Talk:Columbine High School massacre

An event in this article is an April 20 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Aniversary

Does anyone know if the town is doing anything special on the ten year aniversary tomorrow and can that get posted? And, in any special way, can someone get a photo that could get posted if there is an event that day? Thank you, and I know we're not supposed to be emotional here, but I had a friend loose three friends in this shooting, and I'd really appreciate it if we had something up that's recent to the day for them... No Stahr (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea, that will have to come from national news. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That same in Kauhajoki, a few hours ago

Hi, could someone please add Kauhajoki school shooting to the See also section? Btw, tragic. :( -- Jepa (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Eric Harris did not break his nose. Some one that can needs to correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.134.40 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are stating this based on...? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More incorrect information

Here's what Marlyn Manson actually said on Bowling for Columbine:
Michael Moore: "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?"
Manson: "I wouldn't say a word to them; I would listen to what they had to say... and that's what no one did."

Trust me. I'm watching it right now and paused to make this notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phattimmy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia uses verifiable sources, and this portion is obtained from this source, from which it is obtained. It's not a matter of trusting or not trusting, it's a matter of sourcing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that a Newsday movie review is more authoritative on what was said in "Bowling for Columbine" than the movie itself! I don't have a copy of the movie (and I've never seen it), but it should be easy to check whether Phattimmy's transcription is accurate and, if so, the reliable source for what was said should be the movie itself. (The DVD presumably has English subtitles, so there should be no real doubt about what was said.) Phiwum (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously suggesting that there needs to be a source. Yes, the film itself can be the source, and yes, the subtitles should clarify that, but presented as it was above doesn't really verify the specific words for me. The article doesn't quote what Michael Moore asked specifically, only what Manson's response was. That varies from person to person who has "quoted" the film, so a verifiable source would be preferable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is correct. It's on youtube if you look for it. I'm not quite sure, but it was not taken down when youtube cracked down on copywrighted stuff, it was referenced, so could the link be used? I am telling you though, that is the correct quote and it is worded correctly. I can dig up the link, but can someone tell me if it's okay or not. Thank you No Stahr (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the Youtube would still be showing a copyrighted video, the link can't be used as a source. That's a lot of the reason why Youtube is frowned upon as a link at all here. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph makes no sense (or is missing context)

"On April 30, 1999, high-ranking officials of Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office met to decide if they should reveal that Investigator Guerra knew of the Harris website two years prior to the massacre. They decided not to disclose this information at a press conference held on April 30, nor did they mention it in any other way. Over the next two years the original Guerra documents were lost. Their existence was not revealed to the public until September 24, 2001"

Neither "Investigator Guerra" nor "the Harris website" are mentioned previously. IP99.237.123.46 10:22, March 8, 2009

Good point, I've reworded this paragraph for context and clarity, to provide a fuller understanding to the reader.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

suggested addition to the 'aftermath and the search for rationale' section

Suggested addition:

One theory on the common denominators among school shooters notes that a map of incidents across the United States shows they overwhelming occur in the South and West. Studies done by psychologists before Columbine show higher levels of violence in the South and West, namely when people feel their honor has been disgraced. School shooters in turn believe they have been placed at the bottom of the social ladder feel their honor has been violated, and retaliate with violence. There are other historical threads as to why the South and West are considered more violent regions, such as the tradition of solving your own problems - shown by the Southern saying of being a sheriff in your own hearth. The shootings also tend to occur in suburbs and small towns, where high school is the only game in town. Outcasts - or those who see themselves as outcasts - have few, if any, alternative locales to establish an identity outside of high school. That parallel can also be seen in the Winnenden, Germany school shooting that took place in a small town.

sources:

