Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

---

Any connection with the book 'Hit Man, a Technical Manual for Independent Contractors by Rex Feral'? If so, maybe should be referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.151.60 (talk) 11:04, June 10, 2005 (EDT)

---

Finally, they would hijack an airplane and crash it someplace in New York City.

Is someone having a joke? Morwen 07:12, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) (who didn't remove it because, well, it's possible...)

No, this was written in the boys journal. WhisperToMe 07:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Additional reports suggest Harris and Klebold considered the prospect of concluding their massacre by hijacking an airliner and crashing it into New York City's Empire State Building."

I would love to see an actual source cited for this. It is... a bit of a leap from taking hostages at a high school. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 16:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It was written in their journal entries. It has been widely agreed though, that this was nothing but a fantasy and was never intentionally part of their plan. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 21:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I remember hearing at some point after the massacre at Columbine that the parents of one of these boys (Dylan?) was Jewish. Is that correct? If so, it provides an interesting twist on the Nazi symbolism & anti-semitic remarks they made. -- llywrch 22:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes Dylan Klebold was part jewish, but the nazism was mroe of ajoke like saying 'heil hitler' during bowling class. although eric was a little more serious about it as he admired hitlers master plan, he wanted to take it a bit farther and wipe out everyone besides dylan and himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.252.9 (talk) 15:28, November 2, 2006 (EDT)

your information

if your going to write abour Eric and Dylan please get their information right. I only read a small part of it and where Eric lived in Michigan wasnt Ohio, Ohio is a state, he lived in Oscoda.

"The three had lived in Ohio, Michigan, and New York" - That means that he lived in the state of Ohio, the state of Michigan, and the State of New York.

WhisperToMe 03:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dylan Klebold's maternal grandfather was a leading Jewish businessman in Ohio from what I understand, but I cannot think of where exactly I read this . . . probably one of the Colorado papers . . . I will see if I can find the source for you. I don't think the Klebolds, however, were practicing Jews. In any case, Eric and Dylan were not neo-nazis.

http://66.45.24.242/columbine_documents.pdf pg96 "I love the nazis too... by the way. I fucking cant get enough of the swastika, the SS, and the iron cross." In short, they agreed with the nazis idealogy or at least on of them did (I'm pretty sure this is Harris' notes, feel free to check) --insertwackynamehere 02:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edit

Was that major edit by an anon a good addition that needs wikifying, or something to revert? Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That edit was blatantly POV, and unsourced. In addition, the "good" points it covered, except for the Susan Klebold being Jewish part, were already covered by information in the article. WhisperToMe 23:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Parents

Who are the parents? Sue and Tom Klebold or William and Diana Klebold? The article doesn't make it very clear.

Jarwulf 00:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's Sue and Tom.. WhisperToMe 02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who are William and Diana Klebold then? Googling gets me nothing but this page. Pointless vandalism? Jarwulf 07:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, Klebold is a German surname. Kleeboldt is a not so common surname in Northern Germany.

The anatomy of a school shooting

I'ts acutally quite rediculous to not feel bad for these boys, and to just blame them. Why did they do this? What was the cause for this? Maybe we should look to the people who were murderd. What did they do to deserve to die? Nothing if you ask me, but somehow there must be a consequense for aimlessly picking on these boys.

I found these lyrics. "The anatomy of a school shooting" by Ill bill. I don't like this song... at all. But I think it explains alot.

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

I think it's safe to say, judging from the material linked to this article, that they were batshit insane.

Seniors/juniors?

I removed the line "There have been conflicting reports on whether the shooters were seniors or juniors.", because it doesn't really mean what it implies. It can't be unknown or even seriously disputed what year they were in (schools keep records on these sort of things, you know...) - it presumably just needs some better research before we state it either way in the article. sjorford →•← 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I know this message is old... but they were Seniors, Class of 1999. For sure PRueda29 19:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuals?

"It has been rumored that the two boys were homosexuals and that their hatred for that group of people came from their own agitation and frustration of being homosexuals themselves. Although this is not confirmed, there is significant evidence that points to this rumor being true. This rumor surfaced not too long after the boys committed the shootings at the school."

OK, if this is a rumor, why is it here? They say that their is 'signifiant evidence' what significant evidence, if it is a rumor? I am confused... could somebody please clarify this.

RyGuiLLiaN 2005-09-12 15:44-0600

Actually this was a joke made by Al Franken on Conan O'Brien's show shortly after the incident. I don't remember the exact line, but he said that people should spread this rumor to prevent copycats.

Surely this kind of information should not be included unless there is some kind of evidence to suggest this. On the contrary, I thought one of them was involved with the girl who helped them get the guns. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 12:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've removed it. I'm suprised it's been in there for so long. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Klebold was supposedly involved with Robyn Anderson, but this was never confirmed by her. Sometime before the shooting Harris met a girl at a mall in Littleton, she was a college sophomore or junior, maybe even senior. He was able to charm her into thinking he was older and was able to continue dating her up until before the shooting. On Prom night, while Klebold attended with Anderson, Harris invited a girl over to his house and they watched movies. They girl stated that she thought they might get involved, but the shooting happen that next Tuesday. Harris was still talking to and seeing the older girl until just a few months before the attack. Just thought I'd mention it here. Studying the massacre, and the shooters for so long now, I doubt they're homosexuals, and I've never read anything that really goes into that in-depth other than just speculation and theory, but if we go by that that, we might as well blame Manson as well. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin is now in violation of 3RR, he has been on this kick before, adding back in this paragraph after myself and others have removed it. The rest of this discussion page describes the situation pretty clearly.--Paraphelion 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. How many gay guys do you know that are violent. And if these two idiots were gay, and I mean... liked having sex with people of their own gender... what does that have to do with the fact that they went to school and killed people and what does that have to do with why they did it. Is someone trying to say that these idiots went to school and killed innocent children etc. because they didn't like the fact that they liked to have sex with or were attracted to other guys. How does that make any sense? Of course... nothing they did made sense but if they did go to school and kill people for this reason wouldn't they have stated that in their journals or something. Of course maybe they were hiding it and then comes the question that if they were hiding it how would anyone know?

64.108.206.42No point in being stereotypical, it's somewhat ignorant. And, if you really think about it, it does make sense, although I severely doubt their rationale for the shooting was simply homosexuality, especially if they dated girls. That just wouldn't make sense. Anyways, back to waht I was saying. Being not accepted, ridiculed, and constantly alienated for who you are, a.k.a homsexuality, is a large cause of suicide in teenagers. Who's to say these two wouldn't want to take out some others before their death? No one.

I dont think there is any evidence whatsoever to support any allegations that one or both of the troubled boys (Eric and Dylan) were either homo or bisexual. Moreover from what I heard one or at least both of the boys both had girlfriend prior to the shootings. I have also heard that they targeted visible minorities. Though I am not sure whether that was true or not. I so far have 2 sources that support this though i am still doing my reasearch regarding the troubled lives of Eric and Dylan.

http://www.nndb.com/people/922/000110592/

http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000110591/

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

VoDKa/KiBBz

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that VoDKA was the correct capitalisation, note the DK in the middle (standing for Dylan Klebold). This lends itself to suggest KiBBz was Brooks Brown, but I can't be sure; it would be worth verifying this. In any case, I'm quite sure VoDKa is the correct capitalisation, so I'm changing it - forgive me if it's wrong. P 13:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the capitalization would be VoDkA - see this copy of one of Eric's websites: http://www.dylanklebold.com/menu/websites/rebdoomerindex.html I never noticed the DK thing before though; that's sort of neat. Nani 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

KiBBz is not Brooks Brown. In Eric's documents about his night missions, he states how him, VoDKa, and KiBBz hate Brooks Brown.

They're almost certain that kiBBz was Zach Heckler, a member of the Trenchcoat Mafia [1]. Ĵ₡₯€₣ℳūḸ♠♠♣♣♦♦♦₨₨₨៛৳RsRs₨₨Rs

Eric did hate Brooks for some time. But they became friends later.

-I'm prety sure its VoDKa (DK), i think people just think its VoDkA due to popular sticky caps typing? But i can't be sure. But i've read the DK thing many times. I though KiBBz was Nate Dykeman, i can't remember why though...

-Most sites say that KiBBz was, infact, Heckler. Although something I found completely strange is that, in the Columbine Report, when the detectives asked Heckler for his screen name, he mentioned two other screen names, one belonging to Devon Adams and another to Chris Morris, which was "Lord Kibbz". That confuses me.

Something scary

I just noticed that one of them were born exactly 20 years before 9/11 disaster in New York. VM
23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this should be added to the article? HistoryBA 02:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but I was just pointing this out. Encyclopedist (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the crime library article (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/littleton/blame_5.html), Dylan was born on September 9, not September 11th. I trust Crime Library's research on this one. Can anyone decide one way or the other for sure? I think the reference should be deleted.Melisinde 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust crime library on Columbine, i went there to do some reaserch and found loads of errors and mistakes...

Dylan was born on September 11th. It can be found in many places on the net, but most notably and verifiably in his Social Security death records. Hexwench 06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I deleted the sentence about him being born on September 11th. This "coincidence" is hardly of great enough magnitude to include in the article. The relationship between these two people who wrote about the possibility of hijacking an airplane and crashing it into the Empire State Building, and hijacked planes hitting the twin towers two years later is not very strong, and the probability that one of the two would be born on that day is not particularly low. Something also tells me that if they had died on that day it would also be an "amazing coincidence". Heck, it would also probably be even more coincidental if one of them was born the same day that an airplane crashed into the Empire State Building in 1930. As we add up all of these probabilities, you can see how such a "coincidence" as is included in the article, is really not at all improbable. If you look hard enough you can find trivial "coincidences" anywhere. I'm deleting it again unless someone can give me a reason why this piece of information is in any way noteworthy or encyclopedic.

Early signs?

After reading an article on them at Doomworld, I found it pretty scary that there were actually SIGNS that Eric Harris had some serious issues before the attack. Eric Harris played and made maps for Doom, which wasn't what was so scary. His maps and even the readmes for them reflected his issues. A lot of the graphics for the monster deaths had been replaced with the same death sequences but with more blood and gore. He added chunks of brain and flesh getting blown off and even enlarged the pools of blood around them. He also replaced the gib sound with the noise of bones being broken and crushed. The thing that disturbed members of the Doomworld community about one of his maps though was the line he had added into the readme for his mod. "And remember... KILL EM ALLLLLLL!!!" The mod has earned a place in the "Top Ten Infamous Wads" 75.178.21.159 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Craigs I heard his maps were horrible as in boring. I was not impressed when i played them but i did read the readmes.

