Jump to content

Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.175.42.254 (talk) at 10:20, 11 June 2010 (→Marilyn Manson/Misleading use of quote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

It's quoted word for word from http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%27%27Joe+Stair%2C+one+of+the+original++members+of+the+Trench+Coat+Mafia%2C+said+the+%E2%80%9CTrench+Coat+Mafia%E2%80%9C+was+organized+because+a+Gay+Jewish+kid+was+picked+on+by+Jocks&btnG=Search&meta= (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Trenchcoat Mafia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh dear, the argument has devolved into criticising grammar and politesse! I will 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 say, therefore I used they in its singular form which in English is the gender neutral pronoun (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They), and therefore 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, but perhaps you can understand my frustration. I really do not see what the problem is here, and you seem oblivious to reason, which makes me wonder why. I don't think that fact that Manson was talking about the community indermines the argument that Klebold and Harris should have had more support (although I disagree with this argument).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1] Vranak (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold&oldid=367396280"