Talk:Winnenden school shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Material that'll probably be of use[edit]

Feel free to add entries to this list if the article would benefit from their integration. Remove entries as that gets done. If the list seems like it's going out of control, improvise. --Kizor 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So far his fathers profession remains notably absent. I would expect paralels with eg. teh finnish case. Surprised to the number of guns in that household... (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

His father is an entrepreneur from what I heard, and a member of a local gun club.-- The O o (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

School nurse[edit]

There are no school nurses in germany and it was two teachers and an teachers apprentice (Referendin).--Tresckow (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What should we call the the victim? "Referendin"? "Teacher's apprentice"? "Support personnel"? --Kizor 18:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There are school nurses at german schools, but at full-time schools only normally. -- (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

id propose teachers apprentice. in german the exact term is referendarin. 8 of the students were female, all three teachers were female. although police says thats not necessary meaning something. the girl were simply sitting in the front rows. so they were easily shot. one of the victims was a kosovarian, the rest german. he went for headshots and the weapon was a 9 mm beretta. he was a member in a sportshooters club (as was his father) and of a tabletennis club. he isnt thought to be the usual lonely looser type.--Tresckow (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
According to RTL, only his father was a member of the shooting club, not the perpetrator himself. Although his father took him along quite a few times.--WakiMiko (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
the fatehr had 16 weapons, fifteen of which were kept in a safe. the last one, which tim k. used, was kept in the sleeping room. that is a violation of german gun laws that state guns and ammo have to be stored in a lockable place.--Tresckow (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That's good information about the guns; do you have a reference? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
the press conference of the german police at 18:04 german time. Nothing written yet. Oh and special reports on the ZDF. As a german you are familiar with that stuff.--Tresckow (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortened surname[edit]

I'm not going to revert the shortening, but if we have reliable sources that use the gunman's full name, do we care about the German press code here? What's been done for similar articles in the past? --OnoremDil 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No censorship for Wikipedia. - (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
We are under no obligation to care about the press code. I shortened one use of the surname after an anonymous user shortened the other and cited the press code, because it was possible to do so a matter of courtesy instead of censorship. It won't be possible to do so again. --Kizor 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with press code in Germany. His full name is not mentioned because of personal rights whitch result from the Human dignity which is protected be the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the English Wikipedia follows the laws of Florida, where the servers are located. We can't stop you for arguing for moral standards, but it won't work and will be harmful: We've already aggravated well over 250'000 people by illustrating the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy without wavering, any calls for information removal will cause a disproportionate response. --Kizor 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about moral standards. I was just correcting him about the "press code" statement. (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, fair enough. That can be a general statement for everyone, too... --Kizor 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By german law such personal rights do not apply to dead people anyway. --The O o (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Following: I talked to the responsible policeman and to an employee of the Deutsche Presserat (German Press council), both persons told me, it is allowed by German law, to mention the completely surname. The press council has a codex, which also allows the mentioning of the completely surname without any shortening, because, the crime has happened in the publicity. The shortening is only neccessary, if the crime would have been committed e.g. inside his room, when he had committed suicide without killing or hurting any other people. Regards, --Holger1974 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember: This is an encyclopaedia, not a German newspaper or magazine. Any pertinent name can be published here. Alandeus (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alandeus, this is correct, and I also have no problems to mention the name of Tim Kretschmer here. I just want to explain, that the discussion in the German article of the Winnenden school masscre is senseless, as the law also allows the mentioning of the name. But the German Wikipedia administrators don't want this - but at the Erfurt massacre you can also read the complete name. So, if you insert the name Tim Kretschmer in the German article, the administration will revert the article in a kind of vandalism. No information and no names allowed in the German Wikipedia. This is the opinion of the administrators. We had such a situation in Germany many decades ago, as you could not say everything and it was censored by the leadership. It is blameful, that the German wikipedia has reached such a low level. And no one of Wikipedia Germany is interested in to ban some of the vandalizing administrators, because such a permanent ban would be good for Wikipedia. So, I'll discuss about the school massacre in the Englisch Wikipedia, it is much better there! --Holger1974 (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Large caliber?[edit]

