information is still coming out. If/when RS define act as terrorism, that's when it'd be appropriate. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yepp. Interesting... mysteriously vanished: [Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter]. --91.10.29.190 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is a source by a reverend who supports the black lives matter cause, where are your multiple sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am getting bored. One more, just for you: Was what happened in Charleston terrorism? Quote: "This was a textbook terrorist act." --91.10.29.190 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a more promising source, I would leave this open for more input though before adding anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Even that guy only says "A racist political motivation seems likely..." Probably why the headline's a question, eh?. Wikipedia is about what is, not what seems likely. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

"Finally, regarding intimidation of a wider audience, the shooter reportedly left one person alive to spread the message." Even if this person exists, how does one equal the other? What was the message and who did she tell? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

And one just for you, InedibleHulk: Why Are Media Organizations So Reluctant to Call Dylann Roof a Terrorist? --91.10.29.190 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd have rathered you answered my question. I don't see the relevant point in this new story, either, unless you're hinting that I'm a biased white journalist. In that case, I'll note that I also resisted this shit for Tsarnaev and Zehaf-Bibeau. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

And to a lesser extent, for the Tulsa race riots and the Plagues of Egypt. Weird conversations. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we just note that several media outlets have designated it a terrorist act? Misternails (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, if we get this section going. Sort of the point.

Though that Phillips guy could only answer "Maybe" (essentially) to the question he asked himself after cobbling together his own definiton from pieces of others. And that next one doesn't seem to know the difference between "terror" and "terrorism". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

According to this interview with terrorism expert Brian Philips, the attack in Charleston is clearly terrorism.

"Is this terrorism?" "Yes. There are many definitions of terrorism, but most definitions have four elements in common:

• Violence;
• Perpetrated by an individual or non-governmental group
• Political, social, or religious motivations;
• Intimidating a wider audience than the immediate victims.

"By this definition, the massacre in Charleston, S.C. Wednesday was clearly a terrorist act. The violence is evident in the death toll of nine people. The perpetrator apparently was not soldier or official acting on behalf of a government, which would make it a different category of violence." --2602:304:B167:B130:A886:5D9A:F400:110 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. The term terrorism, and the act, is almost exclusively reserved for Arab or Muslim actors! Whiteness, however, is the perpetual and principal exception. White gunmen and assailants, driven by xenophobia, Islamophobia, or what seems to be the motive behind Emanuel AME attack, anti-black racism, are time and again deemed "lone wolves". A characterisation that brands the culprit a rogue, and in turn, frees whites or even a subset of whites that share the culprit's racist ideology from collective guilt. ← I really would appreciate it if Knowledgekid87 could read that one! --91.10.20.166 (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's that "seems to be" again. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is written in the subjunctive because reliable security will only be acquired by a judge. It was "seems to be" a racially motivated crime, it "seems not to be" a love crime.--91.10.20.166 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why Recognizing The Charleston Church Shooting As An Act Of Racially Motivated Terrorism Is Only The First Step: "However, by definition, it was a domestic act of terrorism and the gunman, a terrorist." Read the ″FBI-definition″ → https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition --91.10.20.166 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Be best to see how this eventually shakes out instead of trying to figure out everything within the first day or two. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Heyyouoverthere. When RS state this was terrorist act, that's when the label is appropriate. Sources right now that state that are kinda weak, blogs/opinion pieces. It isn't up to us to decide if it is or isn't terrorism, but relate that mainstream RS affirm that. I'd imagine it's very likely that media will label it a terrorist attack, but there's no harm in waiting until there's plenty of strong sources that make that judgement for us. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Inediblehulk, the sentiment you should be agreeeing with is that he was white, therefore his actions reflect on all white people. If the shooter were black then no-one should link him murdering people to any black people, because it's unfair to make a whole group of people responsible for the acts of one unrelated person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterPersonalAutomaton (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Fox News/Geraldo Rivera (an American attorney): an act of domestic terrorism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7W1vG79ypg or http://video.foxnews.com/v/4306136917001/geraldo-charleston-massacre-an-act-of-domestic-terrorism --91.10.43.213 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Vox is currently reporting that DOJ is investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism. I generally view Vox as a mid-quality RS, but I assume that more high-quality sources will pick this up shortly. Dyrnych (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-usa-justice-charleston-idUSKBN0OZ2AD20150619 - --79.223.29.139 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism charges added to the article. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is terrorism and hate crime suspected and murder isn't. We don't know that it was actually murder. If we're going to be incredibly stubborn on evidence of terrorism and racism, why not on murder?Redsxfenway (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's beyond dispute that the elements of murder were satisfied in this case. Dyrnych (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's beyond dispute that he was motivated by racism. Redsxfenway (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion, veering into personal insults

"And it's beyond dispute that he was motivated by racism." No, no it isn't. Please stop exploiting a tragedy to further your personal political agenda. That goes to the anonymous race-hustler too.92.236.212.150 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Sure, it's disputable, if you factor in Fox News and Stormfront talking points. Misternails (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Nope. It's not disputable. Actually, when you factor in "Fox News" it was racism: He's Racist,' Mom 'Didn't Trust Him and "Fox News" even admitted is was an act of terrorism long before we here on Wikipedia did it. Look up the links above ;-) --91.10.17.158 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) How to win an argument as a Liberal race-hustler- step one: scream "FOX NEWS", and you distract from the false nature of your subsequent remarks.92.236.212.150 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Please guys, tell me you're at least getting a big paycheck for your race-hustling like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.92.236.212.150 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw breaking news pop up on my Facebook feed, the FBI director has said the shooting is NOT an act of terrorism. http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/fbi-director-charleston-shooting-not-terrorism-23949.shtml ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't get more authoritative than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Except that it's also not clear that he'd been briefed on the manifesto at the time he made that comment. Dyrnych (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's never clear what any high-ranking official bases his decision on, but it's safe to assume that if you know a detail about a major crime, the Director of the FBI heard it first. Second guessing a politician is original research enough, but when it's the guy responsible for investigating domestic terrorism, it's even more futile. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this section went way off track, but it did provide plenty of sources for the Media section it was orginally about. Maybe someone can work on that today. If not, I'll be back Sunday evening. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Plans changed, back today. But I still don't feel like doing this now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Took a photo: could someone add it in?

Hey everyone! I have literally about 30 seconds until I have to get back to work so I don't have time to put the thumbnail in, but I took a picture outside the prayer service today (this one: [1]) and I was wondering if someone could add it to the article? It's this one: File:Charleston Shooting Memorial Service.jpg. I have a few more photos from it but I've gotta run, I'll upload them later! Thanks for all the hard work on this, it's really important that we have good coverage here! Nomader (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it, thanks everyone. Nomader (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you upload some more? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rev. Pinckney's Sister

I saw a lot of news sources saying that Rev. Pinckney's sister was one of the nine victims, but haven't heard any further information as to the veracity of this claim. Was that mis-reporting? Just wanted to clarify this if it was in fact true. Thanks. - BrillLyle (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

″Mr. Pinckney’s sister was also among those killed, said J. Todd Rutherford, the minority leader of the State House of Representatives.″ → in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting.html --91.10.1.219 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 91.10.1.219 -- It looks like the reference has been removed and may have been incorrect info. Thanks for the reply. Best - BrillLyle (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Massacre"/"Rampage Killer" designation?

There are at least two lists this could fit into:

1. List of massacres in the United States
2. List of rampage killers

There's no clear definition of "massacre" (though the talk page for that list offers some discussion), but this absolutely meets the criteria listed in the "list of rampage killers" article.

Sup3rmark (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He killed more than the Boston marathon bombers did, if that's any indication as to appropriateness of inclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support. "Massacre" has historically sometimes been used for killings of less than a dozen people, e.g. Pauma massacre; the Columbine High School Massacre only had 66% more deaths; some of its synonyms import racially motivated killings; and the word often connotes exceptional cruelty or barbarity, targeting of innocents, targeting of civilians in a domestic or otherwise peaceful setting, or simply an an attack that shocks the conscience.

