Talk:Bath School disaster

File:MI-icon.gif

This article is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.

"Terrorism"?

This article has been added to List of terrorist incidents. However, I would not classify it as terrorism since it appears to be an isolated act of personal revenge, with no organization or ideology behind it. Mirror Vax 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

From the article on Terrorism: "The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain." I think this was clearly unconventional violence" and "civilians" were emphatically involved. The "political gain" sought was the perpetrator's belief that the tax involved was oppressive against real property owners. I think this situation is even less nebulous than the Oklahoma City situation insofar as it remains unclear what McVeigh wanted to accomplish by the act. Jtmichcock 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that his motiviations were so clearly articulated. The article currently says Kehoe was apparently motivated by the imposition of taxes that were used to construct the school in 1922, which he claimed brought him financial hardship. Contemporaries of Kehoe asserted that he was especially parsimonious in any event. Unless there is some additional evidence in which Kehoe made explicit what he was up to and that is not reported in the article, it seems that this motivation for the bombing was somewhat speculative and may have been attributed to him after the fact as an attempt to rationalize his actions. If that is the case, it is a pretty weak argument for it being an act of terrorism. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually have a revised version of this article in my sandbox that will get into more detail about statements Kehoe made prior to the bombing and other surrounding circumstances (posting this version soon). He definitely was motivated by the tax issue. In further considering the definition in the Terrorism within the Wikipedia article, I think the term "ideological purposes" would be better than "political gain." The latter term sounds more like something a typical politician might do in order to get one up on his opponent. Political gain is a rather pedestrian term. Jtmichcock 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may add a thought to this discussion, "Terrorism" as a term can be applied to many situations where, either motivation by a group, individual, or institution, i.e, Political, Religious, Criminal, Social Activist, Anti-establishment, Military, etc., may use means to effect the psyche' of others to bend to their will. In the case of Andrew Kehoe, as with other mass murderers, there may be just a revenge factor that motivates their actions as well as psychological or medical damages due to organic brain diseases, or blunt force traumas. Andrew Kehoe, had suffered a blunt force head trauma several years prior to the event. This may have contributed to his actions by changing his perspective from co-operative citizen to persecuted civilian. Since he also blew up himself and several others immediately after the school, it would be suspect to view his actions as terrorism, due to the fact that he had nothing to gain except the morbid satisfaction that he had the last word over the tax issue. Terrorism generally implies acts to benefit survivors either directly or indirectly. This was not the case in Bath. Just my 4 cents (inflation).Subwayjack 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)S

The only thing required to show that it was terrorism is to cite a source that called it terrorism. Our own opinions don't matter, and citing them would be original research. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-22 20:09

Note on Revisions

I am still making some revisions on the text as research materials come in so I have only done inline notes for the very top section. I will complete the inline parts right before it's ready to submit for peer review. If you have any items that would ordinarly be translated into inline materials, please use bracketed http links in the text and I will translate into inline notes as the article matures. Jtmichcock 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article

I just wanted to state that this is one of the best featured articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. Congrats to everyone who worked on it. --Alabamaboy 00:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is of the highest quality. Fantastic work.

I agree as well. This is a fantastically written article with concise and informative information. Kudos to all who worked on it to make it the article it is today. Boofasten

Indeed, made me go google it after reading, for more information. Wish there were even more historic photographs used (such as from http://www.msu.edu/~daggy/tbsd/tbsd-p.htm ), individual photos of kids are bad, but photos of cleanup, the school, etc would be nice. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 04:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is the FIRST Wikipedia Featured Article I've ever read that I didn't feel needed any copyediting whatsoever. Wow. Killdevil 13:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what's going on with the page right now?????

Good article. I'm soaked in history all the time, yet I'd never heard of this one. Nicely done. - Paul Drye

ranking

Not only the worst massacre in a school, it's one of the top ten mass murders in US history, below 9/11, the Happyland arson and the Branch Davidians — am I forgetting any? —Tamfang 00:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombings? Oh, and I agree with all above this is a very well written article. I'd never heard of this before. Lisiate 04:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this before, either. (But forgive me, I'm in my twenties.) It was very captivating and well written. Thanks to whoever wrote it! I also agree w/ the term "massacre" over "terrrorist attack". I doubt they would have described it as a terrorist attack back then, for sure.

Kudos, excellent work

I consider myself fairly well-read and I have never heard of such a thing! Astounding.

Copyvio?

