Talk:Jokela school shooting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jokela school shooting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Youtube mirror

I have a mirror to one of his youtube profiles. I think some of you might want to check this out; http://retecool.com/uploads/mirrordir/Sturmgeist89.htm Ph33rspace 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn, it's down now. Sorry folks. Ph33rspace 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Back on line at time of writing, note the text is the same (at first glance) than a part (bottom) of his manifesto. YegLi 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Manifesto

The link with his manifesto is down now, bit i did copy of it before (finnish version). I dont know is it right to put it up again for wikipedia entry...? Pretty crazy manifesto if u ask me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBAlex (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked at the admin noticeboard, I have it in English too, as well as an "attack info" file and the video, plus some pics. Jackaranga 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also wikipedia doesn't allow the reproduction of copyrighted text, so I'm waiting to see what they say about this. Jackaranga 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the full 'media pack' he released prior to the shootings, with the video of him practicing with the gun in the woods, his manifesto and a few other small text files in both English and Finnish, and several pictures of him. I don't think it's necessary to include any of them (except for maybe the pictures but I'm not sure if we can use those or not legally) in the article though. Ennuified 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any answer from admin? Part of the manifesto certainly give insight into his teenage troubled mind and revolt (There is also another solution to the problem: stupid people as slaves and intelligent people as free.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YegLi (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am noting the Wikipedia entry for Unabomber does NOT have it's manifesto, only talks about it (Summary, Psychological Analysis, ...). YegLi 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does in fact have his entire manifesto, linked to a copy that resides in Wikisource - [[1]] - Ageekgal 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the gist of the manifesto is right at the bottom, the part about not wanting to live an unhappy and lonely life, the rest is just ego filler; he was too arrogant to just kill himself. Shame noone realised how troubled he was before it was too late. Anyway, I reckon his manifesto should be put up at wikisource, if its not allowed it'll be removed sure enough. --Hellahulla 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I added the picture of him from this video cited in the sources, feel free to make it smaller - [2] DBAlex 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't provide a fair-use rationale, it could be deleted when someone notices. Jackaranga 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I didn't know which rationale to use, Its a screen capture from a video, I felt Movie was the fairest rationale, if you beg to differ feel free to re-upload the file with a different licence 82.31.36.226 15:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC) EDIT: above comment was me DBAlex 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about the license tag, I'm talking about the Fair use rationale. Jackaranga 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ive filled in a template of the Fair-Use rationale, I am a new user, what information does the "Portion" and "replaceability" section want? Please check the template so far and tell me if its ok DBAlex 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should seriously consider removing the picture. If I was one of the victims' relatives, I think I would find it horrible and maybe also offensive. Just my opinion. --7swords 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Feelings of people involved with the case should NOT go ahead of showing facts (which Wikipedia is all about). -91.152.192.37 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So what IS the fact in that picture? It's NOT directly related to the incident. You don't know if the gun is the one he used in the shooting. It's just (as Ypps says) a terrible eye-catcher. And above all, you can't even recognize the guy too well. --7swords 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture itself is fact. It's an image showing the appearance of the killer and I think that's pretty relevant. Your original opinion was that the picture is offensive and should thus be deleted and I oppose that kind of thinking. However it's OK to change the picture if there is a better one available but bottom line is that a picture of the man should be included. -91.152.192.37 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removal because it contains a (psuedo)-ideological/political message that has not been proven to be relevant to the shooting (although the perpetrator would have us think so). In my opinion it puts the article's neutrality in doubt. It is also an eye-catcher because of the gun, which draws attention from the subject of the article. Ypps 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The (psuedo)-ideological/political message is relevant as mentioned in his manifesto, representative of his "way of thinking" (about humanity). I do agree that the gun is too much. YegLi 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It may turn out that you are right about the relevance of his manifesto. The problem that I see with the picture is that it can be interpreted by a reader to provide some kind of explanation to the shooting. But the truth is of course that there is no proper explanation available (at least not yet). Ypps 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a 'better' picture of Auvinen, but I'm not quite sure if it can be used. See here Essesense 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Main picture

I've replaced the picture of the perpetrator - let's not give this (alleged) monster any more publicity than we have to, please. 199.71.183.2 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to revert it. This is because if people look at the image of policies, they don't really get any sense, what is it about. Like, it would be just another police scene, and not going to be that interesting. The photo of the person is certainly the best picture we have up to this far. ~Iceshark7 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And publishing a picture of a guy with a gun gives us a better idea? Let's think about this from a real life point of view - do you really want to be the one giving someone like this publicity, just because of what they've done? Please find a better picture if you don't like the police one. 199.71.183.2 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like the picture. Only that I think it's not really going to tell about the subject, if there are "just" polices on the scene.

