Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/Archive 3

"overtime" vs "Over time"
I think it should be "Over time" they became close, not "overtime"

https://writingexplained.org/over-time-vs-overtime-difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.102.26 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Basement tape transcripts
It should be noted that Eric Harris was "Crying" in the basement tape transcripts wishing he was a Sociopath but had emotions. He was not indiscriminately killing people because he was a psychopath like they claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:F09B:A0B7:1774:70A0 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Which source says that? --Geniac (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Evidence item #298—“reb’s Tape” and Evidence item #333 from Basement Tape Transcripts.


 * Which source includes transcripts of those tapes? Which source states that he was crying on the tape? Which source says he was not indiscriminately killing people because he was a psychopath like they claim? --Geniac (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

From evidence item #298-"Reb's Tape" and I quote - "My  parents  are  the  best  fucking  parents  I  have  ever  known.  My  dad  is  great.  I  wish I was a fucking sociopath so I didn’t have any remorse, but I do. This is going to tear them apart. They will never forget it."

From Evidence item #333 and I quote - "Eric says he can’t decide “if we should do it before or after prom.” At the end of this section of the tape Harris says he wishes he could have re-visited Michigan and “old friends.” He falls silent then and appears to start crying, wiping a tear from the left side of his face. He shuts the camera off."

Source: https://www.columbine-guide.com/columbine-the-basement-tapes https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/columbine_basement_tapes_1.0.pdf http://www.acolumbinesite.com/quotes.php

Correction: Officer Zimmerman's scanned Transcripts in first source seems to be different than the other two sources online. So Eric using the word "Sociopath" in Evidence #298 "Rebs Tape" could have been false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:DCB1:905F:6DE7:CE (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that in Officer Zimmerman's Transcript of the tapes he states that both Eric and Dylan claim that they are not "Psycho" and how the cops will likely filter the footage to how they want the public to see them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:DCB1:905F:6DE7:CE (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Retain or remove the infoboxes
Revert Special:Diff/917209445, the infoboxes were useful. NB: The editor in question may have had a long history of disruptive editing. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Let's discuss retaining or removing the infoboxes. Shearonink (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg

Should the main image/s for this article be the individual infobox images of Harris & Klebold or the single image of Harris & Klebold exclaiming over a gun
That's all. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

''I like the single image of them holding the gun, and the infoboxes by the early life and background articles. I agree with the editor that the thumbnail of the article should be the singular image, as having the infoboxes would only show Harris, not both. While I'd be fine with both, I think the exclaiming over gun image looks better and cleaner.'' - Signed by IndigoMan43 (new to Wikipedia editing so not sure if I fonted this correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigoMan43 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The image has been nominated for deletion over on Commons, see the deletion discussion at. Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who might be saying that dual infoboxes don't exist on WP or are somehow against policy/guidelines?...yeah, I know, neither WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST nor WP:OTHERTHINGSDONTEXIST is a high-quality argument for or against deletion but how about Leopold and Loeb? That has dual infoboxes... Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Keeping the gun-range photo of the two perps as the lead image for this article is salacious, it shows our readers nothing new over the 2 infobox images of the two individuals, nothing but the two perps laughing about and exclaiming over a gun. And by the way, let's consider returning the article to its longstanding previous state of having joint infoboxes near the top of the article. I know that whether or not to retain the infoboxes in the usual place within the lead section or even whether the infoboxes should remain within the article at all has been part of an ongoing slow-burning edit-war since at least September 7th with the infoboxes being removed and restored at least 3 times since the 7th. Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I do have an issue with the Luvox being related to violent behavior
Hi! I read the whole article and I have an issue about Luvox being mentioned as may have exacerbated his aggressiveness. I take it and I take it kind of personal (I should not I know) but I am far from being like Harris. Indeed violence of all kind including verbal make me feel sick. May it be modified somehow? :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a theory that anti-depressants take away your ability to empathize. Men - Males, especially when there young are prone to aggressive behavior that can be linked socio-biologically to these medications. I don't think this should be taken out of the article - Micheal Moore and other activist have become curious on how these anti-depressants effect young men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1411:4226:E944:5E8:3EFC:A7FD (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Shooting range image & infobox changes added recently
The "shooting range image" found on Commons has a murky copyright status and was previously deleted from Commons, see. The only difference between the deleted image and the most recent one is that the name of the image was changed. The previous image's title was File:Harris-Klebold-Target-Practice.jpg, the most recent title is File:Harris-Klebold-Target Practice.jpg ...one missing dash. But, yeah, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent change in wording
from "massacre" to "attack"... I think the word massacre is more apt and appropriate in the sentence:
 * The pair left behind many journal writings and home videos, foreshadowing the massacre and explaining their actions, with what they hoped to achieve.

