Jump to content

Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

See also

Supplementary text

To be merged - from Dunblane (Scotland) Massacre The Dunblane Massacre was a spree killing that occurred on Wednesday, the 13th of March 1996 in a primary school in the town of Dunblane, Scotland (near Stirling). Thomas Hamilton, a local 43-year-old man, entered the school not long after the school day began, with four guns, and is alleged to have begun firing his weapons in the playground. He then forced his way past two of the 25 staff as he walked along a passageway, past the dining room, and into the gym, where 45-year-old Gwen Mayor was teaching a class of five- and six-year old children.

In three minutes he shot dead 16 small children and Mrs. Mayor, killing or injuring all but one of a class of 29 children. Fifteen children and Mrs Mayor died at the scene; another child died in hospital. Three of the children who survived the initial shooting were put on the critical list when taken to hospital. Only one child in the gym escaped unhurt. Hamilton then turned his guns on himself.

Information is from the Guardian, Thursday 14th March 1996.

I added the name of the teacher who died, but I wasn't able to find name names of any of the children. I can't deny that I have qualms about listing their names, but we do a similar thing for the victims of the 9/11 attack and those pages are, I think, both moving and appropriate. Note that those pages don't redact the names of the children envolved. I believe I recall the names and photographs of the deceased children appearing in TV and print media immediately after the massacre, so they should be in a media archive somewhere. It's noteworthy also that this Wikipedia page is the second hit for "dunblane massacre" on google (the first being far from memorial in nature). -- Finlay McWalter 00:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think this has the list. Evercat 00:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I added the names of the deceased (from the Cullen report) but not those injured (which is apparently what we do for 9/11). -- Finlay McWalter 01:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I added the two direct links from "Dublane Massacre" to the Report and the Transcript of the 1996 Cullen Inquiry into the massacre. Norman Richard Bassett

The former of these additions duplicated exactly a preexisting link. I removed the duplicate and clarified the description of the remaining link. The latter is a most valuable addition - thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:11, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the first two paragraphs need to be reworked. The second paragraph feels almost like a different version of the first paragraph, rather than coninuing the article. It does add extra information, but it also repeats some things we've already been told. They also contradict each other on one point - how old were the children 4-5 or 5-6?

Was this a spree killing, or a mass murder? Having read the definitions on wikipedia, I'm not sure myself.

Why is the teacher called "Gwen Hodson or Mayor"? If Hodson is her unmarried name it could be left out, or included as (nee Hodson) I would have thought.

Is there a site with the revised lyrics of Knockin On Heaven's Door that we could link to? Jan 10th 04, fabiform.

Andrew Murray

I can't believe Andrew Murray was actually in this, I knew he was from Dunblane, but I didn't know that. I added some more about him since his profile has recently raised, feel free to edit it if you feel it isn't appropriate.

Well, he wasn't in the class in question, but apparently was in another classroom in the (rather small) school building. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He hid in the headteacher's office, which, from experience, is about fifty meters from the gym where it took place. No classrooms are near the headteacher's office. --RevenDS 17:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Andy Murray Paragraph is inaccurate. The Cullen enquiry mentions the headmaster's office and makes no reports of any students hiding there. Andy Murray was in Primary 3 at the time and would have been nowhere near the Headmaster's office at the time of the incident. The report only mentions one student who was not in the Primary 1 class who was on an errrand, this person was in Primar 7. It does not report said student going to Headmaster's office. The paragraph also glamourises the incident by connecting celebrities to it, which I think we will all agree is not acceptable. Please do not reinsert Andy Murray Paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.19.146 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 August 2006
The Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Record, Daily Telegraph, Irish Tribune, Scotsman and Murray himself (in his Random House book) all report that he was in the small school at the time of the massacre. I understood that Wikipedia printed reported facts. What's the gripe? Murray says it mentally affected him. It's clearly of academic and encyclopaedic interest? Is there a new Wikipedia rule that famous people present at events should not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.28.204 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read the other two section on Murray below. Him simply being in the general vicinity is not notable in itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper Online Talkboard Libel

I've added a reference to George Robertson's action against the Sunday Herald. Anecdota


Cullen Inquiry

Changed info to conform with actual Cullen Report. Alex Swanson 10:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem: The link to "Cullen Inquiry" goes to a disambig page regarding three things for which Lord Cullen has done a report. The disambiguation for this particular Cullen Inquiry links back to this very page. So if the "Cullen Inquiry" link were disambiguated, then it would be a circular link. I'm not really sure how to handle this.

