Talk:Columbine High School massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Glamorization

This whole article just makes the whole incident seem glamorous. It should state name of killers, date and number of dead. That is all. Anything else just makes it seem appealing for kids trying to copy it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.45.33 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take out every description of battles fought as well or else people may fight wars in the future. I guess encyclopedias should try to cover up exactly what happened as much as possible --Banime (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's glamourization...facts are facts, and what happened is what happened. After reading this article I don't see anything I read as particularly dramatic. Whether kids want to copy it or not is their own choice; it is not forced upon them by this article in any way. :/ Xx Scala Caeli xX (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline?

i noticed that there's a timeline for the VA Tech shooting, but not this. a separate article of the events before, during, and after the shootings would be a great idea in my opinion. what does everyone else think?Stormy41992 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Stormy41992

There is a timeline in the article by jerald block, titled "Lessons From Columbine: Virtual and Real Rage" available on the website www.jeraldblock.com. It is in the appendix of the article but I have no idea how to take the pdf and upload it.ZookieByTheSea 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts

I was considering a new page. What do you guys think of a page dedicated or link to this one featuring only eyewitness accounts of those who were there in one capacity or another. Never mind what the media said but rather what the children and the families of Colorado remember. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dm2ortiz (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

That wouldn't be considered encyclopedic. I have a strong feeling people will find the article pointless and it would be sent off for deletion quickly, basically, this would mostly be because anything said in such an article is just a restatement of what this article says. I don't think that passing it off as maybe a tribute, or anything like that would work either, as Wikipedia isn't a memorial. The biggest part of it is, that, eyewitness accounts already make up the entire shooting section here, so it wouldn't add anything new to the article, or to the website, but rather just restate the same old things and so it would be considered wasteful. Try it if you want though, but I don't think it'll survive, unless you find some way to make it notable... but if people don't think airline destinations are encyclopedic, i doubt they'll think eyewitness accounts would be either. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, new stuff is generally placed at the bottom of a talkpage. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-christian bias?

I agree that emphasis should be placed on the official version, except, of course, for issues where the cops have an inherent bias, most notably when they discuss their own involvement (especially concerning missed warning signs or SWAT response.) I wrote the Salon article discussed here, and I didn't just pull the revelation about Cassie out of my ass. I spent weeks getting through to investigators, and I was stunned to learn that after sifting through all the testimony and the 911 tapes and talking to all the witnesses--most importantly Emily Wyant, who was under the table right beside Cassie, they were nearly 100% convinced that Cassie never spoke, and the whole thing was a big misunderstanding. So I reported that. It was never my contention, I was reporting that it was the investigators' contention. The item on Cassie was not explicitly sourced in my Salon story, because the cops knew how explosive it was, and no one would go on the record by name--but I had multiple confirmations from highly-placed investigators. I had long conversations about it and knew where they stood. And the story was heavily sourced overall, though I also did not name the source(s) who leaked the passages from Eric Harris' journal and other writings--but his writings have been published now, and they were all correct. Everything in the story has since been disclosed in official documents and has stood up.

And my story was quickly backed up by an excellent piece by Dan Luzadder in the Rocky Mountain News, just two days later. Emily went public in it. (Dan had done an amazing investigation and his editors were holding it for a big series. When the news on Cassie broke, they went with all of it, and they had a lot.) The official report later confirmed all this on Cassie.

The fact that a few students who did not know Cassie somehow were sure that the voice they heard was hers does not make a very convincing case. (There are always witnesses who saw/heard something different than the majority. Investigators do not accept every account as true, they question everyone, question the witnesses--eg, what direction did the voice come from--and match it against physical evidence, like the 911 tape. In this case, they found the small minority opinion that it was Cassie highly unconvincing.

The problem with these arguments is that everyone involved here--including me, of course--has access to only a tiny fraction of the evidence. Unfortunately, I can't interview all the library witnesses, and I surely can't go back and interview them while this was still recent. I can't take them back into the libary to point to things as the cops did, because the library was demolished. On some questions--like the killers' motives--I can now comb through the thousand pages of writings just as they did. I still have limitations there--I still can't watch The Basement Tapes frame by frame over and over as Dr. Fuselier did, for example--but I have access to a lot of information, and I can draw my own conclusions, as can all of you. But on the Cassie question, we are relying on witness testimony and examinations that I can never recreate. At some point, I feel I have to admit to my own limitations and put a certain amount of trust in the investigators, on factual questions like this where where they have 1) access to much more data, 2) no bias and 3) they feel a high degree of certainty.

I think we can and should cite the dispute on the Columbine page--regardless of what Cassie said, her story was believed by millions and her story itself and its impact are significant. But we should also say that the investigators looked into this story, and went through much, much more than any of us will ever have access to, and came to a very definite conclusion: and the conclusion was that Cassie never said it. The reader can choose to believe that the cops got it wrong, but the fact that the people who had access to all the evidence and do this for a living came to a particular conclusion is the most authorative piece of information, and should be cited as the last word.

Davecullen 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen 4-24-07

The following was added a few days ago:

"Several of the victims, who were portrayed as having been killed for their religious beliefs, became a source of inspiration to others, and some lamented the decline of Bible reading in public schools, and society in general, often blaming the tragedy on insufficient government endorsement of Bible reading"

This appears in the 2nd paragraph of the article. I strongly believe it is way too prominent and belongs elsewhere - perhaps in a section label "Columbine and religion." It also needs to be referenced. Finally, Katherine Newman in her book "Rampage" would argue that religous orthodoxy and exclusion on the basis of faith were one of the causes. If we really want to add the paragraph, we should also summarize Newman's (published and well researched) thoughts.ZookieByTheSea 09:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved it today. People are welcome to expand the section, "Religion and Columbine," rename it, delete it, or whatever. Given the amount of interest in this subtopic, I suggest it stay as its own section. It does need to be longer, though, to justify the new header. Also, am I using the proper header, in terms of "level 2 headline"?ZookieByTheSea 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Section entitled Religion and Columbine (currently struck-through) has an obvious pro-christian bias, by ascribing anti-christian motives to the killers, and, through implication, suggesting a lack of religion in American public schools. Gorsak 19:22, 3^rd August 2007 (GMT)

