Talk:Columbine High School massacre/Archive 1

Gun controversy/not directly related to article
I am Irish and let me tell you why we have an unarmed police (Gardaí) force. Simple if Guards are unarmed then other people don't need to be armed to be equal. We haven't had arms in our country (legally) since 1927 after the civil war. We don't have Columbines because you can't easily obtain a gun. Yet we play the same video games as everyone else, we listnen to the same music, we live like everyone else, yet I know an ambulance driver and in over 15 years of service he has only seen 1 gun shooting. I am only 16 and i my last year in school, yet have walked home by myself at night. We have a reputation as alcholics, which unfortunetly in correct, but not gun crime as we don't have access to them. Think about it, ban guns and confiscate every one of them and gun crime will drop and in our entire state history we have never had an atrocity quite like Columbine. Just think about it. Irish-kid


 * Yeah, and I live in Montana, and we have a lower homicide rate than anywhere with similar population density in Canada, Ireland, or the UK, despite having an average of 26 guns per home. Correlation doesn't equal causation, find another inanimate scapegoat to blame for the actions of bad people.  Contary to popular belief, handguns aren't even responsible for the majority of homicides in the US.  Most homicides in the US are committed in heavily populated cities by people with very low income, usually 18-25 males, and are almost always connected with alcohol or drugs.  European countries have less homicide not because of guns, but because of better social programs that take away the reasons for crime in the first place.  Oh, ahd the reason Ireland has no guns, is because you are subjects of the British Empire, and subjects are best left disarmed.


 * exactly, here in the US, some of our left leaners go a bit nuts and blame every single thing that goes wrong on america, and george bush, these scumbags would like nothing better than to see America fall to the islamists, that's why commies like mooore get to stay in places like france, and their canes, where people like that sort of thing--205.188.116.65 04:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you'll find the Republic_of_Ireland (which is the nation with the Gardaí) is no longer anything to do with the British Empire.


 * well dur, thanks for your useful suggestion, less guns = less crime, if I want that crap, I'll turn on CNN, listen to people tell me the islamists and the ghetto bangers are just good people, corrupted by americas love of freedom, and we have to understand...take that kind of balony back to france with you!--205.188.116.65 04:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, other than certain neighborhoods in certain large cities in the USA, women here routinely can safely walk home through the city alone, even at night. For people who are not criminals or drug/alcohol abusers, the USA is at least as safe as Canada, UK, Australia or most nations in Europe. If your statement about that Californians neighborhood shootings is accurate, then I have to assume he lives in one of those handfull of dangerous neighborhoods. By the way, the most dangerous neighborhoods in the USA all have the most severe restrictions on gun ownership compared to the rest of the USA. Libdemplus


 * 'US is at least as safe as'? Hardly. Make that 'four times less safe than'. Homicides per 100,000 persons (average 1998-2000): USA - 5.9. England and Wales - 1.5. My source: UK Home Office report, bottom of page 3. --257.47b.9½.-19 23:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * PS Yes, I know you said 'for people who are not criminals or drug/alcohol abusers', but you think other countries don't have criminals and bad neighbourhoods too? Even if we assume that 3/4 of all shootings are 'bad-on-bad' (criminals shooting each other), that doesn't make any difference to the relative safety of ordinary folks in the two countries. --257.47b.9½.-19 10:22, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A lot of us Americans think the US approach to guns is nuts. -- Zoe


 * A lot of Americans are ignorant, bigoted, and wildly mis-informed, but that's no excuse for the systematic oppression of the inherant human right to choose to own firearms of the rest of us. People who fear firearms and the ownership of firearms by ordinary citizens do so out of emotional knee-jerk reactions programmed into the generally ignorant public by the news media, popular entertainment and opportunistic politicians. I should know, I used to be one of the ignorant public, I used to fully support any sort of gun restrictions, including outright bans, but as I said, that's when I was ignorant.

Libdemplus


 * Don't worry I don't presume that all Americans are gun-crazy. But it was rather funny going to see Bowling for Columbine with Danny from California. The Irish cinema audience was rolling about the place in laughter at the nutty American attitude towards guns as portrayed in the film, while Danny (an ex-soldier) couldn't get the joke and kept asking me "what are they laughing about? What is so funny?". Though he spent the entire holiday in Ireland in shock at the fact that the Garda Siochána (the police) don't carry guns and that they are in as much likelihood of getting shot at as George W. Bush is of delivering an inpromptu speech without a script and not making some monumental grammatical clanger! ÉÍREman 21:25 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that the reason they were laughing is simply that they were utterly ignorant about firearms as well as USA history, not to mention that they probably accepted all the non-sense Moore stuck in his film as if it were factual, which it was not. I have found that even Americans who own guns and know something about guns were routinely fooled by various parts of Moore's film. Libdemplus

General Discussion
Okay, I need a bit of help. Does anyone know the exact author of this article? I cant seem to find it anywhere and I need the information for a research project, so if someone could help me there I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! EEF90

By the way, could somebody who knows the editing protocols here better than I do please fix the area around the photo? It looks like a mess with the photo sitting on top of several words of the text. I'm looking at it with Netscape on a Sun Solaris system and the photo obscrues a whole line. Thanks Libdemplus

Bowling for Columbine Reference
I disagree with the third paragraph of this article. It states that the Columbine High School massacre was the subject of the film Bowling for Columbine, and I think this implies that it was the main topic of it when it fact the film was about US violence in general. The school shooting was just a starting point for the film which was occasionally returned to; this is even the opinion of the Bowling for Columbine article itself, but I don't want to change this paragragh since this seems to be a bit of a PoV issue. -- 212.229.115.84

I agree that people who watched the 'Documentry', came out thinking americans were complete dumbasses, im an engish studant and watched the film in a drama lesson. Most of my class were horrified by the things that were shown,ie: the brother of an Oklahoma bomber holding a gun to his head, is the ownership of guns in america treated in such a light-hearted way? Even when the saftys off?


 * I agree with "212.229.115.84" about the fact that the film exploited the Columbine killers as a jumping-off point for Moore's theories on violence in the USA. I also strongly disagree with calling that film a "documentary" since it was filled with many falsehoods and deceptive editing. Every main-stream published review of that film I have read contains many verifyably false statements and remarkably, these reviewers all seemed to have come up with the same false beliefs from seeing the film. Everyone I know personally who saw the film (who had not already been warned of the deceptions in the film) came away with exactly the same false impressions. Moore systematically tricked the media and the public by various deceptive methods, not to mention the outright lies he told to the various people he used in the film. Libdemplus

I think the paragraph is accurate. The film used the issue of the massacre to highlight the broader issue of gun availability in the US. (But then we Europeans do think the US approach to guns is nuts. A Californian friend on a visit to Ireland could not believe that the police are unarmed, nobody he met had even seen a gun, women regularly walked home through the city alone. And that a city the size of Dublin had less shootings in a year than his neighbourhood had in 9 days. So no wonder Europeans think American gun laws nutty.) ÉÍREman 07:34 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC) PS that Californian got his first gun aged 11!

Added second paragraph correcting the Cassie Bernall story. Feel free to move both paragraphs to their own page if you want to add more. I think there is already too much to be located on the page about Columbine, I don't want it to overshadow the other content by picking apart a tiny incident.

How could the gunman have been inspired by the film The Matrix when it hadn't even come out yet? I think the editor who add that details was confusing the Columbine massacre with another slaying by a teenager called "The Matrix murders" Shall I delete this part? Kricxjo 07:57, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * According to the theatrical release date was April 2, 1999. That would've given killers about 18 days to have seen it. Did they? I don't know and I don't plan to do the research to find out. The mention of it seems like speculation to me, but it's possible. M123 08:02, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * What about violent video games and Marilyn Manson? -- goatasaur 16:09, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Trenchcoat Mafia?
The aricle states Harris and Klebold, as well as a few other friends had formed a small club known as the "Trenchcoat Mafia", but as far as I know they may have been called that, but they neither founded, nor was they members of the Trenchcoat Mafia. The actual members of the Trenchcoat Mafia had actually left the school years earlier. // Liftarn

Obvious why 'provoked' gets quotes, as they may not have been provoked at all. Far from clear why 'done' gets a quote. DJ Clayworth 15:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cassie Bernall
Shouldn't she get her own article? I think that the Bernall stuff should be moved. WhisperToMe 09:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why the reference to the birthday of Adolf Hitler? What significance does it have? No reference to it in the article. Moriori 00:42, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)

Would anyone object to making the intro clearer? It is a long-winded example of excruciation at the moment. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be clear and concise? Moriori 05:59, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Questions re. "16 minutes of terror"
Can someone who knows more about this incident correct and/or clarify? AHM 04:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) To which 16 minutes do this section heading refer?  I don't see an obvious span of time that corresponds.
 * 2) In two different places in this section there are references to there being 900 and 448 students in the cafeteria.  Which is correct?  (Perhaps one is an estimate by the shooters, the other an actual count?)