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/rockytalklive/archives/2009/01/jeff_kass_on_his_new_book_colu.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-5048-Columbine-and-School-Violence-Examiner~y2009m3d11-Germany-school-shooting

http://www.jeffkassauthor.com/index.html

Lance1875 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

At best, this would go in an article on school shootings in general. It has nothing specific to offer for this one. And there's a statistics problem here; Based on my meager math, only 20-30% of the nation lives in the 'big cities'. Everyone else - 70-80% - lives in "suburbs and small towns". Therefore it makes perfect sense that school shootings are more likely to occur in those. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your source on the percentage that live in "big cities"? And if one or both theories helps explain Columbine and other school shootings, that does not diminish the value of the information, it increases the value.Lance1875 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My source was, as I said, my meager math. I do not claim to be a scholar nor do I place academic value to the figures; it was only my estimate. (Now, many more live in the metropolitan areas - but metropolitan areas include suburbs, which I was trying to exclude). --Golbez (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that, it isn't within the scope of an encyclopedia article to present a sociological theory on the relative violence of a given geographic area, or try to explain why this would happen in Columbine. It borders on synthesis and we really couldn't present such material in context of this event. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Timings not explained

'Then at approximately 12:08 p.m, they moved over to the bookshelves near the set of tables where Matthew Kechter and Isaiah Shoels lay; there, they shot themselves, committing suicide. ... At 2:38 p.m., he attempted to exit.[4] He fell out the library window and was caught by SWAT team members, in a famously televised scene. Lisa Kreutz remained injured in the library. In an interview she recalled hearing something like "You in the library." around the time when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were getting ready to commit suicide. She was lying injured in the library until police entered at 3:22 p.m.'

So at 12:08 the shooters commit suicide - what actually happened for the next 2 - 3 hours until SWAT entered the building. Why did that take so long? What was happening in the intervening time? Presumably there was later criticism of this delay. Macgroover (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's explained later: "A call for additional ammunition to police officers in case of a shootout came at 12:20 p.m. However, the killers had ceased shooting just minutes earlier. Authorities reported pipe bombs by 1:00 p.m., and two SWAT teams entered the school at 1:09 p.m., moving from classroom to classroom, discovering hidden students and faculty." They didn't know the situation; they had to check every room, and it's a large school. --Golbez (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And you're incorrect; they entered at 1:09 pm, an hour after the suicide, and didn't reach the library for another two hours. As for the delay between noon and 1:09pm? I don't know off-hand. Police tend not to rush head-long into a hail of bullets. --Golbez (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Using a blog as a source

I removed a link to The Memory Hole for a few reasons. The first, and the best, is that it is a blog, and according to Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources suggests avoiding self-published blogs that can't be verified by other sources. I doubt the previously cited page because it doesn't match up with published facts in Columbine by Dave Cullen. The site lists the document for Eric Harris' Juvenile Detention Program, but it does not have his name, just the site claiming the document belongs to him. Such a document does exist, according to Cullens, but would be 8-10 pages. Pages 217-8 of Columbine describe what was on the documents, and some parts are different, namely the questions where he claims he uses and wishes to stop using drugs other than alcohol. Cullens claims Harris lied about his pot use on the forms, but took credit for drinking alcohol 3 times. A lot of The Memory Hole's document is echoing statements in the book, but little innacuracies like this, as well as a lack of an actual name other than "Dr. Albert" on the papers makes me reluctant to believe it. If you disagree, dandy, I just had to express my concern. The book has a blueprint for making a fake, so little off bits make me suspicious. See what you think on Amazon reader Penguinwithin (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can't just cite Cullen's book as the source and discount others. The Memory Hole may be a self-published site, but it does cite its source for the document pages which does not result in a conflict with WP:EL. WP:Blogs as sources is not a policy, it is essentially little more than an essay of one viewpoint, so anything it says is not mandated. Your conclusions for omitting the link are based on claims from one source vs. claims from another. The more problematic thing about your additions, however, was the issue over Luvox levels in his bloodstream. I've read the autopsy report released and it does include a therapeutic level of Luvox, although in the lower range of therapeutic. The 1999 Time magazine article was written before that report was released, so it didn't have the luxury of the autopsy report. The USA Today source says "Harris and Klebold weren't on antidepressant medication" but it gives no other information regarding that. No, Klebold wasn't, but with no further information than is given in the article, further conclusions can't be drawn. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

new article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

Thought this was interesting, as a contrast to the whole "they were bullied outcasts" thing, since it mentions THEM picking on other kids. 75.107.254.11 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Entry requires extensive updating due to new information released 04/13/2009