To user Parapheilion (and the others like him)

I hope you have a good explanation on why do you keep removing the homosexuality section from the article. Nobody said it was a fact, but it was rumoured and even discussed by experts therefore it has to be mentioned. I'm aware of the existence of certain individuals who show sympathy to the pair and I get the impression that you're one of them. To have such a disturbed judgement is none of my business and I'm not trying to understand it. What you should try to understand however is the seriousness of this matter and the potential seriousness of your own actions. Innocent children have died in the hands of those psychos and all you try to do is hide the possibility of them being homosexual lovers, as if you wanted to protect their "reputation". So be careful of your edits. Your sympathy towards the pair is not only harmful to wikipedia for passing POV in the article, but it is also disrespectful to the victims and their families for the obvious reasons. Miskin 13:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, a wiki sociopath. Hope your little 'battle', of which you speak in other discussion pages, is going well. --Paraphelion 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So I guess I'm being stalked. Anyway this a sample of a source which justifies the actions of the person who wrote that section in the first place. Actually the existence of those assumptions are acknowledged by everybody, and I feel silly to point them out. Of course when dealing with extremists and mentally disturbed people, such silly actions are a necessity: "A gay angle surfaced almost as soon as the shootings hit the news, with rumors circulating that the boys with the bombs and guns were -- variously -- certainly gay, absolutely heterosexual, or self-avowed bisexuals. But almost everyone at Columbine High agreed they had been taunted as queer". [2]

Miskin 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• First, some background: I think I'm a relatively neutral observer on this one: this article is on my watchlist solely because I removed a CSD image from the page. From what I see, neither editor here is attemping to engage in discussion: you're both just reverting to your preferred version, without any attempt to find a compromise. Miskin has provided a source stating that Harris and Klebold were taunted for their alleged sexual preferences. However, everything beyond that (the effects of the taunting on H&K, policy resulting from that) I have seen no sources for. Given what I've seen, I think a reasonable compromise would be to have the article state that H&K were taunted, but not mention the effects (anger, policy, etc) unless a source for these can be provided as well? Cheers --Pak21 02:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I doubt there is going to be an objective source for talking about what people may or may not need to understand in order to affect policy change. I didn't engage in discussion because I have no idea where to begin an offensive sociopath like Miskin. How do you engage in discussion with someone who starts off with a paragraph containing 90% insulting rants?--Paraphelion 04:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I managed to engage in discussion with someone who shows sympathy (and maybe even admiration) for 2 mass-murderers. That definitely beats the "insulting rants". I think what your really problem is, is that I'm right on every single account. Miskin 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What you're missing is that this paragraph was NOT compiled by me, it's been there since forever. The only thing I did was to remove silly edits of the type "but they were not homos because they had been both seen with girlfriends" etc. So what I don't understand, is how come Paraphelion decided that this paragraph contained unsourced information only after the fan-club edits were removed. It's obvious that this guy's intention is only to defend H&K, he wouldn't care about the article otherwise. His unjustified sympathy and POV-pushing is disrespectful for the victims, their families and everyone who sees this article more seriously than Doom fans like him. Thus I'll keep reverting to the original version until we take this to RFC. Miskin 13:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I see it, both Miskin and Paraphelion are definitely in violation of Civility and No Personal Attacks, and prob--Paraphelion 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)ably in violation of 3RR and NPOV as well; if this goes to Arbitration, I'd say you're both looking at getting a ban. You obviously both have strong views on the subject, but the name-calling and edit warring which is going on here doesn't present a positive image of either of you. Can I suggest that we stick a {{disputed}} tag on the section and we try some Dispute Resolution? For reasons I don't quite understand, I'm prepared to act as an informal mediator here, or you can obviously try some more formal proceedings. Cheers --Pak21 13:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pause talking like a cop and try to listen to me for a second. I told you, I'm not the one who compiled this paragraph hence I can't find the exact sources that will support every single phrase of it. I've already found at random something which justifies half of it. As for the rest of it, I really think that it falls under something which is called "common sense". What kind of sources should we need in order to accept that some people assumed that violence in school sources from depression, and H&K's frustration might have fallen under that category? You don't need to be Sigmund Freud to draw these conclusions, let alone question whether anyone else has. There's absolutely no logical reason as to why Parapheilion wants that section revomed all of a sudden, and this is why he's been trying to avoid the conversation from the start, because he has no arguments other than "unsouced, hypothetical, insulting rants blah blah blah". Someone who insists on the verification of such an information so blindly (without providing any reasons), simply has a personal agenda on the subjects. Agendas and POV pushing are very common in wikipedia so generally it's not a crime, but when it comes to an article like this then things are more serious. I'm ready to accept mediation or even request for comment on this. Miskin 15:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you are also ready to stop reverting over clean up tags? --Paraphelion 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't those two hate homosexuals?--Mimbster 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the literature suggests so. But that does not strictly rule out that they might have been gay, however all I have seen is people saying it's rumored. A high school rumor about someone being gay is pretty meaningless, as any real indication of someone's sexuality, just an idictation that students at this high school used the standard practice of calling something or someone gay as a generic insult.--Paraphelion 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt they were homosexual. Everyone is called "gay" at some point during high school. I wouldn't take high school insults too seriously.--Mimbster 09:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Innocent children have died in the hands of those psychos and all you try to do is hide the possibility of them being homosexual lovers, as if you wanted to protect their "reputation". First of all, they weren't psychos. Most likely depressed and enraged but not psycho. They obviously didn't do this simply because they hated people. The constant ridicule and harassment pushed them to the point of shooting their peers. And even if the ones who died didn't harass the two boys, they most likely witnessed it but didn't try to stop it. That makes them guilty, although much less than the bullies. --72.226.224.251 02:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the Biographies

If you look at the massive amounts of information you can find on each of the men on this article (see 4-20-99's Who Page), and the fact that the Slate atricle classifies them as having completely different mental disorders, it seems fitting that the article be split into one page per person.

No, it doesn't. The two are best known as a pair. After all, Bonnie and Clyde are in the same article! WhisperToMe 01:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of something I was just thinking, isn't it weird how Bonnie and Clyde are almost made into heroes and Eric and Dylan are demonized? They both killed people. Honestly I can't see the difference. If people need to blame this on something they'd be better off blaming America's romantic obsession with murderous outlaws then with Marilyn Manson or Doom. Just a thought. --insertwackynamehere 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree with that (I posted this originally.) If any more information is added about the two of them that would make the page ridiculously long, maybe then it should be split. --Freakazette 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters a damn what I think, but I vote for spliting them as well.

These were 2 very different people with very different lives, motives and reasonings. Just because they are both "famous" for the same act doesn't mean they should be lumped together. There are plenty of groups and pairs of people who are most well-known together and cited as such, yet still have their own individual pages as well. Off the top of my head ... Barnum and Bailey, The West Memphis 3, Sonny and Cher, etc. Dylan and Eric shouldn't be treated differently.

The fact that Bonnie and Clyde have but one page between them should not cause an end to discussion regarding group articles being split. For one, the phrase "Bonnie and Clyde" has become somewhat of a metaphor for the "badass couple", and has fallen into common usage regarding the couple and is therefore appropriate in referencing them (even though they should also have their own articles). It should be noted that there is no "Clyde and Bonnie" article, yet there are no less than 10 different combinations of Eric and Dylan's names as redirects to this page ... doesn't seem to make much sense.

No proper encyclopedia should lump any topics together and leave it at that - if it must group things together, it should also then go into more depth separately. It's like having an article about The Beatles that doesn't lead you to pages for each of them (not that I'm trying to say Dylan and Eric are as big as The Beatles ... but you get my point).

In this case, the boy's individual names should link to their own bios with "See also" links to the other. Their names combined could link to a summary article with "See alsos" to each of them, Columbine High School Massacre, etc.

I personally volunteer to lend my time to this project if a consensus is reached. It's not obvious from this username (which I use for more "controversial" topics), but I have many, many hours of editing logged under my belt. Hexwench 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be split, too. Having them together is just too much information, if one wanted to read about one of the perpetrators, instead of both. Budtard 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These two are notable only as a pair (unlike the Sonny and Cher example, both of whom had significant fame and public roles individually). Neither is particularly noteworthy outside of his association with the other, and anyone seeking information on one would very likely be seeking information on the other. This article is not nearly large enough to merit a split for size reasons, and the amount of overlap of information means that the two articles would largely be duplicates of each other, in two seperate places unnecessarily, leading only to an additional step of navigation. For this reason, I oppose the proposed split. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you think Harris' and Klebold's parents would like the internet thinking of their children as one soul, one subject, people who can't, or shouldn't, or don't deserve to be, thought of as seperate people with seperate lives, or—God forbid—seperate motives? VolatileChemical (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's fairly irrelevant what the Harrises and the Klebolds like or don't like about what anyone thinks about their children. They've been irrevocably bound by their actions and by the enormity of publicity surrounding them for the last almost nine years. This article doesn't set a precedent that wasn't already established on April 20, 1999. Some of their individual issues are covered in the article, but the fact is, one alone without the other is basically non-notable. Their only notability comes from this one action, which they planned and executed as a single unit. Leopold and Loeb, Bonnie and Clyde, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, David and Catherine Birnie, Lyle and Erik Menendez, Gwendolyn Graham and Cathy Wood - all are pair killers who would not have been notable except for their alliance. There's nothing to be gained from splitting this article, and in fact, there isn't that much available about them individually that isn't covered sufficiently in this article. Having said all of that, why did you resurrect a nearly year old discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't check timestamps on talk page comments, okay? And even if I did, I still would've said something and made my opinion known, even if I thought no one would be checking dead conversations and reply to my comments. Which I wouldn't have. Anyway, what about Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate? Notice the "and" in that sentence isn't part of any link. And why must we limit this to criminals? There's other precedent for having two articles about two people who are always associated with each other. What about Penn and Teller? Do you think there are a lot of people out there who only like Penn for his solo role in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? And yes, granted, there is a Penn & Teller page, but that's only describing the work the two of them have done together and projects they've produced. And if we split the Harris and Klebold articles in two, I think the article on the massacre itself would more than qualify as summarizing what the two of them have worked on together. And plus, where is this mindset that just because people always associate these things together, we should make them one article? Since when has Wikipedia been all about conforming to the public mindset without regard to fact or intellectual merit? By that reasoning, we would just make the articles on Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project the same page. I'm guessing the amount of people who don't eternally associate Oppenheimer with the MP, and don't think of them as impossible to consider seperately, is probably somewhere around the amount of people who don't eternally associate Harris with Klebold, and don't think of them as impossible to consider seperately. I mean, really, how is this site expected to record any kind of evidence or data relating to how each of the two boys developed their desire to commit this massacre, when we assume that they're so similar and associable that we mix any data relating to that how in the same article, with no boundaries? As long as this article stays as one page, it will be little more than various random biographical data and facts of little use, and a summary of the massacre. And we already have a perfectly good summary of the massacre on the main article. VolatileChemical (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Another reason I support splitting the articles: I somewhat understand the feeling of combining the articles on Leopold and Loeb, and Bonnie and Clyde. But I really think that's because those duos were active so very long ago. I mean, that's, what, seventy years ago now? I think nine years isn't really long enough to quite let the intellectual world's collective minds to pool all the information about this incident into one big...well...pool. I mean, who knows? Maybe in sixty or seventy years, Wikipedia—if it still exists—will only have one article on the 9/11 hijackers? VolatileChemical (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While it might have been valid to consider separate articles if there were masses of material available about how they developed to this point separately if it were available and indicated widely diverse developmental patterns, there really isn't a lot out there that supports a huge difference. However, there is one big pool of material out there, called the 11,000 page report, which fairly delves into every nook and cranny of the lives of these two and is open for any and everyone to examine. They were 17 and 18 years old, their lives were fairly well covered in investigations. I don't have a good answer about Starkweather and Fugate, except that there were much different outcomes for each of them. Starkweather was executed, Fugate was paroled and apparently is still alive. However, considering the size of her article, there isn't much to justify it as a separate article, save that outcome. The overwhelming factor to me is still that beyond their joint act, neither Harris nor Klebold is notable by himself. That would be the difference between this and Penn and Teller, since they aren't eternally bound by only one thing significant and notable in their lives. I think the burden of the argument would have to fall on proving there is anything notable enough to justify these two requiring or deserving separate examination. As it was, we have two high school students whose joint dysfunction combined to enable them to perpetuate a horrendous act, without which they would have never been notable, important in anything or a factor in the function of the world around them. Since they're dead, neither will be doing anything in the future to distinguish himself from the other. Bonnie and Clyde and Leopold and Loeb remain bound together because seventy years didn't provide any deeper insight into their motives than there was seventy years ago. As Harris and Klebold fade into the past, the same will likely be true of them. And if something does pop up that changes how the world considers them, then perhaps that will be time to discuss them separately. Maybe that will be in -- what is it, 2020? -- when the court suppressed material that concerns their families is released. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Whatever. Leave it as one page. Do whatever you want. Maybe I'm just annoyed that the public has so few resources as to determining any kinds of real motives, let alone seperate ones. I kind of felt that if there were two articles on the website, it might encourage us to work with what we have already. We'd have to split up all the information we have now, and if we did that, it might just give us a different impression, seeing facts and data only about one of the shooters, on its own. I don't know. Until then, until we have something, we have nothing. We can pool all the stuff we know about the two of them together now and the article probably wouldn't be that long anyway. But I've been considering this case for a long time. I just know there's tons of information, tons of motives and causes, complex ones, distinct ones, seperate. I can feel it. But there's no way we can approach the case this way, not with the information we have on our hands now. Maybe not ever. I guess I'm just annoyed. VolatileChemical (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