For reference:

Click to show Google definition excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
mas·sa·cre ˈmasəkər/ noun noun: massacre; plural noun: massacres 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people. "the attack was described as a cold-blooded massacre" synonyms: slaughter, wholesale/mass slaughter, indiscriminate killing, mass murder, mass execution, annihilation, liquidation, decimation, extermination; More carnage, butchery, bloodbath, bloodletting, pogrom, genocide, ethnic cleansing, holocaust "a cold-blooded massacre of innocent civilians" verb verb: massacre; 3rd person present: massacres; past tense: massacred; past participle: massacred; gerund or present participle: massacring 1. deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). synonyms: slaughter, butcher, murder, kill, annihilate, exterminate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, decimate, wipe out, mow down, cut down, put to the sword, put to death "thousands were brutally massacred"

More importantly the New York Times with 3 named authors is calling it a "massacre" in the reporter's voice. Rename/etc. away IMO. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Then if it fits into those two lists, then just list them. DimensionQualm (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I simply assumed that the question of whether to use this term possibly also depended on a page rename/move discussion that hadn't taken place yet. I only meant to express support for either (or both) of these approaches, without jumping the gun. Also I kind of assumed that if it were done, it would be done by an experience page-mover who observed all the protocol, which I wouldn't really know how to do. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So link me to where this page move discussion took place? Its one thing to include the word "massacre" in the article, its another to move the page name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you edit conflicted me there. I agree it was sneaky, but I think it's an alright title, so no problem with sneakiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Okay just a-lot going on, normally a move wouldn't be done on a high traffic page such as this without a discussion though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion, Sup3rmark was just clever enough to not let us know what we were talking about until after we agreed with him. It's sort of impressive, but if I see someone else do it again, it'll just be a sleazy trick. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Not clever, just new to wikipedia edits. User:Factchecker_atyourservice seemed to suggest a rename, I assumed that's what I was supposed to do. Sorry if I did something wrong! Sup3rmark (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The typical way is a move request, or at least making it clear in the header that's the intention (or even a possibility). And we generally wait at least a couple of days or so for more thorough input before someone uninvolved decides. Using the actual move request code alerts a wider group than just those watching this page, so that's best, even if it's harder.

Personally, I find the wrongest thing was admitting you weren't masterminding anything, but you're forgiven. Probably for the best. Not everyone takes kindly to deception, and pretending to be dishonest is a whole new level. No harm done, this time. I think not, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

And now the wrongest thing was moving it back without discussion. That may seem a bit counterintuitive, but so does not trying to climb out of quicksand. Same deal, sort of. These things happen, though. Just don't move it again.

Anyway, I've spent way too long on the computer today, now I'm taking the weekend off. If a vote starts and looks like it'll end before Monday, literally count me in for "massacre". It suits mass murder in a church. Maybe because it half-rhymes with "desecrate" "Mass murder" works for mansions, because both suit "mystery". Not sure the headlines follow the same logic, but they generally reach the same conclusions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

And now the wrongest thing was moving it back without discussion.

The move to Charleston church massacre, while well-intentioned, was inappropriate. Why was undoing it "wrong"?

That may seem a bit counterintuitive, but so does not trying to climb out of quicksand. Same deal, sort of.

I don't see how the two situations are analogous.

If a vote starts and looks like it'll end before Monday, literally count me in for "massacre". It suits mass murder in a church. Maybe because it half-rhymes with "desecrate"

Did you read the explanation that I wrote below? Again, we don't base such decisions on first-hand analysis, let alone what we think sounds good. We include "massacre" in an article's title if and when said term predominates among reliable sources referring to the incident by a particular designation.

"Mass murder" works for mansions, because both suit "mystery".

Ummm...huh? —David Levy 07:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It was wrong for the same reason as moving it without discussion the first time was. Two wrongs don't make a right. Accidentally stepping into quicksand and intentionally trying to step out are both bad moves, but the second step is worse, because it happens after the first. Same deal with stairs, but in reverse. Sources trumpy original research, but sources plus editorial judgment is marginally better. Bored people sometimes have staged "murder mysteries" in mansions. And sometimes not fake. There's also Maniac Mansion, which suits Manson murders, in a sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

It was wrong for the same reason as moving it without discussion the first time was.

The absence of advance discussion doesn't necessarily render a move "wrong". One widely accepted method of pursuing consensus is the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. (Someone makes a change boldly, someone else disagrees and reverts, and then the matter can be discussed.) Note that the sequence isn't "bold, discuss, revert", which you appear to advocate (in the event that the "bold" part occurs, though you disapprove of it). Certainly, an editor can choose to discuss a contested change before reverting it, but this isn't mandatory – especially when he/she believes that a major problem exists.

In this instance, Sup3rmark's page move was "wrong" not because it was bold, but because the resultant title was inconsistent with our longstanding practices (and not merely as a matter of style, as discussed previously). Your apparent belief that some sort of procedural courtesy took precedence over maintaining the encyclopedia's integrity has no basis in policy.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're begging the question. (Specifically, you're arguing that the move reversion was wrong because it was wrong.)

Accidentally stepping into quicksand and intentionally trying to step out are both bad moves, but the second step is worse, because it happens after the first.

In that scenario, the second step is worse because it exacerbates the situation (by causing the person to sink deeper). You haven't explained how this is analogous to the direct reversal of an action, let alone the reversal of a harmful (albeit well-intentioned) change.

Bored people sometimes have staged "murder mysteries" in mansions. And sometimes not fake. There's also Maniac Mansion, which suits Manson murders, in a sense.

I recall – with great fondness – playing the Commodore 64 version of Maniac Mansion, but I'm at loss as to how any of the above is relevant to the matter at hand. You seem to be commenting on various phrases' alliterative nature, but I don't understand why. Surely, you aren't opining that we should use "massacre" in the article's title because it fits the alliteration of "mass murder" and sounds (to you) somewhat like the word "desecrate". —David Levy 22:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to repeat me, I remember what I said. And if I forget, it's still there. Makes things long.

Discussion for moves is standard, especially when controversial. Both titles are opposed by some here, so moving to either without consensus is wrong. Not sure how I can make the exacerbation bit clearer than I have, sorry. Alliteration, like any rhetoric, shapes the way we think about things. It was more about why the sources choose what they do (when they do). Not intended as a point toward "massacre", that's all to do with what they choose, whyever they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

We include the word "massacre" in an article 's title when this reflects the incident's predominant de facto name, not when some reliable sources merely use the word to describe the event or when we believe that a dictionary definition applies.

By default, we specify the method of attack (e.g. "shooting" or "bombing") or use the broader term "attack" if multiple methods were employed. —David Levy 06:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Except when lionesses attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is fair to say that the term "massacre" now predominates in the news coverage, at least. A google search of "Charleston church massacre" (without quotes) will reveal use of that term in either article text or headline in news stories (not opinion pieces) in the New York Times, the Boston Herald, NBC News national site, CBS News national site, an ABC News local affiliate, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News , NY Daily News, New York Post, etc., and I'm not even bothering to list commentary pieces or non-traditional news outlets. I hope I can be forgiven for not linking all of these, but I believe the search results show we're on firm ground with "massacre". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems more likely than not that "Charleston church massacre" will be the event's widely accepted designation. But we customarily wait significantly longer than a couple of days before arriving at such a determination. There's no urgency (and no harm in erring on the side of "shooting" for the time being). —David Levy 12:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is the usage that is in play. Please see it again for reference whenever you make a determination that a Wiki-appropriate amount of time has passed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This article should mention that this massacre took place in a "gun-free zone."