Here is a link to a summary story where much of the motivation of the killers is corrected:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

Namely:

They were not bullied but in fact bullied freshment and people they called 'fags' Were not in the trench coat 'mafia' Were NOT obsessed with video games They did not target specific groups based on race or religion They did not ask a student if she was a christian before shooting her.

And many more.

Actually, no, it doesn't need extensive updating. This articles does not claim they were members of the Trenchcoat Mafia, targeted specific groups on race or religion and the official reports contain multiple first person reports that someone in the library was asked if they believed in God. However, the article does not claim they asked Rachel Scott if she were a Christian, which is where that point comes from. Meanwhile, reports do substantiate that they were bullied as well as being bullies. We've all read the USA Today article. They were addressing generally held misconceptions which are not reflected in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always been an advocate of anti-bullying policies and this new article has greatly angered me for essentially removing all blame on the bullies by claiming it never happened. 10 years of government-sponsored research should be taken as precedent over a USA Today article with no sources. Thousands of people will read this article today and the last thing we need is people being told that bullying played no part in the mindstate of the killers. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the article does mention bullying as a factor, then it should also mention that they did not specifically target any of the people who had bullied them. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Helloooooooooo, what does "Nor did they have any specific targets as those on their target list had all graduated the previous year" say???? LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/quotes1.html no specific targets? they call out Rachel and Jen, specifically, and shot both of them, killing one. It all depends on your sources. 72.65.102.76 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another recent article with lots of new information. I think the article should mention that their main goal was not to shoot people - their main goal was to have a bombing that would break the previous mass murder record that had been set by the Oklahoma City Bombing. If these bombs had worked as planned, they would have killed hundreds of people. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is next to nothing that has been released in the latest books that hasn't been covered at one point or another in many sources. The entire first section details the intentions - the placement of the bombs, the intent to sit outside and shoot people as they tried to escape. It is in there. This article is not a book report on what one author wrote. It is an aggregate of many sources. Whatever it started out to be, it ended up being a school shooting. The original investigation reports, the documents released, interviews, videos, journals - they have all been examined. The article uses facts from those. This isn't going to be a "Dave Cullen" said article. There is not a single thing that anyone has mentioned today that hasn't been covered in one way or another already. And to be clear, the National Review article doesn't have all the facts correct. For instance: "The Klebolds come off as a rich couple who went to pains not to spoil their children (though in a different section, the author mentions that Dylan drove a BMW)." It ignores the fact that the BMW was an old, beat up BMW that used to belong to Dylan's grandmother. It skews the perspective to intimate that he 'was spoiled. There is no new information. There is nothing, not in the USA Today article nor in the National Review article that is new. It is a rehashing of everything that's been released before. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fourth-deadliest school shooting"

The second paragraph of the article lists Columbine as the "fourth-deadliest school shooting" in US history. This needs to be revised, as the 1927 Bath massacre consisted of two separate bombings (planted bombing and suicide car bombing), not shooting. It should either be changed to "fourth-deadliest school massacre" or "third-deadliest school shooting" with the reference to the Bath massacre removed. I know it may seem nitpicky, but the article should be as accurate as possible. Battleax86 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

This message was left on my talk page by LaVidaLoca. I'm moving it here so other editors can read it and join in if they wish...

