Jump to content

Talk:Charles Carl Roberts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Place of birth

[edit]

Anybody know when and where this guy was born? Yesyoudid 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1974. Dunno where he was born.--Greasysteve13 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody added a date and place...any reference so we can verify this? Yesyoudid 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the Philadelphia info. I'd like a source- I think that info should be removed until confirmed. His family dates back to at least the 1870s in Manor Township, Lancaster County, PA according to the US Census, so I would think he's a Lancaster County native--kingwhick 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in this article many relevant citations are missing. First of all for date and place of birth of Mr.Roberts. Secondly the timeline does not give any citation for 9:51h as the time of entering the schoolhouse. I could not find any other indication for this time on the web. So it is either very valuable or wrong. This is even more disturbing as there are obvious mistakes in the rest of the timeline. Mr.Roberts called his wife at about 10:50h (not 11:00h) and among other things informed her about the notes he had left in the house. After the call she found the notes, called her mother and then 911. That is how police got to know the number of his mobile which in fact was his wife's mobile that he had brought along. Police then tried to call him at this mobile. This latter act seems to have triggered the shooting in Mr.Roberts who obviously paniced at that point, as there are many indications that he had originally prepared for a lengthy siege. But there is not much talk about this aspect and police remained very silent about the course of events immediately before the shooting. The shooting then occured "just after 11:00h". This timeline was given by police in a press conference. Source e.g. [1] and [2]

I often research timelines for certain events. In doing so it becomes obvious that the media many times copy wrong information from each other which then as a consequence seems credible simply due to quantity :(

Citations and sources are a condition sine qua non for any reliability of the articles. Only if sources are clear they may be compared and judged in their validity.

I hope the author of date and place will add his source, or at least describe what kind of source it is. And maybe somebody will feel inspired to take the pains to give an exact account of events to the extent possible. English is not my mother tongue. So this is my excuse ;) 10:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

[edit]

Was this guy an amish? I think that piece of info is quite relevant. --Dijxtra 09:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he was, but I'll see if I can dig up a source saying so before adding that. I do recall a news article saying that he had no animosity towards the Amish, but picked this schoolhouse because a one-room schoolhouse made for a convenient target. --Delirium 10:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read about this in the newspaper, this morning and my mom said that he might of had a grudge aginst the Amish, probably a probleam he had with them 20 years ago or something, but after reading some more things, I think he did it there, because it was close to his house.--Hailey 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He was actually Christian (and was his wife and whole family)... Yesyoudid 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amish are Christians, too. But no, he was not Amish.--Caliga10 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right to privacy of parents and wife?

[edit]

So soon after this tragic event, no doubt there are some whose mental state may predispose them to acting out their anger towards Charles Karl Roberts. While this condition prevails, do we serve any useful purpose by publishing identifying details of the killer's parents? I suggest that the identifying details should be removed - at least for the time being - from the current page. I don't know the wiki policy for withholding information. ?? Ian Page 04:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about identifying his parents. But I am sure that his wife and children should not be identified. It is irresponsible of the press to have identifyied them in the first place. I removed mention of them several hours ago. Dincher 05:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I wish we could redirect this article to Evil. There is no excuse for this senseless murder. I don't care if his brain snapped, NO EXCUSE! My cousins live in that area, he could've killed them! I pray for his family and the people he murdered's family. --71.224.19.29 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to contribute to this article or are you just venting? Yesyoudid 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is no better than he is, so stop being a hypocrite.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not being hyprocritical. I'm merely pointing out that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Thanks for your concern though. Yesyoudid 03:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made a pointless post in order to criticize another pointless post, which I myself am doing now. You don't see that as kinda contradictory???--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to spend this time working on the article, rather than going back & forth... Yesyoudid 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is NOT censored. WhisperToMe 03:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOT CENSORED policy relates mainly to the issue of obscenity/indecency. On the other hand, it seems to me that Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-public_figures is more relevant here. Anyway, over and above any of Wikipedia's policies, shouldn't we be heeding the "public good"? What public good is served by helping to make Roberts' parents targetable by any nutter bent on irrational revenge? Do they deserve that? Could you live with it if you published that info, and something horrendous came of it? Does it add anything to the encyclopedia to know where they live, or what their jobs are/were? Ian Page 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then nuts probably already know the name of the school; the Philly Enquirer and TONS of other news agencies already reported the name. WhisperToMe 19:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the picture for this article from a photo of Roberts to a photo of him with his wife and child? Is it necessary to identify her with a photo? Dincher 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say the current one is pretty crappy: it shows a lot less of him less clearly than the previous one (though it might be good in the section describing his life). --Gwern (contribs) 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the old one was not fair use. This one was actually handed out by his wife, free of charge. Oh and the girls name was in the heading in the Yahoo! article, which is why I left it there. If you find a better (free) picture of this guy, I'm more than happy to take it down. Yesyoudid 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this one any more fair use than the old one? They're both provided by third parties, both were being used in a quite relevant fashion, both were not under any sort of Free license, etc. --Gwern (contribs) 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that no one is claiming copyright. The other photo's status is more ambigous. And, in my opinion, this picture shows the man as a normal person, whereas the other one looks like a mugshot. This is just my opinion though, if you don't like the picture, change it. Yesyoudid 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the kids