Regardless of whether it's correct or not, it shouldn't be struck-through — either it should be there or it shouldn't. From all I've heard, this definitely belongs, but in order not to be disruptive, I'll remove it, since it can easily be restored if necessary. Nyttend 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Date of the massacre

Well, as you might have heard, one of the shooters asked a student if they believed in God. She said yes. Then the shooter said, " Good you are going to meet him then." Then he shot her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.210.44 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that more than 366 notable events have happened throughout history, isn't it almost a certainty that something must have happened on the day in question? Gorsak 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Gorsak

April 19th is senior skip day. Most of them would not be there on 4/19 so thats also another theory why they could of changed the date. ~timestandsstillx~ 9/28/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timestandsstillx (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And about Rachel Scott?... I heard that Richard Castaldo told his Mom while taken to the hospital that he said Rachel Scott was asked if she believed in God and she said "you know I do" and then I heard somewhere that he had amnesia and could not remember what happened during the incident, but then he was interviewed on Zero Hour. On the 11,000 page report he states he heard talking after he was shot which could of came from Rachel and Dylan/Eric or just talk among Eric and Dylan. ~timestandsstillx~ 9/28/07

The 11,000 page report tends to take precedence over other sources, since it is the most extensive and official. (Also, when you sign your posts on talk pages, use the four tildes - ~~~~. That will automatically add your signature & time. Wildhartlivie 01:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hmmm... I'm gonna go out and say it now before someone reverts the anon or something. I see no real problem with it, but something about it is off to me, when I see it, it just looks wrong, but I see no actual reason for it to not be there. What does everyone else think? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Music Comments

i just smile everytime i hear about bands getting blamed for this shit. if i was in a band getting blamed for this i would say to the media: im going to write songs about whatever i like and you will not lay the guilt of these atrocities on me. where are the gun control laws in your stupid country? where are the parents? where are the friends who knew they were planning these events and didnt rat em out? we have millions of fans and 2 psychos are not going to curb our music production.

man, for a band that loves to generate controversy rammstein was too nice about these accusations. im dissapointed. - user:Avenged Evanfold

Columbine High School Massacre

Hey, i have just read about the massacre, and i just felt awful, my commiserations to everyone. Deepest respects. I dont know what you've been through, but i do know that it must of been a horrible experience. Hope you've all coped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.20.206 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah...uh, how many Columbine survivors are Wikipedia users and active readers and editors of this talk page? And to this guy here...how could you have just heard about it? It's not like it happened a few weeks ago, man. It's been eight years. VolatileChemical 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked the same question when I saw this, but think about it. Internet use among 10 year olds is far more widespread now than it was among 18 year olds ten years ago. I'm not saying this is the case in the IP, but it is easily possible that there is a sizable group of people online and on Wikipedia specifically that were born too later to know about Columbine as it happened. Just wait til 2010 when we start getting the same responses about 9/11. --Golbez 06:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I vaugely remember something about this as it happened when I was 10. I certainly didn't use the Internet much then and because it's all died down, I probably wouldn't have found out about it for years to come if I hadn't had to watch "Elephant" for class. I agree with the first comment, btw. Ben ^(talk) 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Massacre??

I think that it is rather POV to title this article the Columbine High School Massacre. The word massacre seems to have some negative connotation, at least from my understanding of the definiton of [1] from Wiktionary. Also, according to this previous discussion, calling the shooters "murderers" is POV. Following that example, the term "massacre" should also be deemed POV as well.

Pointlessness 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a suggestion? Also, I'm not sure why such an incident shouldn't have a negative connotation. --Golbez 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, massacre's initial and main definition is the act or an instance of killing a large number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty. The article's title, which has been its original title four years, was probably selected to match the common connotation from which this event is usually reffered to in the media. The definition I just gave (which I took from merriam-webster), does fit the event, so that's why the media uses it, and it is also the common wording used when the event is refered to by the majority of people, it is not just a selective wording used to portray the event in a more dramatic tone as the word murderer would be. Also, there are several articles throughout Wikipedia using that title due to the fact the word's main definition also matches the event, including: Erfurt massacre, Port Arthur massacre, Stockton massacre, Dunblane massacre, École Polytechnique massacre, and San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. Basically, the word "massacre" simply implies an instance of random mass killing of helpless people, and shouldn't make any dramatic implications even if the word tends to be used that way in common descriptions. "Shooting", which would be the best alternate here, has a basic definition that the event is "one person shooting another"... sort of like, "a shooting in my neighborhood", if I told you that you wouldn't automatically think that there's 15 people dead, but if I said a massacre, you would. The Dawson College shooting, in which only one person died, points this difference out. Thus, the wording fits fine in my opinion. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

I move the CCTV still of Eric and Dylan in the cafeteria become the new image in the infobox! This image is much more well-known and more reproduced than the one in place, and this image shows the actual incident in progress, as opposed to the one of the West Entrance, which shows the aftermath of the event. Look on the page of 9/11. Is the image in that infobox the aftermath of the thing, sifting through the rubble and such, or is it an in media res photo of the towers as they burn? Yes, it's the second one! And of course the image currently in this infobox, of the evacuation, can be moved to "the shooting ends" or maybe even the bottom of "suicide of the shooters". Anyone else agree with me? Please? VolatileChemical 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good idea to move the image, but the CCTV image matches the section it's in... go ahead and change it though, i think it's fine, but where would the current lead image go? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I say keep the one we have, the main part of Columbine (apart from the killings) was the terror it caused, and that is illustrated far better in the pic we have now than a picture of the two killers. --Golbez 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait--the main part of September 11th was the aftermath, too. But we don't have a picture of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero, no, we have the flaming towers! Who cares what made Columbine notable? It doesn't matter that it's known for it's aftermath. An infobox should include an image of a thing, not what that thing is known for. As long as you have this current image in the Columbine infobox, you might as well replace the infobox image on George Lucas' page for a Star Wars poster, or replace the image on King John I's infobox with a picture of the Magna Carta. Who are we to say that the after-effect of Columbine is more important than the event in and of itself? I still insist we change the images; if not, we are dragging down the encyclopedic value of this entire article. VolatileChemical 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Event?

I can see that the tag at the top of the article which wrongly states this is a current event is a part of the infobox on terrorist attacks - could someone who knows more than me re-write the box so it doesn't include a 'current event' notice? Paulfp 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do so. Columbine has long been over. let me do that real quick. Karrmann 20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Death Toll

Columbine is the third deadliest shooting in US history, not the second. The second deadliest occurred at the University of Texas in 1966, when 16 people were killed.