After all, the article about the mass murder that Klebold and Harris perpetrated is called Columbine High School massacre not "Columbine High School attack". But others may disagree so let's discuss and come to a consensus. Shearonink (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think massacre is more appropriate because it is called the "Columbine High School Massacre" not attack - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

typo in Day of the Massacre paragraph
And at noon, cars setup in the pair's cars would detonate,

I assume this is supposed to say bombs setup in the pair's cars would detonate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Sickler (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge into Columbine High School massacre
Any new information can and should be merged into the Perpetrators section of that article. These infoboxes and "fair use" photos are equally useless. These two are only known for a singular event, and are only referenced in connection to that event. Since their connection to that event happens to be extensively covered in that main article, I don’t see how this article is useful in any way. 2601:8C2:8080:1BC0:B104:31F5:D3C5:203B (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with this. It's just a rehash of the Columbine article, they aren't notable for anything else, and it comes across as glorifying; e. g. Adam Lanza doesn't have a page which is wise, yet one could justify it with him just as easily.  Cake  (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This needs morphing into the perpetrators section of the Columbine High School massacre article (which itself needs trimming). A section including the backgrounds of the two individuals does need insertions in this article and does need more than a "very brief" stub article-like inclusion within this article (and should include their photographs), but a whole article is hardly worthy of inclusion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that depends upon how much Harris and Klebold have been studied as distinct people instead of just as a part of the massacre. Check academic databases. It's all about what other people say. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The massacre article studies their motives fairly deeply "rationale", "other factors" "FBI's theory" chapters etc. Suppose I can see validity either way.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  I understand how it can be seen as not useful, but this is just the start of the page on Harris and Klebold. The page was practically useless until I came in and added over 20,000 words to the page. I plan on expanding their early life section, along with personalities and relationships sections shortly, and making the rest of the article’s wording unique to the article. I don’t think all that can be said about them can be properly fit into a small perpetrators section on the page on the shooting. Also, while they were only notable for this event, so was Timothy McVeigh for the OKC bombing, and he’s got his own page, with arguably the OKC bombing being less impactful to society then the Columbine shooting. We can possibly revisit this in a few months once I’ve made the article more informational, along with some other people who I know are interested in making the article better. Food for thought. Acekard (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect acekard, facts about their life as babies, their "personalities and relationships" and all the rest, comes across as tumblr fanpage tier. I don't see how it could not be TMI about their favorite foods or just a copypaste job of the Columbine article, as it is at the moment. They literally died with the Columbine massacre and have no other reason for an article, except to have a fanpage. All that can be said notable about them definitely can fit into the perps section. That McVeigh has a page runs afoul of "other stuff exists", and I would argue for the same thing in his case. McVeigh also does not have the most copycats of any crime ever. Lanza would be the proper analogy. Good faith editors interested in them such as yourself should just focus on the Columbine article.  Cake  (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to make a note of "other stuff exists": Other stuff exists says that it can be a completely acceptable argument in a deletion discussion or the like; one just has to be careful on how its done. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I respectfully disagree. All people who have committed atrocities, their life stories are well documented, even their early life. Harris and Klebold's early life is well documented, just need someone with refs to put them in properly (myself probably). I find it kind of disrespectful calling it "their favorite food" when it is way more complex than that. Early life can be very interesting and helpful to those doing projects and research on the pair. And I don't believe anyone's intention was to make this page a "fanfic" on Harris and Klebold. With that logic, the guys who put the Osama Bin Laden page full of info would also be fine with what he did. You should be able to seperate people being interested in a subject, aside from the disinfranchised people that glorify evil people. I agree that the article should be better, that's why I even added 2 notices on the page, as I want to improve the article, as do some others, to make it unique from the shooting page, because the impact of the Columbine shooting does warrant the perpetrators having their own page, as America before and after Columbine aren't similar at all. I appreciate the criticisms though, the article will get much better in the coming months. Acekard (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That it's well documented doesn't make it notable, and the favorite food analogy is simply accurate. The impact of the Columbine shooting warrants the Columbine shooting having a page. It does already. That's what people study. It doesn't somehow warrant the perpetrators having a page dedicated to their "personalities and relationships". That's just a fan page. And to say there's any analogy to Osama Bin Laden is absurd. Osama Bin Laden doesn't have a fandom section (also was notable before 9/11). Columbine does.  