File talk:Kent State massacre.jpg

Untitled
Who hasn't seen this picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.159.208.212 (talk • contribs).

Filename
Isn't the filename sort of POV? -Grick(talk to me!) 06:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

-- Agreed. How can we change it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.212.57.209 (talk • contribs).


 * --I also agree. The name of this file needs to be changed.Knulclunk 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I utterly disagree with this - the killing of four unarmed American students on an American college campus, exercising their constitutional right to assemble was a massacre, and this Pulitzer Prize-winning picture illustrates it. Tvoz 07:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the picture illustrates the aftermath. Whether or not some of the students were merely exercising their rights is still hotly disputed and by using weasel words such as "massacre", Wikipedia is taking a side on the issue. Equinox137 08:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the picture illustrates the "aftermath" of the firing of live ammunition by military directly into a crowd of unarmed civilians, the closest of whom was over 50 feet away.  That "aftermath" was the murder of four and the wounding of nine, one permanently paralyzed - and that is a massacre.  The photograph is of one of the dead.  There are no sides in this - it is fact, pure and simple.  Tvoz | talk 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that there are sides in this, given that it's still being debated almost 40 years later. Equinox137 07:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre" is appropriate. That's what it is. It's only one fewer dead than the Boston Massacre. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Both the previous comments carry emotional weight. As I said on the tech page, if we really care about NPOV, the image title would be a string of numbers. --Knulclunk 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So I reloaded the picture as "Kent State shootings" and redirected all the links. I'm going to tag this file for redundant speedy deletion shortly. --Knulclunk 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, what? I have nothing to do with Kent State. I have no personal investment in this. I do appreciate proper wording, but there was no emotional weight to my comment. Are you emotionally tied to this somehow? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 07:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are my resons for changing the file name:


 * massacre from dictionary.com:
 * 1.The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.
 * 2.The slaughter of a large number of animals.


 * massacre from Wordnet:
 * the savage and excessive killing of many people


 * massacre from Wikipedia:
 * The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents without any reasonable means of defense, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities...Additionally, the word massacre is often used for political or propaganda purposes, and the choice of whether to label an event a massacre may become a sensitive one; see, for example, the Kent State massacre

A truly neutral(NPOV) title for this picture would be a string of numbers, whereas massacre is a bit of a weasel word. Can you suggest any reason not to change the file name? --Knulclunk 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes: It is the most accurate term to describe the event. There's the Boston Massacre, the Columbine Massacre, and any number of other school shootings. A massacre is when an armed person or persons kill a number of civilians. That's it. You have no consensus for the move.--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 08:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree The term was intentionally chosen after the incident to force an agenda and to manipulate public opinion. I'm not even saying that Kent State wasn't a massacre. I'm saying that since the term is devisive, it shouldn't be used in the file name. We can all read the facts on the page and form our own opinions. Please See: Without using the word massacre, defend not changing the filename. --Knulclunk 08:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weasel word
 * Spin
 * NPOV