Kelcan21 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)kelcan21

Actually Columbine is the 2nd deadliest school shooting. according to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html

"Joseph Whitman, a 25-year-old ex-Marine, killed 13 people on the University of Texas campus. He was killed by police."

That would make the death toll 13 and if you include the killer 14 (although I wouldn't because he was shot by police)

In Columbine 12 students were killed and then the shooters killed themselves. Altogether 14 students were killed.

I also think the Bath School Massacre should still be mentioned as the deadliest school massacre since it has the highest fatality count.

[User:Gismodergy|Gismodergy]] 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Gismodergy

Actually 15 were killed at Columbine, 13 victims and 2 killers. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest HIGH School Shooting

I think that it should be mentioned that Columbine is the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history, as well as, 3rd deadliest school shooting. LaKaMa113 22:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No point in making any special notes for it, it's the third deadliest shooting, and that is that... we don't have to get so overly-specific, Columbine is still just as horrible regardless of how much more impacting the other two shootings were. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

what about today's shootings at virginia tech where 33 people died? doesn't that affect columbine's ranking as 3rd deadliest shooting? 69.140.237.94 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... i think you've misread this discussion. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed heavy metal music

The bands having some connection to the shooting - whether they had a real connection or not - were KMFDM, RAMMSTEIN and MARILYN MANSON. "Industrial rock/music", not heavy metal.--Danteferno 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, RAMMSTEIN and especially KMFDM were their too favorite groups, MARILYN MANSON was not (yet he faced the most criticism). I have yet to find Marilyn even mentioned by the killers in their writings.

Nine Inch Nails appears in their various writings quite a bit, but not quite to the level of the first two bands. The band (which is basically just Trent Reznor) is usually referred to as NIN, occasionally as Trent Reznor or just Trent. Dylan, especially cites them, NIN; eg, he wrote the entire lyrics to Perfect Drug and Closer in his daytimer one day, and The Downward Spiral comes up incessantly in his journal. He makes a little drawing out of it. Eric quotes NIN too, and drew an NIN in Dylan's yearbook, but it's much less frequent.

Other groups are frequently mentioned, too, including Orbital, but again, it's a big drop to frequency of that third tier.

(Question: Is "+1ER" or perhaps "+lER" a band name? Eric writes it a lot, but I can't find a reference (google interprets the + as a command, which makes it harder.)

Davecullen 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen

1^er is French for 1^st (1°), but who knows?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see the lyrics removed or simply moved to another section. Does not add anything to the motives section. I refer to the section with this:

We are the nobodies want to be somebodies We're dead, you know just who we are Some children died the other day, We fed machines and then we prayed, Puked up and down in morbid faith, You should have seen the ratings that day

ZookieByTheSea 09:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Motive

Well it seems there motive was bullying. A lot of people picked on them, as you can see from their journals. Is there anyway we can put this in the little motive box? Kblavie 02:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The motive is one, if not the most, divisive and controversial issue of the entire event. There's a huge amount of possible motives, each with hugely debatable credibility. Limiting the motive for Columbine to bullying would be like limiting Hitler's motive for the Holocaust to not liking Jews' curly hair. VolatileChemical 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VolatileChemical. Not only is it only one possible explanation, it is NOT supported by their journals or videos. I have spent much of the past eight years writing about Columbine for several publications, and writing a book on it for Dutton (Penguin). I have studied their journals closely, and spent hundreds of hours interviewing authorities on the case, and I don't believe either one ever mentions the word once in their journals. (One of my sources said he recalled it coming up one time in one of their many writings or videos, but I've yet to find it.) And they were not using synonyms either. Eric makes a few short references to being made fun of, mainly for his looks, which he says he also hates. But their tone overall is quite the opposite of feeling picked on--they see themselves more as bulliers than bullied.

The bully myth was created in the first days after Columbine, long before the killers' journals or videos had come to light. But you can now read them here: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/900columbinedocs.pdf

Eric's begins on p. 84.

Davecullen 03:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen

Number of Fatalities

I've watched people continually change the number of fatalities here, some choosing to remove the two shooters from the total then others re-adding it later. There's now a "|perpetrator deaths = 2" section, which doesn't even show on the main page itself as it is not a valid field of the 'Terrorist Attack' infobox template. What gives? I see nothing wrong with "Fatalities 13 (15 including the perpetrators)", so I've added that back.

Can we agree on a format here, because the switches back and forth are becoming stupid. I've checked over several days now and each time its been something different. Surely "Fatalities 13 (15 including the perpetrators)" is acceptable, as it documents the number killed separately and provides information, at a glance, that the two perpetrators died also while keeping them separate from those killed at their hands.

Illusive Formula 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not this format -- "Fatalities: 15 (13 victims and 2 perpetrators)"? The number of fatalities is indeed 15 (not 13), and the parenthetical information is just that -- parenthetical -- and used to clarify the number 15. (JosephASpadaro 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Why would you include the shooters however as fatalities? They weren't killed in their attack. They were killed by suicide after the massacre. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because, misguided as they were, (a) their deaths were part of the massacre and (b) they were human life.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image of the dead shooters

This image was uploaded today. I think it is not appropriate to appear in the article, so I will remove it. Feel free to comment. --Tone 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I know wikipedia isn't censored, but this image seems completely unnecesary.

Seraphim Whipp 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with no offense intended. Any and all images that tell the story should be included. Yeah, little heathens will spread it everywhere and momma's little boy may have a nightmare (though movies and tv show worse these days), but lets not censor an article just because part of makes us upset. My 2 cents. Chicken McFuggits (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. However, it's not necessary to show a picture of the shooters after they were dead. We all know they are dead, there are copies of the image all over the place, there are certainly issues with copyright on some photos, it's sensationalizing, and I suppose one overriding question would be was it worth printing in the press at the time. To my recollection, no, it was not. It's not censorship, but it appears it is consensus not to include it. We don't have to include every picture that was ever taken of every incident that ever occurred, and in this case, it doesn't enhance the article. That would be the reasoning behind not including it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

pullitezer image

Sameone (User:Sarah Goldberg) had uploaded a new image over the pullitzer winning image featured on this page. I have reverted the edit. I'm surprised though that no one noticed it for over 2 months. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No longer a featured article...

