Talk:Northern Illinois University shooting/Kazmierczak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-15. The result of the discussion was closed administratively as premature.

Contents

Picture

Is this the only picture you got? Something unsettling to see him smiling there. Can we use the tatoo one? 4.143.231.166 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)eric

Controversy/Merge/Redirect/Delete

The creation of separate articles for perpetrators of mass killings usually rouses controversy. I ask those who are against this one to voice their arguments on the talk page, since the common consequence - AfD - would be a needlessly forceful and clumsy blunt instrument in the circumstances. Thanks, Kizor 15:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect per precedent. No notability whatsoever inpedendent of the shootings. User:Dorftrottel 16:03, February 15, 2008
  • Keep per precedent. There's an article for the Bold text'Italic text'Italic textlist the damn refs guys or i will have to shut this article down''Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, so how is this any different? Bob (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a redirect for Robert A. Hawkins to Westroads Mall shooting#The shooter, so how is this any different? User:Dorftrottel 16:40, February 15, 2008
      • So Seung-Hui Cho gets a page because his kill rate was higher? Maybe we should have a kill rate threshold for these pages. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Very weird comment indeed. I just presented a counterexample to Seung-Hui Cho, who said anything about "kill rate"? User:Dorftrottel
          • I did--72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
            • There is an inconsistency between this article and the article involving the shooting itself; the shooting article suggests that six died, this article says five died, in the first paragraph Rusober (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

16:49, February 15 That was weird. To those of you joining us, the article was nominated for deletion by an editor who considered trying to talk things out noble but infeasible, and the nomination was summarily "closed administratively as premature." As such, get debating!
This is not a major matter. All of us are in favor of good coverage of the shootings - the only question is whether that's best done by covering the perpetrator separately or as a part of the Northern Illinois University shooting article. Personally, I'm for the latter. All we have and likely will have to say about Steven Kazmierczak is in the context of the shooting, and there's not enough info to work better as a separate article. The Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold article shows that shooters can in some cases be best covered separately, but on the other hand Pekka-Eric Auvinen needs no more than a section of a shooting article. Also note that it's quite possible - indeed, an often-used practice - to keep a matter in a single article, and split off subarticles when they become necessary. Any objections? --Kizor 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect, eventually - this is what happened with Trolley Square shooting - there was a separate article for the shooter until about 11 months after the event. Then it was merged into the shooting article - see merge discussion. — Zaui (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. A separate article can be created at any later point, when it becomes necessary (which it currently is not). User:Dorftrottel 16:51, February 15, 2008
  • Wait ONE day... or, dare I say, one week? We're running in circles [1] This has already been discussed and concluded--72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No. User:Dorftrottel 16:54, February 15, 2008
      • Just for the record, there are many other school shooter with their own wiki articles. For example: Charles Carl Roberts, Duane R. Morrison, Jeff Weise, Charles Andrew Williams, Kip Kinkel, Andrew Wurst, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Kimveer Gill, Valery Fabrikant, Marc Lépine, Robert Poulin, etc. I am strugling to see why Steven Phillip Kazmierczak should be any less "notable" (in lack of a better word, considering the terrible act he committed) than these other shooters.212.10.85.1 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Personally, I don't really care about notability. I care about whether or not our coverage of the shooting is better served with a separate article or an integrated section for the shooter. In some cases it's the former, yes, but in others it's the latter. --Kizor 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Dude, that attitude can't helping much. 72, this discussion is what the AfD was closed to have. --Kizor 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Feel free to discuss. I don't want to stifle anything. I just feel like we should wait at least ONE day, and we can have a better discussion without silliness --72.93.80.5 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what's the point of merging the articles when someone's just going to remake this page tomorrow once more information is present? Just leave it. Discuss the article's information, that would actually be a good use of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceSugar310 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect This individual is only notable from their connection with the shooting, therefore the information should belong in the shooting article. Anyone searching for the name will be redirected to the shooting article with information about Steven and the associated events. Having separate articles will simply encourage duplication of information. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Will you request a merge of all the other pages I mentioned previously (and there's more as a fast check through the listings on School shooting reveal)? Some of them have, coincidentally, been discussed on earlier occasions leading to them being left where they are. 212.10.85.1 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand that, but eventually he's going to have his own article, just like several others in similar school shootings. Let me reiterate the point I was trying make. There is no point in merging the two when someone is going to take the information on the NIU shooting page and duplicate it into a separate article regardless.LanceSugar310 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Probably. But since we've discussed the matter here and seem to agree that this content is best off merged into the shooting article, when someone does duplicate we can undo that, point to this outcome and ask him to discuss his viewpoint. Incidentally, given said agreement, I'll get on with the merging. --Kizor 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect He is not known for anything other than being a mass-murderer in a shooting the type of which happens about once every 2 weeks in the USA. Nutmegger (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Okay, I get what you're trying to say. Merge it is. LanceSugar310 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge...I agree with the above...there's just not enough info available now to have a separate article...and really, not enough notability outside of the shooting. Yes, I know other articles exist...like the Columbine shooters and the Virginia Tech shooter, but not enough exists on this one at this point to make a feasible article. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged

We seem to have come to an agreement. As mentioned, I've merged the article back and left a note at Talk:Northern Illinois University shooting#Stephen Phillip Kazmierczak merged. Hopefully this settles the issue. Thanks, Kizor 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How in god's name can you possible call this as "consensus" after so little time has evolved here?!?! That's ridiculous! This article needs to be reinstated, and the personal details on the perpetrator's life should come out of the article on the event. They simply don't belong there; if people want details on the perpetrator, they can click on the link to this article. That's what "hyperlinks" are for.
The other factor that needs to be put in is that at the present rate the event article is growing, it will get large quickly, and minor details on the perpetrator's life are going to be moved eventually, to make more room for info on the aftermath and memorials and such. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagreed with the merge from the beginning and continue to disagree with the merge... I think we should just wait etc etc. per my statements above.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, there was and still is clear consensus, which you simply chose to ignore. User:Dorftrottel 21:24, February 15, 2008

No way. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page restored

I have undid the merger. Consensus was clearly not reached. More time is needed; you can't establish true consensus after only a few hours. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was clearly reached. You simply ignored it. User:Dorftrottel 23:14, February 15, 2008
I didn't ignore anything. It's impossible to reach consensus in a matter of hours. Period. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably should be kept as a separate article. Compared to most school shooters, he was more notable than most because of his academic activities and student leadership. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're not seriously arguing that he was notable enough for an article before the shooting, do you? User:Dorftrottel 02:42, February 16, 2008
  • Should be merged, as was previously done. Killer is not notable himself for anything other than the killing and thus ca be discussed within the shooting's article. Simply because he was more academically successful and/or more active on campus before the shootings does not separate him from any other the other mass-shooters out there. If information develops that shows he is notable outside of the killing, then an article can then be created. You don't keep articles because you think they may one day be about a notable subject. They are removed until they become notable. will381796 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, we should just wait. We can have a coherent, agreeable solution in a few days. And precedence is to keep these pages: Charles Carl Roberts, Duane R. Morrison, Jeff Weise, Charles Andrew Williams, Kip Kinkel, Andrew Wurst, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Kimveer Gill, Valery Fabrikant, Marc Lépine, Robert Poulin, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold , Seung-Hui Cho,etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.80.5 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as you call in and state "precedent" by citing other pages, I can cite just as many examples of infamous perps that do not have their own pages and are instead only listed within the article on the events that they caused. WP:OTHERSTUFF should clearly apply and rather than cite the existence of articles on perps that have their own pages, please support the existence of THIS perp's own article using policies and guidelines. will381796 (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please go ahead and do cite such precedence? Body count should be ~5 I know of one: Westroads Mall shooting. I'm not doubting you, I just want to to see links. Also, the page you cite WP:OTHERSTUFF is prefaced with the following: 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 --72.93.80.5 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello? If you are still there, I await your response. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your body count "requirement" is ridiculous so I'm going to disregard it. A tragedy is a tragedy and there's hardly any reason to put a body count to define a qualifying tragedy. But, to answer your question, Louisiana Technical College shooting, SuccessTech Academy shooting, Delaware State University shooting, Weston High School shooting, Campbell County High School (Jacksboro, Tennessee) shooting, Rocori High School shooting, Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings, Appalachian School of Law shooting, Heritage High School shooting, Heath High School shooting, Richland High School shooting, Lindhurst High School shooting, Stockton massacre. So, as you can see, for as many examples you can find, I can find just as many examples showing the opposite "precedent." So please, let's not makes this argument based solely upon what has been done with other articles. will381796 (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
1)Thanks for the impressive leg work. For the links and replying 2) If the body count is "ridiculous" as you say, go ahead and ridicule it. You can't make a statement and then have the statement prove itself: the body count requirement is "ridiculous" because I say it is so. 3) Here's why the body count is not insignificant: the articles you list have low body count. A quick tally of victims dead respectively: 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 0, 3, 2, 3?. (Stockholm moved) Now consider the articles where shooters have their own pages, respectively: 5, 1, 9, 2, 4, 1, 5, 5, 1, 4, 14, 1, 13, 32, 5. So: shooters without their own pages have a mean body count of 1.583 and standard deviation of 1.04, while shooters with their own pages have a mean body count of 6.8. and a standard deviation of 7.8. I think these are statistically telling numbers that suggest some correlation between body count and media attention/importance/wikipedia ariticle worthiness.--Pitchtold12039 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, body count is no indicator of the complete impact that such an event can have; thus I was simply ignoring the "rule" dictated by 72.93.80.5 that I should only list articles with a body count above 5. You cite body count as a single indicator of the impact that these attacks have had on society. What about the countless individuals (family members, co-workers, etc) that woke up the next day impacted by the deaths of each person killed in each of these attacks. The death of even one person in such an event impacts many other people either directly or indirectly. All I'm saying is that there is no precedent to have individual article for perps of these attacks simply because they did the attack. Many of the perps that have individual articles have been thoroughly analyzed by sociologists, psychologists, etc. since they committed their attacks. They are thus, no longer simply notable for their attacks but are instead notable because of the impact that their attacks had on fields related to the study of such events. Daven brown below has done an excellent job of summing up my reasoning for why this should be merged into the article on the event. When further research and independent publications have studied Kazmierczak, then I would support an individual article. will381796 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional note: I must also point out that my research was only into school shootings. I am sure there are additional examples for other mass-shootings that fall into different categories (such as the Westroads Mall shooting). will381796 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Notability (people) seems to establish the criteria for creating a standalone article for a person (at least a living person) as the existence of a substantial number of writings about that person from verifiable sources (i.e., reliable, published sources). So if someone is recognizable, or in the news, who is not written about in verifiable sources, that person won't probably get their own article. Furthermore, there is no mention of precedence as a reason for someone getting (or not getting) their own Wiki article. Though policy considerations seem to be limited to biographies of living persons, we can apply those and common sense to articles about a dead person. Specifically, Steven Kazmierczak seems to not meet any of the "Notability" criteria of: Wikipedia:Notability (academics), nor Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) merely by having contributed to an academic work or leading a student organization. There is validity in claiming that Kazmierczak would not be notable had he not shot others, and/or himself. Considering People notable only for one event, if the text length of the shooter is unwieldy, perhaps it could be broken-out into a new article. Therefore, I feel that the Steven Kazmierczak article needs to be merged with the related shooting article till more than just some newspaper articles are written about him, since many of these have been cranked-out with little or no fact-checked, or peer-review to ensure accuracy. This should also apply to other shooters who haven't yet had more reliable magazine articles, scholarly works, or books written about them. Daven brown (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I still strongly oppose a merger. More and more information continues to be added to this article from a variety of sources, further establishing notability. Merging all this content with the NIU shooting article will make that article too long and unwieldy as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of name

