Talk:Northern Illinois University shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Illinois University shooting article.
Article policies
Good article Northern Illinois University shooting has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

Archive 1
Kazmierczak


Contents

[edit] Stephen Phillip Kazmierczak merged.

That article was split from this one and combined back some time later after editors on its talk page came to the remarkably uncontroversial conclusion that the content would work better as part of this article. There are a number of school shootings where the perpetrator is best described separately, but also others where he or she is best covered as a part of the main article. This one appears to be the latter now and for the foreseeable future.

It is possible to split Stephen Kazmierczak off again if that's found to be for the best later on. If you think so, please take the matter up here. If someone else does so without discussion, please revert it and ask him to voice his opinions here. And please remember to stay polite and we'll all have an extra nice happy special time. Thanks, Kizor 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go back in a separate article. Many of the details about the shooter, while notable, do not seem particularly relevant to this article at this time. Kaomso (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They don't necessarily have much to do with the shooting, but they do function as basic background of the shooter, which does. Agree/disagree? Anyway, since the article's still in a highly volatile stage, it's probably best to sit back for a while and see how the situation develops. --Kizor 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging these two articles. Having a section entitled 'the perpetrator' is not appropriate since the article is on the shooting, the event itself. Specific details and biographical history on the perpetrator himself should go in his own article, including only enough details here so that we know who the perpetrator was and where he came from. But THIS article does not need his publication history and other information. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the original page's discussion somehow be seen rather than the merge/split debate needing to be repeated here? Since a "non-noteworthy" perpetrator may shoot-up another school soon, is there some place the debate/exchange can take place so that some policy or agreement can be reached? Daven brown (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Stephen_Phillip_Kazmierczak#Controversy/Merge/Redirect/Delete--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the short amount of time involved here, I really don't think enough time was given for consensus to develop in that debate. I think this needs to be overturned. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I also strongly disagree with the merging of these articles. What makes this man any less significant than Seung-Hui Cho? Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have undid the merger & redirection, and reinstated the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre has a separate article about the shooter also. It's a function of how much information is known. When his name wasn't even known, there was no point in a separate article. Now that his name is known, and as information begins to accumulate, a separate article is more justifiable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you undid all improvements to the text made while merging. --Kizor 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Come help me. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you drop someone else's signature and add your own?
I'm working on it. Come help me.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What was that about? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't use that account unless I have to... But whatever.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What kind of shenanigan is this? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Your explanation of changing your user ID makes no sense. But skip it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The perpetrator's page needs to be merged back in here. He's not notable independent of the event at this point, so there's no reason not to leave it in here. Tired of people making too big of a deal about school shootings and trying to use Wikipedia to make a point or leave a memorial. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen_Phillip_Kazmierczak#Controversy/Merge/Redirect/Delete--72.93.80.5 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone -there- wants it merged as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
By any definition of "everyone," your statement is categorically false. You may, however reasonably argue that there is a "consensus." --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the urgency? How's about waiting a few days and seeing if any new information emerges that justifies retaining the separate article? If not, then merge them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. This decision is really beyond me. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Being or not being an admin has nothing to do with it. Normal editors can and do merge articles all of the time. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's correct. All that's needed is consensus... and common sense. However, an admin might still be needing if the process gets messed up, but that can happen anywhere. Again I say, what's the urgency? Give it a few days and see if the other article grows. It might, because his story might be interesting. Unlike the character at VT, who for people who knew him it wasn't necessarily a surprise that he went nuts, this guy seems to be opposite. You should let it ride for a little while so you won't have to be going, "Merge! No, unmerge! No, merge!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of weapons

The first citation actually mentions four handguns (I'm guessing press error on this one, since two glocks are mentioned of differing calibers) and a shotgun on page two, despite saying he used 3 handguns and the shotgun on page one. As with VTech, I think the weapons section should show as precise a description as possible, as it is apolitically important to the topic of weapon legislation. I'm almost certain the "Remington Shotgun" mentioned will turn out to be a Remington 870 pump shotgun, and that article also mentions Glock, Sig-Sauer, and Hi-Point pistols. Models/calibers can be filled in later as the information becomes available from the police. 74.7.55.66 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Kevin Cronin from the ATF in this video http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=218692, the weapons were a Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun, Glock 9mm, Sig-Sauer 9mm, and a Hi-Point .380 caliber. Jason P Crowell (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can we get rid of it? And by that, I mean every single protection available. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Really? I think it's better without all the random vandalism. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's better and more wiki with more contributions. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • True, but I'm not interested in reading every random person writing how this guy is "burning in hell" or how he's "such a douchebag" when I can read what people who actually use this wiki and are familiar with its procedures have to write. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The protection was ill-timed and unfortunate. I don't think the levels of vandalism at all supported the imposition of semi-protection. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the protection needs to stay. If an IP address has a relevant fact, it can be posted on the talk page for consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am usually against semiprotecting current news, but it is just personal taste. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bugs. Why not just edit the talk page? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I have contacted the admin, since I don't feel like undoing something another admin did just a few hours ago. If you don't want to wait, you can try requesting unprotection at WP:RFPP. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
72.93.80.5, I don't think it's a good idea. The event is not ongoing (the shooter is dead, identified etc.); we don't need instant updates. Since the event is still recent, though, it will attract vandalism. The protection expires relatively soon 2/18/08 16:00 UTC. By then, the article shouldn't be such a vandal draw, and anons can help clean up. Superm401 - Talk 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
72.93.80.5, I agree with Superm401. If you really REALLY want to edit, why not just create a wikipedia account already? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have an account. I am able to edit the page. That's not the point. This page has plenty of eyeballs to stop vandalism. Well, Sad. It's Wikipedia's loss.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Loss of what, the vandals' ability to vandalize? The need for constant reverting rather than actually adding content? No. Current events are typically kept semi-protected. Allowing vandals full access to a current event story really undermines wikipedia's credibility. You and recent new users that might have sincere information are free to post suggestions on the talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK... chill.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, are we forgetting that this an article edit and not a chat room? No one is battling you, we're just explaining why the protection is there. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, chill, and stop deleting my reply's. I don't delete yours. Some etiquette please.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Can everyone agree that this statement and everything above from "OK, chill" down is unnecessary to this discussion? The point of my deleting it was that THIS IS NOT A CHAT ROOM. It is a discussion, and such informalities don't belong in this discussion. Get it now? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude. Chill. I "get it." --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not, since you keep replying. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude. Chill. I've got it. Wow. Please stop deleting stuff. It's rude. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Lance, please do "chill" and stop deleting others' comments. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll leave this here until someone else with the right mind deletes unnecessary discussion that has nothing to do with the article. Dude. LanceSugar310 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The page does have plenty of editors, but they would prefer to work without frequent interruptions of vandalism while the article is in the news. Superm401 - Talk 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're all pretty capable of doing our part, and though you may have an account, someone else who wants to edit that badly can get one, too. I mean no criticism of you, it's just anyone can take part in editing a protected article, as long as they have an account, which is available to them in ONE STEP. It's still a wiki in every sense, so I'm not sure where the argument is in what you're saying. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You may not know that recent new accounts can't edit either. But I think it's just a few days wait before they can, by which time the semi-protect might already be lifted on the article. And as I said, if the IP address raising this issue sincerely wants to edit, he is free to post information here for consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the protection was misapplied to this article as the level of vandalism was nowhere near high enough to justify semiprotection. Protection is not preventative and it's not established if one merely suspects that vandalism might occur in the future.

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and the comments here that "they should register or post here on the Talk page" are contrary to our norms and quite saddening. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was IP vandalism, and I am not going to apologize for semi-protecting briefly to avoid more. If you look at my protect log, you will see I unprotect more than I protect. Semi-protection was, and is, justified in this case and this time period. Superm401 - Talk 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] black ribbon deleted?