[edit]

User:Dincher believes that this text doesn't belong in this article: " Roberts was last seen by his wife at 8:45 a.m. when they walked their children to the bus stop; his children, as of 2006, attend Bart-Colerain Elementary School [3] in Bart Township (the school has a Christiana postal address). "

His reasoning is stated here: [4]

Which is completely against Wikipedia. This is public knowledge! WhisperToMe 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not = Wikipedia is not censored. WhisperToMe 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments on the privacy of the kids. Dincher 04:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Innocent Children Just because the media has reported personal information about innocent children doesn't mean that it is right and that it needs to be repeated on wikipedia. Wikipedia has many more visitors than any newspapers web-site. I would really appreciate it if you do not add their personal information again and I am sure that I am not the only person that feels this way. Others have removed other personal information about his family. If someone in your family had done something like this would you like your place of work or residence published on the internet? I think not. Dincher 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the human aspect of this article and the obvious emotions that arise from it, I think we should think about the "encyclopedia" aspects of this situation. I don't think that the information about where Roberts children go to school is relevant in the context of important facts about this situation. Maybe this detail is important for the short term, but twenty or thirty years from now when this story is revisited will it be relevant then? Will somebody really care to know the name of his children's Elementary School? No. They will just want to know who Roberts was, what he did, and why he did it. Dincher 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Dincher 04:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty or thirty years from now, when this story is revisited, people will want and expect some relevant context - where his kids go to school is a part of the ordinary-guy context of events. Or do you think it would've been equally irrelevant if they had gone to, say, a private school? --Gwern (contribs) 04:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whether or not his children went to public or private school is irrelevant to the case. His children will be alive in twenty or thirty years and their privacy should be respected then and now. Dincher 19:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the parent post, but perhaps we could compromise. What if we put that they go to a public school and list the city, but not the exact name of the school. We could always link to the article that gives further info. Yesyoudid 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that compromise, although for future-proofing I'd like quotes from the article in refs - I've found that online news stories have a deeply distressing tendency to simply disapear and not be archived in the Internet Archive. --Gwern (contribs) 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the "irrelevant" part of the argument. But the "protect privacy" part is very, very weak; the information has been public knowledge because newspapers reported the name of the school - there is no privacy to protect - once the newspapers leak the name of the school, the damage is DONE! - I may compromise on purely the irrelevant argument; keep the string from the newspaper in the citation, but in the article itself the school may be simply referred to as "a school in the township" - the school's name would be mentioned in the citation. WhisperToMe 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to publish what not to publish? Information is a passive thing. Your fear is of people not information. The beauty of open information forums such as this one is the access to any and all linked information whether we deem it valuable or not. I do not know the policy of wikipedia so I can make no comment or assert any fact. However I would argue that access and free association of everything not deemed to be irrelevent by anyone should be a key motive in all decision making on projects such as this one. If anyone decides that managing the information to "protect" society from itself should be implemented then we become manipulators of information, if by no other error than that of ommission. Whether we see it that way or not that is what we would be doing. Since the only thing we can be sure of, as a fact, is that "we do not know 100% what happened anywhere or anytime". We wish to know and that is why we contibute here but we never ever actually know everything. When we edit the source material we destroy what it is we all attempt to make. This notion is destructive to freedom of information and destroys the capacity to connect supposed unrelated and irrelevent information which may have relevent connections that lie beyond our natural view. If someone hurts someone else using information posted here I will feel guitly but not for publishing information. My guilt would be founded on not being pro active in a society that so capable of producing such volatile, violent and emmotional responses from my countrymen or neighbours. If that is what you fear this is not the place to contribute to a solution. Socio political grouping, religeons, parties and ideologies need your support (or criticism)to effect such change. All of this being said there is no justification for disrespectful post towards anyone within this structure. Again information is a passive thing. Some comments on this page are examples of non passive self expression. Thank you. --Ignoranceisbliss 01:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear, guilt, etc. have nothing to do with the reason for editing the children's names. Newspaper information and encyclopedia information are different. A newspaper can publish such info (whether it should be or not is a matter of opinion) when it relates to the current event being reported. An encyclopedia is for reference and historical purposes. A person would not interchangeably use newspaper articles and encyclopedia entries because they don't concentrate on the same type of information. If there is a historical and educational purpose for knowing the children's names, then please share it. Obviously freedom of information hasn't been breeched since said information has already been published elsewhere. If Timothy McVeigh had children and I was doing a report on him and his crime, I would not find his children's ages and where they went to school in an encyclopedia. If I really wanted to know that, I wouldn't even look for it in an encyclopedia to begin with. I would look for info like that in biographies, documentaries, and newspapers. Dincher 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Elementary schools are not allowed to publish the last names of any of their students for any reason. This is to protect them from child predators and others that may want to harm them. This is a rule that is not always followed. Due to ignorance mostly, but it is still a rule that is meant to protect innocent children. Dincher 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually published this reponse under the wrong heading. I meant to publish it in the "Right to privacy of parents" above. Never the less the point is the same. Whether a newspaper or an encyclopedia information is a passive thing and accuracy varies. No historical or educational purpose for knowing the childrens names is immediately evident to me. Repectfully I would say that having to explain the relevance of this shows that you miss my point entirely. How would I know of a connection between the children and other relevent information if no connections to the children are established here or anywhere else relating to other incidents, people or information. Any connection that may exist would never be discovered if data is omitted. The value of an information service such as this one is precisley that it is possble to esablish these connections that would otherwise take huge numbers of man hours to establish. Connections between people and events can be seen instantly. If we edit this we chop down the tree we planted. I do not advocate breaking any law. Nor do I want anyone to use any information for any wrong doing. But note: I object to wrong doing not to accurate information. Also consider the inverse that these connections which may reveal too much to wrong doers may do just the same for crime fighters. Connections that would otherwise be invisible may reveal relationships between people and crimes not yet seen before. Patterns could be detected and so on. Perhaps wrong doers target people with certain first names for example. If we are truly concerned about what damage information can do in society this is the small end of the problem. The larger problem is a socio polical, moral and/or religeous/ideological one. The same energy that fights to censor information should focused on getting society right. In the soccer world cup, the crowd in the stands were becomming agressive when the video replays showed that that the refferees decision was inaccurate. The subsequently implemented solution was to not include the video evidence in decision making such as in other sports but rather to censor the playback to the crowd by not showing the slo-mo replay of what actually happened. This is the typical way that we as a "corrupt" (inconsistant)society try to regulate behaviour by "editing" the truth instead of rectifying the real problem. All too often our desire to control overpowers the truth. Whether YOU or I think it is relevent is not the question. Surely the only question should be "Is it accurate?".