I'm watching the press conference and they just spelled his name for the press - they spelled it "Stephen". That gets zero g-hits, but is it possible that everyone has been assuming up until now? --B (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes NYT confirms. I am going to move it -- Y not be working? 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What's up with this? I thought it was "Steven"? Dr. Cash (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone guessed last night when the report initially came out and they guessed wrong? "Stephen" comes from the press conference - they spelled out his first and last name for the media, so I'm assuming they knew what they were talking about. --B (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ppl moved it back... I don't understand - the local police made an official announcement of "stephen". Can anyting trump that? -- Y not be working? 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He was registered at UIUC as "Steven." We had to remove his listing at UIUC's student directory from his article. So, I don't get it. Mike H. Fierce! 08:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So move it back there. Or show just a tiny bit more common sense than you edit-warriors have done so far, and move it to Steve with redirects from both Stephen and Steve. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't edit war over this page ever. And who are you to talk to me that way? Do not address me like I'm a child, especially since I don't even know you. Mike H. Fierce! 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree his tone was rather rude. Its funny how people ask us to discuss important changes on an article's talk page and then they get angry when you do exactly what they ask. And then they get angry if you make the change unilaterally without opening it for discussion. People need to remember WP:CIVIL. will381796 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Do not place his personal information (phone, email, etc.) on the page. It will be deleted (not just reverted), and if you ignore this warning, you will be blocked. Superm401 - Talk 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to wiki rules personal information that is easily accessed by the Internet like Google can be put in there. Steve's email address are all over the place. From his google email to others he uses. There is no reason NOT to include them as they provide insight into his online posting such as paypal etc. I could see if they were personal info but they are a simple Google away. And before anyone says, "why bother if I can google them." If that's your answer why bother having the wikipedia at all since it's all copied from somewhere else

4.143.231.166 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)eric


Does anyone have a problem with the deletion of the current shooting section? Seems a little speculative to me, and though it may be based on a news report, it refers to personal information that cannot be determined at this point. LanceSugar310 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Since he's dead and it is sourced, BLP doesn't really apply...so...I don't see any policy based reason to remove it...sourced speculation is a little different than editor speculation... --SmashvilleBONK! 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there is a distinction between editor and press speculation, it just seemed a little one-sided to put that information on there, but I see your reasoning. Not that it really matters, because the article is getting merged now, but hey. LanceSugar310 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I also misunderstood a little because the info Superm401 had to remove had to be oversighted because it contained e-mail addresses, phone numbers and street addresses. I was thinking you wanted to oversight that info as well for BLP concerns. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled?