I changed the "18 minutes of terror" title to "46 minutes of terror" because "18 minutes" depicts the time from 11:19 to 11:37, yet the shooting did not officially end until at least 12:05, which is when the last shots were fired out the library windows, moments before the killers allegedly committed suicide. PRueda29

I removed the sentence about Coach Sanders being a bit faster or the shooters being a bit slower as it seemed like an attempt to increase the drama and sadness of a situation that needed no help in those areas. - 69.140.62.82, 14 Jan 2005

More Musicians as "Scapegoats"
In addition to musicians Marilyn Manson and Rammstein, the German-industrial band KMFDM and the rap group Insane Clown Posse received quite a bit of criticism. Especially KMFDM--the shooters had lyrics to KMFDM songs on the website and the shooting coincidentally occurred on the release date of the album Adios. KMFDM's frontman released a statement to the press the day following the massacre, expressing his own grief at the shooting, while emphasising that his band does not support violence or Nazism. See the KMFDM article for more info. I'd incorporate this info into the article myself, but I figure I should leave that to the more "pro" editors. :) --68.13.248.151 18:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. buck 22:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph should be snappy and high-impact, but instead this one was cluttered with incidental information. The massacre is correctly associated with Littleton, Colorado. If it's precise location is in an unicorporated segment of Jefferson County, equidistant from Littleton and Denver, that's fine: but that's too clunky and boring to stick in the opening para. Put it in later in the article. Same goes with the parenthetical clause about it being the second worse attack on a school in U.S. history. Again, that's fine and important, but the fact that it is considered the worst school shooting in U.S. history is more pertinent in the opening paragraph, and the "oomph" of the information is mitigated by interrupting the sentence to add the other info. I know, of course, that people have worked hard on the article (and it definitely shows, it's fascinating reading), so I won't be at all offended if you totally disagree with me and revert my changes. But if not, then there are some other changes I'd like to make, too. I'll wait for some feedback first. Babajobu 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you see wording changes that are needed, go ahead. However, I would suggest that you don't go "over the top" since this article should be as straight-forward and NPOV as possible (the nominator, PRueda29, wished to have this article on the front page of Wikipedia, so any wording improvements will help). In the meantime, I will monitor the changes and edit accordingly. Pentawing 22:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Copy edit
Hi guys, I've just been copy editing this extremely informative article. It's obvious that a lot of work went into it. I'm just doing clean up work, if you will; in the course of this I've placed some embedded questions and such—I don't mean to be terse or anything, it's just a convenient way of asking questions right next to the area of concern. Thanks, and congrats!— encephalon ὲγκέφαλον   11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for all your copy editing, the article reads a lot better now; any positive edits are always welcomed (especially copy editing since my writing skills aren't as good as my investigative skills). I have edited and answered the questions you placed in hidden text. I answered them by removing the hidden text and then placing an answer in the edit summary. Thanks for your support. PRueda29 11:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Case
Columbine High School is grammatically correct as it is a proper noun; it is named for Columbine High School, not a Columbine high school. Why should "massacre" be capitalised? 24ip | lolol 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree... Columbine High School is the name of the school, like Lincoln Memorial, or Sears Tower. The word massacre isn't part of that name. PRueda29 01:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The title should be "Columbine High School massacre," ie. exactly as it is.— encephalon έγκέφαλον  03:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"The Columbine High School Massacre" is am event and it should all be capitalized. As it is in World War II, get it?--AGE

it does look better all capitalized and it is an event

i know its hen pecky but meh...=P

Pro-christian bias?
I detect a slight pro-christian bias to this article, particularly the part about the "martyrdom". I believe since this is unsubstantiated, it should be removed. Of course, I could be wrong. -- Dantecubed 02:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the reality of the massacre. The topic of Cassie's martyrdom, for example, is covered in a reference called "the truth concerning Cassie Bernall". Though if you believe that the article has a bias, try to edit it to remove the bias while keeping the information about the martyrdom (etc.). All positive edits are welcomed. PRueda29 02:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a "pro-christian bias".— encephalon έγκέφαλον  03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he means anti-christian. PRueda29 03:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree about the anti-Christian bias. Just the general tone, really. Djacobs 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Christianity is only mentioned three times in the article so the entire article can't have an anti-christian tone. Two out of three times, the mention of Christianity is in reference to Christians and conservatives blaming popular culture for the massacre, which actually did occur (so it deserves mention). The only bias I do notice is the mention of using Cassie Bernall to boast popularity for their faith despite the truth of the matter, but this can be easily changed to an NPOV without deleting the fact. PRueda29 21:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Its difficult to figure out who was a martyr in a shooting that killed so many young people. However, there is a definite movement to -discount- the idea that Cassie stood up for her beliefs. The Salon article was typical of that movement, and basically suggested that since a number of people didn't hear Cassie say it, it wasn't said by her. Which assumes that when two guys are going around shooting everyone, that the majority of people are accurately listening to what is being discussed. According to the "truth or fiction" article, Joshua Lapp still stands by his memory, that he heard Cassie answer "yes". The second account was discounted because that witness pointed to the wrong table when he was asked where Cassie was, when he thought he heard her say it. I edited the article to reflect this. -John Abbott (john@johnabbott.net)

While it is true that there are students who were in the library that still assert the exchange occured, it is not only the Salon.com article that questions this exchange. The official investigation itself points out that none of the three people who witnessed Bernall die saw an exchange occur physically, nor were in the position to see one. This can be studied when reading the official witness accounts from the 11,000 page report where students located at or near the table Bernall was under all stated that Harris knocked on the table, said "peekaboo", and then shot into the table. Students who do still claim it to be true are not wrong, an exchange did occur, what they may be mislead by is media reports, or possibly rumors, of a wrong account that the exchange occured with Bernall rather than Schnurr. An exchange similar to the one attributed to Bernall did occur in that same manner as witnessed by students located near Valeen Schnurr, and as accounted by Schnurr herself. Students who continue to claim it was Bernall, when asked to point out where the exchange came from, point towards the section of the library where Schnurr was located and point out that it occured well into the massacre rather than towards the beginning, which also matches the time sequence of the Schnurr remark in contrast to the shooting of Bernall. Despite all this, it has now been over seven years since the event, and it is nearly impossible to ever find out what really happened, though based on the evidence and eyewitness accounts, it is more likely, not that an exchange didn't occur, but that the exchange that did occur was wrongly attributed to another due to a misunderstanding or misinformation. Still, Bernall's story of recovery and becoming born again, then killed, is still inspirational enough for her to be considered in the same way she is now. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While there will always be legitimate questions in regard to what really happened at Columbine, there are many contradictory facts that should be considered in regard to the theory that the so-called "martyrdom" echanges did not occur. For instance, Emily Wyant, the young lady who was underneath the table with Cassie Bernall, was intially so traumatized by her experience that she couldn't remember anything. She later gave her reccollection of the library massacre, which included an identification of Dylan Klebold as Cassie's killer. Nevertheless, ballistic reports show that it was Eric Harris who shot and killed Bernall. This misidentification of Cassie's killer does compromise Wyant's version of events. Moreover, if it is true that those nearest to Bernall were not in the position to see a physical exchange between Harris and Bernall, than their accounts may not be applicable to determining whether or not it occurred. Most important to consider are the shooters' video diaries, which clearly show their hostile attitude towards Christianity. For instance, at one point in their video diaries, the killers start talking about one of their classes. Harris remarks, "Nick, you need to shut up. And those girls sitting next to you, they probably want you to shut up, Jen and Rachel or whoever." "Godly whore, stuck up little b****," says Klebold, to which Haris replies, "Yeah, I love Jesus, I love Jesus, shut the f*** up." Klebold, mocking the acronym WWJD, yells, "What would Jesus do? What would I do?(pointing an imaginary rifle) Boosh!" Then the killers yell, "Go Romans-thank God they crucified that a-hole. Go Romans! Whoohoo!." Rachel Scott's father, Daryl Scott, believes that this is a reference to his daughter. Kate Batton, who lead much of the Columbine investigation, repeatedly said that Columbine was "not a God thing," and that the girl mentioned on the tape was not Scott. In interviews, Mr. Scott stated that the girl Batton refers to as being named on the tape was, according to available accounts, not a Christian, which wouldn't account for her name being linked with anti-Christian speech. Daryl Scott continues to believe that his Rachel is the one mentioned on the tape, based on the facts that she attended class with the killers, went to her school prom with a boy named Nick, and wore a WWJD wristband. Moreover, it is clear that Scott talked openly about her faith and confronted Harris and Klebold about the violent vidoes they created for their communication class, from which it is logical to conclude that she might have angered them. Harris also said that he wanted "to shoot Christians in the head." Both Scott and Bernall were killed by Harris by a point blank shot to the head. In contrast to various examples of hate speech, the anti-Christian comments made in the video diaries were not included in Time Magazine's recounting of the shooting. Of all the famous exchanges that occurred during the shooting, those related to God have come under the most scrutiny from the mainstream press, in contrast to racist and anti-athetic remarks, which have been generally excepted based on witnesses accounts. In considering what occurred, solid evidence supporting the martyrdom theory should be researched and examined with the same amount of credence lent to evidence that weakens it. It is difficult to take any account at face value, as even the most moral individuals are vigilant in regards to others' fair consideration of their worldviews, and usually report occurrences with this in mind. Given the tension that often exists between America's more visible Christian organizations and the mainstream media, citizens are also wise to consider that secular agendas may be at work in vehemently denying these accounts, just as religious interests may be served in upholding them. In short, neither theory is perfect-Music2006

