Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"overtime" vs "Over time"

I think it should be "Over time" they became close, not "overtime"

https://writingexplained.org/over-time-vs-overtime-difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.102.26 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Basement tape transcripts

It should be noted that Eric Harris was "Crying" in the basement tape transcripts wishing he was a Sociopath but had emotions. He was not indiscriminately killing people because he was a psychopath like they claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:F09B:A0B7:1774:70A0 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Which source says that? --Geniac (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Evidence item #298—“reb’s Tape” and Evidence item #333 from Basement Tape Transcripts.

Which source includes transcripts of those tapes? Which source states that he was crying on the tape? Which source says he was not indiscriminately killing people because he was a psychopath like they claim? --Geniac (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

From evidence item #298-"Reb's Tape" and I quote - "My parents are the best fucking parents I have ever known. My dad is great. I wish I was a fucking sociopath so I didn’t have any remorse, but I do. This is going to tear them apart. They will never forget it."

From Evidence item #333 and I quote - "Eric says he can’t decide “if we should do it before or after prom.” At the end of this section of the tape Harris says he wishes he could have re-visited Michigan and “old friends.” He falls silent then and appears to start crying, wiping a tear from the left side of his face. He shuts the camera off."

Source: https://www.columbine-guide.com/columbine-the-basement-tapes

       https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/columbine_basement_tapes_1.0.pdf
       http://www.acolumbinesite.com/quotes.php

Correction: Officer Zimmerman's scanned Transcripts in first source seems to be different than the other two sources online. So Eric using the word "Sociopath" in Evidence #298 "Rebs Tape" could have been false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:DCB1:905F:6DE7:CE (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that in Officer Zimmerman's Transcript of the tapes he states that both Eric and Dylan claim that they are not "Psycho" and how the cops will likely filter the footage to how they want the public to see them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:DCB1:905F:6DE7:CE (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Retain or remove the infoboxes

Revert Special:Diff/917209445, the infoboxes were useful. NB: The editor in question may have had a long history of disruptive editing. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Let's discuss retaining or removing the infoboxes. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Should the main image/s for this article be the individual infobox images of Harris & Klebold or the single image of Harris & Klebold exclaiming over a gun

That's all. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I like the single image of them holding the gun, and the infoboxes by the early life and background articles. I agree with the editor that the thumbnail of the article should be the singular image, as having the infoboxes would only show Harris, not both. While I'd be fine with both, I think the exclaiming over gun image looks better and cleaner. - Signed by IndigoMan43 (new to Wikipedia editing so not sure if I fonted this correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigoMan43 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The image has been nominated for deletion over on Commons, see the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who might be saying that dual infoboxes don't exist on WP or are somehow against policy/guidelines?...yeah, I know, neither WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST nor WP:OTHERTHINGSDONTEXIST is a high-quality argument for or against deletion but how about Leopold and Loeb? That has dual infoboxes... Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Keeping the gun-range photo of the two perps as the lead image for this article is salacious, it shows our readers nothing new over the 2 infobox images of the two individuals, nothing but the two perps laughing about and exclaiming over a gun. And by the way, let's consider returning the article to its longstanding previous state of having joint infoboxes near the top of the article. I know that whether or not to retain the infoboxes in the usual place within the lead section or even whether the infoboxes should remain within the article at all has been part of an ongoing slow-burning edit-war since at least September 7th with the infoboxes being removed and restored at least 3 times since the 7th. Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I do have an issue with the Luvox being related to violent behavior

Hi! I read the whole article and I have an issue about Luvox being mentioned as may have exacerbated his aggressiveness. I take it and I take it kind of personal (I should not I know) but I am far from being like Harris. Indeed violence of all kind including verbal make me feel sick. May it be modified somehow? :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a theory that anti-depressants take away your ability to empathize. Men - Males, especially when there young are prone to aggressive behavior that can be linked socio-biologically to these medications. I don't think this should be taken out of the article - Micheal Moore and other activist have become curious on how these anti-depressants effect young men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:E944:5E8:3EFC:A7FD (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Shooting range image & infobox changes added recently

The "shooting range image" found on Commons here has a murky copyright status and was previously deleted from Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg. The only difference between the deleted image and the most recent one is that the name of the image was changed. The previous image's title was File:Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg, the most recent title is File:Harris-Klebold-Target Practice.jpg ...one missing dash. But, yeah, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent change in wording

from "massacre" to "attack"... I think the word massacre is more apt and appropriate in the sentence:

The pair left behind many journal writings and home videos, foreshadowing the massacre and explaining their actions, with what they hoped to achieve.