Probably "Cullen Inquiry" in the text should not be a link, and then in the "Related" section, there should be a link to "Other Cullen Inquiries"?

In any case, I don't know what to do so I'm leaving it. --Jaysweet 19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Could you possibly change the main image of this section? I am a relative of one of the children killed and to even say the killers name makes you angry, let alone look at his face. Please can it be removed and replaced by a picture of the Dunblane Cathedral/Snowdrops etc?

Its a very horrific event to read about and must be extremely painful to relive the events through wikipedia pages. As with all horrific events, the terrible actions of others become part of documented history and the lives and deaths of the innocent are forever relived on its pages. Unfortunately, the families of the innocent are burdened with reliving those tragic moments as history is documented. The images on these pages are not used to exploit the innocent or guilt, only to document that history. If we did not document violence acts in history with text and images, we would never know the horrors we face in life. Just as we saw the faces of other evil beings, such as Hitler and ted bundy, we will see the faces of other future evil beings as history continues to be generated by our existence and our existence continues to be documented on wikipedia pages. Again, its unfortunate that you must relive the event on these pages but history does not spare the innocent but the innocent are held close to our hearts as we relive the events. Rest assured, when seeing the images we protect the innocent and hold them tight and we scowl and grit our teeth at the hateful. I'm going to revert the changes as they are part of history and haven't been discussed completely on the talk pages. I will continue to hold your family members close to my heart when reading the article and I will also hold anger, and unfortunately hate as I look at the image of the person who stole a valuable part of your life.I already forgot 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Man, that must be rough. But I do think the picture is appropriate to the article, unfortunately. It might make sense to add a picture of the Dunblane Cathedral, if you can find one that meets copyright restrictions... --Jaysweet 15:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I am sorry for your tragic loss. The picture may be appropiate, however perhaps it could be further down the page, this may be a acceptable compromise to both points of view? LEave your thoughts.


Moved the hamilton photo and placed an image of scotland. Added the Andy section back with a more NPOV flavor, notes, references and other minor edits.I already forgot 09:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Andy Murray paragraph is a lot more accurate and does not glamourise the incident anymore, the map of Scotland is also a more relevant main image.

I just need to mention, I think this was a great compromise. The map of Scotland is actually quite helpful, and I think this change really improved the article, without censoring relevant information (i.e. the killer's photograph). --Jaysweet 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Being the original person that posted this request, I'd like to thank you for not have him as the main image. I understand that his image should be used for more information, i just didnt like that it was the main one. Thank you to whom every went to the bother of changing it. Thank you 13/3/96 ~ always remember~

Political Impact

I'd reordered this section, as the previous version seemed to be chronologically out of sequence in order to make a political point, i.e. "blaming" Labour for "a UK-wide ban on handguns" and the conceding that most of it had been done by the previous Conservative government already. I've also removed the comment about the level of gun crime, as it was too simplistic and also misleading. Nick Cooper 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Conspiracy Theory

Is it possible that Tony Blair ordered this? Most Brits consider him a war criminal due to his involvement in Iraq.

You think Leaders of the Opposition can do that sort of thing with impunity, or are you just making a very poor-taste "joke"? Nick Cooper 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking logically

If you think logically, Blair may have ordered it in an attempt to discredit John Major who was defeated in the 1997 election. I am not making any sick jokes, it is just a logical thought.

No, it's wild speculation bordering on fantasy. How would "ordering" the death of a classroom full of kids have "discredited" John Major? It's not as if Michael Ryan/Hungerford brought down the incumbant government. Nick Cooper 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeah right enough, these weren't the actions of a deranged pyscopath but of a politician wanting more power. Whatever way you look at it the Tories would have been out that year, after 4 terms the public had grown tiresome of them and wanted someone fresh, Tony Blair. It is not a logical thought that the leader of the opposition party, who has no real power, would order the excecution of 16 harmless people just so as he could get in to power. If this was true Britain today would be like a dicatorship today!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.19.146 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 April 2007

Evidence on my theory

As per article on Thomas Hamilton:

"Thomas Hamilton (allegedly) shot himself four times with his revolver, once in his stomach, once in his chest, once in the side of his head, and once through his mouth."