Per NIU and CNN and the personal info posted earlier, his name is Steven, not Stephen. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nevermind...didn't see the thread above and NIU just changed it. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Interestingly, UIUC, where Mr. Kazmierczak was a current student, listed him under "Steven" (though just this morning they removed the listing from the PhoneBook). CNN is referring to him as "Steven". --Ragib (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The name was originally given as Steven. University officials, during a press conference this morning, corrected that spelling to "Stephen". --B (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"He was a quiet guy, kind of a loner,..."

check. Why is it that virtually every psychopathic killer is described this way? Dr. Cash (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the question related to the improvement of the article? User:Dorftrottel 23:42, February 15, 2008
I'd wait for more information to come in on this before posting the opinions of a few people, even if it's in print. NIU is a suit-case school and lots of people leave on the weekends, meaning that neighbors are not necessarily friends. He was a vice-president of a student organization, Academic Criminal Justice Association (http://www.sa.niu.edu/acja.html), so it may be premature to consider him a "loner". IIRC, he was a helpful computer lab assistant (but that's original research on my part) Jason P Crowell (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC).


It may be, but being a student leader does not necessarily mean being an outgoing person in the residence hall. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


I lived down the hall from him for a semester and he was definitely a loner. Just thought I would add that. He would play counter-strike and blast music. I know original research is bad here, but don't think for a second that he was an extrovert when looking for information on this guy. Northernstar.info has some more quotes by graduates who knew him, if you dig around. 66.245.71.75 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)C

I played counterstrike and blasted loud music when I lived in my dorm during undergrad. Doesn't mean you're anti-social. Let's keep the discussion on ways to improve the article. will381796 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that was what 66 was trying to do. Thanks anyway, 66.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't EVERY college guy play CounterStrike and blast loud music in his dorm? -- JTHolla! 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I lived a few doors down from him and he was not anti-social - actually quite the opposite. As the others have said - what male hasn't played CS or blasted loud music. I'd be more worried if his room was always quiet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.140.223.253 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Psych Med Allergy Needs To Be Investigated

This case sounds like a possible psych-medication allergy.

A small percentage of people are allergic to certain psychiatric medications-- and become violently suicidal in reaction to the very same meds that would otherwise help many other people.

A close look should be taken at any psych meds that he may have recently been given.

I encourage any reporter who takes a look at this post to investigate this issue further--

There is a lot of documentation of this problem-- And the strange contrast between the known personality of this young man & the murders he committed may be a red flag for such a psych-med allergy reaction.

Another possibility is 'rapid withdrawal syndrome'-- Similar violent/suicidal reactions (in a small percentage of people) are known to be caused by some meds if a person comes off of them too quickly (withdrawing too rapidly). Again the stark contrast between this man's personality and what he did may be a red flag for such a reaction.


24.8.106.182 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or original research. WP:OR. If evidence arises to support your statements, then they will be included in the article. But until then, no mention of the possibility should be mentioned within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Several local news outlets are reporting that the shooter had a history of mental illness in the late 1990s and lived in a teen psychiatric rehabilitation facility, Mary Hill House, near Chicago for a year after high school and was on anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications. http://mystateline.com/media_player.php?media_id=12365 and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23192580 Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that he was taking meds is not in question. Its the hypothesis that he had allergies to the meds or "rapid withdrawal symptoms" as posted by user 24.8.106.182. If there are news reports that state those might be possible causes, then great. But they made it sound as though it was completely OR without and currently supporting sources. will381796 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I may not have made it clear. The reports claim he was on those meds even then, ten years ago. It's not a toxicology report, but it's relevant WRT the call for information on the issue. Jason P Crowell (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My Allergy and rapid withdrawal posts were an (indirect) call for sources and citations--

The posts were never a request to change the main article. I purposely wanted to open the subject in order to see if anyone with more specific case details would then come forward with supporting citations (or investigate and find them).

So it was ultimately (and intentionally) a call for citations. I was trying to prompt others who might have case knowledge about this crime or-- who might be in a position to get case knowledge about this crime-- to provide citations on this subject. Police could not do this at this point-- but a journalist involved with the story-- or someone else closer to the story-- might be able to provide citable information.

If I had thought the article itself needed to be changed accordingly I would have added the points to the article itself (in Sandbox-- and would only have done so with actual citations).