This paragraph should be referenced or deleted:

"It has been rumored that the two boys were homosexual and that their hatred for that group of people came from their own agitation and frustration of being homosexual themselves. Other modern theories have emerged regarding the variable of sexual orientation in American high school youth culture as possible variable of antisocial behaviors. One possible theory is that depression caused by social mocking with the use of homosexual labels leads to vengeful anger, obviously present in Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Whether Mr. Harris or Mr. Klebold had homosexual tendencies, the frustrations they felt resulted from the derogatory comments in regard to their speculated homosexuality. The presence of anger on this level has to be explained and understood if policy makers are ever to be able to make educated changes in policy."

I'm wary about any unsourced accusations of homosexuality, particularly when they refer to minors, and pointedly so when an article admits that its statements are rumor. The criminal acts that these two boys perpetrated does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's need to cite sources and provide verifiable information. Durova 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd say it needs deleting.

Rumor is just that. There have been tons of rumors about these guys.

It's unsourced, and "one possible theory" is a meaningless phrase. There are a million "possible theories." You need some kind of sourcing to explain why this possible theory is worth mentioning over the others, particularly in an article about subjects so rife with rumor.

Also, the phrase "has to be understood" is NPOV. I'd have to imagine that someone out there doesn't agree witht he statement.

Jordoh 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted that paragraph. Durova 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bullycides???

I thought the whole thing of them being bully victims was a myth and that they were pretty popular, etc?

Also, "bullycide" is a retarded word, I don't think it exists

Bullycide is a termed coined in a book, the article has more info on it. As for the myth, they were not "pretty popular" they were bullied but they weren't outcasts, they myth is that they were outcasts who had no friends. they did have friends, but that doesn't mean they weren't bullied. The bullying thing is mentioned a lot in their journals, it's pretty much they reason they did this. They thought it was unfair they were bullied and no one did anything about it, authority turned the other way, etc. At least this is what they say, so they took it upon themselves to "fix" it, by getting revenge. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric got picked on pretty much more often than Dylan who seemed to mostly suffer from his depressions. I guess Eric finally developed a major narcistic personality and therefore couldnt accept people bullying him [danx]

If they were really "Bullycides," they would have only gone after the bullies who had tormented them. These bastards just shot at random. Pensacolanate 05:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They didn't shoot at random, I believe. They knew everybody they shot. As for "Eric finally devolped a major narcistic personality" - proven clinical pyschopath. He did indeed have some opinion on himself being superior to others and he had no conscience and no empathy. Dylan was severely depressed but also easily influenced by his friend (and of course filled with hate and wanted revenge). So... these "two bastards" get demonized for having no empathy, no sympathy, just pure rage and hate... yet people are on this thing giving no empathy, no sympathy, just pure rage and hate to two mentally disturbed/unstable individuals? ... Bastards (: [roshooo.]

VoDKa/VoDkA

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/eric/mama.html
http://www.acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/mission3.jpg
http://www.acolumbinesite.com/yearbook/vodkasig.gif

Revert if you see something wrong. Pogo 03:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth link is a non-working URL. wildhartlivie 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Legacy Paragraph

Third paragraph in the legacy section makes no sense. Where is the proof that they killed fellow students because of a "compulsatory school environment"? I've never heard this theory before and I don't think it's a theory that is held in very high regard with respect to why they did it. Sounds more like the rant of a user displeased with traditional systems of mass education.

In the days and weeks following the Columbine massacre a scattered number of copycat killings occurred across high schools in the United States and Canada, but none came close to matching the scope of the original.

I am removing this because many school shootings occurred before Columbine and could easily have been the influence. Unless this is cited then I disagree with it being part of the article. -- Sunshine748 28 September 2006 16:44 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding alleged suicides?

Is there a reason there is no mention in the article of the controversy surrounding the boys' alleged suicides? There has been speculation that Harris shot Klebold before then shooting himself, a theory that has not been disproven due to the sealing of Klebold's autopsy findings by the Colorado courts. -Grammaticus Repairo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Klebold's entire autopsy is available on one of the linked sites from the article. Klebold was left handed and shot with his left hand. (This can been seen by watching the surveillance video, or check the picture on the article page.) Given the entrance wound was on the left side of his head (from the autospy report), its extremely possible he killed himself. I believe the myth came forward due to the misconception that Klebold was right handed.

Klebold is left handed that can be agreed upon, However for anyone who has inspected the pictures of the two boys dead in the library it raises some questions on Dylan's suicide. First if you look at Eric he has the shotgun that he killed himself with under his right leg. This means he was probably crouching when he shot himself, But it does mean he was definatly not sitting as the gun couldn't have fallen underneath him if he was. This observation is important because if you look at Dylan you can see that there is blood streaks on his cheeks. The blood wouldn't have dripped upwards obviously so the position Dylan is in was not the position he was in when he shot himself, rather he had to have been face down. Next if you look at the blood puddle around Dylan's head it is obvious most of the blood can be found on the opposite side of Dylan's body. So it would make sense that Dylan must have died in the position his body is shown in, with the bullet wound in the left side of his head causing most of the blood loss. But there are a few things which intefere with the official story. the first being the noticable amount of blood and some sort of tissue matter on Eric's knee. This could indicate the possibility for Dylan to have been laying face down with his head on Eric's knee when he shot himself which is consistant with the blood streaks on Dylan's face. This means that Eric was dead first, because Eric would have been in a crouch position when he shot himself in order for the shotgun to land underneath his leg and for Dylan to lay his head on Eric's knee. So Eric couldn't ahve killed Dylan, most people have reached that conclusion, But Dylan's suicide gets more mysterious. If Dylan had indeed been laying face down when he shot himself he either a) was not killed instantly by the bullet and managed to partially roll onto his side or b) he didn't kill himself, But rather someone else did. Option a is easy to debunk by simply looking at the picture, because Dylan is holding the Tec DC-9 in his right hand underneath his leg. The bullet hole was in the left side of Dylan's head, so he would have had to have been standing and reaching his right hand across his chest and turning the gun to shot himself in the left side of the head in order to fit the official story. This is highly unlikely as it is very difficult to do such a thing unless he pulled the trigger with his thumb, and even then his right arm would still have to swing back across his body and still manage to land underneath his leg before his leg hit the ground in order to fit what is visible in the pictures of his body. I don't pretend to be an expert on this, But I think it is worth investigating yourself if you have the time because when I look at those pictures and combine my knowledge on the days events and the autopsy reports I just don't see how it is possible that Eric killed Dylan, or that Dylan killed himself. The only two explainations I have is that either a) Dylan was killed by someone else, I won't even begin to speculate who or b) Dylan's body was moved prior to the pictures being taken.

RE:I guess his face was lying on Erics knee and for sum reason his body was turned a bit left.I guess that was made to get a better picture of his face and wound,wether for investigation or whatsoever reasons. Its not like this is the official photo to show everyone how they lay.Its a crime scene shot sumone smuggeled and gave it to the media. [danx] dan@rabbits-mail.com 84.57.64.229 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dylan's body was moved prior to the pictures being taken." - when they came in to investigate, they moved the bodies. I'll try and find where i read that now... - Yea, ok i found it. From acolumbinesite.com (pretty good site for this stuff), the last point in the update for 5.21.7 (21st of May, 2007) "The strange positioning of the shooters is due in part to the fact that the photos were taken AFTER the FBI and the bomb squad moved them while searching for booby traps and bombs. Neither is in the original position he fell when he died. Trying to assume anything based on their positions in the photos is rather pointless since they've been moved about by other people post-mortem."

They were bullied is a myth?

Later investigation showed that it was a myth? I don't think so. The investigation proved that the bullying was the main culprit. The parents of the victims and other people who went to the school claimed it was! So does Harris' website, right? YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for brigning this up, it seems that the person who inititally wrote that portion didn't specify what part of the statement was a myth. While it is agreed upon by most that bullying was the root cause of their anger, the part that the statement meant as a myth was that they were outsiders, outcasts, or loners, when they in fact had close friends and a wider social group. I've changed the statement to reflect this. Thanks again. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Which investigation claims it was a myth. I'm erasing that part until someone cites which investigation in the subject.

One page?

Why on earth is this not split into two pages? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because no one will ever think of Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold without thinking of the other... Just a shot in the dark. Pogo 03:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything that makes either one of them worthy of a wiki entry directly involves the other. Splitting the article would only result in pointless duplication of information. -Grammaticus Repairo 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the above response, I also think that each boy has their own story and they weren't joined at the hip. They were two very different individuals who are forever linked in their one act of infamy. Other team school shooters such as Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson have split articles and some information was repeated, and yet they aren't linked the way Eric and DYlan are. Besides, Eric and Dylan's story is pretty deep in there, so I think separate pages would be adequate for the two stories to look over every important detail of their lives and deaths.USER:NELLGWYNNE 12:12. 14 January 2007

While I agree that it is less usual for Wikipedia to list people together as Eric and Dylan are, I feel the boys are inextricably linked to each other and in this case it is appropriate. Abbott and Costello have a page about the work they did together (in addition to their own articles on their separate lives). Another, perhaps better example is Bonnie and Clyde. -Ich (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"After suicide" picture

Is it really necessary to include the picture of them after they committed suicide? --DearPrudence 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To my surprise, I can't find any official Wikipedia policy against obscene images. Regardless, I think most of us would agree this picture is inappropriate. I took it out. ColinClark 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --DearPrudence 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the picture shouldn't be included. People would want to see them as they were when they died.