Promotes coatracking, does not seem to be leading in productive directions—Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "gun-free zone" did not prevent the murderer from killing innocent people, but it did prevent those innocent people from being allowed to defend themselves: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/18/charleston-church-massacre-happened-in-gun-free-zone/ Charleston Church Massacre Happened In Gun-Free Zone The Charleston, S.C., church massacre is already drawing comparisons to the tragedies at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., and at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. because it happened in a gun-free zone. Although South Carolina is one of several states around the country that issue concealed carry licenses on a “shall issue” basis, legal gun owners are not permitted to carry their firearms into places of worship. According to South Carolina law, civilians may not carry their legal fire arms “on school premises (including day care and preschool facilities), in law enforcement offices or facilities, in court facilities, at polling places on election days, in churches or other religious sanctuaries, or in hospitals or medical facilities. (S.C. Code Ann.§ 23-31-215.)” 71.182.238.146 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC) In a sanctuary, you're technically not supposed to kill anyone, with or without guns. But yeah, worth a note. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, June 18, 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. Take your bogus FOX News talking points somewhere else. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) He's discussing improvements to the article. That's what talk pages are for. Not his points, either. Kerry Picket's. The Daily Caller may not be the most objective source, but it's better than garbage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, June 18, 2015 (UTC) Point taken, Kudzu1. OP's motives are obviously politically charged, but the "gun-free zone" is still worth noting. Misternails (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC) That seems rather insulting to garbage. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Not entirely true. A person with a concealed carry permit could bring their gun to the church if the church gives permission.[2] I'd tread carefully here as this "gun-free zone" issue is a right-wing talking point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC) The right/left thing doesn't matter to many readers. The important thing is whether it's true and whether it's notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, June 19, 2015 (UTC) Talking points are often misleading at best, hence my point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC) They're based on actual facts, though. We can note a simple fact about where guns are and aren't allowed without blaming Obama or ISIS or gay marriage or any of that noise. Can't we? But maybe we don't have to. General audiences probably take it for granted that hospitals, schools and churches aren't where guns are supposed to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, June 19, 2015 (UTC) Actually, these right-wing commenters apparently advocate bringing guns to hospitals, schools, and churches, just in case you have to shoot someone. You never know when some hospital patient or schoolchild might be playing their music too loud. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC) General audiences aren't Yosemite Sam. But yeah, those do exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, June 19, 2015 (UTC) Also, without advocating for bringing guns to church, it shouldn't take much brainpower to see that stopping a malicious shooter is the suggested rationale, not terrorizing people in the communion line, and not for nothing, but we are, right now, talking about a mass murder that happened at a church. But this is a really sensitive topic with wounds still raw and we ought to be energetic in keeping coatracking out. For one thing, there isn't the slightest inkling that any of the victims would have been carrying a gun to church if it were legal. And on that note, this whole section does not seem promising and threatens to become really crass and off-topic, so I'm hatting it, no offense intended. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase

"Dot Scott, president of the local branch of the NAACP, told CNN she'd heard Roof spared one woman so she could tell other people about the shooting.[19]"

The way this is written makes it unclear if the shooter is alleged to have said that, or if that's a conclusion people came to afterwards. It should probably also state that she didn't hear that from the survivor, but from relatives of the victims.

"A female survivor told family members that the gunman told her he was letting her live to tell everyone else what happened, Dot Scott, president of the local branch of the NAACP, told CNN. Scott said she had not spoken to the survivor directly but had heard this account repeated at least a dozen times as she met with relatives of the victims Wednesday night." 24.12.6.25 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Something like this? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Secondhand accounts of details of shooting

I notice the article includes accounts of the shooting which come from "people who talked to survivors". This sounds like we're getting into "friend of a friend" territory here, the kind of stuff newspapers report just to fill the void until better information surfaces. I wonder if we should wait until more direct accounts from the survivors themselves become available. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw that as well and that reminded me of the scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off "Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious." Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Date of shooting

I added the sentence "The attack took place on the 193rd anniversary of the failed slave uprising, which had been scheduled to occur on June 17, 1822." to the Background section. It clearly seems relevant, given the fact that Vesey was a founding member of the church. But I noticed that someone added a citation needed marker to it. I was just wondering why, since this isn't an idea that needs support from an authority, but a simple statement of historical fact. Does Wikipedia's standards require citations for plain historical facts like this, such as dates of events?

It's not that it's not a fact, just that a secondary has to note the significance of the connection before the connection should be noted. A billion coincidences happen each day, and we can't note everything we notice. But if a pro writer publishes it, it's good to go. I recently noticed Dusty Rhodes died on Magnum T.A.'s birthday and on John Wayne's deathday, but could only note the latter. We have to set the bar somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know that Dusty had a connection to Magnum T.A. and John Wayne. Interdasting. Hard times, Big Daddy, hard times. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lots of bloggers saying this, but there is strong dispute over whether the shooting occurred on 193rd anniversary of the planned 1822 uprising or on the day after. When abolitionist Thomas Wentworth Higginson wrote about the failed uprising in the June 1861 issue of The Atlantic, he said it had been planned for Sunday night, June 16, 1822, and was effectively foiled on a couple days' notice. I don't have access to Denmark Vesey's more recent biographies, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources and should not vector a false blogging meme like this. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed statement as it was 1) incorrect, and not supported by Denmark Vesey article which states (and sources) the planned rebellion for June 16, 1822, not June 17, 1822, and 2) because this dubious anniversary factoid was credited to Raw Story, which is not WP:RS. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg Is The Nation reliable? http://www.thenation.com/blog/210305/charleston-massacre-and-cunning-white-supremacy → Quote: >>Denmark Vesey is one of the most prominent names in America’s long history of racial terror. And the killer didn’t choose just Vesey’s church but his anniversary. Based on fragmentary evidence, white Charlestonians in 1822 came to believe that Vesey’s revolt “would begin at the stroke of midnight as Sunday, June 16, turned to Monday, June 17.” And they identified Vesey’s church as the center of the conspiracy.

White militia began to arrest both freemen and slaves, 10 that weekend, and many more in the days that followed. Vesey, a freeman, was captured on June 22. It’s not just the executors of the “war on terror” who have used euphemisms to describe torture. A Charleston official referred to the interrogations the captured men were subject to like this: “No means which experience or ingenuity could devise were left unessayed to eviscerate the plot.”<< --91.10.20.166 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Eviscerate the plot" doesn't sound quite so bad when considering how it's still standard to "spill your guts" in an interrogation room. Maybe they didn't actually "get it out of him".

Anyway, The Nation is definitely well-established, and the particular author almost won a Pulitzer in history, so that's a fine source. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, better, because it does it explain why some are saying the anniversary, and some the anniversary and a day. While wary of WP:SYNTH I'll try to incorporate it into edits tomorrow. I still support deleting the un-nuanced and badly-sourced sentence. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Was anyone directly involved with this incident aware of the date?--Naaman Brown (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not clear. It seems to me that it borders on WP:SYNTH to include the anniversary until more is known. Dyrnych (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Douglas Egerton, a biographer of Denmark Vesey, said he wasn't sure whether it was a coincidence. Perhaps we can cite him? I just didn't want it in the article badly sourced or incorrect. It's likely to creep back. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources report that the killer chose the date because of its historical significance, then of course it should be mentioned in the article. Until then, we should consider it a a two in 365 coincidence that should not be mentioned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully support this. Dyrnych (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Middle name

What evidence is there that his middle name is really Storm? Seems fishy to me. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw it on CNN, try searching there I am going to get some rest here (Almost 1AM). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the halibut: [3], [4]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that the middle name (with its racist overtones) appeared in the Wikipedia article very early, and might have been picked up by the media. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

[5] Here then, this one is by the FBI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And the local cops agreed before race was even an issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to post that. He has one of those names that seem too much like an alias or nick name. Could have pulled off a wrestling career with that name. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The majority of RS use seems to be first and last name only. I'm not disputing that his middle name is "Storm," but we should use the name that reliable sources use. Dyrnych (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal suggests that, although he gave "Storm" as his middle name during police reports, it's common practice for white supremacists to use "Storm" as their middle name (as in Stormfront.org). News reports are increasingly dropping the "Storm," so it would be useful to find out if this is, in fact, his legal name or just an affectation. Jordansc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abductive: do you have a source for the fake-ness of the middle name? Dyrnych (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I guess you can't access the WSJ article directly above? It's fake. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't state that it's fake, just that it's a commonly-used practice among white supremacists. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned below, any Wikipedia editor can challenge a primary source. The source of this name is what Roof told the cops when he was arrested. Remember, he's a white supremacist trying to spark a race war. He should not be allowed to propogate a code for his white supremacist brethren and have it publicized on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 22:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the WSJ article, but apparently it just suggests that it MIGHT be fake. (Do we know of any other white supremacists who use the middle name Storm?) What we need is someone - maybe his parents or a classmate? - to say no, that isn't really his middle name. And better yet, to tell us what his birth name is. I mean, he's been in the news for days, and nobody who knows him has challenged it. (I was going to say, go look at his high school year book, but I guess he didn't graduate from high school.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It is true that the majority of coverage now is just saying "Dylann Roof".[6]. So I agree with dropping "Storm" for now, whether or not we have definitive proof that it's fake. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point a seach for "Dylann" is supposed to make, but searching for "Dylann Storm Roof"[7] finds it in several very mainstream stories, all from today. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

And Google's "Did you mean?" is about the first name, not the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

This article iterates the same point as the WSJ. Misternails (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"In both police reports Mr. Roof gave his middle name as Storm, which is popular among white supremacists and could derive from stormfront.org, a website frequented by so-called white racialists, according to a person familiar with such groups."