I also believe that attention to this matter may save innocent lives.

Sean7phil (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho link

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html

User:Dorftrottel 03:43, February 16, 2008

Wow. That's quite fascinating. Although I think it's mostly just a mere coincidence, but it will be interesting to see if anything develops with that,... I suppose they'll learn more about this kid once they take a look at his computer and apartment and stuff,... Dr. Cash (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection.

Is completely unnecessary. Can we please remove all of it?--72.93.80.5 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Register and you'll have no problem making edits to the article. will381796 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am actually capable of making edits to this article. That is not the point nor my issue of complaint.
THen what's the point or issue? Such articles are commonly protected to prevent vandalism, which is a good thing. Regular contributors should not be affected by the protection. will381796 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My issue is that it is unnecessary--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

I'm wondering if someone can write IPA how to pronounce his name. --Manop - TH (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Slp1 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Infamous not famous

Innocent people have been slaughtered so that a maniac like Kazmierczak can have the posthumous fame he would never have achieved in life. I don't think that Wikipedia should publish full biographies of people who commit acts of savagery like this, just to become famous. His brief biography details should be incorporated into the main article about the shooting. My IQ is 95. (A. Carty (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Become famous? He's dead. I'm sure he's not concerned about his Wikifame now142.176.58.167 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! It's settled, then! I'll nominate Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson for deletion immediately! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:WAX. And also WP:DENY, so to speak. The prospect of having an article on Wikipedia may even motivate copycats. User:Dorftrottel 14:55, February 17, 2008
I personally agree with you, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia guidelines do not work this way. While most of us do not want people like Herostratus getting the fame they do not deserve, the criteria for inclusion is based on how notable the subject is, not whether the subject "deserves" to be famous. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the media attention that WIKIPEDIA gives to killers will encourage copycat killers. I mean, wtf, its a wikipedia open-source encyclopedia. (815) 508-2416 This person's page is relevant for the next centuries. If my son or daughter died because of him, I wouldn't want him to be famous either, but he is notable due to his crime and he should be covered. Its an encyclopedia. Life is not fair. Get over it. 198.70.211.64 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the press conference today on CNN, the university official confirmed his name as being spelled with a "v" not a "ph". Dr. Cash (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd go ahead and move the page myself, but there's already a redirect at Steven Kazmierczak, so I think an admin needs to do it. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Anything known about his religious beliefs, and/or lack thereof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.100.187 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If he reads Nietzsche then he's probably not Christian, or Muslim, or any other popular religion that people inherit from their parents. 74.185.0.47 (talk)

circa

it is not circa August. it is august.--Pitchtold12039 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't insert your four totally redundant and non-formatted external link references in there, so I'm cool with this solution. At some point, I'm sure the exact birthdate will surface somewhere. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude chill. There were [citation needed] all over the place. Hence the refs. Chill. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, this is like,... over. And no, there weren't {{fact}}s all over the place,... Relax. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
dude i'm really sorry for whatever i did to make you angry. --Pitchtold120392 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

video games

I have removed the 'video games' section from this article because it is pure speculation by a very controversial "attorney". There is thus far no actual evidence that Steven's behavior was brought on by video games, and until we hear something concrete, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:NPOV.

Please feel free to discuss the issue of a possible video game connection here. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your determination of "speculation" and "controversy" is WP:NOR. You may add news sources that cite such speculation and controversy to the article and edit away portions you believe to be unsourced speculation. But your continued removal of sourced relevant information is vandalism and pushes your POV. Please stop.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)--71.184.193.227 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you've read the section on WP:NOR, nor have you actually read the section opn WP:NPOV. This video game section simply does not belong. Sorry. And if you'd like people to actually take you more seriously, I'd strongly recommend editing with an actual account rather than an IP address. I do not take anon/IP editors seriously.
The fact of the matter is, is that all that has happened so far with this is that Jack Thompson has just requested information from the authorities regarding his video game activity. He hasn't come to any conclusions whatsoever here, and hasn't formally filed a lawsuit (just threatened one to get the information he wants). So including a major section about this in the article is just pure speculation at this point, which is why it doesn't belong. I'd still keep an eye out for it, and if something actually concrete comes out of this, then it might warrant mentioning. But until then, it should not be included. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Dude...don't criticize the guy because he's an anon editor. If we needed an account to make edits and contribute, then they would be required. Simply because he decides not to create an account doesn't mean that his opinions aren't worth listening to. You are also coming dangerously close to violating WP:RRR. I'd suggest you back down and let this settle for a day or two. will381796 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My experience with anonymous (IP) editors is that 99.99999% of them are vandals, and they should as a whole be banned from editing this encyclopedia. I have yet to meet one that is actually a good faith editor. Plus, I don't see why people can't just register in order to edit; it's not that difficult. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read both, actually. If you'd like to list any reason why you believe otherwise please do so. Since you do not, your conclusions are pure speculation. Thompson's ideas may be speculation, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. The article should contain information pertinent to this person. Since this section is sourced and pertinent, it is not OR. It is also not POV since the article is not suggesting anything. If you'd like to make this article show your POV, I'd suggest you please find sourced information and add it to the article. For example: "An editorial in the Washington posts considers Thompson's suggestions nonsense" [1]etc. Simply deleting a sourced relevant segment of an article is akin to vandalism.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
*Assume good faith. You are both having a content dispute. It doesn't mean he's vandalizing the article. Please be civil and not accuse other editors of vandalism. will381796 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
NP. I overstated when I called it vandalism.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that you're totally wrong, and have added the {{npov}} template to the section due to it (do not remove this tag until this issue is resolved). I still feel strongly the the entire section doesn't belong because it's pure speculation, and nothing concrete has actually been provided regarding Steven's alleged video game use and/or the connection to the murders. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