Splitting in Two

Before the anonymous user who split the article in two comes to me sending me to hell and calling me an idiot for reverting what he or she did, I'd like to advise him or her to please discuss things like splitting or merging articles in article talkpages before doing so. The splitting of this article has been discussed before and it was decided then to keep it merged. If you want to split the article then you can open up the discussion once again right here on this page. Please take this into consideration before and if you decide to come at me for reverting you, as many anons tend to do. If it is decided that it shall be split then I will revert myself and your work will not be lost, however we do like to first discuss large changes such as splits prior to taking any action towards them. Thank You. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the two articles should be split; Wikipedia doesn't tend to have merged articles on different people, even if they are linked through a crime. There is certainly enough scope and purpose in separating the articles. Richardbooth 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does! Bonnie and Clyde -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Goth

Im removing the part that says that the Trenchcoat Mafia are "goth". Not only did they not dress, act or look like the stereotype of "goth", them themselves regect the label of "goth" -Shifty

Pictures

Surely there are billions of better and clearer images of both Klebold and Harris? Why does the article have to have that grainy one which really, when compared to others, isn't really a very flattering picture of either of them (figuratively speaking) Humorbot5 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are the only free pictures we can find of them, and we can only use pictures that are free or we have permission to use, if you can find one of those go ahead and add it, but remember to add all the correct tags and sources for the images or it will just be deleted. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just thinking that maybe someone might have a book with some better pictures or something...Then they could just scan them in couldn't they? Humorbot5 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Someone should put up better pictures than those.--Mimbster 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, but it's still the same problem, unless you can find pictures that are in the public domain, are free, or you get permission from the person who owns the pictures to use them you're not going to be able to use them, they will be deleted under our guidelines used to prevent people from suing us from using their work without permission, so scanning a book and posting it won't work unless the picture you've scanned has permission. You can always go around and find free images somewhere, or ask the owners of the images for use, but for now all we can use is these pics because they were released into the public domain for use by news outlets and other sources such as Wikipedia. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Meeting

I don't quite understand, who was the mastermind out of the two and how did they meet? Was one of them manipulated by the other or what? I just don't get how they became friends and decided to go on a kill crazy rampage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.65.166 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Dylan and Eric met by chance, like most kids do, just by living in the same town. No one masterminded it, it was formulated over a long time by both of them. Their plan to do what they did began to grow after the two became friends and eventually bloomed into the thirteen deaths we know today. It was a mutual misanthropic rage. Sometimes, really really bad things happen by complete and pure luck. See here for another example. VolatileChemical 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SOMEBODY JUST DO IT!!!

If anybody wants i will happily write an article on dylan klebold. Raineyjunkie22 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

end of storyRaineyjunkie22 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

o and this is my first time posting if i did it wrong

Before asking about this further, please see Bonnie and Clyde - Notice anything interesting about the article? :) WhisperToMe 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, on the nl:wikipedia (and maybe more) there are separate articles on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. There is an interwiki link from this article to the nl: article on Klebold. Any suggestions on how to solve that, since on en: the two are in one article? Is it allowed to have 2 interwiki's in one article? Thanks for any advice. Mork nl 11:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The two will always be mentioned in the same breath. Keep it the way it is. 151.202.74.135 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was only asking for advice, and would not dare to interfere in this discussion. It is now solved at the nl:wikipedia by integrating both bio's into the main article nl:Moorden op de Columbine High School (Murders at Columbine High School]], and having nl:Dylan Klebold and nl:Eric Harris redirect to this article. Maybe not the most elegant situation, but having separate bio's caused too much trouble.. Thanks for your advice. Mork nl 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi mention in article

People who knew the perpetrators have stated that they were not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Adolf Hitler, as has been speculated in the media. A journal of Eric Harris, released in July 2006, did however confirm a strong admiration of Nazism, Social Darwinism and genocide.

Should it be noted that, while Eric did support the Nazis for killing Jews, black people and gay people because they were, respectively, Jewish, black and gay, he didn't support the Nazis for killing Roma, Jehova's Witnesses and Polish people because they were Roma, Jehova's Witnesses and Polish, but instead because they were human? He had a Jew/black/gay prejudice, but he had no Roma/Jehova's Witnesses/Polish prejudice. He wanted the last three groups because they were human, not because of that other stuff. Also:

Nazism would be fucking great if it werent for individualism and our natural instinct to ask questions.

— Eric's journal

Should it be noted that he disagreed with the Nazis on the subject of collectivism versus individualism, Eric supporting the latter? Anyone can tell he loved Nazis, but this is, you know, kind of something he really disagreed with them on. I think that should be noted as well. VolatileChemical 05:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch everything I just said. Forget it all. VolatileChemical 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler

Okay, this struck me as a bit interesting . . . the boys commited the High School Massacre on HITLER'S BIRTHDAY. Do you think that has anything to do with it? The System 3000 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a gigantic debate about why the attacks were on April 20. The fact that it was Hitler's birthday is a possibility, but the truth is, no one will ever know, and we really have no way of finding any clues. VolatileChemical 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Section

This quote "some still regard the boys as somewhat tragic figures" in the Legacy section is not "Net Neutral." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharris781 (talk • contribs) 16:21, September 28, 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "net neutral", because the definition of that term is totally unrelated according to the wikipedia article on "Network Neutrality"; however, I also can't see how this statement is biased in any way - it is a simple statement of fact. There are some who regard the boys as tragic figures; Seung-hui Cho was one such individual according to multiple verifiable sources.71.61.64.113 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the "net neutral" remark either, but that line did violate WP:WEASEL. It's no longer in the article. --zenohockey 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no truth to that. They pushed it back for three reasons. One because a friend was not attended columbine high school that day. Two, one of their propane bombs was not ready. Three, on April 19th was when alot of kids werent going to be in school. They wanted the most kids possible. Thus they moved it a day later.

Even though there are tons of references to Hitler and the Nazis in Harris' journals, including numerous words of admiration and appreciation for their plans of world domination and genocide, and Harris refers repeatedly to working on some assignment in school at the time about Nazism. Plus, if you're talking about Robyn Anderson, she wasn't attending school on April 19. Anderson was at school on the date of the massacre, the day had nothing to do with her. It probably wasn't planned for the 19th since it seems unlikely that the boys would plan the massacre so that they wouldn't hurt Anderson, because they made no effort to avoid killing any of their other friends or try to find out when anone else wouldn't be coming to school. And as for one of the propane tank bombs not being ready, there were tons of specialty weapons the boys planned to use at one time or another. Napalm, dry ice, various kinds of firearms, etc. They knew the attack would be in April long before the fact, it doesn't make sense that the boys wouldn't know when their weapons would be used, and it's unlikely they would've postponed the attack because a single explosive wasn't ready in time. So, if we eliminate Anderson and explosives from the debate, all we're left with is vague, possibly irrelevant facts and anniversaries like the end of the Waco Siege and the Oklahoma City bombing on the 19th, and the death of Hitler on the 20th. Ties between various reasons for either day can be drawn endlessly. It's really all just semantics. I don't think we can find, or should try to find, any absolute meaning in the date of the attack. VolatileChemical (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

High School Section

"According to early accounts of the shooting, Harris and Klebold were unpopular outsiders and frequent targets of bullying at their high school. Later an investigation showed, however, that the notion they were unpopular and outsiders was largely a myth, although the idea had become ingrained in popular accounts.

"Regardless, they and their group of friends and/or people they knew had often been the target of bullying at Columbine, a fact that has been agreed upon by most investigators to have been the root of their anger. They were also said to have been part of a group who called themselves the Trenchcoat Mafia, although they had no particular connection with the group, and did not appear in a group photo of the Trenchcoat Mafia in the 1998 Columbine yearbook [6]."

My comment: This is terminally contradictory. Were Harris and Klebold the victims of bullying? Were they members of a group called "The Trenchcoat Mafia"? Acceptable answers are "Yes," "No," "We Don't Know," and in a pinch "Sources Differ". It's really not OK to answer as the article currently does: "No, but Yes" and "Yes, but No". Patzer42 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Journal Entries

Does anyone think that the inclusion of certain journal entries may be good for supporting the motivation stated in the article? Too subjective? Invasion of privacy? Please comment. Criticize, support, whatever - I'm not entirely sure if I want them in the article, myself. LaKaMa113 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A good summary from a reliable source may help. Red Specter 06:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest high school shooting

Can we do anything about these numerous edits changing the phrase to 'second-deadlist high school shooting' or 'former deadliest high school shooting after Virginia Tech'? I don't mind the rephrasing to 'one of the deadliest' or the complete removal of the phrase for other reasons [e.g. because it sounds a little as if there was some macabre high score kept here], but the aforementioned edits are just simply factually incorrect as Virginia Tech is a university, not a high school. autocratique ✩ 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

In the media section it says "jocks" first coined the term, "Trench Coat Mafia" Is it really apprpriate for Wikipedia to use a stereotype to acknowledge students?

-Yes because they grew to use it. Jocks is also a stereotype is it not? It's all teenage, high school stuff so basically stereotypes play a very big role in it. So if anything using the stereotype is a good thing, it furthers the proof of the bullying and diversity.

Blackjack Pizza

For godssake why do people keep reverting my edits? What is the problem with listing their jobs at Blackjack as "occupation"? Read "Fatal Friendship", Rocky Mountain News, 22/08/99! It mentions Eric and Dylan's positions at Blackjack fourteen times! This restaurant was an important part of their later lives! Seriously, what's the problem? Why are people taking this down? VolatileChemical 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting no opposition here...I'll just put it back up. VolatileChemical 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Someone gave a reason! Thank you! Part-time, fair enough. VolatileChemical 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VolatileChemical. This is relevant, as Blackjack Pizzia is very well known in the region, it's where they met, and "Student" is not an occupation unless an employer pays you to go. Ace Frahm 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Source on Hate for Manson

i believe it was actually in the Basement tapes about how they hated Mainstream music like Manson. correct me if I'm wrong on that one. I do know that it is well known that they did NOT like Manson.Varxx 11:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

---

"Their motives remain unclear"

If AOL hadn't deleted their website, it would be even more clear, but it's fairly obvious that they were doing it because of their distaste for society. J'onn J'onzz 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." That aside, if you spent a bit more time reading up on the subject, you'd learn a number of important things. One, that there are many copies/transcripts/mirrors of various versions of the website around the 'net; two, that the website is quite tame in comparison to Eric's personal journal and the "basement tapes" (still unreleased); and three, you can't just pin it on "distaste for society". Oh, and don't call it "fairly obvious". It's actually quite a bit more complex than that. --midkay 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why do they only get little stubs? This is all the information we could find on them or what?

And it has been confirmed that they were NOT in the Trenchcoat Mafia

bullyin was not a myth

I agree that people liked Klebold but Eric Harris was hated by many.