It would be very close to impossible for a human being to shoot his/herself four times before dying, as the shot to the stomach would incapaticate and eventually kill him via internal bleeding, making it impossible to fire the other three shots that are claimed to have been fired. Also suicides very rarely fire more than once - do you remember the contoroversy re: George Reeves's murder (offically classed as a suicide)????

Unattributed speculation. Try and come up with reputable sources that claim Hamilton died in this manner. Nick Cooper 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You cant, the evidence was destoyed and the witness who seen 4 bullet wounds was not called to the cullen inquiry and the police officers were threatened with the loss of their pension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Theory Busted

This theory is withdrawn and I hereby apologize for wasting time. I did not mean to offend anyone.

List of deceased and injured in the Dunblane massacre.

In addition to notifying the author who reverted my removal of the list, here's some reading for the others who'd want to restore itit. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL --Nyp 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you actually read the page you yourself cite more carefully. It states:
"While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:... Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."
This is clearly referring to an article that is only a memorial and nothing else. The two lists of victims are entirely valid in the context of the page about the event as a whole, and have been in place for 3½ years without anyone reaching the same "understanding" of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL as yourself. I am therefore putting the list back in. 11:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So tell me what makes them "valid in the context of the page about the event as a whole". It's just a list of uninteresting names without related articles or descriptions. You assume the list of /injured/ to be encyclopedic content? Give me a break. --Nyp 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, forgive me if I point out that British editors are in a better position to judge what is valid in an article about a British subject than those who aren't. You disinterest is your own affair that you should keep to yourself and not assume it is shared by anyone else. Nick Cooper 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Any /objective/ argument? That you are British in fact makes you less suitable to the role of judging the relevance of a list of British people. --Nyp 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's balanced by me being English, rather than Scottish. I am curious, though, as to why you have decided to exercise your twisted reading of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL here, rather than at, say, Columbine High School massacre, Osaka school massacre, Red Lake High School massacre, Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis, Amish school shooting, etc. Clearly you're going to be very busy if you have the courage of your own convictions. Nick Cooper 12:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't read those articles yet, as my user page states I am not very active on enWiki. If we could compromise, I'd suggest to at least remove the list of injured and put the list of casualties in a box such as in the Columbine article, where it doesn't break the whole article in two parts. I may have misinterpreted the guidelines, but Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis still does look like a violation of it. Regardless, my above suggestion stays, not for the sake of the argument but of the article. --Nyp 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the list of the who were injured in the massacre should be removed; it is common wikipedia practice to list only those who died and not those who were injured; see 9/11. As the children are currently only 15/16 they are still classed as minors and thus their identities should be protected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.19.146 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 April 2007

On the contrary, Columbine High School massacre and Red Lake High School massacre both list injured, and the numbers involved are comparable. As to your second point, the children in question are in fact now 16/17. In addition, their names are in the public domain via the published official enquiry report. Finally, despite your bogus claim while removing the list, there has been no "general consesus... on discussion page that injured should be removed and only those killed should remain." There has been only a discussion between myself and one other editor. Nick Cooper 08:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference for its own articles. Also, I include myself in the discussion since you reverted my deletion of the survivors list - using your "spurious" line again - so add one more to the consensus for removing the list. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It was perfectly legitimate to refer to the articles I did (as opposed to 82.40.19.146's wildly non-comparable suggestion of 9/11) in response to the claim by 82.40.19.146 that "it is common wikipedia practice to list only those who died and not those who were injured." What was "spurious" in the case of your edit was your claim that "[the injured list] can't be verified" when it most definitely can be via the public enquiry report that was already referenced against the deceased section. Nick Cooper 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be in favour of removing the list of survivors. Maybe this is better handled by a third party - RfC perhaps. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would support the bringing in of a third party to resolve this issue. In defence of my action, however, I feel that after reading the previous discussion on this matter that the general feeling was that this list was inappropiate at the current time and thus should be removed. Regardless of whether the children are 15/16 or 16/17 they are still under 18 and thus there identities should be protected, as much as is possible. I have started a RfC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.19.146 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - List of surviving injured

This dispute is about whether or not the section currently entitled "List of surviving injured" should remain.

