Talk:Charles Carl Roberts

message: Anybody know when and where this guy was born? Yesyoudid 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1974. Dunno where he was born.--Greasysteve13 04:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody added a date and place...any reference so we can verify this? Yesyoudid 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

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

text: The Amish are Christians, too.  But no, he was not Amish.--Caliga10 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have anything to contribute to this article or are you just venting? Yesyoudid 21:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Right to privacy of parents and wife? 

message: 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  in Bart Township (the school has a Christiana postal address). "
His reasoning is stated here: 
Which is completely against Wikipedia. This is public knowledge! WhisperToMe 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Info about the kids 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Duplicated info 

message: 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)
thread_title: Forgiveness

message: 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)
thread_title:  Documentary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charles Carl Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061010145549/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Amish_School_Suicide_Note.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/03/america/NA_GEN_US_Amish_School_Suicide_Note.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charles Carl Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061009145650/http://local.lancasteronline.com:80/4/26342 to http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/26342
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116070442/http://www.solanconews.com:80/police/2006/061002_J01_bart.htm to http://www.solanconews.com/police/2006/061002_J01_bart.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116143240/http://www.philly.com:80/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/15664055.htm to http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/15664055.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011122624/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/US/10/04/amish.shooting/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/04/amish.shooting/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why isn't this merged with the crime? Does he have significance outside of his act?
Upjav (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with crime?