"you people could have shown more respect, treated me better, asked for knowledge or guidence more, treated me more like senior and maybe I wouldn't have been as ready to tear your fucking heads off. Then again, I have always hated how I looked, I make fun of people who look like me, sometimes without even thinking sometimes just because I want to rip on myself. Thats where a lot of my hate grows from. The fact that I have practically no selfesteem, especially concerning girls and looks and such. therefore people make fun of me .. constantly..therefore I get no respect and therefore I get fucking PISSED as of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people, and then if I get a couple of bayonets, swords, axes, whatever I'll be able to kill at least 10 more"

"I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't fucking say, "well thats your fault" because it isnt, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. no no dont let the weird looking Eric KID come along, ohh fucking nooo. 4/3/99"

http://www.melikamp.net/features/eric.html

Eric Harris was bullied and he didn"t have many friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.208 (talk) 11:06, June 23, 2007

Eric & Dylan's 'status'

Is it really necessary to have a 'status' section under their pictures? I would think it would be common knowledge that they committed suicide, plus having the 'date of death' date would clue someone in that they're dead. Moegreen123 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it is (though I bet not among the younger set), but hopefully this article will still be read in 50, 75, 100 years, after what will probably be many more more-horrific school shootings. It would have been unthinkable 10 years after the RFK assassination that people would forget who Sirhan Sirhan was, but I think most people have. --zenohockey 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Motivation section neutrality

I have added references for a great deal of this section which is listed as having the neutral POV disputed. How much more does it need and can this be removed from that status? Wildhartlivie 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Klebold is Jewish according to Jewish Law

Quote: "According to Jewish law (Halakha), only a convert or a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F#Within_mainstream_Jewish_religious_communities

Graham Wellington (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well according to this reference that the article provides he isn't Halakhically Jewish. The article states that his mother's mother was not Jewish. Oh, and if "Jewish according to Jewish Law" is your standard, what's the story with this edit? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Zab Judah is automatically not Jewish because he is Black? Are you a racist? Graham Wellington (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks! Let's watch throwing around the "r" word so loosely .... that constitutes a personal attack, and violates WP:CIVIL. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked a reasonable question based on the evidence before me. Graham Wellington (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your first question was not unreasonable. The second question can be construed as an accusation of racism. I have seen nothing here that would construe anything racist by that editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: "According to Jewish law (Halakha), only a convert or a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish." I said nothing about black or white. Please don't misconstrue what I said. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Zab Judah is a Black Israelite, a descendant of the earliest Jews. They've experienced the worst racism imaginable at the hands of so called Ashkenazi or "White Jews". In Israel they are spit on by fellow Jews. Parents withdraw their white Jewish children from mixed school, claiming the black Jewish children are diseased. I hope that this horrible treatment does not spread to Wikipedia, a bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Do you refuse to accept Zab Judah as a Jew? Graham Wellington (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's please not stray from the topic of this talk page, which is specifically for discussing the article as it pertains only to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Please keep discussions regarding other persons, unrelated to these two persons, to the appropriate page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Names

The article consistenly refers to them as Eric and Dylan, but it should really say Harris and Klebold. I'm about to go to sleep so I won't fix it, but someone should. Thanks a lot. Good page, by the way, espeially considering the subject(s) 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It shocks me how this becomes a part of documented history after so long. I mean come on, they killed people, and they get remembered beacause of this? So if I pull a Columbine, I'll get articles of my name in it nearly 10 years after the event happend? ;x Where is the logic in this ;x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.213.187 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Trenchcoat Mafia

The "group" has no notability in itself, only for the media coverage of Harris and Klebold, and the article isn't very substantial anyway. Could be smerged and redirected here. Шизомби (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to be gained by a merger of the two articles. What is covered in the Trenchcoat Mafia article is covered, in one fashion or another in this article. I would suggest to simply redirect the page to this one and circumvent incorporating redundant material in this article, which is long enough as it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just a redirect without a merger too. Шизомби (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'Trench coat Mafia' is actually an English term for trench coat aficionados. Given that Eric and Dylan wore dusters, you could argue that they were unofficially part of it, being that they liked the coats, but I don't believe that liking something automatically makes you a murderer. I think people are just trying to condemn the fashion while on here.. I'd revert it back to what it was (trench coat aficionados) and keep the two separate. - NemFX (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the English term, at Columbine High School, it was an unofficial name for a specific group of students who wore trenchcoats or dusters and Klebold and Harris were on the fringe of that group, so it really has nothing to do with how it's used in England. And no one at all has said that liking something makes one a murderer, that's a rather simplistic view of it. Further, no one at all has condemned the fashion, or for that matter, cast aspersions on it. What would make you say that someone is trying to condemn it because an article has been written about how the term was used? It's an artifact of the Columbine shootings. Since the Trenchcoat Mafia article was created specifically to address how it was used at Columbine, there's nothing to revert back to. I am going to go ahead and redirect the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reffering to the word 'English' as opposed to 'American' as in the language, not the location. Over here in Canada it has the same meaning as the 'English' one, though the origin did probably originate in Europe. Both England and Australia have similar speech patterns regarding labeling certain trends. - 72.141.197.83 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, focusing on only the American meaning definitely doesn't provide a worldwide view of the matter. There exists many places outside of America, in fact. The majority of population of the world doesn't even live there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.252.84 (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

picture split

both their pictures are in the first info box, but all other information is split into two separate info boxes for the individuals. it's the same way in the Bonnie and Clyde article, but that may be because in the B&C article, they are in one picture.

in this article it's two separate pictures. is there a reason for keeping both in one box? 75.45.176.9 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think there is a good reason. There's a picture of both of their yearbook pictures below Klebold's infobox if anyone needs one picture of both. --zenohockey (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's that, in both articles, because the actual image which is like this everywhere that uses this image, is one image and there is no crime infobox available that I know of that allows for individual details for more than one person without confounding the information that goes into the infobox. The yearbook image is also one image. Granted, it's not the perfect solution to the problem, but at the moment, it seems the best solution. Splitting the image isn't the answer, adapting the infobox is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So can't we just split the picture into two (while keeping the original where it is)? --zenohockey (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, yes, someone could. It's a little beyond my capability given my current computer issues. Would you like to tackle it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --zenohockey (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Harris having OCD?

I beleive he had OCD, I don't remember the exact sites that said this, but apparently he was diagnosed with it, and he was on medication as well. Is this worth adding to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you think you read it, but I've read fairly much everything around about these two and I have not read that. He was on medication but it was a little ambiguous as to its purpose save that the particular medication was an SSRI given for depression that is also given to some with OCD. If someone wrote that somewhere, it was likely extrapolation from the medication. There is a section that discusses to a small part, pyschological autopsies of the two, which did use some of the medical information about them, and it did not mention OCD. Finally, it would only be relevant, were Harris obsessive-compulsive, if it were related to his actions. It wasn't. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I found a source:

Much has been made about the possible influence of Luvox on the behavior of Eric Harris (Bergin [sic] 1999; Murphy 2001; O'Meara 2001). Luvox is a serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) in the Prozac family. Eric had first been prescribed Zoloft, another SSRI, when he was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder following his arrest for the theft of equipment from a truck the previous fall. Subsequently, Zoloft was replaced by Luvox. As noted by the medical community, SSRIs can produce psychotic responses, especially mania and paranoia. However, it is as senseless to suggest that Luvox caused the Columbine shootings as it is to blame it on psychopathology. It may be that Luvox paradoxically intensified Harris's manic state and sense of persecution. However, planing and preparing for the massacre began long before Eric Harris started taking Zoloft and Luvox. Dylan Klebold had no drugs in his system according to the autopsy (Columbine Research Site 2003). The effects of Luvox on the Columbine shootings are unknown, as the effects of steroids on the behavior of members of the football and wrestling teams is unknown.

—Ralph W. Larkin, Comprehending Columbine (Temple University Press, 2007), 119. The book is searchable on Google Books. --zenohockey (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still skeptical about the veracity of the OCD diagnosis. If that was the justification given for the Luvox, it doesn't explain why he was first given Zoloft, which was not a drug of treatment for OCD in 1998. Only later was it given for that. My sense of it is that a diagnosis was necessary for justification of the drug, which was given in conjunction with his court ordered intervention and anger management treatment. Given my professional experience with SSRIs and manifestations of side effects, suicidal ideation and psychosis are sometimes exacerbated for those with primary psychiatric diagnoses that are related to psychosis, such as schizophrenia, or to a lesser degree, bipolar disorder, where it also can exacerbate mania. I'd support an addition of wording such as "given ostensibly for OCD" but nothing that would confirm the diagnosis, since the later psychological profiles by the FBI didn't include that, and there is nothing to suggest that it was the cause of the actions of both of them. I just don't want the article to slant toward allowing blame to be assigned elsewhere, or suggesting that this was the cause. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How's this? Contemporaneous reports from the Washington Post, at least, don't mention Harris's being prescribed Zoloft, so I left it out. --zenohockey (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to Time article

The article is using the Time article (reference #20, "The Columbine Tapes") to support the claim Harris was on Luvox at the time. The article actually says otherwise. On the third page it states "how he decided to stop taking his Luvox, to let his anger flare, undiluted by medication." Breggin says otherwise here: http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=190. Regardless of who you believe, the reference is clearly in the wrong place.72.152.137.21 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. It needed to have one reference added to it, but ostensibly, it was at the end of the sentence and could have been fine where it is. It was used to support the portion of the sentence that said that indicated he was going to stop taking Luvox, but in a tangential way, that also supported that he had been taking it. There's another issue that isn't touched on in the literature I've read. Harris could well have stopped taking his Luvox shortly before that day, it takes the body more than a day or two to clear all of the metabolites from the system, especially if he were taking a controlled-release version of the drug. His level could have previously been considerably higher than the 390 ng/ml that was shown at autopsy. The "normal range" is anywhere from 50-900 ng/ml indicated on the autopsy report and Harris' level could have been dropping over a shorter period of time once he finally stopped taking the drug, whenever that might have been, if he had stopped. That depends on the dosage being taken, whether it was controlled release or not, etc. It isn't conclusive regarding whether Harris had stopped taking the drug, or when, or how much he had been prescribed. In any case, the cites were adjusted and one added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These two should a separate page. They were different and had different motives it appears.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.160.133 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Books

First of all, there were three books published this year that either were completely about Columbine or contained chapters on it. Secondly, the addition made is uncited or referenced in any way and is in fact, inaccurate. Dave Cullen wrote and edited a great deal of this page prior to working on his book. His book does not contradict any of the "theories" about the lives and personalities of Harris or Klebold. It elaborates on some themes, supports discreditation of some that aren't included above, and offers observations about other things. The article was updated a few weeks ago to take into consideration new things that have been written. However, there is no valid reason why this article would contain a section dedicated to only one book. One of the other books was also written by a local reporter, so to include Cullen's book lends far too much undue weight to one publication. Also, folks, there won't be a forthcoming article on Robyn Anderson here, it was deleted quite some time ago and would be deleted, redlinking that name will not lead to a new article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized

Someone needs to fix the page and consider a lock, names have been altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.63.123 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Fighting for Justice (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I admit I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so if I did something wrong I apologize--it was unintentional. I saw that this page had four books listed under Further Reading. I added another book--Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shootings--which devotes a significant amount of text to Harris and Klebold. Because the book also covers other school shootings, I also added it to pages on some of the other shooters covered in the book. All of these were removed as inappropriate links. Did I do something wrong?Psychologist8485 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the book from this and other articles' "Further reading" section. The manner in which you were adding - rapidly adding a new publication to multiple articles - often suggests that someone is "spamming." And often that "someone" is the author, publisher, or someone else with a conflict of interest. (In general, I am not a big fan of "Further reading" sections as they are often indiscriminate lists of resources of varying utility and quality. In short, they're unsupervised, unvetted spam magnets.)

I did not, however, remove the book where you used it as a citation for other additions to articles. That seems less problematic to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Schoolshooters.info

I have issues with using this website as a source. Essentially, the first use of the site for the first citation is noted: This transcription has corrected Eric’s writing to some extent in terms of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. The correction offers two benefits. First, it makes the text easier to read. Second, the corrected spelling is an asset for anyone who wishes to search for a particular word. Though Eric’s writing is usually legible, occasional words are noted as illegible or are transcribed with a question mark following to indicate a lack of certainty. The parenthetical phrases are Eric’s; words in brackets are mine. In essence, the website owner has revised what apparently are the original copies of the notebooks and journals of Klebold and Harris and "corrected" them. They are not the originals and thus are subject to interpretation. We just don't do that. They are not the original sources, they are the "improved" sources. And this article isn't the place to start doing interpretation of those journals and repeat them here. We are not in the interpretation business here. These are "revisions" of primary sources, they are not considered reliable sources per our own definitions. What we have here is someone who has sorted through, picked and chose and derived from the original 11000 page report to create his own webpage about it and we are expected to accept it as its own stand alone and valid source. Nope, it's derivative and its reliability is unknown. Why are we expected to accept that when we aren't expected to accept the report itself? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First, it seems that it's also important to consider the nature and source of the website: It's a website created by a scholar who has published on this topic and it using the website to host materials that were used to write the book. So let's please not consider this just some random website maintained by an author of unknown pedigree.

