Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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, 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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)

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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the straw poll below [1] on whether comments from Presidential candidates should be kept or deleted. WWGB (talk) 23:41, 21 June 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)

If you're getting an error page, it's working as intended (PIError.aspx). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Try this one. You may have to enter a captcha.

If no, official name is "State of South Carolina vs Dylann Storm Roof". Case number 36973HB. Arrested by Mark D. Scholund, April 27. Released on own recognizance, $470 bond. Tried on May 27. Charged with "2320-Trespassing / Entry on another's pasture or other lands after notice". Fined $262.50, $270.38 after collection fee, and sentenced to 12 days in jail. Hasn't paid yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 22 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Condensed

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. 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.[17][18] More recent arson attacks against black churches included a black church in Massachusetts that was burned down after the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009.[19][20][21][22]

Someone before was trying to labor the point of adding the word "terrorism" about three times per sentence. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Poll on retention of comments from Presidential candidates

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.

---

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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe summarize all the candidates that have spoken about it if someone wants, but I think more of the reaction from the families would be valuable. They said some really inspiring things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.6.25 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration isn't valuable to Wikipedia, just facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The section as it stands now is not NPOV, as it has been reduced to platitudes. The original section (diff) was material to the national discussion on race relations in the aftermath of the shooting, and how the candidates responded. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In particular is troublesome to see InedibleHulk !voting for removal, when it was they that removed most of the relevant material. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

He, not they. Why would it be troubling to see someone who removed most of the useless fat want to also toss out the bones? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the info should be Deleted and have done so, if someone wants to a make a "reactions to" page the info can be moved there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Delete. WWGB said it well. None of them have any relationship to the situation, none of them had anything original or notable to say. No summary needed either. I agree I'd like to see more of what the families said - for example at Roof's hearing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I started an RFC to attract uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but in the meanwhile I have deleted it per the overwhelming consensus here. Do we all have to make our comments again, or can the RfC incorporate this discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 22 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.

Please continue this poll in the RfC below. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

did Roof attempt to kill himself?

The Los Angeles Times (and some other outlets) reported the story. If indeed Roof ran out of bullets, thwarting a suicide attempt, it also raises the question about his deliberately allowing one witness to survive — though the story specifies that he had already spared her when he turned the gun on himself. Only to say, there's a lot we don't know yet. But because the LA Times is WP:RS, shouldn't we include this, with the obvious caveat that the story is at this point double hearsay? I'm surprised it hasn't made the cut and was wondering if someone had struck it down. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a fact in Wikipedia's voice yet, but fine to say somebody heard it from somebody, like the paper does. I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to split off suspect

I think his section has become large enough to deserve its own article. Although I don't personally think he should have a page, should that factor into the decision? What is the policy? User talk:jumplike23 03:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Charleston church shooting#Article for Dylann Roof?, and I'd support a split. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I support a split after looking at the policy. He has unique motives reportedly, and qualifies. Moreover, his section is disproportionate. Can you do a poll? Probably appropriate even though there appears to be consensus in earlier discussion above. User talk:jumplike23 03:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

He was motivated by fear of blacks. That's one thing all sources agree on. Another is that fear of blacks is too common in America. Definitely doesn't qualify on his uniqueness.

But since he didn't die, he'll be the focus of his trial, conviction, sentencing, appeals, criminology interviews, separate death and so forth. So we'll need an article for that. Those who die in a more unique event than this, like Andreas Lubitz, are usually only notable for that one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I also support a split (but have been too busy to do it myself). Dyrnych (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support separate article for Dylann Roof. He is clearly notable:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." -- WP:BIO

BullRangifer (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support separate article for Dylan roof. He's notable. WP has one for this guy. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose separate article. This seems to be WP:ONEEVENT in my mind. His infamy is inextricable bound up with the crime. Neutrality^talk 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ONEEVENT says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". So, is the event highly significant? Myrvin (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly, and coverage of him as a person will grow significantly, so we may has well have that separate article. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It will also stop being one event soon enough. The trial alone makes two. If they decide to forgo a trial, that would be even more notable than having one. If he dies in jail, also another event. Can't think of anything that could potentially keep him at one. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 23 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)

Agreed, supporting split, his reasons for crime were truly unusual in wanting to start a race war after seeing Trayvon Martin/Bmore coverage User talk:jumplike23 03:29, 22 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: [2], [3]. - 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)

[4] 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, 19 June 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".[5]. 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"[6] finds it in several very mainstream stories, all from today. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And Google's "Did you mean?" is about the first name, not the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 20 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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)

What about the FBI source above, are you saying the FBI is lying? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah... it does seem that "Storm" may have been made up by Dylann Roof, if he gave that as his middle name to the police. Epic Genius (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In the words of Michael Stipe, consider this. Stormfront is called stormfront, because it wants to pretend it's a cleansing thunderstorm. Storm roofs, like storm doors or storm windows, defend and protect against storms. Even if he's an idiot (and not all Southern racists are), he'll have pieced that much together while musing over his nickname. Any racist hardcore enough to change his name to a racist website will almost certainly understand what that website stands for. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 22 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, 19 June 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, 19 June 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, 19 June 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, 19 June 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, 20 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you dislike my use of a standard quotation template, the purpose of which is to indicate the specific text to which I'm responding. Likewise, I'm not fond of being left to draw such conclusions via manual comparison, but I did so without complaint.

I'm not sorry for failing to live up to your personal standard of Wikipedian etiquette (which apparently mandates the pursuit of explicit consensus to undo a change lacking consensus), whose widespread adoption would cripple the project. —David Levy 05:36, 22 June 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, 19 June 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)

Contradictions

There seems to be a couple internal contradictions in the "Shooting" section. For one thing, how many people were present? The second sentence of the second paragraph states, "A total of thirteen people attended the Bible study, including the shooter." But this doesn't add up with the numbers given later on: 9 fatalities + 1 non-fatal injury + 1 shooter + 5 unharmed people = at least 16 people present.

