Talk:2015 Chapel Hill shooting

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)

I added it back. All sources confirm that they were Muslim and that they were students. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 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)

I agree. Geogene (talk) 20:03, 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)

It wasn't a school shooting, and let's not write speculation into the article. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 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 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)

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)

I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu, but that looks it has due weight. Other perspectives have since been added from around the neighborhood, assuming those are Due it gives the article a more neutral feel. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 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)

Having read this article and major sources carefully, it seems clear that the objective evidence to date points to the conclusion that this was not a hate crime. Titanium Dragon is right: in spite of the politically-senstive context of this crime, the suspect was nothing more than an unstable person pathologically obsessed with parking in his housing complex. As WP is a repository of demonstrable facts, and not a forum for speculation, the hate crime issue should be mentioned in passing (i.e., "The victims' families consider this a hate crime", period, no elaboration) unless and until objective evidence to the contrary turns up. Laodah 22:57, 11 June 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)

Much better, thanks. Geogene (talk) 02:54, 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 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)

That doesn't apply here. Geogene (talk) 03:42, 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, 13 February 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)

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)

OK so let's remove it. Besides the noteworthiness issue, it's also sloppy writing to include a quote with no context explanation of why it's there (I for one have no idea what "ideology" dawkins is referring to...). Somewhat related, that he describes himself as "anti-theist" on his FB page is nowhere mentioned in the cited source...the cited source mentions his FB profile as including "Atheists for Equality". Now I don't think this quite counts as self-identification as an atheist (setting aside other evidence), but it certainly counts for that more than self-identification as an "anti-theist". In situations like this I think the full context should be included and editors shouldn't be drawing conclusions themselves, so I propose simply stating the profile affiliation.Snarfblaat (talk) 19:30, 13 April 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)

Of course, if this becomes a widespread social movement like the African American version, it deserves an article then '''tAD''' (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree Have not contributed to either article so I feel I'm neutral. The hashtag started before this event, didn't I? I know I've heard of it before this. Additionally it may be less well-known because the murders/deaths of Muslims are not reported the same way as other deaths. Wikimandia (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's not helping your cause to admit that the hashtag was not widely used before. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Something tells me that article was created because of others like it. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:23, 19 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) It doesn't appear to be related to religion or a hate crime as of yet. There was multiple killings in Boston over parking spaces. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 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?

Turkish President Erdogan and US President Obama spat over Chapel Hill incident

Why is there no mention of the political fallout between the Turkish President and President Obama over the Chapel Hill incident? http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/13/turkeys-erdogan-criticizes-obama-for-silence-over-slain-muslims.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/erdogan-chides-obama-chapel-hill-murders http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191298#.VOCMkfmUeSo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Because Obama has responded to the issue so the Turkish whinge is moot. WWGB (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

President Obama only responded after Turkey's President challenged him to condemn the murders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.200.107 (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The only Turkey that influences Obama is this one. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue tag

The suspect's section has fallen into WP:UNDUE. It is out of balance with the victim's section. I am fine with the current presentation of titles - the matter is one of content. Either we trim the suspect's section or we add more content to the victim's section.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's probably because of implicit speculation in whether or not it was a hate crime, with both "sides" having their say there by including things that support various positions. I suggest trimming that and not having the debate in the article, even indirectly. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wikipedia reflects the topic of an article as it is discussed in reliable sources. The discussion of motive is out there and thus the Wikipedia needs to reflect that. The undue tag has to do with a balance between sections.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As for trimming that is fine, material can be either deleted or moved elsewhere.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we should cover speculation from reliable sources, without working our own speculation into the article. And to be clear, I'm not flinging accusations, just pointing out a common (barely avoidable) Wikipedia dynamic. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene, good idea and I appreciate your feedback. Points are well taken. I think the article could have a "Motives" section and all material could be moved there. It would mean restructuring the article with new headings - I'll be interested in hearing suggestions from other editors about how this could be done before any changes are made.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That will work, but should probably call it "possible motives" or something, for reasons of presumed innocence. As food for thought, I think there's three things RS say about the suspect: (1) has a problem with religion (2) has problems over a parking space and (3) has a gun. We can convey those more efficiently than we are now. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Possible motives" is a good choice for the reasons you suggest and I agree with your points. I would add a fourth point as the three come from the suspect's account and facebook page - as the victims are not here to speak for themselves we also need to include the multiple RS on the points made by family and friends of the victims. I agree that all of this can be conveyed more efficiently than it is now. Signing off for today - but I will check in tomorrow. Perhaps we can use this TALK page to create a new kind of outline.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Possible motives" could be a good subtitle. Too much of the content is based on initial subjective speculation on social media posts, which should be replaced with critical analysis by sources that have looked at all possible motives. We can also bring in some of the content from the victims family section in, which is better content than subjective speculation from the media. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@ -- Aronzak - great points, I agree with you. I think the section should consist only of family, friends, and neighbors of the victims and suspects, official police and reports by investigators, and secondary sources that directly quote Hicks' Facebook page (rather than speculative interpretations of it by the media). If we do this, then it will be a matter of figuring out where the section will go and of rearranging existing points on the article and deleting other sections. We can use this space to predetermine what that will be. A bit swamped in RL today - and I'd like to wait another day or two to see if more editors contribute ideas. Also if you or Geogene have further ideas as to how to do this, that would be great.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there is so much material to work with, perhaps the easiest way to begin would be to first figure out how the "suspect" section will read - in other words the short biographical section. I would suggest that it be just a few sentences to match the "victims" section in length. The second phase would be to take the rest of the material from the original "suspect" section and combine it with material from the two family sections in "response" as a "Possible motives" section (assuming some of it may or may not be deleted). Approaching it in this way may make the task less daunting...I will checkin again tomorrow.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"UNDUE" isn't applied this way. Mass murderers are generally covered more than their victims. That is the case here. The alleged perpetrator is receiving a lot of attention for his motive, his acts, his life that got to this point, etc, etc. "How could a person do this?" drives the coverage. The salient points about the victims that are covered in the reliable sources are presented as well. There is no requirement they be equal as coverage is not equal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wikipedia rules on WP:UNDUE are pretty clear:

"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 in the published, reliable sources." There is no exception for a particular type of article or the fact that the media chooses to highlight one aspect of a situation. WP:NPOV governs all articles.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint published by reliable sources". The suspect is undoubtedley going to get more coverage than the victims. After indictment, he will be arraigned, tried and convicted/acquitted. He is going to get substantially more coverage than the victims. He may even get his own article at some point. This is the nature of notability. Think of a plane crash: Pilot and passengers don't get the same level of coverage. The pilot gets a full workup and investigation, the victims are generally lumped into a non-culpable list. Such is the nature of the coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate - none of which is relevant to Wikipedia rules, to WP:NPOV. I am signing off for today but I will check back at a later time. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrally presented biographical details about the suspect can be 10x the volume of victims without running afoul of either UNDUE or NPOV. NPOV would kick in, for example, if a side were chosen in the parking dispute or hate crime declared. The hate crime aspect is currently overplayed in terms of facts presented, but it's coverage in reliable sources means we have lots of coverage of that aspect. The reality is that coverage of the suspected perpetrator is more prominent than the victims and coverage of the suspected perpetrator will continue to grow while the victims will not - our article and sections will reflect this in proportion to the coberage. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

" coverage of the suspected perpetrator is more prominent than the victims and coverage of the suspected perpetrator will continue to grow while the victims will not" - sounds a bit like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me. In any event, there is quite a bit on the victims out there, it just is not yet in the article. Some of the material in "suspect" overlaps with the material in the "response/victim's family section" as well. As I suggested above, we can extend the victim's section as well. I will say it again, WP:NPOV is the abiding code of the Wikipedia and this article is no different. I will check back in tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add relevant material material about the shooting with respect to the victims. Don't expect them to be equal as no policy requires it. Your understanding of UNDUE and NPOV is flat wrong. Like I said, there is more material in general about shooters than victims. See other articles like 2012 Aurora shooting. The shooter has his own article. The fatalities are a simple list. Over 70 victims. Victims and criminals are not covered equally in reliable sources with regards to crime because people that commit heinous crimes get considerable media attention. That's just a fact and it's true here and in other places. Our policies are to neutrally present the shooting in propotion to its coverage, not equal length sections on victim/criminal. The alleged perpetrator was/is the focus of intense and in-depth coverage. The innocent victims are not going to get that. That's not crystall ball, that's the current state of coverage. Also note, this is an event that is being covered. --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the content at the beginning of the thread above, I'm not the only one who read it as undue. And another editor suggested that we trim rather than add, offering a different approach. As none of us WP:OWNs this article and solutions need to be built on Wikipedia:Consensus, I'm going to wait a bit more to see if anyone else responds.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am also going to ask that we focus on the topic of this particular article rather than Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Parking dispute?