I'm sorry, but 9mm is NOT large caliber. I'm reverting it.Prussian725 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It' s not a "small" caliber either, but calling it large is not really accurate. Observer31 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Anti-Gun journalists are proclaiming the 9mm bullet is Extra-Heavy-Big Bore caliber. They are repeating over and over again: "9mm is a large and evil Big-Bore". (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Prussian725, here in Germany the caliber .22 Long Rifle is called "Kleinkaliber"(=small caliber), that makes 9mm Luger a large caliber. Gun clubs distinguish between Klein- and Großkaliber handguns in competitions and the law makes a distinction too. Not all handgun shooting ranges are certified for the so-called large caliber handguns. So in case you got the statement about 9mm being a large caliber from German media, it is correct.Markus Becker02 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Then it needs to be in quotations because this is English WP and in most English-speaking countries 9mm is not a large caliber. By the way, nice English!Prussian725 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Calling a large caliber may be the correct term in German, but it will confuse Anglophone readers. That being said, I think we can all agree that a 9mm is a "serious weapon" (for lack of a better term). Observer31 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, .22 is small-caliber in America too, but so is 9mm. I do not think .22 being defined as small-caliber automatically makes 9mm large-caliber because it is bigger than a .22. Unless 9mm is defined by most Germans as large caliber, I'd say that your arguement might be a little flawed. If 9mm is large-caliber, then what do you define 8mm Mauser as? Giant Caliber?Prussian725 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection[edit]

I've requested it, after edit-warring with several IP's that are also trying to revert vandalism. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

School shooting or shooting spree?[edit]

I know this is a bit spiting hairs, but there were more than one shooting location. I can see arguments for both, so I won't change the title but leave it to you fine folks to discuss Observer31 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

School Shooting. He was a student of the school - to me, that means he was probably trying to get revenge against the school - not just random people (as is suggested by shooting spree). Of course, I don't actually know what his motives were though. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
He used to be a student of the school, actually. At the time of the shooting he was a graduate. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question, when is something a schoolshooting.. indeed the main reason they take place could be people are familiar with schoolshootings. In this case in a chat the night before, T. anounced he would go to his former shcool and kill people "who never recognised (any of) his potential". So since he named the target for to be a school ahead. he made it easy for us. note that many of these guys actually want a gf., this one, like the finnish, had rich parents , and was released from psychiatric treatment for that reason, just like the finnish, and both were occupied with weapons ahead. perhaps its an idea to take care with rich loosers that occupy themselves with arms, he was rather a looser i think, not someone with a lot of general acceptance, altho the germans mostly admit he was somewhat of a loner they don't mention people would have known his psychological problems (exactly like in the finnish case ). (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

the chat is an apparent fake. i didn't expect that from german newssources. The question wether he took the school because he lacked the fantasy for anything else remains interesting tho. i think it is because their mind still daily spins through that school they consider it their 'battlefield'. i doubt anyone did a thing like this after working a year or eg. militairy service. Maybe it happened once in the usa there was 2 or 3 years of jobs between leaving the school and the shooting. (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"8 of them female"[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why is it that people put that "so-and-so number of victims were women" but you never see "so-and-so number of victims were men"? It seems sorta discriminating to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Because 8 of his nine initial victims were women only one a man. The men he killed later seem to have been more incidental, those he killed as part of his attempted escape. --Timtak (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It may have been the video game-playing perpetrator who was "sorta discriminating." See Germany school shooting: Gunman 'targeted girls', "Detectives were working on the theory that Kretschmer, described as a shy loner who never had a girlfriend, was motivated by a grudge against girls." Chedorlaomer (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there's more speculation here. Of course, I haven't seen anything putting the eight girls shot of nine total classmates in the context of the gender ratio of the class so it's probably no more accurate than the Times's description of his "powerful automatic weapon". Nevard (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Another article [1] quotes Heribert Rech, "The pupils sitting nearest the door were girls." The girl motive is, of course, just a theory under investigation right now... but I don't think Wikipedia is being "sorta discriminating" by noting that, whatever the motive, there were more girls killed. Chedorlaomer (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's official to deny he targeted girls, yet the police states he went for headshots. (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning video games in the lead[edit]