Second, I'm not sure that I see the problem with referencing a version of the documents that has been responsibly "cleaned up." That is what we (we being scholars) often have to do when working with primary sources. Of course, it depends on the nature of the analysis. Assuming that we don't quote from these edited documents, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Third, I am looking at this from the angle of a published author and established expert contributing to this and other articles. The primary argument against these additions - and one that may be successful - would be that they may be construed as relying on primary sources and thus be original research. It would be helpful if the editor in question can clarify the nature of these contributions: Are they already published in some form? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The website itself is not a scholarly work, however. It's deriviates of primary sources. And look at what the editor who added it did with it. First it quotes the journal and interprets Harris's meaning. He then quotes the 11000K report and uses it again to press an interpretation regarding the use of the date. Finally, it says "Harris's fascination with natural selection and the destruction of masses of humanity, and sometimes of humanity itself, appears repeatedly in his writing." That's directly derivative in nature and is again interpretation. This is original research based on "cleaned up" primary sources. It's not appropriate use of the data either on that website or of primary sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitmen for hire

"pretending to shoot fake guns" pretending to shoot guns, maybe? "shooting" fake guns, idk... Boredom Swells (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the Brooks Brown part doing in here? It has nothing to do with the "Hitmen for hire", or if it does it sure isn't clear how.205.206.175.57 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson/Misleading use of quote

In the Wikipedia article, it states: He also stated later that if he was given the chance, "I wouldn't say a single word to them — I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."

In the context of the paragraph, it makes it seem like Marilyn Manson is referring to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold instead of the Columbine students and the community, which was really the case. (I saw the movie and knew the context and also verified the quote with IMDB. When I posted an updated edit, it was rejected.) I'm not a huge fan of Manson, but I am a professional editor and I think this paragraph could confuse people and mislead them even more when he actually made a compelling statement. Also "them" should be clarified either way, because the sentence preceding the quote was discussing the media. It's really unclear, and my fix might not have been the most elegant but the article is inaccurate.

Wiki article (for reference): Harris and Klebold affected U.S. culture in tangible ways. Marilyn Manson dubbed them "The Nobodies" in his song of that name from his 2000 album Holy Wood, echoing the reasons the pair gave for their spree in the lyrics.[26] Manson, who was blamed in the wake of the Columbine massacre by the media, criticized their coverage of the event with the lines "Some children died the other day / We fed machines and then we prayed / Puked up and down in morbid faith / You should have seen the ratings that day." He also stated later that if he was given the chance, "I wouldn't say a single word to them — I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."[27]

Quote from movie (from IMDB): Michael Moore: If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now? Marilyn Manson: I wouldn't say a single word to them, I would listen to what they have to say and that's what no one did.

Lolavp (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)lolavp

If you are a professional editor, then I'm sure you understand the concept of reliable sources. We have asked, repeatedly, every time someone makes some change to that paragraph, for them to provide a reliable source for the change. Reliable sources do not include an editor's listening to the DVD and transcribing the dialogue, nor does Wikipedia consider IMDb as a reliable source. When I reverted your change, I stated clearly that IMDb quotes, trivia, bios are not reliable sources. Thus they can't be used for referencing corrections. It has been too long since I've seen the film, but just from reading the question as posted on IMDb, I don't think it is quite clear whom it is that Manson means he would talk to and without a reliable reference, we can't make it clear. What kids? Did he mean the surviving kids at Columbine? It actually sounds like he does mean Harris & Klebold to me, just from the quotes you've posted above from IMDb. Without a source, how can it be made clearer? Would your editor accept for publication a quote posted by an unknown person to IMDB? LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As a professional editor, I can say that I would be paid to be follow style guidelines and to think critically. In this case, I confess I didn't read all the guidelines; I am quite busy with work and found this page while I was trying to educate myself on the tenth anniversary of the shootings. However I am shocked to see that this quote is incorrect in both places: Manson's Wikipedia profile (where it is more explicit) and this page. As a regular Wikipedia reader and as someone who saw the film once when it came out, I am really appalled that this is allowed to exist without being clarified. Even in Manson's bio page on Wikipedia, which still uses this misleading explanation, it mentions that he canceled his shows in deference to the victims. This doesn't sound like someone eager to listen to the killers. But beyond that, I remembered that quote from the film and the context because it was one of the most powerful moments and most quoted. Wikipedia's article is missing the point. I genuinely don't have time to find an article that uses this Manson quote from the film in context, but I can say that my clients would insist on deleting any quote that isn't properly attributed or is potentially misleading. In a proper editorial environment, if a reference is unclear, it has to be clarified -- yes, using the editorial requirements of the publication. My clients would expect me to clarify "them" in this paragraph with more accurate sources than provided by me (as a volunteer trying to help update a popular page as quickly as I could) or the original volunteer writer or delete the sentence. I don't think the original copy follows your guidelines. How did the original writer get this quote and the lead-in to the quote? It looks like it's an editor transcribing the DVD to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.25.96 (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So... why not just throw on that it's unclear which group he is talking about? 129.107.81.12 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me -- I know I can't edit the page, but here and also on the main Columbine School massacre page, in your opening paragraph, you list "23" wounded. The number -- both in Dave Cullen's book, which I just read, and on the page you footnote as your source for the figure in both articles -- is 24. You use the correct number later in both articles. I think it's just a typo, but those of you with the power should fix it. 24.61.47.3 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Marilyn Manson even on here? Nowhere does it state that either of the boys listened to his music and there is a list of their favorite bands under one of their names in the article. I say cut out this part, or put it in a different sub-section regarding celebrity tributes. Who cares what Manson thought regarding this tragedy? We might as well add the thoughts of Ice-T, Penn & Teller and Paula Abdul. Meishern (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Except Ice-T, Penn & Teller and Paula Abdul difn't take widespread media hits for the events at Columbine and Marilyn Manson did. That's why Michael Moore didn't talk to Ice-T, Penn & Teller and Paula Abdul about them, he talked to Manson. It is covered in the sentences you deleted and mentioned in his own article. Please do not remove that portion again without wide consensus to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. At the least can we rephrase this? Starts of with: "Harris and Klebold affected U.S. culture in tangible ways." And it goes on about Manson. Maybe a different referenced lead sentence like "Marilyn Manson's music was initially blamed for warping the minds of Harris and Klebold by XYZ source" Because 'affecting US culture in tangible ways' needs to be backed up by more than some wacky lyrics from a D category musician. Meishern (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also tried to change this section. It is completely clear from the question posed by Michael Moore that Marilyn Manson was talking about the survivors and community of Columbine, not the murderers. The exact words are 'If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in the community, what would you say to them if they were here right now' I did not provide a new source because I used the same part of the same source listed for that paragraph - the Manson interview in Bowling for Columbine. That excerpt from the documetory is available on You Tube - listen for yourself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYApo2d8o_A It is outrageous that it has been portreyed as Marilyn Manson supporting the murderers here when he was clearly making a salient point about the media circus surounding the event: the media's exhultation at the massive ratings the massacre pulled in, and its underlying lack of concern for the people it affected. I have now changed it to include the exact words of Moore's question,replacing the assertion that Manson was asked about Harris and Cleebold specifically. This way if there is any ambiguity about who Manson was talking about, people can decide for themselves from the wording of the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.91.142 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't read the comment as supporting these two, it reads to me like he is really is chastising those who didn't listen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean those who didn't listen to Klebold and Harris. That is not what they were talking about in the interview (or what Manson was talking about in the song, as was acknowledged in the previous sentence in the article), they were talking about how the media has used it to make money and the MEDIA is not listening to the commmunity, at no point does anyone say or indicate that the COMMUNITY didn't listen to Klebold and Harris. Anyway I'M NOT EVEN TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU! I just want to know why is it wrong to leave in the full quote of Moore's question which prompted the comment and puts the comment in context, rather than your interpretation of Moore's question, which is not much shorter than the question itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.165.71 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed back again? Please explain why! I guess adding the context of the comment doesn't mesh with your narrative that Marilyn Manson supports mass murder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.165.71 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because when I watched the documentary, that's how it sounded to me. And it is entirely your contention that saying that people didn't listen to Klebold and Harris supports mass murder. It has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting mass murder. That is such a twisted and misperceived viewpoint that it is scary. That's twice you've made such an assertion and it totally undermines your comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the article you are clearly arguing that Manson made the case that the community didn't listen to Klebold and Harris - i.e. shifting blame from them onto the community itself (a form of support for the murderers in my opinion). Besides, it was not an assertion, it was an extrapolation of your motives, because you have refused to explain why inserting your interpretation of the question is more appropriate, more valid than simply quoting the question itself wich is only eight words more and reads better! "That's how it sounded to me" is fine if we're writing an article about Wildhartlivie's point of view on Michael Moore's interview with Marilyn Manson, but you are NOT supposed to be including your own point of view in THIS article! All I am doing is putting forward the un-edited facts. You are removing the facts and replacing them with your own interpretation of them. Who is in the right? Others who commented on this earlier agree with me that your opinion is wrong. Why is adding the context bad? EXPLAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.165.71 (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, don't read things into it. I am not arguing that Manson made any such case. This is about the third time you've twisted this around to claim that I am saying Manson was supporting anything besides listening. Your viewpoint throws everything you say about this into question. Oh and by the way, I've reported you for violating 3RR after being warned. You have yet to supply a reference that supports your change, which would be a transcript, not a YouTube link, only your interpretation of what was said. Come up a reliable source after your block expires. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that including the entire question in the quote is important to the readers' understanding of question and answer. --Geniac (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting me (it's an indication of the strength of your argument), however I am not blocked because I only undid your undos three times so I didn't break 3RR, check the edit history; also, removing libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the BLP policy is exempt from the 3RR, so I can prevent you from reverting this all I want unless you can come up with a better way of representing the original question than the original question itself! Besides, it was you who was making changes without justifying them here, and without majority consent, and jam-packed with your own POV (although I didn't report you for it, I thought we could argue it out here, just like Wikipedia says you are supposed to).

The problem is you're talking about Manson supporting listening to the murderers (you said - "when asked what he would say to Klebold and Harris," this is NOT supported by the listed source), when I believe it's clear he was supporting listening to the community and the survivors (the words of the question are "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in the community," NO mention of Klebold and Harris). However, unlike you I was not puting in my point of view, just the original words so my own POV will not influence the reader's interpretation of the facts. If you do not believe he meant this then you should accept my changes because from your lead-in to the quote it sounds like that's what he's saying.

Marilyn Manson is NOT saying he is supporting the murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Michael Moore- "if you were to talk directly to the kids of columbine and the community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?"

(while Michael Moore possibly meant to ask what Manson would say in response to the hate he received from the community who was blaming him simply for someone to blame for the tragedy...}

Marilyn Manson- "I wouldnt say a single word to them, I would just listen to them- and thats what no one else did."