After all, the article about the mass murder that Klebold and Harris perpetrated is called Columbine High School massacre not "Columbine High School attack". But others may disagree so let's discuss and come to a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think massacre is more appropriate because it is called the "Columbine High School Massacre" not attack - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

typo in Day of the Massacre paragraph

And at noon, cars setup in the pair's cars would detonate,

I assume this is supposed to say bombs setup in the pair's cars would detonate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Sickler (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I found the material in this article quite interesting, as someone who remembers hearing about the Columbine massacre and watching it on the news when I was young. Unfortunately, there are a high number of issues with this article. While it would qualify for a quick-fail on the basis of the unresolved banners, I'll try to be at least a bit more thorough and give some grounds for improvement.

• While a lot of the citation needed banners were placed in April of this year and the article was nominated in December 2019, there is at least one clarification needed tag from June 2019.
• Additionally, there are a lot of paragraphs that don't end in a citation. That's a bright red flag, since everything should be cited to a reliable source.
• The "In popular culture" section is very repetitive and needs to be condensed into paragraphs rather than a list of WP:TRIVIA. There is also a lot of uncited material in this section.
• A lot of the "Legacy" section duplicates with the Columbine effect article. That's fine to an extent, but the focus needs to be narrowed in each article. For Harris and Klebold's article, I would focus only on those that focus only on inspiration from Harris and Klebold and their actions and motivations, not Columbine as a whole and the idea of a school shooting just from that. "May have beens" wouldn't apply to the two perpetrators specifically, but the Dawson college shooting with the note praising the two would be more relevant.
• Based on the amount of uncited, I would also recommend someone go through the sections with little sourcing or one source to weed out what is uncited and what isn't. I can't with confidence say it is all sourced appropriately, but I won't do spot-checks for each source at this time.
  • On a positive note, the copyvio detector doesn't appear to suggest any copyright violation at this time. The only "possibilities" are to direct quotes of individuals, so that is not a violation as long as attribution is made.
• Although they are on Wikipedia Commons, I would want a second opinion regarding the images of the guns, given they have copyright notices.

Because of the major issues with the sourcing, I will respectfully decline a detailed prose pass-through at this point, because fixing the source issues is likely to result in a massive overhaul to the prose. Unfortunately this means I have to fail the article, as this is likely to be a long project someone will have to undertake to get this right. It goes beyond a few tags and late additions - this appears to need work to comply with policies such as WP:V. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge into Columbine High School massacre

Any new information can and should be merged into the Perpetrators section of that article. These infoboxes and "fair use" photos are equally useless. These two are only known for a singular event, and are only referenced in connection to that event. Since their connection to that event happens to be extensively covered in that main article, I don’t see how this article is useful in any way. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:B104:31F5:D3C5:203B (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Support I agree with this. It's just a rehash of the Columbine article, they aren't notable for anything else, and it comes across as glorifying; e. g. Adam Lanza doesn't have a page which is wise, yet one could justify it with him just as easily. Cake (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Acekard: @SmthManly: @Kieronoldham:

Support This needs morphing into the perpetrators section of the Columbine High School massacre article (which itself needs trimming). A section including the backgrounds of the two individuals does need insertions in this article and does need more than a "very brief" stub article-like inclusion within this article (and should include their photographs), but a whole article is hardly worthy of inclusion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Kieronoldham: I think that depends upon how much Harris and Klebold have been studied as distinct people instead of just as a part of the massacre. Check academic databases. It's all about what other people say. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WhisperToMe The massacre article studies their motives fairly deeply "rationale", "other factors" "FBI's theory" chapters etc. Suppose I can see validity either way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I understand how it can be seen as not useful, but this is just the start of the page on Harris and Klebold. The page was practically useless until I came in and added over 20,000 words to the page. I plan on expanding their early life section, along with personalities and relationships sections shortly, and making the rest of the article’s wording unique to the article. I don’t think all that can be said about them can be properly fit into a small perpetrators section on the page on the shooting. Also, while they were only notable for this event, so was Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing, and he’s got his own page, with arguably the OKC bombing being less impactful to society then the Columbine shooting. We can possibly revisit this in a few months once I’ve made the article more informational, along with some other people who I know are interested in making the article better. Food for thought. Acekard (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment With respect acekard, facts about their life as babies, their "personalities and relationships" and all the rest, comes across as tumblr fanpage tier. I don't see how it could not be TMI about their favorite foods or just a copypaste job of the Columbine article, as it is at the moment. They literally died with the Columbine massacre and have no other reason for an article, except to have a fanpage. All that can be said notable about them definitely can fit into the perps section. That McVeigh has a page runs afoul of "other stuff exists", and I would argue for the same thing in his case. McVeigh also does not have the most copycats of any crime ever. Lanza would be the proper analogy. Good faith editors interested in them such as yourself should just focus on the Columbine article. Cake (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I want to make a note of "other stuff exists": Wikipedia:Other stuff exists says that it can be a completely acceptable argument in a deletion discussion or the like; one just has to be careful on how its done. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I respectfully disagree. All people who have committed atrocities, their life stories are well documented, even their early life. Harris and Klebold's early life is well documented, just need someone with refs to put them in properly (myself probably). I find it kind of disrespectful calling it "their favorite food" when it is way more complex than that. Early life can be very interesting and helpful to those doing projects and research on the pair. And I don't believe anyone's intention was to make this page a "fanfic" on Harris and Klebold. With that logic, the guys who put the Osama Bin Laden page full of info would also be fine with what he did. You should be able to seperate people being interested in a subject, aside from the disinfranchised people that glorify evil people. I agree that the article should be better, that's why I even added 2 notices on the page, as I want to improve the article, as do some others, to make it unique from the shooting page, because the impact of the Columbine shooting does warrant the perpetrators having their own page, as America before and after Columbine aren't similar at all. I appreciate the criticisms though, the article will get much better in the coming months. Acekard (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That it's well documented doesn't make it notable, and the favorite food analogy is simply accurate. The impact of the Columbine shooting warrants the Columbine shooting having a page. It does already. That's what people study. It doesn't somehow warrant the perpetrators having a page dedicated to their "personalities and relationships". That's just a fan page. And to say there's any analogy to Osama Bin Laden is absurd. Osama Bin Laden doesn't have a fandom section (also was notable before 9/11). Columbine does. There's a reason for that. That's the only reason I can see for having a separate page dedicated to the perpetrators "personalities" - might as well be one of those quizzes "Which perpetrator are you?" Also research is not done with secondary sources, which is what encyclopedias are supposed to have. Hence "original research" is forbidden. I still have to remove all the primary sources from the Columbine article. A big problem with Columbine is most self-styled "Columbine researchers" just read the secondary sources, the popular books. Cake (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Some people want to go deeper into it by studying what led Harris and Klebold to commit the shooting. Just a page on the late background of them doesn't help out people looking for information such as this. And like I said, this isn't a "fan page." It's an encylopedia. Encylopedia - a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Woah, we're giving information on the topic of the article, who'd of thought? And none of this, at least for me, was "original research." Most things have been cited properly, with a few things that I plan to add reliable sources to here shortly. And the personality and relationship section gives, again, background into them leading up into the shooting. The shooting page only really shows things they wrote and actions they took, doesn't really delve into Harris and Klebold's persons before the shooting. Again, I have put notices to improve the article. I suggest revisting this in a few months if need be, once the article is improved immensely, and I have already begun today. And as you are an avid editor of the shooting page, I figured you would know this better than to just call this a "fanfic" or any other malarkey such as that. Thank you. Acekard (talk) 24:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the wish to study what led to the massacre, and don't think you're being dishonest in saying that's the reason; but anything relevant to that should be on the massacre page obviously, and anything not would be the kind of thing to go on their own page, yet be unnecessary in the first place, it seems to me. Cheers. Cake (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@MisterCake: I think the fundamental question is whether other people studied Klebold and Harris as individuals rather than just as perpetrators. There may be scholarly sources on how/why these particular people committed the crime. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators the criteria states in regards to criminals that they may be notable if: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Checking academic journals related to crime may help determine whether Klebold and Harris as individuals have been subject to study.