Why was the black ribbon image deleted? The image has appeared on numerous websites, and specifically here downloaded from flickr, which I believe is licensed by creative commons. So what's the issue here? Dr. Cash (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:NIU huskies ribbon.jpg is being disputed as a non-free image. Logos are usually copyrighted (just as you aren't able to upload Microsoft logo with a Creative Commons license, you can't do the same with their logo). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Logos can actually fall under fair-use if a low resolution version is used to represent it, which I think is the case here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Beyond that, though, every time a disaster happens, the article is subjected to "memorializing", which is against the POV rules, hence the ribbon doesn't belong anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there are rules against using Wikipedia as a memorial; it is an encyclopedia, not a source of junk online. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you verify the truth of that last part? >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the problem, Derek. The logo includes the logo of the NIU Huskies, which is copyrighted. Therefore, the user who created it cannot release it under a free license (it is as if I pick a promotional image of some singer, put it in a ribbon, and release it for free). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't create the image. The flickr user you copied it from probably didn't create it either and even if they did, they did not pick a license compatible with Wikipedia. Even if the flickr user had created it, it incorporates the NIU logo, which is obviously copyrightable as a creative work and obviously not GFDL. You can't just find an image on the internet and make up a license for it. It might qualify for fair use if some notability for it can be established beyond the fact that some flickr users have it on their page. If and when the news media picks up on this logo and it becomes iconic, then it would be appropriate to use under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's official. The ribbon image is on the NIU.edu index page. I'm not sure if it should be in the article, but thought i'd mention the provenence. Jason P Crowell (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, NIU is now encouraging businesses and media outlets to display the image, based on this statement on their website: "Post a Ribbon. Schools, businesses and media outlets across Illinois and the country are posting the ribbon at the top of this page on their web sites in a show of unity and sympathy with the Northern Illinois University community." So displaying the ribbon in this case would be legal, and not a copyvio. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't change the copyright issue at all. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It does, if the school releases the copyright on it. Someone would have to look into that. Encouraging everyone to display it doesn't mean they've given everyone free rein to post it on any website they want to. Which I think is the point you're making. Someone should find out what the school's policy is for this specific item and act (or not) accordingly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Virginia Tech Massacre page, there are plenty of illustrations that show the "memorializing" of the slain, so it could be presented here, provided that (1) the school says publicly that anyone can display it any way, any how; and (2) the article merely describes what it is and resists the impulse to gush about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still don't see those arguments, because the university has stated publicly that they expect mass-copying of the image on the internet. So wikipedia, and everyone else doesn't need to worry about the threat of a lawsuit. However, that being said, our purposes for displaying it are somewhat different, since we want to cover the story and shouldn't necessarily "show support", which would be a violation of WP:NPOV (even if everyone is essentially on the "same side" here; who's supporting the perpetrator?). Anyway, I think there will be plenty of much more suitable images to put in the article, after the many events on campus and such,... Dr. Cash (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Did they merely say they "expect" it, or that they "encourage" it? Also, you've got a point about blindly displaying it. Did VT issue something similar? If so, I don't think it's on that page. But photos connected with the memorial service are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, I forgot! Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church supports the perpetrator. How could I be so stupid! His views MUST be represented in the article at all costs [NOT]! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The perp may yet prove to be a sympathetic figure. That possibility exists. But not due to anything Phelps has to say. Ironically, given the "gun free zone" debate, if Phelps were to show up in an "everyone has guns" zone, he probably wouldn't last long. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting back from the derailing of the issue ... aside from images used under a claim of fair use, Wikipedia only accepts content where the copyright holder explicitly grants a license that permits redistribution, any use (including commercial), and modifications. Their grant of permission to use the logo does not imply a grant of permission to redistribute it or to modify it. Wikipedia content has commercial downstream uses and if we use the image here, it will be redistributed. Because we have no permission to redistribute it, we cannot use it. --B (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Until someone actually asks them, or finds out otherwise, no one here can say with certainty whether wikipedia has permission to use it or not. That is, if NIU were to say "we give everyone unrestricted permission to use this," then presumably they would mean it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
At this page (http://www.niu.edu/tragedy/community.shtml) they write this about the image: "Post a Ribbon - Schools, businesses and media outlets across Illinois and the country are posting this ribbon on their web sites in a show of unity and sympathy with the Northern Illinois University community." I think that simplifies the copyright and license allowing use, but that still may not be compatible with Wikipedia. Jason P Crowell (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It kind of implies that they're OK with it, but it doesn't quite say that, so I'm not sure it's open season on the Husky ribbon. Someone should write to them and say "Are you OK with wikipedia posting this and allowing everyone in the world to likewise copy it?" and see what they say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If they are willing to release the image into the public domain or license it under an appropriate copyleft license then we'll be okay with using it. Otherwise, it's still non-free. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. Except we keep talking to each other and not to them. Of course, their offices might be closed just now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victims

What's the purpose of this section? Why not just say X members of the faculty and Y students died? Would be much better information. The names and ages of the individuals isn't really relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and written dispassionately, then it's relevant because someone might want to know about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't find "someone might want to know about it" to be very convincing. Any other rationales or justifications? --ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How about "because the media are covering it and it's verifiable"? Now explain why it's not relevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced by those arguments, either. :)
Personally, I'm not in a rush to add or remove this list. There's no deadline and as long as the list doesn't become lurid or disrespectful then I probably won't campaign hard for its removal. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, the media covering it doesn't necessarily mean it is -relevant- to us; lots of things are verifiable but unimportant. We're an encyclopedia; we don't have any reason to include it because it doesn't add anything to the article and just takes up space. Part of being an encyclopedia is cutting out irrelevant information, and I think the list of names is simply not noteworthy and makes the article ugly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If the names are not noteworthy, then the victims themselves are not either, and none of this matters. Then you might as well delete the page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The names are indeed noteworthy. They should be recognized. if they are not recognized, then it's almost as if the shooting never happened..... therefore why even further discuss the shooting? The reason that this event is so terrible is because of what happened to the five students that died. They should be named and noted and recognized. Otherwise, why even talk about the shooting? SubaruFiend 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your logic. Further, I remind you and everyone else that this is an encyclopedia article, not a memorial. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Very true, not a memorial. But they are still noteworthy. Without their names, it is seemingly not an incident. Their names are facts of the shooting. SubaruFiend 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I will just weigh in to note that you should get information on what the consensus has been on other shooting/masacre articles on Wikipedia. I know for some of them the determination of debates/votes/consensus/etc. has been that merely being a victim of a no-doubt horrendous crime does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. See the categories to check out other articlses N2e (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. We should consider how we've handled this in the past but I also don't want to discourage others from bringing up the topic again for discussion in a different context. That both the context is different and consensus changes are very good reasons to encourage discussions of topics even after they've "been settled." Further, it's an excellent way to draw in new contributors and demonstrate the value of our processes that are centered on open discussion and resolution of challenges.
I'll have to look back to figure out the final consensus and how we reached it (and how many times it changed!) for the VaTech article but it was a very emotional discussion. It was complicated by the fact that several of the victims there were obviously noteworthy outside of their status as victims of that shooting so they had their own articles being created. I don't think that will happen here so hopefully this discussion won't be quite as complicated. But it's still a good discussion to have! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Virginia Tech Massacre also compiles a list of the victims. It is not directly on that particlar article, but there is a link to a seperate page that lists everyone out with age and location. Names of the victims are relevant. For obvious reasons the Va-Tech names were on a seperate page, (there were many more), the NIU victims were far less, so they can be listed directly on the article and it will still look cleanly noted, either way, they should be noted. If it's been done in the past, why change the rules now? Names are relevant facts of these sorts of scenarios. (SubaruFiend (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
IIRC, the "separate article" was motivated more by a compromise between those who wanted to list the victims and those who did not than by space considerations.
With respect to "the rules:" There are no rules governing our actions in this situation. SO the "rule" is that we all work together to figure out what the rule should be in this particular instance. I don't care for anyone to attempt to shut down discussion by pointing to another article as having established a firm "rule" that we must follow in this article without discussing or questioning it. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was using the term "rule" loosely. Yes I realize there is no set rule that states whether or not they should be listed on the article or not, or on a seperate article. I was simply implying that if it's been done in the past, why not continue to do it if it isn't hurting anyone. (and yes I realize that not ALL things that have done in the past should continue, but in this particular instance it is not causing any harm and for SOME people it is a relevant point to have in the article). (SubaruFiend (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Listing the victims' names is not "memorializing", it is factual and could be useful to someone who comes to wikipedia wanting to find out their names. "Memorializing" would be "Jack brought an apple to his teacher every day" or "Jill was a hot babe sweet girl who was loved by everyone". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Umm--is there really a reason to link this to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? 129.59.61.48 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