I still strongly feel that we should put emphasis on the official version of events, seeing as it is the official version of events and add the counter-points on the side, letting the reader know that the events are credited to have occured in this manner, as cited by investigators, and some others believe otherwise, allowing them to make their own decisions about what they think happened. What I don't want is the article leading people to just one side of the story and completely discrediting the other, and I'm not biased towards any side when it comes to this. Sure, the official investiagation is official, but the fact others question it should still be mentioned and neutralized on both sides. This is a point I hold against people who wish to remove the parts about the martyrdom of both girls, at the same time, I'm also against adding paragraphs and sentences as many anonymous users have done which lead the paragraph in the direction that goes against the official investigation, or against Cassie's story. I find that many people feel so strongly about this they literrally get angry at the notion that someone could suggest for or against the idea that Cassie said yes or not. Still, the official investigation, whether in contrast to anyone's person opinions says no, and so we must follow it just like we follows it everywhere else in the article, while at the same time allowing users to openly come to their own conculusions using neutral arguments for both sides when it comes to controversial points. I've attempted to do this, as have many other users, when writting and moderating this article, but this issue always comes up no matter how it's written. Right now, I propose leaving it as it is, or maybe changing it a bit if there is some non-neutral wording here or there, but until other evidence or something else comes through saying otherwise, we can't compromise the neutrality of the article for personal opinions towards or against "religion" or "truth" as each side likes to push. Get what I mean? Also, if you read Richard Castaldo (was with Rachel when she was killed)'s testimony, she was not shot at point blank range, she was shot at from a distance (just thought I'd point that out); Cassie on the other hand, was... -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits
The three sections after Victims need to be copy edited, especially Aftershock. Anyone up for it?— encephalon έγκέφαλον  03:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I will see...I have heard a few different stories of how some of the victims died...I think it should at least mention that some sources do talk about these possibilities... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.104.192 (talk • contribs)

This is an older request that has already mostly been tended to, also, the way victims died is taken from the official investigation reports, there is no need to mislead readers by adding unconfirmed reports from news articles at the time of the massacre when reporters were still speculating deaths and events. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  15:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The bush/cheney thing was pretty creative.

lol71.98.16.172 08:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Okay, the page is getting repeatedly vandalized by the same idiot with the same picture. Can some admin please just delete the picture he keeps linking to?


 * Okay, now there's two of them, with two different (both inappropriate) pictures. PLEASE, SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. --Matt Yeager 05:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't protect the main page featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection &rarr;Raul654 08:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. This is really going to inform others about Columbine. [/sarcasm] They're going to be too distracted by the pictures. Please.

what are they posting 71.98.16.172 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of the massacre
Everyone's going to hate me for writing this about such a sensitive topic, but...

Why did the boys time the attack for April 20, which was Adolf Hitler's birthday? Wouldn't April 30, Hitler's day of death, been more appropriate? &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence they chose April 20th for that reason (Hitler's birthday). Its even more likely that Hitler's birthday had no influence on the choice of date at all, and that whole controversy is just speculation by the media. They never mention Hitler in their journal entires or planning, and they never idolized him in any way. I think that they probably chose April 19th as the date because it was the anniversary of both Waco and OKC, but for some reason the date was moved to the 20th. It can't really be confirmed as to why it was moved, nor can it be confirmed if maybe Hitler did influence them, though as I mentioned, it's unlikely. The choosing of the date is still a big mystery six years later. If anything, the date could've been random; that's unlikely though since they mention both OKC and Waco in their planning. PRueda29 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with PRueda29 I mean maybe they made a mistake or was busy on the 19th.But I bet they don't like hitler or maybe they hate jews but maybe kept it a secret. So either they made a mistake or they hate jews i think they made a mistake. ( user:Benjida October 17,2005 8:49PM)

Dylan Kledbold was Jewish. They really didn't "idolize" hitler. It was more of a joke, like saying "heil hitler" during bowling class. This doesn't mean there nazis, eric would draw a few swastikas like engraved in one of his knives. Although Eric is very odd, in one website entry he writes about how he hated racists, and then in a journal entry he writes about how he hates the niggers and spics and how they just "bring it upon themselves." The date was chose for april 19th because of waco and the oklahoma city bombings, the boys hoped to achieve the most deaths in US history, kinda of like what the oklahoma city bombings did. The girl Robyn Anderson who bought them the carbine and 2 shotguns was going to be gone on 420 (probably to smoke weed) and so they moved it up to 420. That's what I read anyway.

Benjide, how could they have been busy on the 19th? I think their plans were of a bigger priority than whatever else they mightve had to do.


 * I think the theory has something to do with them being delayed in building the propane bombs and getting ready, it wasn't that they had other plans, more that their plan couldn't be fulfilled on cet date. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  22:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm eric did idolize hilter, their are several excerpts in his journal where he glorifies hitlers philosophy, he was always scribbling swatzikas and like Hitler he thought many people were inferior to him. At the very least he was extremely fascinated by german culture (excelled in his German class, often recited phrases in German, favorite banned was rammstein) and that his admiration for hitler was just a secondary extension of that fascination. But regardless their is absolutely no basis to substantiate why eric and dylan chose that date, there are many theories involving hitlers b-day and waco, one theory even suggests it was chosen because they were friendly with all the stoners, and they picked that day since many of them would be absent for 4/20 - regardless there just isn't any evidence to lament any of these theorys as fact - Lynch

Till Lindemann
I find the accusation based on Till Lindemann's rolling Teutonic R's preposterous. He's German, right? That's how he talks. Should we condemn the whole population of Germany, the whole population of Austria, and a significant part of the population of Switzerland while we're at it? &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Such claims are a common fixture of the Religious Right. [User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)]


 * —Please remember NPOV-such details are not only offensive to or "used" by the religious right.-Music2006

Talking like that has nothing to do with being German. Believe it or not, Till Lindemann doesn't talk like he sings. Neither do any other Germans talk that way, and neither did Hitler (off stage). Till obviously has a very clear artistic purpose in doing so. I don't think the paragraph is POV, though. The very comment about "Teutonic Rs" is of course absolutely ridiculous and shows very well that this was an overreaction from extremist religious groups that have no idea what they're talking about. That's not POV, that's simply stating the obvious. If anybody from these religious groups gets offended by the paragraph as it stands now, it's like George Bush being offended by someone pointing out to him that he's a Republican. If anyone should be offended, it's the artists who were wrongfully accused. --dllu 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical Term?
We are told that Harris had a messianic-level superiority complex in the Aftermath etc section. Is this a techical term for or not, and if not, it should probably be replaced with something more appropriate. Perhaps a reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Hydraton31 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Actually, maybe DSM would not be appropriate but I would still ask whether this term should be used here since it sounds like a technical term and, presumably, any real diagnosis is impossible. Any thoughts? Hydraton31 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"messianic-level superiority complex"

That is a bad mix of role-playing jargon and pop psychology. It sound like the author was suggesting something akin to a narcissistic personality disorder; though even that would still be pure speculation authors part. -Username Frambojan

I assume the phrase got here via either my Slate story, or David Brooks' NY Times column which summarized it, and in my recollection, Brooks also used the phrase. Presumably, David felt that it conveyed a sense of the preposterous extent of Eric's ego, which was my intent. Also, Eric compared himself to God ad nauseum in his journal, which was available online at the time, but is now, here: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/900columbinedocs.pdf (the journal starts on p. 84.) The phrase Messiah Complex is very common in scholarly journals in descriptions of psychopaths, and I think for good reason--it clearly conveys the idea to both a lay and a professional audience.

