Talk:2008 Northern Illinois University shooting

New table
Is this really necessary? IvoShandor (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is a little big. Perhaps we should make it smaller, what do you think?  In the article on the Columbine High School massacre, they have smaller side-tables that indicate each victim and where they were shot, while in the Virginia Tech massacre, they have a similar smaller side-table that indicate the victims and their ages and hometowns.  I figure that since we have both sets of information for the NIU shooting, we could include all the information in one big table like we have now, but maybe the placement and size of the table could be adjusted.  What do you think?  I am thinking about doing a similar table for the injured, since the report includes the injures sustained for each victim, but since the official NIU report does not list the victims' names, I will probably have to remove them to make it work. Abog (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The size is fine. It's the content that worries me. Neither of the articles you cited include the amount of detail that has been included here, the VT article table doesn't even tell where (on the body) the victims were shot, and the Columbine article doesn't give nearly as much detail. I'm not sure what purpose is served by including: "Gunshot wound to left upper-back; Gunshot wound to upper-right mid-back; Perforated arch of the aorta; Perforation of the thoracic aorta and left ventricle of the heart". It just feels unnecessary to me. IvoShandor (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, yeah, I see what you're saying. I actually copied it pretty much straight from the official NIU shooting report. So I guess it would be a good idea to put it in different words and summarize better. I'll try to be more succinct like in the Columbine article, and may condense the injuries/cause of death sections. Still has some work to do. Abog (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that if you included: "Gunshot wound to left upper-back; Gunshot wound to upper-right mid-back", and just dropped the further detail, such as: "Perforated arch of the aorta; Perforation of the thoracic aorta and left ventricle of the heart", that it would be much better. And that seems to be the way the VT article does it. Of course, feel free to disagree. I wonder if anyone else has any thoughts at all. IvoShandor (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This macabre information has no encyclopedic value and I've removed it. I understand that others may disagree and even revert me but I demand that someone explain why we need this information in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it all being gone. A correction to my earlier statement, it is the Columbine article, not the VT article that has the more minimal information indicating where each victim was shot. The only detail on the VT page is each victim's year and major. IvoShandor (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did remove the more detailed, graphic info, but for anyone studying this particular case in general, I think it is helpful to provide information on how the people in this case died or were injured, as well as when they died. This is an especially unique shooting incident, in that some people were killed by head wounds, some by heart wounds, others were injured by buckshot, and some injured their knee or back escaping. I also point to the article on the Columbine High School massacre as a precedent, where the injuries are described, and I found that information helpful and useful when researching that incident one time.  It helps fill in the blanks for people on how the incident played out.  I figure the information is already readily available from news sources and detailed in the official report on the incident, so why can't the same knowledge be presented in Wikipedia? Abog (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note that the existence of information in reliable sources does not necessarily mean it has to be included in Wikipedia. While I can understand your defense of said information, I do think that, because objections have been raised, that a consensus will have to be established here for its inclusion, or lack thereof. IvoShandor (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and am not looking to start an edit war. I too would like to hear more discussion on the issue before making changes.  Currently, I'm not feeling a strong enough argument for removing the information though.  I did not believe that Wikipedia was the place for censorship because information may be too graphic, gruesome, macabre, or offensive to some (WP:CENSOR).  And those are the only arguments I'm really hearing so far.  Facts are facts, and it's important to have crucial information in a crime article like this about how people died or were injured. Abog (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is out to censor Wikipedia. But I come back to my point about the existence of information not necessarily requiring its inclusion here. There is a certain level of detail that is simply editorially inappropriate for a tertiary source, regardless of the content of that material. I think the inclusion of all of this information crosses that line. IvoShandor (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I can understand your argument a little bit more then, if it is purely based on level of detail. I still think that there can be some middle-ground balance with providing information on where they were shot (like in the Columbine article) without being too detailed as was the case initially, like with mentioning the ventricle and aorta.  ElKevbo's argument seemed to be based more on the information being too "macabre", and that is what was more troubling to me. Abog (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I too found it a bit macabre, but that's not my real objection. WP:CENSOR is policy, so I abide by that, and I don't think arguments cast in terms of "too gruesome", "offensive", etc. really end up playing much of a role in establishing consensus, not that people aren't absolutely entitled to them, this was a heartbreaking incident, especially for those close to NIU. I think the compromise you suggested is appropriate, I think that was what I was getting at above anyway. We may want to wait a couple days and see if others chime in here before making any clear determination; a three person discussion doesn't give me much confidence that a consensus can be established yet :-) IvoShandor (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue of censorship but of good judgment and good taste. As someone already said, just because information is available that doesn't mean we have to include it in an article. I simply fail to see how this information is at all necessary and without such a justification I see no reason to include such macabre information. And I do think the bar for including information is higher when that information is understandably objectionable. Our goal is to inform, not gratuitously shock. ElKevbo (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that it depends solely on subjectivity. Your "gratuitous shock" is someone else's useful information. If the information is to be excluded it has to be on some other grounds than "in my opinion this is about good judgment and taste". IvoShandor (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I completely disagree with you that we have to throw out our judgment and taste when writing articles. That's a ridiculous position to take and it seems indefensible.  Second, the burden is always on those arguing for including information in an article and I've yet to see any argument for including this information much less a convincing one.  It seems completely unnecessary.