yes. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so fast. This one has been back-linked from that page also. Unless the news sources draw the comparison or can prove a deliberate connection, it amounts to "original research", as there is no (currently) known connection between the two events other than the coincidence of the days. In contrast, it's fair to link the Oklahoma City bombing with the "Wacko in Waco" disaster, because the bombing was planned to fall on the same day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
i disapprove of your use of "wacko in waco" and find it offensive. please update it to a more politically correct reference. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge your disagreement with that colloquial term and of your finding it offensive, and I point out that I called it a "disaster", thus keeping the comment fair and balanced. Now, back to the original question: What citation can you provide that connects this event with the 1929 killings, other than the obvious and coincidental calendar date? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, original research in the See also section?? Sorry, but that is not true. According to guideline, As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. Massacres that occurred on Valentine Day could be linked without waiting for some media to reference them. In other words, the See Also section is not part of the article itself that needs to be referenced. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. Now tell me this: What does your common sense tell you about any real connection between the 1929 gangland killings and the 2008 killings? Should we look up every shooting that's ever occurred on February 14th and similarly link them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was mainly objecting the rationale given to prevent that link from being added here. Massacres that occurred in similar context (by author, date, significance, etc) could be linked, although it is more proper (to prevent what you said about linking to every single massacre) to link to a List of massacres executed during St. Valentine's Day, for example. Sorry if I sounded a bit too harsh there! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Luckily, this is a gun-free zone. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of the media has started to refer to this incident as "(the second) St. Valentine's Day massacre," so I think that the link is appropriate. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the citation? If you've got a good one, hopefully more than one since you say "some", then it could be valid. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Try doing a search for "Valentine's massacre Illinois" on Google News. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they're making a playful connection because of the date. Unless major news media start to conventionally call it that, then it's very questionable here. The one was a gangland killing with a specific "business" reason behind it. This was just some nut shooting a bunch of people at random, as far as we know at present. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Grace was referring to it as the Valentines Day Massacre. (I don't recall if she included Saint or not.) There is also a semi-similarity in geography to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre since DeKalb is about 60 miles from Chicago. Still, I'd like to see some more evidence that it's linked by more than the imagination before including the link. Jason P Crowell (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We could give them a pass on the "Saint" part since that part of it gets little usage nowadays. And you're onto the point that her calling it that was likely just hype. Anyone who has watched her show knows that it's an emotion-charged program. If the usage persists and spreads across the media, then there might be something to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I myself had also thought of the Saint Valentines Massacre and the only way I found a connection was not only because of the date, but because he was studying the justice system and I can only imagine that he had learned about that particular massacre in the course of learning about the justice system. Since we have no motives yet, people are going to start to try and find connections and what not. If he was studying the justice system and wanted to emmulate that massacre, but make it modern day, then he not only followed suit on the date of that particular massacre, but it almost seems as though he tried to make it modern day by following suit with the Va-Tech Massacre. This is ONLY a theory, not any sort of fact. Another thing I thought thought of (being that I used to take classes at NIU and my sister is a current student) is that there use to be a sociology class taught in that very classroom. Even though he never exhibited any sort of angry behavior in the past, perhaps something had set him off in that particular class, another student, the professor, and he held it with him through the years only to come back and try to shoot that particular class. Again, this is only my speculation and theory. The Chicago Tribunes website has a few first hand accounts from some of the students in the hall that day and some noted that he poked his head in a couple times before he came in all the way. Another noted that they had seen a woman come in and sit in the back before the shooting happened, she had no notes, no books. Just sat. When the shooting began she stood up crying and ran out. They are looking for this woman. Whatever his motive was it may or may not be some sort of copy cat to the Valentines massacre and/or the Va-Tech massacre. Or it could have been his own conceived seperate plot. Until all the details come out we won't know for sure. SubaruFiend 09:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Until or if we know what his motive might have been, lumping it in with 1929, or any other mass-killing for that matter, amounts to speculation and original research. FYI, I also made the immediate connection to Valentine's Day when I heard the news. That doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the article, though. Just the facts, man. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming...

Should this article be renamed to NIU massacre like VT? miranda 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless that becomes its standard reference name in the media, which I don't think it has. It's just one of several shootings this past week or so. You can only have so many such events tagged as "massacres". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # of wounded?

The math works out to 16 wounded (22 shot including perp with 6 dead = 16 left over) yet the little box says 15 wounded. Heatsketch (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article [1] says he shot 21, killing 5, before doing himself in. That's 16. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motive?

The killings happen on Valentine's Day. His girlfriend had just broken up with him in December and he stopped taking his meds. Perhaps a selfish self-pity response to regain control and "get back" at girl.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.147.178 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is merely a speculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is merely speculation, and besides that: "Northern Illinois campus Police Chief Donald Grady said Friday at a news conference that the shooting was not the result of a failed love affair."-According to the most recent news release of the L.A. Times. 64.231.209.118 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] # of students in class

I have read from multiple sources (I can not retrieve them at this moment as the computer I'm on does not allow me on certain websites, but if you google it there are MANY news reports of this number) that state that the number of registered students in the class was 162. (google "162 registered niu shooting"). The article should reflect the appropriate number of students at the time of the shooting since saying 150-200 makes it seem that there were many more students in attendance then there actually were. If there are only 162 registered it is almost CERTAIN that not all were in attendance that day so the number that the perpetrator actually shot at was more in the 100-150 range. (SubaruFiend (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good. If you've got a good source or two, go ahead and correct the number in the article, please! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was listening to WGN radio720 that evening and a student who had been present called and stated that there were about 125 present that afternoon. She claimed that he did a roll call count in order to give extra credit to those who showed up. She said the instructor did that to encourage students to be in class. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard record of it, unless WGN has archives available from that day. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name and other facts

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Chamapign, where he was a graduate student in Social Work, lists his name as: Steven Phillip Kazmierczak. See http://www.uiuc.edu/resources/announcement1.html. Kaomso (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And pronounced kaz-MEER-check, according to that site, cutting through the alphabet soup. If they can't agree on his formal name, maybe it's safer to keep as "Steve". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN's press conference today just confirmed the "Steven" spelling as well. The wikipedia article has been adjusted. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Steven" is correct spelling. I had looked up his U of I PH (phone book) entry on the night of the 14th, and saw his name spelled as "Steven". (the entry, for some reason, has been removed from PH since then.)--Ragib (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Political Science Undergrade Adviser in an e-mail to all Political Science Majors, she states that Cole Hole will not be reopened this semester, and will possibly be closed forever, this was an e-mail sent out to all Political Science Undergrad Majors, I can't add this in since i'm not registered, if you guys want to wait until President Peters gives that statement fine, just wanted to let everyone know that is what is going to happen to Cole Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.202.92 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would take that as hyperbole or hysterical reaction, at least the part about it being "closed forever". This is a state-run institution, and they can't just stop using a public building just because they feel badly about the shooting. However, as you say, if the University President decides to do that for real, and assuming he has the authority to do it, it could be worth mentioning. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

She stated that it will no longer house classes, but that the building will not be in use for the rest of the semester for anything, it was also stated on the news that Cole Hall was closing down this semester. She stated that in the future it might be used for other purposes whatever those will be.