Post-mortem diagnoses are difficult and problematic, but they are done all the time. And these killers left a massive amount of data behind. In this case, psychopathy was the consensus of the entire team of world-renowned psychiatrists and psychologists brought in by the FBI for a summit in Leesburg, VA in July 1999. In my Slate piece, I quoted two of them, as well as Dr. Dwayne Fuselier, himself a PhD in psychology and clinical psychologist, who led the FBI's investigation. He has studied Eric Harris for years, and is easily the world's leading authority on those two killers. It was certainly not pop psychology.

Davecullen 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen

Why?
This artice doesn't really delve into the question of why they did it. It just brings up video games and movies and such (which, by the way, are approved to be released by government regulations).

One statement on this article said that Harris and Kelibold were not loners, and had many friends. The statement had a notation. But if this were true, why haven't their many friends disclosed some insight into why they did this? In addition, it just doesn't make sense that people with many friends will be so angry with the world that they'd start murdering people and then commit suicide. Instead, they'd be more postive people because they'd be happy with the good times and companionship shared with their friends.

It's strange how no one (outside of Micheal Moore, assumptive idiots who aren't educated in psychology/sociology, and religious crusaders) have seriously and throughly attempted to pinpoint the underlying problematic sociological factors that have helped cause this event. Apparently there's something wrong in the United States when youth, who should be fundamentally optimistic, decide to start murdering many people and then subsequently kill themselves. -Usernamefortonyd
 * Nobody knows exactly why...It'll never be known because the only two people who can explain why they did it are dead. It may not make sense to you, but the fact of the matter is that it happened...Having friends doesn't make everybody happy, and the fact that they had friends and did what they did is proof of that...Maybe that's why they did it, because they were misunderstood by people with thinking such as your's. Rzrscm 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

@ fort So if you have friends it's impossible for one to commit murder? Are you kidding me? Are you implying that everyone who is depressed is universally lacking one thing...friends? Your ideas are baseless and the only one who is assumptive is you. Dylan and Eric had a decent social-life, but nonetheless eric was a psychopath and dylan was a deppressive - they both shared one thing in common, an intense hatred for life. While this mindset was triggered by different factors for each of them (eric had extreme contempt for everyone around him, dylan was just depressed and angry at the world) ultimately there hatred for life brought them together to commit this massacre. Check out the slate article entitled "at least we know why the columbine killers did it" it explains everything - Lynch

See the above mentioned article by Block to read some explanations as to "why?". I tried to add some of these concepts to the article ZookieByTheSea 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

off topic
off topic, but can you beleive there is a columbine video game... super columbine rpg -- {{Subst:unsigned|67.149.119.110 )

Why not Stay on Topic, instead. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical discussion
12. PSYCHIATRIC DRUG CORRELATION

This and many other episodes of violence seen in American society are almost ALWAYS seen to have links with psychiatric drugs. Either the individuals and perpetrators are on them or WERE on them. This has been proven time and again through investigation.

There needs to be more written on the immense implication of the link between drugging children and young adults and the connection that American and other western and biochemical-psychiatry-influenced people have with violence and behaviour.

Not just in the anecdotal sense, but in the broad ontological sense, these things portend an enormous issue to individuals and the global society.


 * Back up your claims. — ceejayoz &#9733; 22:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You cannot back up the claims of a theory, if you are referring to the Pharmalution idea. The theory is to be investigated by research, otherwise it has no basis. I contend that we all look closely to what has been found by the likes of Breggin etc. and make strong investigation to the references and to the claims he makes. And yes this should be done elsewhere. This is an important entry for 'wikipedia' as this is a 'public encyclopedia', so it is in all of our interests as we are obviously not biased by companies and governments who DO have active interest in the effects, implementation and use of these unnatural elements.

Here is but a sample of googles I did:

Many links and references: http://www.uhuh.com/education/drugskill.htm

References to the concept of drug use and state control: www.infowarscom/articles/brave_new_world/new_freedom_paul_amendment.htm

Books related to this issue: http://www.oralchelation.net/data/Psychiatry/data18l.htm

Other references to the dangers: http://www.oism.info/en/psychiatric_drugs/harm/the_dark_side_of_psychiatric_drugs.htm

And keep in mind that 'backing up claims' is a matter of objectivism, and in this sense, then objectivism is the basis of agreement, (between authorities), of a single theory developed by individuals, (subjectivist views).

What are you proposing? that this is not possible because there is no previous objective basis or evidence?

Please, the truth we are seeking to put here is that the element of human (and biological) behaviour, and we are dealing with a very significant element of human behaviour in violence, is that it can and will be affected by drugs - especially ones that influence the brain! And in fact the objective evidence of the links DOES exist, and the evidence IS obvious.


 * This article is about the Columbine massacre, not about the correalation between psychiatrict drugs and the massacre. This topic deserves mention, and it is mentioned, as well as linked to a webpage dealing with that topic in detail, but the article doesn't need anymore than a paragraph or so on the topic since it's about the actual event of the massacre.  If you want to start a page on links between school shooters and psychiatric drugs, you can do that and then add a link to that new page onto this article, but adding a whole elaborate section on that topic to this article would be wrong.  If we were to do that, we should just add the entire Cassie Bernall article which was removed and given its own page for the same reason.  BTW, there's no need to be hostile.  PRueda29 22:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right PRueda29, I think I will take this to the Pharmalution entry I made and intend to fill that topic, and reference this article and others in relation to this link.

I came to the discussion area for this reason, feel free to remove this and edit what I said down, (I have already taken the liberty of removing the hostility in what I wrote, sorry about that).

The reason I was slightly irate is that the key to this quandary is that this quote 'Other researchers have pointed out that such claims are not based upon scientific testing.' is as ridiculous as killing people in order to see if death hurts. And what is most alarming is that that link is actually supportive of the idea of the link between these drugs and of violent manic behaviour, I think you need to more clearly state the objective points of view that exist.

Of course there is difficulty in making assessments of these links because of a solid institutionalised perception of psychotropic drug use in US citizens that is backed by the very investigative and research bodies that educate the doctors and citizens that prescribe and use these compounds.

I am sorry if you do not see the subtle intonation, nor the even more subtle thinking it stimulates, but it is there, in an objective sense this is a critical aspect of today’s thinking. Do NOT let this abberative element creep into your objective reasoning, there still exists strong philosophical and epistemological contention that drugs of this kind and the modalities they are derived from, comes from these very institutions that are attempting to modify the fundamental concept of human thought and reasoning based on their biochemical psychiatric theories. This is a critical element to the basis of the 'why' of these extremely dangerous and destructive individuals. If people like this can so easily 'fit in' to a society with little alarm and so quickly go on such a rampage much needs to be discussed.

This is an encyclopedia, about the truth of what occurred, and while there is no doubt massacres have existed before the existence of psychotropics, the rise of and prevalence of violence in American society and the fact that the majority of these people are on these compounds smacks of a direct link to violence and mental instability.

There is an even more controversial way of considering this and that is that the drugs are NOT related, but the fact that these individuals were patients of psychiatrists makes the psychiatric proponents and institutions involved.

But this would ultimately ignore the fact that if these individuals were hopelessly destined to this type of behaviour and therefore cause us to remove the link of a 'health service', then what hope would we have in understanding psychotics?

The fact that these types of individuals existed in a society that had ample 'services' indicates a significant failing on the part of biochemical psychiatry in assessing the potential risks of these types of individuals, (these individuals were investigated as part of the criminal proceedings from the theft incident, which is more reason to make these connections).

As this body of 'science' claims to be quite well prepared to diagnose all manner of 'mental disease', what happened here?

Were not these people prime examples of the potential for disaster? If they were so capable of this massacre, how is it a science of psychiatry was so lax in predicating or controlling this?

I think it is a further indictment of these 'institutions and practitioners' in their allowing these individuals to roam free after encountering them when they were caught in a criminal act, and THAT is a significant aspect to the story.