it's pure speculation, and nothing concrete has actually been provided regarding Steven's alleged video game use and/or the connection to the murders And how, praytell is that relevant to our discussion?--71.184.193.227 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just my take on the situation: from what I've read from the sources, nobody has made any direct claim as to whether or not the video games played any role in the attacks. Maybe I missed it. Thompson has simply requested that the University release any records that they had related to his playing Counter-Strike. And while I'm not aware of how the university would have ANY records that he played Counter-Strike, the simple fact that the attorney is hunting for a new target in his crusade doesn't really mean that its something that should be mentioned in an article on Kazmierczak. If anything, this should be something mentioned in the article on Thompson or possibly on the NIU Shooting page. At this point, its inclusion is speculation that there MIGHT be a link and WP is not a crystal ball. will381796 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • nobody has made any direct claim as to whether or not the video games played any role in the attacks Here's what Thompson said on Fox News at 10:25 EST 15FEB2008: "psychological affect of this shooter [Kazmierczak] indicates that there might have been that type of rehearsal [with the video game Counter-Strike]. Plus, his attire is suggestive of a couple of the games in which the quote hero wears this type of attire." the simple fact that the attorney is hunting for a new target in his crusade doesn't really mean that its something that should be mentioned in an article on Kazmierczak. True. But when you get on a national news network, have a history of such publicity, get carried by credible news outlets, it is notable. If anything, this should be something mentioned in the article on Thompson or possibly on the NIU Shooting page That is a legitimate argument, but different from our current line of discussion. At this point, its inclusion is speculation that there MIGHT be a link No: At this point, its inclusion is reporting that a well-known, well-publicized, well-documented, well-reported attorney speculates that there MIGHT be a link. A difference. --71.184.193.227 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the link that you added to Thompson's interview on Fox News, because, as posted on Youtube, it is a copyright violation and subject to removal by Youtube as such. The only way the interview can be cited is directly on Fox News's website, if it is available. That being said, Thompson still has absolutely zero evidence that Kazmierczak's behavior was caused by video games. He's still speculating. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He's still speculatingAnd how, pray tell, is that relevant to our discussion?--71.184.193.227 (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this a good example of the difference between a news article and an encyclopedia article? Jason P Crowell (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Video games cont.

  • Okay, so we've had a chance to discuss this for a day. Let's see where we all stand and see if we can get some kind of consensus. I still don't think this section belongs in this article. I'm not saying that it isn't something that outright deleted, but I believe it would be more appropriate for a merge into Jack Thompson or NIU shooting article and then deletion of this information from this article. And honestly, I'm still of the opinion that all of this article could be merged into the main NIU article, but that's a separate issue. will381796 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's cluttered and silly in this article. I would not support deletion. I would support a move to NIU. I would also support it staying here. Whichever option gives this section the most eyeballs. --71.184.193.227 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's interesting how the MSNBC article that was recently added by 71.184.193.227, while it does back up some of the assertions that video games might vaguely have had something remotely to do with this, mostly only proves that Jack Thompson is a total attention whore who's mostly pulling this out of his butt and stretching it as far as he can go so that he can get 15 minutes of fame on national TV (RTFA). I think the whole section can be severely shortened and paraphrased and put into about 1-3 sentences in the 'NIU shooting' section of this article. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
* What about something like this:

Controversial Miami-based attorney Jack Thompson claimed that Kazmierczak, like Robert Steinhäuser, and Seung-Hui Cho rehearsed and perfected their murders beforehand on video games, specifically Counter-Strike. Mr. Thompson appeared on Fox News to suggest that the "psychological affect of this shooter [Kazmierczak] indicates that there might have been that type of rehearsal. Plus, his attire is suggestive of a couple of the games in which the "hero" wears this type of attire." Thompson wrote a letter to Northern Illinois University demanding that he be given any records dealing with the shooter playing violent video games –- and that he would sue NIU to get them. Although alleged by Thompson to be a cause of Kazmierczak's killing spree, the game was played by others in the same dormitory hall and is not considered an unusual pastime.