I think I would wait a bit before posting that, although one would assume she might have talked to the higher-ups before asserting that decision. The problem is, if you close down a building, you have to make the space elsewhere. I would think they would re-open it after the psychological wounds have healed a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
NIU does have a history of re-appropriating servicable structures for administration, greenspace, memorials or for other issues and then bonding for new student-oriented buildings elsewhere. That's one of the reasons why the campus is large and spread out. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

President Peters is getting everyone's opinions about what to do with Cole Hall at this point so that is the latest information over the building. At this time the building is not going to be torn down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.14.129 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The gun control section is a bit ridiculous, weighted toward the pro-gun side and this last sentence is anything but neutral: "The state of Illinois has a satewide ban on the carrying of loaded handguns"

That implies that it was once legal and later banned, if that is the case it needs to be backed up with fact, and citation.Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this section because (a) it really doesn't belong in an article about the incident, and (b) it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. It could be paraphrased, fixed up, and moved into an article about gun control, but it doesn't belong in this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, that sentence is either ambiguous or flatly incorrect. Illinois does allow people to carry loaded handguns (e.g. for hunting), Illinois does not, however, license or allow concealed carry of loaded firearms by private citizens. Shouldn't sections like this only be included if the debate is more than tangentally related to the issue? Gun debates recommence with any shooting, which makes the issue non-specific and therefore irrelevant WRT an encyclopedia article. If the NIU shooting results in a change in law then perhaps the inclusion of a debate section would be relevant, but until then I would vote that it isn't. Jason P Crowell (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well-stated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Current Event

Is this still considered a current enough event to still have the ce banner? I would think this case is pretty closed by now. M173627 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assume there is still a fair amount of information that will come out, i.e. motive, background, etc. Not sure how that fits with the CE rules though. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Its been removed by someone, apparently only to be used on articles for mass edit on a single day. M173627 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, seeing the rules. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. Cheers, M173627 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1929 vs. 2008

Some guy is trying to post a section about "coincidences" with 1929, including twice (at least) stating that 7 died in the current attack. So it was 7 then and 6 now, so 7 apparently equals 6 now. Must be the "new math". And of course they were both gangland killings, and they both occurred on a college campus. And it was in Illinois with snow on the ground. Oh, and they were both perpretated by someone with a sinister, foreign-sounding name. And amazingly enough, they both occurred in a gun-free zone. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He fixed the number, so presumably this spurious correlation will stay until someone else zaps it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The references used in the section look sound to me... --ElKevbo (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the part about him living with his girlfriend has to do with anything. There was one story that a woman known to him might have been in the lecture-hall audience. I think it was in USAToday several days go. I don't know if that story/rumor has been resolved or not. If it has any truth to it, it could add to the Valentine's analogy. Otherwise, the Valentine thing is really a stretch. But technically the facts have valid sources now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The valentine's day thing is a real stretch, though I think the part about him living with and communicating with his girlfriend may be relevant because some early law enforcement speculation indicated that perhaps he had a recent fight with a girlfriend, which now seems to not be the case if Jessica Baty is to be believed. (I for one find her tale questionable at best -- but we'll see, my opinion should have no relevance on its inclusion or lack of. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The missing piece in the paragraph, which is what makes that part of it relevant, is that he called her to say goodbye, so I added that point in. The fact he was living with her sounds like someone trying to push a "morality" button, so I took it out. Cohabitation is very common. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that wasn't my interpretation, but I guess I could see it, I just saw it as further evidence that the couple was not "on the rocks" so to speak. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your interpretation also. If and when more comes out about their relationship, there's a chance it could become relevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless it turns out to be relevant to the motives or timing of the event in the mind of the perpetrator, coincidences are just that, and therefore, not notable. Until we know if it is more than speculation on motive, I would vote not to include the section on coincidences. Jason P Crowell (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The editors' sole basis for inclusion is that the London Mirror called it a "Valentine's Day Massacre", along with putting 2-and-2 together about the gunman saying goodbye to his girlfriend and now that I think of it, that constitutes "analysis" on the editor's part and that part of it should be removed as being (currently) irrelevant. There is no evidence that there is any love-related reason that he chose the 14th to do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the section. Unless a clear connection between these events is established, or unless the media begins to refer to it commonly as a 'Valentine's Day Massacre," then its inclusion is pure speculation to include it and a simple coincidence in regards to the date. will381796 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NIU postings

Contrary to the odd original research implying note at the bottom of the page, all notices from NIU appear on this page. The time of 3:05 is not noted there, but may be in some news source. As it stands, your information is uncited, and the note is against WP rules on OR. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the link; I've added it to the page. I originally thought that it was removed by the university (hence the need for a footnote). Although I still take offense to your accusations that the footnote violated WP:OR, because it actually did not. Please re-read the original research section so that you can comprehend it properly. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah buddy, whatever, you came to your own conclusion about the source material. How is that not unpublished synthesis? Not to mention you as much said it was original research: "previous editor observations, a campus alert". Previous editor observations don't belong as material on Wikipedia. Take all the offense you want. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates on wounded

The Daily Herald had an extensive update on the condition of the wounded, it can be found here. It includes a lot of names of the wounded, I wasn't sure how to incorporate this information so I will leave to someone else. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the list to the page. Although there are only 13 individuals. The infobox says 16 were injured, so 13 + 6 = 19, not 22, which was the number of people shot. Not sure what the discrepancy is? Maybe the article cited is an incomplete list? Dr. Cash (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be my guess. There seems to be some other articles slowly making the rounds among the local and regional outlets in that area. I'll see if I can dig up any other names. Thanks for adding those doctor. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There is some vandalism going on. I'm not a registered user, but someone who is should get this page protected pronto. I tried to delete the vandalism but it was occurring as I was deleting it. 216.125.11.207 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I'm surprised more photos haven't been added to the article by now, particularly with the aftermath and all. I haven't really seen many over at Wikimedia Commons, either. Can someone upload some decent photos? Dr. Cash (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of victims

I reverted the edit that removed the list of deceased and injured individuals. This information is cited correctly and verifiable and its inclusion does no harm to the article. Rather then the information be listed as part of the article, I would be okay with it being moved into some sort of infobox, as done in Westroads Mall shooting. If I have time today I'll try and do that myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just fine with the list as-is. I'm not real crazy with the infobox format that is used in the mall shooting article, though. I think it makes it looked kind of cramped and awkward. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't really care how its in the article so long as its in the article. will381796 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the list to be voyeuristic and macabre and I don't think it positively adds to the article. I seem to be in the minority right now but I expect we'll visit this again later when emotions are not running as high so I'm more than happy to bow to majority opinion right now. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your stance is rather subjective. This is an article on a mass murder, which tend to be rather grim topics. We're not here to add/remove information in order to make everyone feel happy happy about life. will381796 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You're free to disagree but I continue to believe that listing the names of unknown people slain in a mass murder adds nothing to reader's understanding of the event. It seems rather to be an emotional appeal and moves this farther from being an encyclopedia article and closer to being a tabloid article. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with the list of victims, and don't see it as "voyeuristic" or "macabre" at all. Wikipedia is here to report the facts of this incident. The names are part of the facts. Plain and simple. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No they aren't. They aren't important. Names are completely irrelevant unless the person is notable. MORE information is actually given by saying X students and Y faculty were killed than the names. All the names are is memorializing. They're completely worthless otherwise. They don't tell us anything important whatsoever. That's why I got rid of them. The problem is that many people simply don't understand this, and think it is important to keep them in. But it really is not the case. We don't list the victims of 9/11 for a reason, and it isn't "the list is too long" - its that the list is completely, totally, and utterly unimportant. The number of people killed matters, but the names are completely irrelevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, by that argument, I guess we're not important, and we're just a bunch of numbers. Wikipedian #343,214 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What time was it?

In the article, 2 references of 3:05pm and 1 reference of 3:06pm. In other words, the article isn't consistent.