Also, how did Sanders' mother survive the shooting? One sentence states, "Sanders' mother and his five-year-old niece, both attending the study, survived the shooting by pretending to be dead." But then the very next sentence contradicts this, stating, "Dot Scott, president of the local branch of the NAACP, said she had heard from victims' relatives that the shooter spared one woman (Sanders' mother) so she could, according to him, tell other people what happened." I realize that the second sentence could simply be hearsay, but if that's the case, this should be made clear, such as by tying the two sentences together like this: "Dot Scott, president of the local branch of the NAACP, said she had heard from victims' relatives that the shooter spared one woman (Sanders' mother) so she could, according to him, tell other people what happened. However, other sources report that Sanders' mother and five-year-old niece survived the shooting by pretending to be dead." --CrazyLegsKC 10:47, 22 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, 20 June 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 [7]. 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".[8] 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The rcgov.us website might be down due to too much traffic. I'd go with what the official charge/court records has. If the government charges the person as Dylann Storm Roof, finds Dylann Storm Roof guilty in a court of law and executes/sentences to life a Dylann Storm Roof, then his name is probably Dylann Storm Roof. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

At some point the origin of that name will come out. I wonder if he didn't make it up when he got his Drivers License? Abductive (reasoning) 01:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The origin of his name is almost certainly the origin of your name: Parents registering a birth. Every day, people named "Green" get busted for weed, and some defend them. Now and then, Conor P. Fudge fudges up while trying to con an ice cream store. Or Pat Molesti tries to lure a five-year-old. And one day, John Doe is going to a morgue.

Parents are funny, sometimes, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's too bad I can't bet you money, because I believe I'd win. Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are ways. But no, I can't capitalize on tragedy. It'd be unwholesome. Let's just put our credibility as good guessers on the line. Loser trusts the winner for the rest of his foreseeable future. Deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe his parents will be able to answer the question and/or release his birth certificate like the parents of Rachel Dolezal did. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That was a contentious issue that played out on a big stage. As far as I see, this question is only important on this talk page. Wikipedia's big, but in a different way. Still, I've crossed paths with other (alleged) bio subjects and their relatives on these things. Not exactly farfetched to think we could hear from a parent, but I wouldn't hold my breath. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should remarks made by presidential candidates be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to exclude the information. A AFD may be in order since it was moved off the page to an apparent POVFORK. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Should remarks by presidential candidates made in the aftermath of the Charleston shooting be included in the article?

Addendum: I deleted the section from the article in response to the above "survey", not knowing that Cwobeel was about to launch an RfA. For those who want to see the section we are talking about, here is the diff: [9] --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Include - This incident is directly related to a national debate on race relations in the US, and documenting the reactions and comments of presidential candidates is encyclopedic and useful to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include. 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) 00:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude What a politician says after a disaster doesn't affect the disaster, only the politics. If this quacking is notable anywhere, it's in their individual articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include. WWGB said it well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. Please note the "survey" above on the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do not include The info can be summed up in a sentence "Each of the presidential candidates for the upcoming 2016 expressed anger and shock over the shooting" What more to their comments is insightful? We have to remember there are political motives involved here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude and trim the remainder of the 'reactions' section too. Political soundbites are rarely encyclopaedic, and given that the candidates are generally doing little more then expressing horror, condolences, and whatever spin they can put on it to suit their personal cause, I can see little justification for Wikipedia handing them free soapbox-room. As for any 'national debate on race relations in the US', it should be covered in an article on the subject - assuming that there is actually a meaningful debate, rather than more soundbites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude - most are only identical condolences, the same as offered by millions of other people, who like these politicians, have no relation to the victims, area or perpetrator. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Selective inclusion there should only be WP:SECONDARY sources, not lengthy quotes. Most of the reactions are boilerplate - but Rick Perry's use of the word "accident" rather than "incident" may be politically damaging to him - and a sign that governors who oppose gun control may be trying to down-play the racial angle (before it became obvious with the shooter's manifesto). -- Aronzak (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question Do you mean "national debate" in a political news sense, or in a newsworthy political sense? If the runners who make it to that stage are actually planning to debate race issues on every channel, with a moderator, I'll change my vote. It's a hard thing to Google accurately. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Include Sure, why not? These reaction sections are a little silly to begin with but, as long as they exist, I don't see any reason to pick and choose whom to include/exclude. Include anyone who is notable and says something. If Pauly Shore reacts, include him.

LavaBaron (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude Not relevant. I think forking to a separate article was a good idea. After the election, we can fold back in the winners remarks and AFD that article. --110.136.230.194 (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude Not relevant. None of this is within the remit of the President of the United States. This is a matter for South Carolina, a sovereign state in America. If there are candidates for the Office of Governor in S.C., then those comments would be relevant. But not presidential candidates. Also, the comment about 'selective inclusion' seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Limited/Selective Include - Looking at the diff Mel offered, it seems like the material in contention is a lengthy section recounting every single candidate's opinion of the shooting. That's pretty clearly WP:UNDUE. That said, I don't think it would be innappropriate to include one or two candidate's reactions. NickCT (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with what the others said with it not being relevant. Although if Pauly Shore WERE to says something, he would be the exception. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

• Selective inclusion Rick Perry -Aronzak (Above)

Why do we want to hurt Rick Perry's chances? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've refactored your comment to the threaded discussion section. To clarify - Rick Perry appears to be the only one I can see to have a WP:VER and WP:NPOV retraction of an earlier remark. There are a bunch of reliable sources discussing it Google Bing - eg CNN business insider Yahoo wtvr kcci IBT kens5.

