Jump to content

Talk:Hungerford massacre/Archive 1

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

Hungerford Report

Chief Constable Colin Smith's Hungerford Report is an important related public document but I could find only find it at one location online. I have transcribed that document to the Wiki.

The above article has vanished. Updated links in attempt to compensate.

It was probably a copyvio. UK government publishing is not automatically public domain like US govt. Rich Farmbrough 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Ryan 'biography' page

Shouldn't the page on Michael Robert Ryan be merged with this articel page? Ryan wasn't notable for any other reason AFAIK quercus robur 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the links over. Seems to me that Michael Robert Ryan should re-direct to Hungerford massacre. TheMadBaron 20:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Ryan's article should not duplicate this on - i.e. link here, but disagree that it should redirect here --Gedge67 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Work in progress

I nominated this for the UKCOTW but I don't have much time anymore to work on it myself. The work I did start doing can be found at User:Joolz/workshop4 (the new stuff is mostly under the 'shootings' section - and the refs obviously) -- Joolz 21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick glance suggests these have been worked in now. --bodnotbod 06:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it South View or Southview? Both are listed. ComaDivine 04:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

Map? Anybody? No? Rich Farmbrough 19:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

BBC

This article shows how poor ours is. We need to cover the siege, the shooting of mother and dog etc.. More background info would be good. Rich Farmbrough

Notes

Ryan burned 3 houses other than his own. [1]. But when in the timeline did this occur?

Answer: the damage all occurred as part of the same conflagration.

A contemporaneous Guardian report has Ryan down as an "antiques dealer" [2].

"In the course of some fifteen minutes from the time he had left his home, Ryan had killed fourteen people and fatally wounded another, plus Susan Godfrey earlier in the woods." [3]

--bodnotbod 21:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

From Google Print

Just dumping some info here I can't work in, it's the only page that mentions Ryan in this book and is merely in the notestowards the back. But of interest is reference to contempraneous Guardian article describing Ryan as wearing a headband as in the popular Rambo parallel, plus description of Ryan as a mummy's boy:

Title Soldier Heroes - British Adventure, Empire and the Imaging of Masculinity Author(s) Graham Dawson Publisher Routledge (UK) Publication Date Jan 1, 1994 Subject Literature / Classics / Criticism Format Paperback Pages 335-336 (Notes section at rear of book) ISBN 0415088828

The Guardian, 21 August, 1987, p1 ' "Mummy's Boy" Who Kept Armoury in Garden Shed ': 'The Rambo figure that burst on to the small market town's streets wearing a headband and paramilitary gear and with guns blazing from each hand may have been the man Ryan saw in his fantasies, but there was nothing aggressive or heroic about him in reality." For analyses of Ryan in terms of war fantasies and imagined masculinties, see R. Coward, 'The Killing Games', The Guardian, 1 sept 1987; J. Rutherford, Men's Silences: Preidcaments in Masculinity, Routledge, 1992 pp.173-94.

Title Sex and Violence: Issues in Representation and Experience Publisher Routledge (UK) Publication Date Jan 1, 1994 Subject Sociology Page 164 ISBN 0415057345

"Ryan, who modelled himself on the character of Rambo, was thoroughly scrutinized for effeminate tendencies; commentators dwelt on his lack of a girlfriend, and his unhealthy relationship with his mother."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodnotbod (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Lone-wolf terrorism"

Should this claim be included in the introduction? There has been virtually no suggestion that Ryan was politically-motivated in any way. Nick Cooper 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Firearms Act (Amendment) of 1988?