The term "video game player" seems quite out of place in the opening paragraph. I mean, he was also a poker player, a business student, and a gun enthusiast. It just seems like the term is there to be an in-your-face "see, video games are bad" statement. Wouldn't simply "17-year-old male student" be more appropriate? --Hojimachongtalk 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not worth mentioning at all. It definitely doesn't belong in the lead. --OnoremDil 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a quick mention somewhere later in the article, if it is relevant, especially given the heated debate over kids playing video games. But definitely not in the lead. --Hojimachongtalk 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody removed mention of his video game playing as "irrelevant and biased." The news source [2] mentions in detail his game playing, as it "involves killing people to complete missions." Other news articles that may not carry this specific detail will nevertheless bring up the video game possibility. The video game issue receives coverage and controversy after spree shootings, and this shooting has been no exception. I don't mind if it is removed from the lead, but I will not agree to censorship of the material because a user thinks it is "crap" even though the press is sure to mention it. So, I agree with Hojimachong's idea of placing it somewhere in the body of the article. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Now the Times has covered it as well [3]. Why hasn't Wikipedia? Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It also mentions his poker playing, and a friend saying "he was good." Counter-Strike has over 2 million players, I doubt all of them are murderous. Just keep in mind, correlation does not equal causation, and while it may be easier to point a finger immediately, it certainly shouldn't be at the top, and should only be included later in the article if it can be included in a relevant, informative fashion. --Hojimachongtalk 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
and rightly so. The said article does not cite any reliable sources. His computer has been seized by the police and we will find out soon enough if he was or was not playing computer games. Until then "video game player" is speculation. - And still, this does not solve the issue. Playing video games is quite common in that age. If you want it to be mentioned (as soon as there is a reliable source on it!) you can do so in a paragraph the body - not in the head of the article. --The O o (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The quote reads "Few of the clichés about loners morbidly obsessed with apocalyptic internet chat rooms or violent video games seemed to apply to Kretschmer — although police seized his personal computer yesterday." It does not mention Counter-Strike, or any other video games for that matter. --Hojimachongtalk 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
They appear to be looking for the correlation right now. It seems that they may have seized his computer to see if it is true that "few of the clichés about loners morbidly obsessed with apocalyptic internet chat rooms or violent video games seemed to apply to Kretschmer — although police seized his personal computer yesterday." I think that we should be covering this now a little bit, and once the investigation turns up results (for example, confirming that he played violent video games, in accordance with the cliche about this sort of perpetrator), we can cover it more (assuming the press does, which it probably will, judging from past sprees). In any case, we oughtn't pretend that coverage of video game playing is "just another detail" when the news reports on sprees. After all, "In the aftermath of a school shooting in southern Germany that killed at least 16 people and ended in a shootout with police, politicians are calling for tightened gun laws and pointed fingers at the video games and media for promoting what they see as a culture of violence."[4](emphasis mine) Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hojimachong, I am not referring to your Source, rather to the paragraph above yours. Otherwise I would have inserted another ":" --The O o (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC).
The O o, that was not meant as a response to your comment, I merely wished to include the direct quote for the sake of others, who may not wish to dig through an article for the statement. --Hojimachongtalk 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No injured?[edit]

So there were no people injured (and not killed) by gunshots in the school? Every single one of the shots that hit were fatal? Really horrific. (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This German news article (,1518,612732,00.html) says several students were wounded in the shooting (no exact number given). Two of the wounded students died on the way to the hospital. Also, - as already mentioned - two police men were wounded. --Distel82 (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) says: "Acht weitere Kinder und eine Lehrerin wurden verletzt in umliegende Krankenhäuser verbracht." (Another eight children and one female teacher were taken to nearby hospitals.) --Chin tin tin (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Kretschmer merge discussion[edit]