I'd only support inclusion of comments that have catalysed other coverage (like a retraction of an earlier comment) - not just statements of boilerplate condolences. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment, comment about comment, it seems as pointless to me, in an article about a church massacre. But very relevant to Rick Perry and sort of relevant to United States presidential election, 2016. Not trying to completely bury the fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, because Wikipedia has an article on everything, Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I would firmly oppose just including Rick Perry's comments in the reaction section per WP:UNDUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Earl Holt III - listed as the president of the Council of Conservative Citizens has donated to Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul. Ted Cruz has declare he is returning about $8,500 in donations (Guardian). -- Aronzak (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Most people here agree not to include the comments, but it is no better to just fork the material to 2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. What an absurd article topic! These should be concisely summarized or just mentioned in this article, and there no reason why Wikipedia should include the full quotes from every member of this set of people unrelated to the event. These are soundbites with no relevance to readers. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You can discuss that at Talk:2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The news media will have less reporting in a week's time, you can propose it for merger or AfD then. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you unilaterally made the new article, I don't see why we should all have to go through a separate AFD later when people are discussing it here and now, and clearly more people will see and comment on this talk page than that one. Reywas92^Talk 15:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the way Wikipedia works. All articles are started "unilaterally". I believe that these comments are encyclopedic and a new article is there now to be further developed. Per WP:SUMMARY a summary of the article needs to be placed here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In the poll in the previous section, I see six people saying the material should be deleted, but you go ahead and keep the material, but in a separate article. In this section, with some of the same commenters, seven say to exclude, only you and one other say to include. So yeah, that was pretty unilateral, and not how WP works, as a majority has expressed that all these full quotes are not encyclopedic but you kept them anyway. Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. The discussion above if for the inclusion of the material in this article. Nothing stops anyone from creating new articles, that is the way Wikipedia works. If you have concerns about any article other than this, there is a talk page for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, the comments clearly refer to the content itself, regardless of the location. That is a direct content fork, not a separate topic. AFDed. Reywas92^Talk 23:44, 22 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.

Name of the civilian who assisted with the capture

In view of WP:BLPNAME ("Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value"), I think that the person who tipped the police off to the suspect should not be named in the article. Her name is not relevant to the case, and there's a real possibility that she may be targeted in some way by persons who associate themselves with the shooter's goals. In consideration of this, her privacy should be given greater weight.  Sandstein  08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a real possibility anyone will be targeted by anybody, for any reason. And it's not like somebody who wanted to go through the trouble of finding and killing her would be thwarted by having to click the citation to find her name.

That said, no, the article doesn't lose anything very important by dropping her name. Bit of a slippery slope, though. We've plenty of other names here, too, including some the killer already targeted and meant to kill. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

She participated voluntarily in a number of television interviews. She is clearly not concerned for her safety. Why should we be? WWGB (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And are we concerned about Charles Cotton (with his unfortunate name and asking-for-it grin), who we say blamed the pastor for not leading a well-armed flock, in a since-deleted Internet post? He could better benefit from this Wikipedia Protection Program, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, false alarm. Nothing bad could happen in a place called Friendswood. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is no indication that the person who gave the tip wants to keep her name low-profile (and it would seem that she is fine with it being out there since she sat for interviews), there is no reason to omit the name. Cotton is an NRA board member, not a low-profile individual. I am unconvinced that his forum post is relevant enough to the shooting to merit inclusion in the article, but that is not a BLP issue. VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the woman whose survival was allegedly conditional upon Roof's failed death? Some might say she owes him. And, if the worry is about those who follow similar ideologies as Roof, should we name no black people? That seems wrong, on a few levels, but that was enough reason for these nine targets. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The steeple picture

I've restored the steeple picture to the section from which it was removed in a recent edit. The historic significance of this stunningly beautiful building is described in the text, and its beauty is part of its significance. The murderer did not just wander into any church, but he deliberately selected perhaps the most beautiful and historic African church in the United States. It's a free photograph so there are no licencing issues, and the article is already a little heavy on text. So there it is. --TS 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think as an article about the shooting, one image of the church itself is adequate. My removal of the redundant image (also repetitively used from the infobox at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church) was reverted with an edit summary that is completely addressed by the existing image in the infobox; the layout with two images of the church on top of each other needs improvement. @Tony Sidaway: what are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Looks like we both started sections on this. I agree that an image of the church should be included; two images of the church less so. That is image gallery territory, which should be at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and not here. If we want an image gallery in this article, it should be of the victims, related memorials, or related protests. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that one image of the church is sufficient. Displaying the church from multiple angles seems a tad indulgent. The point of this article is not to reinforce the beauty of the building. WWGB (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, VQakr. I don't think we're so far from one another on this topic. I observe that it's a gorgeous building, it was selected by the murderer because of its beauty and its historical significance, and there is no good reason not to include a second picture particularly in the section in which it was placed. I note WWGB's comment and I'd be interested to hear what others think.

I do agree that pictures of the victims would be a great addition to the article. I don't see why this would mean we have to remove other appropriate pictures. There isn't a surfeit of pictures in the article at present! --TS 01:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Would need some copyright free photos to use. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as "pictures of the victims" means portrait stuff, not crime scene stuff. And yeah, copyright will be a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: pictures, just like text, are subject to editing. What does a picture of just the steeple add to a reader's understanding of the shooting, when they have already seen a more inclusive picture of the church building? Our default is to exclude images for brevity, so "no good reason not to include" is a poor argument. Again, this is a repeat image from the main article on the church. @InedibleHulk: agreed. If it becomes apparent that no free equivalents are available for each of the victims, we can look at fair-use rationales for portraits. VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Packing the article with daft opinions

A few days ago I removed a ridiculous section about the opinions of the umpteen Presidential candidates about this issue. I gave the reasoning then and see no reason to change it. Now it's back under another name and also, I now notice, includes opinions of obscure extreme racist organisations. This is getting even more ridiculous. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper --TS 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no cure for silly reaction sections in recent newsy disaster articles, except time. Shouldn't be much longer now. Four days or so, I'd guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Reactions by notable individuals are always included in articles such as these, in particular when it reaches the level of a national debate. Re-added per WP:NPOV, which tells us to report significant viewpoints. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 24 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 -

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

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

It would be dishonest and an intentional manipulation of media to exclude both forms of reference to the event. See Virginia Tech shooting

• 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, 20 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I just counted. "About 4,700,000" means 180. Not 180 million or 180 thousand. Just 180. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 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, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To me, a massacre involves more people on both sides. A rampage involves travel, like a crime spree. Abductive (reasoning) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oxford, Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary don't mention anything about numbers on the killing side. Just a large number of helpless dead, killed indiscriminately and in an atrocious fashion. They're the authorities on words, not us. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if they are the authorities, then what do they authoritatively state to be a large number? Is it 2, 3, 5, 10, 25, 100, 1000? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• What about calling it the "Dylann Roof Shootings"? Solves the argument, and is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.55.30 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Spectre or specter?

