Talk:2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Murder-Suicide???

This is not known yet, so I took it out. Starsfan32 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Also posted on your talk page) -- Per the referenced article from BBC News: "A 14-year-old student has shot himself dead after going on a shooting spree at his school in the US city of Cleveland, Ohio, the city's mayor has said." That is the source. Reverted your edits on these grounds. If you can source that this is still being determined by authorities, replace my source with that and reinstate your edits to -0- fatalities, non-suicide. Thanks! - Ageekgal 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Also posted on your talk page) -- Well, agreed, that the shooter killed himself, but nobody else has died. I think it's a shooting-suicide (although there's not a page for this on Wikipedia) rather than a murder-suicide. Starsfan32 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is killing oneself after committing an attempted (but unsuccessful) murder considered murder-suicide? I've never heard of the term "shooting-suicide" (with the hyphen) before. --Ixfd64 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I. I just made it up. Can't find the right term for it, but it's not really "murder-suicide" in exact terms. Starsfan32 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for working with me. Starsfan32 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I nuked the murder-suicide tag. I didn't realize at first that's what you were referring to; I thought you'd taken issue with the Fatalities count in the infobox. My bad. - Ageekgal 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the better classification be attempted murder-suicide? Or would that only have been if he had failed at the suicide aswell? --TwilightDuality (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion (This is not the page to vote on)

If you're voting in the second-round AfD, you should post over here, not in this talk page. == - Ageekgal 20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read the Articles for Deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Successtech_Academy_High_shooting - Ageekgal 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That was surprisingly painless. I'll copy here what I said elsewhere about why we should refrain from having another AfD, at least right away:

For one thing, in my not inconsiderable experience, nominations of articles about recent events in the spotlight have a very strong tendency to end up as massive trainwrecks from which no consensus can emerge. For another, this is not a pressing issue. If the event turns out to be eminently unsuitable in the article, it'll be deleted before too long once the situation has settled down (without the fuss, too). For a third, I had a look at the section WP:NOT#NEWS, and while it lays down some restrictions on making articles on recent events, it doesn't prohibit them, and my interpretation is that the page does not prohibit the SuccessTech shooting article. From what I can see, the same opinion is widely shared. Those are my arguments, and if you don't like them, I've got others and we can discuss them in more detail. Thanks. --Kizor 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would support deletion if the debate was reopened. This sad incident seems merely news and otherwise non-notable. However, I support User:Kizor's views that a second deletion debate can wait a few days, it isn't a pressing issue and it will be more clear then whether this incident is in fact merely news or is an appropriate article topic.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this is bullshit. Why don't you make an article about every bomb explosion in Iraq? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.235.79 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For one, MIL OPSEC. - Ageekgal 15:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot. This isn't an attack in a war. It's a school shooting. Now, since no one but the retard behind the shooting died, it may not be as significant as other shootings. Still, speedy deletion seems inappropriate. 142.68.197.58 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, reading comprehension check. (And check your attitude at the door next time.) I was answering the previous poster as to one reason every carbomb/explosion in Iraq isn't landing on Wikipedia as individual articles. Further, I have voted in the AfD and in all cases have voted Keep. - Ageekgal 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody was proposing speedy deletion--Golden Wattle ^talk 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. --CoastTOcoast533 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged

I don't see an "alleged" in there anywhere. We're declaring without any autopsy or physical evidence provided by reliable sources, that he was the shooter. Corvus cornix 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, do we have to engage in make believe doubt about this? I don't think anyone at this point can provide any reason to warrant questioning whether or not the dead individual was the shooter. C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.143.144 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2007

As per User:Corvus cornix, I think newspaper reports can only allege the facts at this stage until there have been more formal findings - inquests often come up with things which were not initially reported and can transform "the facts".--Golden Wattle ^talk 05:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we're back to identifying the alleged shooter, even though there has been no official police report. Corvus cornix 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WE Don't allege anything. We state what the cited sources say. We say they allege he was the shooter, or we say they say he is the shooter. We don't reinterpret things to give them a comfy soft edge. We are an encyclopedia, our job is easy, we just simply state what the sources say. The sources say he was the shooter, so that's that. If it becomes a controversy later, we'll include that too. Jerry 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that sources cannot be reliable if we know they don't have good facts to go on - they are merely journalists - thus stating what the sources say possibly needs to be qulified by includign that it is the sources that are saying it rather than presenting it as a fact when it cannot be so at this stage before an enquiry (eg an inquest) has established what the facts are - up to that point it is extremely likely that the media are reporting speculation which may or may not be well-founded. However, citing the media is all we have at this stage - yes we have to be careful not to reinterpret but we also have to be careful to use the sources appropriately with knowledge of their potential bias and limitations.--Golden Wattle ^talk 07:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ages of Victims

I just recently made edits to a couple ages given, as the source cited differed from what was already listed (and unsourced here). However, subsequent sources seem to put the ages as having been correct to begin with. So, if anyone can corroborate and source the ages, do so and feel free to edit my age edits. Here's one source that differs from the one I referred to when making the age edits--http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5701910 - Ageekgal 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article says Peek is 14 and Rodgers 17. Corvus cornix 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Knee Injury

I'm not sure why the knee injury mention appears to be contentious. She is one of the injured, and depending on the severity of the knee injury (severed/torn ACL?) she may need surgery. Reports said she'd been trampled trying to leave the school... she didn't fall in the parking lot that morning and twist her ankle, and get lumped into the casualty list--her injury is directly related to the shootings. At any rate, if others want it gone, I won't fight it, but I wanted to log my dissent here. I am not a neutral source on judging if said knee injury is non-notable, since I myself have undergone ACL reconstruction and the extensive rehab required after said surgery. So, I recognize 'knee injury' may seem more notable/serious an injury to me than it may to others. - Ageekgal 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Added it back, with more details. She didn't just "hurt her knee", she fell, injured her knee, hit her head and was knocked unconscious. Should satisfy all reasonable person tests for "Was she injured?" - Ageekgal 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looney

Was his mother's maiden name really 'Looney'???Ticklemygrits 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and her married name was Toons. Get it? Looney Toons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.249.119 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Details

Apparently, the first student, Peek, punched Koon in the face because Koon bumped into him while leaving the bathroom. I felt this was important, as he apparently did it unprovoked - he didn't know Koon had guns, he just punched him for bumping into him.

Second, the fight being about the existance of God is according to other students; how reliable this is is a bit questionable, so we should say who said it. I don't doubt it, but I think we should make sure to say who says what, as these are not necessarily the most reliable of witnesses. Titanium Dragon 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Asa Coon

What happened to the blurred photo of the perpetrator? Where can we find an unblurred picture of the perpetrator? The guy is dead, does the whole protection for minors really apply anymore?Joe 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a blurry photo. I don't think it was blurred intentionally to obscure the shooter. As for what happened to it, it was lifted from a copyrighted source and no fair use rationale was given, so it was deleted. - Ageekgal 04:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:62.31.60.61|62.31.60.61 Edit: please post new comments with the "+" tab

I'm going to state the obv, these assholes who take part in school shootings would get the death penalty anyway. 62.31.60.61 18:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people like you are the "assholes" who provoke young adolescents into these kind of violent situations. So maybe placement of the blame should be reconsidered carefully. ^_^Anthonzi 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this person listed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_atheists ??

uh, duh. "Fuck god"

Quotation bubble

This isn't a glossy popular magazine. I've removed the quotation bubble, it looks melodramatic and serves no function that couldn't be served encyclopedically, in prose. 212.202.199.190 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

k Cyanidethistles (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)