The likes of Adam Lanza et al could get articles if there are scholarly books/articles about him as an individual "beyond contemporaneous news coverage"

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback Whisper. That guideline seems to say why we have a Columbine page, because the crime is a well-documented historical event. However, before that point for the perpetrators there is this guideline as the very first sentence, which I feel speaks for itself in support of my contention: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." As for articles, there are some on Harris such as from Peter Langman (here and here, I'm not aware of any for Klebold), but none outside the context of the massacre. They would be used on the Columbine article, and only pointlessly rehashed on an article on the perps. Cake (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is true that "if there is an existing article[...]" is present, though it seems to be a catchall if a victim fails criterion #1 (there is only one criterion or if a perpetrator fails both #1 and #2 (criterion #2 is meant for whether a perpetrator could have his/her/their own article). I would be interested if some academics have studied Harris's and Klebold's past writings, webpages, and video game creations as not all were particularly in the context of a massacre. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite honestly there's no other reason to study those, as with Langman above. Even Acekard seems to grant the whole point is to study the reasons for the massacre - which we have the entire "rationale" section for. That's why their writings were released. And their webpages and video game creations are quite insignificant outside of the context of the massacre. The Harris Levels are pretty average Doom WADS. 20 year old angsty AOL webpages and journals would be entirely memory holed if not for the massacre. As you can see, most of it was anyway (note also it's on a site for the massacre). And Klebold nuked his hard drive, so we don't have anything of his in that regard. What could you possibly say about their webpages which doesn't have to do with the massacre? Nothing but fancruft as far as I can tell. Delete everything from the Harris and Klebold article that is repeated in the massacre article, and you'd have a fan page, or nothing. Cake (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about using "Wikipedia:Fancruft" (defined as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" on the Wikipedia:Essay). On WP the word Fancruft is usually something used in relation to works of creative fiction like television shows, comic books, etc. The same page also notes "It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I have to disagree; it's the paradigm case of a crime littered with fancruft. The parts of the article that are not covered already are few and the likes of that Klebold played T-ball. Cake (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Building upon my comments above, the key is looking to see what published literature made not at the crime look at. That filters the wheat from the chaff, or the "cruft" from what we really need. I decided to do a search for journal articles about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or lengthy sources not made at the time of the shootings. I found a nugget here:

• Rico, Andrew Ryan (2015-09-01). "Fans of Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold". Transformative Works and Cultures. 20. doi:10.3983/twc.2015.0671.
• On top of that, if Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies is peer reviewed, wouldn't this be good too: Daggett, Chelsea (November 2015). "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: Antiheroes for outcasts" (PDF). Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies. 12 (2).

I feel that if academics are interested in studying them as individuals, I don't see why they shouldn't have a dedicated encyclopedia article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Those just seem to me to support the contention that the articles will be fancruft when they are not information that should be in the Columbine article. Cake (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be information in the Columbine article. These academics, and the fact they wrote these articles, are saying Harris and Klebold are important as notable individuals. Wikipedia's judgment of what is worthy of covering in articles lies with other people. These academics argue those two are worthy of study, and therefore this encyclopedia should summarize these academics' findings, plus those written by other people about Harris and Klebold, in an article dedicated to them.

Let's return to the phrase: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

I believe Columbine High School massacre won't be able to incorporate all of the encyclopedic information about Harris and Klebold.