"Spectre" is one of those words that can go two ways, and a word we use here. It's not a matter of American vs British, things from both places use both, it's just simple preference. In a poll form, please state your preference. No argument need be made, but you can if you want. If you consider this too petty an issue to waste time on, don't say so, just carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Neither. Spectre means "ghostly apparition." Find a drier word. And yes, the spelling is a US/Britain thing. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Spectre Means something that haunts or perturbs the mind. Something widely feared as a possible unpleasant or dangerous. Not just ghosts, ghosts are one type. Plenty of American and British uses of it in the disambiguation page. If there's a better word with one spelling, I could go for that, but can't think of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Spectre, but it does not bother me - specterAE / spectreBE. It was originally me that I had written that a first "spectreAE sentence", with refs to "The New York Times" and Heidi Beirich leads the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, “one of the most respected anti-terror organizations in the world,” according to the National Review. What distresses me more is that refs keep on disappearing. For the noun meaning a haunting image, American writers may use specter. Everywhere else, spectre is the preferred spelling. ☮ & ♥ --91.10.48.129 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Question Could you show us how it is used in the article, or do we have to hunt through the article to find it? BTW if the word is appropriately used, the spelling is specter per American English, but I'd like to see why we are even using such a word - preferably without having to hunt for it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in Aftermath. Webster's [10] only allows specter. Spectre is in UK English dictionaries, with specter as US. However, the OED says specter did exist in UK English in the 17th century, but no more. It's difficult to find a synonym with exactly the same timbre. Ghost doesn't do it, nor phantasm. A specter/re definitely seems to haunt - which is what is wanted. Myrvin (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This seems like a complete waste of time. Is there any indication that anyone is likely to view the use of either spelling as controversial? If not, why are we even discussing it? Dyrnych (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• More comment. I can't see anything in the cited piece[11] that says "white women being sexually assaulted by black men has a long history." The whole sentence needs another citation, or it should be removed. Myrvin (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer: As Hulk wrote it it's just simple preference! n o t a AE / BE thing. I don't like to hunt for the same beast for a second and third time:

• ...combined with increasing numbers of middle-class women working outside the home to turn this political fear into the specter of the rape of white women by black men. http://www.salon.com/2015/06/21/gops_fear_of_a_black_america_the_long_racist_history_which_explains_dylann_roof_and_stains_the_so_called_party_of_lincoln/
• ...to sear the specter of Negro domination into the national consciousness. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0621-ward-charleston-ame-shooting-20150619-story.html
• Most of the time, the specter of mental illness is invoked for precisely the reason it is being used here: as a way of implying that a case is somehow special, that it couldn’t have been avoided. http://flavorwire.com/524170/why-its-so-important-to-stop-conflating-racism-with-mental-illness
• Make any list of anti-black terrorism in the United States, and you’ll also have a list of attacks justified by the specter of black rape. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/06/the_deadly_history_of_they_re_raping_our_women_racists_have_long_defended.html
• According an eyewitness report, the shooter stated, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go,” as he was reloading his weapon. Lamenting so called “black on white crime” is a favorite talking point for white nationalists and the shooter’s statements are virtually indistinguishable from a headline from the Council of Conservative Citizens’s news engine, Top Conservative News. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/18/racist-right-wing-erupts-online-in-reaction-to-charlestonshooting/
• The issue of black on white crime is one of the most common white nationalist tropes. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/21/charleston-shooters-manifesto-indicates-sound-knowledge-of-white-nationalist-ideology/

'phantasm' Is that word less disturbing, means das same: "phantasm (early 13c., fantesme, from Old French fantosme "a dream, illusion, fantasy; apparition, ghost, phantom" (12c.), and directly from Latin phantasma "an apparition, specter," from Greek phantasma "image, phantom, apparition; mere image, unreality," from phantazein "to make visible, display," from stem of phainein "to bring to light, make appear; come to light, be seen, appear; explain, expound, inform against; appear to be so," from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine" (cognates: Sanskrit bhati "shines, glitters," Old Irish ban "white, light, ray of light"). Spelling conformed to Latin from 16c. (see ph). A spelling variant of phantom, "differentiated, but so that the differences are elusive".)"

Please just kill less refs ;-) --91.10.48.129 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Heidi Beirich's comments are from the CSM piece cited later.[12], but, again nothing about the specter/re of whatever. I don't understand where the trope quote has come from. Where does Heidi B say that? Myrvin (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Dylann Roof, Charleston Suspect, Wore Symbols of White Supremacy". The New York Times. June 18, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2015" citation seems to have noting to do with the text in Aftermath. The paragraph needs rewriting. Myrvin (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Roof’s reportedly declared motivation – that black people “rape our women” and are “taking over our country” – are some of the most durable rhetorical pillars of America’s centuries-long entanglement with the doctrine of white supremacy. [13]- This discussion is silly and getting boring. Bye --91.10.48.129 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is a common piece of rubbish, but why does it pop up in some text purporting to come from Heidi B in the CSM. We can't just fling in uncited stuff when we want to, or attribute quotes and ideas to people who may not have said them. I wander if you have gone away? Myrvin (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Action. I've rewritten it to fit the citation and removed all the stuff that was uncited. No more specter/re. Myrvin (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Case closed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, not closed for me. Heidi Beirich observation/reference was in not in the CSM, it was in NYT:

Dylann Roof, Charleston Suspect, Wore Symbols of White Supremacy - By JASON HOROWITZ, SHAILA DEWAN and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. JUNE 18, 2015

I quote the entire paragraph:

Heidi Beirich, the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s intelligence project, which tracks the activity of American hate groups, said the gunman’s reported comments reflected a major topic on white supremacist Internet forums, which are preoccupied with the idea that whites are being hugely victimized by blacks and no one is paying attention. The specter of white women being sexually assaulted by black men has a long history as well, she said: “It’s probably the oldest racist trope we have in the U.S.” -

The original, unaltered article is here to read: [14] - I will not tolerate the sentence "You rape our women and you're taking over our country" without an additional ascertainment. What shall we do? — 84.170.81.5 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your link is to a forum, quoting various news articles interspersed with commentary. It quotes an article from the NYT, "Dylann Roof, Charleston Suspect, Wore Symbols of White Supremacy". As the forum quotes the article, it includes the comments from Beirich, in the final paragraph. But here's a link to the actual NYT article [15], which I got by clicking on the link provided at the forum. And it does NOT include her comments. Here is another link to the article, as I found it at Google News: [16]; it also does not include those comments. Apparently some versions of the NYT article include the comment from SLPC representative, and other versions do not. We need better sourcing than this. Anyhow, has anyone else said this? Has it been picked up by other sources? If not we should not include it, no matter how important we think it is from our own POV standpoint. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to accept anything from a 9/11 truther forum as even a legitimate basis for starting a conversation. Sorry. Dyrnych (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither would I. Self-evidently not. Of course not. Please, keep calm ;-) The NYT-article >>Dylann Roof, Charleston Suspect, Wore Symbols of White Supremacy - By JASON HOROWITZ, SHAILA DEWAN and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. JUNE 18, 2015<< was altered several times.

Yet another link to an unaltered version, found it looking for " a swamp dripping with Spanish moss" Google: http://gulfnews.com/news/americas/usa/dylann-roof-charleston-suspect-wore-symbols-of-white-supremacy-1.1537476 - --84.170.81.5 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to paraphrase this, go ahead. But please don't copy and paste it into the article, as that's a copyright violation. And, again, it's not at all clear to me why we (1) need the word "specter" in the article and (2) are arguing about which spelling is correct. Dyrnych (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd assumed the claim was in the source. Now that it and the source are gone, we don't need the word. But at the time, there was no suitable synonym. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions of SPLC

I altered "inflammatory Southern Poverty Law Center, which portends to track American hate groups" (where the second link is to List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups). I changed it to "Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit which has litigated against [hate groups]", without changing the second link. Roches (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd added the link and made it clear that these were its own designated groups. I've done the same again, since sombody had changed it back to the absolute "American hate groups". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ATTRIBUTEPOV means the SPLC's designation should be called that, not adopted into Wiki's voice -- Aronzak (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought it'd be safe to say SPLC "litigated against American hate groups" because the controversy about whether or not designated organizations really are hate groups does not appear to involve any of the organizations that SPLC took to court. I changed it to "maintains an online list of its designated American hate groups", although I'd prefer just a link to SPLC. Roches (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Murder in SC

I added a sentence at the end of the lead about murder in SC. The lead previously ended by stating that Roof was charged with nine counts of murder by the state of South Carolina. This is a logical end point, but there are some ambiguities.

I thought the most likely questions readers would have would be what degree of murder? (SC does not have multiple degrees of murder) and can he face the death penalty? The article does mention that he can be sentenced to death but I thought the possible sentence (death, or 30 years to life in prison) was important enough to include in the lead.

The nuances of state and federal charges may not be obvious to non-Americans, but I didn't address that. Since there are apparently no charges in connection with the tenth shooting victim or others who were present, I didn't address that either. Roches (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

$29 million grant

Quote as it was posted:

On June 19, the Justice Department said it would fast track $29 million from the federal government's Crime Victim Assistance Formula Grant program to provide services for the families of the nine victims.<ref[...]ttp://news.yahoo.com/u-fast-track-29-million-help-charleston-shooting-195515259.html U.S. to fast track $29 million to help Charleston shooting victims' families], Reuters, June 19, 2015</ref>

The $29 mio is for one year (2015) for entire the state (South Carolina), not only for the nine families of the victims. It's not $3.2 million per family. It's not Taxpayers' money. It's charged by Congress. I provided refs, got deleded. Again. Will park the refs here, do not want to hunt them next week again:

• http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article25027438.html → "Some of the money can be used..."

• http://ojp.gov/ovc/about/victimsfund.html The Crime Victims Fund (the Fund) was established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984. The Fund is financed by fines and penalties paid by convicted federal offenders, not from tax dollars. As of September 2013, the Fund balance had reached almost $9 billion and includes deposits from federal criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments collected by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, federal U.S. courts, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Federal revenues deposited into the Fund also come from gifts, donations, and bequests by private parties, as provided by an amendment to VOCA through the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 that went into effect in 2002. From 2002 – 2013, over $300 thousand dollars have been deposited into the Fund through this provision.</ref>

• http://ojp.gov/ovc/about/index.html Established in 1988 through an amendment to the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984, OVC is charged by Congress with administering the Crime Victims Fund (the Fund). Through OVC, the Fund supports a broad array of programs and services that focus on helping victims in the immediate aftermath of crime and continuing to support them as they rebuild their lives. Millions of dollars are invested annually in victim compensation and assistance in every U.S. state and territory, as well as for training, technical assistance, and other capacity-building programs designed to enhance service providers’ ability to support victims of crime in communities across the Nation.</ref>