Per Seung-Hui Cho, I do really think the perpetrator should have his own article. Anybody willing to help? Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • And we've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and probably even more on the way that focus directly on him. These should be a really good basis for the article. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Cho's score was 32, twice as much as Tim's. That's why he deserves his own article. (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I redirected the article back here; that's definitely WP:ONEEVENT. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:ONEVENT, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I believe that this event is highly significant, and Tim Kretschmer had a large role in it; therefore, I feel the two different articles are relevant: one to cover the shooting and the aftermath (law changes? new school security?), and another to cover the history of Tim Kretschmer and the (potential) motives for the killings. I'd revert myself, but I'm not a Wiki-admin. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem link to WP:ONEVENT, which links to notabilty people, why I linked to WP:ONEEVENT which links to BLP-issues. So let me quote from there: "If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. I think BLP trumps notability. And I still don't thinkl a different article for the perpetrator is warranted at this time. Lectonar (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Tim definitly needs his own article. This is NOT just another school shooting or shooting at all. Its a trauma for a whole nation. This guy needs his own article.--Judo112 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, Tim is no longer a living person; so I'm not sure why BLP is being used here (except to protect the identity of his parents; but that's a separate topic IMO). Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of substance to the article now, or potential substance in the future, so I would lean towards supporting a redirect. However, taking into account Cho and the Columbine killers, there is precendent that may support keeping this article. In the longterm, I don't see the shooting, as clearly tragic and horrifying as it is, reaching the fame level of the Columbine or (to cite another school based tragedy) Dunblane murders, the latter of which has a single article (ie, not one for the killer). All things considered, I would go for a redirect. Sky83 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Tim Kretschmer is and will likely remain a stub for lack of long-term interest of English-speakers, while Cho's article was developed into a 84kB Good Article. Per WP:SPINOUT or WP:SS, there is no reason to give Kretscher his own article at the moment. Merge or redirect. – sgeureka tc 17:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge for now. There is little content to Tim Kretschmer. If enough material is added about him, then split later. Fences and windows (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge Agree; without the shooting, he wouldn't merit an article of his own, per WP:BLP1E, so for the time being it's not only convenient but also within policy to merge and redirect. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge for now and let's see if the "Perpetrator" section grows enough to deserve its own article. I don't think it will as per Sky83 as there's not as much interest in this incident as there was for Virginia Tech or Columbine. It's comparable to the Jokela school shooting and in that case Auvinen didn't get a separate article. Laurent (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article should be merged. I cannot see this article growing much more and rather than remain a stub forvere merge it with the main article where much of this information is found already. The guy is famous for one reason and one reason only. Arnie Side (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
see also Talk:Tim Kretschmer#Merge? Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. WP:BIO1E. Kittybrewster 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not merge The personality stuff need not bloat the crime article.Alandeus (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

I don't think that Tim's obsession with CS should be reflected in the article. Almost any teenager loves FPS. (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:WEASEL, I believe. I am a teenager, I got lots of teenage friends and almost all of them don't love FPS. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we remove it from this article entirely, and instead mention it in the Tim Kretschmer article. What he did in his own free time isn't directly involved with the shooting -- until someone has sources that prove this was premeditated or practiced ahead of time. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, that was mentioned before there was no his Tim Kretschmer article. Feel free to remove it from here. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First time I write in here but I wanted to say that I think Tim Kretschmer should have his own article. I want to know more about his life and personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is the videogames discusiion. Playing violent videogames is a symptom. by acting against videogames nothing is done against the cause. frustrated guys with a violent mind will find another outlet, not unusually people or animal, or just give one less indication before they act. The correlation between videogames and crime is the same as between this kind of crime and man, testosterone. no need to make it worse then it is. (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember where I read it but for some time it seemd that the information that he played Far Cry 2 on his last evening was actually made up. Does someone have more info on that? -- (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Many media reported he enjoyed playing the video game Counter-Strike and using airsoft guns."[edit]