Worse again, is that given that the 'field' of psychiatry could take care of these psychotics, one has to but notice that psychiatry has NO cure nor therapy for ANYTHING, except in it’s use and prescription of these very drugs identified as potential causes and having roles in these very issues.

Which is partly why I started this discussion.

There is no link to be found in wikipedia about ‘anti-psychiatry’, because no one assumes it is possible to help ‘individuals’, and ironically this is due to the influence that this ‘field’ has had over the years on the psyche. It is the science of fascism, it is the very subject that has influenced and empowered the ‘objectivism’ that you and I all fawn over.

This is especially frightening due to the fact that this 'field' claims to be the authority on the subject of derangement!


 * Having been prescribed anti-depresants before, and then having to go through withdrawl, I agree with you. I don't believe pills help anyone when it comes to psychology, but this is only my opinion; others might disagree.  If you'd like, add a bit more information to the portion about Eric Harris and Luvox, but try not to make it anymore than two or three paragraphs; also, give it its own category by puting ===Title=== as its title underneath the portion about journals and videos.  Try not to deviate from Columbine and Eric Harris as it is the central topic unless you're comparing it to other massacres, such as the one in Springfield, Oregon or Red Lake, Minnesota.  I'm not going to trim down or delete what you wrote since its part of a discussion and doing that would preven others from inputting their opinions, but if you'd like you can trim it down a bit yourself.  PRueda29 04:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing: create an account, it's free! PRueda29 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Kneejerk Mafia
People often talk about the Trenchcoat Mafia, the nick name for the Columbine High School Audio Visual club if memory serves me, when they talk about the Columbine Tragedy.

What they don't understand is the truth.

They see the news, they react, they panic, they fear, they question those who do not fit the mold, and ostricise that which they do not understand. These people are part of the "Kneejerk Mafia". That group of modern day villagers with tourches and pitchforks looking for monsters to chase out of town, witches to burn, and abominations to be used as effigies for their hatred.

While I agree 100% that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had planed how they would end their lifes and the lives of fifteen other people at school, they did not plan for the possible outcomes of what would happen durring the aftermath of the chaos that they caused.

I would like share my story of what happened to myself because of the actions by two boys of my age, of my interest of mathematics, science, movies, industrial music, and computer programming and taking the same medications at the time.

The following day, April 21, 1999, I was attending my biology class where we discussed about the events that occured less than twenty-four hours ago. We were also watching students at the high school that I knew nothing about, not even where it was or the type of people who lived in the city of which the incident occured.

I asked a question that I still remember to this day, because I was shocked by the outcome of what people had though of me. I asked my science teacher "What kind of person would do something so horrible, so evil, so condisending that they would resort to this violence." My teacher replied "&#091;girl's name&#093; said that you would do such a thing."

I found the response to be quite offensive. I was shocked. I had friends. Even though I am a fan of Rammstien, and went at the Papal Youth Gathering that occured in my home town of St. Louis earilier that year. So basically, I knew for certain my preference of music and my faith had nothing to do with why that personl said thouse things. Even without the anti-depressants, I never once contemplated suicide and did not have any interest whatsoever of doing so. To me the idea of taking your own life sounded pretty rediculous. I only took anti-depressents because of the panic attacks that I had durring middle school for things that did not relate to peer pressure, self esteem, or any of that other "after school special" nonsense that they preach about in school.

As far as goth culture, which I could say from experience having a high school crush on one girl who was a goth and teasing another girl who was a goth, I can state that goths had nothing to do with Columbine. Heck, the small group of goths I knew spent lunch hour everyday playing hacky-sack until they lost their hacky-sack to the ledge on the second floor of the school, in which they had to wait until someone got a new hacky-sack the next day. They weren't in a corner reading poetry or plotting to something violent involving Satan as mainstream media had pidgeon holed them. So goths are an OK group of people. I could understand their feelings about having to go to school assemblies where the school parades the cheerleaders and jocks around like we should really care about "the big game this weekend". They never seem to have assemblies for the math club or debate team.

However, aside from being the school's pracing ponies, the athletes and the cheerleaders at the school, or as the media calls them "the jocks", were also another group of friendly people. They didn't pick on people. They didn't single out non-jocks, and they often did alot of things involving academics, because the coaches were pretty strick about athletes keeping their grades up. Hence the feeling of "school first, sports last".

So what did happen the rest of the day, after I was told I could be a possible threat to the rest of the school? Basically, it was an average day. I shrugged it off. I told my parents, a couple of friends I knew I could trust, and one of the vice principals about it. All of it privately. The vice principal I talked to about it thought it was rather stupid and made certain that he would talk to the girl who started this potentially damaging rummor.

What soon followed was nothing short of a conspiracy. I was singled out by the school district. There was a meeting with the school principal, two of the vice principals, my advisor, the teacher who brought told me about the rumor, my parents, the guidance councelor, a teacher from the special education department, and someone from school district headquarters. The meeting concluded where I went to school as ususal, except there was a woman there who looked like she was trying to impersonate a high school student who acted as a shadow and followed me around all day. When the day was over, I heard her talk to one of the vice principals saying that my life was "boring". To which I joined in the conversation stating "No, really, you think?!" Yeah, my life is rather subtile but it didn't stop the school from attempting to embarrass my parents.

Normally, when you get suspened, someone from school calls your parents. However, the people who were so eager to see that I go away sent A FAX MESSAGE to my father, stating I was to be susspended for ten days, then seven days, then until futher notice. Reguardless, my parents an I were furious! Another meeting with someone from the school district proved fruitless. Shortly there after, we hired a lawyer with money that would have put me though college. I still went to college, just not the one I was hoping to go to thanks to the witchhunt at school.

Durring my time of susspension, the school principal sent police to search my home for guns. I don't like guns. I would never use a gun to hurt anyone, ever. The officers were from the city that my school was in. These officers never came to my home when I was assaulted on school grounds because the city boundary defined one side of the highway to be part of the adjacent community. I had to call the cops in my community to report what happened. However, when ever there is a student who is dangerously intellegent, they can waltz in and search my home WITHOUT A WARRENT! My home was outside city limits. They found nothing. My mom also wanted me to hide my computer. The school had searched my computer usage at school and found nothing but alot about history, most of it on math and science. I barely had access to the school computers because the IT department constantly locked the door and one time when I had injured myself, I was denied access to assistive technology and the stuff they gave me was very slipshod. I was even bumped off the computer by the schools program for typing a paper for one of my classes. Thus, my access to technology was very terse unlike the kids I ratted out at the school library who were printing images of Victoria Secret models.

When it was all over, things were never the same. It would later turn out that the school principal and one of the vice principals (not the one that I had spoken too before this conspiracy against me occured) had started the rumor. The primary goal was to just get rid of me. No reason what so ever. Just to kick me out of school. Ironically, the stereotypical people you would think would be kicked out of school after an incident like this were not kicked out, in fact some of them didn't even want to be my friends anymore. The goth chick who I did like didn't want to be friends with me anymore because she though I might shoot up the school. Other girls were afraid to go out with me. My sister went on a date with someone who asked if I was going to kill people. My brother was in an altercation against another student at his school defending my honor. He was susspened for three days for fighting. I was also called "The Unibomber" because one of the rummors was that I would blow up the school. I would certainly not, considering that I kept some of my academic work at school and would have felt terrible about loosing it. The ostriziation did not stop there. Even before high school, they school district wanted me to see a theripist. I didn't need therapy! I needed someone who could see that I wasn't a threat to anyone or myself! Angry with how the school treated me, my parents enrolled my siblings into private school. I refused to join them because I still wanted to prove the school wrong.

I gradated high school. Durring the graduation speech I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when the superintendent stated "&#091;school district's name&#093; is the best school district in the world."

My story has everything to do with this article. It is because of Columbine, the school decided to used this unfortunate tragedy to their advantage. They had no respect for me. They had no respect for what happened to those people. They only wanted me gone.

In retrospect, I question still have questions about why it happened. Just because I had the same interest as those two boys, I am nothing like what they were and would never want to be who they were. But to blame everyone and everything for this incident is alot like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun instead of a flyswatter.

Was it paranoia? Was it hate? Was there greed involved?

I lost everything I loved in high school because of fear except for my academic status. No one I know came went to college with me. I assumed they all went to comunity college or got blue collar jobs. In alot of ways the ostricization kept me as a 16 year old teenager. I'm 22 now. Sometimes I wonder if I matured. Sometimes I wonder if I should mature. I question what is to become of myself. I have changed, but the world has stayed the same.