Hi. I just had a couple remarks on the edits you've made to the article. I'm glad you changed back the image sizing, it wouldn't help the article to be overwhelmed with too-large images. I'm kind of ambivalent about breaking out so many subsections. I'm a little concerned with it appearing too chopped up. I moved the portion regarding Cassie Bernall a little further up. While I know that the Christian focus on her does have longer reaching effects, I think it really needs to be closer to the more immediate aftermath. Also, I took out the subsectioning of it for a couple reasons. There has been a lot of controversy over time about the "memorial" aspect of how the article treats the victims. Like it or hate it, Wikipedia sometimes takes a hard line against things appearing memorialized. The other point is that if we have a complete section for only one of 13 victims, it puts more weight on that person than the other 12, who all have a story that could (and maybe should) be told, although we can't do that. I moved the short section discussing music just after the goth subsection and removed the word "dark" from the section heading. The two sections seems to be a bit connected, while "dark" is kind of a POV description. Thanks for looking at it. I've tried to watch the article closely today because of the potential for vandalism, which has been a lot more frequent in the last few days than usual. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I like large images but I will conform to Wikipedia guidelines on not forcing them (I didn't know about those until today).

I'm fine with moving Cassie Bernall to where it is now. I didn't like where it was because it seemed out of place and I didn't quite know what to do with it. I do agree that it's a bit weird to have a section on one victim although Bernall does seem to have acquired an iconic near-sainthood that sets her apart from the other victims. I don't think this article makes that point adequately.

Changes to "dark" music section are fine with me. I figured I'd use the phrase in the article text but just "Music" is OK, too.

--Richard (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the section headed memorial. It's in its own tiny little section with two images shoved in beside and encroaching on the next section. I'm also not too keen on the section titled "Use as a metaphor or euphemism". That worked in better as part of a discussion in the long term effect section. But as I said, I'm not sure about the longer sections being chopped up as much as they are. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

a requested change

I can't edit because of the lock. But there is a change I think should be made:

"A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s)"

- "perhaps" is offering a theory rather than stating a fact. - The extensive details of where Anderson got the guns isn't relivant.

The problem with the existing text is that its an attempt to attach a political argument about gun control issues (gun shows, straw purchases at gun shows) via wording, theory and excessive information. I would suggest it should be:

"A rifle and the two shotguns were bought from a friend, Robyn Anderson, in December, 1998."

66.226.193.82 (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation mentions that what she made was a "straw purchase"; however, since Colorado had no law dealing with straw purchases at the time, it would be akin to calling someone a criminal for something that was not illegal when it was performed. The 'perhaps' is right out, and the allegation of the straw purchase is, I think, too much detail for the article, and is much better handled in the citation. As for the rest of the sentence, it's rambling, repeating December, and "individual(s)" is pretty unencyclopedic. Making the edit. --Golbez (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as sure about this. The article also says that she only avoided being charged for the purchases because of a loophole in the Brady bill, because she maintained the purchases were made from a private individual or individuals, which was why she wasn't charged. The Brady bill is a federal charge, so whether Colorado had a straw purchase law or not is irrelevant. I can agree with leaving out the words "straw purchase", however, I disagree that the article shouldn't mention the place or circumstances of the purchase. It is why she wasn't charged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganized

I added very little. I removed very little. I reorganized a lot. I hope no one minds. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

However, some media outlets have claimed reports of Luvox in Harris's system are false.

doesn't this need a citation given that it the information these outlets have disseminated is false- he had therapeutic levels of Luvox in his blood per the coroner's report. So many things like this on Wikipedia, unchallenged statements contrary to rock-solid evidence, yet doubt is seeded... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.227.214 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right and that was something very recently added. I've removed it and will continue to do so without supporting documentation. As an aside, one of the new articles published around the 10th anniversary stated this, although it also did not state a source. I can't recall which one it was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

This statement needs to be removed, as the source that it points to no longer exists: "Despite the nature of the Columbine incident, some social science experts feel the zero tolerance in schools has gone overboard.[48]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.139.109 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That isn't how we deal with a source with link rot. We mark it as a dead link and try to find another source to support the content, or perhaps web archives that have the content stored. We don't remove content because the link is dead. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)