A "could", according to "a person", does not outweigh all the "is" from reputable sources. Not even close. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Richland County 5th Judicial Circuit's public index gives his name as 'Dylann Storm Roof.' Misternails (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is is name as far as the state of South Carolina is concerned, which has filed "State of South Carolina vs Dylann Storm Roof". If the state acknowledges it as his name, that's good enough for Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. But, were his parents also white supremacists? If so, it's feasible that they did indeed name him "Storm". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he was not raised as a racist. Now obviously he's not a wonderful source, but I can't imagine why he'd want to conceal that. Dyrnych (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You can have racist parents and not be raised as one yourself. Same with smokers or Catholics or mechanics. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a common refrain. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I am French. I do not unterstand what has "Storm" to do with it (racism or white supremacism). My only association is that infamous Nazi propaganda newspaper "Der Stürmer". Why is Storm an allusion to white supremacism? --91.10.25.22 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an allusion to Stormfront, a notorious racist website. Dyrnych (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia article on it, also: Stormfront (website). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Der Stürmer and Stormfront... at least that "banality of evil" is not creative and even make use of the same figure of speech - since 85 years. --79.223.5.5 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop moving the article title!

unless there is discussion and consensus. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What basis is there for referring to this as a "shooting" rather than a "massacre"? Nine people were killed. Massacre is by far the more appropriate label. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As explained in the "Massacre"/"Rampage Killer" designation? section, that isn't for us to decide. —David Levy 07:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone decided to put it at "shooting", so it clearly is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the aforementioned explanation? I mean that it isn't for us to decide whether the incident constitutes a "massacre" (for the purposes of assigning it a designation).

"Shooting" is an objectively accurate term, so we use it by default. "Massacre", conversely, carries implications regarding the perpetrator's motive and strategy, along with the outcome's severity and iniquitousness. At Wikipedia, we don't perform such analysis. We look to reliable sources. —David Levy 10:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "shooting" is more neutral and is the preferred description in similar articles. "Massacre" is too much like non-NPOV journalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, "Charleston church massacre" seems to be gaining traction in the media, so it might become the event's widely accepted designation. At that point, it would be appropriate to rename the article accordingly. It's simply too soon to know whether this will occur.

In cases such as this one, we usually have some editors who are eager to adopt the "massacre" label. This sentiment stems more from a sense of moral outrage (which is entirely understandable, of course) than from any practical urgency. —David Levy 11:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When you have high traffic articles such as these move discussions are for the most part in my opinion the best idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Charleston church shooting necessary?

Please see the talk page for Category:Charleston church shooting to discuss whether or not this category is necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest Attack?

The article says:

It was the deadliest attack at an American place of worship since a 1991 mass murder at the Wat Promkunaram Buddhist temple in Waddell, Arizona, in which nine people also died.

This is untrue, the Waco Siege was deadlier.112.210.0.49 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And I updated the text to add "by a lone gunman" 112.210.0.49 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Somebody had removed that qualifier, so I deleted the whole thing. I was reverted, because the Waco dead apparently weren't civilians. I beg to differ. Most importantly, unsourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Clearer now. Largest murder, not deadliest attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Car contradiction

We have a quote from the suspect's uncle saying that his nephew had no driver's license, and we also have material about Confederate paraphernalia on his car and him being arrested while driving in his car. Is the uncle's quote antiquated or can a charge of driving without a license be added to his record? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed: I see now the man is now 21 and this was when he was 19. Ignore what I said. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A charge of driving without a license being added to his record is, believe me, the least of this kid's worries. And, also, the least of the judicial system's worries. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He is 21 years old, not exactly considered a "kid" anymore. Rtedb (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this thread is about his driving record, not his label as adult versus kid. Nonetheless, while he is legally an adult at age 21, in contemporary society, there is an extended adolescence that spans well into the late twenties and early thirties. So, to me, at age 21, someone is still (albeit, not legally) a "kid". It's an insignificant moniker. The thrust of this thread is his driving record. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But, yes, in today's society, age 21 is indeed still considered a "kid". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed tag

What exactly is in dispute? Dyrnych (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the refimprove and disputed tags. If the editor who tagged the article (@Arcticgriffin:) wants to specify what exactly is in dispute or which references need to be improved, he or she is welcome to discuss. Dyrnych (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That he is known as "Dylann "Number 4" Storm Roof" Arcticgriffin (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, you could just WP:FIXIT. Dyrnych (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Westboro Picketing, no funny business please

The Topeka-based terrorist organization Westboro Baptist Church claimed responsibility for the attacks, threatening more terror attacks against the funerals of those murdered. Seriously this isn't uncyclopedia. The link provided says that they're just going to do what they are best at doing, being cockroaches by picketing at murdered people funerals. The disgust me and they disgust everone else but this is not a blog and is not meant to be a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Hardly a notable reaction. Dyrnych (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't they always seem to jump into events like this? Would only recommend adding it back if they show up for one of their protest pickets. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Article for Dylann Roof?

Because of the wealth of information and because information about the shooter fills the page, wouldn't it make sense to create a page for the shooter? 8z (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What are the standards for content to include on the shooter, in terms of encyclopaedic neutrality? If the shooter's uncle offers non-expert opinion that his nephew was introverted and didn't have a job and was weird, wouldn't such anecdote be better suited to a page on the shooter, where such stupid opinions of fascist Southerners and family members looking to distance themselves from this tragedy can be included as anecdote? Including them in the main article on the event lends a value and credibility that they wouldn't hold in an encyclopaedia's psychology article. If there are no standards, maybe Wikipedia could establish some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoiospolloisius (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this as well, but personally I only edit Wikipedia with a focus on things I care about and causes I care about, trying to focus on a relatively positive vibe -- like improving articles of people and groups who are underrepresented, art, music, bands, etc. So the thought of working on this person's page given what they did is really unappealing to me. Of course this is obviously a personal approach, so I'm sure someone will undertake the task. Eventually. - BrillLyle (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should refrain from characterizing people you don't know as stupid or fascists when you have no basis for such claims. No expertise is required for the proposition that a given person is unemployed. Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a TALK PAGE, so such assertions of opinion, though speculative, are not an unacceptable lack of neutrality. But you are purposely missing my point in your eager engagement with the drama surrounding this event. My point is that many things will be said about the shooter and those will include assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny by any competent body or logic. To make a connection between not having a driver's license and not being employed and being a mass murderer is something that falls under mob gossip, stupid fascism, not neutral facts. The Uncle may not even have the right facts, he is not even a reliable source for basic facts, let alone his analysis of the shooter's mental state.

As for other statements below that putting a specific page on Wikipedia for a killer poses a moral hazard because it glorifies, this is partly true and partly false. A Wikipedia page is not all that much glory and Wikipedia does not have the restrictive standards of a Britannica. It is not only great men and great achievements and great events that are suitable for Wikipedia. I am only opening up the issue. A section for the shooter, within the article, could also be amended to assert that it includes a collection of opinions and gossip. Right now, in its rough developing form, the article doesn't handle that issue very well and almost joins in the rumor mill and gossip ["weird anti social kid was obviously a danger to society just for not driving a car like a good patriotic American"]. This is natural for a developing article but I wanted to highlight the issue on the talk page.