My view: It's not fancruft if academics say it's important.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That they are considered outcasts and have a fandom is already covered in the Columbine article. And they have fans and are considered as anti heroes shows what will be the only difference between this article and the Columbine article. Cake (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a question of further detail, and an in-depth exploration of that aspect. The massacre article can briefly state their fandom, while the Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold one can elaborate on that further, using those articles as sources. The fact that academics studied them bolsters the case that these further details are worthy of encyclopedic attention. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as per my above points: There are sufficient reliable sources to flesh out a specific article focusing on a biography of the perpetrators and the sort of personality cult that has been built up about them: the main Columbine article should include short summaries while this article should have in-detail information. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo of young Klebold with a friend

Has there been any discussion as to the appropriateness of including this photo of Dylan Klebold as a youth and a random friend? They both are minors, and that friend is unrelated to Klebold's history. Why are we including the face of an unrelated minor in this article? Shouldn't we crop out the other person, if there is some value in showing Kelbold as a young person (itself a questionable proposition). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The picture should be cropped to only show the article subject. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've done a little research into the source of this photo and yikes - the claimed source is problematic at least. I see no proof that Sue Klebold released all rights to the photo as is stated at the image's WP page and and on its Commons page. Shearonink (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

After looking into it, I've nominated the image for deletion. Retaining the image is problematic for a couple of reasons: 1)WP:BLP concerns - Did the minor friend (now an adult) give his permission for the photo to be used here on Wikipedia, for the photo to be added to Commons? He would have to be the one to give up all rights to the image, not Sue Klebold. 2)The Commons file and the WP file both state that Sue Klebold has given up all rights to the photo and it can be used freely etc., etc. Shouldn't there be an OTRS ticket for this image if that giving-up-rights statement is true? Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dylan-Klebold-with-Brooks-Brown.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eric-Harris-Little-League.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eric-Harris-1999-Yearbook.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review undone

Undone GA review, see below

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC) I'll give this article a shot. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Rate Attribute Review Comment 1. Well-written: 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Concise prose. 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Complies with style guidelines. 2. Verifiable with no original research: 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References list is well-stocked and follows style guidelines. 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Reliable citations. 2c. it contains no original research. No OR. 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyio or plagiarism. 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Main aspects covered. 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I would say there is more than sufficient detail, but it is necessary for the subject matter at hand. 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Considering the touchy subject matter, the article is written in a very neutral, analytical manner. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Stable, no recent major changes. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images properly tagged. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Relevant images. 7. Overall assessment. I will pass this article. Very well-written, deserves GA.

Just a note that I've undone this GA review per the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Recent_flurry_of_GA_Reviews_and_Noms_that_seem_somewhat_hurried.... The article should be back in the GAN queue with its original timestamp momentarily, so hopefully it'll attract another reviewer quickly. Apologies for the inconvenience. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LM150 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this. Sorry it's taken long; I saw that the previous review was rolled-back. Please note this is not my first GA review, I recently had a username change! I'll give as much feedback possible, and do a few copyedits, to help bring this up to GA-level.

Early life

• (I'll come back to the lead at the end)
• "retires" - should be "retired"
• "Harris, in a basement tape" - this is the first mention of basement tape, so I would add "in a home-recorded video, also known as 'The Basement Tapes'.." This will make it clearer as to what it is with a wikilink
• "While Harris was in 7th grade, he met Klebold." - don't you think it's a bit early to mention this? You mention it in "Background"
• "Harris entered Columbine High School in 1995 as a freshman." - didn't he go to Ken Caryl Middle School first, then Columbine? eg. he transferred schools in his freshman?
• Dylan Kleboid - the first paragraph should be focused on Kleboid, his family and background. But it describes Sue's aftermath of the shooting? I think you should bring the second paragraph up, and move the aftermath elsewhere.
• CPR and pyloric stenosis need wikilinks to their respective articles
• "smitten" - doesn't sound encyclopedic, perhaps 'close'?
• "but then moved over to engineering" - should we mention he worked as a geophysicist, as per the source?
• "According to reports, Klebold was exceptionally bright" - needs a reliable source (YouTube video doesn't work anymore). If you have a reliable source, then you won't need to write 'according to reports'
• Last paragraph about Klebold meeting Harris - do you think it's better placed in the "Background" section?
• Images - you've uploaded 2 images which are nominated for deletion. Please see their respective Commons page, and remove them from this article unless you can prove the rights to use them here