• http://ojp.gov/ovc/grants/cvfa2015.html The entire fund for South Carolina in 2015 is $29 million</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.170.90.150 (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's still taxpayers' money, but not "tax dollars", because it was taken from them by means other than taxation. And only the part of it that the OVC decides to give to the families goes to the families. The quoted text just got the name of the fund wrong. Seems clear enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

mention of Roof website must include flag reference

I realize the spinoff article on Dylann Roof imported a full summary of his website, but I think this article AT LEAST needs to mention (in addition to his so-called "manifesto") that his website contained photos, particularly the image of the suspect posing with the Confederate Battle Flag and a gun. Looking back, it was not his decorative car license plate, or Facebook page, but arguably THAT single image alone, in conjunction with his manifesto and actions, which rapidly catalyzed the movement to remove the flag from the SC statehouse, from other public displays (and possibly from the Mississippi flag), and from retailers all around the country. I think we need a sentence mentioning it to make sense of the Confederate Flag controversy section further down. I will restore a line accordingly. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(Comment deleted by Dyrnych (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)) Cesar Tort 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want to promulgate an extremist, racist, white nationalist, North American New Right, Nouvelle Droite, Front National, fascism praising site?! Just one quote from that site: “racial conflict exacerbated by massive non-white immigration, blatant anti-white discrimination, and desperate economic scarcity; and, of course, the ruinous costs of a new series of wars and interventions in the neighborhood of Israel.” Or it’s simply ignorance from our part? Please, can someone take over, I'm tooo disgusted.--91.10.43.139 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly many reliable sources reprinting the exact same manifesto. No need for that particular site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted that particular site, an intentional, pugnacious, neo-fascist provocation. --84.170.88.9 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been replaced with a plaintext link to the manifesto, which is of encyclopedic relevance to this article. I agree that the previous external link to "counter currents", which included racist editorial commentary prefacing the manifesto, violated WP:ELNO criterion #2. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the link above. Pretty appalling. Dyrnych (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that no link whatsoever to Roof's manifesto will be on the page (any other link, I mean)? Cesar Tort 04:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cesar Tort: we link to an archive of his web page, which is one click away from the manifesto. See WP:ELPOINTS. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

International recations

Were there no international reactions to this incident? Looking at many of the other terrorist attack Wikipedia pages, there seems to be an international reaction section on most pages. Is this an intentional omission or has no one got around to it yet? Xmzx (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing with international reactions is that they can swallow huge amounts of space with near-identical statements from completely irrelevant nations to the tragedy. It is however encyclopedic to include reactions from countries affected by the tragedy, for example the other day in Tunisia there were foreign tourists killed. As far as I know only Americans were murdered here, so the relevant reactions are from US politicians only '''tAD''' (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Church pastor Clementa Pinckney had voted in favor of displaying the confederate flag at the SC state capitol

I added the following to the article:

Church pastor Clementa Pinckney, one of the nine victims, had voted in favor of displaying the confederate flag at the South Carolina state capitol when he was a state senator in May 2000.

74.98.43.188 (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

dcwhispers.com is a blog and so fails WP:RS, while the other source is a primary source and not indicative of noteworthiness or context. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And the government site you cite, Pinckey's vote was to have the bill read a second time. Furthermore, the Bill's intent was to remove it from the State House. To say that Pinckney voted for erecting the flag is dishonest -- he was clearly voting to remove it from the top of the State House. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then thank you for correcting my error. 74.98.43.188 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Others trimmed

I've made three bold removals from the Others subsection of the Reactions section.

The three removals are: the NRA, some cable news loudmouth, and the racist organisation that the killer cited as his inspiration. These are all given ridiculously undue weight by their inclusion here. --TS 21:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the three, I think that the CoCC response should definitely be included (in full) and the NRA/Fox and Friends responses are less noteworthy but possibly warrant inclusion (in part). I'm sure other editors will have a stronger opinion on the latter two, but I agree that at a minimum those responses should be trimmed for weight. Dyrnych (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh. NRA is a pretty oft-cited voice by third parties, but the Charles Cotton quote was not an official response from the NRA. I agree the Fox and Friends talking head quote isn't important enough to merit a sentence. Some sort of response from CoCC is probably relevant. How about we edit the direct response down to just the first sentence to avoid WP:UNDUE issues: The Council of Conservative Citizens, whose website Roof cited as a source for his radicalization, issued a statement on its website condemning the attack but also stated that Roof has some "legitimate grievances" against black people. VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm straining to understand why we'd need an opinion from a completely uninvolved industrial lobby group, NRA. But moving on, the CCC is an overtly racist organisation, albeit a rather obscure one. Why are we even contemplating giving space to their response? Their sole role in this was to unintentionally inspire mass murder. This doesn't mean their opinion of this mass murder is worthy of inclusion.

On the Fox and Friends thing, can we now close that off as blatantly undue weight? --TS 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for Fox, NRA or CCC. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) is a blatantly racist organisation, the descendant of the old White Citizens Council, the "respectable" version of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in the 1950s and 1960s. Well done, TS! --91.10.14.82 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that Roof explicitly stated that the CofCC website "truly awakened" him, their response to the shootings seems relevant and necessary. Their "legitimate grievances" quote, odious as it is, needs to be here. — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we need to include their comments, despite begin odious. Both NRA's and CCC. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: both NRA and CCC responses have been widely reported by neutral, third party sources. Giving their viewpoints due weight is required by policy; the popularity of those viewpoints is not to be considered. VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinions: 1) The NRA board member's comment should not be included. He made his comments off-the-cuff, and he specified later that he was speaking as a private citizen and not for the NRA. 2) The Fox and Friends remark should not be included. It was not notable enought for inclusion, and I strongly suspect that some people want it included simply to make the speaker look like an idiot. 3) The CCC response DOES need to be here. Yes, they are a hateful racist organization, but we don't censor, and they are an important part of the story. However, I would rather include their response in their own actual words (I can't find it right now but it was along the lines of "We condemn his actions but the information he read on our website was accurate"), rather than paraphrased as we now have it. 4) I still question whether Jon Stewart's monologue is notable enough for inclusion. --MelanieN alt (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Fox & Friends comment per what seems to be consensus here. We are still divided on the NRA official (I sense a leaning toward delete) and the CoCC reaction (I sense a leaning toward keep). Anyone else able to find consensus here, or any additional comments? --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the debatable comments (CCC, NRA) are relevant. They're essentially a rentaquote from an uninvolved lobbyist group and a comment from a deservedly obscure and powerless organisation that was name checked by the alleged murderer. They've been mentioned in the press, certainly, but this is where due weight comes in. How many people does that obscure organisation's opinion represent? Now how many people does the President's beautiful eulogy represent? Do you see my point? --TS 01:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson

• comment Fox and Friends is noteworthy, but might need secondary analysis to explain the noteworthiness. E. W. Jackson stated the shooting is because of “growing hostility and antipathy to Christianity and what this stands for, the biblical worldview about sexual morality and other things”(here) and Allen West (politician) said the debate over the flag is a 'Manufactured Crisis’ to Distract from black-on-black violence.