What made this artical fall below "featured article standards" anymore? Just wondering. Dontworry behappy 10:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, after a couple months I finally found out why. Dontworry behappy 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Private individuals

The injured survivors are, for the most part, private individuals who have lives to lead. I'd like to suggest that we consider removing their names where at all possible, in order to avoid this article coming up in search engine results on their names. and basically following them around for the rest of their lives. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the shooters site still up?

I think it should be linked.

It's probably been dead for 8 years now. --Golbez 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes enough publicity to the shooters already. Miskin 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening photo

Hi , I think the opening photo of the staircase should be removed because it show a body of one of the victims . Would you want someone to be looking at your body on the pavement when your dead ? Please think about this . Thanks for the time.

I agree, why not change it to a picture of the front of the school/something along those lines? I don't think this article should have any pictures of bodies in it. Just an opinion, though. Dontworry behappy 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is documenting the event. It may seem distasteful but there is nearly nothing distinguishable on the body. 82.29.82.118 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

References - help needed

I just added a link to Block's paper from his site. It is brand new, peer-reviewed, very important, and adds LOTS of info about the massacre. It is a pdf. No idea how to strip away the "frame" or to make the link more tidy. I emailed him and he indicated it was alright to do so but also did not know how to help. Also the format of the reference seems messed up. I could use some help. Finally, I added some major edits to the page on the basis of the article from an "unsigned" account yesterday. Sorry, new to wiki so not sure if I'm doing all this correctly. ZookieByTheSea 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it might be a software issue, it doesn't seem to like that URL. --Golbez 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cho and Columbine

I scaled back an edit that someone made claiming their is little link between cho and columbine. We really don't know that yet - we should at least wait for the v. tech. investigative report to be issued. ZookieByTheSea 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait. Although I think it's clear that Cho differs immensely from Klebold and Harris, and Harris and Klebold really differed from each other. The only thing very similar about Cho and Columbine is that is was an attack on a campus, many were killed, and Cho just happened to mention the Columbine shooters in his video he made. I don't see a reason to compare them other than those. Dontworry behappy 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Brooks Brown

I added the quote from Brown's book - the only warning that Harris is reported to have given. Note that depending on where you read, this quote will vary. I figure the most accurate source would be Brown himself. The quote does not differ in a very significant way from other sources (police, reporters, etc.).

Also, not sure I formatted the reference correctly. I wish there were a tool (firefox plugin?)to use to insert refs into wiki. Probably is but I just don't know about it. ZookieByTheSea 09:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the change in the quote. Just wanted to note that the quote I inserted was taken from the 30 Apr 1999 CNN special article They Hid It Well. I put in a book citation for the Brown book. You might want to go in and add the page number of the quote you used. Just look at the reference, there's a page= space. You should be able to book citations templates at Template:Cite_book. Wildhartlivie 10:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Xlink cleanup

I think the external links section needs some cleanup. Currently, it's a grab-bag of a bunch of sites that are either a) used as sources, or attempting that or b) provide additional information beyond the scope of the article. Sites that are used as references should be put to a separate references section. Either way, as it stands, the external links section is a Scary Wall of Links - something should be done about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes section

I'm a little concerned that the single note which is reference for so many facts in this article is a circular reference. The note is a link to a stub for "Columbine". The Final Report. No. 9, season 1. That article gives no information regarding this episode whatsoever, and going to the webpage for this show also gives no information whatsoever regarding Columbine beyond a brief paragraph. References need to be checkable, and thus nearly 30 facts are not. There must be other places (The 11000 page report or the Jeff. Co. Sheriff's report) that support these items. Would appreciate some help in clarifying this. Wildhartlivie 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Decoy

The fact that Klebold and Harris were caught so quickly in 1998 makes it look as thouigh a decoy was in use. The stolen items are variously said to have been tools and a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The police report says tools. And we don't need conspiracy theories renewed on this. Wildhartlivie 12:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What did their shirts say?

I know this seems irrelevant, but I heard a rumor that one of the shooters had a shirt saying "Natural selection." The rumor claimed that it was the belief in evolution that led the murderers to believe that they and everyone else had no value, and that they could take it out on other people like that.

What did their shirts say?

I know this seems irrelevant, but I heard a rumor that one of the shooters had a shirt saying "Natural selection." The rumor claimed that it was the belief in evolution that led the murderers to believe that they and everyone else had no value, and that they could take it out on other people like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.219.15 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric Harris wore a t-shirt with 'Natural Selection' on it, Dylan with 'Wrath'. Harris did have some belief in Darwinism and that if he removed somebody's life that would be natural selection as like when he stole the computer gear from the van which he referred to as 'Natural Selection'. 82.29.82.118 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Today, an anonymous editor completely reworked the shooting sections from ones with subheadings, including victims boxes and references, to one huge paragraph with no victims boxes and all the references therein removed. I have reverted back to the way it was. I noted that a major revision like that needs to first be discussed here. (Hopefully, someone can educate me on how to simply revert to an earlier revision without having to go through a list of undos.) Wildhartlivie 02:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

School Security Guard

I've never found any information on why the School Security Guard did not fire his weapon. Does anyone know what happened? He's quoted elsewhere as having reported the killings, but no mention of his failure to engage the killers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.179.245 (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he did fire his weapon several times --Banime (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He did, several times. Thought he had hit Harris, who was returning fire. Did not, though -- narrowly missed. 71.193.205.14 (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

UTC time wrong

I'm unable to edit, but the article says UTC-6, whereas mountain time is UTC-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.4.9 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Standard Time is, yes. This attack took place during Daylight Savings time, during which time Mountain was UTC-6. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit reverted

I added the following edit: "John Lott conjectured that because Klebold followed and openly opposed Colorado legislation permitting concealed handguns [on school property], April 20th was chosen because it was the day scheduled for the legislators to vote on this law.[2]" User:Wildhartlivie reverted this edit with the following description: "Reverted good faith edits by Connelly; Article says it was a great coincidence, period." A relevant quotation from the article cited, as written by John Lott, goes as follows:

"Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it. No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill."