I'm very concerned that there is way to much direct copying to avoid being a copyright violation. If you look at the third source as an example the article barely rewords anything and several sentences are word for word copies. All of the information from some of the paragraphs comes from the one source which does not do enough to avoid copyright violations. I only checked a couple of the sources, but when one source is that much of a concern, all need to be checked. Especially as that source is cited several more times. The first cited source also doesn't agree with the numbers stated in the article, nor does it give a number for how many students were there on the day of the disaster. The 236 number is stated as being from 1922 in the source. - Taxman ^Talk 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to your concerns I examined the third reference and the article for signs of copyright violation and did not find any issues, let alone sentences that are identical. While some sentences are similar, this comes from describing the same basic historic facts. An example of this would be in the Bath School disaster article where it reads "Andrew watched his stepmother burn for a few minutes before dumping a bucket of water on her." The reference reads "Andrew watched his stepmother burn without trying to help her. After a few minutes, he dumped a bucket of water on her and doused the flames." While these sentences are similar, they are not a copyright violation b/c they are describing the same historic event. As someone who has spent a lot of time tracking down copyright violations on Wikipedia, I see no example of "way too much direct copying" as you claim and see nothing to support any claim of copyright violation. As for the fact that different citations have different numbers, this is a common occurance in historic research. I'll defer on this issue to the original authors of the article as to which citation is valid.--Alabamaboy 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm suprised someone else wouldn't think this is too close to copying the other source. Compare the first page (five paragraphs) of that source with the Kehoe section in this article. They're almost just rearangements of each other, with much of the word choice being the same. The one that caught my eye was: "He was meticulous in his dress and manner."..."He often changed his shirt in mid-day or whenever the slightest hint of dirt appeared on his shirt." compared with: "Neighbors recalled that Kehoe was always neat, dressed meticulously, and was known to change his shirt at midday or whenever it became even slightly dirty." Not only do the two sections as a whole include all the same facts, but when the word choice is so close throughout, I don't see how it wouldn't be a problem. It's not like it's word for word, but to my understanding avoiding copyright means you don't take substantially all of the creative character of the other work. - Taxman ^Talk 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in some ways about copyright here. If this was a fictional work, then the similarities would indeed be worrisome. However, since the original article, and the Wikipedia article, are refering to a historical event and are trying to be as accurate as possible in representing the historical event, the similarities are acceptable. After all, one can't copyright historic facts. To deviate from certain descriptions of historic fact would change the fact and that would not be acceptable. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW Taxman, please don't see this as an attack on you for raising this issue. I get a really perverse joy out of tracking down copyright violations on Wikipedia (and wish I had more time to do so). In fact, I wish more people would raise potential issues like you did. It's just that in this case, I don't see a violation. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A few things: First, whenever you describe the same set of facts, the words are going to be similar. As note by Alabamaboy, there's only so many ways you can desribe throwing a bucket of water on someone. I have two books in print and I am very sensitive to allegations of plagarism, particularly when it's posted in a public forum. In terms of the first paragraph, the first part "on the day of the disaster" was not how this was originally written. You'll notice that the sentence would be out of place with that language since the prior sentences deal with the opening of the school, not the day of the disaster. I confess to having let this one slip by unnoticed and have corrected this the article back to what was originally intended: the number of students enrolled at the opening. As Ellsworth notes in his book, there was no accurate census on the date of the disaster. One of the frustrations dealing with Wikipedia is that someone comes in and makes edits and you will occassionally overlook some. Jtmichcock 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There was certainly no offense meant, and in the interests of gaining others' opinions before loudly proclaiming in many different places on Wikipedia, I thought it was best to bring it up only here first. I certainly didn't think there was intent, as you obviously cited the source and weren't trying to hide anything. But copyright is still something we need to be very careful about whether intentional or unintentional. As to the other one, yeah you can't win them all when people change things out from under you. The point was more the first and only two things I checked were a problem. - Taxman ^Talk 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I tend to agree with AlabamaBoy that this doesn't look like a problem. A clear effort was made to rephrase, and you can't just replace one word with another without losing meaning. The source says he was "meticulous" about his clothing; how can you avoid using the word? "Obsessive"? "Painstaking"? "Conscientious"? Any synonym introduces extraneous connotations that aren't supported by the facts. It's my understanding that historical facts can't be copyrighted. Redquark 19:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stepmother