It's an issue for how Wikipedia determines and presents neutrality while avoiding commonplace stereotypes.Hoiospolloisius (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you're unaware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and characterizing a living person as a stupid fascist certainly qualifies as a BLP violation. In any event, numerous reliable sources have reported the uncle's statements. The uncle's statements are attributed to the uncle. The uncle's statements consist of claims that require no particular expertise to make. The uncle is reporting basic biographical information about Roof. I don't see what the problem is, beyond the fact that you apparently don't like Southerners. If you're suggesting that he or we are making a causal connection between not having a driver's license and being a mass murderer, you're entirely mistaken in your analysis. Dyrnych (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BLP states that "contentious" assertions should be avoided about living biographies. Where is it contentious, among educated and/or reasonable people, that insinuations by the uncle that his nephew was introverted on the basis of being unemployed and without a driver's license, are not stupid and car-biased statements? Your assumption that I "don't like Southerners" also has no basis since I characterized his opinion as fascist Southerner (a subset of Southerners) and in no way stated that all Southerners are by definition fascists. In any case, you are still missing my point that it is not an overt approval of such opinions that is required for an encyclopaedia article to lend them credence. The mere inclusion, without sectioning them appropriately, is enough. I brought it up not just for this article (though it is certainly relevant here) but because it interests me as a general issue for Wikipedia to tackle. I think I've made that point extremely clear and repeatedly and won't be responding to any more replies that don't take account of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoiospolloisius (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly not understand that calling someone a "stupid fascist" is a contentious claim? Are you suggesting that we screen attributed claims for "car-bias?" Should we, Wikipedia editors, use subjective evaluations of attributed claims (based on our own biases) to determine whether they're too "stupid" to merit inclusion? Your arguments are unconvincing at best. Dyrnych (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a Wikipedia article would screen content for bias. If you want to suggest that "car-bias" is some cooked up PC obsession of mine, you are revealing your own "car-bias". If you are acknowledging that "car-bias" is a real bias but not warranted for consideration the way racism, sexism, etc are warranted, the question is why is one bias worthy of screening but not another, when Wikipedia strives for neutrality?Hoiospolloisius (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't screen attributed claims for bias. That's the key issue you're failing to acknowledge. Even if the uncle's claim should be read in the way that you suggest (which I think is utterly wrong, considering its actual content), Wikipedia isn't making the claim. The uncle is making the claim. Wikipedia doesn't censor relevant, sourced, highly-covered content just because you think that the attributed claim is stupid or bad, and I doubt you'll convince many that it should do so. Dyrnych (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Has it been determined if the suspect had a driver license? The uncle said he did not have one at age 19 but did he get one by the time he turned 21? The reason I ask is that the suspect purchased the handgun at a retail gun store and filled out a 4473 and had to present valid ID. Now a state ID would work but I'm thinking that the suspect did have a driver license by age 21. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (and I have been following this and contributing to the section a lot), Roof's section has a lot of the information already known there. Until we get more info on his past and motivations, I say we should wait until then. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Roof is not relevant per se. --91.10.17.158 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

True. Per WP:PERP: "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." Also, even though it's hard, WP:BLPCRIME also applies to Roof. Regards SoWhy 10:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, as a perpeptrator of a crime, even a horrendous and lethal crime, the perpetrator should be covered in the article on the event, and not glorified with an (near) immortal article on himself in Wikipedia. I'm aware opinions vary on this, but I'm one editor who believes that the Wikimedia foundation should simply make a policy that we don't create the incentive that sad people with sad lives will be immortalized in Wikipedia if they just manage to acquire the means and the will to commit a large-scale murder in a single event. N2e (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this analysis is that numerous other mass shooters have standalone articles (e.g., Jared Lee Loughner, James Eagan Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho). I don't think that we have enough information now, but I imagine that as Roof's trial progresses (especially if he's charged by DOJ with a hate crime or domestic terrorism) a separate article will be warranted. Also, I'm sure that whatever incentive Wikipedia notability offers for someone considering violent mass murder is de minimis. Dyrnych (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored; we don't choose whether to have an article or not based on what effect we think it will have. On the other hand, WP:PERP is the guiding principle for now, and it suggests that unless he later becomes INDEPENDENTLY notable, he should be included in this article rather than have a separate biography. --MelanieN (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:PERP requires independent notability. The standard suggests that we should not have a separate article if there's "an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Right now, it's true that Roof's biographical information fits within the article; in the future it will likely not be true, hence my note about his trial. Assuming the usual amount of coverage of high-profile mass murder trials, Roof's biographical information would dominate this article if a standalone were not created. Dyrnych (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The pattern is the ones who do not die at the scene and survive for a trial generally do end up getting one as a spin off ex: Anders Behring Breivik, Martin Bryant, James Eagan Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Ones that died like Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza and Andreas Lubitz generally get merged. For now there is not enough for a separate article, but if he gets charged with a hate crime and domestic terrorism/or the death penalty the coverage will more then likely clog up this article and thus warrant a spin off. We'll wait and see. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dyrnych on this. But if additional information surfaces to the point in which this section overwhelms the article, it should be split per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, we may be getting close to that point. There's going to be a LOT of coverage of the website/manifesto. Dyrnych (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: So do it - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Details of the victims

Shouldn't the "Victims" section have more details of the victims other than "Bible study member", "pastor", "reverend", etc.? They should be accompanied by more detail that makes these victims seem a little less like statistics. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Libertarian12111971, would you like to comment on this? Epic Genius (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The only problem I have is with the multiple subheadings, which are unnecessary, particularly "The church" and "Racial tensions" subheadings. DimensionQualm (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of those other subheadings also probably belong after the "shooting", not "background". Really the background doesn't need any subheadings. DimensionQualm (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

OK DimensionQualm. Glad we got that cleared; thanks. :-) In the meantime, I now see that the multiple headers are unneeded. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely I agree the victims should get more coverage - otherwise we might as well move this article to Dylann Storm Roof. My impression is that there was a delay in identifying them, which means that news coverage of their stories is a bit late coming out. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Title - Charleston church shooting vs. Charleston church massacre

Someone just changed the title to "Charleston church massacre" from "Charleston church shooting". "Massacre" is too dramatic and non-neutral. "Charleston church shooting" is a straight-forward and true title. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved the page back so it is status quo, I see no reason against a requested move though if someone wants to start one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for a requested move. Survey below. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Charleston church massacre - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Charleston church shooting - More than twice as many Google News results for "shooting" than "massacre." Dyrnych (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Massacre, per my two cents in the "Massacre/Rampage Killer designation" section. And continually increasing headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not stating a preference for one or the other, at this point. Shooting versus massacre. But, I think we should not "defer" to headlines. Headlines serve a purpose. And that purpose is not to report news, but, rather, to shock, grab attention, encourage reading of the article, etc. So, every editor out there will use the attention-grabbing "massacre" over the boring and generic "shooting" in an inordinate proportion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

True enough. Still a fitting word for this, though. "Shooting" is generic. One dead? Two? Nine? "Massacre" at least makes it clear that it wasn't one or two, so more precise and as concise. Headlines just help make it the common name. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