First, due to "no wonder" and "it is quite a coincidence," I interpreted the last sentence as sarcasm. From the general tone and context of the article, I thought my edit added materially to the article in a small way, because I didn't know that Klebold opposed this law. Although the connection with April 20th is speculative at best, and may fall below the threshold of being merely trivia, and so perhaps that should not have been added to the article. What do you think? - Connelly (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple reasons why I thought this wasn't germane to the article. One point is that I'm not at all clear on what Lott was trying to say with his commentary. Was he implying it was a statement Klebold was trying to make about the legislation? There isn't anything in the reams of material I read about Dylan Klebold that addressed this legislation, and, as it was described, any connection between what date was chosen for the attack and legislation is just conjecture, and Lott's commentary wasn't even completely clear on that. Klebold did a lot of contradictory things during that time - including visiting a college and going through the motions of applying. As we see, none of it meant anything. I am convinced it was just an ironic coincidence. The thing about commentators and writers is that they often seem to seize on the smallest of material and construe it with meaning. In Lott's article, there is a link to a 1999 New York Times article which has the sole following quote as support for his "strong" opposition and "openly talk(ing) about it." The paragraph in the article being referenced says:

The other father prided himself on being his son's soul mate. They had just spent five days visiting the Arizona campus where the teen-ager planned to enroll in the fall, and recently discussed their shared opposition to a bill in the state legislature that would have made it easier to carry concealed weapons.[3]

I think it's quite a stretch for Lott to go from that sole sentence to even the backhanded implication that the date was chosen because it was in conjunction with a supposed vote on legislation (which isn't mentioned in the article), or even to say that he was closely following it. Given that Lott's comment was buried in a story about a totally unrelated shooting in another state, under different circumstances, it seems to be an attempt to draw a connection where one didn't exist. His argument seems to be pointed toward citizens carrying concealed weapons, which, ostensibly, would have meant the shooting wouldn't have occurred. That's a lot of conjecture. In any case, it was a stray statement in an unrelated commentary that just seemed too far afield for inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was careless. A better source than Lott is needed to discuss any of this. Thanks and sorry for wasting your time. - Connelly (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by The Matrix?

Am I the only one who noticed all of the parallels this event holds with the famous lobby scene from The Matrix? Machine pistols, duffel bags full of bombs, obviously the trench coats. Add that to the fact that the movie came out only a month before the shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukesed (talk • contribs) 05:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the talk page explanation above which cautions against using these pages to discuss things besides improvements to the article. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They were planning the attack a year before it happened. The Matrix came out 3 weeks before the shooting, so I doubt it had any impact. Ijustwantaaccount (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullying and Depression

Why has no one pointed out that they might ahve been outcasts, been bullied or in bouts of depression before the event? Jackpot Den (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might scroll down to Columbine High School massacre#Aftermath and the search for rationale|here]] for some discussion on that and check the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: List of victims

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to gain community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims of events on Wikipedia. As this page is now the redirect for Victims of the Columbine massacre (recently, and in my mind, appropriately deleted) I felt it was appropriate to inform you all of its existance. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a place called Columbine, Colorado. The school is located in Littleton, Colorado, not Columbine.Dancer447 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take it up at the Columbine, Colorado article. Phiwum (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Scott