However, I like the arragnment now, having the picture of the killer in a lower left corner. And if we can find a free image of the Jokela School, then it's going to be the best picture in the info box. ~Iceshark7 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of images of the killer, without the weapon posing. [3], [4]. --Pudeo ⺮ 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, it is not right to use an image that had been supplied by the perpetrator for his own self-gratification, I prefer the image that is used now, those other images show the perpetrator in a pseudo-positive/normal view. We could allways edit the image to hide the gun, would this be censorship though? Your thoughts please everyone. --82.31.36.226 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [DBAlex - Not logged in]

I uploaded a photo that has gotten a lot of internet circulation. I welcome scrutiny of my fair-use rationale. As to using a portrait versus a screenshot to headline the article, I looked at Seung-Hui Cho before deciding. Until there's a free image of the school, a plain photo is the most neutral. The actions speak for themselves as being abnormal.--chaser - t 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

His pic#10 (media package) has the same shirt without the gun, best choice IMHO. #6 and 7 looks like school pics (but (c)?), 8 and 9 looks too "good boy". YegLi 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Too good boy'? We're not producing a press release or a modelling portfolio here; it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia! Is which picture is most 'appropriate' really the biggest issue here? Smurfmeister 12:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these are the best to use: http://zami.pp.fi/jokela/files/Natural%20Selector%206.png http://zami.pp.fi/jokela/files/Natural%20Selector%207.png http://zami.pp.fi/jokela/files/Natural%20Selector%208.png None of them have anything bad about them and nothing that could cause offence or upset to anyone I'm sure. --Hellahulla 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Front page ?

Should this page be placed to the front page, as top news? --Eis 14:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, I was shocked not to see it there in the first place. DBAlex 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's there now. I got no replies on WP:ITN/C, but I went ahead and added it myself. Prolog 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

His cached Youtube page is HERE: youtube profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueyjoo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Media package

Pekka-Eric Auvinen posted a media package into Rapidshare couple of hours before school shooting occurred. He updated his Youtube profile and IRC-Galleria profile today before massacre and added link to media package. One of the mirrors here: http://www.kimmo.org/jokela/puretut/ (for example Manifesto of Pekka-Eric Auvinen (DOC file)). --Z10x 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a link to the page just stating he released the media package, but no further changes should be made until they officially tell if he is the shooter or not. Synked 16:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, thankyou for the clarification --DBAlex 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The media package link up there now gave a 'corrupt ZIP file error'. Pulseczar 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Z. The links you've provided could give us a clear picture of what's behind his motives. If we could find out what factors motivated him, then it could be theoretically possible to eliminate chances of that happening again as committed by another person. Maybe I'm too optimistic...or acting pessimistic perhaps ? 88.105.85.109 (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube account information page

This piece of text is constantly kept added into the article and then removed. It is edit warring and some may have broken the WP:3RR rule. I've created the text under a new header and marked it as unsourced plus marked it's notability as disputed.

Is this really necessary for the article? In my opinion, the text itself is not notable, but more like a source for information about the plans of the killers. ~Iceshark7 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for the entire text to be quoted on this article as the text already mentions the jist of it. If someone wants to read the entire thing there are caches of the YouTube site and it's in the media package. Synked 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now requested a full protection to the article for 1 hour at WP:RPP because of the edit warring of this piece of text. So that the article won't get out of control - now it's almost impossible to edit the article because of the massive speed of editing, including minor vandalism which also seems to occur... ~Iceshark7 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated this section with the correct updated version, it seems someone decided to use the in-correct google cache version --DBAlex 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And know it got deleted AGAIN - please stop this stupid edit war --DBAlex 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The time of the attack in the article appears to be in error - 11:40 p.m. local time cannot be right as no one is at school at that time; must be 11:40 a.m.--81.101.253.108 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