There's a reason for that. That's the only reason I can see for having a separate page dedicated to the perpetrators "personalities" - might as well be one of those quizzes "Which perpetrator are you?" Also research is not done with secondary sources, which is what encyclopedias are supposed to have. Hence "original research" is forbidden. I still have to remove all the primary sources from the Columbine article. A big problem with Columbine is  most self-styled "Columbine researchers" just read the secondary sources, the popular books.  Cake  (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people want to go deeper into it by studying what led Harris and Klebold to commit the shooting. Just a page on the late background of them doesn't help out people looking for information such as this. And like I said, this isn't a "fan page." It's an encylopedia. Encylopedia - a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Woah, we're giving information on the topic of the article, who'd of thought? And none of this, at least for me, was "original research." Most things have been cited properly, with a few things that I plan to add reliable sources to here shortly. And the personality and relationship section gives, again, background into them leading up into the shooting. The shooting page only really shows things they wrote and actions they took, doesn't really delve into Harris and Klebold's persons before the shooting. Again, I have put notices to improve the article. I suggest revisting this in a few months if need be, once the article is improved immensely, and I have already begun today. And as you are an avid editor of the shooting page, I figured you would know this better than to just call this a "fanfic" or any other malarkey such as that. Thank you. Acekard (talk) 24:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the wish to study what led to the massacre, and don't think you're being dishonest in saying that's the reason; but anything relevant to that should be on the massacre page obviously, and anything not would be the kind of thing to go on their own page, yet be unnecessary in the first place, it seems to me. Cheers. Cake  (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the fundamental question is whether other people studied Klebold and Harris as individuals rather than just as perpetrators. There may be scholarly sources on how/why these particular people committed the crime. Notability_(people) the criteria states in regards to criminals that they may be notable if: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Checking academic journals related to crime may help determine whether Klebold and Harris as individuals have been subject to study.
 * The likes of Adam Lanza et al could get articles if there are scholarly books/articles about him as an individual "beyond contemporaneous news coverage"
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback Whisper. That guideline seems to say why we have a Columbine page, because the crime is a well-documented historical event. However, before that point for the perpetrators there is this guideline as the very first sentence, which I feel speaks for itself in support of my contention: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." As for articles, there are some on Harris such as from Peter Langman (here and here, I'm not aware of any for Klebold), but none outside the context of the massacre. They would be used on the Columbine article, and only pointlessly rehashed on an article on the perps. Cake  (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is true that "if there is an existing article[...]" is present, though it seems to be a catchall if a victim fails criterion #1 (there is only one criterion or if a perpetrator fails both #1 and #2 (criterion #2 is meant for whether a perpetrator could have his/her/their own article). I would be interested if some academics have studied Harris's and Klebold's past writings, webpages, and video game creations as not all were particularly in the context of a massacre. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly there's no other reason to study those, as with Langman above. Even Acekard seems to grant the whole point is to study the reasons for the massacre - which we have the entire "rationale" section for. That's why their writings were released. And their webpages and video game creations are quite insignificant outside of the context of the massacre. The Harris Levels are pretty average Doom WADS. 20 year old angsty AOL webpages and journals would be entirely memory holed if not for the massacre. As you can see, most of it was anyway (note also it's on a site for the massacre). And Klebold nuked his hard drive, so we don't have anything of his in that regard. What could you possibly say about their webpages which doesn't have to do with the massacre? Nothing but fancruft as far as I can tell. Delete everything from the Harris and Klebold article that is repeated in the massacre article, and you'd have a fan page, or nothing.   