If the shooters were on the steps of the west entrance, and Rachel was eating lunch on the grass to the left, and she was killed instantly from the shots how could they have asked her if she believed in God? Also, on Rachel's wiki article it says Richard denied saying she was asked that question, but this one says he said they mocked her for her faith and killed her, which is correct? I just don't get how they could have said anything to her if they shot her from a distance and she died instantly. Also, according to the official report the shooters didn't even walk over to where she was. Landon1980 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentences that addressed whether Castaldo heard/said anything about this question. Otherwise, the rest of the paragraph addresses the question as a rumor that has not been proven or disproven. The reasoning about the distance from the shooters/where they walked is moot in regards to a rumor and would be speculation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How would it be speculation? The authorities know for 100% certain that the shooters didn't walk over there where they were. On top of that she died instantly from the gunshots fired from the top of the steps according to the autopsy and this article. So if she died instantly, and they didn't even go over there how is this speculation? Isn't that WP:COMMON? I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't get how it hasn't been proven false or true when it isn't possible for the rumor to be true. The only thing possible is they screamed the question to her dead body from a distance of around 40-50 yards. Landon1980 (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy, in the absence of sources which specifically address the subject, it is speculative and synthesis. You can't take a source saying the shooters were there, another saying she died suddenly, and combining them to refute what is ultimately described as a rumor. It's a matter of sourcing and verifiability. In the huge reams of material, with contradictions in eyewitness recall, one can't reliably prove a lot of things in respect to this particular event. A good example of that is Cassie Bernall. Some people swear to this day she was asked if she believed in God. Others swear to this day it was not her. What you are wanting to do is refute a rumor, which is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no contradictions in eyewitness recall, Richard Castaldo is the only witness. All the other witnesses just witnessed that the shooters didn't even walk over there, everyone agrees that the shooters didn't walk over there, and this is confirmed by one of the outside cams. I ask you again, if she died from the shots they fired from 40 yards away how did the shooters ask her if she believed in God, especially if they never even went over there? As for Cassie Bernall, there are no witnesses that say she was asked that question, the one that did mistook Valeen Schnurr's voice for Cassie's. So even if something is obvious, and technically impossible the source must say "she wasn't asked that question" Why does wp common even exist then. If an article says "rumor has it person "a" sit on a rock in Austin, Texas and peeled an apple: To refute that claim I can't use a source saying 'person a' was without a doubt, 100% for certain in Detroit, Michigan during the time of the alleged 'apple peeling'? The way the article is written now makes it impossible for the rumor to be true, it says she died instantly from the 4 shots fired from the top of the staircase. Landon1980 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue that WP:Common addresses. WP:Common covers things like "the sky is blue," not the interpretation of 10,000 pages of police and investigative reports. It would take a bit of time to go through all of those sources to craft an argument over this, and at this point, I simply don't have the time to do that. Meanwhile, Richard Castaldo did contradict himself, so it isn't clear whether or not it was said. What outside cam, and where would one find this video? If you have distinct, linkable sources that prove your points, by all means, post them here, but don't synthesize conclusions. Your arguments all need to be verified by sourcing, this isn't a forum to determine what was or wasn't accurate in all of those pages. Also, the first source who stated that Cassie Bernall was asked, later realized he was mistaken, but he wasn't the only one who said it was Bernall. There is an entire faith movement still based on her saying yes. It would behoove you to address the comment directly below, left by JGHowes, which references the source found here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were talking about this article, and that we already knew what the rumor was. How exactly is responding to a 6 year old link to the rumor going to "behoove" me? You never answered my question, according to this article she was shot from a distance and died instantly, so how is the rumor possible? Landon1980 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue debating this ad nauseum. The link posted by JGHowes is a reference in the Rachel Scott article that says she was first shot in the leg, then the shooter walked over and shot her in the head. This is not at all about whether that did or did not happen in the case. It is about a rumor, and by definition, a rumor does not have to be possible, or true, to exist. The source posted by JGHowes could be a source of a rumor continuing. If it is true, from your post below, that other people said Castaldo said this, would definitely be a source of a rumor. Whether Castaldo did, or did not, contradict himself, or if he contradicted other people doesn't matter. What matters is that it was said she was asked, and this is what is mentioned in this article. There is no point in proving that it wasn't possible for it to have happened. It doesn't have to be possible for it to have happened for a rumor to say it. It isn't within the scope of an article to examine the possibility, or the veracity, of a rumor. If you want to change the article, then bring a source that says the rumor never existed. Anything beyond that is analysis and synthesis and doesn't belong in an article on Wikipedia. There is no place to lay the foundation for a case to disprove a rumor in an encyclopedia article. This is the point. Not whether it is possible or not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The source cited at Rachel Scott reported that the first shot wounded her in the leg. One of the shooters then approached her and fired a second, fatal shot to the head at point-blank range. JGHowes ^talk - 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This report from the Jefferson county PD describes the shooters every move. It shows where the shooters were, and where Rachel and Richard were. Read the report, you will see they didn't even walk over there. Also, can you show me an example of Richard contradicting himself? I thought it was other people saying he said this, and that he denied ever saying that. Landon1980 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. None of this is relevant to the existence of a rumor, nor is an encyclopedia article the place to lay foundation to refute a rumor. A rumor is a rumor. True or not. Please don't split the discussion in half. Respond above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article can mention the rumor, why can't it say it is impossible for the rumor to be true? There is no policy that says the article couldn't mention the unlikelihood of the rumor being true based on the fact that the shooters never walked over there. You act is if you are the one that decides what the article can and cannot say, you do not own this article in any way. My opinion is valued as much as yours. The Cassie Bernall article makes the rumor known, then goes on and explains how it is very unlikely to have ever happened. Why can't this one do the same? Landon1980 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before going any further, I want to remind you of Wikipedia tenets, including assuming good faith, proper ettiquette and civility. You have no reason to make accusations of ownership issues with me, because I disagree with the points you are trying to make. On the other hand, I've worked a great deal on sourcing, and have dealt with the insertion of what amounts to vandalism and crap from time to time, so I do have an interest in the article. Your comparison has one basic problem. The Bernall article discusses initial reports that she was asked this question, then goes on to cite a specifically published secondary source that specifically addresses whether the exchange took place. That is qualitatively different than saying "this is a rumor and it can't have happened because..." without sourcing. Can you directly cite a secondary source that addresses this question? If you can't, then adding that it is your observation that this couldn't have happened, is, again, speculation and synthesis on your part. And there are direct Wikipedia policies that prohibit that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then answer my question, how is the rumor possible if we know for certain the shooters never walked over there. Putting in the article the shooters never walked over there would not be my observation, or any original research on my part. I didn't realize that you needed a source to verify something that is impossible. If this isn't like the sky being blue then tell me one possible way the rumor could be true if the shooters never even walked over there, and if she died instantly from the shots fired from a distance. Landon1980 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, a rumor is possible because it exists. Rumors do not have to be true to exist. You are advocating two separate things here. One is that the rumor can't exist. The other is that it didn't happen. Not the same thing. You can't put in the article that the rumor doesn't exist because it does, and there is a link in the Rachel Scott article that says it does. And the fact is that you can't publish a comment in an encyclopedia article to establish that something didn't happen without sources to support it. The only thing you can do to the article in regard to the rumor is remove the portion of the sentence that says it has never been proven or disproven, but you can't set out to disprove it without sources. How much clearer can that be made? Meanwhile, I asked you where one might find either the video or the description of it from an outside cam, that shows that Scott wasn't approached, which you said proves your point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is it buddy? According to you the surveillance footage would be useless because it doesn't address the question, all the footage proves, like the official report is that the shooters didn't walk over there. You are putting words in my mouth, I never said the rumor did not exist. There is no policy that prohibits me putting after the 'never proven true or false sentence' "However, according to the official investigation of the Jefferson county PD... and go on to tell the shooters steps after firing the shots at Rachel and Richard from the staircase. Landon1980 (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"And the fact is that you can't publish a comment in an encyclopedia article to establish that something didn't happen without sources to support it." Explain to me how a source which explains how the shooters shot her from a distance, and showing the shooters next moves were not walking over there does not support the rumor didn't happen? Even the article says the 4 shots from the staircase killed her instantly, and that must be sourced with you analyzing everyones edits. Landon1980 (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, do not disrespect me, and do not address me in a manner that conveys disrespect, such as "Which is it buddy?" I'm not asking for the surveillance footage to address the article question, I just want to know where one would access this, since you said it exists. I've seen surveillance clips, but never from the outside. I just want to see where the outside clips are. It would be much more instructive, since the only pictures I've seen published from the outside of the building, at anytime, were shot by photographers and tv crews.

Perhaps you should read what you are typing, because you first say "I never said the rumor did not exist" and then in the next post say "Explain... how... (this) does not support the rumor didn't happen." The RUMOR happened. What you are wanting to prove in the article, through synthesis, is that Rachel Scott was not spoken to or questioned by Harris or Klebold. Unless you can come up with an outside source that addresses this, you cannot synthesize that Blah was here, and Bleh was there, and she was there, thus they did not speak to her. Again, and for the last time, if you want to remove the part of the statement that says "This rumor has never been proven false or true" then fine. That's acceptable per policy. But to come in and state that they couldn't have spoken to her because they were here and she was there, without a source that explicitly states this (as in the source on the Cassie Bernall article) makes it synthesis. You are drawing a conclusion without an explicit source for that conclusion. That constitutes original research. That's not nearly as difficult to understand as you seem to think it is.