Comments

I feel that the list of the who were injured in the massacre should be removed; it is common wikipedia practice to list only those who died and not those who were injured; see 9/11. As the children are currently only 15/16 they are still classed as minors and thus their identities should be protected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.19.146 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 April 2007

On the contrary, Columbine High School massacre and Red Lake High School massacre both list injured, and the numbers involved are comparable. As to your second point, the children in question are in fact now 16/17. In addition, their names are in the public domain via the published official enquiry report. Finally, despite your bogus claim while removing the list, there has been no "general consesus... on discussion page that injured should be removed and only those killed should remain." There has been only a discussion between myself and one other editor. Nick Cooper 08:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference for its own articles. Also, I include myself in the discussion since you reverted my deletion of the survivors list - using your "spurious" line again - so add one more to the consensus for removing the list. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It was perfectly legitimate to refer to the articles I did (as opposed to 82.40.19.146's wildly non-comparable suggestion of 9/11) in response to the claim by 82.40.19.146 that "it is common wikipedia practice to list only those who died and not those who were injured." What was "spurious" in the case of your edit was your claim that "[the injured list] can't be verified" when it most definitely can be via the public enquiry report that was already referenced against the deceased section. Nick Cooper 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be in favour of removing the list of survivors. Maybe this is better handled by a third party - RfC perhaps. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would support the bringing in of a third party to resolve this issue. In defence of my action, however, I feel that after reading the previous discussion on this matter that the general feeling was that this list was inappropiate at the current time and thus should be removed. Regardless of whether the children are 15/16 or 16/17 they are still under 18 and thus there identities should be protected, as much as is possible. I have started a RfC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.19.146 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but where exactly do you get the idea that, "the general feeling was that this list was inappropiate at the current time and thus should be removed"? The first removal of the injured list by Dudesleeper was on the (incorrect) grounds that it could not be verified, after someone added Andy Murray to it. The most recent removals started because of Nyp's insistance that neither deceased nor injured lists should be included, as per a rather esoteric reading of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Nobody has raised the issue of the injured list being "inappropriate" due to the childrens' ages until you did so at 01:20 today. Dudesleeper has agreed with you, but two people in the space of less than 15 hours does not constitute "consensus" or "general feeling" in the way either of you have claimed. I would also again remind you that the list is taken directly from the official report of the public enquiry, it is not original research or some illicitly-compiled news story. Nick Cooper 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
We congratulate you on finding the official list of survivors (which should have been in place from the start). The crux of the matter, in my eyes, is that the article title is Dunblane massacre, not Dunblane massacre and its survivors. We're thankful to have the latter in the world, of course, but I don't see why their names should be in there. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also support the removal of this section from the article. At the moment I feel it is inappropiate to list these childrens' names. This is mainly for the same reasons as 82.40.... and Dudesleeper.ncma 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support removal of this list, not just on privacy grounds but because it has no encyclopaedic merit to it. Unless there has been some kind of study to find out the after-effects of surviving such a horrific massacre, then this is just a list of names. I also think privacy comes into it too, notwithstanding that the list was published in the official report of the inquiry. Sam Blacketer 11:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think it now appropiate to remove this list, the RfC has now been open 3 days and the consensus seems to be to remove the list of survivors' names; adding to the comments made on this RfC and comments made when the names of deceased were added that people will agree it should be removed. 82.40.19.146 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, but how about maintaining a link to the official report, e.g. by annotating the deceased list as being "From the official public enquiry report list of dead and injured"? Nick Cooper 11:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A link to the Cullen Inquiry is already give in the External Links section, if this is not sufficient then the page with the deceased of the report could be cited as a reference perhaps? 82.40.19.146 23:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cullen enquiry material unreleased?

Can there be a definative list of what reports and material have NOT been released to the public? What reports are still under the 100 year ruling? Has the full Cullen report been released to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redblossom (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 May 2007

From what I recall it is profiles of the children that were not released publicly.

Proposed merge

There's little in the Hamilton article that can't easily be covered in this one. One Night In Hackney303 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree as the Hamilton article currently stands, however I think that reflects a problem with that article - maybe it should be more detailed? TMac 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The basic problem is that there isn't that much more to say about Hamilton that doesn't belong on this page. It used to be more detailed, but was just duplicating what was here. Nick Cooper 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirected to this article. There really wasn't anything unique to merge, but the article history still exists. 64.126.24.11 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray - Redux