Would this, with the appropriate references, merged into the NUI shooting article, be a good compromise? will381796 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks very good. Please be sure to add refs at the end of every sentence. Please do not lose any refs currently in the article, esp. the good ones.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Even that seems to be lending too much to a single voice. Referencing unsupported claims is as bad as including no reference. It is still uncertain ref and the quote comes from a lawyer who has been debarred in Florida for "inappropriate" and "contemptible" conduct. His opinions certainly don't represent an expert consensus and documenting his various exclamations should be left to his article. --EpochFail (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it at all. It still gives way too much mention of Jack Thompson and his little "crusade", and less focus on Steven, which is what the article is supposed to be about. I would recommend removing the 'video games' subsection header, and adding this as a second paragraph in the 'NIU shooting' section:

Former roommates who lived with Kazmierczak at NIU during the 2003-04 academic year, described Steven as a quiet man who mostly stayed to himself. They never really saw him with a lot of people, and he seemed kind of anti-social. But other than that, they described him as pretty normal. They said that he would often play the video game Counter Strike, a first-person shooting game, but they were also quick to add that the game was commonly played by others in the same dormitory hall and not considered an unusual pasttime.(citations: NY Post articleNW Herald article Controversial Miami-based attorney, Jack Thompson claimed that Kazmierczak, like Robert Steinhäuser and Seung-Hui Cho, rehearsed and perfected their murders beforehand on video games, specifically Counter-Strike. Although a governor-ordered review of Cho's case found no connection whatsoever to video games.(citation: MSNBC)

The Gamepolitics.com site is a blog, and does not meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, so it cannot be used here. Likewise, the blast magazine reference should not be used either, as it appears to be mostly a pop culture publication with a very limited audience and less stringent editorial controls, although it is slightly better than 'gamepolitics.com'.
I also would not even mention the "lawsuit" to get materials from NIU. I can't find any evidence in the media about this, other than "fringe" publications like 'escapist magazine' and 'gamepolitics.com', and therefore I don't think it's very noteworthy. I also don't think NIU really has any control over the evidence either, since it's basically a federal case now, and the feds probably won't even give Mr. Thompson the time of day, in all honesty,... Dr. Cash (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Cash, the quality of the prose is very poor. The passage is even more confusing that what is in the article now. Can you edit and improve. If you've done post doc work as your user page suggests, you'd know that this kind of writing won't fly.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Try this one out for size:

Some of Kazmierczak's former roommates during his time at NIU described Steven as a quiet man who usually stayed to himself. They stated that, while fairly normal, they did not see him spend much time with other students. In an interview after the shooting, his former roommates also said that they would often find him playing the video game Counter Strike, a first-person shooting game, but they were also quick to add that the game was commonly played by others in the same dormitory hall and not considered an unusual pasttime.(citations: NY Post articleNW Herald article Controversial Miami-based attorney, Jack Thompson claimed that Kazmierczak, like Robert Steinhäuser and Seung-Hui Cho, rehearsed and perfected his murders beforehand on video games, specifically Counter-Strike. (citation: MSNBC)

It seems to flow a bit better to me. I removed the comment about the governor's findings because that should be something mentioned in the Seung-Hui Cho article. If its not already there, I'd suggest it be added. Let me know if this is okay and we can do the merge and get this settled...for now. will381796 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. With all due respect to all parties concerned: This section has been so chopped up as to be completely incomprehensible in terms of logic, prose, and basic literary form. These last few versions seem like a parody or joke that just isn't funny. I suggest we release whatever version -- I no longer care -- into a page -- which ever one, I don't care -- and let other people edit it. Please keep as many refs as possible. ----71.184.193.227 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the section with text very similar to the second version by Will381796. I still think a statement at the end needs to be made that there is no actual concrete evidence that he "rehearsed" this, since it's still speculation (but you're right, mentioning the governor's investigation in the Cho case probably isn't the way we want to go). Dr. Cash (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Cash, you may deform the article in whichever way you please. You seem oblivious to the harm you are doing. It is regretful, and the article will suffer. Instead of making edits that diminish the Thompson material, which I would support, your edits destroy the logical flow of entire paragraphs, a devolution I find humorous more than anything else.--71.184.193.227 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how these edits are either "incomprehensible" or "deform" the article. With all due respect, if you think that your beautifully scripted prose is better, then by all means MAKE THE EDIT YOURSELF. It is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." So edit it and don't complain about others making attempts to improve the article. will381796 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, ok,... whatever dude. I fail to see the "harm" that I'm doing. But like Will says, it is a wiki; nothing's set in stone here. I think we're moving in the right direction by combining this information into the 'NIU shooting' section, rather than having a whole separate section. As far as semantics, that can be worked out,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We all seem to be discussing a different problem. I move to remove the reference to the speculation of Jack Thompson because it has nothing to do with Steve Kazmierczak and is therefor just news (depending on how much anyone cares what he has to say). Wikipedia is not news WP:NOT#NEWS and should not contain this information only because it has been printed. Random speculation is still just random speculation even if a news organization finds it worthy of video or print. --EpochFail (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Epoch pointed out, the essential thing is that this is article is about the shooter-- not the event itself and the media miscellanea sorrounding it. Regardless of what one's personal opinion is on Jack Thompson, his point of view on the lead-up to the event is not particularly notable when it comes to the event's article, let alone this page. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that someone added back a little bit of this information without discussing(Video game playing) it here. I'll be removing the speculation. If that is not the consensus, it should be discussed here. --EpochFail (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