I want to share something with the Wikipedia community that was created this summer on Newgrounds.com by a person named AloneInTheDark. It is a movie about a school shooting, similar to the Columbine shooting. When you see it, you will probably have mixed feelings about why what happened happened.

Autumn Tree

--Bushido Hacks 02:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats deep and i agree i also saw autumn tree it sort of reminds me of elephant but its a great flash movie. But some people will never mature but if they learn to love than they'll mature and than there will be no more war. (User:Benjida October 17,2005 9:00PM)

same thing just happened to me...almost Bold textexactlyBold text the same71.98.16.172 08:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Devastation
Hello guys: I just wanted to find out if the investigation ever proved there being a third shooter? I am doing a report on this tragedy, and would like to know if there is anything that would be of use in my work. Bold text


 * There was no third shooter. The janitor was hiding on the roof, and the police thought it might have been a third suspect since he wasn't evacuating like the rest of the student body. --Hurricane Angel 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Second deadliest
"It is considered to be the deadliest school shooting, and the second deadliest attack on a school in US History." Out of curiosity, what was the first? Fantom 19:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bath School Disaster PRueda29 19:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Eric's site
Is it still up somewhere? I'd like to know. Worldmaster0

This site has some of Eric's webpages archived, but many of the links give 404 errors. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, checking through the site just now, it appears that most of the 404 links have been fixed. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No off compus due to te masacre?
Alright I'm not sure if this is true...but I heard that because of massacre that most schools in the suburbs can't go off campus for lunch, yo is true?

No, even in colorado schools in jefferson county were allowing thier kids to go off campus. As much as I can remember this is a non issue. Wardenusa 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
I have semi-protected this article to allow only established users and admins (meaning no anons or new users) to edit it due to the fact this page is constantly vandalised, usually through blanking or changing of the victims/perps names to someone else's. It has come to mine, and another user's attention that new users and anons make very few useful contributions and contribute to all of the vandalism. If you have any objections with this decision, please discuss it here first. If you are an admin who disagrees, you may unprotect the page at your discretion but please discuss your reasons here either before or after unprotecting. New users/anons who want to add a constructive edit may suggest it here also. New users will be allowed to automatically edit the article freely by achieving a certain number of good edits. PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

im an anon and i do my best to make good edits, that is nothing more tha predudice, and besides, werent you a newuser at one time? 71.98.16.172 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Able to edit this page?
Hi there. I've noticed that some of the paragraphs could use a little touching up, and wanted to know if it's OK for me to edit these parts? For instance, deadliest massacre is a bit of a strange combination of words; a massacre is "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly", so it's not really a good way of describing something.

Cheers anyway Mr Spum 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Consistency issues-- Perhaps worth discussion/assigning for cleanup?
I'm recording this article for Spoken Wikipedia and have run across several technical variations in the article. Basically, the article sounds kind of odd read aloud. If we could just "pick one" in each of the following and apply them throughout the article, it would make it even better. Ckamaeleon 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New Additions:
 * "sawn-off" vs."sawed-off" I don't think that "sawn-off" is exclusively British. I'm American, and that's how I'd read it.
 * "Harris's" vs. "Harris'" maybe "s'" before another "s"? and "s's" everywhere else?
 * "9-1-1" vs. "911" I prefer the first one. It makes it clear that it's a sequence of numbers, esp. since we have "9/11" now.
 * US" vs. "U.S." The intro paragraph uses the first one. Looks like all others either spell it out or use the periods.
 * "Goth" vs. "goth" Seems like I saw it capitalized for no apparent reason somewhere.
 * "trenchcoat" vs. "trench coat" ha! both Webster's and dictionary.com proved me wrong. I would have gone with one word, but "trench coat" is correct.
 * "Columbine" v. "the Columbine incident/shootings/massacre/whatever" This is actually more of a style whininess from me: It's not techincally correct to say things like "based on Columbine" when you don't mean the town or the flower. If nobody minds, I'll change it to "the Columbine incident" or something like that. Most of the article does that, anyway.

I think this stems from the fact that many different people add many different things, and depending on who writes what, the spelling/grammar may differ. If you find any more, please list them. -- PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a neat, fun way to find such inconsistencies, which obviously have gone unnoticed otherwise. :) --Golbez 11:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will add any others I find. But yeah, I realized that it's an unintended benefit of Spoken Wikipedia.

Ckamaeleon 22:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC). P.S. -- I understand why it happens. But do you think it should be left as is? Or should it be copy-edited from time to time so the article holds together better?

Does it matter?71.98.16.172 08:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trench coats
Hi there. I added the wearing of trench coats as one of the things covered by the moral panic, but it was deleted without explanation. There was a strong perceived link between the killers' imaginary subculture and trench coats in the mind of the public after the massacre, so there was alot of suspicion toward teenagers who wore them. Many school districts even banned them. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.169.67 (talk • contribs).

This is generally perceived as being included in the goth culture moral panic outlash. Plus, I think there are already too many things on that list, we don't have to specify every detail of what was outlashed against. Though, I can't be sure if I want to exclude trenchcoats being such a big part of this. I don't know, I guess you can add it back then. Sorry. -- PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 16:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Trench Coats and the gothic subculture have nothing to do with each other 71.98.16.172 08:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the minds of most mainstream people, and especially after the Columbine Incident, wearing a trench coat to school meant two things: 1) you are a goth; 2) you will kill people. While wearing a trench coat does not make someone a goth, the fact remains that the public reaction was to that effect. Thus, it may be appropriate to add in the "goth culture moral panic outlash" part that more people associated trench coats with the goth culture.V-Man737 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Double Link
In References: 4-20-99: A Columbine Shooting Site. Very in-depth webpage on the Columbine Shootings which digs deep into the history of both shooters. -> http://columbine.free2host.net/

In External Links: A web page hosting Eric's wads for Doom™ and heaps of infomation ->http://columbine.free2host.net/ -

My vote is to remove the second one, because a) "Information" in misspelled anyway, and b) the first caption is more explicit about what's on the site...it's not really "Eric-centered." It has a section for Dylan, as well as several others. Ckamaeleon 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing major, pulled a book ref
The "Cultural Impact" section was surprisingly and pleasingly lean, focusing on fairly major ripples; I just noticed a comparitively non-noteable (and pretty darn exploitative, based on some initial poking around) book, so I pulled it. Wrong of me? Hope not. --MattShepherd 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew article
Please add the hebrew article to the languages box. The link:

הטבח בתיכון קולומביין

--88.152.142.237 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

done. - SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

WHO DELETED THIS ARTICLE??
WHO THE Hxxx??


 * OMG NO ONE DID !!!! it was temporarily blanked, and was fixed within seconds. --Golbez 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

About the template
I added this template to advertise WikiProject Disaster Management. My hope is that, by adding the template to this article, we can coordinate our efforts at the Disaster Management project, using this article as an example of what we should strive for in other articles of the same subject matter. Is anyone opposed to me adding this template here (perhaps based on the grounds that these templates should only be added to articles that need to be expanded or significantly improved)? -- backburner001 17:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Before the shooting started
What did the shooters do that morning before they arrived at the school at 11:00 a.m.? I heard they attended a bowling class. Is that true? Also, how did the bombs get on the roof of the school and into other locations on the school campus? The article doesn't say. Furthermore, who did the BMW belong to that had the car bomb in it? The article isn't clear. I think it's a good article except for those inconsistencies. Cla68 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not known what they did exactly, probably planned... whether or not they attended the bowling class is debateable, friends say no, some people in class didn't see them, some did see them, some saw only one, it's all sketchy but probably did not attend it (their planning says they didn't plan on attenting it), the bowling question is covered. Bombs were thrown on the roof, they threw them as they went along the school... BMW belonged to Klebold, I believe. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine Check out the bowling section, only people who were not there that day claim to have seen them there. "The film title originates from the early myth that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two boys responsible for the Columbine High School massacre, went bowling early that morning, at 6am, before they committed the attacks at school starting at 11:18 am. However, that assertion has turned out to be a myth that originated from several testimonies of distressed witnesses who accidentally forgot that they had been absent that day.[1] " 68.49.72.210 08:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection on April 27/28
I've decided that due to the large amount of vandalism surrounding this article ever since April 19 (most likely because of its 7th anniversary), I am semi-protecting this article for a few days until the hype dies down. All the vandalism in the last 8 days has been done by anons and new users and semi-protecting the article will help discourage this constant vandalism (has been 5 - 10 times per day since April 19, while it was only a few times per week before then). I ask any persons who diagree to please discuss the matter here before unprotecting, protection will only be for a few days. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Music inspired by Columbine Shooting
Hi, i wanted to add something to the page. there is an underground rap artist named ILL BILL. ILL BILL is part of PSYCHO + LOGICAL records (NECRO, ILL BILL, GORETEX, MR.HYDE, SABAC RED). On ILL BILL's debut album, What's Wrong With Bill? he has a song titled, The Anatomy Of A School Shooting (track 3). The song is the story of the Columbine shooting from Eric Harris's point of view. its a great song and it isn't just a gruesome story of how he killed people, it is a story of what lead up to the shooting, how it was instigated, and what people could have done or not done that could have changed the outcome of such a horrible moment in our contry's short history. I bought my cd from a best buy but it is availble for purchase on www.psychologicalrecords.com THANKS Mattdevil 