I see that this paragraph was a bone of contention before, but was reinstated in this edit, despite a previous in-page warning. Looking at the text as it stands, it seems to add absolutely nothing to the page, and is abysmally-sourced, as well. The cites are just to the "BBC" or newspapers - no specific articles or dates, or anything. I am therefore removing it until someone can come up with a credible reason for its inclusion. Nick Cooper 22:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources relating to him and the massacre: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3650524.stm http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=763&id=1077652004 is that what you were looking for? Surely it is significant that he was there at the time. Leaving all mention out seems strange. Jw6aa 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nick Cooper. The information on Andy Murray's part in the massacre is sketchy at best. The report makes no mention of any students hiding within the HMaster's office, and there is no other detailed, reliable sources on his involvment. Furthermore, this information is insignificant and does not add to the article in a meaningful way. 82.40.22.182 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Other TV shows edited due to Dunblane

Would it be apropriate to list other TV shows edited/not shown due to the Dunblaine massacre? Orville Eastland 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If sources linking the non-airing directly to the massacre are provided, then, yes, I don't see why not. - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

British School Security

I would have thought that there might have been a paragraph devoted to the security measures that were put in place throughout British schools after Dunblane. Most of the extra security was a direct result of Dunblane and so i think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.24.151 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 July 2007

What measures are you thinking of? This report suggests that there has been little national cohesion on this issue, with individual institutions taking their own decisions, presumably based on local circumstances. Nick Cooper 13:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
While security was stepped up a bit there was no real logic behind it, our primary got a top of the range... CCTV camera, yup a solitary one.GiollaUidir (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Alrokrrr

I have reverted all the edits made by Alrokrrr due to the introduction of multiple inappropriate non-British English dialect spelling and date formats. The change of List of those killed to "victims", since that would imply the wounded as well, even though they're not included. Nick Cooper 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Dudesleeper

I have undone the deletion made by DudeSleeper at 18:54, of my previous addition, as he correctly identifies I supplied no reference. I have undone the deletion & supplied the reference. --Gungho (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy Murray Ver 3.0

I see that the factoid about Andy Murray is back on the page again, despite previous discussions which came to the conlcusion that it was too minor to merit inclusion. Thoughts? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As Jw6aa mentions in the second section about him above, I don't see the merit in leaving the factoid out, especially when it's accompanied by a BBC reference. - Dudesleeper Talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but then there is also doubt as to the veracity of the reported detail. This claims Hamilton "killed Murray's teacher plus 16 of his classmates before turning the gun on himself. Murray, together with brother Jamie, one year older, hid in the headmaster's office under a desk." The problem there is that the children killed were five- and six-year-olds. It may referr to the teacher who was injured, but it's still garbled. As pointed out above, there is no reference in the Cullen Report to any children hiding in the headmaster's office, although it is a common "fact" applied to Murray. In contrast, this interview with Murray states: "Andy's class escaped by a matter of seconds but were hustled away to a room and locked in for two hours, singing hymns as they waited to be released." Nick Cooper (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just come to this page for the first time and to be quite honest I find the paragraph about Andy Murray to be totally out of place in the article. He is a "notable survivor"? Since he wasn't actually wounded in the incident, I personally would not class him as a "survivor". Also, he was not notable at the time, he only became notable after the incident. I think that leaving this in is crass and really brings down the tone of the article, and is disrespectful to the memory of the victims. thefunkygibsonT¤C 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thought it might be worth mentioning that Murray has now written about his experience in his autobiography. See here. He says that he knew Hamilton from attending the youth club that he ran, and his mother had given Hamilton lifts in her car. This article also mentions the the headmaster's office story, saying "Murray and his elder brother, Jamie, then 10, were on their way to the school gymnasium and survived by hiding under a desk in the headmaster's office." Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That he knew Hamilton isn't really a strong enough connection. As has been noted previously, the "under a desk in the headmaster's office" bit conflicts with other accounts. All we do know for sure is that Murray was in the school at the time, but then so were scores/hundreds of other children. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've now checked the book itself and Murray says he remembers meeting the headmaster on the way to the gym and being told to go to "another classroom– not my usual classroom." So it seems we can officially discount the "hiding under the headmaster's desk" story. Incidentally there's a passage where his mother Judy gives an account of the day in some detail, which might be of interest if we wanted to include details of the reaction of the parents. The book's called Hitting Back, ISBN 9781846051678. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions by 81.108.118.58

I have reverted the additions made today by the above editor. In the first instance, they added the following paragraph:

"The Government felt that only the citizens of mainland Britain should be affected by the ban and the residents of Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey continue to enjoy the sport. Since the ban on private ownership of handguns, crime involving firearms in the UK has risen at record levels."