• • • (puzzled) It was a massacre, not just a "shooting". - Cwobeel (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So were the Virginia Tech and Arizona temple shootings. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, "Charleston church shooting." Right now a raw Google News count has "shooting" 2.5 times as often as "massacre". If "massacre" eventually becomes the common name, we should change then; not before. Note that Wikipedia has historically gone both ways for comparable events: Waddell, Arizona Buddhist temple shooting; Virginia Tech shooting; but Columbine High School Massacre. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you counting them yourself? Because Google usually guesses wrong, and even if it's right, includes duplicates (so many Reuters and APs) and unreliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I just counted. "About 4,700,000" means 180. Not 180 million or 180 thousand. Just 180. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, June 21, 2015 (UTC) 03:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And "About 696,000" for "Charleston church massacre" means 220. To be fair, the last page is predominantly old People articles, with no apparent connection, or the phrase highlighted. Did you hear Seal was pregnant? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that raw Google or Google News counts are not very valuable. (We used different search terms, but the general results are similar.) But we don't have much else to go on. And we don't really have ANYTHING to suggest that "massacre" has become the common name. --MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If what Google does find for "massacre" is nothing, but still more than "shooting", that'd make less than nothing for "shooting". Or no? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Shooting. - Informs the reader how the crime was committed. Misternails (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Shooting. People need to keep WP:COMMONNAME in mind. Shooting is more popular, more precise, as or more commonly used, and more neutral. All of these are good reasons to keep it as-is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Shooting. More Google hits. 92,000,000 versus 67,000,000. Also, as per above, COMMONNAME and a desire not to descend into hysterics like some of the exploitative news media. This is a shooting by a lone gunman who has a history of mental illness and drug abuse. It's not ISIS rampaging through a village cutting off the heads of all the men and children and raping the women.This is not Malmedy or Wounded Knee. Sandy Hook was a shooting. Colorado was a shooting. Virginia Tech was a shooting. This is a shooting. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Who says he has a history of mental illness? I've seen the comments about "loner" and such, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he was ever diagnosed or treated or even suggested as being mentally ill. Let's not get ahead of our sources here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's be careful that this narrative doesn't become part of our article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the above about Google being crap for this. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Speaking of the Virginia Tech shooting, it carries a simple "also known as". Whichever way this blows, we could do like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Newspapers in the UK[8] and in Germany report[9] that presidential candidate Rick Perry had described the massacre as an "accident", though later claimed he had been misunderstood. --Túrelio (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

He claims he said "incident", and that's possible. In any case, too trivial to include here. --MelanieN (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Now its also reported in the Washington Post and CBS News. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In the hour preceding the shooting

According to the article, "[Roof] then began to disagree when they began speaking about Scripture." Do the citations support him actively participating in the Bible study? Misternails (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That set off alarms for me too, but apparently the NYT mentioned this although I certainly wouldn't call it "Bible study". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reaction section

I think we need to take a look at the "reactions" section. Right now it is indiscriminate, and includes pretty much anything that anyone said publicly. I think we need to apply a bit of a filter, so that only the really newsworthy reactions (those that get commented on by third parties?) are included. Personally I would delete the reactions by Jon Stewart, Fox & Friends, and the NRA board member. Also, I think setting people's comments off in a blockquote is unnecessary and distorts the section; IMO the comments from the mayor, the governor, and the president would be better handled as a normal paragraph. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this. The blockquotes are extremely disruptive to the flow of the article. I don't think that he was, but if the NRA board member was speaking on behalf of the NRA I'd say that would be interesting enough to include in the article. I think that Stewart's monologue has received some third-party coverage, mostly from explicitly left-leaning sources but also at CNN. I do find it puzzling that we're giving as much prominence to Fox & Friends as we are, considering the relative low quality (in terms of notability) of the opinion offered. Dyrnych (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, since you agree I removed the blockquote format. Personally I wondered if the Fox & Friends and NRA comments were included here for political purposes, possibly to make the commenters look extreme or outrageous. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fox & Friends might not be notable but neither is Jon Stewart's the Daily Show. Both are cable programs with relatively low ratings and little to no relevance to events outside of their limited viewership. However, if an NRA board member's cited opinion is a notable reaction, a cable show should also be notable. The reactions are of relevance within limits. The NRA reaction is more relevant in how it relates to the issue of guns in the U.S. than anything else. To that extent it is almost unrelated to this specific event or too general, if Wikipedia wants to promote a very specific, tight relevance for articles. Jon Stewart's reaction is relevant in how liberals entertain themselves and Fox & Friends is relevant in how conservatives entertain themselves. I've never seen a Reactions section on Wikipedia that took account of all these subtleties but this may be as good a place to start as any. So long as all of it is separated from the main facts of the article, I think it could be fine. If these reactions are integrated into the article, they will make for a useless reference article that forces the casual reader to do a lot of work separating the core from the tangential details. If such secondary details are set off neatly in a "Reactions" section, most readers who want a facts reference will be able to ignore them and save their time if they so choose.Hoiospolloisius (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, actually, Jon Stewart's and Fox and Friends' reactions might be notable. We just have to split them off into different sections. Since they received third-party coverage from notable, reliable sources, these reactions should still be included. Epic Genius (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the reactions should stick to just the core three/Mayor/Gov/President as the rest are just filler trying to make themselves relevant by commenting on something topical. 70.123.111.16 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the application of this filter, but the examples MelanieN points out as being excessive actually received third-party coverage, from Rolling Stone, The Washington Post and Yahoo! News respectively. That being the case I believe they should remain. I also agree with the removal of blockquotes; the section is now more readable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Prior criminal record"

We write:

He had a prior criminal record consisting of two arrests

However, a "criminal record" consists of convictions, not arrests. If he was convicted or plead guilty, we should make that clear. If he was acquitted or charges were never brought against him, we should make that clear also and drop the 'criminal record'. --causa sui (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Criminal records often encompass arrests, but we should be as clear as possible about Roof's prior offenses. Dyrnych (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to "police record". --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Roof manifesto

What appears to be Dylan Roof's manifesto has been discovered, according to a blog on Reason. Again, I think it's prudent to wait for higher-quality sources to pick up on this and verify its authenticity, but it will need to be incorporated into the article. Specifically, Roof states: "I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me." Dyrnych (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, let's keep track of this. It has so far been picked up by The Daily Beast and International Business Times. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a section sourced to the NYT ref below. Dyrnych (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So here's something weird: the manifesto specifically cites reading the Wikipedia article on Trayvon Martin as the event that drove Roof to "racial awareness."[10]

I made a note of that on the talk page of the Trayvon Martin article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's something else weird. Everybody is talking as if he is a lone wolf, who did this entirely on his own. But who took the pictures of him pointing a gun at the camera and burning an American flag and so on? Those are not selfies. They should be looking to see who else was part of his twisted little plot. Sorry, I realize this is WP:Original research, nothing we can use in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself and I'm sure that the authorities are investigating whether whoever took the photos had any relationship to the shooting. That said, the photos are pretty clearly protected speech despite depicting some pretty odious things, and there's a world of difference between taking racist photos and participating in mass murder. Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite true. Here's a sad report: A week before the shootings some of his friends hid his gun, because he was talking about killing people, but they "had to give it back". --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I tracked down a source that said they had to give it back because one of them was on probation, in whose trailer it had been hidden. If he had even gone to police and told them the story, they'd have sent him the jail for having touched the gun at all. And probably handed the gun back to Roof anyway. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Nice friends he had. --MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Less "coverage" more analysis: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/21/charleston-shooters-manifesto-indicates-sound-knowledge-of-white-nationalist-ideology - --91.10.14.69 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information about where he lived

We say: Prior to the attack, Roof was living alternatively in Bennett's and Mann's homes.[41] We also say: According to his roommate, Roof expressed his support of racial segregation in the United States and had intended to start a civil war.[46] Which is it? Did he live with his parents, or with a roommate? --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

More photos found

[11] he 's holding a Glock and a Confederate Flag, and posted a manifesto —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Photos from Prayer Vigil morning after the shooting

As I mentioned above, I took five photos at a prayer vigil the day after the attack at the Morris Brown African Methodist Episcopal Church. Unfortunately, I couldn't get inside because it was already at capacity. The images are below. I also didn't attend the memorial service that the city held yesterday so this is all I have right now. I wish they were better quality but I wasn't even thinking about putting them up here when I took them, so hope they can still help. Nomader (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Roof manifesto and the black testosterone myth

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

---

I think it would be a useful and responsible thing if we can discuss Roof's manifesto's claim [12] that "Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals." This ties into his apparent statements about Blacks raping white women, and is an idea that has previously been discussed in racist forums. [13]. The origin for this is a 1986 study of black and white college students [14] - I haven't accessed the original, but I'd like to see examination of the study size and whether college students are truly good controls for one another. A 2007 study, which says it refutes the 1986 one, says the testosterone is not different, but then says estrogen might be different! [15] That had a n=363 and is supposedly more representative - nonetheless one can picture that endocrine disruptors in the environment could make havoc with the data in ways that aren't controlled. This is all too OR for me to put into the article at the moment, but I think it's worth being on the lookout to see if any source we can use goes ahead and really deconstructs this myth. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO we should give as little credence/reporting as possible to his manifesto - not debunk his weird theories but ignore them. We should stick to the aspects of the manifesto which become widely reported. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't a forum to discuss Roof's philosophy, and we don't need to use the article to do so either. Dyrnych (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2015 (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.