 * I suspect that few editors watch this article so we might want to start an RfC is this conversation doesn't go anywhere over the next day or two. ElKevbo (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden is to provide that it is sourced reliably, not to prove that the person who wants to add it agrees with your definition of good judgment and good taste. The ridiculous position is all yours, that your definitions of judgment and taste are somehow the ones we should use when deciding what belongs here and what doesn't. It's entirely subjective. Obviously, someone here disagrees with what you have termed good judgment and good taste. Abog has stated he/she finds the information useful, it can be reliably sourced. (For the record my judgment and taste would say to leave it out - but my personal proclivities aren't very useful in this argument). I didn't say we had to throw judgment and taste out the window, not at all. But one person's judgment and taste, by itself, is not enough of a reason to exclude information that can be reliably sourced. I personally think it is just simply overly detailed for an encyclopedia, because we're not a news source. I don't think suggesting that an editor doesn't have good judgment or good taste is going to get us very far in coming to consensus. My suggestion is that we include the information telling where each victim was hit and leave out the overly detailed information describing their internal injuries. But, yeah, an RFC may be appropriate. IvoShandor (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to ElKevbo...Well, first of all, it is important to be objective in a situation like this. I actually went to this university, have connections to some of the people who were in that room, and from a personal standpoint, yes, I find the information on how the people died or were injured to be grim, but at the same time I recognize the importance of making the information available to those studying shooting sprees, crime, and emergency medical response in general.  As for my argument, someone studying crime and shooting sprees would likely want to know both how the incident played out and how the people died or were injured.  Yes, we can simply say, "the victims were shot".  But what separates this incident from another one would be to say, "Victim 1 was injured by buckshot, Victim 2 was killed by a gunshot wound to the head, Victim 3 sustained a gunshot wound and later died at the hospital, etc."  This is useful information for someone studying emergency medical response, crime, and this incident in particular.  While we have so many details regarding what happened after the incident or about the people involved, there doesn't seem to be enough information on the specifics of the shooting incident itself, which is what the article is supposed to be based around. Is that not a valid argument for including the information on the shooting and where and how people were killed and injured? Abog (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
So, where are we going with this? Since I originated the discussion (for the record I think extended detail of the injuries is completely beyond the scope of an encyclopedia), I felt I should try to prod it along. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the issue after reading the above discussion? IvoShandor (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm fine with leaving out the details of the deaths and injuries, if people are against including them. As long as we can at least have some information on the victims that were killed or injured (names, age, hometown), I guess that's all that matters. Additionally, while detailed information on each deceased victim's injuries is readily available, the NIU report does not include the injured victims' names (only victim #1, #2, etc.), so if we wanted to be consistent and include details on the injured victims, that would then require original research in order to match up names with injuries, or would require removing the names, which were acquired from news sources. If someone else feels compelled to add more details on the victims' injuries, perhaps we could open this discussion up again if and when that happens. For now, I'm fine with leaving the article the way it is. Abog (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel good about this. I have to admit that I did a double take when the information was originally added (hence the discussion), not that I doubt your sincerity in trying to improve the article. You seem so deflated. Perk up. This is a pretty good article all things considered and stands as a sharp contrast to the events it describes. Happy editing. IvoShandor (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think it was a good discussion to have and I'm happy that the info was added to initiate the discussion.  This is definitely a Good article and those involved should be proud of their work! ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the victims and shooter.