Can someone rewrite that? "Many media reported" isn't a source, it's in fact rather suggestive. Media also reports that he did not like Counter-Strike much and did not play it often (The cited "source" shows server stats: 27 minutes playing time, you don't find many entries of his steam user ID on google). From what I gather police stated that Counter-Strike was a game amongst others, and by far not his favourite. Currently the article does not reflect that, it suggests the opposite. -- The O o (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the "many media" are given as sources in the three references as examples at the end of the sentence. Alandeus (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mental state and video games[edit]

Oddly, BBC( doesn't mention video games, but..

"The officials also revealed that Kretschmer received psychiatric care in 2008. They said he was meant to continue an out-patient treatment but refused."

About video games: "We seized his computer yesterday evening and analysed it... On it are games that are typical for someone carrying out a mass shooting," Mr Michelfelder said." Yakuzakyuu (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Was he ever diagnosed with any mental disorders? If so, which one(s)? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised to see this kind of nonsense on a Australian news outlet. Australia loves banning stuff doesnt it? Nice way of pushing their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Knew victims?[edit]

Did Kretschmer know any of his victims? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From that it is not denied, (and not confirmed) i get it he might have vaguely recognised them but "known" them surprisingly little. It's a guess tho. Could have to do with blanketing some public emotion instead. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

don´t know, but one of my teachers knew the death techer and one girl of my paraclass is the cousin of one of the vitims (forgot her name) and dirk from my paraclass was in the same tabletennis-club as him. But he wasn´t on the school anymore back them, so I think, he didn´t know the victims —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Krautchan: fake announcement?[edit]

I think that the controversies concerning whether or not the perpetrator announced his massacre on Krautchan should be added. While German yellow paper press claims to have found the notice (Bild Zeitung) it has been established by krautchan that the message is fake. Further Reading:

I don't think we need to join in passing around misinformation. WillOakland (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
For anybody who's interested, [5] explains the hoax. --Hojimachongtalk 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

it should be mentioned. it was a very big thing in germany. (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Type of gun[edit]

"The gun was later identified as a Beretta 92FS." Is this really necessary? I can understand how it was used earlier in the paragraph but this sentence just seems extraeneous. Does anyone object to my removing it?Prussian725 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasts ad for MTV/VIVA?[edit]

Not only MTV/VIVA changed their Program. Radio stations like Fritz [] changed their Program and dont moderate `their planned program. They only play music and give an up-to-date about the ...

The piece of text about MTV/VIVA should removed or be corrected. I only know this particular radio-station and their behavior, but if they changed their Program... Only Mention those two MTV and VIVA (in Germany not very populated) is only an advise, or?

René (Berlin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The man who was shot near the clinic[edit]

The source dont talk about a gardener also some other sources say it was a normal worker there and really not a GARDENER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fired 60 rounds at school[edit]

Did the shooter fire 60 rounds at the building itself, or does this refer to the number of rounds fired on school grounds (or more specifically, in the building itself)? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK he fired 44 rounds at the school, 9 at the asylum and 60 during the shootout with police in Wendlingen. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Interestingly, the English article is more comprehensive than the German one[edit] (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

yes it is. the german article is too "over-summarized". So it reads like Tim K. was a professional marksman with the pistol and played a bit "Conuter-Strike" in real life.-- (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not new that crime related articles are more comprehensive on en: than on de:, I am a German user who often reads articles on en: (but by far not just crime related), and I think it is simply a difference in the "culture" of both. --Marcus Schätzle (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. Same here. I'm German too, and I read articles at least in de and then again in en. -- (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think reading the german article's discussion helps understanding this. Too many unresolved arguments, not enough NPOV yet. -- The O o (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The question is if it's really necessary to dedicate such a big article this murderer - including full name and pictures. That might only might motivate others. Just my two cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The English article is probably more comprehensive for the sheer reason that there are more speakers of English than speakers of German (most Germans can speak English, I believe, but there's a saying that a person who can speak many languages is multilingual, one who can speak two is bilingual, and someone who can speak just one is American), so the English Wikipedia simply has more contributors. There is already consensus here (see Talk:Tim_Kretschmer#Merge.3F) that Kretschmer doesn't need an article of his own, largely because such an article may be overkill for a subject known for only one event. But people who can speak both German and English are welcome to translate any and all of this article for the German Wikipedia, and vice versa. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not the number of speakers; it's the fact that the German article has been protected since day one. They still don't even report the origin of the gun. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of the victims[edit]