Manifesto section in the article

Am I the only one that thinks the amount of detail in the Manifesto section is excessive? For starters I would delete the paragraph (next to last) that describes the some of the pictures and explains their significance/symbolism. TMI! His words are enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'll start trimming.... Abductive (reasoning) 21:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• It certainly can be trimmed of excess detail, but it is still worth noting that he had both neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate obsessions. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  Definitely important to include. I have deleted the paragraph going into detail about the Nazi symbolism in some of the photos, but I certainly agree we need to convey that side of him. We will soon have additional Reliable Source reporting, so that we won't have to rely so much on the NYT article about the photos. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed excess detail, but not much from his racist statements. Abductive (reasoning) 22:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't just trim it, you cut the 88 and 1488 white supremacist allusions completely — that's kind of a whitewash, to my jaded eyes at least, given that those codes firmly establish the influence white supremacist websites and their affiliate organizations had on Roof's thinking. The Washington Post and New York Times went to some trouble explaining those numbers, and if you are or were able to see Roof's website itself, you would realize how they prevail. To my mind, our Manifesto description goes very light on his racist comments, given their broad scope in the Manifesto; do keep in mind he also wrote “if we could somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldn’t cause much of a problem” (per Washington Post). Look, his intention was to start a race war, this was his groundwork, and while I share a particular queasiness in helping propagate some of these awful tropes, I think we've an obligation to represent the full facts as they are objectively areported. Will you let me perform a (partial) restore? Thanks. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to hold off and wait for more coverage. I don't want to make emotional edits, and I think this icky awful day of revelations is getting to me. TMI! — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps avoid WP:PRIMARY quotes or in-depth discussion of specific white supremacist ideas, and just look for secondary sources that interview academic experts in neo-nazi movements to discuss the issue (to avoid warring over how much primary material to include). -- Aronzak (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with waiting for more coverage and analysis. There will be plenty of it, probably tomorrow, when reporters and others have had a little more time to dig into this thing. (Better them than me.) However, I do think quotes from him are important, WP:PRIMARY or not. We already have the key quote, the one that every news report is highlighting - the one that firmly establishes the racism that apparently motivated him. BTW I haven't seen anything to suggest "neo-Nazi", have you? Just racism and white supremacy. Let's not mix up our hateful ideologies; the groups share a lot of overlap but they are not identical. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He was photographed dressed in a brownshirt with 1488 and a swastika-like rune visible in the sand. His "manifesto" is loaded with anti-Jewish and exterminationist rhetoric. Do you mean, was he a card-carrying member of a Neo-Nazi organization? Just as a terrorist is no less a terrorist for being "self-actualized", he obviously felt an affinity. Yes, the article depends on reporting and analysis and not merely on my opinion, so I'm holding back from editing. But I don't really know what more you need here. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"white power symbols", the precise technical term, I had not even noticed, thanks for the indication!--79.223.5.5 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

At top, you see a Celtic Cross that is sometimes a coded adaptation of a swastika (see tattoo on this ADL informational page). At the bottom is an Othala Rune, also known as the "Homeland" rune, used by Neo-Nazis and resonant in a specific Anglo-Afrikaner historical context. It can also be invoked benignly in some contexts, however, as the ADL rightly cautions. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Storm?

@Abductive: I see that you removed the middle name "Storm" saying "Storm is now proven fake". Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find one. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• All Wikipedia editors are permitted to challenge primary sources. See the section above. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, maybe I'm just stupid today, but would you mind pointing me to the source that says the middle name Storm is now proven fake? --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

See the middle name section above. Abductive (reasoning) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But without the middle name, my theory on his links to unsavoury company like Amoco (blood for oil!) and HoneyBaked Ham (kill the pigs!) suddenly sounds stupid.

Seriously though, The New York Times, The Independent, Vanity Fair and the others all agree with the police that he has a strange middle name. Can't challenge secondaries like that. Besides, it's not as weird as Edward Cocaine and the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

His middle name is Storm. The state of South Carolina's case against him is called "State of South Carolina vs Dylann Storm Roof" per [16]. This is his name. It is in numerous sources, and the state recognizes it as his name. That's more than good enough for Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the NYT article refers to him as "Dylann Roof" throughout - even though it Google-hits with "Dylann Storm Roof". The others found in your search - Vanity Fair, The Independent, etc. - are less likely to be considered Reliable Sources than the mainstream media, ALL of which at this point is saying "Dylann Roof".[17] The "State of South Carolina vs." link doesn't work for me, but even so, we generally use the common name as determined by WP:Reliable sources, rather than WP:Official name. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

New York Times. But yeah, the first two I checked got the hits, but didn't use the name. A bit odd. The Independent and Vanity Fair are quite mainstream. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Like James Eagan Holmes, James Earl Ray or Lee Harvey Oswald, the full name often becomes the common name, to avoid slandering someone else with the first and last, and because that's how cops write. Though, yeah, "Dylann Roof" is probably more unused, by parents. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Citations missing from lead, don't panic.

It's just WP:LEADCITE. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Judge controversy

Judge Who Presided Over Dylann Roof Bond Hearing Was Reprimanded for Racial Slur [18]. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the controversy? He admitted it twelve years ago, and was reprimanded. No argument. A different judge is presiding over the trial part. No (real or imagined) conflict of interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Just a news tie-in to generate new content by the media. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Aye. Might fit in the "Media" section, but that still doesn't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Candidates for President

I've removed the section about reactions from candidates for President, on the grounds that it's both unenlightening and tasteless. These are statements by politicians who have no connection with the event except the coincidence that they are running for public office. If their comments on the topic are of relevance to their own campaigns, there are articles for that.

Please let us remember that we're writing an encyclopaedia article about a serious crime, not a human interest story for a tabloid newspaper. --TS 03:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's re-appeared, but I agree, please remove it. This happens during every tragedy leading up to an election cycle, people who are temporarily relevant make comments which have no value in the long term. --36.85.196.134 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd started that, but just as one sentence. Definitely grown unwieldy and undue, like Frankenstein's monster. I wouldn't mind seeing it die. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who restored it; sorry, TS, but it needed to be discussed first. Actually I agree that it has become unwieldy and WP:UNDUE, and that none of the candidates had anything particularly notable to say. I wouldn't mind eliminating all but Hulk's one sentence; people can follow that link if they want to see who else said "this is a terrible tragedy and the families are in my thoughts and prayers." If we do that, we could recombine "elected officials" and "candidates" back into the single section, possibly called "politicians" as it originally was. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, Reaction sections always follow the same pattern. Starts with quotes from elected officials, then celebrities, then somebody says "WP:QUOTEFARM", then I point out the pattern, then we discuss for about a week before trimming it way back. Arguing about flag icons is pretty standard, too. Glad we've missed that step. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I have restored it. For an incident that is having and is likely to have national policy implications, this material is relevant. Also, if sources find this relevant, we follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, we're going overboard with them. Ref naming and reusing the first sentence's citaton would suffice for them all. Unless we're trying to bog this down for dial-up users. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I've done this. Everyone gets one social media comment. Nice and fair. No subjective quoting or extra weight on "serious" candidates. I think we're probably missing two of the alleged eighteen, because we have two others instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