Usually people kill themseleves after doing things like this? Is there any information on if he did the same? - .:. Jigsy .:. 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he shot himself in the head. He's in hospital, and will likely die. -Victor Chmara 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you he will die? 78.148.107.210 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to media and police he is braindead. --Z10x 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also in the news (e.g. here: [5] (Finnish News Agency bulletin) --MoRsE 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Although most people here don't know the Finnish language. I can't understand anything in that link.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just saw on Uutiset(Which is finnish news on swedish channels) that he is injured but they did not state if it was a head injury. Synked 16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MoRsE's link is in Swedish, not Finnish. --88.114.238.161 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am translating the Finnish News Agency bulletin for you:

"The perpetrator shot himself in the head

Seven students and one grownup woman were killed in the school massacre in Jokela, the Police says. The woman was the principal of the school.

The perpetrator shot himself in the head and is under intensive care at the Töölö Hospital. The man is in critical condition and is not expected to survive.

Five of the killed were boys, two were girls. More than ten wounded are at the hospital. (STT) STT" --MoRsE 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3 attackers?

At least one eyewithnes claims seeing 2 unknown gunmen with Auvinen. According to eyewithnes Auvinen held few students as hostages after police had arrived. Yle uutiset —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.10.111 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Police said nothing about other shooters, so it's probably just imagination and confusion. --88.112.23.15 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Every shooting made by a single shooter I remember has similar reportings, due to sound bouncing in buildings (inside and outside) witnesses pointing in different directions of where they heard the shots are coming from. YegLi 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title?

Maybe this article title should be "Jokela school massacre" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekeruusperi (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is, how the killer calls the scene as. In public, "shooting" might be a more appropriate for this scene, as it involved more shooting rather than a complete massacre. ~Iceshark7 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass murder

Should this be listed as mass murder? Although a terrible tragedy, I consider Hitler's actions a better exemplar of mass murder - this seems more like spree killing.--Vince | Talk 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point... It is often called as a "mass murder" because everyone is feeling so tragedic about it at the moment. I'd remove the statement. ~Iceshark7 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at our article on mass murder, it would appear that this qualifies.

"...the term "mass murder" refers to the killing of several people at the same time or not at the same time. Examples would include shooting several people in the course of a robbery..."

Columbine and Virginia Tech are also specifically mentioned. --Onorem♠Dil 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The shooter admired the Columbine massacre: video (in Finnish) (eyewitness / school mate video). Should this fact be added to the article? --Siipikarja ♫ 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone with an interest in Columbine et cetera, I should point out how much this resonates of it. The Columbine kids loved the hell out of KMFDM, which he set his video to, and the weird social darwinist underpinnings are basically identical. The columbine kids even failed to set off a propane bomb meant to kill a few hundred, in parallel of his failed arson. It'd be a serious omission not to point out the parallels, but I'm not the person to do it.

As a side note, it shouldn't be too long before KMFDM gets blamed and releases a "this is not our fault, and we think the kid was wrong" blurb like they did post-Columbine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.74.115 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I'll do it anyway, it's wikipedia, I probably know as much as the next person and if I write it badly I'm sure someone will edit my additions down to be less obnoxious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.74.115 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Added sloppily to "home-made movies", someone else may have to make it more comprehensive. Also, IIRC his quote: "Don't blame anyone else for my actions than myself. Don't blame my parents or my friends. I told nobody about my plans and I always kept them inside my mind only. Don't blame the movies I see, the music I hear, the games I play or the books I read. No, they had nothing to do with this." - here is almost identical to something one or the other of the Columbine kids is on record as having said on tape regarding Columbine. It might even be a quote, I'm not sure, I leave it to someone else to do the digging if so inclined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.74.115 (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Headmistress