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, and have separate legal and judicial systems. Northern Ireland, while part of the UK, also has a separate legal system, but firearms legislation there was and remains fundamentally different to the rest of the UK. The comment about rising gun crime is highly misleading, given that it was rising before Dunblane, let alone the handgun bans, and had been doing so since at least the late-1960s.

81.108.118.58's second addition was a large tranch of material about Hamilton's dealings with the police, that is clearly original research, since it theorises a version of events by reference to primary documents, rather than source/s which propound the theory in theirselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecrire has attempted to re-add the above unacceptable material. Any reinstatement will be regarded as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NIck - point taken - Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrire (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of injured

The infobox currently states that there were 13 people injured. However the Cullen report specifically records that 17 survivors of the attack were taken to hospital:

13 of them had sustained gunshot wounds, 4 being serious, 6 very serious and 3 minor. Of the remaining 4, 2 had sustained minor injuries and 2 were uninjured. Cullen Report, section 3.11

As there were 13 injuries involving gunshot wounds and two minor injuries shouldn't the tally be 15? Road Wizard (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

Nationalist67 (talk · contribs) has made some unexplained deletions and additions in relation to claims about George Robertson,[1] despite a claim on the user's talk page about being related to him and having personal knowledge of Thomas Hamilton.[2] As there is currently no explanation for the edits I am concerned that a conflict of interest may have occurred. I would ask the user to provide an explanation for the edits on this talk page so that other editors can be clear that no conflict of interest has taken place. Road Wizard (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

List of victims killed

I've reverted the deletion of this list, as the practice of inclusion is clearly established in Columbine High School massacre, Northern Illinois University shooting, Amish school shooting, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe policy on that has changed due to drift. I routinely remove such lists on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a memorial. To my mind it looks very unprofessional. --TS 16:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That policy states "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" (my emphasis), therefore your understanding of it is flawed. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sunday Express Dunblane controversy

I see that article has (probably rightly) been proposed for deletion, is it worth including the detail here? 62.25.109.197 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like scurrilous nonsense that the newspaper should be ashamed of. The survivors were five or six years old at the time, meaning that they are now 18 or 19 and therefore not under-age, but rather adults entitled to live their lives as they please. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Dunblane school massacre → Dunblane massacre — Move was done without discussion and the name "Dunblane massacre" is the one commonly used for this. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Moved. لennavecia 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Music section

I removed one from this list that was referenced with a Youtube link to a band which seemed to be non-notable, but that whole section could do with some editing and referencing. SixBellsChime (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Song not Mentioned

Children_song by Robert Miles was in the UK charts at the time of the Dunblane Massacre and I'm sure its extended stay near the top of the chart was related to this. Indeed it had dropped from 2 to 3 at the time of the tragic events, and rose to 2 again afterwards. Although it pre-empted the events, this haunting instrumental became a public symbol for the events.

I also recall that on Top of the Pops the BBC only referred to the song by the artist's name, not mentioning the word 'Children'. at the time I wondered if the BBC were deliberately holding it from the number 1 spot - perhaps because they did not like the idea of commercial benefit arising from a tragedy? This is a curious reflection of the public trauma at the time, but I can offer no referneces. Can anyone else?The Yowser (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

[[3]] - commentator mentions TOTP pulling song title.The Yowser (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Legally-Held?

In the cultural impact section it states "the Hungerford massacre also involved a legal gun owner killing with his legally-held guns", but the article doesn't seem to state whether Thomas Hamilton's guns were legally-held, can someone find a source to confirm/deny this? Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Its in the Cullen report, which is currently the first citation. Chapter 6 of the report lists the gun licences he was granted and when he bought the guns; specifically section 6.10 links the 4 guns he had at the school to the licences listed earlier in the chapter. Road Wizard (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Second largest?

