Talk:Spree killer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is very unkind to erase someone else's additions and don't even leave a word in the discussion to ssay why you did it! Anyhow, I redid my additions using the history tool. The recent wave of berserking in USA is important and certainly belongs here. Regards: Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu>
- I left an explanation in the edit summary notes. If you can use the history tool you should be able to see those comments. The explanation still stands, so I am reverting again. It has nothing to do with being unkind and everything to do with keeping Wikipedia professional and encyclopedic. DreamGuy 20:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Again valid data for 2005 has been removed. You cannot hide that something very bad is going on in USA this month! The world media (CNN, BBC, AFP) is full of the news of rampages. School, church, courtroom. It is an undisputable fact that two dozen people were killed this way. It is a vain effort to purge info to preserve US public image. [unsigned anon user, same as above]
So I redid the recent data, look at it. One more removal and the case goes to Wiki's Grand Council and the Google, I swear. [unsigned anon user, same as above]
- Censorship? Oh for crying out loud. Adding mentions to spree killings is fine and expected, I have no problem with that, but your previous edits were not at all encyclopedic. It was not a question of trying to hide anything, it was a question of what you said being something an encyclopedia wouldn't print. Hopefully you'll calm down now. It would have been amusing to see you try to take it to the "Grand Council" and "the Google" though. DreamGuy 22:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Does this count?
Is it enough for multiple locations if the murders and the suicide is not done at the same place?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/911.call.ap/index.html
[edit] Biased/Correct vocabulary
>In many countries, the acts of spree killers have been catalysts >for lessening the gun rights of private individuals in the gun politics debate,
This is biased wording. There are no "gun rights" anywhere outside the USA. Some countries of the world allow citizens to keep guns to some degree, others do not at all for diverse reasons. But no country outside USA thinks private gun ownership is in the same category as E=mc^2 or PI=3.14159265359... i.e. undeniable natural truth.
En.Wikipedia is an english-language encyclopedia, not an american encyclopedia and therefore should not use US-biased language. There are 6.25 billion people on Earth and only 300 million of them are Americans. 195.70.32.136 12:02, 15 February 2006.
- While it may be appreciated how some might take issue with or become emotionally upset over the legal right of American citizens to keep and bear arms, there is nothing specifically biased in the statement quoted above, i.e., "In many countries, the acts of spree killers have been catalysts for lessening the gun rights of private individuals in the gun politics debate." This statement is an unbiased fact. Anti-gun lobbyists in other countries do use spree killings as evidence to support their political and social aims. Granted, most documented spree killings occur in the United States, but to the extent that the anti-gun lobby in countries outside the USA do cite such incidents in their efforts to change policy and legislation, the statement can be considered factual.
- Such incidents include those perpetrated by Australians Martin Bryant (Port Arthur Massacre) and Wade Frankum (Strathfield Massacre), Scot Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane massacre), Englishman Michael Robert Ryan (Hungerford massacre), Canadian Marc Lepine (École Polytechnique Massacre), and New Zealander David Gray (Aramoana massacre). Each of these non-American spree shooting incidents was used by proponents of stricter gun control to further their agendas in their respective countries.
- The writer of the "Biased vocabulary" post in this discussion should check his or her facts before publishing biased Anti-American statements.
Jay Black 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe the issue here is with the wording of "gun rights". The statement itself is generally true, but it is also a bit emotive. Hopefully the changes I have made are not so contentious. I have also made significant formatting changes to make it more consistent. Also I have removed links to redirect pages and pages about killers that link to the incident they are infamous for. I consider it unlikely that a page will ever be made purely dedicated to the individuals rather than the incidents and therefore have removed the links that are redundant - either because they are red or link to the incident. If anyone objects please do not simply revert but change the specific things that you disagree with. Zarboki 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The issue here is over one word: rights. User:195.70.32.136 is correct in the fact that America is one of very few nations that recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human truth; e.g. enshrined in the constitution. Other countries, like Canada, where I live, allow their citizens to have guns, but it is a privilege, not a right. Saying this is not anti-American. Let's not bicker and argue about gun policy, or succumb to petty name-calling. We're not saying guns should or should not be a right, we're simply stating fact. Rustalot42684 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] freeway shootings
Do freeway shootings count? Chris 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of "Spree Killer"
If the definition of spree killer is killings at two or more locations then the people listed here should reflect that. Serial killer has an unsourced definition of spree killers as people who "commits multiple murders in different locations over a period of time that may vary from a few hours to several days. Unlike serial killers, however, they do not revert to their normal behavior in between slayings."
Having read all of the entries I have removed the entries I fell do not qualify under the current definition. Most of the deleted entries are mass murderers. The ones in which the shootings all occur in the one building are borderline so as a rule of thumb I left the ones that were in more than one room but maybe I was being generous?
Andrew Cunanan is an interesting one because under the current definition, his murders do not count as spree killings but they do under the definition in Serial killer (and don't fit that definition of serial killings).
Someone else will have to check out the red linked entries because I'm going to bed
Zarboki 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd check in every so often and I see a few red-linked entries are still there, oh well, I guess that will have to wait until I get home in December.
I just did a little clean-up. There is no point introducing new terms such as lone wolf that are not defined in the intro - especially if they are linked to a disambig page and the most likely link (Lone wolf terrorists) does not actually fit with the example. Also I don't think it is really a competition as to who can get the most killings in a school massacre so changed the wording. Zarboki 10:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SF rampage
Should the recent vehicular murder spree by Omeed Aziz Popal go in here? --Aussie Evil 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
