Talk:Columbine High School massacre

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)

I think one of the rationales that should be used is the fact that these 2 boys were believers in evolution and everything associated with it. It was their belief in higher races and their disbelief in God that gave them the guts to do this. They were quoted as saying, "If there was a God, he would not let me feel the way I do. There is no God, only hate." I think this play a huge role in this massacre.

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)

There's nothing in that tape that indicates the two names mentioned were also the ones that were shot. I'm guessing there were more than one Jennifer and Rachel in the entire school. It was a rant, not a hit list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 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)

"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)

Colombine by David Cullen

There are a number of new facts that have come to light from the release of police reports after Colombine (years later in fact).Plus the many missconceptions about bullying and the boys' place at the school. Many things that where not avaliable have been brought together in "Colombine" by David Cullen. After reading this book I feel the wikipedia article needs revisions. His book is extremely informative about Colombine and the events leading up to it and the reactions afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.242.2 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a few points to make about this. First of all, Cullen's book is only one of many sources that have been published recently that cover this event. We cannot rely solely on the work of one author to revise the article to coincide with one book. I read the book, it contained no sudden revelations that he hadn't published elsewhere over the years, and in some cases, his work has been cited here. New facts were included in the article in the spring including the new sources. If you have specifics, please post them here for discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag

Twice now, an editor has added the {{dubious}} tag to a sourced and cited statement. The statement is "At the Virginia Tech massacre, it probably saved dozens of lives" and is cited with "The Four Most Important Lessons of Columbine", written by a noted author of a book and myriad articles on the Columbine events, Dave Cullen. The relevant paragraph from that article is:

And the final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the "active shooter protocol." Optimally, it calls for a four-person team to advance in a diamond-shaped wedge. (If there isn't time to gather four officers, a single officer should charge in alone.) They're trained to move toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the shooter. Their goal is to stop him at all costs. They will walk past a dying child if they have to, just to prevent the shooter from killing more. The active protocol has proved successful at numerous shootings during the past decade. At Virginia Tech alone, it probably saved dozens of lives.

Noted expert on the case? Y Reliable source properly cited? Y Accurately reflects source content? Y

The first time stated "Dubious tag. Article should not make speculations." I reverted that, stating "the article doesn't, this is reliably sourced". He tagged it again, stating "again, wikipedia is not a place for speculation, not properly sourced". Note first that the tag comes up stating "Dubious-discuss". I'm not seeing a post here that outlines exactly what the editor thinks is speculation on the part of the editors of this page and thus Wikipedia. The article sourcing the statement is by an expert in this field and the source is accurate. There is no explanation for how the editor thinks this is speculation or how he considers the statement "not properly source". I changed the wording to "It was credited with saving dozens of lives during the Virginia Tech massacre." At this point, the editor in question is going to have to comment here and not return the tag unless he can present reasonable and compelling reasons why a statement by an knowledgeable and reliable editor and source equates to speculation and not being properly sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the "dubious" tag was used to question the citing of an opinion column as fact. WP:RS states that opinion columns should only be used as a reliable source if it's the opinion of a notable author. I've reworded it as a direct quotation attributed to Cullen and added a wikilink to the article about his recent book, Columbine, so that the reader will have a better understanding of his background on the subject.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cullen is about the expert on the subject outside of the legal system, although I have argued against using his work exclusively in the interest of neutrality. It was just not clear what the editor was suggesting was dubious. This works fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see how that is not a speculative statement, I can't help you. Anthonzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

So what I'm getting from your less than clarifying post here is that you can't explain in what way you feel it is speculative, nor have you noted the statement was revised. Speculation on the part of experts in the field, properly cited, is acceptable. Speculation on the part of Wikipedia editors is not. If you can't understand that difference, I, in turn, can't help you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Titling seems inconsistent and biased when comparing articles about shootings.

This is a cross-post with the same Talk post under the Virginia Tech Massacre article discussion. I removed some links as they aren't relevant here.

I want to put this out there for consideration. With each additional, tragic mass shooting that occurs around the world, a very relevant question emerges for the editorial members of the Wikipedia community. Namely, why this event and the Virginia Tech shooting are considered "massacres" while other events (Fort Hood, etc.) are called "shootings?"

Sadly, it would appear to me that Wikipedia writers are making "body count" a determination when titling articles like this one. Who determines what level of body count gets the "massacre" title? Why? Is it objective? Unbiased? Seems not.

And it's not how it's referred to in the local and national media/press coverage. Nor is it how official documents from government/state accounts, panels and reports refer to these events. In the Virginia Tech case, the Governor's office refers to it simply as "April 16" or "April 16 incident" in the key findings. The University calls it a "Tragedy." The media in the state call it simply the "April 16th shooting" or "April 16, 2007" or "Tragedy." Attorneys for the victim's families, victim's families, and living victims refer to it as a "shooting" or "tragedy."