The Ben Carson piece should be included - it describes how the GOP and Fox initially claimed racism wasn't involved.

On the Doocy comment, many opinion columns condemned the way Doocy avoided the issue of racism. [17] (David Horsey has wiki article, possible ATTRIBUTEPOV statement) [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24].

It is notable that Ben Carson criticised other GOP hopefuls for downplaying racism in the early stages. I'll readd Carson and Horsey opinion on general downplaying of racism in early stages

-- Aronzak (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Further, I want to add this

Ben Carson stated "there are people who are claiming that they can lead this country who dare not call this tragedy an act of racism, a hate crime, for fear of offending a particular segment of the electorate."

References

@Cwobeel: -- Aronzak (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) This is due because there are three secondary sources quoting him, including the Economist and the Washington Times. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that their positions and posturing shifted considerably, it is WP:UNDUE in the current state of this section. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

By what standard of DUE? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" - how is the Economist and Washington Times and Washington Post not DUE? I can take out the quote - but this is more DUE than the NPR summary. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As to the Giuliani quote

Rudi Giuliani said of the attacker "Maybe he hates Christian churches" and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy postulated that the attack could have been motivated by “hostility toward Christians.”

References

Giuliani stated "We have no idea what's in his mind," he said. "Maybe he hates Christian churches. Maybe he hates black churches or he's gonna go find another one. Who knows." Picked up TPM TNR. The NPR coverage is summarised as some Republicans painting the attack as "tragic but random" - further - it is WP:VER that some implied possible anti-Christian motivation, and I don't see how it's not DUE to cover that as well. @Cwobeel: -- Aronzak (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried before, and was forced to spin off an article, that article ended up in AFD. So, we should not include some comments at the expense of others to avoid WP:UNDUE. As it stands now, all politicians comments have been deleted, so your content should be deleted as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's punitive, and unrelated - your content included a different quote from five days earlier, and had no justification for why it was any more relevant. Carson's article in USA Today was published on the 24th of June, and unlike the boilerplate comments, is the only substantial issue to catalyse substantial coverage (notably, in non-progressive sites, like the Washington Times, Economist and others) - making this not a fatuous boilerplate remark. Deleting content just because yours was removed violates WP:POINT - The 24 June opinion piece has generated substantive secondary coverage in a range of outlets (meeting DUE) over and above the boilerplate comments by other politicians. @Cwobeel: I ask you not to remove content punitively just because yours was removed, and get a secondary opinion on how my additions should be condensed. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with punishment. The point is why including Carson when there are other politicians' comments that have been covered as much or more than Carson? Because including his comments violates WP:UNDUE. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, including the other comments violates DUE because there is no evidence that they have catalysed any in-depth third party coverage, whereas with Carson's 600 word article in USA today (Read the whole thing, unless you want to operate in bad faith) are substantially more informative, and not only inform his opinion, but his opinion of other candidates, and the electorate and the country at large - he argues that "a particular segment of the electorate" are unreceptive to discussions about racism - the other candidates have not said this, and have not discussed the electorate in depth, and have not written 600 word articles, and have not catalysed three in depth pieces in response. You have not addressed the points that I have raised, just reasserted that all candidates are of equal worth, and I have already explained why that is false. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. DUE states that content should be included "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" - this means that an 11 word statement summarising a 600 word opinion piece that has catalysed three independent, third party, in-depth reliable sources, from differing political angles, is noteworthy. WP:BALASPS asks for special care to be taken around "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports" as they relate to "recent events that may be in the news" - Carson's 600 word in-depth opinion piece was published on the 22 of June (the article was updated, and is listed as 24) - this catalysed a 22 June Washington Post article, a 24 June Economist article, and a 24 June Washington Times article. I argue that Carson's comments are the only ones of significance, and the only ones deserving mention on this page, and that an 11 word addition is small, but warranted. Given 3RR I'm happy to take this to WP:DR/N. @Cwobeel: -- Aronzak (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that we don't have to include everybody's opinion no matter how irrelevant. Presidential candidates have to insert themselves into everything to try to convince everybody that they're fit to govern. That doesn't mean that their opinions should weigh much on any topic. I hope we're not inserting their opinions into articles about other current topics such as the Greek economic crisis (or maybe I should not have said that on account of BEANS). --TS 01:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO nothing from Ben Carson (a minor candidate if ever there was one) belongs in this article. Anybody can write a "600 word opinion piece" and many have done so; the length, or the assertion that it was "in depth," does nothing for the notability of his comments. (BTW as a former reporter myself, I can tell you that "600 words" is a very common budget given to writers by editors; it was certainly the routine assignment I got.) Put his stuff in the "presidential candidates" article, if it survives deletion. As for the "this was anti-Christian" or "he was targeting churches" meme, that ridiculous argument is destroyed by the report that he initially wanted to target the university, and only switched to the church because the university had too much security. He was anti-black; he was not anti-Christian. In fact, according to reports he was able to dispute Scripture with the church members. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mount Zion AME Church (Greeleyville, South Carolina)

I created a stub article for this church, which has a notable history. Not sure if it is worth mentioning the initial concern that the church may have been destroyed by arson following the Charleston shooting. It turns out the church was likely struck by lightning during an electrical storm. All contributions to the Greeleyville church article are welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Split for 2015 Confederate flag controversy?