Cake  (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be cautious about using "Fancruft" (defined as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" on the Essay). On WP the word Fancruft is usually something used in relation to works of creative fiction like television shows, comic books, etc. The same page also notes "It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I have to disagree; it's the paradigm case of a crime littered with fancruft. The parts of the article that are not covered already are few and the likes of that Klebold played T-ball. Cake  (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I have to disagree; it's the paradigm case of a crime littered with fancruft. The parts of the article that are not covered already are few and the likes of that Klebold played T-ball. Cake  (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Building upon my comments above, the key is looking to see what published literature made not at the crime look at. That filters the wheat from the chaff, or the "cruft" from what we really need. I decided to do a search for journal articles about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or lengthy sources not made at the time of the shootings. I found a nugget here: I feel that if academics are interested in studying them as individuals, I don't see why they shouldn't have a dedicated encyclopedia article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On top of that, if Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies is peer reviewed, wouldn't this be good too:
 * On top of that, if Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies is peer reviewed, wouldn't this be good too:
 * Those just seem to me to support the contention that the articles will be fancruft when they are not information that should be in the Columbine article. Cake  (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be information in the Columbine article. These academics, and the fact they wrote these articles, are saying Harris and Klebold are important as notable individuals. Wikipedia's judgment of what is worthy of covering in articles lies with other people. These academics argue those two are worthy of study, and therefore this encyclopedia should summarize these academics' findings, plus those written by other people about Harris and Klebold, in an article dedicated to them.
 * Let's return to the phrase: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."
 * I believe Columbine High School massacre won't be able to incorporate all of the encyclopedic information about Harris and Klebold.
 * My view: It's not fancruft if academics say it's important.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That they are considered outcasts and have a fandom is already covered in the Columbine article. And they have fans and are considered as anti heroes shows what will be the only difference between this article and the Columbine article. Cake  (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a question of further detail, and an in-depth exploration of that aspect. The massacre article can briefly state their fandom, while the Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold one can elaborate on that further, using those articles as sources. The fact that academics studied them bolsters the case that these further details are worthy of encyclopedic attention. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as per my above points: There are sufficient reliable sources to flesh out a specific article focusing on a biography of the perpetrators and the sort of personality cult that has been built up about them: the main Columbine article should include short summaries while this article should have in-detail information. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo of young Klebold with a friend
Has there been any discussion as to the appropriateness of including this photo of Dylan Klebold as a youth and a random friend? They both are minors, and that friend is unrelated to Klebold's history. Why are we including the face of an unrelated minor in this article? Shouldn't we crop out the other person, if there is some value in showing Kelbold as a young person (itself a questionable proposition). -- Zim Zala Bim talk 03:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The picture should be cropped to only show the article subject. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a little research into the source of this photo and yikes - the claimed source is problematic at least. I see no proof that Sue Klebold released all rights to the photo as is stated at the image's WP page and and on its Commons page. Shearonink (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking into it, I've nominated the image for deletion. Retaining the image is problematic for a couple of reasons: 1)WP:BLP concerns - Did the minor friend (now an adult) give his permission for the photo to be used here on Wikipedia, for the photo to be added to Commons? He would have to be the one to give up all rights to the image, not Sue Klebold. 2)The Commons file and the WP file both state that Sue Klebold has given up all rights to the photo and it can be used freely etc., etc. Shouldn't there be an OTRS ticket for this image if that giving-up-rights statement is true? Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dylan-Klebold-with-Brooks-Brown.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eric-Harris-Little-League.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eric-Harris-1999-Yearbook.jpg