I'm wondering about the factoid in the original research that says he 'watched his stepmother burn'. Reading the original makes me think that the author was trying to spice up his story by showing that Kehoe was a bad person right from the start- there doesn't seem to be any way to verify this- by the nature of the act, only Kehoe and his stepmother were there (if Kehoe was even there at all). In fact, if it were true, Kehoe would have been committing a criminal act. The line in the original also implies that Kehoe actually sabotaged the stove, which also smacks of hearsay. I think it's dubious to include that content as true when it seems to be not to be research, but rather a dramatization. And in this particular case, I think the original author wanted to believe that Kehoe had to have been bad from the start- that there were warning signs- that people who do things like this are pure monsters. Lastly, I just want to point out that the original author also makes comments like him being buried 'isolated, just like he was in real life.' What about his wife? What about the fact that he served on the school board and was active in the community? Sure, you can make the argument that he was psychologically isolated and different, but then, who isn't isolated like that? That points to the orig. author trying to profile Kehoe into what he thinks all mass murderers are- psychopaths who aren't human, pure evil. Anyway, I just think we should take that part out. It seems like sensationalism. --Stuball321 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The story about the stove has been repeated at length in a number of publications. In Grant Parker's Mayday, the claim that he stood and watched is sourced to the stepmother before her death. Since it is not a crime to do nothing while someone burns, there were no charges. As to the stove, there was always a lingering question as to how a machine that previously have no problems would spontaneously combust. Several years later Kehoe caused the same sort of combustion when burning down his house. Had he done something similar a year after his stepmother was burned, there's no question that they would have brought charges. For purposes of this article, that's a parallel that can't be avoided. I should note that there's another line of speculation that is not included in the article: that while Kehoe was living in Oklahoma he sustained a serious head injury in an accident. In most of the materials this accident is mentioned as being the precurser to the disaster. My own view is that the accident was too remote in time and anything you could write about it would be pure speculation. That's different from the stove incident which demonstrated, at the very least, too eerie a coincidence. In terms of the other aithors referring to Kehoe as "isolated." that's a fair comment from Ellsworth who knew the guy for eight years. Jtmichcock 17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Still a school at Bath?

I'm not clear from the closing section of the article as to whether there still is a school at Bath. It sounds like the replacement building opened in 1928 was named after the senator as an "agricultural school", and that this replaced the damaged school, then notes that this ag school building was demolished in 1975. Did something get built to replace it, or is there no longer a school in Bath? GBC 17:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are schools in the District, just not on the site of the original -- the link to the Bath Consiolidated School district has more info. There's a rather small memorial park built there. If you look at the photo of the boulder, on the top left you can see the top of my car. It's not a big site at all. Jtmichcock 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shrapnel

"Prior to May 18, 1927, Kehoe had loaded the back seat of his car with metal debris. He threw in old tools, nails, pieces of rusted farm machinery, digging shovels, and anything else capable of producing shrapnel during an explosion." I think the author means "...anything capable of producing lethal fragments..." not shrapnel. Fragments and shrapnel are two very different things, as Wikipedia's own article illustrates.Frankwomble 17:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on schrapnel: "It is also used by extension to describe the fragments and debris thrown out by any exploding object." Jtmichcock 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

wondering re removal or pyrotol

"Unlike the Columbine High School massacre, there was no legislative response, either by the state or federal governments, aimed at preventing a recurrence, although pyrotol was quietly taken off the market."

Taken off the market by whom? The article Pyrotol states that sales were halted after the Bath school disaster. It leaves one hanging. Was it a spontaneous and unanimous decision by all the manufacturers and/or distributors, or what? Herostratus 18:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost to the mists of history, actually. There were no "manufacterers" at that point since pyrotol was a World War I munition and all the stuff that was available was what was there. Pyrotol was banned like mustard gas and other chemical weapons much later. Did the stuff just run out or was it deliberately removed? No one knows. In a world without 24 cable news, matters that were handled back then were done quietly and without press conferences. Jtmichcock 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Herostratus 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a truly excellent article

One of the better Featured Articles I've ever read. Remarkably consistent, smoothly- and coherently-written, focused, crisp, and informative. Great job! -Silence 21:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschrapnel (talk • contribs)

I concur. This article is a real gem. On top of being excellently encyclopedic, it's a just plain good read. Congratulations to all involved! Herostratus 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the best wikipedia articles I've ever read

Everything about this is stellar: the story, the writing, the attributions, the links...wow. I'm riveted. I think there might be a film script in this story...if it weren't so awful.

Congrats to the writers and everyone who edited it. It's absolutely fascinating and very well-researched.

Reading through one of the first-hand accounts (with its listing of victims' biographies) reminded me very much of 9/11. For these rural, peaceful people, this act must have had similar (if not larger) resonance with the than the WTC disaster.

Wow. Just a great wikipedia entry.