Why is there a picture of the shooter but none of the victims? Shouldn't it be the other way around? That's exactly what the shooter wanted: to glorify himself and destroy others. This really bothers me. KevinLuna (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the sentiment, I have to disagree. The shooter is dead; it's a little late to quibble over giving him "what he wanted."  He certainly gains nothing from his picture here.  And nothing in the article "glorifies" him.  I, personally, feel Wikipedia isn't the place for pictures of the victims; they should be memorialized, not dehumanized as encyclopedic information.  NIU memorializes them at their website and in the official report on the shooting.  This seems appropriate to me.  I would like to hear other opinions, though. Spookiewon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Story on a victim
Sorry don't have a lot of info on this, however I did find a scan of a newspaper article on one of the victims. Parmenter was not enrolled in the class, however went to the class to be with his girlfriend. He was shot to death while lying on top of her to protect her: http://i.imgur.com/VOXC4.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.22.128 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Internal consistency
Under the heading "Shooting" the class being held in Cole hall where the shooting occurred is listed as being an oceanography class, yet under "Reaction" it is listed as geology. The article scanned by an IP user on the talk page lists the class as ocean science, which I admit is very like oceanography. The official report doesn't list the class, simply the fact that it was held in Cole Hall. Do we know what the class was? Can we make the article internally consistent? Spookiewon (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Northern Illinois University shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704030041/http://www.northernstar.info/article/2350/ to http://www.northernstar.info/article/2350/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080218165934/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5i72zWlWRLvc1ejGI5WpefItEjKCAD8UQQGT81 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i72zWlWRLvc1ejGI5WpefItEjKCAD8UQQGT81
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081006122117/http://cbs2chicago.com/niushootings/Steven.Kazmierczak.NIU.2.703982.html to http://cbs2chicago.com/niushootings/Steven.Kazmierczak.NIU.2.703982.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080218163130/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5j8f-zVFuqoZJSi6Xu6ZPssAnIHdAD8UQI7T01 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8f-zVFuqoZJSi6Xu6ZPssAnIHdAD8UQI7T01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100614000959/http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com:80/couriernews/sports/798671,3_2_EL17_B4SOXNOTES_S1.article to http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/sports/798671,3_2_EL17_B4SOXNOTES_S1.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113171454/http://www.northernstar.info:80/article/2605/ to http://www.northernstar.info/article/2605/

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Northern Illinois University shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080218163130/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5j8f-zVFuqoZJSi6Xu6ZPssAnIHdAD8UQI7T01 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8f-zVFuqoZJSi6Xu6ZPssAnIHdAD8UQI7T01
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140303153050/http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8731777 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8731777

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Police response
Why do we need this detailed description of the police response when the shooter killed himself before they could get there anyway? Are we just trying to illustrate how very little the police can actually do to stop a shooter, even if they are useful for picking up the body parts once they finally arrive and decide to enter the building? AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Northern Illinois University shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added tag to http://media.www.theminaretonline.com/media/storage/paper1025/news/2008/02/15/NiuShootingSpree/Authorities.Release.Information.On.Cole.Hall.Shooter-3214062.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218082658/http://kishhospital.org:80/updates.html to http://kishhospital.org/updates.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217091100/http://www.northernstar.info:80/article/2361/ to http://www.northernstar.info/article/2361/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218000025/http://www.northernstar.info/article/2363/ to http://www.northernstar.info/article/2363/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091219111313/http://www.niu.edu:80/Admissions/whyNIU/history.shtml to http://www.niu.edu/Admissions/whyniu/history.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.nwherald.com/multimedia/projects/niu_shootings/?id=nwh-/multimedia/projects/niu_shootings/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316185412/http://www.daily-chronicle.com/newsart/niu_shooting/ to http://www.daily-chronicle.com/newsart/niu_shooting/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121062943/http://www.niuremembers.com/ to http://www.NIUremembers.com/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Northern Illinois University shooting → 2008 Northern Illinois University shooting – Per WP:NCE: when, where, and what happened. Also, per many other article titles for many other school shootings across decades. Corgi Stays (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Entries under Category:University and college shootings in the United States do confirm that the addition of years is standard form for main title headers of such Wikipedia articles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unnecessary. It's not a standard at all as some of these events are notable onetime events making the inclusion of years unnecessary. This one easily qualifies. Killuminator (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, and per WP:NCE. (Even if the un-yeared titles are unambiguous, the year makes the title more recognizable and provides a lot of necessary context, etc.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't believe this article meets the criteria of WP:NOYEAR. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.