I don't understand how this can be "the second largest school massacre after the Virginia Tech massacre in the USA in 2007" given the Beslan school hostage crisis. MikeyMoose (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Insinuation about Robertson

I'm removing an extract which subtly insinuates probably unintentionally leaves open a possible misinterpretation that the politician Robertson, married with three children, was believed to have had a sexual relationship with Hamilton. The George Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen article says that on a newspaper's website, "anonymous contributors claimed that Robertson had signed a recommendation for a gun licence for Thomas Hamilton in his capacity as Hamilton's MP. In fact, Robertson had never been the gunman's MP." The way it's dealt with in this article simply introduces unrelated suspicions without properly refuting any of them. (Using the word "unfounded" without giving any background does not properly refute an accusation.) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the extract I removed[4] mentions "unfounded speculation about the relationship between Hamilton and Robertson", but doesn't explain that the word "relationship" refers to a belief (later shown to be false) that Robertson had signed a recommendation for a gun licence for Hamilton. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to edit your initial comment about the relationship per WP:BLP. Nowhere was the relationship insinuated to be of the nature you describe, except in your comment above.
I have no problems with the text being removed from the article though as all we are saying is "Robertson was falsely accused of something by a newspaper, then later won a lawsuit against the paper and received an apology." The lawsuit would be worth retention in the Robertson article if adequately sourced but has little bearing here. Road Wizard (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's worth retaining in the Robertson article. My comment certainly did not insinuate that their relationship was sexual. I pointed out that the wording "unfounded speculation about [their] relationship" (with no explanation of what was meant) could leave readers wondering. "Relationship" has more than one meaning, and the sexual/romantic one is a very common one. I was left wondering was that what was meant when I first read the article, because of the word "relationship" the lack of any clarification, and the fact that Robertson sued for libel. (Let's face it: a newspaper that says "they knew each other quite well" is not going to face libel charges.) I then went to the article about Robertson, and read that "anonymous contributors claimed that Robertson had signed a recommendation for a gun licence for Thomas Hamilton in his capacity as Hamilton's MP. In fact, Robertson had never been the gunman's MP, and the claims were totally unfounded. Robertson successfully sued the newspaper."
The Robertson article does not leave the reader with any vague suspicions; the Dunblane article did leave open the possibility of suspicions. In fact, before I wrote the post above, I showed the article to a friend who had never heard of Hamilton or of Robertson, and he interpreted "relationship" as sexual. That means that at least two readers took that as a possible meaning.
As for editing my comments, I do not agree that the expression of a concern that the wording might insinuate something false is itself insinuating that thing. However, on rereading, I think I shouldn't have used "insinuates", as it might suggest that it was deliberate, which I never thought or intended to imply. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
"was believed to have had a sexual relationship with Hamilton.". Are you saying George Robertson had a gay affair with Thomas Hamilton ??? Or did someone edit your original comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.13.222 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
As with most conspiracy theories, it's slivers of truth wrapped around lies or misrepresentations. Robertson and Hamilton were not the close aquaintances some insist, and in fact it seems they had never met before Robertson withdrew his own son from one of Hamilton's clubs, concerned about its "quasi-militaristic nature." Robertson subsequently wrote to the local MP about the matter, and it seems this has been warped by the conpiracy theorists into the assertion that Robertson approved Hamilton's firearms licence application under the claim of being his MP. You couldn't make it up, but then some people do... Nick Cooper (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
SAGBNI travelled to Edinburgh to the National Archives and spent three days researching redacted documents regarding Dunblane. SAGBNI applied for documents and photographs through Freedom of Information, these were ALL denied. SAGBNI MIke Wells & Richard Malbon posing as investigative journalists visited Dunblane parents and drew a blank, none of the parents were prepared to speak to any Journalists (it was suggested that they had signed the official secrets act). Wells & Malbon visited Dunblane School and the Funeral Director who had Hamilton cremated. Again no one was prepared to talk to us. They were all very cagey and scared. SAGBNI have a tremendous amount of knowledge surrounding the tragic events of that day in March 1996.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.140.47 (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

Shouldn't the infobox image show a photo of Gwen Major's class rather than the killer? Hamilton's image could be put further down the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please please do. I find it offensive and sickening to see his face, but not the kids. Whom do we want to remember? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.220.7 (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The photograph makes the article look like it's been taken out of the tabloid press. It looks sensational if it is compared to the smaller photos of the killers in the Columbine Massacre page and the Virginia Tech page. I think the size of the photograph combined with the murderer's pose shows disrespect to the survivors of the killings and their families. I think the article would be enhanced if the photo was removed. I disagree with the previous comment that a photograph of the 'kids' should be shown. I shouldn't imagine any image is available of the children on Wikimedia Commons anyway. I'd like to remove the image of the killer. I ask for feedback here before deleting it. Angela MacLean (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Changes

I came across this article today and was a little shocked by how anti-gun control it's version of events was. I've corrected the lede and politics section, which had both been written in such a way to suggest that UK gun laws were changed due to an irrational public outcry (which isn't a fair summary of events) and phrases the findings of the Cullen Enquiry in such a way that it makes subsequent legislation counter to those recommendations (which is even more of a lie).