Should we add something on here that he bought the guns legally? We can mention that he was on the medication for a condition so he may not, technically, have been able to purchase the guns under Ill. Law, but he was able to get the guns from a legitimate dealer--through the legal purchasing process. --130.108.185.200 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is more about the shooting than the individual. --EpochFail (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think i have to disagree with EpochFail. It should be included because this individual is notable because of the shooting, therefore there should be some information on his actions in and around that event. Buying the weapons should be included. The sentence sould read "Kacmierczak legally purchased the weapons used from an online vendor." or something like that. Let me know what you think.--65.31.55.44 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about this. Can someone find a source and add this to the page. I would but i am new and I dont know if i can/allowed to edit articles yet.--Okay311 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What information needs to be kept for the merged article?

The consensus seems to be to merge the article; people asked to wait but no one else really weighed in on the issue. So, what needs to be kept?

Who he was in terms of being a graduate student.
Maybe a little academic history (being on the Dean's list).
The article he contributed to?
The mental health irony?

Anything else? Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is still no consensus for a merger here. And I think merging this content with the NIU shooting article will be disastrous, making the article far too long and unwieldy. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the information in this article could go anyway, so I dont' think we'll lose much from a merge - we'll keep all the important material and get rid of all the cruft. And right now the merge proposal, which people were asked to wait on for a week before merging, is over a week old and we see a pretty good consensus for it, though I'd like a stronger one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely needs to be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Destruction/hiding of his personal items

His removal of his hard drive and of his cellphone memory is notable, and the article should mention this. 1 2

From an offender profiling standpoint, this could be important-- he didn't want anyone to know why he did it, which is in direct contrast to most mass murderers (I don't have an RS for this idea, though, but I'll find one). 24.32.208.58 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging into Northern Illinois University shooting

So, we've had a week to let this article cool down. I've began a discussion on the talk page of the NIU shooting article regarding a possible merger of this article into that (with removal of redundant information. My reasoning is there. Please feel free to go there and enter the discussion. Thanks. will381796 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose There is enough information in this article specifically about the shooter that I believe it belongs in its own article. Merging it into the NIU shooting article will only create confusion, and increase the overall size of that article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 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)
  • Strong support. Stephen Kazmierczak is notable for precisely one thing - this shooting. Additionally, there is very little notable information about him - this article is basically "blah blah blah, blah blah blah, he was a graduate student, he helped write a paper on mental health, was on anti-depressants, and he shot a lot of people." If you cut out all the garbage, then you are left with very little information (about a paragraph), and frankly, the guy simply isn't indepenently notable of the event. For a shooter to be notable enough for their own article, they need a history of interesting stuff or to leave behind bizzare stuff. This guy just shot a bunch of people.
Frankly, I think this article (as most such articles) is an exercise in adding information that really doesn't matter ultimately to make it longer. This happens in a lot of articles, but particularly useless articles about unimportant people. I see this in victim articles post-school shootings all the time; they include a lot of information, but none of it is really notable. The only notable thing about him is that he shot a bunch of people, and that's all we really need to include. In three months, I doubt there will be any articles about him, and he won't be used as a reference for a school shooter beyond the next school shooting. He is simply not a notable individual; the only reason he's getting press is because he shot a bunch of people, but beyond that nothing but a very brief description of him in the main article is important. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think you're using a different definition of "notability" than others. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Rationale is simply that this individual is not notable outside of the single event, and he should therefore be mentioned in the WP article about the event. Does not meet notability requirements otherwise. 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. N2e (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)