Another point is this. The statement you're bursting a vessel over exists after this: Many rumors swirled regarding the causes of the rampage, including the possible targeting of Christians. One such rumor was that the shooters first asked Scott if she believed in God, then killed her after she answered "you know I do." There is nothing in that statement that requires disproof of an occurrence. It is there to serve as an example of the rumors that were going around at the time. It doesn't require qualification or refutation. It's an example. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you knew what the rumor was. I said the rumor did not happen, not that it did not exist. Once again, which policy prohibits me from putting after the rumor: However, according to the Jefferson county PD, after firing shots at... they... then show their next steps? I do have a source that would explicitly verify that sentence. Landon1980 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do know what the rumor was, I restated it as a quote above. Let me clarify for you how what you are advocating should be worded: What the rumor said happened did not happen. If that's what you are advocating, then it requires a specific source, an outside writer who looked at the events and published conclusions that the incident did not, or could not have, occurred. Just as the citation in the Cassie Bernall article does. A source that says they shot and then walked somewhere doesn't explicitly disprove the rumor. Without a source that has done that, to draw a conclusion about it is synthesis, and is beyond the scope of the article. WP:Verify says clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Can you do that? And again, I really would like to see the surveillance cam footage from outside the school that you said exists. Where can one find it, or find material that discusses the outside surveillance camera? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop patronizing me! You do not decide how I write, or how I word my sentences. Everyone knows the rumor existed, I thought we were past that. I honestly thought you would be smart enough to figure out that by me saying the rumor didn't happen, that I meant she was not asked if she believed in God and shot for saying yes. I was under the impression this conversation was about the rumor, I didn't know we were arguing the existence of the rumor. Landon1980 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not decide how you write, you do that, although how you write appears to lead to misunderstandings because you do not make your position clear when you don't say what you mean. Again, and for the last time, contain your contentiousness and adhere to WP:Civil and WP:Etiquette. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A source that explicitly says the shooters next moves were not approaching her does disprove the rumor. What other possible conclusion could one draw from that? Can you think of one possible way the rumor could be true if she died instantly and they never approached her? Point out one other conclusion one could arrive at, just one. You need to understand that you do not have to agree with something before the content can be added. You still have yet to answer my question: What policy prohibits me from sating the rumor and using the source JGHowes provided, then stating what happened according to the Jefferson county PD? You show me a policy that prohibits this and I'll shut up. Landon1980 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy is WP:NOR, which prohibits synthesizing a conclusion from sources which do not specifically draw that conclusion. As I have said consistently throughout this, any sources that don't draw this conclusion in writing aren't going to support this, and there are cautions in Wikipedia about using primary sources, which states Primary sources - writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic... should be not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. I have also said that it doesn't matter, in the context it is presented in this article, whether it is true or not true. This mention of that rumor is in the article as an example of rumors that circulated. There is no place in policy to synthesize a refutation of the rumor and it is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article to do so. If the source JGHowes provided is the Jefferson County Library archives, those are, for the most part, primary sources.

And to reiterate, I really would like to see the surveillance cam footage from outside the school that you said exists. Where can one find it, or find material that discusses the outside surveillance camera? Or are you wrong about that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are apparently not reading my comments, there is no original research in what I am wanting to do. All I want to do is state the rumor, then in the next sentence say according to Jefferson county PD...then go on to say what they say happened. I'm not saying the rumor is false or true, it is just showing two examples of what is said to have happened. What is the original research in that? I have sources to verify every word of what I want to add. I'm going to put it in there, the fact is you do not have to agree with it. I'm not willing to edit war over this, but the only problem here seems to be you not agreeing with me. This talk page is for talking about the article, not where you can find video footage that you want to see. There is no place you can watch the footage, but it is part of the evidence analyzed by authorities during the investigation. Columbine had many outside cams at the time of the shooting. Landon1980 (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It remains to be seen whether what you may decide to add will meet the requirements for WP:RS and WP:NOR. If it doesn't, it will be removed. You may not want to edit war, but you didn't hesitate to waste two days in harping about why a rumor must be proven wrong, when it was only given as an example of a rumor spread about the event.

As for the surveillance camera footage, at no time did I say I wanted to watch it. But you claimed it supports your position and you first mentioned it in this discussion, you surely know where such analysis is found, so that the rest of us can read it for ourselves. I'm simply asking for you to provide a website link or at least a location, perhaps in one of the huge reams of reports released, where one might find either the footage from the cameras, or where one would actually find the analysis of it by authorities. It's funny, I've read a huge amount of the evidence material, and I do not recall a single mention of an outdoor surveillance or security camera. With so much emphasis on the small amount of tape available from the cafeteria, it would seem logical, if there was outdoor security footage, it would have been quite prominent in the news and subsequent reports, yet on the "Findings of the Outside Team" page, the only mention of videotape is of what is observed on the indoor cafeteria tape while the shooters were outside. That would have been an excellent place for the movement of the shooters, as observed on outside tapes, to be mentioned, wouldn't it? So again, since you assert knowledge of it, and how it supports your contention, where does one find discussion of outside tapes? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should make up your mind, the video footage is like the official report, it doesn't explicitly address the rumor, it just shows the shooters didn't walk over there. We don't need more evidence for that, it is a fact that the shooters didn't approach them. Will you show me the original research in the two sentences I wish to add? I just want to add pretty much word for word what the two sources say happened; where is the OR? I think you may need to read over the original research policy, it would appear you have the wrong idea of what OR is. OR would be saying "the rumor has been proven false, or it has been proven true" when the source doesn't explicitly say that. I am drawing no conclusions here. Landon1980 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning your point about surveillance footage from the outside of the school because I can find no where that there is such footage. It's not in the 11000 page report, it's not on the Jefferson County Library or Sheriff's Department sites, in fact, there is no mention anywhere of outside footage from security cameras anywhere. You made the statement that it exists and said what it shows. So where is there anywhere that even mentions the tape? If you are mistaken about that tape, just say so. Adhering to your contention about this tape makes me skeptical about what you say.