Is it possible that we need a new page for the Confederate flag controversy? We're saying an awful lot about it in this article. While there's a clear connection between the shooting and the flag controversy, I think it's (1) tangential enough and (2) had enough coverage to warrant its own page. Dyrnych (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Support. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, since it is taking on a life of its own. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. My immediate question would be how to label or identify such an article, because it already seems both distinct from and broader than previous (more localized and focused) Confederate flag controversies. This one involves national retailers and a national consciousness of the issue, perhaps including a general broader movement against Confederate statues and symbols not necessarily linked to the display of the flag. Definitely a cultural and political sea change that needs its own article. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, I think all the information on this detracts from the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but...-Support Please, without "kiling" the content and refs here in these article - as the last page removal → Dylann Roof. Would this be possible? --91.10.35.102 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Support, and to the above point. when an article is split, we do not keep all the content in the main article.User talk:jumplike23 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep a summary of the state political response here, move discussion of businesses (Amazon, google) and political leaders outside the state (about the South in general) onto another page. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Outrageous! The flag stands for secession. We've already let the presidential candidates leave and the Roof break off, what's next? The steeple and the people? No, my fellow man. Divisiveness is what "they" want. We must all move forward together, in one direction. And it must be the same one, whichever one that happens to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is a joke, it didn't translate terribly well to text. Taking it at face value, please review WP:SUMMARY and WP:CFORK; we didn't "lose" anything by breaking out sub-articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly a joke, but not a serious argument, either. Purely literally, No opinion. But I agree with the not losing anything bit. We're just shifting the prominence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hold on. I think a split is warranted here, but let's consider what the best structure should be overall. See Flags of the Confederate States of America#Controversy; there are several "see also" articles that dance around the subject. Where is Contemporary display of the Confederate flag? I do not think a split for just the 2015 controversy is the best approach; it should be a major section in a dedicated article dealing more generally with the subject. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Might I suggest Second American Civil War could use some sourced content, for once? If it's in an RT question headline, it must be true! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please not do this? There's a difference between levity and trolling, and making repeated unserious suggestions is a lot more like the latter than the former. Dyrnych (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That one was serious, but still just a suggestion and admittedly a bit early. That article will gradually be more suited to these sorts of things than to pop culture references. Just letting people know there's more than one place to merge to. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "Contemporary display of the Confederate flag" title is really strong enough, probably the word "controversy" should be in there somewhere, as the split article would fit into Category:Flag controversies in the United States and Category:Political controversies in the United States. Also, would the word "contemporary" apply to a movement that has been going on since the 1950s lead-up to the civil rights movement, to display or not display the Confederate flag? Funandtrvl (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the title might not be ideal; the underlying idea is the subject matter as there does not appear to be an article with that subject now. I was thinking the scope would be 1946-present. As a rule I dislike the word "controversy" in article titles per NPOV but I don't have a particularly strong opinion in this case. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave this more thought, and I think the title I proposed fits better with WP:NDESC than a title that includes the word "controversy." We would explain why the display of confederate iconography is controversial in the text of the article (attributing sources of course). I may take a crack at starting a stub for this, since I think the article should exist even if the 2015 controversy is primarily covered in a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support in part: We still need some coverage of how this incident lit the fuse for debate, but opposition to the flag goes beyond its use by this one man. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposed structure

As noted above, controversy regarding usage of symbols associated with the Confederate States of America has taken on a life of its own as a direct result of this shooting. I propose we merge Flags of the Confederate States of America#20th-century popularity and Charleston church shooting#Confederate flag into a new article, Contemporary display of the Confederate flag in which the 2015 developments and renewed controversy would be a section in an article with scope (perhaps) from the end of reconstruction (1877) to present. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Poll

• Support restructure as nominator. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support User talk:jumplike23 04:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support DisuseKid (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of either see comment below Qazwiz (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support creation of new article. Oppose full "merger" of the two articles/subsections. --SchutteGod (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support creation of new article. I can only imagine the litany of WP:RS that can go into an article with historical detail on the display of the flag, and differentiate the different viewpoints from all sides of the conversation. This article's flag section will only continue to be a dumping ground for such information if the article isn't created. Buffaboy ^talk 04:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - The word "contemporary" seems inaccurate for an article that's going to include discussions of World War II displays of the Confederate flag. Is there a better word that could be used? Dyrnych (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: "Post-reconstruction" is an option but it seems a bit stuffy. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

how about "modern"? Qazwiz (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Just do it. You don't need community permission to create a new article. --TS 16:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

a separate article can be referenced by both... merging implies that one will be removed which is inappropriate so make entry as you want and link from both Qazwiz (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Qazwiz: these would be section merges. Portions of each article would be moved to the new article, and the relevant sections of the parent articles would be reduced to summaries per our editing guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: just trying to balance WP:BOLD with WP:RECKLESS. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the redlink from the proposed merge tag. Something has to merge with something, or it isn't merging. Create the article before considering what to merge with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think using "Modern" might be better than Contemporary, also, since the controversies to be in the article will primarily be the post-WWII ones. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I created Modern display of the Confederate flag and am working on article structure now. To control individual article length, comply with WP:SUMMARY, and eliminate duplication the relevant section in this article should be pared down to a summary, but since Qazwiz and SchutteGod opposed removing any content from this article I have left it for now. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm fine with reducing the relevant sections to summaries; I'm just not cool with a total merger (i.e., deleting sections altogether). If you made a satisfactory, detailed article (which I haven't read yet), I'm sure no one would mind scaling back the section info. It's just that you suggested a "merger," which I don't think you had to do, really. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither a merger nor a split involves deleting sections altogether; see WP:SUMMARY. Please do have a look at the new article, though, as it has a lot of room for improvement. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)