What about the song "Stole" by Kelly Rowland? that would be the perfect song. Sad, though. Funfair15

Done, but this still needs better verification, so it may be removed again... just thought I'd warn you. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was also the acoustic guitar song written by two Columbine Students. Class of 1999 Columbine alumnus Stephen Cohen and his younger (class of 2000) brother Jonathan Cohen co-authored a song about the shooting entitled "Friend of Mine". The music and the vocal melodies/harmonies had been written prior to the shooting and the lyrics were written shortly after by Andy Miller, a pastor at their church. It was recorded in a private studio about 30 hours after the shooting. It was selected as one of two class songs for the class of 1999, along with Green Day's "Good Riddance (Time of your life)". The song was performed by the duo at multiple memorial services following the event, as well as other public events in the year following the shooting (many of which I could probably enumerate upon request). All profits from sales of the CD were directed to supporting the victims and their families. The song did receive some criticism for its clear religious message, and the brothers were accused of trying to take advantage of the killings to jumpstart their religious music career, though neither have pursued a musical career and I can't provide a citation for that. All of the rest of the information in this paragraph I can verify as a primary source. Kryptx 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to talk about songs that contain references to this, we could include Eminem's "I'm Back" and arguably "Who knew". I'm sure there are more. Kryptx 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We should start thinking about maybe picking and choosing on the most famous references, we can't go about adding a reference to every single mention of Columbine in popular culture, it would fill up the article too much with useless trivia. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, but I do think the Cohens' song has particular relevance and deserves a special mention, since they were students, present for the shootings, and their song was chosen as a class song for that graduating class. Kryptx 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that one's fine then. I'm unprotecting the article now so you can go ahead and add it. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

what grades were the shooters in?
Does anyone know what grades were the shooters in? Judging by their ages, I'd say that they were either juniors or seniors. However, the article makes no mention. --Ixfd64 00:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They were both Seniors, Class of 1999. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

420
Link to the Cannabis Culture 420 or coincidence? --Kvasir 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say coincidence, or at least, there's no evidence left behind by the shooters indicating that it was in any way tied with the 420 cannabis culture. They weren't potheads, and their goal was to outdo other significant deadly events that had their anniversaries the previous day, which is probably the only reason why they chose it. So I'd say no, but anything's possible really. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  07:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just coincidence - 4/20 was Hitler's birthday, and I'd say that's more significant than they cannabis connection.

Firearms
I recently made some big changes in the Firearms section, but some people seem to change my information, like Klebolds shotgun - it was a 12 gauge, not 24 gauge. Im not even sure if there is such thing as a 24 gauge shotgun, but someone did change it. Here's official proof of the accuracy of what I put in the Firearms section.  Thanks for reading, REN 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a Fake Movie in Link
someone has put a fake movie in the article, it is from the movie columbine zero day. They describe this video as if it were the real shooting. This video is very disturbing considering the lie of it being true. That video is not real. I am not familar with wiki editing but deleted it. Sorry if i did not follow proper wiki rules or something, but a distrubing fake video, did not belong there. Sorry for spelling, not feeling very good right now.

it was probably a misunderstanding...71.98.16.172 08:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ill Bill
Speculated to be about? When its already released and clearly talks about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

"Underground rap artist Ill Bill released an album which includes the song "Anatomy of a school shooting", is speculated to be about the Columbine massacre."

he refers to them by name in the song

heres the lyrics

[Verse 1] The anatomy of a school shooting, shotgun under my trenchcoat Columbiners did it, dead spoke - bloodred soaked My mind consume the doom as I walk through the school 15 people killed and over 14 wounded My name is Eric Harris, I was forever harrased, an outcast You fuck with us and now me and Dylan is pulling out gats I've been wantin to murder people Suicide is played out, if you gonna die, take people with you We've been planning this before the kids from Jonesboro did it And I wanted the world to know when people died why we did it I even killed myself but don't feel sorry for me Feel sorry for your seads as we spread the diesease Another bloodbath coming soon to a school near you Smalltown killing-spree that's organized by the youth Fuck the media, them fags be disguising the truth Dragging my name through the mud when televizing the news A bunch of ticking timebombs y'all, is more like me Overflowin with hate, bullied to get raw like me They constantly get picked on and shitted on like me You'd probably get your head blown off by a kid like me I put my mind to it and what I accomplish's frightening The right thing, no matter what you idiots might think Check it, I did that shit so idiots might think This ain't a game, the nerds that you be fuckin with might flip

[Chorus: repeat 2X] It's like this, what's more fun than slice wrist? Kill that teacher that you hate, spray 25 kids You'd be famous just like me if you did what I did This is the anatomy of a school shooting

[Verse 2] I see dead people, it isn't my fault that they were evil Fuck a favorite I hate everybody equal Bitch I warned y'all, didn't I? Now everybody wanna talk shit and cry asking why - Two geeks picked up guns and turned murderous All of y'all under beneath me you don't deserve to live Two nerdy kids is that a crime? why I've gotta be one of the cool kids just to walk by - without being tripped, thrown down on the ground and kicked Insulting me for no reason, I was treated like shit The teachers let it happen I've even seen some of them teachers laughing That's why I had a smile on my face when I started blastin I wasn't crazy - all of y'all were sick I was the nicest person in the world - y'all were dicks Don't even try to analyze me now you have no chance, back then - maybe you could've been my friend

[Chorus]

thank you for listening^_^71.98.16.172 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

KMFDM
Is it possible that Harris and Klebold decided the date to be on April 20 because KMFDM's album "Adios" was to be released that day?

Eric Harris said at the bottom of one of his journal pages (98) that:

"Get this. KMFDM's new album is entitled "Adios" and it's release date is in April. How fuckin appropriate, a subliminal final "Adios" to Reb and Vodka, thanks KMFDM...I ripped the hell outta the system."

Anybody know anything about this?Mimbster 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

KMFDM and the shootings have nothing to do with each other, so they were fans of KMFDM big whoop....as far as the title of the album (Adios) its the name of a song, nearly every KMFDM album has been a 5 letter word...as far as the date, id say coincidence

a KMFDM fan and Columbine expert 71.98.16.172 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If they were such big fans of KMFDM, couldnt they stick around a couple of extra days to hear the cd? Its a good cd by the way 68.11.100.29tallman

The Kinslayer?
"The massacre inspired Finnish symphonic metal group Nightwish to write "The Kinslayer", for their Wishmaster album (1999)."

- Sounds like speculation to me. Anyone got a source? I assumed it was about the Wheel of Time books myself, though the song mentions a gun I'd hardly say it linked to the massacre directly...

Edit-Just done some more research on this myself, and it's looking more likely now, being a Nightwish fan and someone with a strong interest in Columbine I'm surprised I never caught on, but the 'good wombs hath borne bad sons' quote seems to indicate it's true! Interesting... Xzamuel 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, unless an outside quote can be found saying so, it's original research. --Golbez 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i didnt put it in the article but if it helps heres the lyrics

For whom the gun tolls for whom the prey weeps bow before a war call it religion

Some wounds never heal some tears never will dry for the unkind cry for mankind

Even the dead cry their only comfort kill your friend, I don't care orchid kids, blinded stare

Need to understand no need to forgive no truth no sense left to be followed

Facing this unbearable fear like meeting an old friend "Time to die, poor mates, you made me what I am"

In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way "Your praying is in vain, it'll all be over soon" Father help me, save me a place by your side "There is no god, our creed is but for ourselves"

"Not a hero unless you die Our species eat the wounded ones"

Drunk with the blood of your victims I do feel your pity-wanting pain Lust for fame, a deadly game

"Run away with your impeccable kin"

Good wombs hath borne bad sons...

