Talk:Columbine High School massacre/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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, 3rd 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

1er is French for 1st (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)