Background

• "Both were into computers. Both took a bowling class." - merge these sentences
• "painfully shy" - "very shy" might do
• "Much of the information on Harris and Klebold's friendship is unknown, on their interactions and conversations" - perhaps this might sound better: "Little is known on Harris and Klebold's conversations and interactions"
• "hanging out" - too informal, perhaps "socialized"?
• More sources needed here - I didn't find anything in the Westword reference [30] that they were bowling, carpooling and playing Doom
• Who's Judy Brown, mother of Brooks Brown?
• "infernal friendship[33]" - is there a non-YouTube source for this?
• "Harris and Klebold linked their personal computers.." - more sources needed in this paragraph. The CNN source at the end doesn't support all of this.

More comments to come, thanks! LM150 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Acquiring arms

• Second paragraph needs more sources to support those statements
• Same for third paragraph
• Are there any other explosives/weapons to be aware of? What about knives? LM150 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested rationale

• First paragraph isn't about their rationale/motive - but about whether they should be memorialized. This is better placed elsewhere.
• "Harris and Klebold wrote some" - doesn't make sense
• "Much speculation occurred.." - isn't this paragraph better placed in the "Massacre" section?
• "Washington Post" - "The Washington Post"
• "Robyn Anderson, who knew the perpetrators, stated that..." - source needed
• "staffers" - "staff"
• "picked on" - perhaps "harassed"?
• "Vanderau noted that a "cup of fecal matter" was thrown at them.[89] - do you mean "witnessed" that a cup was thrown? Also source doesn't work.
• "Bullying however has been disputed as being the motivating factor by others." - should we mention psychologist Peter Langman disputes it, as per the source?
• "for which each received ten months of juvenile intervention counseling and community service in January 1998." - isn't this already mentioned in the "Initial legal encounters" section?
• "In April 2009, Professor Aubrey Immelman.." - there's a [dead link] tag at the end of the paragraph. Also are you sure it's 2009 and not August 2004?
• "Page after page was covered in hearts, as he was secretly in love with a Columbine student." - really, I didn't see anything in the USA Today source that he was in love with someone? This paragraph may need additional sources, eg. for "Klebold wrote that life was no fun without a little death"
• Overall, the "Journals and investigation" is a little jumpy - perhaps the first few paragraphs are focused on the journals, then the investigation afterwards? LM150 14:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if "Media accounts" is the right title - shouldn't it be something about their motive/influences?
• "which is overwhelmingly uncommon in mass shooters" - quite a bold claim and needs reliable sources if true

Reaction of Sue Klebold

• "among other things" - too vague, perhaps remove this
• "Six months later, she saw the Basement Tapes" - six months after the massacre?

Legacy

• "ITV describes the legacy of Harris and Klebold as deadly, as they have inspired several instances of mass killings in the United States." - source needed
• "with many praising Harris and Klebold" - who, other shooters?
• "closure of entire school districts" - are there any examples to give?
• "A 2015 investigation by CNN identified.." - source needed for this sentence
• "The 2002 Michael Moore documentary.." - sentence needs source
• The paragraphs in the popular culture section could be merged

- LM150, we have fixed all these issues, after several edits. Feel free to check again for any other suggestions you have before you submit your final evaluation. Thanks! - Acekard (talk · contribs) 11:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Acekard, here's a few things I noticed:

• Many of the issues mentioned above are still present! Please make these improvements.
• The lead section should be a summary of the article, so it's not necessary to add sources next to "bullying, mental illness, racism, psychiatric medication and media violence." As long as the article states these facts with their sources, then it is sufficient.
• "his family was forced to relocate to another area in the country[17]" - source is giving me a dead page; please find a non-YouTube source for this
• "he appeared somewhat sheltered in elementary school.[32] - source is giving me a dead page; please find a non-YouTube source for this
• "ammunition from Mark Manes, who did not deliver it until the evening of April 19."[88] - I just looked at source 88, which is page 20 of Psychology of terrorism and did not see anything about ammunition.
• Please review the sourcing; it is still very weak I'm afraid. What is written must be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Many books have been published about Columbine and you should try to use them if possible! LM150 16:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