Cursing, God, why ? Falling for every lie survivors' guilt in us forevermore

15 candles redeemers of this world dwell in hypocrisy how were we supposed to know

Firearm use misleading
The article contains the statement "The shotgun was the primary weapon used by Harris and was fired a total of 25 times" which is very misleading. Harris fired his rifle 96 times, which would make it the primary weapon as far as shots fired. I assume by "primary weapon" the article is referring to the number of injuries or deaths resulting from the weapon (I have no source for that, I'm purely speculating). If so, the article should be reworded accordingly. If not, then it should state that the rifle was his primary weapon. The citation I provided does state that the shotgun was Harris's weapon of choice inside the library, however the article does not make that clear. --Dan East 03:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Schnurr's name appears wrongly at one point as "Schurr". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.62.19 (talk • contribs)


 * Fixed. Thank You --  SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about Crosses
The spontaneous memorial crosses erected in memory of Eric and Dylan had comments written on them, some positive about loss or forgiveness, some not so much. I read that "murderer" was written on Eric's and that at least one derogatory comment was written on Dylan's. Does anyone have a soure to indicate what was writteon on their crosses before they were taken down?

NPOV
Added an NPOV tag, as there's alot of stories in the context which could be argued, and if you look at the edit history, alot of information has been changed to say completley different things, who knows which is right? Matt 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What specifically are you talking about, the entire article is backed up by several sources, and the stuff that has been changed tends to be because it was unsourced before and now it's sourced correctly to the actual event. Either way, tell us what in specifics you're speaking about because if you do not then there's no way we can fix the NPOV conflict you see. Also, please sign your statements on talk pages by using ~ . Thank You --  SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever, keep it off then, I don't give a rat's ass, it's not my article. Matt 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, man, i'm not insulting you or anything, if you really think there's an NPOV problem with the article then it's something to be addressed, it's just you didn't say what was wrong with the article, your description was very vague, if you can point what you feel is wrong with it specfically, then the few editors who normally watch this article can go around fixing it. It's just it seems like you are comparing the current version to the older now obsolete versions.  The thing about these old versions is that they were mostly written by authors who had heard the events here and there, just like anyone else but had no sources to back them.  Later, several editors came by and added references to the events, basically saying... "this is not what happened, this is what happened and I can prove it here", giving us a credible link to back that up, then the article was changed to address correct events based on the link given.  Also, most of the article is written based off of the official jefferson county sheriff office's publically released investigation paperwork, and it doesn't get much more credible than that.  Basically, most of what was written before that was later changed was wrong in some way, and someone came by and changed it using a credible link to back it up.  You can check these links throughout the article; they are little numbers inside of brackets that look sort of like this [1], if you click theose links, they will send you to the actual outside source backing up the statements in this article which proves that as of right now, a credible source has agreed these were the events that occured.  Still, there may be areas in the article which are considered non-NPOV by some users, and if any user feels this way they can certainly put up an NPOV tag and then tell us on the talk page what they feely is not NPOV about the article, but if we're not told what it is, then we can't just leave the tag on there because there hasn't been any indiciation to exactly what is NPOV about it, and so the tag becomes pointless.  So, if you do see something wrong with the article, then specify to us what it is so we can all work together and change it, your concerns were very vague, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, but if you no longer feel like address it, I can't force you, sitll, I encourage you to because now I want to know what it is to fix it, lol.  Sorry if I sounded rude or demeaning, I don't mean to. --  SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I'm sorry for being rude. Anyway, I have no sources or anything, I'm just saying if you look through the history, alot of the stories are changed quite dramatically, and it's not possible for both things to be true. I can't give an example, but frequent reading has shown this article changes alot, and I didn't know which side was true, so I NPOV tagged a few days later and thought I'd leave it to someone with sources/experiences to clean up. Matt 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

failed pipe bombs
Anyone know why the bombs failed to explode? 70.104.16.146 09:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because they were homemade by two teenagers who weren't experts in making explosives. Rzrscm 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Their pipe bombs failed due to using the worst quality powder right from other fireworks, and also they never tightned the caps at all.

Rachel Scott, about christians
There where 2 people that where shot because they said they believed in God. One was Rachel Scott, the other was in the library, her name was Cassie Bernall. I dont know why is said in the text that 3 people confirmed this exchange did not occur. It is proven it was happened. Cassie's best friend heard it. There has even been a documentary about this, so i dont know why it stands like this in the article. I would like to know any sources for that the conversation between shooter and the Christian wasn't true, else, ill change it did happened. SidewinderXP2 Talk to me!

The source is the official investigation done by the Jefferson County Sherrif's department and FBI; it's linked throughout the article. The only persons who were in position to witness either exchange said they never happened, the only one confirmed that occured is the one with Val Schnurr, which might've been confused for Cassie Bernall in the aftermath, and the one with Rachel Scott was debunked almost right away after the shooting; there are several other sources throughout the article supporting this. Thus, don't change anything because we're following the most official accounts there could possibly be here, regardless of what is circling around in documentaries (whether for or against the notions), even if you feel they are true we can't use them because it contradicts official statements and those are the ones we go by. Also, you can't really rely on what independent documentaries say when it comes to this, in that case, we should also go by what Michael Moore says, which was full of errors to begin with. So, we only use mostly official media and investigation reports for proof. You can read them yourself, the main one is the 11,000 page report link towards the bottom and there's also the CNN investigation page which are major throughout the article. While mentioning the possibility these exchanges occured and the fact people still insist they did is fine and encouraged, you can't word these additions as if they were confirmed when there is no official proof of them and when the official investigation contradicts it. -- SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV
I changed the repeated references to the murderers as "shooters" to say "murderers," because that is an accurate description of what they did that day that made them and this event notorious, and represented a non-NPOV. I was disappointed to see someone switched it back, claiming NPOV. I disagree.

Calling murderers "shooters" is a coded message to blame the weapons for the acts of their users. It has entered common parlance, as has calling them "gunmen." When someone goes on a knifing rampage, he is not called a "knife-wielder" or "stabber" or "slasher."

This is because firearms are controversial, whereas knives are not. Many people believe there is no morally-just reason for anyone to own a firearm, while many believe that firearms, used properly, can be a force for good.

Some time ago, news reporters starting the practice of calling murderers who use firearms merely "shooters." The purpose was to tease the perceptions of those who hold firearms themselves at least partially responsible for the acts of their users, by highlighting the firearm's role in the event, and minimizing what would be perceived as an opposing moral judgment on the murderer by calling him so. Pressing a hot-button issue sells papers. Murder itself gets old; murder conducted by an inanimate object that some readers want to outlaw is more exciting. Honestly, I doubt most reporters or editors today have given this much thought; it's such common parlance that people now write this way just because.

But the idea of blaming an object for what a human being chooses to do with it is a ludicrous thought process to begin with, contrived for political purposes. Carrying this on through these code words, even if it is so common we barely notice it any more, does not comport with the NPOV concept.

The police who responded were also "shooters." Using the same word to describe the murderers and the police would imply they had the same intent, when they clearly did not. So we call them "police" in the article, because they were there to police the situation, and that involved shooting. We should similarly call the murderers what they are, since that was what they were there for, and it involved shooting, as well as attempts to set fires.

Jeff 80.255.39.45 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The wording has nothing to do with political views or statements, the word murderer provoks an emotional response from readers which is something we're not going for when we are describing detailed events of an incident we are not involved in. The wording and vocabulary here is used to allow the reader to go through the events without ever having to feel emotionally attached to them, and the word shooter is a word that does not produce an emotional response.  It is also not attempting to blame the guns, or blame anything, it's just telling the reader who the subject of the sentence is, the shooter being whomever is shooting.  As you can see, we also use the word "perpetrators" throughout the article, because neither of these words produce an emotional response from a reader like using the word murderer or killer would, depsite these words also being accurate descriptions.  The word police does not produce an emotional response, so it can be used in this contenxt.  This method is often found in detailed description of events which are meant to showcase the incident to the public in a neutral tone.  Our goal is to simply describe the events related to the shooting, not tell a the readers a story.  Thank you for your concerns, though, and feel free to voice anymore you see. --  SmthManly  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyTalk  / <sup style="color:blue;">ManlyContribs  01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EndGame
There was a book published in April 2006, called EndGame inspired by the massacre. Should it be noted?