94.59.9.6 (talk) |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
== Wikipedia's front page!!! == |
== Wikipedia's front page!!! == |
||
{{hat|Not a forum}} |
|||
It has been more than 4 days since the incident and there's nothing about it on the news column on the main page with at least a link to redirect to this article!! |
It has been more than 4 days since the incident and there's nothing about it on the news column on the main page with at least a link to redirect to this article!! |
||
It's all over the internet, twitter and news pages right now, but it seems that it's not more important than the other news related to islamophobia issues such as ISIS, boko haram, how Malala was treated, etc. |
It's all over the internet, twitter and news pages right now, but it seems that it's not more important than the other news related to islamophobia issues such as ISIS, boko haram, how Malala was treated, etc. |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
(Sorry correction) I meant more than 3 days. |
(Sorry correction) I meant more than 3 days. |
||
Does it have to be approved that this is a hate crime to be mentioned on the front page? or how big the incident has become is what matters? I still think that Muslims' lives don't matter because THE VICTIMS NAMES ARE STILL NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE RECENT DEATHS PAGE UNTILL THIS MOMENT!!! any excuse or explanation for that also? |
Does it have to be approved that this is a hate crime to be mentioned on the front page? or how big the incident has become is what matters? I still think that Muslims' lives don't matter because THE VICTIMS NAMES ARE STILL NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE RECENT DEATHS PAGE UNTILL THIS MOMENT!!! any excuse or explanation for that also? |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 04:44, 14 February 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removal of sourced content
Why was this removed? Most of the media has talked about the possibility of the students being targeted because of their faith. Therefore we should mention it in a neutral manner.VR talk 15:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would have removed it as coming from IBTimes, which i believe is not a reliable source. the content, i havent reviewed yet, sorry, no time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There are likely at least a hundred sources that say they were Muslims. Telegraph, USA Today, Washington Post etc. Can you please undo the edit and restore the fact that all three were Muslims?VR talk 16:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- ARticel currently shows they are muslim. the only question is where, and how often, this should be pointed out. but its there now, and i agree there are more than enough sources, its not debatable, just that one ref was no good. sorry if i sounded at all insensitive to the importance of this fact.50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There are likely at least a hundred sources that say they were Muslims. Telegraph, USA Today, Washington Post etc. Can you please undo the edit and restore the fact that all three were Muslims?VR talk 16:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Article name and lede
I think that we should avoid putting our, or any, name for the event in the lede of the article, as the media have not given it a name yet. the article needs a name, but its for now a placeholder, albeit a logical one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"School shooting"?
Thusfar, major sources aren't categorizing this as a "school shooting"; yet we have labelled it so, presumably because it occurred "near the campus" of UNC and the victims were students. According to our own 'School shooting' article, I don't believe this incident qualifies (as yet). Official source (police) describe it as "...a dispute over parking and possibly a hate crime".[1] Comments? —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I considered that earlier, and I agree. This isn't quite the same as University of South Carolina February 2015 Shooting, where the shooting took place on campus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is certainly a school related attack as victims were affected students, and the college community. There an increasing number of attacks on students in off-campus locations, housing and parties which may be more attractive as targets than on-campus attacks like Virginia Tech which has higher security. In the US, and the world in general, there have been increasing numbers of attacks on schools, shopping centers, and government offices by criminals with no apparent political motive, nor links to terrorist groups that might want to commission attacks of this kind. The murder in University of South Carolina by a woman from Korea also involved a Lebanese educated in Aleppo Syria, this murder involved a student of Syrian origin on his way to aid Syrian refugees in Turkey. The suspect certainly has strong religious and political views which might make a more likely motive for an execution style killing than an argument over parking which seems to be a cover story that police are accepting at face value, but the father is not. Redhanker (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why Israel
Why Israel (JP) can not have here they opinion on muslims and terror ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's an opinion piece. And in the US, whether a crime is or is not terrorism is considered a big deal, not a matter of speech. Usually the FBI makes that determination publicly. And usually it isn't considered terrorism, despite what opinion pieces here say. Geogene (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do it mean - becouse how to 'deal' have to be somehow anounced? Do you want to suggest that FBI opinoin is somehow ranked by media (sources) higher and Israel (JP) lower? Should we regard it such or the FBI opinion, is different and not influenced by anybody opinion. If it is not your opinion, can you source it. What the media put statistically is corelated by calculating the ranked precedental semantical redundancy; puting in other words: who's op follow who po. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