- Ok, I will look into this ASAP and will get back to you. Thank you! - Acekard (talk), 18:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC) TC)

- LM150, I have fixed all the issues you mentioned and added reliable sources. If there weren't any, I removed the claim. Thank you! - - Acekard (talk), 09:16, 20 December 2020 (U

Acekard, I'm really sorry but I'm failing this article. There are still many outstanding issues, mentioned above since November, not fixed. Secondly, I have read through the article again and I do not think it is comprehensive enough. Much more can be written about the pair, their personalities and school lives. There are also prose issues throughout. It might help if you do some wider reading to beef up this article, and ask for a copyedit and/or peer review. Thanks, LM150 10:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph

What is with the last paragraph? No other article about murderers... deifies them. People say whatever on extremist sites, but surely an encyclopedia shouldn't back them up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.33.42 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

new date of speech

Please correct the date of Bill Clinton's speech to May 20, 1999. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done The video says the speech took place on May 20, 1999 and not May 30, 1999. This also corroborates it. Thanks for pointing that out. Some1 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Changing "slipping in and out of unconscious" under the suicide subheader to "slipping in and out of consciousness" Psiedits (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of! Good catch! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 21:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

John Savage

Hello. Should it be included either here or on the shooting article that they spared John Savage (mentioning his name). It's given importance in the Zero Hour documentary and he is interviewed. He's also spoken on the anniversaries and now resides in Tooele, Utah. CoryGlee (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: It might help to find an official script and/or a minute mark so people can find the info WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Hi friend, I can surely find the minutes and seconds where Savage speaks about his encounter with Klebold, but I don't know how to cite YouTube, if you could link me to an explanatory page would be helpful and I could add it. Regards. And thank you. Stay safe. CoryGlee (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites talks about avoiding copyright violations. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube states that if the video is uploaded by a verified official account, the video has the reliability of the account holder. In other words: Only cite YouTube if the uploader has permission to upload the video to YouTube. In practice that means the official TV channel or the production company. If a random user uploads a video, don't link to it as it is likely a copyright violation. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sol Pais

Hi! I wish to know if I read the article too fast or the case of Sol Pais (the 18-year-old Florida girl who killed herself in the Rockies after forcing the closure of a lot of schools across Colorado for a threat she made on the 20th anniversary in 2019) is on this article or Columbine effect or the Columbine massacre article itself, I couldn't find her case. I think she's a notable case of the Columbine effect. Again, is her case anywhere in Wikipedia? Thanks. PS: She was obsessed with them both BTW. Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

name

Change mother of Klebold to mother of Dylan. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Inserted the first name so that the sentence reads less awkwardly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes/edits concerning Klebold's mental conditions in the lead

The lead section had stated that

Klebold was concluded to be an angry depressive, who showed extremely low self-esteem, severe anxiousness, and a vengeful attitude toward individuals who he believed had mistreated him

with the cited source being

The Depressive and the Psychopath article from Slate by Dave Cullen (who wrote a whole book about the mass shooting Columbine) - Slate article

I read the cited source, the Slate article. It did not mention Klebold's asserted self-esteem/anxiousness. So I changed the text in the lead to

Klebold was concluded to be an angry depressive with a vengeful attitude toward individuals who he believed had mistreated him.

The cited source specifically states that the experts' conclusions - Dr. Frank Ochberg, as well as Supervisory Special Agent Dwayne Fuselier, the FBI’s lead Columbine investigator and a clinical psychologist. - about Klebold are

Klebold is easier to comprehend, a more familiar type. He was hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal. He blamed himself for his problems

So. The cited source says nothing about lead's asserted extremely low self-esteem and severe anxiousness. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the main body's important statements but nowhere in the article are these conditions of "extremely low self-esteem" and "severe anxiousness" even mentioned. Subsequently the text was reverted back to the original/previous version, however I have now changed it to just the depressive/vengeful attitude text because of the issues I have mentioned above. Am opening up a discussion here about Klebold's asserted "extremely low self-esteem"/"severe anxiousness". So. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spudlace (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are still prose issues as noted in the earlier review. "Leading it to become" should be "Leading to it becoming". "Harris, during his freshman year, met Tiffany Typher, who was in his German class." should be "During his freshman year Harris met Tiffany Typher". Did they meet in German class? "Sue later assured herself that the feeling she had that her son would bring her immense sorrow, was that her son would be physically ill." I'm not sure what this is trying to say so I can't suggest a revision.