Last week I did insert the names of the victims into the article. Then someone deleted them. Since Wikipedia thankfully follows the laws of Florida and not the german ones, why were the victims' names deleted? I think this would be very useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would this be "very useful information"?. Any list of victims of more than a half-dozen becomes dull (unless they are of importance otherwise). Alandeus (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
How about a list of victims, giving the age, gender and profession of each victim, along with the location that they were shot, but omitting the names? That way readers of the article have the details of the killings without there being privacy concerns for the families of those killed. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Mentioning the full names is tasteless. The information is useless for any legitimate purpose; it can only be useful for perfidious uses. The age, gender and profession may provide interesting insight, but the names are too much. -- (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate of Tim Kretschmer[edit]

What is the correct birth date of Tim Kretschmer?? in some sources, it is mentioned July, 26th, 1991. In other sources like this it is mentioned November 6th, 1991. Holger1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

If both have sources that you'd trust further than you could throw them, mention both, with attribution. --Kizor 06:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Table tennis coach account[edit]

I recently added the account of Marko Habijanec, Kretschmer's table tennis coach. I think this is important because Habijanec's full story was covered by the Croatian media, with apparently only bits appearing elsewhere. It is also important for another reason: even without it I wouldn't really buy the video games-violence link, but having read what Habjanec has observed in Kretschmer (and what I've written actually covers only half of it!), it is rather obvious that his behavior was markedly sociopathic even at age 11, years before the shooting. It's easy and tempting to blame the violent video games - they can be banned, while bad parenting can not. GregorB (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Any indication beforehand that he would kill?[edit]

Did Kretchmer say or hint beforehand that he would kill anyone? Was he, prior to embarking on his shooting spree, ever known to be violent, as opposed to merely losing his temper? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

most recent edit[edit]

I'm just curious, is there a reason for the change from "murdered" to "killed"?Prussian725 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suppose it's because "killed" is more neutrally academic; "murdered" is already judgemental. However, according to the definition "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought", it would fit. Alandeus (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Age of Victims[edit]

Nicole N., 17 Chantal Sch., 15 Jacqueline H., 16 Kristin S., 16 Jana Sch., 15 Ibrahim H., 17 Stefanie K., 16 Victorija M., 16 Selina M., 15 Sabrina Schüle (Referendarin), 24 Nina Denise Mayer (teacher), 24 Michaela Köhler (teacher), 26 Franz Just, 57 Denis Puljic, 36 Sigard Wilk, 46

Referendarin means an apprentice teacher. Sorry, my englisch isn't very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Ehrmann (talkcontribs) 12:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Winnenden school shooting. Aervanath (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Albertville-Realschule massacreWinnenden school shooting — Since User:Marksdaman is moving this article like crazy without any discussion, I strongly suggest we move the page back to Winnenden school shooting, which was the original name used and is, in my eyes, just fine. There's absolutely no point in moving it to Winnenden school massacre first and now to Albertville-Realschule massacre. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, back to Winnenden school shooting. Alandeus (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Without an explanation by the moving editor wrt why "Albertville-Realschule massacre" is a more notable/appropriate page name, I support a move back to "Winnenden school shooting". momoricks 03:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photos of the victims and shooter[edit]

There's a picture of the shooter but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap. KevinLuna (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Coded message[edit]

The coded announcement did not "alert the teachers of [sic] the situation". It alerted the teachers to a situation. The teachers would not know what the emergency was.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)