4 day agpo: 150206 2312
Gen. Martin Dempsey talks to UNC-Chapel Hill crowd about ISIS [1] google selected full quote:: "Quite a few soldiers drove from a Fort Bragg to Chapel Hill. ... is our nation's armed forces are diligently working to adapt to the terrorist group" . If google is automated process - should we considered it is not an opinion and if so can we put it in the article whithouth fera to be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We can agree the google is not fully automated process. Sad mo have impact on it. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Friday, February 06, 2015 11:12PM abc11.com/news/gen-martin-dempsey-talks-to-unc-crowd-about-isis-threat-/507849/
Hate crime, according to victims' family
Anybody know the policy on this? Do we normally quote them as if they're legal experts? Geogene (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Even if they were legal experts, I'd say their personal relationships with the deceased color their judgment to the point of being irrelevant. I'd wait for the professionals to investigate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is WP:DUE if many outlets are publishing it, along with calls for an investigation. WP:SAY and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV mean that the text needs to only repeat that media outlets have published the father's claim. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Basically: if it is notable enough, it should be noted. One member of his family claims it was a hate crime; others dispute that characterization and seem to characterize Hicks as a generally angry and aggressive man who is really touchy about his parking space. The important thing is to make sure that Wikipedia itself remains WP:IMPARTIAL; we should not give the impression that we are claiming that it was or was not a hate crime at this point, merely present information to the reader. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- AP Bigstory discusses the issue and has useful details, killer's wife is divorcing him. I would rather go with what credible media outlets say, than sensationalist speculation on what Facebook comments may have meant.-- Aronzak (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Facebook Page
I've examined his Facebook page; it was almost entirely composed of reblogs and common atheistic image macros. There wasn't anything that I saw which exhorted violence against religious people in general or Muslims in specific; indeed, he reblogged multiple images condemning religious violence. I used a different source which more directly quoted his page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Further, the Huffpo source wrongly attributes a Barry Goldwater quote to the killer, this needs to be compressed and cleaned up. Too many quotes, too much interpolation.-- Aronzak (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Victims' nationality: US
They weren’t just Americans, they were extraordinary Americans who loved their faith and their community. [2] so I presume that the IP edit-warring over the victims' supposed Syrian or Palestinian nationalities can stop now. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015
Is the section about Mr. Dawkins really relevant enough to be in this article? IMO you should remove it or add a [relevant?] tag. 82.194.204.143 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In progress I've added the {Importance-section} tag to the section. IMO, it's not very notable either. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have weak opinions either way. If we post Muslim condemnations of Muslim violence, it makes sense, but there is no confirmed atheist motive. Then again, we probably would include Muslim condemnations before violence would ever be officially attributed to Muslims. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Given that he mentioned a work by Dawkins as influential, it is fair to give Dawkins space to respond. You could move the Dawkins quote to the "Suspect" section and contextualize it this way. I agree that there doesn't need to be a special section just for this comment. -Classicfilms (talk)
- Done Feel free to edit it, if you could word it better. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I moved it down, and also removed the fundamentalist Christians vs Muslims thing, as it doesn't have any relevance to this. We don't need to list off every image macro he had posted on his page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Murder" category
Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles
I'm not going to enter a revert war, but these guidelines say that cases should only be referred to as murder when a court rules them so '''tAD''' (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see that in the essay you're citing, which deals with article titles and notability. Further, it's unlikely that anyone will make a credible argument that this event was not a murder. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? The above does not mention the word "court" or "judge" in the entire article? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- "If a person has died under suspicious circumstances, but their death has not been legally ruled a homicide, the article should be titled "Death of [victim]" instead of "Murder of [victim]." For example, in the Death of Mutula Kilonzo, the victim died under suspicious circumstances, but foul play was never conclusively determined, so under no circumstances can such an article be labeled as a murder. In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines". - Verbatim '''tAD''' (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll "bury the hatchet" as there is no consensus. It's not even my opinion that it wasn't a murder (not that opinion matters, of course). It's just that seven years ago, people would have reached the same opinion on the Caylee Anthony case and that was a rare occasion where the outcome wasn't how the majority saw it. My knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines must be revised. No hard feelings from me. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- 'All three victims had been killed with gunshot wounds to the head'. I can't imagine the circumstances, outside of a warzone, in which three people being shot in the head could not be murder. We shouldn't describe the alleged perpetrator as a murderer until he's convicted as such, but we can certainly categorise the event as a murder, which it unquestionably was. Robofish (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Compare, for example, 2012 Aurora shooting, which is rightly categorised as a mass murder, although the presumed perpetrator hasn't yet been convicted.) Robofish (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. There are instances where it's ambiguous whether foul play was involved, and this is not one of them. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Suicide by gunshot is a very common thing. Accidental death by gunshot is so easy, even a child can do it. Granted, these don't look likely, but they're still possible and need to be ruled out in court before killing becomes murder. Even if we know buddy did it, his lawyer can say he was acting in self-defence, it was a crime of passion or the guy's insane. A few other tricks, too. If the jury believes this, no murder occured. Always best to wait, court is sometimes unpredictable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
- ^That was what I was intending all along. Sure it looks incredibly unlikely, but we can't play WP:CRYSTAL on anything on Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Suicide by gunshot is a very common thing. Accidental death by gunshot is so easy, even a child can do it. Granted, these don't look likely, but they're still possible and need to be ruled out in court before killing becomes murder. Even if we know buddy did it, his lawyer can say he was acting in self-defence, it was a crime of passion or the guy's insane. A few other tricks, too. If the jury believes this, no murder occured. Always best to wait, court is sometimes unpredictable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. There are instances where it's ambiguous whether foul play was involved, and this is not one of them. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Compare, for example, 2012 Aurora shooting, which is rightly categorised as a mass murder, although the presumed perpetrator hasn't yet been convicted.) Robofish (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Muslim Lives Matter
I created Muslim Lives Matter as a redirect to this article. If this phrase receives as much coverage as Black Lives Matter, please feel free to expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Coordinates?
At least if followed to Google Maps, the coordinates display the center of the UNC campus, which doesn't seem to be where the shooting happened. Could someone take a look at this? Maybe the coordinates for the nearby Friday Center for Continuing Education are close enough? --BDD (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
additional/relavent dawkins quote
Dawkins also tweeted in response to the murders. "...there's only 1 ideology now that preaches the legal killing of dissenters. And it isn't atheism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHRex (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Has that been reported in news sources as relevant to the story? I don't know, just asking. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- not yet, at least https://www.google.co.uk/#q=there%27s+only+1+ideology+now+that+preaches+the+legal+killing+of+dissenters.+And+it+isn%27t+atheism '''tAD''' (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've yet to see any kind of publications consider that statement by Dawkins as news / as relevant either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose that Muslim Lives Matter be merged into 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. I think that the content in the "Muslim Lives Matter" article can easily be explained in the context of "2015 Chapel Hill shooting". Unlike its African American counterpart, this hashtag has only received wide attention on one event so far. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. It was created as a redirect to this article, I don't think it has any life outside of this event. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's front page!!!
Not a forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It has been more than 4 days since the incident and there's nothing about it on the news column on the main page with at least a link to redirect to this article!! It's all over the internet, twitter and news pages right now, but it seems that it's not more important than the other news related to islamophobia issues such as ISIS, boko haram, how Malala was treated, etc. Yes, it looks like Muslim's lives don't matter with Wikipedia as well! Is that news column monitored by Fox News or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.9.6 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry correction) I meant more than 3 days. Does it have to be approved that this is a hate crime to be mentioned on the front page? or how big the incident has become is what matters? I still think that Muslims' lives don't matter because THE VICTIMS NAMES ARE STILL NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE RECENT DEATHS PAGE UNTILL THIS MOMENT!!! any excuse or explanation for that also? |