(... Marilyn Manson already had something to say about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold- and must have probably taken Moore's question differently in order to appropriately respond with his thoughts. It is VERY obvious he is not saying he wouldn't talk to the community or kids of columbine, and very obvious he is saying he would simply listen to what Eric and Dylan had to say. Because the only people they felt they could trust were eachother, and with that being said if they had another person they could trust to talk to, this might have (probably wouldnt have) occured... but they were being bullied and honestly- this can be the outcome of such things) 05:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)BPicton1 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)-BPicton1

The reference for the change is the exact same part of the exact same reference that was already provided for the Manson quote - I am just adding in the preceding sentence. The Youtube clip is an excerpt from that documentory, for YOUR reference, it wasn't provided as a citation - Bowling for Columbine (Moore, 2002) was provided as a reference. I didn't add it twice because I was just extending the existing quote from the documentory. We do not need to put a reference after Moore's question, and then the same reference after Manson's response to that question. If you don't think Michael Moore's interview with Marilyn Manson in BfC is a reliable reference for Moore's interview with Marilyn Manson in BfC, then you should read this: "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources). Besides, where is your reference for your badly phrased POV-laced interpretation of Moore's question? Oh, I remember "I watched the documentary, that's how it sounded to me". Good scholarship. You still haven't explained why this does not enhance the article, or why you think it damages the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.144.241 (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Marilyn Manson quote is going to be used in this article, the context of how it is used should definitely be changed. Currently, the article says "He also stated later that if he was given the chance to say something to Harris and Klebold". That's incorrectly stated, and the given source (the documentary itself, which is the only source given and is itself a reliable source) does not back up that Manson was asked anything about Harris and Klebold. The question in the documentary, as stated previously, is "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in the community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?" That's the question as it was asked in the documentary. Given that it is a bit of an ambiguous question (did Moore mean the survivors, or the murderers?) given that ambiguity, it would be best to quote the entire question, and let the reader decide what they believe Moore and Manson intended with their question and answer, respectively. Here are some sources:

• "Moore asked him what he would say to the kids of Columbine, and Manson answered brilliantly, 'I wouldn't say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did.'"
• "...Michael Moore asks frequent teen-sociopath scapegoat and goth rocker Marilyn Manson, if given the chance, what he would say to the kids of massacre site Columbine High School, to which he replies, 'I wouldn't say anything to them. I would listen, because that's what nobody did.'"
• "Later, in the documentary 'Bowling for Columbine,' he was asked what he would have said to the kids at Columbine. 'I wouldn’t say a single word to them,” he said. “I would listen to what they have to say, and that’s what no one did.'"

and here is an unreliable source, which misquotes the question:

• "When Moore asks, 'if they (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) were alive here today what is it you would say to them or what would you ask them?" Manson's response, 'Nothing, I would listen to what they had to say, and that's what no-one did.'"

Clearly, this is a question/answer which can be interpreted varying ways. To me, given the context of the interview, I believe Manson was referring to the fact that the media did not listen to the town after the massacre. Instead, the media just cashed in on the tragedy and started attacking him and everyone else it could. However, I can't find a reliable source to verify that. Even if I could, I don't believe this article is the place to reference someone's editorialized view of a film. The proper thing, I think, would be to quote the entire question and answer; then, let the reader interpret each one the way they would like. If not, the article should source any interpretation to a reliable source (for instance, one of the sources I provided). Directly quote the person doing the interpretation.

The other choice is to remove the entire quote from the article.  Chickenmonkey  01:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chickenmonkey. You reinforced that it is dependent on how one hears it. I agree that given the current issue, it should be removed and it will be.

As to the IPs contention he didn't break 3RR, let's see. The bright line rule is not to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. Your first revert was here at 8:16 am on June 7, the second was here at 6:17 am on June 8, the third revert was here at 7:19 am on June 8. You were warned here at 7:32 on June 8.and the 3RR breaking revert was here at 7:49 am on June 8 (all times are local to me). You most certainly did violated 3RR, so try not to be so smug. Trying to shove this off as a BLP violation is not a valid argument, Chickenmonkey has proven this is a matter of interpretaton and good faith edits aren't BLP violations. That the IP kept claiming it slandered Marilyn Manson doesn't mean it does. A pesron certainly can make comments that would reflect sympathy for the perpetrators without it slandering or demeaning them. Your claims that it means he supports mass murder or even the killers at Columbine are simply your contention. You do not have the "power" to "prevent" anything. You'd have to prove it is a BLP violation and that you cannot do, you can only claim it, speciously. Try to curtail any gloating. It is quite unbecoming. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a good faith contention, by the ip editor, that the quote was possibly harmful to Marilyn Manson. I believe, it was an understandable standpoint to have been taken. It's probably for the best that the quote has been removed, but I do think it would be okay to simply include the entire question/answer, although, it doesn't seem like a big deal.  Chickenmonkey  07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but one would have to substantiate that Manson making a statement that might acknowledged that Klebold and Harris had issues with things and weren't given a reasonable ear would be supporting murderers." "...a form of support for the murderers in my opinion". The IP said that more than once. " [Your narrative that Marilyn Manson supports mass murder."] "Marilyn Manson supporting the murderers here." "shifting blame from them onto the community itself (a form of support for the murderers in my opinion)." That is such an extreme statement that cannot be supported. Effectively, what the IP is saying is that if anyone makes any sort of comment that might say they can see issues with how Klebold and Harris were treated and managed, it means they think that it's okay to just go about killing or supporting what these two did. Bullocks. One can see problems in the way things went before the shootings, it doesn't mean they back up their later actions. I mean, really, no one did listen to those two, they just passed them on. Courts pass them to a program, the program passed them to home, and home wasn't all that supportive. Consider that we had two teenagers with anger issues and a sketchy background with another group of students and the best response they got was being passed through "diversion" classes. To chastize anyone for criticizing the way Klebold and Harris were dealt with when they were in trouble does in no way mean they are mollycoddling murderers. That's sort of like saying that someone backs up Charlie Manson because he begged to be kept in prison but was paroled without being rehabilitated was an act that supported what he did. We can't use the YouTube clip as a reference and without a written source supporting what the whole question/answer included, you're right. It needs to come out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

While, Marilyn Manson (or anyone) saying Harris and Klebold should have been listened to doesn't necessarily mean he (or anyone) supports what they did; it does make him (or anyone) seem like an apologist and imply that what they did could have been prevented. If Marilyn Manson had specifically said that, it would not be a BLP violation, but he didn't and to represent it as if he did could be a BLP violation.

The documentary can be used as a reliable source, itself, to cite the question/answer, but I think the article works just fine without the quote, anyway.  Chickenmonkey  19:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, circumstances seem to indicate it could have been prevented. There were myriad warning signs that have been documented. In any case, it would be desirable to actually have a source to specifically detail the question and answer. I don't have sound on my computer and surely there is a transcript of sorts that is credible and obtainable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a transcript will surface, or something (I couldn't find one in the five minutes or so I looked before). Although I don't think the article needs the quote, if someone else chose to add it, citing it to the documentary, it would be fine. The film is verifiable.  Chickenmonkey  01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bowling-for-columbine-script-transcript.html Here is a transcript of the film]. This probably wouldn't work as a stand-alone "reliable" source, but it might help to clarify the question/answer for you.  Chickenmonkey  01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It never occurred to me to check at Drew's Scriptorama for a documentary transcript. You're right that it wouldn't be an acceptable source - the majority of work there is user-submitted and isn't vetted. It still isn't clear what kids Moore referred to - the other students or what. The trouble is that it doesn't attribute the statements to whomever said them in a transcript like that. 'Nuff said. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's absurd, but lets say that it isn't clear "what kids Moore referred to". My argument is why not include the exact quote of the question, let people decide for themselves? The thing is your paraphrasing of the question left no room for doubt that he was refering to Klebold and Harris.

Your assertion that a documentory is not a valid source is nonsense. It is especaially a valid source on itself. "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources). I think it is a good idea to include the quote in the article; I always liked it, and Manson is a relevent source because he was blamed for the whole thing (against this backdrop you can see why I would be sensitive to people suggesting he is an apologist).

I really can't understand why you are having such a temper tantrum about it. Although you have now made it clear what your personal opinion is on the matter it is clear that the question is being paraphrased to make it sound like it supports that personal opinion. This is bad scholarship. It makes me wonder if you are writing a paper about it and the exact quote is in contravention of your thesis.... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.42.254 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume bad faith. For the record, I would have no objection to you adding something like this:

In the film Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore asked Manson, "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in the community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?", to which Manson replied, "I wouldn't say a single word to them — I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did."<ref>{{cite video|date = |title = ''[[Bowling for Columbine]]''|medium = Documentary|publisher = |location = |accessdate = 2010-06-11|time= }}</ref>

Of course, you could fill in more of the cite template, but I think this would be fine to add to the article, because it can be verified by the film -- which is, itself, a reliable source.  Chickenmonkey  09:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that not what I already wrote in the article? If you want to reinforce that it comes form BfC I am 100% behind that. The comment which implied bad faith was just a cheeky joke to underline my puzzlement at wildhartlivie's staunch oposition to including the question. Wildhartlivie keeps saying 'it's not clear what the question is refering to, therefore we should say it refers to Klebold and Harris'. This is annoying me a little... There is also consensus that the BfC interview is perfectly good evidence of the wording of the BfC interview. Duh! Wildhartlivie now wants to delete the quote completely because they can't have it their way. It just seems a little petulant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.42.254 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I would ask you to strike out your "joke", I didn't laugh. And take a minute to find out if the person you are talking about is a man, woman or an "it" or "they". Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you added it back in while I was replying here. If you want to add in, as I did above, that the interview took place within Bowling for Columbine, you can do that, but your current wording is sufficient. I did insert {{cite video}}, however. If you could, it would be helpful to include the time, in the film's runtime, at which the quote occurs; that isn't a necessity, though.

Also, jokes are fine, but keep in mind that vocal inflection doesn't always translate well in text; so, a joke may come across as something more inflammatory.  Chickenmonkey  09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, the argument has devolved into a critique of grammar and politesse! I shall venture a guess and say, I wholeheartedly appologise, ma'am, for not finding out your gender designation. I don't normaly research the backgrounds of random people on the internet, and to be honest I'm not sure where I would find out your gender. I figured you were female because of your name, but thought it rude to presume, therefore I used they in its singular form which in English is the politically correct gender neutral pronoun, as opposed to using the more traditional he which feminists often find offensive (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They). Therefore I think it was the correct pronoun to use under the circumstances.

When mine eyes did see Olivia first methought she purged the air of pestilence

I am sorry you didn't find my comments amusing, and did not mean to cause any offence. I don't think the fact that Manson was talking about the community undermines the argument that Klebold and Harris should have had more support (although I disagree with this argument). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.42.254 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most charming and civil "take back" I've read in a long time. Like Chickenmonkey said above, a joke doesn't always come through in the way it was intended on the internet. Generally here, you can take a quick walk-through userpages and talk pages and find out. Most of the time. I tend to think that most criminals could have used a better support system and someone paying attention to cries for help. A lot of bad things can be avoided. Is that liberal? Well, okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of good opinions on whether or not terms like liberal have any value, they include a large number of values and beliefs which do not apply to all those who are forced into those categories. I have less authority when talking about criminal psychology however. My opinion on the matter is that there are a lot of people with mental illnesses and depression, people from deprived and violent backgrounds (a lot worse than Harris and Klebold's), people without any form of support whatsoever, and they do not kill any more frequently than otherwise normal people. Harris and Klebold had a lot of counciling and 'support' (including a very unhealthy dose of pharmasphychology). I don't think blame can be placed anywhere but with Harris and Klebold. Is that right-wing? I'm not sure anyone could have predicted they were going to do that. Take this guy in Cumbria in the UK last week. He killed 12 people, absolutely no one saw that coming, it couldn't have been predicted; by all accounts he was a peacable chap.