The article still makes a lot of the parking dispute claim which was pure speculation on the part of Hicks' wife (cf. [3]). --89.0.230.58 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is speculation - as is any other possible motive unless Hicks admits honestly to one or a court rules that there was one '''tAD''' (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

His wife made this speculation, but it's also the local police department's theory, based on their investigation, her, and other sources - c.f. "Chapel Hill police have said the Tuesday shootings were prompted by a parking dispute between Mr. Hicks and the married couple, his closest neighbors." [4]. I also don't see text / references regarding the prevalence of parking dispute murders vs Muslim hate murders in the US; I'm working on that. --Djbclark (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. So my criterion is useless; big deal. Anyway, "shooting" can mean one location with multiple victims, eh? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 Chapel Hill shooting → 2015 Chapel Hill shootings – There were three victims in a similar location. Despite one attack, "shooting" should be pluralized. George Ho (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The very reason "shooting" is singular is that there was one attack incident, not a series of them. Charlie Hebdo shooting is in singular, despite it filling your own criteria for pluralizing. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose like WikiLaser says; it was a shooting. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

International reactions

It has been custom on other recent events, like 2015 Copenhagen shootings and Bardo National Museum attack, to compress the International reactions into summary prose, as most of them convey the exact same message. This could also be done here. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done '''tAD''' (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

see also

Perhaps Persecution of Muslims in the United States would be relevant enough? Whether he saw it that way or not Muslims have generally responded with signs of faith, no? There are many stories of women who now choose to wear the hijab out of increased faith following these events. As an aside to my previous contributions I'll note I was never trying to make the case murder was a criticism of Islam, I was saying it's related, in this case as a kind of opposite. But I agree that may come off the wrong way since most people want to see a positive relationship - thing is like thing so to speak. Sorry for the confusion. --Smkolins (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Shooting, mass murder, terrorism

Smkolins:

With regards to the description of 'mass murder', you stated: "while a severe incident the guideline on "mass murder" is four people killed in an incident. Nor am I aware scholars or authorities on shootings are calling it mass murder". You have not provided a link to this guideline, and as a result I have reinstated the 'mass murder' tag.

With regards to the description of 'terrorism', you stated: "not a high quality sign it was terrorism, more about the response in international context" Your description of the source as not being 'high quality' seems to be an arbitrary value judgement on your part. Furthermore, the description of the incident as terrorism comes from a reliable source. As a result, I have reinstated the 'terrorism' description. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as a killing of four or more people with no cooling off period.

Terrorism is a WP:LABEL issue and needs strong sourcing from a number of strong news outlets (not daily mail) or from academic sources. The daily mail does not meet those requirements -- Callinus (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail (actually a syndicated article by Agence France-Presse) was not calling the attack terrorism, but quoting Palestinian politicians. That is an understandable reaction when their people have been killed, but it is not a sole arbiter of what this attack was. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Trial

I am working offline on some edits to the page with a new sub-section entirely dedicated to the trial that took place recently (06/12/19) and the disturbing revelations made public for the first time at this gathering. Details to come... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzle26 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

'Islamophobia' was NOT his motive

'There are many more — hundreds of stories — about his sentencing, and all of them proclaim that Craig Hicks killed “3 Muslims.” Anyone skimming these headlines, or reading the reports themselves, will of course assume that Hicks’s crime was the product of anti-Muslim hate. That has become the narrative. Almost no one challenges it. But that narrative is false.'

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/craig-hicks-sentenced-to-life-for-killing-three-neighbors-part-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.218.78 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Your source, Jihadwatch, is a known hate site and highly biased. Given the perpetrator's online postings against Muslims, islamophobia appears to have been a contributing factor. 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 192.219.255.13 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Names of victims in Infobox

I don't understand the objection by User:YatesTucker00090 to having the names of the victims in the infobox. Their edit summary says that there is no need for the names of the victims to be in the article twice. The name of the perpetrator is in the article multiple times. The inf in the infobox is incomplete without the names of the victims. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the names of the victims have been in the infobox since 2015, and in the absence of any comments here justifying their removal, I am reinstating them. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@YatesTucker00090: Why have you not given any justification for the deletion of the names of the victims in the infobox? What is it that you object to? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Names of victims and the perpetrator are completely different from each other. It's very uncommon to find names of victims in the infobox, especially when there's several victims. The perpetrator is almost always included in the infobox and is more relevant to the article than the victims names. It's also not mandatory to add the victims names to articles as recently, the inclusion of them now requires consensus from other editors. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@YatesTucker00090: The names of the victims have been in the infobox for this article since 2015. So, in effect, there has been a consensus for 5 years that the names should be in the box. In this case, it is the victims who are more important and relevant to the article than the perpetrator. I think that you would need a consensus to remove the names. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Victims names are optional, as wikipedia in not a memorial. Also if it's a list of multiple victims, then we don't need to list it twice, and on wikipedia, the perpetrators information is more important since this isn't a place to memorialize people. This is a crime related article and we usually use information on the attacker rather than the victims. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This article may be unusual in that a significant part of it is concerned with memorials to the victims. If you agree that including the victims’ names is optional, do you actually object if they are put back into the infobox? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As you previously stated, this article is 5 years old and does have a lot of information about the victims. Each one has their name in bold letters and a short bio about them. If you want to talk about consensus, I think it has already been reached just to include them at all and have most of the article be about them. With that being said, I don't think we need to have their names listed twice since they're already easy to find in the article. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK Sweet6970 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)