And I've read the OR policy, I know it explicitly, and I know what it tacitly implies. It occurs to me that rather than waste your time going back and forth on this, you could have already have written your change. You're wasting my time, kid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL before continuing. Landon1980 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need. You can't back up what you said about the tape and you are wasting my time. But hey, it was a good run, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing changes to the article, and again, please review WP:CIVIL before continuing editing. Landon1980 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Landon, try to understand, I'm done debating this with you. There is nothing incivil in stating that you made certain claims about sources existing to back your position, and when asked for them, you wouldn't, or couldn't, produce them. The debate is finished. Whatever you add to the article will have to meet WP policies for inclusion. But if you want the last word, feel free. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that prohibits what I want to add, and you know that. Calling someone kid, and 'clarifying how they should write' and telling them they are 'wasting your time' and acting like I'm too stupid to understand something is in fact uncivil. You do not own this article, as long as the content I add meets the criteria set by wikipedia for inclusion there is nothing you can do about it. I asked you to point out the original research in the content I wish to add and you can't, that is because there is none. I have sources that explicitly verify word for word the content I wish to add. You said the video footage would be useless because it doesn't address the question. I already have sources to support my take on this. This talk page isn't a vessel for you to find things for your own personal pleasure, it is for discussing improvements to the article. Landon1980 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any incivility in that is a matter of personal perception. WP:CIVIL is pretty clear in what constitutes incivility, and those comments don't meet that criteria. But if that's how you perceive it, then there are issues with your postings as well, Landon1980. You have accused the other editor twice of ownership when there is no instance of the editor stating you can't add information unless he/she says so. The other editor only said it remains to be seen if what you add will violate policy. You referred to the other editor in a somewhat desparaging way with "What is it buddy?" I have to agree with the other editor because I wasn't sure what you were arguing either, not in the way it was worded. You also acted like the other editor was stupid when you said "I honestly thought you were smart enough..." The entire debate has, in my view, been about refuting a rumor, and the other editor has outlined several times policies that prohibit that. You haven't really offered a specific suggestion for the wording of content you want to add, or the sourcing for it, and the other editor said the content will have to meet WP policy. In sum, in this case, incivility is in the eye of the beholder. Finally, the other editor was very clear in the request about the video footage you said existed. It wasn't requested as a personal pleasure perusal, the request was made in response to your insistence that it exists. The other editor contended that it does not. If a question arises regarding the non-existence of a source, it is credible to question it. Why don't you make your change and let it be scrutinized, rather than prolonging an argument? LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So buddy is disparaging, but calling someone 'kid' is not? The video footage was not going to be used as a source, so why does it matter? You apparently did not even read the discussion, you really should read it thoroughly before taking sides. I do not wish to refute the rumor, and yes I have stated the sources I wish to use a few times. All I want to do is be more clear about what the rumor is, then list what happened according to the Jefferson county PD. There is no original research in what I want to do, none at all. It is just sating the rumor, then stating what is said to have happened officially. Landon1980 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said that incivility is in the eye of the beholder. You listed what you saw as incivility from the other editor, I listed what I saw as incivility from you. I read all of the discussion. I did not take sides, I suggested that you stop arguing and make changes. However, you did not state specific sources, you only said you have sources to support your position. As for the video, I don't know about the other editor, but it matters to me because you declared there is a video and there are sources everywhere that cover it. What does it matter if you post where video source is? As the other editor said, if you are mistaken, then please just say so. If you are not, then perhaps it contains other information that would benefit the article. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I said which sources I planned on using two or three times. The first one is [this one, the second one is this one. Will you show me where I said there were sources everywhere that covered the video? The only time I recall mentioning the footage is when I said it confirmed the shooters didn't approach her, which is already a known fact. Landon1980 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You only mentioned the CNN source here, once, but you did not bring up the CBS source. JGHowes commented on what was in the Rachel Scott article, and the other editor actually posted that link here, two hours before you posted any links. If you are going to use the CBS link, you should probably know that it says "As Rachel struggled for safety, the killers reportedly asked Rachel, a faithful Christian, if she still believed in God. When she answered yes, they shot her dead."

You have made reference to the outside cameras several times. You said "everyone agrees that the shooters didn't walk over there, and this is confirmed by one of the outside cams" here; you claimed the outside footage proves they didn't walk over there here, here you say it is "part of the evidence analyzed by authorities during the investigation. Columbine had many outside cams at the time of the shooting." Here you again say "the video footage is like the official report, it doesn't explicitly address the rumor, it just shows the shooters didn't walk over there." The official report is posted on several web sites, and if the official report analyzes outside video footage, then the report will clearly say that. It mentions cafeteria footage, cafeteria footage is even posted on YouTube. The problem the other editor said is the same one I have. Where does the official report specifically state that a) there is outside footage, and b) outside footage was analyzed and showed that the shooters did not approach Scott and Castaldo? Because no one is able to find that in reports, do you have some unspecified inner knowledge of outdoor footage that isn't published anywhere? If not, where can a person find a report that discusses the outdoor footage? Discussion of that outdoor footage may benefit the article and clear up some questions. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MY GOD!! Will you start reading the discussion? Here is just one of the times I mentioned the source: "What policy prohibits me from sating the rumor and using the source JGHowes provided, then stating what happened according to the Jefferson county PD?" Notice that "stating the rumor" The rumor is she was asked if she believed in God, so guess what? I know the source says what you "think I should know" that is the whole reason I'm using the damn thing. We already know the shooters did not approach her, it says that in the article. According to the article they shot her from the top of the west entrance, she died instantly, then they went on shooting others, it also says this in the official report. I really don't have to have this discussion with you, you are doing nothing but wasting my time. You want to find the footage, look for it, stupid me found it so you should be able to. Landon1980 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention of responding to this thread anymore, but since you have been rude to yet another person, I am responding. Just do what you think you need to do, Landon, it will be evaluated after you're done. But in the meanwhile, stop being so contentious to everyone that raises questions. The truth is, this whole discussion has wasted my time, and LaVidaLoca's time, for the past 4 days. It's time to stop it and just act. For the record, there is no outside surveillance footage, there is no mention of outside surveillance footage in any of the reports, and I have read through nearly every page of the 11000 page report and the JeffCo pages. There is no need for you to get angry and attack. You made an error, no big deal. If you were more interested in improving the article, and there were a tape, you'd have pulled that out long ago. It really would be a lot more valuable a source than eyewitness accounts. Now I'm done. Harangue away, I won't respond to you further. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Like you haven't been rude, that is laughable. Please respond to this, pretty please. My life as I know it will end if you do not respond to this comment. You have wasted my time as well, so we're even. Landon1980 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, please calm down and reach to the wider community if you feel you cannot be civil. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)