I'd like to see an explanation and recommendation regarding future titling for active shooter / mass killing articles. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to develop a clear taxonomy for these events. A taxonomy that also makes it easier to research all events would be helpful -- a single phrase or term that would rank higher in search engines and also support end-user phraseology is critical, I think. Calling one event a "massacre" and another a "shooting" isn't objective. Especially if based solely on body count.

In the case of this article, it appears to need a different title so that one could aggregate it with all the other coverage and reports from media, the state and government sources and courts.

(Possum4all (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't think this page would be the place to open discussion about a wider topic that you're addressing with this post. Perhaps WP:CRIME. I disagree with you that the choice of the word massacre for a school shooting with multiple deaths would be biased. In fact, using the word "tragedy" implies a value placed on the term and characterization on an emotional level. Without wanting to venture into it much, the word "tragedy" is considered a POV word. The choice is not based on some defined body count and to state so is invalid. It is not reasonable to scour reports to decide what word to use. Google "Columbine". There is no question. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't see that WP:CRIME is appropriate place for this discussion as it relates to the title of this article. I'm not suggesting that "Tragedy" is a better alternative, I'm just stating that an objective alternative is needed to account for these events in aggregate -- and to reduce ambiguity. Calling one event a "shooting" and another a "massacre" seems sensational and just as emotional as "Tragedy." Besides, the phrase introduces ambiguity as it implies that the institutions were responsible for the events. A more objective, unbiased title might be "1999 Shootings at Columbine High School" or "2007 Shootings at Virginia Tech," for example. I used news reports as examples purely because they have a very clear responsibility to present information in an unbiased and objective way. And their accounts are verifiable and meet the Wikipedia requirements of fairness and objectivity. Besides, in the event of an additional "massacre" at one of these institutions, what would the title be then? How does the taxonomy of "massacre" take care of that? (Possum4all (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure about your main point, but I must disagree with your claim "the phrase introduces ambiguity as it implies that the institutions were responsible for the events." English just don't work that way. No one wonders whether a holiday had anything to do with the "St. Valentine's Day Massacre", for instance, or whether the city of Boston killed its own residents back in the day. Phiwum (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

English does work that way, based on context. Selecting reasonable, objective and unbiased perspectives/procedures for documenting these acts is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community. If the event has failed to be covered as a "massacre" and is not referred to in public documents, sworn statements and media accounts as such, then why is it being titled that way here? It appears to be sensational and defending it as such does not jive with Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. When a common name cannot be established or agreed upon, it is the Wikipedia guideline that the event be named according to place, event and when it occurred. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). It is my opinion that this article and the Virginia Tech Massacre have been titled incorrectly according to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions. (Possum4all (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Please see my response at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre#Titling seems inconsistent and biased when comparing articles about shootings. Arsonal (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are not objections (probably won't be), I'll take this to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events). (Possum4all (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Motivation

One of the on-going thrills that serial murderers get, is that their names will be mentioned when ever the incident itself is mentioned. Their names will be nominated and they will live on through notoriety.

The obvious way to take away this "thrill" from such killers, is to not mention their names in any online websites or at memorials etc. This is exactly what they want. They want their names to exist in infamy. I'm not even American and i have nothing to do with this massacre, but please try to keep the use of the murderers names to a minimum. I would be asking that their names be deleted entirely from this article, but i know that is asking too much - there will always be people who want to know their names.

Serial murderers such as this come from social situations where they crave notoriety. Through the article attributing the massacre to them, you are post-humously glorifying them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusau‎ (talk • contribs)

Well gee, thanks for this essay. Did it help in sociology class? What you seem to be missing here is that Columbine was not a serial killing, and Harris and Klebold were not serial killers. You will be just about as successful getting their names deleted from history as you would the first manned landing on the moon. Please take a moment to actually read serial killers to understand the difference here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been tried. It doesn't work. --Golbez (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Most stories and pictures say that one of the killers was at the foot of the out side steps. THAT IS NOT TRUE!!! Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed themselves in the library. If you don't believe me look up the pictures on youtube!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.127.123 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"The entries contained blurbs about ways to escape to Mexico, hijacking an aircraft at Denver International Airport and crashing into a building in New York City" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.25.32 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just checking, seemed like someone tried to slide in a 9/11 or terrorism reference. (98.212.25.32 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Nope, they really did have a plan to crash a plane into New York City two years before 9/11. I remember hearing about it at the time, and thinking about it when 9/11 happened. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cassie Bernall

wow. she stood up for her beliefs in this tradgedy. EVERYONE check the song "Cassie" by Flyleaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His Baaby Girl (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, she didn't. That was Valeen Schnurr. There's no evidence Bernall did anything that was originally claimed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)