 * The term wasn't divisive, Knulclunk, until you made it so. This is what this event is commonly called. Look it up.  There is absolutely no reason to change theis file name unless you have some kind of personal axe to grind - image names are not visible in articles.  Why are you so worked up  about this?  As ChrisGriswold said, you do not have a consensus to make a change here, and I seriously question your neutrality in this matter.  Tvoz | talk 08:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way - as you yourself say, you are new to Wikipedia - been here for less than a month. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath and look around before you do things like this - it is not the way things are done on Wikipedia.  Tvoz | talk 08:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ONe other thing: your note at the tech pump said "Many of us agree that the file name of the image for the Kent State shootings is not NPOV. Is there a way we can rename it?    --Knulclunk 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) "    Could you please point to the "many of us" who agree?  We try to be honest here.  Tvoz | talk 08:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of us is three, you can see them at the top of the page. No one seemed to disagree until I posted on the tech page, If we're playing vote (not that we should), Three for the name change is more than two against. "That's what is called", No, the Wikipedia article's name is Kent State Shootings. A quick web search shows me the word massacre is not used even in memorial and social consciousness sites: The only way to get "massacre" to resolve with "Kent State" in a Google search is to put them in the same search together, a bit of a cheat, yes? Not the way things are done here Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Wiki policy is quite clear about reverting someone's edits. Please restore my edits. Name not visible Of course it is. The file name is visible when you click on the picture to see it bigger. Not divisive The definition of massacre in Wikipedia uses Kent State as an classic example of a devisive use of the word. Didn't you read what I wrote before? Personal Axe to grind Only in that I love Wikipedia. I think you're wrong. Your refusal to allow a name change to someting more neutral speaks for itself. --Knulclunk 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The KM4C Memorial Site
 * Kent State's Memorial
 * The Ethical Spectacle
 * CNN - Neutral as Big Media can ever be.
 * Even The New York Times article from 1970.
 * Democracy Now- 35th Anniversary.
 * The other two comments are old: One is from Apruil 2006, and the other from May 2005. Consensus changes,a nd current consensus is against your opinion. By "devisive", do you mean "divisive?" --Chris Griswold ( ☎  ☓  ) 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC):Kent State Massacre is listed in List of massacres. --Chris Griswold  (  ☎  ☓  ) 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Kent State is in the List of massacres. That is appropriate. (Someone should wrtie a simple synopsis). From the list, I can click to the article and read about it fully. We should still change the filename. Knulclunk 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not anymore. Equinox137 11:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Change, there is dispute whether or not "massacre" is NPOV. There is no dispute about "killing", for a filename, I vote we change. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. Googling for the term "Kent State massacre" shows the description is in reasonably wide use, so I'm inclined to accept it here. The Mr. Language Person part of me objects in that the definition of "massacre" implies a large number of victims. Use of "massacre" for a smaller number of victims tends to be a polemical device, as in the "Boston Massacre", undoubtedly so-named to whip up Colonial sentiment against the British. (As an aside, I suggest there are matters more deserving of our time and effort than the names of images.) Raymond Arritt 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree completely that there are far more important matters to be addressing on Wikipedia than an image filename that has been here for almost 4 years. Tvoz | talk 04:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Googling: This argument is misleading. I can search Slick Willie, Rumsfeld War Crimes, or misspell Ampsterdam and get all kinds of results.  That dose not mean the results are NPOV or even correct; a biased search will lead to a biased result. The responsible search is Kent State or Kent State Shootings and you will see that there is no use of the term massacre in any mainstream publication.--Knulclunk 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not change Griswold, as uninvolved neutral party, says it all: boston massacre is boston massacre; kent state massacre is kent state massacre. The image name has been here for almost 4 years. Making a big deal out of changing it is POV-pushing, tendentious editing, etc. Leave it alone, and do not nitpick good faith edits: WP:HARASS. If concerned about possible POV in names, why not instead agitate to change the name of Thanskgiving to, say, "Small Pox Blanket Sharing Day"--now that's a name freighted with POV worth changing. Cindery 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Cindery 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, next year I'll invite folks over for Small Pox Blanket Sharing Day. Now that should cut down on the grocery bill. Raymond Arritt 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * -)--Cindery 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not change A shooting can be and often is one person getting killed - as in a drive-by shooting. A massacre is a group of people, eithered murdered or militarily executed. Kent State was clearly, objectively, a massacre.PaulLev 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly and objectively? If it was so, I don't think we'd be having this discussion at all. Equinox137 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter either way but "shootings" is more neutral, and is the name we use for the article itself. Badagnani 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The Wikipedia article is titled "Kent State Shootings." No reason for the pic titles to be any different. Although another poster brought up the Boston Massacre, that was an event that occured almost 240 years ago and has been popularly referred to as such over the course of history. Kent State isn't quite on that same level yet and has been controversially called a "massacre," usually by those on the left. Equinox137 08:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's Dictionary Lesson (from dictionary.com)

mas·sa·cre    /ˈmæsəkər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-uh-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -cred, -cring. –noun 1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. 2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war. 3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports. –verb (used with object) 4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons. 5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.