Should I set the 3rd reference to 3:05pm, or should I set the two references to 3:06pm? 64.209.16.206 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Stephen Kazmierczak into this article

So, both this article and the article on the perpetrator of this attack contain a great deal of overlapping information as well as factual inconsistencies. As the perpetrator is only notable in the context of this attack (ie, if he had not done the attack, he wouldn't have been notable enough to get an article and most of the sources out there analyze the perp in light of the event), several of the editors on the other article feel that a merge is warranted. There were some calls for there to be a one week cool-off period to see if any additional information would come to light that would warrant keeping the Stephen Kazmierczak article separate. This week has passed and no new information has surfaced. Therefore, I'd like to see some of the opinions on a re-do of the merge of the Stephen Kazmierczak article into this article (with the removal of redundant information) in an attempt to consolidate this information into a single article, remove inconsistencies, and to make it easier for editors to update new information on the shooting without the need to go and make edits to two articles with the same information. Please let me know what you think and try to keep your arguments away from WP:WAX (i.e., we have an article on Cho and the Columbine perps so we need an article on this guy). will381796 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Will, WP:WAX is prefaced with: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Citing it is meaningless and is a misunderstanding of that page. Discussion about WAX is completely legitimate. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it is a guideline, and the fact that it is not a guideline does not make what is said in the essay any less true. I'm saying that to use it as an argument is an error in logic. By using it you are making an argument based simply upon issues that are secondary to the issue at hand. As said, for every article you cite that has the perp on a separate page, I can cite one that has the perps information ONLY within the article. It is for this reason that it is a flawed line or reasoning. The fact that article A has so and so listed separately is not a reason to do the same thing to article B. Unless a policy or guideline is created related to this issue, we have to look at each article independently. There's obviously no precedent. Also, you only need to type that once in a discussion. I'd read it whether or not it was pasted once or three times. will381796 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it comes up so often that we need to write a blurb about it, maybe it is important. It is not an "error in logic." Here's why: you've set up the premise that a discussion for merge should only focus on the article in isolation and therefore, discussion beyond the article becomes "secondary" to what you consider the "issue." In so doing, you presumptively establish another premise: that this article in isolation is the "issue." By that standard, your discussion of "he wouldn't have been notable enough to get an article and most of the sources out there analyze the perp in light of the event" is "illogical" because it calls into factors beyond the article itself: namely, the considerations of the media and society at large regarding the importance (or lack thereof) of this person. In conclusion, your argument of whether something is logical is flawed with premises that you do not always adhere to. Moreover, your argument uses premises that are drawn from the conclusion those same premises are used establish: in other words, you are arguing that this article should be considered in isolation with premises that already presuppose this article should be considered in isolation. I'm sorry that was complicated, but sometimes, life's complicated. Also, you made the same argument over several discussions. I posted the same reply to places where you made the same point. Therefore, if you do not want me to duplicate my argument, don't duplicate yours.--Aboveloan0239 (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that essay. I do not believe that the topic of the Steve article is the "issue." The issue is the NIU shooting. The NIU shooting is of course, notable. Whether the perpetrator of that article is notable enough outside of the event (the "issue") to merit its own article is the question. Other individuals have become notable enough for their own separate articles due to either continued coverage in the media about their exploits or due to outside studies or writings about the perps by independent writers. Personally, I read the news all day, every day, and I haven't read anything specifically about the shooter since Feb 20th. A google news search for his name doesn't show any articles written specifically about Steve within the last week (Feb 20th was the last I found in which the girlfriend was saying that he was on 3 meds). Not enough time has passed for the there to be any type of independent studies or writings about Steve or the impact of his shooting. Arguments have been made that the NIU shooting article should ONLY discuss the NIU shooting. Well, that's fair enough. I agree with that idea. But how can you analyze and learn about the event without information related to the shooter? Why should readers have to click over to another article in order to learn more about him? The argument has been made that inserting the shooter section will make the article too long. Before the previous merge was undone, the article was a mere 16 kb long. According to the Manual of Style, articles should definitely be divided when they reach >100 kb in length. Even at 30 kb in length, the MOS states that length is not yet justification to split. Since that merge, of course both articles have grown, but I'm sure to nowhere near 30kB. Another reason to split an article, per the MOS, would be if the article became difficult to read or diverged from the topic of discussion. The shooter is obviously related to the topic of the NIU shooting (as he is already mentioned within the article), and the inclusion of this information does not make the article any harder to read or any less organized. will381796 (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, your reply has splayed this discussion into four or five separate and unrelated prongs, all of which I'd be happy to address. But none of them have anything to do with the initial post of this thread and all my previous replies: WP:WAX. To bring all your points up here is admirable: while it may create the appearance of strengthening your point, they are non-sequitur to our discussion. It greatly confuses and unnecessarily complicates our discussion.--Aboveloan0239 (talk) 07:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
They are all reasons that have been mentioned in either this or previous discussions supporting the position to have the articles separate and I have addressed them. This is a discussion on the merge. We're not here to debate WP:WAX. Just trying to keep us on topic. will381796 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
" We're not here to debate WP:WAX." Will, we are here to debate WP:WAX. That's the singular point of every post I've made. How you've missed that I do not know, but we've ended this discussion at the point where this discussion began. How odd. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
We're not here to discuss WP:WAX. Discussion here is on ways to improve this article. IWe're not here to debate policy or a guideline or to argue about whether WP:WAX need be followed. It obviously doesn't NEED to be followed. I, and others, feel that merging the article on the perp will improve the quality of the article. I've simply asked for arguments against a merge that are not based upon WP:WAX. I'd like to know if there are any legitimate arguments that do not solely rely upon this argument. So far, these are the only arguments I've seen to keep them separate. I've already refuted the other arguments regarding length or difficulty in organization. I don't think its too much to ask if those against a merge would give reasons based on guidelines or policy. I've cited the MOS, which is policy, and it clearly shows that the undo of the original merge was uncalled for. will381796 (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, you have again unnecessarily complicated your response with three or four separate issues. You seem so eager to fit every single argument into a single response so your argument seems stronger, but it only confuses. My singular point has been regarding WP:WAX. Why you continue to do other things boggles me. Your most recent response seems to indicate that the issue of WP:WAX's validity is, for some reason, set aside, and that the current debate is a test tube to solicit ideas for a merge that do not involve WP:WAX. If that were indeed the case, do not title this section: "Merging of Stephen Kazmierczak into this article" which would suggest that a discussion of WP:WAX is legitimate, relevant, and expected. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is only you that gets confused. Please, read slowly. Every argument doesn't need a separate bullet point to be understandable. You continue to want to make this a debate of whether or not we are required to follow WP:WAX. There's a location for that debate and this talk page is not it. From my point of view, there is no debate. Like you said, its an essay that is not a guideline. I concede that point. Get off WAX. Move on. Be happy. I'm just asking for some substantial argument to keep these articles separate which is not a WP:WAX argument. The WAX argument is very weak. You said that you would be happy to address my above comments. Please, feel free to. But from my POV, consensus on this has been reached. I'm happy to keep this debate ongoing before doing the merge. Debate is great, but this is a debate that has been ongoing for 3 days with this section and over a week with the last discussion. Consensus was reached and ignored with the last merge. We need not make the same mistake again. will381796 (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Get off WAX." Will, I didn't get "on" WAX, you did. Also you have once again complicated this discussion with two or three unrelated points. I have not objected nor mentioned them, so I am not sure why you keep bringing them up (especially since I may agree with you on many of them). I am, and have always been, concerned about WAX. Namely, how you dismissed it without any discussion of it's merits at the outset of this discussion (e.g.: "The WAX argument is very weak.") How can you claim consensus if you simply dictate the utility of WAX? If this is not the place or time to do it, then where and when, Will? --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I've read the previous debates on this article and the merging and MANY of arguments were directly related to WP:WAX. Perhaps I jumped the gun in requesting that people try and keep off WAX, but since it had been brought up again 2 or 3 times this time around, it was obviously needed. The best place to discuss this would be on that essay's talk page here. I'm sure this has been rehashed time and time again. I would, if you agree, like to return this to a debate on the merging of the two articles rather than a debate about WAX or an objection to my request that WAX not be used as an argument. will381796 (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, why in the world should anyone go there to argue WAX? What difference does it make? Again, you have presupposed a conclusion of WAX's irrelevance -- a dictate if you will. Your last reply is no different from your very first comment here. I.e.: a debate about merge should exclude a debate about WAX. You have simply restated the statement you gave at the very beginning. How odd. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How interesting that you can't get off this topic. I'm done with it. I do find it interesting, however, that you say you may agree with me on several of the points that I brought up above, and yet you "strong oppose" the merge down below under your IP address 71.184.193.227. Now, you asked where one would go to discuss WP:WAX. I pointed you towards the WP:WAX talk page. Seems to make sense to me. will381796 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, it's interesting how you keep going off this topic. We've ended no further than we began, because you instinctively deny any explanation or discussion of WAX. Again. WP:WAX is a legitimate point of discussion and your preemptive denials to consider it prevents consensus by shutting off a vibrant line of discussion. Discussion on the talk page of WP:WAX would be fruitless since that discussion does not involve merging these articles. Also, you've curiously wandered into two or three points regarding my IP address that are irrelevant to this line of discussion. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Where would a discussion on WAX as related to the merging of these two articles go? Something like this? You: "Article B has a separate article on the perp so why not article A?" Me: "No, there's no consensus on what to do with the perps of various shootings. We need to look at the notability of each perp independently of what's been done with OTHER school shooting perps." You: "I don't agree with you. Article C has a separate article, so why not article A?" Ad nauseum. We both disagree with each other. You won't change my mind. I won't change yours. I feel that its not a valid argument; you obviously do. Can we agree to disagree? Why do I want to get off of this point of discussion? Because we've already written over 16 kB only on this WAX deal and diverted the attention of this part of the discussion from the issue at hand (which contrary to your belief, is NOT whether you can use the WAX argument). For the third time, make the argument. Obviously you can. But please, for the love of Jeebus, support it with some OTHER reasons. I'm seriously not asking too much, am I? If you REALLY want to carry on this conversation, could you please create a new section on this talk page so that this section doesn't get any more ridiculously large. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Will, I did not start WAX. I have actually not made any merge statements that use WAX as a defeinse. My problem is embodied in many of your posts, including your latest. You simply deny the valdity of WAX arguments without any proof/reasoning/discussion. This stifles debate, and ultimately prevents consensus; it would not have been a big deal had you not prominently duplicated a hollow link to an ineffectual page, giving short shrift to WAX arguments. I am also confused by your mock conversation. Why are you putting words into my mouth? I have already typed many words on this page. Perhaps you should dialog with my actual words instead of holding an imaginary dialog wherein you author my words. Perhaps you should dialog with the words already on this page. Indeed, WAX discussions have already been raised, but you seem to have mocked them in your mind before reasoning with them on this page. Ad nauseam? But, I am not nauseous! --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The only reason there is a article on the Virginia Tech is because of that article's length. It's purely a section subarticle, not a fully independent one. The primary reason Kazmierczak has an article is that there are significantly more details on his life, making the article apparently stand on its own from the start, even though he does not have notability on his own as an academic. Circeus (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He may not have notability on his own as an academic, but that is irrelevant in this case. His notability is by the crime that he perpetrated. If Steven Kazmierczak is merged into this one, then let's get rid of Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson, too. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, don't base your arguments on the existence of other similar articles. These are not good reasons to keep or delete an article. will381796 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Major straw man, mentioning Hitler and Manson. People mentioned in this Talk article about Koresh and Tim McVeigh, etc. Those are people with more notable backgrounds, and involved in more major events. Not to trivialize those who died, but this has become somewhat run of the mill, for the U.S. I'm strongly of the opinion that the perp needs no other mention than a blurb in this article, not his own separate article. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, WP:WAX is prefaced with: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Citing it is meaningless and is a misunderstanding of that page. Discussion about WAX is completely legitimate. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. WP:WAX is an 'essay', and should not be used in policy or consensus decisions. Using it as such would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose There is enough information in the [{Steven Kazmierczak]] article specifically about the shooter that I believe it belongs in its own article. Merging it into this article will only create confusion, and increase the overall size of that article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The shooter is not notable outside of the event which he propagated. Without the event, Steve would not be notable and without Steve, the event would not have taken place. The two articles have much of the same information and are overly redundant. For example, the shooting's article has a section that describes Steve as an excellent academic. Should this not go in the article on the perp. This section has inconsistencies with the main article on the NIU shootings, such as the number killed. If we were to remove all of the redundant information from Steve's article, it would be nothing more than a stub and all of the non-redundant information could be merged into the NIU shooting article without loss of information or the NIU shooting article becoming too large. Also, as stated before, several of these shootings have had the perp spun off into a separate article in order to keep the articles from becoming too long and unwieldy. The NIU shooting is nowhere near too long. In fact, its length is exaggerated because there is a great deal of "dead" space due to the lists of victims. will381796 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose I would support a merge if the Kazmierczak article were short and stubby. If we could edit the Kazmierczak article down to a paragraph, then a merge would make sense. Why don't we edit the Kazmierczak article down to a paragraph FIRST, THEN merge? What's the harm in that??? If the information in the Kazmierczak article is indeed irrelevant or should go on the NIU page, then the editing down should be effortless and logical, and we'll end up with one paragraph! That does not seem to be the case (For now). Hence, Oppose. --71.184.193.227 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To hopefully turn this into a discussion (or more accurately a compromise) rather than a mere vote: how short would the proposed Kazmierczak article have to BE to be considered for a merge. Kazmiercsak is SO un-notable that it would be easy to pare it down to a "short" section. On the other hand, if opposition to a merge will continue no mater HOW short the Kazmierczak section is in the NIU shooting article, then please just SAY so. I do NOT see the NIU shooting article being that long in itself, and merging Kazmierczak won't make it long (or "unwieldy" in any sense of the word), either. What do you consider long and unwieldy, anyway? I'd consider "unwieldy" to mean that it would be hard for a reader to soak-in all the info or an editor finding it hard to edit. I don't see either happening were a merge to occur. 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daven brown (talk • contribs)
I don't think it's a matter of how short an article about the shooter should be, but more a matter of two separate topics. This article should be about the incident itself, and specific biographical information about the shooter need not be in it, as it would place too much emphasis on the history of the shooter and not enough on the actual event itself. Also, the Virginia Tech massacre has a separate article on the shooter itself, and it's not incorporated within it. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Cash, as I've said two times already, WP:WAX is not a valid argument for keeping an article. As I've done already, for every article about a school shooting that has a separate article for the shooter, I can find an article on just as many showing just the opposite. This is a flawed line of reasoning. will381796 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, WP:WAX is prefaced with: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Citing it means nothing. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Stephen Kazmeirczak is simply not a notable individual. The only reason he has an article is because people made the article, then vehemently opposed merging it while simultaneously adding non-notable information about him. He's not going to have articles written about him in three months. Where he went to high school is completely irrelevant. Indeed, the vast majority of the article about him is completely irrelevant. Here is the sum list of what matters about Kazmeirczak:
    • He wrote an article on mental health.
    • He was on antidepressants and recently went off of Prozac (and this, arguably, is POV-pushing in and of itself in terms of notability, though personally I think the suicide inducing side-effects of anti-depressants probably warrants this inclusion)
    • He was a graduate student.
    • He gave no indication he was about to go on a rampage.
I just don't see a whole lot of other notable information about him, and all of that above is a single paragraph titled Stephen Kazmeirczak. The rest of the information is just padding and is completely valueless. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong merge as a matter of course. The only plausible reason to split off a separate article about Steven Kazmierczak is iff this article here should become overlong sometime in the future. Period. Dorftrottel (warn) 16:36, February 29, 2008
  • Merge. He's just not notable enough on his own. Now, if more comes out about premeditation and all the stuff that came out with Columbine and Virginia Tech, then - yes - he will be a subject worthy of his own article. Until that time, he's not independently notable. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. The person involved is only notable because of the single event, the shooting, therefore the majority of the (encyclopaedic) information that can be put into an article about him is related to the shooting. It therefore duplicates what is in the article on the shooting itself. Other mass murders (such as the examples above) have a greater notability from multiple events or from a period in history and therefore there is more information that can be put in their articles (which would otherwise have to be gleaned from multiple articles relating to multiple incidents). In the case we are discussing here there is one perpetrator and one incident – in my view, it therefore makes sense to merge the person's article into the incident's article. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Obvious merge. A similar discussion occurred for University of Florida Taser incident and Andrew Meyer. Meyer is clearly noteworthy only for that incident. This issue is the same — in no way should there be two pages for this incident. Kazmierczak is just not notable on his own. Timneu22 (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge since Kazmierczak is not notable on his own: he is notable only for one event, the shooting. Daven brown (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree, and in addition to WP:BLP1E, people who erroneously believe there should be a separate article should also see WP:ONEEVENT. Policy is rather unambiguous about this: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Cover the event, not the person. Dorftrottel (taunt) 07:54, March 3, 2008