Also note that Wikipedia contains information for obscure topics and that which is not typically found in an encyclopedia. Would I be wrong to say that in some respects wikipedia evolves the very concept of an encyclopedia? That is precisely it's value? Since I meant to place this under the above heading feel free to edit accordingly both your comments and mine should you find this necessary. Respectfully.--Ignoranceisbliss 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respect his childrens' privacy. My youger cousin is in the classroom of one of them. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated info

[edit]

Most of the info in this article appears at Amish school shooting. What's more, there seams to be no reason to have both articles, since this person is not notorious outside the context of the shooting itself... Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Will add the merge discussion tags sometime. Simstick (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness

[edit]

Am I alone here? Do we need a link to forgiveness? Is there a person on Earth that doesnt know what it means? Yesyoudid 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at what the wikipedia entry has to say about forgiveness? It's a pretty interesting article. Dincher 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of his family

[edit]

I removed the image of his family, noting in my edit summary that this was purely decorative, since the subject of the article is amply illustrated by the existing photo. It was readded with the comment that the image is "illustrative of the family". However, the article isn't about the family, it's about him. If his family is notable, then create an article about his family and use the image to illustrate that. But I don't think his family is notable, so I don't see any point in illustrating what his family looks like - especially when Roberts is already properly illustrated by the top image. But what's the consensus - what do others think? Mr WR 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr WR. I see no need to show a picture of his wife. She didn't have much to do with the shooting other than be married to the shooter. Dincher 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is damned to hell for his stupidity. --66.218.15.133 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How to make wikipedia?

Do something violent. I recently tried adding to wikipedia but got censored. I guess if I went out and killed people & killed enough I could make wikipedia. I guess to make wikipedia one sure method is to do something really violent. I think this is really pathetic and why violence happens so much. Violence gets media attention and if you don't get media attention then your communication is not relevant or worth Wikipedia. Bah! This is truly pathetic.--3.14thagoras 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, humanity is truly pathetic. Darn those reporters for caring about mass murder and for reporting on it! They should've just ignored it so the rest of us would never hear about it and be interested.
That said, you may be interested in reading an essay by David Brin. --Gwern (contribs) 02:55 23 September 2007 (GMT)

Yeah, thats genius. Ignore the problem and it'll go away entirely. Good job. Fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.176 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary

[edit]

Deleted section on Documentary. Neither does it seem to be relevant nor is it a completed film and does not seem to be attaining funding that it was attempting to direct users to. Was shameless self promotion. JonOberdorfer (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Carl Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Charles Carl Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with crime?

[edit]

Why isn't this merged with the crime? Does he have significance outside of his act? Upjav (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree'd - there should not be a secondary article about this creep - the additional info is not notable - only the crime is important, and his involvement in it can be covered in the main article. This sets up a sort of twisted "memorial" to him. Should have been AFD'd. (and NO, this is not a Wiki is not censored issue.) 104.169.37.15 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Carl_Roberts&oldid=1246535846"