1) Before anyone cries "unecessary" or "indiscriminate" - unless you were one of the guardsmen that day, I'd request that anyone claiming that keep your opinions to yourself and especially out of the article. 2) No sides in this? Sounds to me like there are sides to this given the varying opinions on this page alone. 3) 50 feet is nothing when firing a M1/M4/M16, etc - anyone that's fired any of those weapons knows that. 50 meters is the minimum distance on a qualifying range (300 meters) being the furthest distance.

On a final note, I have to ask - do you have some personal axe to grind with this whole event? You seem awfully worked up about something that occurred almost 40 years ago & whom most people usually know nothing about. Equinox137 09:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you? I think it is tragic if "most people usually know nothing about" the killing of four UNARMED students and the wounding of nine others by armed military on an American college campus during a lawful antiwar protest in such recent history.  I think all freedom loving, Constitution-supporting Americans - as I am - ought to take note. Unnecessary and indiscriminate indeed, and, as concluded by Nixon's own commission set up to investigate, UNJUSTIFIABLE force.  One of the dead was ROTC, if you didn't know. Killed by a Guardsman's bullet.  Another was just walking by.  You can sanitize this all you want and attempt to trivialize it by making it sound like ancient history - and I guess to you it may be ancient history -  but I'd suggest that you might want to think it through more carefully, rather than throwing labels of "Leftist" around. Some people thought it was just those hippie commies anyway who got what they deserved.  I would hope that we've learned something since then.   And please, could you post your comments on the bottom of the discussion unless they are clearly indented responswes to a particular point - it makes it very difficult for anyone to follow the discussion and could give the appearance that earlier comments were respondong to later ones.  The indent system works, and is less confusing - or put your note at the bottom.  Thank you. Tvoz | talk 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. This happened before I was born and at least 1,000 miles away from where I live.  I must point out a few things though:  1) The protests on May 4 were not "lawful"...the courts, both state and federal, have ruled as such in the proceeding years.  Aside from that, there were more than just protests going on there as according to the Wikipedia article and other sources.  The protest itself turned violent. 2) The guardsmen at that time had no idea whether or not the students were armed, the same as any police officer has no idea if a suspect is armed, as I've repeatedly pointed out.  When responding to such a situation, you have to assume that the subjects are armed until proven otherwise.  3) Nixon's commission had no standing to investigate the incident as it was entirely a state matter (as in State of Ohio) - in which state courts ruled that the shootings were justified.  I truly don't know, but are we sure that the Scranton Commission had access to all the details of the case? (i.e. grand jury testimony, after action reports, etc).  My guess would be no - but as I said, I really don't know 4) Yes, I know Schroder was ROTC and Sandra Scheuer was just walking by.  Not to blame them for getting killed, but personally, I wouldn't be just "walking by" with a riot going on around me.
 * I'm not trivializing anything. In fact, my argument is quite the opposite - it's not ancient history.  As I pointed out earlier, the KS shootings were not on the same level (historically) as the Boston Massacre.  The Boston Massacre, which happened 237 years ago, was, which is why the popular definition has stuck and in my opinion, doesn't need to be changed.  Had it happened today, it probably wouldn't be referred to as a massacre - except for by those that want to make a political point - which was exactly what Paul Revere and Samuel Adams did.  KS on the other hand, happened only 37 years ago and still has an effect on use of force procedures by the military in civil disturbances to this day.  A few days ago, NG soliders ran from Mexican army soldiers and drug smugglers, without firing a shot.  No doubt a by-product of the KS shootings.
 * I've never said that those "hippie commies got what they deserved". I really do wonder what anyone expects though...  Either way, throwing leftist or liberal labels applys in this case, because it's typically those of that stripe that want to sensationalize what happened by using words such as "massacre" and "murder" - regardless of whether or not the law agrees with them at that time.  Equinox137 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * change - as Equinox137 said, the article itself is titled Kent State shootings, and the event does not have the history of being referred to as a massacre (e.g. the Boston Massacre). A simple Google search shows a 2:1 ratio. [1 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22kent+state+shootings%22] [2 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22kent+state+massacre%22]-Grick(talk to me!) 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Request for Name Change The consensus leans in favor of a name change. Unless someone is going to revert my edit (Chris), I will proceed with the filename change. The reason again: The term "massacre", though often used to describe the horror at Kent State, is not neutral nor the most common term.--Knulclunk 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost every instance the term “Kent State Massacre” is used in a prejudicial context. Google top results:
 * I do not doubt the horror this man suffered that day, but it is not a neutral site.
 * Please read the site. “invasion of their campus by the Guard”. Again, not neutral.
 * About Neil Young’s song, Ohio. Uses the term “massacre” in quotes and interchangeably with “shooting”
 * another site by Alan Canfora. POV
 * Part of an NYU 1968 memoir reminiscing favorably about the radicalism of the late 1960’s. A good read and educational, but very POV.
 * Definitely a goof site. Judging from the image of Mel Gibson hugging Michael Richards, I’d be concerned about citing it as a source.
 * A small scale history site, but does use the term “Kent State Massacre” in a NPOV way.
 * This link is handy, because it drops into the “Find Articles” Website. “Kent State Massacre” has 14 articles; “Kent State Shooting” has 41. Most of the “massacre” articles, while not leftist, are dealing with leftist themes or persons. It also show a 3:1 against "massacre"
 * Almost every non-prejudicial context prefers the term “Kent State Shootings” Google results of "Kent State Shootings"(from above):
 * The KM4C Memorial Site
 * Kent State's Memorial
 * The Ethical Spectacle
 * CNN - Anniversary article.
 * The New York Times article from 1970.
 * Democracy Now- 35th Anniversary.