By all of the above arguments, we should merge Seung-Hui Cho into the Virginia Tech massacre article as well. Yet it remains separate after almost one year from the incident. Cho has exactly the same notability as Kazmierczak. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cash, take a look at the Virginia Tech massacre article. First, per the Manual Of Style, articles should definitely be split off when they would be over 100 kB long. The massacre's article is 68.7 kB. The Cho article is 83.1 kB long. Obviously, simple math shows that keeping these two articles combined will result in an article over 100 kB in length. This is, by definition, a long and unwieldy article. For it to adhere to the Manual of Style, separate articles are required. Second, you can tell simply by the formatting on the massacre page that the separate page was created simply to prevent the main article from getting too long. This is why there is, in fact, a perpetrator section with a link to the separate Cho article. Common sense shows that this separation was done to keep the overall tech massacre from getting too long. will381796 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You are thus assuming that Kazmierczak's article will not grow to the same size as well. And by merging it, you're in fact, stifling editing on the subject by keeping it all within the same article, which is a bad policy for Wikipedia to get into,... Dr. Cash (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how having the articles merged will "stifle" editing on the subject. Regardless, you are assuming that the article will grow in length. If the article in the future grows to such a length to warrant separate articles, great. I'd support it. But it isn't yet and he isn't notable on his own outside of the single event. Consensus on this merge has been reached. I'll initiate the merge sometime today when I get free time (if someone else doesn't get to it first). will381796 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think consensus has been reached. There are several outstanding issues that no one has thought through. Moreover the discussion in the Steve Kazmierczak clearly shows that consensus has not been reached. This article has been throttled about before, and forcibly merging against consensus (again) will have the same result. --71.184.193.227 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The people on the Steve talk page are the same ones that said here on this talk page that they disagree with the merge. I directed everyone to this talk page for the discussion, which obviously most of the people did. It makes no sense to hold the same debate at the same time on two separate talk pages. What are the outstanding issues? Please...someone tell me. I'm in no hurry to do the merge, but when everyone except for three people are for the merge, that's pretty clearly consensus. will381796 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Will, I am glad you are in no haste. Several issues: 1)Decisions at Wikipedia are not necessarily made by voting. So tallying up things are not always a compelling way to show support for your issue. 2)Everybody who want's to merge propose it for the same reason: notability. This argument comes under signficant attack: WAX, to which no sufficient counter-attack has been raised, and thus the WAX stands. 3)Your use of WP:SIZE is misleading, or you misunderstand it. Firstly, WP:MOS makes no mention of kilobytes at all. Secondly, WP:SIZE makes no suggestions regarding our current situation. The word Merge does not occur on either pages. Indeed, if we adhere to WP:SIZE, it offers no suggestions why we should touch either articles. EDIT: WP:SIZE would considered a merged article (~32kB) to be a long article. -71.184.193.227 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the definition of consensus. Perhaps we need to get an independent third-party administrator in here to make the final call or see where we can go from here, because we're running in circles. Reasons have been given to refute the WAX argument my friend. They have just been overlooked or ignored. Secondly, WP:SIZE gives a rather nice section on the "rules of thumb" for a merge. Here they do give a very nice breakdown in terms of kB. Quote: "< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division; > 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Now, if a merge was performed, extraneous or repeated information would be removed from one or both articles, including information not related at all to the shooting, further reducing the article size. Even at 32 KB, length ALONE is not justification for separate articles. Arguments have been made that the article on the perp will grow and increase. will381796 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We're not running in circles at all. We just have one user and one IP blocking consensus against all sensible, policy-based arguments. I'd go straight for an RfC in this case, because this kind of behaviour (by Derek.cashman and the IP) is detrimental to useful collaboration. Dorftrottel (warn) 14:11, March 4, 2008
Calling my discussion detrimental borders on being inconsiderate, and ad hominem. Please reconsider. WP:Civil, WP:FAITH-Aboveloan0239 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Get real. Dorftrottel (criticise) 21:18, March 4, 2008
Okay. Done. Nope. Still no consensus. --Aboveloan0239 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This has moved onto an RfC. And, for your information, just like consensus doesn't mean a vote, it also doesn't mean a unanimous agreement. We can still do the merge with people that do not agree. We'd just like to get some independent, third parties to submit their opinions. will381796 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Will, you're right. Consensus does not mean unanimity. I'm actually fairly happy and content with the process so far. I have a few objections to it, and there are remain issues. But comparied to the last merge discussion, this one is quite good. If this current one is not done with the sort of haste and stupidity as the former one, I would be happy with the result. But Dorftrottel, easy on the ad hominem. OK? -Aboveloan0239 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel grossly offended by your remarks regarding my "blocking consensus" and lack of civility, but I really don't care anymore. Whatever the outcome of the RfC, so be it. I still don't see the harm in keeping the article separate for now, but if everyone wants to condense all his personal information into the main article, thereby creating a huge mess, fine,... I've stopped caring at this point. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're offended, but I didn't say anything about your civility anywhere. And the impression that you have some difficulties accepting growing concensus is, I believe, plausible. Please don't think I cannot relate to your position. I frequently find myself at the losing end of discussions, but then it's time to accept consensus and move on. Dorftrottel (taunt) 09:59, March 5, 2008

[edit] Request for Comment

  • Should there be a separate article for the perpetrator? See also the section above. Dorftrottel (troll) 14:19, March 4, 2008
  • There really isn't even a question about whether he was notable in any other sense so because the shooting is the only thing he is known for, no, merge the article with this one. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Rationale is simply that the perpetrator is not notable outside of the single event of this regretable shooting, and he should therefore be mentioned in the main article about the event rather than have his own biographical article memorialized in Wikipedia. The SK article does not meet notability requirements under any other conceivable fact about his life. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, no matter how much the psychologist or voyeur in us would like to get inside of SK's head, or figure out what about his past might have brought him to the point where he set out to kill people. N2e (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge, per arguments above. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge, also following the aforementioned arguments. It is clear that the perpetrator has no notability outside the shooting. The only reason one could have to keep the SK articles it that it has some length, but managing to add only the worthy details into this article during the merge should keep out that issue.--Legion fi (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like consensus is somewhat overwhelming here. I have now merged the contents of Steven Kazmierczak into this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statement

I am unable to find attribution to this statement by doing a search in the news media for it:

The Lawrence University Symphony Orchestra dedicated their February 16 concert at Auditorium Theatre in Chicago to "the students, staff, and families of Northern Illinois University".

I will remove it within 48 hours unless a source can be found. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I found some photos on flickr that might be useful in the 'reactions' section here. I've seen other editors take photos from flickr and add them to wikipedia, but I'm not sure if the license allows it or not? Anyway, this photo would probably be good. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of anonymous IP vandalism

I've reverted the edits by Anon Vandal 70.137.175.237, a luser subscribing to AT&T internet services. First, it is incorrect to state that he was discharged for "psychological" reasons, since the citation provided indicates that there was no specific reason given. The article states that it MAY have been for not informing the military of a previous condition, or not adapting to military life. But it also states that it's against the law for the military to reveal the true nature of the discharge, hence the reason it's in the article as "unknown".