2. Verifiable?: The term "moral panic" occurring in the first paragraph is not cited in the article. The citations should be in the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: As the previous reviewer noted, there is room for improvement on the breadth of coverage. The statement about moral panic is found in the first paragraph but no where else in the article text. The "media accounts" section discusses the Trench coat mafia but not the moral panic or media frenzy from the lede. Another example would be improving the discussion of the killers diaries from the current version: "Harris and Klebold wrote some about how they would carry out the massacre, and less about why".

4. Neutral point of view?: The journal article I found from Paedagogica Historica states "Moral panic assumptions that media violence or the availability of guns are the immediate causes of shootings in middle‐class, white American suburbs are questioned." but this does not support the statement in the first paragraph "with the ensuing media frenzy and moral panic leading it to become one of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated." I was not able to locate any citation in the article for this. Based on my additional source check the statement in the article appears to fail NPOV by stating a controversial point (being "questioned" by the source) as an established fact.

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Spudlace (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Acekard, I appreciate your work on this article. I know it can be frustrating to hear that an article is not ready for GA however the issues raised in the last review have not yet been resolved. The reviewer suggested a copyedit/peer review and if you have not already done so this is a good idea before renominating. The article can benefit from these tools. Spudlace (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Spudlace, I provided all of the fixes you suggested, also some others. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Acekard (talk) 4:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It needs more than what can be fixed during the review process. You added the Springhall citation but still have not provided the context in the article to show how it supports the statement "with the ensuing media frenzy and moral panic leading it to becoming one of the most infamous mass shootings ever perpetrated". (The fix I provided was "leading to it becoming"). Are the sources about why the shooting is well known or "infamous"? What is the scope of this article? As noted by the previous reviewer the article could be more focused instead of general information about the shooting. At least a copyedit before renomination is recommended. Spudlace (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Harris's sexual deviancy?

Should it be included as it is included in the Columbine High School massacre article in subsection of "Writings", that Harris kept a diary where he also exposed violent sexual fantasies? (Source: Larkin (2007)). Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

In the second sentence of the article, there are two unnecessary commas. Change "Harris and Klebold killed 13 people and wounded 24 others, at Columbine High School, where they were seniors, in Columbine, Colorado." to "Harris and Klebold killed 13 people and wounded 24 others at Columbine High School, where they were seniors in Columbine, Colorado." PerfectPeanut97 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the first one, the second one (", where they were seniors,") I think is necessary. --Mvqr (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

On the early life section, under Eric Harris, please add that he lived on a military base in Plattsburgh, New York and that he moved to Littleton, Colorado in the summer of 1993. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210929223552/https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1999/04/23/Mich-pastor-recalls-Harris-family/2665924840000/ 2600:100C:A206:278D:D4A8:9D7B:2F22:5493 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I added the town name - already covered by the ref - the rest adds nothing to the article (imo). Springnuts (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added town name, rest of it not needed (per Springnuts' opinion.) Sarrail (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

I haven't seen anything in the 11th ref how others are "hailing them as heroes, martyrs and gods, or expressing sympathy for them"... if it's just editors saying this then it goes beyond non-neutrality. So, delete it, otherwise, provide a ref... --92.18.42.213 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is sourced in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Fandom

"I relate to their feelings of hopelessness, being angry and not being able to change it, and wanting to be accepted and appreciated", an 18-year-old Tumblr user wrote on Harris and Klebold. "No one noticed they were struggling, and no one took their suffering seriously", added another user.

This section reads too much like a news article to me. Perhaps a rewrite is in order? Great Mercian (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This article should not exist.

These cowards deserve no recognition. Make articles for the victims instead. 2603:7080:602:E500:A4C1:8F4F:6FC2:EE71 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)