 * Hold on - I count 4 strong change, 4 strong do not change, 1 neutral ("doesn't matter either way") but leaning to change and 1 neutral leaning to do not change ( "inclined to accept it here" ) but thinks there are more important things to be doing (which I totally agree with).   That does not sound to me like consensus.  You can't count an IP addresss from April as a vote, because we don't know who that is - could be any of the people now here with a username, and unless that person comes back and weighs in now after reading arguments, it's not a vote.  I don't think the name of this picture really matters - I do not understand why you are so worked up about it in fact - but I don't like to see consensus claimed when there isn't any. Tvoz | talk 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perception is so funny, isn't it? This is how I count:
 * grick....change
 * 80.212...change
 * kncnk....change
 * Eqx......change
 * Sheru....change
 * Ray......Neutral - but agrees name is "polemical"
 * Bada.....Neutral - but agrees "shooting" is more neutral
 * Tvoz.....no change
 * Chris....no change
 * Cindery..no change
 * PaulLev..no change
 * I havn't heard answers to any of my resonings except,"but it was a massacre!", which I don't think is a very strong argument at all. --Knulclunk 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote, and that is not consensus. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I agree, polling is evil. What's the next step to resolve the issue?--Knulclunk 06:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you've sought outside discussion and received it. I'm not sure this issue will find a consensus that will result in change. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly Kunl, you're not going to get a consensus on the issue. It's probably best to let this one die.  The main article has been dePOV'd by most accounts - and that's what counts, right? Equinox137 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still pretty adamant about this one, and I don't quite get the opposition, but I can certainly let it coast a few weeks. --Knulclunk 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what? This incident happened almost 40 years ago - what's a few weeks going to change?  I'm on your side on this one, Knulclunk, but I think this issue is minor enough to let slide altogether.  Equinox137 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just reminding everyone this is still important! See Search engine test and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. --Knulclunk 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it? The lack of interest suggest otherwise. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The strongest voices wanting change base it on their personal research about mob behavior and rifle ranges, and their opinions about the reasonableness of the action. . The picture show's what it is, & is as dramatic as Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston massacre.  The name is correct, for it implies the meaning which has become inseparable, just as in that shooting in Boston. Try changing that name. DGG 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture does speak for itself. So why insist on a weasel file name, based on a politically motivated title for a divisive event? The Boston Massacre is still a red herring argument for all the reasons we discussed above.--Knulclunk 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, DGG, having to actually qualify with said weapons on a said range once a year as part of maintaining a certification (and therefore employment/continued service)isn't exactly "research" - that's experience. Equinox137 07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Note from unregistered user: As to whether the shooting were indiscriminate: This is from the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, appointed by Nixon himself: "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

So the term indiscriminate, I would think, can reasonably be applied in this case.