The other issue with the luser's additions were the conversion of the template from the photo. The template should only be placed at the top of biographical articles, and does not belong inserted into the middle of articles. It doesn't look very good to have a template in the middle of an article like this one. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it may be a bit early to refer to these edits as vandalism. Just because he's anon doesn't mean he's a vandal. I personally agree with the reduction in the size of the perps photo to 125 pixels that the anon editor performed. I am going to return it to that returned size. The current size of his photos appears abnormally large. will381796 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly believe that about 99.9% of all vandalism is done by anonymous IP editors. Wikipedia really needs to close this huge gaping hole and if it is to gain any respect in the academic world. There is no reason why someone can't just register for an account; it's really not that hard. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate perp infobox is unacceptable

Infoboxes are for the top of articles only, not to be inserted into the middle of articles. Please stop adding the infobox of the perpetrator to that section. It will be reverted as vandalism. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you cite somewhere in the MOS that says this? Just for my information? Because as far as I know, the infobox did not detract from the article. I know of other articles where infoboxes are used in a perp section (Westroads Mall shooting is one I can think of right now). If there's a MOS guideline regarding no infoboxes except at top of article, I'll remove the infobox from the other article. If there's no MOS guideline, then I'd like the infobox re-added. will381796 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried finding guidelines for infoboxes in the manual of style but can't find anything. WP:INFOBOX goes to a wikiproject, not a guideline page. Still, it seriously looks bad to put something that clearly only belongs on the top of an article in the middle. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything either in the MOS. But I won't re-add it simply because it does contain a great deal of redundant information and the perp's section is so small that anyone can simply read the section to find out everything that was in the infobox. But I'll leave it open to discussion from other's if they have a different POV regarding inclusion of infoboxes. will381796 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The infoboxes do look bad anywhere but the top of the article, starts looking like some kind of USA Today article. That said, there is a whole cadre of editors around here that just pepper articles with multiple infoboxes, it used to drive me mad. IvoShandor (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth deadliest?

A citation is definitely needed on this statement:

Six people died in the incident, including the perpetrator, making it the fourth-deadliest university shooting in United States history, after the Virginia Tech massacre, the University of Texas Clock Tower shooting, and the California State University, Fullerton library massacre.

While I think it does clearly state that we're talking about the fourth deadliest university shooting in US history, a google search for "fourth deadliest school shooting" indicates that the Columbine High School incident claims that title. This should be clarified, and the university shooting bit needs a citation. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Where would the NIU shooting rank in all school shootings? Would saying it is the "4th deadliest university shooting and the __ deadliest school shooting" be enough clarification? will381796 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that the two citations that were just added to the statement actually satisfy the 'citation needed' requirements. In neither is the NIU shooting even mention, and in the US News article, if we were to add NIU to the listing with the number killed (6), this wouldn't be the fourth deadliest, it would be the fifth (tied with the current one listed as #5). Even if we take out the high school incidents, this would not be the fourth deadliest, but the third. But having to do this would be a violation of wikipedia's no original research policy. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should remove the statement until a verifiable source is found. You posted citation needed and nothing good was offered up. will381796 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I know you guys are just trying to be accurate and all, but this whole discussion is making me sick. Do we really need to rank it? I mean, if it was the deadliest, or second deadliest, I really could see it, but it's not, and I just don't think it's necessary. Are we going to track down and appropriately label the "17th deadliest" university shooting? Where does it stop? How about let's draw the line at #1 and #2? Could you consider that, please? Not everything needs to be quantified. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, merely just stating the facts, putting the event in perspective and indicating its notability, and backing it up with reliable sources. I thought that was the basis of Wikipedia. I guess my sources weren't good enough for you though? It's clear: U.S. News ranked the shootings for us, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to disclude the ones outside of universities, and they somehow forgot Cal State-Fullerton which I found a source for. It's not that hard. I haven't been given a good reason why my sources are not reliable, or why it isn't important to put this event in perspective, therefore I will be putting the sources back up, because it appears that they were removed on the basis of personal opinion and emotion moreso than anything else. Abog (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the point Cash was making was that the source needs to specifically state "4th deadliest university shooting in history." Sources are not cited for us to analyze and to interpret as we want. Technically, as editors, we're not supposed to be performing Original Research, which is what such an analysis and interpretation would qualify as. So while a list of school shootings may included NIU as one of the deadliest shootings, if that list includes other non-university shootings, we aren't supposed to interpret that source the say we want to as that is OR. To take a source that lists it in a list as being the 5th deadliest of school shootings and then to interpret that list as saying the school was the fourth deadliest university shooting, qualifies as original research. So, in conclusion, you need to include sources that specifically state "the NIU shooting was the fourth deadliest university shooting in history." will381796 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the NIU shooting is clearly not even mentioned in either of the citations that you're providing, so using them on a statement to rank this in order is a definite and clear violation of WP:OR, and cannot be allowed. Wikipedia is pretty clear on this. The {{fact}} tag needs to stay until the sentence is either removed, or cited with a citation that proves it. It's simply not our place to rank these things. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think it's a stretch to say that it is original research to consider taking a list, discluding irrelevant information, and converting it to a sentence, qualifies as original research. But, whatever. I found a source that explicitly states that it is the fourth deadliest university shooting, so now that, along with sources that show which university shootings were deadlier should hopefully satisfy. Abog (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Now I know some people might complain that the Naples News reference I added which explicitly states "fourth deadliest university shooting" might not be acceptable since that reference came out 5 days after the statement was put up on Wikipedia. Thus I just added another source, this one from the DeKalb Daily Chronicle, which was written a day after the shooting before the statement was added on Wikipedia, which also explicitly says fourth deadliest on a college campus. OK then, this debate should be over. Abog (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OMG.. I wasn't going to post in this because I thought this was a done deal but... why, at all, do we need to rank the shooting? As you yourself mentioned Abog, "it doesn't take a rocket scientist" to do some math and acknowledge that this was the fourth deadliest university shooting (who is keeping stats? and more importantly... who wants to keep stats?). So why should we keep stats that a person interested in them can easily infer?. For me it is not about POV, it is about notability. I couldn't care less if it was the first or the hundredth one. People died. We should state that along with the number of deaths. If someone is interested in comparing this kind of incidents, than that person is of course going to check all the incidents related (thanks goodness for categories) and personally conclude about the cardinality of an specific incident, even if that person is not a rocket scientist. --Legion fi (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
But who is going to bother to check all the dozens of school shootings. People will probably check the few that they hear of. If we can prevent people researching university shootings from having to go on a wild goose chase to find where this shooting ranks out, all the better right? Facts are facts. That's what Wikipedia is: facts that are well-written and well-cited. It's a fact that this is the fourth deadliest university shooting. The papers even said that in their leads. So why shouldn't a Wikipedia article say it in its lead? I'm sure Virginia Tech is stated to be the deadliest school shooting in its lead. But this article can't state fourth deadliest? Hmm...double standard? Abog (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The references that you've added now do back up the assertions in the article, and it is clear. Two independent sources have cited it as the fourth deadliest college shooting, so that is good enough to satisfy citation requirements. On an unrelated note, though, I'm still not entirely convinced that being the 4th deadliest is all that notable (sure, being #1 or #2 is; but how far down the list are we going to go?). But that's a debate for another topic,... Dr. Cash (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My GA Review of this article

The GA review has been archived and moved to here. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. That's a good idea. Is that new, archiving GA reviews? IvoShandor (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I am reluctant to make a major change in the article after it has reached GA status, but I felt that the table was easier to read. If I am mistaken, please tell me. I can either alter the table or we can go back to the old format. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the table. A simple list is sufficient here. The table looks too technical and not very aesthetically pleasing, plus I don't think organizing into a table offers anything extra that organizing as a simple list offers. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I'm with Cash on this one, its just not very aesthetically pleasing, longer tables don't always work in articles, I have used shorter ones and they tend to look OK, as long as the text wraps around them. Informationally, there really isn't a difference but to me, a table is more a summary than anything, I don't think they should be used to present data novel to the article, this is my opinio, of course. I'm not sure I always use this many commas, but it's scary nonetheless. IvoShandor (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)