Wasnt the Firearms Act passed in October 1997?--Peanut33Tillman 19:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been various Firearms Acts in the past, and the 1988 was an amendment (hence it appears in the name) to the existing Firearms Act, 1968. The 1997 Act was a similar amendement. Nick Cooper 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan and "violent films"

The First Blood/Rambo angle has been pretty much debunked, but the article still claims: "It was true however that Ryan owned violent films." This runs contrary to certain (later and more measured) reporting that Ryan didn't actually own a VCR, while the reference quoted can't be verified online. Nick Cooper 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add that First Blood doesn't actually have that many deaths in it (literally one or two), and they were carried out in self-defence by someone being chased into the woods by his torturers. That's where the name of the film comes from, in fact: he's being chased by the police who had just needlessly beaten him while in custody (he was arrested for being homeless), they attack him and he screams "you drew first blood!" The awful Rambo sequels are full of mindless violence, but First Blood itself isn't, in fact it's quite explicitly anti-violence at every level: anti-war, anti-police brutality and anti-vigilanteism. The fact that a film with such a mature attitude was itself blamed for causing violence highlights the problem of scapegoating films, it shows that quite often this is done by people who didn't see the film in question or didn't understand it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Forum member - reliable?

I've got a quote here from a forum I frequent from a poster that claimed to know Ryan. Thing is, could it be added as an unconfirmed source? I can post the quote here in discuss if needed. 80.195.249.202 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Unless it is from an attributal source than it is not encyclopedic, and let's face it, internet forums are in no way reliable sources.

For instance, I grew up a few miles from Hugerford and there has always been "information from reliable sources" that Ryan did not commit suicide but infact was "taken out" by the SAS. Unless atributal from a confirmed source, this should not be even entered onto this article as it is only hearsay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.204.159 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion regarding early phone calls

I note from the reference in the official report at reference 1 (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Hungerford.html) that "The first notification to the Police of RYAN's activities came from a '999' call at 12.40pm to Newbury Police Station reporting the shooting incident at the Golden Arrow Service Station. This was confirmed by a telephone call from Swindon Police five minutes later.". Now, I was under the impression that the first 999 call made from a private house in Froxfield had gone to the Wiltshire force, which is why the Marlborough police responded. Because of the geography, I would be surprised if the 999 call from Mrs Dean at the petrol station would not also have gone to Wiltshire. If the calls had gone to Newbury, and Newbury had informed Wiltshire due to the location of the reported offence, then why would Swindon have called them back 5 minutes later with no more information to go on than the call from Newbury? Gyp 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Article's coverage of the number of deaths?

Ryan allegedly killed sixteen people (I believe this, the "allegedly" is just for precision) but by my reading this article describes the fatal shooting of only eight victims - nine if you include Ryan himself. The same issue applies to the number of wounded. I'm not after a gruesome depiction of everything that happened, but I think an article such as this should at least set out the victims. If the surviving victims or the relatives of the deceased object to their details or even just their names being published, that's fair enough - but for completeness the article should probably say something along the lines of "Ryan shot and killed Smith, Jones, Allthorpe and three other people here, then went to the commons and shot ten more, killing six and wounding the other four". Anyway, just my thoughts for improvement. --Ossipewsk 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

Should you wish to (and I don't want to judge if it is appropriate or not, the article at http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/michael_ryan/index.html seems to spell them out. I have to say that I'm not a fan of the crime-fiction style. Perhaps rather than reproduce the information (I don't know if they are facts of not), it might just be worth an external link Gyp 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AK-47 or M1 at Deans Garage?

Interested to see the reference to the Chief Constable's report that identifies the gun used at Deans Garage as being an M1. A witness statement given to the police suggested that the gun was an AK-47 based on the distinctive curved shape of the magazine (the M1 typically having a shorter, straight magazine). The report states that the gun used was "subsequently identified as an M1", but does not say how. Gyp 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably ballistics evidence from the recovered bullets and/or cartridges, which are quite different between the two. Incidentally, the 30-round magazine for the M2 is curved, and will fit an M1. Compare the photos here. Nick Cooper 08:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with this is that it's a "presumably". The report attributed to the Chief Constable doesn't indicate the source; there is an assertion that it was the M1, but no identification of what evidence led to this. I am aware of the content of the witness statement, and this is at varience to the Chief Constable's report, but neither of them can be considered authoritative as they don't reference a definitive source.Gyp 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Here are my comments post-GA review:

  • Fair use rationale required for Image:Michaelryan190.jpg.
  • Place citations according to WP:CITE.
  • Heading "Brief biography of Michael Ryan" probably just needs to be called "Michael Ryan".
  • "reportedly bullied and sullen at school." - reported by whom please.
  • "A Guardian headline described Ryan as a 'mummy's boy'". - again, citation required.
  • "The tabloid press can be an unreliable source and under English law one cannot libel the dead." - this appears to be original research, and a citation would be useful for not libelling the dead.
  • "Ryan had killed his mother who would, perhaps, have been able to shed most light on his private life." - original research again.
  • "He was also said to be a fan of the Rambo film First Blood in which the press erroneously claimed events similar to the Hungerford massacre take place." - who said it? Citation required.
  • For first time and date of shootings section, have 12.30pm (rather than "in the afternoon") and wikilink a complete date, i.e. with year as well.
  • Why are two victims wikilinked, especially as they don't have articles? Are they more significant than the others?
  • "...probably because he inadvertently hit the release mechanism." - original research unless cited.
  • Merge paras in Shootings section to two or three paras max.
  • "(reports differ, one or two) " - citation needed.
  • "possibly because it would not start." - original research.
  • "Mrs. Jackson contacted George White, a colleague of her husband, who contacted her husband Ivor Jackson, who were both later shot, leaving White dead and Jackson injured. " - confusing, how did she contact them? Where were they? How did they both get shot?
  • Is the wikilink to Linda Chapman the right Linda Chapman?
  • "Ryan moved along Fairview Road, killing Abdur Khan, who was in his back garden, and injuring Alan Lepetit who was walking along the road. An ambulance which had just arrived in the road was next shot at, injuring Hazel Haslett before it drove off." - citation needed. Was Hazel Haslett driving the ambulance?
  • "ensconced" - why? and why wikilinked?
  • Police response section needs to be written as prose.
  • "'Our business is truly global, with no geographical limitations... with the sole exception of countries under United Nations embargo" - missing quotation mark at the end?
  • Cultural references section needs to be written into better prose rather than a group of single-sentence paragraphs and needs additional citation.

Overall due to the seemingly large amount of original research and lack of corresponding citations, I have to fail the article at the moment. Please work on it and let me know if you'd like a re-review in the future. The Rambling Man 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelryan190.jpg

Image:Michaelryan190.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Motive or reasoning why he did it?

I know there are points in the article about possible effects of violent movies etc but were there any theories what triggered him to do this? Just feel that this article could use a section on that - even the lack of any theory is worthy to put in. djambalawa (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, glaring omission. It's certainly in the class of common grounds that psycho/socio-paths go on murder spree's but there surely is some documentation of the particulars in this case. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 212.137.36.229
Apart from press speculation no motive was established for the massacre, as Ryan and his mother were both killed and no one else knew him well. The Newbury Weekly News had interviewed Ryan regarding some local story about farm work (which is why they had his photograph, subsequently used by the national press). In the history of the paper it was stated that there was a complete blank as to motive, no domestic arguements and no problems with the police or neighbours, etc... I can check this if I can locate the book in the Newbury Library. Philipjelley (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There was no motive because he was severely mentally ill.Ordessa (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sentence Removed

I have removed this sentence as it does not appear, in any form, in the reference. <ref name="Grice"/>

"The bullets Ryan used were so powerful that they travelled through the body of the car, shattering the back window."

I was hoping it was a quote as it seemed rather POV. Disappointed that it was not in there at all, from my POV that this is an Encyclopaedia, not a place for an editor to apparently wp:soapbox! --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 10:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

"Attack type: Mass murder, spree shooting, murder-suicide, massacre"

Is it strictly necessary to glorify this saddo by using three terms which mean exactly the same thing?

The reason I say "glorify" is because someone obviously decided that "Attack type: mass murder (followed by suicide)" didn't sound sensational enough. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The only potential redundancy is between mass murder and massacre. A spree shooting can be a type of mass murder, but one can also result in few or no fatalities, which by definition can be neither a mass murder or a massacre. Likewise a murder-suicide can involve as little as a single fatality, so again not mass murder/massacre. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hungerford massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Random shootings?

Do we actually know for a fact the shooting(s) were random? I mean the shooter never survived, so perhaps they could have been targeted.--Andanotherthink (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungerford massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungerford_massacre/Archive_1&oldid=1030815572"