GA review undone

 * This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll give this article a shot. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I've undone this GA review per the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. The article should be back in the GAN queue with its original timestamp momentarily, so hopefully it'll attract another reviewer quickly. Apologies for the inconvenience. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Last paragraph
What is with the last paragraph? No other article about murderers... deifies them. People say whatever on extremist sites, but surely an encyclopedia shouldn't back them up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.33.42 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

new date of speech
Please correct the date of Bill Clinton's speech to May 20, 1999. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The video says the speech took place on May 20, 1999 and not May 30, 1999. This also corroborates it. Thanks for pointing that out. Some1 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021
Changing "slipping in and out of unconscious" under the suicide subheader to "slipping in and out of consciousness" Psiedits (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Taken care of! Good catch!  Kncny11  (shoot) 21:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

John Savage
Hello. Should it be included either here or on the shooting article that they spared John Savage (mentioning his name). It's given importance in the Zero Hour documentary and he is interviewed. He's also spoken on the anniversaries and now resides in Tooele, Utah. CoryGlee (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It might help to find an official script and/or a minute mark so people can find the info WhisperToMe (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi friend, I can surely find the minutes and seconds where Savage speaks about his encounter with Klebold, but I don't know how to cite YouTube, if you could link me to an explanatory page would be helpful and I could add it. Regards. And thank you. Stay safe. CoryGlee (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * External_links talks about avoiding copyright violations. Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources states that if the video is uploaded by a verified official account, the video has the reliability of the account holder. In other words: Only cite YouTube if the uploader has permission to upload the video to YouTube. In practice that means the official TV channel or the production company. If a random user uploads a video, don't link to it as it is likely a copyright violation. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sol Pais
Hi! I wish to know if I read the article too fast or the case of Sol Pais (the 18-year-old Florida girl who killed herself in the Rockies after forcing the closure of a lot of schools across Colorado for a threat she made on the 20th anniversary in 2019) is on this article or Columbine effect or the Columbine massacre article itself, I couldn't find her case. I think she's a notable case of the Columbine effect. Again, is her case anywhere in Wikipedia? Thanks. PS: She was obsessed with them both BTW. Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

name
Change mother of Klebold to mother of Dylan. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Inserted the first name so that the sentence reads less awkwardly. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes/edits concerning Klebold's mental conditions in the lead
The lead section had stated that
 * Klebold was concluded to be an angry depressive, who showed extremely low self-esteem, severe anxiousness, and a vengeful attitude toward individuals who he believed had mistreated him

with the cited source being
 * The Depressive and the Psychopath article from Slate by Dave Cullen (who wrote a whole book about the mass shooting Columbine) - Slate article

I read the cited source, the Slate article. It did not mention Klebold's asserted self-esteem/anxiousness. So I changed the text in the lead to
 * Klebold was concluded to be an angry depressive with a vengeful attitude toward individuals who he believed had mistreated him.

The cited source specifically states that the experts' conclusions - Dr. Frank Ochberg, as well as Supervisory Special Agent Dwayne Fuselier, the FBI’s lead Columbine investigator and a clinical psychologist. - about Klebold are
 * Klebold is easier to comprehend, a more familiar type. He was hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal. He blamed himself for his problems

So. The cited source says nothing about lead's asserted extremely low self-esteem and severe anxiousness. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the main body's important statements but nowhere in the article are these conditions of "extremely low self-esteem" and "severe anxiousness" even mentioned. Subsequently the text was reverted back to the original/previous version, however I have now changed it to just the depressive/vengeful attitude text because of the issues I have mentioned above. Am opening up a discussion here about Klebold's asserted "extremely low self-esteem"/"severe anxiousness". So. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Harris's sexual deviancy?
Should it be included as it is included in the Columbine High School massacre article in subsection of "Writings", that Harris kept a diary where he also exposed violent sexual fantasies? (Source: Larkin (2007)). Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022
In the second sentence of the article, there are two unnecessary commas. Change "Harris and Klebold killed 13 people and wounded 24 others, at Columbine High School, where they were seniors, in Columbine, Colorado." to "Harris and Klebold killed 13 people and wounded 24 others at Columbine High School, where they were seniors in Columbine, Colorado." PerfectPeanut97 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the first one, the second one (", where they were seniors,") I think is necessary. -- Mvqr (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
On the early life section, under Eric Harris, please add that he lived on a military base in Plattsburgh, New York and that he moved to Littleton, Colorado in the summer of 1993. http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210929223552/https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1999/04/23/Mich-pastor-recalls-Harris-family/2665924840000/ 2600:100C:A206:278D:D4A8:9D7B:2F22:5493 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the town name - already covered by the ref - the rest adds nothing to the article (imo). Springnuts (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added town name, rest of it not needed (per Springnuts' opinion.) Sarrail  (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
I haven't seen anything in the 11th ref how others are "hailing them as heroes, martyrs and gods, or expressing sympathy for them"... if it's just editors saying this then it goes beyond non-neutrality. So, delete it, otherwise, provide a ref... --92.18.42.213 (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is sourced in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Fandom

 * "I relate to their feelings of hopelessness, being angry and not being able to change it, and wanting to be accepted and appreciated", an 18-year-old Tumblr user wrote on Harris and Klebold. "No one noticed they were struggling, and no one took their suffering seriously", added another user.

This section reads too much like a news article to me. Perhaps a rewrite is in order? Great Mercian (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This article should not exist.
These cowards deserve no recognition. Make articles for the victims instead. 2603:7080:602:E500:A4C1:8F4F:6FC2:EE71 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CENSOR. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 18:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)