To Tony's comment, can you explain what and how "tabloid" would apply to that material, when we have impeccable sources for these comments? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Just curious: why keep this section if you are going to edit out all of the real political discussion among the candidates? InedibleHulk Why not just cut it out completely? In it's newly edited form it seems meaningless to me. Revmqo (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Because this isn't the place for "real political discussion". It's for reactions, plain and simple. Some had undue weight. Now they're equal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Quoting them isn't "political discussion," it's reflective of their frame of mind when commenting on tragedy. This makes it look like you've picked what you want them to say, by picking and choosing. I think this section should just go, but just my opinion. Revmqo (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I quoted them, in full, and only them. Not picking a phrase here and there, some (Clinton, Bush, Graham) more than others. Fun Fact: "Pray" beat "heart" 15-6. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I also think the section should go, but while it's here, it should be fair. And when someone reverts its deletion, it should be to the fair version. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Please see the straw poll below [19] on whether comments from Presidential candidates should be kept or deleted. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"1488" a (Neo-)Nazi internet greeting

Not sure about the degrees of increase: hater, racist, white supremacist, bowlcutmasterrace, crypto-fascist: according to the Anti-Defamation League, 1488 is a widely used symbol that combines a 14-word white-supremacist slogan and a code for the phrase "Heil Hitler.": http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/1488.html His salute written in the sand makes him a neo-fascist. --79.223.1.144 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)--79.223.5.5 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See Fourteen Words - Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking to copyright violations

Please note that we do not link to copyright violations - for some reason, people are uploading Roof's 'manifesto' to Wikisource, in violation of copyright. It will undoubtedly be deleted there, but meanwhile, any links to the Wikisource copy must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Far better to link to the most extensive analysis of the manifesto in a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• The manifesto may not be up to Wikimedia Commons' high expectations, but we can and do link to the full text of the manifesto in our reference to Gawker's article about it. It is well within the rights of journalists to copy such a text in full for the transformative use of public information and discussion, and it is not merely appropriate but highly desirable for us to link to such news sources. There would be no point to have an article about this stupid rampage at all if we didn't try to address the question of why it happened. Wnt (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in a debate about 'journalistic rights - this is not a forum. And Wikipedia policy on linking to copyright violations is clear and unequivocal. If you want to propose it be amended, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Well within the rights" equals "fair use". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

'Fair use' doesn't even remotely cover copying an entire document, without any commentary whatsoever, as occurred on Wikisource. That was a clear and unequivocal copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss Wikisource, even though it has a "Wiki" in it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's stance on the general issue, see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

More directly relevant - WP:COPYLINK: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, as Wnt says, we know the external site isn't violating Roof's copyright, but printing it under fair use rules. Different from linking to the YouTube copy of They Live to cite a fact in They Live (or whatever work). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Which site are you referring to? The material on Wikisource isn't 'fair use' - it isn't being used at all, just copied without any commentary whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As Wnt also said, Gawker. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

The material has now been removed from Wikisource. As for Gawker, it is less clear-cut since they are commenting on it - and I started this thread because of links to Wikisource, not Gawker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, these things evolve. I started proposing a section about the terrorism and supremacy angles, and it turned into Wikipedia's own debate on the matter. But as a side effect, relevant sources were found and shit got done. Not the Media section, but some things. Same here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that copyright isn't meant so much to prevent the sharing/selling of work as it is to protect the right of the author to exclusively do that on his terms. Many states have Son of Sam laws disallowing an author to collect profits of published works about their crimes. Not sure about South Carolina, but if so, it's fair to assume this guy's going to prison, so using his work isn't going to impact his financial potential. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

South Carolina is one of four states that repealed the law and never replaced it. Disregard the above. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'd advocate disregarding all amateur Wikipedia legal opinion. In this case, an editor's analysis of whether or not the ideals of copyright are being upheld by a purported violation has very little to do with the actual application of the policy. Dyrnych (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a lawyer, so I won't advocate disregarding me or not. Except for the striked parts. Don't read those! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Stop Rusing to Make Article

This article is too rushed for a Encyclopedia!

It's not a shooting it's a Terrorist Attack, and it's a Racial Terrorist attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.174.201 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous of Fort Lauderdale. Do you have the declaration from the relevant police, courts and government to call it such, or is this just your opinion? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the new "Terrorism" terminology controversy section? It contains many similar opinions to yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Misleading

"In that manifesto Roof traces the origins of his views to the Trayvon Martin case.[69] This led Roof to visit the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white nationalist group, where he saw coverage of black-on-white murders.[71] The Council of Conservative Citizens took down its website in the immediate wake of publicity.[70]"

"...Roof traces the origins of his views to the Trayvon Martin case.[69] This led Roof to visit the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens" - this is factually inaccurate. It doesn't say in the "manifesto" that the Trayvon Martin case lead Roof to the Council of Conservative Citizens website as claimed in the article currently. It would be much more accurate to say, "...Roof claims he was "truly awakened" by the Trayvon Martin case. He read about the case on Wikipedia, then Googled "black on White crime". This lead Roof to visit the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens where he read about black on white murders."

Excerpt from Manifesto: "The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article 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. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?"Link 24.12.6.25 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A true awakening is an origin, and prompting is leading. Might do well to say it led him to Google, where he found the CCC. Not a direct route. I'll do that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Primary Target / additional insight

According to Roof's roommate and friend, his original target was the University of Charleston up until at least a week before the shooting. That seems important to include in this article.

"That church wasn't his primary target at all" - Christon Scriven "They all got seven days to live" - Christon Scriven "I'm gonna shoot a university up, and they all got seven days to live" - Christon Scriven trying his best to recall what Roof said.

"Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof 'wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church.'" Link Scriven also says Roof wasn't racist or ignorant, had no grudge against that church, never mentioned that church before, never said anything racist to him before, and never treated him any different from their other white roommate. 24.12.6.25 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This testimony, and the ridiculous "race war" theory, seems to point to the hypnotic mind-controlled assassination theory. Are there any RS, other than the usual conspiracy sites? What pychologists are examining Roof now? GangofOne (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Terrorism" terminology controversy

I object to this whole section in the article. I think it is POV and interpretation/essay/synthesis, and I think it should be deleted. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a bit bad, that way. But nothing unfixable. Mostly solid quotes, from mostly reliable (though a few primary) sources.

I'd prefer a general section on the coverage, where this stuff would be included, without putting so much weight on one topic of many.

But no to outright deletion. Having somewhere to mention it steers people away from trying to make the terrorism/hate points in the lead, infobox and other more important places. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Clear POV

"A number of scholars, journalists, activists, and politicians have emphasized the need to understand the attack in the broader context of racism in the United States, rather than seeing it as an isolated event of racially motivated violence. Attacks on black churches were a common occurrence throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. In the late 1860s, following the American Civil War, racial terrorism by white supremacists in the South was ubiquitous during the Reconstruction Era, and the KKK became an organized terrorist organization. In 1870, a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization",[17] and the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act was used to dismantle the KKK.[18][19] In 1996, Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act, making it a federal crime to damage religious property because of its "racial or ethnic character", in response to a spate of 154 suspicious church burnings since 1991,[20][21] and a black church in Massachusetts was burned down after the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009.[22][23][24][25]"

This is a clear presentation of a loosely related POV. It adds nothing to the subject matter of the main article.24.12.6.25 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Reactions & Terrorism debate

The reactions and terrorism debate sections are half the article. This article will only grow as new information comes out and as the court case progresses. Is so much information necessary in those sections? Is all that information necessary? Plus the reactions from the families is one sentence, while reactions from politicians and political groups takes up a bunch of space. Is this a forum for political POV or an article about people who got murdered?24.12.6.25 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia article about a recent, politically-charged event. It always takes a week or so to iron out the Reactions. Can't do it while it's still hot. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Poll on retention of comments from Presidential candidates

Comment is sought from interested editors on whether the comments of Presidential candidates should be kept or deleted. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The candidates were not known to the deceased nor are they residents of South Carolina. They do not speak for a constituency but rather offer personal comment because it is "expected" of them and sought by eager media. Their comments are neither notable nor noteworthy. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. This section in its present form offers nothing to the article, especially without any reference to the political nature of their individual press releases. Revmqo (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing valuable here. Not to the topic, anyway. Marginally valuable to the race. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Court Case Official Name

I can not open this link: http://www5.rcgov.us/SCJDWEB/PublicIndex/PIError.aspx?County=40&CourtAgency=40216&Casenum=36973HB&CaseType=C&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 --91.10.39.5 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)