Discusion restart, June 2007
Massacre is a proper term. Hundreds of armed national guardsmen shooting at totally unarmed, unprotected protesters? Is this justifiable? Whose idea was that? Whose brilliant idea was that?!?!? In any case, the name of the picture shouldn't matter. Only the picture should. I mean, really! -- D ef en d er 9 11  23:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC) --Knulclunk 00:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have read the discussion, you will see that no one condones the shooting. The debate is whether the term massacre should be removed because:
 * It is a loaded term, added by the anti-war movement in the 1970's to gain public support.
 * It is not a massacre by definition, a term more suited to events like Srebrenica.
 * It is not the "name of the event", except when used in a POV context.
 * The arguments for the term massacre to remain are:
 * It is a massacre by definition, as is any event where armed people killed the unarmed or helpless.
 * It is a recognizable term, that many users do not find POV and that removing the term massacre is tantamount to "whitewashing" the events at Kent State.

Why don't we look at the Kent State shootings article. The first thing we should do is reference and verify all of the names in the lede. Then, it'd probably be best to bring this debate over there, as whichever way it eventually goes, there's no reason the name of the image shouldn't be consistent with the final name of the article. And as a side note: If you look in the article's talk page archive, you'll find that the shooting vs. massacre debate was brought up two years ago, though it looks pretty inconclusive to me. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article name has been decided, I assume by the previous generation of editors, whose wisdom I do not question. The image name stands alone for discussion, we should discuss it here. I encourage everyone with an opinion to read the entire thread before posting, as most of this ground has been covered. Thanks!--Knulclunk 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then what is this whole discussion about? Whether we should keep image names inconsistent? &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert
Ooops! I thought I could see the earlier version by clicking "rev", but apparently I made a boo-boo. I tried to rectify the error! Sorry! --Chran 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Better version
Tried uploading a better version of this picture (http://node4.nirvanix.com/polldaddy/polldaddy/images/a4a9d4f3-df59-47b6-b647-a1dd3aa201a7.jpg), but once I did it looks blurry and not as nice as it does on the website link above. Not sure why it's changed in the uploading process. Also not sure if I've filled in the details of the uploaded picture properly. Maybe someone more experienced can take a look at both issues, as it would be good to have the larger version I'm trying to upload. --Jabalong 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair use requires low resolution images per WP:FURG not better quality images like the one uploaded by Jabalong. I have reverted to the original low resolution image. ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't aware of this requirement. I'm wondering though where does the justification for a maximum length of 300 pixels come from? Don't see any such mention on the WP:FURG page. Also note that you say "generally", which sounds like it's in not a set rule. Now what the WP:FURG page does seem to say is that the photo should be "of much lower resolution than the original" so that "copies made from it will be of very inferior quality". Well I'd argue the real measurement here should not be pixel size but dpi as that will determine the output quality. Print quality is generally 300dpi, however the version I uploaded is only 96dpi, so it's of much lower quality and to my mind ought to satisfy the requirements of fair use for resolution. Seems silly to aim for the lowest of the low in quality, when there are larger versions easily available on the web and which still meet the requirement of low resolution as measured in dpi, which is the key determinant of what a person would be able to do with such copies (ie, print quality, scope for resizing, etc). --Jabalong 04:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not '09 any 300x238 was a joke back then. So, I will say it's not 1995 anymore, although even then I remember 400+ pixels being the minimum width for full-size photos, closer to 640. Ridiculous not to have a better version of this iconic photo in this day and age.
 * As the above reply states, the proper way to measure resolution on scans is dpi not pixel size. And with lossy JPEG compression, it's arguable that any dpi is an inferior version of the original.
 * I'm not gonna do it because some blow hard will revert and explain what an idiot I am. That's how things go around here, from what I have gathered looking at a few talk pages. But I feel like one of you guys who has the time and energy should take up the good fight on this. 96.237.143.207 (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)