Anyway, my opinion is not relevent here, in this article. I just think the paraphrasing of Moore's question doesn't reflect the original wording (or only reflects one possible interpretation of it). I feel that providing the original text enhances the section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.42.254 (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Just to provide an independent thought: It is true that the IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to things like this, and any attempt to reference from there should have been deleted. However, a film/DVD can absolutely be used as a reliable source. My only concern: was the original Manson quote being taken from the Moore interview? If that is the case, then anyone can reference and cite this, and in doing so would be wise to use the exact quote (including Moore's question and Manson's answer). If the original Manson quote was not from the Moore interview, then care should be taken to confirm that what was being quoted in the article wasn't from some other interview in which Manson might have been asked about Klebold/Harris directly. WP:CT has a specific template for citing a film, and a space for adding a direct quote can be added easily at the end of that template. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the original quote was being cited as if it were from the Moore interview but did not include the question, just the answer. Now, both are included and you're right, if the quote is to be used, the entire thing should be included.  Chickenmonkey  19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan Yassenoff

In this article, Susan Yassenoff is listed as the mother of one of the killers. Later in the article it says that Susan Klebold wrote into the Oprah mag. One of these needs to be noted or changed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.23.65 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, think about it. The article says Klebold's parents were Thomas Klebold and Susan Yassenoff. In the same paragraph, we go on to call Susan Yassenoff (maiden name, hello?) Susan Klebold. Doesn't take a degree in genetics to figure this out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the references were unnecessarily confusing. At various points in the article, she was referred to as Susan Yassenoff; at other points, she was referred to as Susan Klebold. I fixed it up, somewhat, and referred to her — consistently — as Susan (Yassenoff) Klebold throughout the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Robyn Anderson

At the time of Columbine High School Shooting, Colorado state law allowed adults to purchase guns for minors. Robyn did nothing illegal and I would like that to be fixed. The law changed shortly after the shooting. Once again, Colorado native I just know it as fact. Bloodrose89 (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct place of deaths

Eric and Dylan died in Littleton, CO. As a Colorado native I know this for a fact. If anyone changes it to Columbine, CO 1 more time we will have war. They died at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. It was named Columbine High after our state flower, the Columbine. LEAVE THE PLACE OF DEATH ALONE. Bloodrose89 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To say Littleton is misleading as Columbine is some way from there and is not a part of the Littleton school district. Columbine, Colorado is the best and this is reflected on our article about the killing as well. If you disagree, please bring reliable sources to the discussion which use the term you would like to see. --John (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Motivations

Harris and Klebold wrote much about how they would carry out the massacre but far less about why.

This is patently false. I've just be reading through a few journal entries made by Harris and he makes it abundantly clear why he feels such animosity towards people.[3] Vranak (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this section doesn't seem to be validated by the source referenced. In the video source (Columbine: Understanding Why 2/5), Alisa Owen says Harris was picked on "a little bit," while Nathan Vanderau's comments about kids being picked on a lot and having a cup of fecal matter thrown at them are not in reference to Harris or Klebold at all, but to the Trenchcoat Mafia kids. (The video itself is a bit blurry about the difference between the killers and the Trenchcoat Mafia, as it promotes the "bullied kids fighting back" myth of this massacre; I don't think it is clear enough in this article that the killers were not part of that group.) Austenca (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The template says the article contains vandalism. Where exactly and why has it not been removed from thi B Class article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't able to spot any uncaught vandalism. Apologies if I overlooked anything, but whatever issues may have existed appear to have been corrected a while back and I've removed the tag. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Trench Coat Mafia membership

I have removed this statement, added on 1 September 2008:

Joe Stair, one of the original members of the Trench Coat Mafia, said the “Trench Coat Mafia“ was organized because a Gay Jewish kid was picked on by Jocks. Jonathan Greene,Zach Heckler, Kristen Thiebault, Cory Friesen, Nickie Markham,Sarah Marsh, Benjamin Sargeant and other members of the Trench Coat Mafia, were mostly Jewish.

I think a claim like this needs a reference before it gets added, especially given that (I'm assuming) that most or all of these people are still alive (assuming that there is any truth to this). Please only re-add with referencing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quoted word for word from 1 (the site has been blocked by this particular wikipedia page) and has been quoted word for word on a few fringe blogs etc. Can't find any actual news media, so at best it's hearsay and amateur investigation (though several of the alleged TCM were at least at some point had Jewish relatives - but then the list of TCM members is disputed).--Koncorde (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fringe at best and at this point, over nine years later, seems a violation of privacy for those people, who were not involved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

“IF” (big if) Joe STAIR actually did say that, then he violated his own privacy. However, some sort of corroboration is in order; Only second (and third) hand accounts seem to survive supporting this claim. Contributions/152.121.19.11 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

It doesn't really matter. The article doesn't claim that Harris and Klebold were members and discussing or naming people who were members 10 years ago has no place in the article. Uninvolved persons should not be dragged into this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's typical internet bullcrap without any reliable source. I doubt it's even true. All Hallow's (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Initially media reports said they were members of the Trenchcoat Mafia, however this has never been proven. I suggest that typing in trenchcoat mafia does not auto-direct to the Eric Harris and Dlyan Klebold pages. 82.34.53.164 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Then to what would you suggest it redirect? Initially, the Trenchcoat Mafia was specifically about the group at Columbine High School and consensus was to remove the text of that article, based on the same rationale you've given above, and redirect to this page. If the redirect is removed, then the entire page would need to be deleted, and chances are quite good that someone would recreate the page. There's no good solution and the Columbine articles are quite clear that their membership was probably non-existent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it auto-direct to a section at the bottom of the article that discusses rumors and falsehoods reported by the media. The incorrect information should be at the bottom of this article. This article should begin with the correct facts.50.71.210.133 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Article structure does not meet encyclopedic standards

It is a long article so it should start off with a summary.

The summary should consist of the known facts.

Repeating incorrect news reports and legends should be left to the bottom half of the main section of the article. I suggest a section title like "Incorrect Legends", "Common Falsehoods", "Urban Myths" or something like that.

As it is, someone reading the first half of this lengthy article will be left repeating the false legends and have little idea of the facts.

More detail should be given about the background of the boys, the socio-economic class of themselves and the school for example. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

I have cited everything that needed it, and as such, the disputed tag has been removed. Beerest355 Talk 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism

The massacre can be considered an act of terrorism. Their objective was to send a message of fear and terror. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA22SKaQ5hU&feature=related). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miko47 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

i agree with you this was not revenge for bullying or anything this was a outright terrorist attact consider the day they decided to do this it coincides with waco 1993, oklahoma city 1995 and a few others. act of terrorism for sure. 76.211.5.253 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not a terrorist act, although obviously they did terrorise many people..--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't put our personal viewpoints or analyses in articles. Please see WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullying as an motivation

I strongly suggest/request that this page be placed under some sort of protection. It is repeatedly vandalized, and, there are multiple revisions to the "motive" as to why these two young men decided to do this. These boys came to this decision due to a multitude of factors. It is not simply bullying that led them to do what they did. There is immense debate about bullying and exclusion, and personally, I don't see why these issues are dismissed, as they did indeed play a part, but what drove them to this is not that simple and tidy by any means. This is not an opinion, either. There are a plethora of reasons listed in both of these boys' journals (that we have access to, who knows what else there is under wraps within JeffCo), and their infamous basement tapes are not available in their entirety to the public, which are said to contain further discussion on their reasons as to why this happened. Even if those are brought to the public someday, the entirety of the motive will never be summarized in one word, nor will it be for one simple, clean cut, easy to digest reason. I strongly request that if the "motive" has to be listed under both of the young men's names, that it reflect a multitude of factors, or simply indicate that it was "multiple factors", because that is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmariea (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"No Easy Answers: The Truth Behind Deaths at Columbine" by Brooks Brown and Rob Merritt. " . . .we were targets. . . at lunch time the jocks would kick our chairs, or push us down onto the table from behind. They would knock our food trays onto the floor, trip us, or throw food as we were walking by. When we sat down, they would pelt us with candy from another table. In the hallways, they would push kids against the lockers and call them names while their friends stood by and laughed at the show. In gym class, they would beat kids up in the locker room because the teachers weren't around." (pg. 50, 2nd paragraph)

I'm sorry, but that quote, whoever said it (it sounds like they were interviewed after the shooting, which is of course absurd), made it up. Dylan and Eric were not bullied, and were in fact bullies themselves. They called others "fags" and were not "loners". The "Trenchcoat Mafia" never existed. Every single one of those rumors about them was a made-up explanation that had zero basis in reality. Eric simply wanted to kill everyone indiscriminately. There were no "targets".

Worse, it's dangerous to assume this "profile" that being "goth loners who get picked on" are ready to be school shooters. That is obviously not the case. Eric wanted to kill, and that was all. The rest that was blamed, from Marilyn Manson to "goth" and "bullying", was all made-up.Rocketpop (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have cited everything that needed it, and as such, the disputed tag has been removed. Beerest355 Talk 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there was still a disputed tag up until a little while ago. I removed it because the section in question is supported by citations of eight different sources. If you have another reliable sources that counters any of the information in the article, feel free to cite it, as per WP:V and WP:IRS. But we're not going to dismiss information in the article merely on your say-so. See WP:NOR. Besides, what is your reasoning behind the idea that a person cannot be bullied because they called someone a "fag"? Bullies are perfectly capable of using politically incorrect language, or of harboring bigoted beliefs themselves. To say that they can't is a non sequitur.

Moreover, additional information that came to light in more recent years has indicated that while they were bullied, they were not outcasts, and that the primary motivating factor for the massacre was that Eric Harris was a sociopath. This is covered in the article body and in summarized in the Lead. It also makes clear that the initial association that they were believed to harbor with the Trenchcoat Mafia was later shown to be wrong. So the article already says what you've stated here. Maybe you should try reading the article, instead of focusing only on one section?

Also, banners go inside sections, not above them.

As for the passages needing citations, there were still plenty of unsourced paragraphs, so I tagged those now. Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Journals

I'm skeptical about the journal entries from a questionable source and copied across a handful of blogs. Is there any evidence these are the real entries instead of fictional writings? --Humorideas (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I found replacements for two of the Columbine Site citations that were in the article. I removed two others (one because the passage it supported was already supported by three other reliable sources, and in the case of the other, I removed the details it supported because subsequent details of the type in the same paragraph were supported by another source).

In the meantime, I started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding A Columbine Site. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Error in number of persons killed??

In the very first intro paragraph of the article, it says "The pair killed 40 people and injured 24 others..." but goes on to say that 13 were killed. This appears to be an error? I'm not knowledgeable about this subject and don't wish to make the correction myself in case I'm mistaken. Thank you. Glassrainbows (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Glassrainbows February 10, 2013

I myself noted that the article indicated that they injured 24 additional people, while the article on the shooting said 21.

They killed 13 people, and injured 4 more. This is found in multiple reliable sources, and has been fixed in the articles, with accompanying citations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2013

90.215.52.168 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. You haven't said what you want done. --Stfg (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)