I've also added more specific references to the Cullen Enquiry, which is available online for anyone looking to make future changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snumbers (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

UK Subs song

There also is a song by the english punk band UK Subs on their 1997 album "Quintessentials" called "Dunblane". The refrain asks of the question: "After Dunblane how can you hold a gun? And say that you are innocent?". Shouldn't this be mentioned in the 'Musical tributes' section? 217.93.182.93 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Did it myself, if someone disagrees with the edit or needs refs, please discuss here, look at the U.K. Subs page or google. tak 217.93.182.93 (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pedophile mason?

Both Hamilton and the chief of police were brother Masons . There was speculation his association with masonry helped him not only procure his gun license , but also get a ruling overturned that restricted him from running boys clubs because he was a suspected paedophile . (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/question-on-masonic-links-left-dunblane-inquiry-chief-stunned-1-1099013 - http://www.tpuc.org/node/34 ) . When the massacre occured suspicions were rife about a cover-up invoving a paedophile ring setup by hamilton for the british elite . When it was reported that a 100yr secrecy order was placed upon some of the documents relating to the investigation that dealt with masonic links and hamiltons nonsery . Some parents found it hard to believe he was a mason because they thought that it would have come out during the investigation but it wasnt until years later that some of the documents were removed from a secrecy order that the masonic cover-up was proven . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.226.32 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

From your second source:
"Documents relating to the school massacre, released after a 100-year secrecy rule was lifted, show how police investigated claims of a Masonic conspiracy.
But they appear to give little support to lingering suspicions of a cover-up involving police, politicians and other senior public figures.
Fell free to come back when you have some actual evidence of your claims (that others have suggested them before isn't proof). Conspiracy nonsense sites like your second source don't count. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

better reference needed

Could someone familiar with the event please replace the reference in the Possible motives sub section? I don't doubt the information, but the current ref is a blog and does not pass WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Meters (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


A better reference for the first paragraph of the "Perpetrator" section should be found, it currently states "He reportedly had over thirty gay encounters with males under the age of twenty in the span of almost two years." However the listed reference "Cullen Report 1996, Chapter 4, paras. 12-15" which can be found HERE http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/scottish/dunblane/dunblane.htm does not mention anywhere in section 4 these "thirty gay encounters" so a better reference for this needs to be found. WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Duncancam (talk) 16:04, 15 Feb 2013 (GMT)

Why The D Notice?

Why was a D Notice used regarding police and politicians involvement in this incident? Twobells (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What's a D notice? Meters (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There are no such things any more, not since 1993. They are now called DA-Notices and are notices issued to major news organisations advising them of stories which ought not to be published because their publication may damage national security. See also DA Notice official website. According to this website, the previous practice of issuing notices covering specific stories has long since ceased. There is no reliable source which substantiates the claim that any DA Notice was issued in relation to Dunblane. If it was, it would be of no import, as DA Notices have no legal effect. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN

Crime Library

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

I am interested in improving this article with an aim of it reaching good article status and eventually to be featured (as is the aim of every Wikipedia article) if any knowledgeable or interested editors are willing to assist me. I am aware of the sensitive and controversial nature of the topic which is why I feel it is of great significance in terms of the value of the coverage of the event. Articles on similar events such as École Polytechnique massacre, Northern Illinois University shooting and Kauhajoki school shooting appear to be a good base in which to take a very basic template regarding the prose and structure of this article. Please do not hesitate to revert any of my edits if they are deemed controversial or inaccurate but I will be starting off with minor edits. Thanks, Cal Umbra 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

'There were no complaints to police regarding Hamilton's behaviour towards the young boys who attended the youth clubs he directed. Complaints had been made of his having taken photographs of semi-naked boys without parental consent.'

Are you sure this isn't meant to start with 'There were complaints...'? Even if not, the points need clarifying. Valetude (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Dunblane Unburied by Sandra Uttley

I have deleted the word 'alternative' from the description of this book. 'Alternative' is usually taken to mean a fictional 'What if?' version of events. The book in question is clearly a documentary record, putting forward a new theory. Valetude (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dunblane_massacre/Archive_1&oldid=1090556195"