I changed the word "headmaster" to "headmistress" as per victim's gender (see e.g. [6]). --Jopo 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

inspiration: hitler and stalin

source for this in iltasanomat, in Finnish: http://iltasanomat.fi/Uutiset/stadi/uutinen.asp?id=1452495 - Hän palvoi Stalinia ja kommunismia sekä oli kiinnostunut uusnatseista. translated: He worshipped Stalin and communism and was interested of neo nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santtus (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I canot read finish, but I hope they have good references. His manifesto point to the contrary. Under Collective Deindividualization: [...]This phenomenon has been familiar in all despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian, monarchist, communist, socialist, nazi, fascist and religious societies troughout history. and under Total War Against Humanity: We must rise against the enslaving, corrupted and totalitarian regimes and overthrow the tyrants, gangsters and the rule of idiocracy. YegLi 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

seems like the iltasanomat quote was some hearsay, whereas primary source tells the opposite. I'd still love to find some secondary source on this matter. Most of the news articles don't exhibit him as fancying the nazi/stalinistic ideas, so perhaps that is just editor's own POV. Santtus 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilta-Sanomat is not a reliable source. I'm not at all surprised by this BS. --213.216.199.22 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone verified the claim that he was a poster on a popular English-language imageboard before his attacks? If he posted a message there, it's quite possible that he frequented that site. The post in question features his image and a short threat mentioning the name of the school and is dated 06:56am est. I'm not sure if the timing lines up quite right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.233.90 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny how he would be a worshipper of communism and neo nazism when they are both idealogically opposite to one another. ArdClose 12:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Helsingin sanomat: Mies kertoi nettiteksteissään olevansa kiinnostunut historiasta ja filosofiasta. Koulun historiantunneilla häntä olivat tiettävästi kiinnostaneet etenkin ääriliikkeet sekä oikealta että vasemmalta laidalta. Koulussa hän menestyi tiettävästi hyvin.

Translated: The man wrote in the web to have been interested in history and philosophy. In the school history lessons, he presumably expressed interest in both left- and right-wing extreme movements. He apparently fared well in school. [7]. Translation is my own. Judging from other writings, he loathed the dictatorships, but judged that being enslaved was a fitting fate for the dumb masses. Perhaps he liked any movements that killed a lot of people and exhibited general hate for the mankind? 62.220.237.74 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Seems I forgot to log in; Santtus 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wish to do a web-search, he used numerous alias, here is a quote from is documents (media package): Perpetrator’s name: Pekka-Eric Auvinen (aka NaturalSelector89, Natural Selector, Sturmgeist89 and Sturmgeist). I also use pseydonym Eric von Auffoin internationally.[sic] IMHO perhaps this could wait until he gets his own page, last time I checked it was redirected to the shooting page. His manifesto (and perhaps web presence findings) certainly grants a page, again IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YegLi (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

His ideas don't seem to have accumulated wide enough interest to be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. This is of course just my humble interpretation. Santtus 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shooter picture

It is irresponsible editorial policy to post image of criminal in such a provocative fashion. Thought must be given to the possible social effects of that action. Haiduc 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is provocative about this and what social effects are you referring to? We have smiling yearbook photos headlining the Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold article and no free images of the school yet exist. About the only alternative headling picture is a map showing where Tuusula is in Finland.--chaser - t 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't think twice about posting a picture of Hitler in uniform giving a Nazi salute. It would express his life accurately. It might be offensive to many people, but the picture of the perp with the gun and the ridiculous tee shirt are indicative of his ethos and his insanity. What's the point of censoring it? An encyclopedia exists to present information, no matter how offensive, not to suppress it. That's a political agenda, maybe even a legitimate one, but would be wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.247.73 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The image Jokela-school-shooter.jpg has nothing to do with the shooting so I've removed it from the article. --Pixelface 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't think the shooter, posing a bit before the murders, has nothing to do with his shootings? --88.114.238.161 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the shooting. They're calling this guy the "YouTube killer" in the press [8] [9] and major media outlets have the exact same image.--chaser - t 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Auvinen posing in a YouTube video has nothing to do with the actual shooting. It's fine if people use YouTube as a soapbox, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Pixelface 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This image was nominated for deletion, and it was kept unanimously. Archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 November 7#Image:Jokela-school-shooter.jpg. Prolog 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The arguments to keep in the IFD seemed to focus mainly on YouTube and ignored two criteria for non-free content: No free equivalent and Significance. Does the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? I don't think it does. Personally I think the IFD was closed prematurely. And since the video is no longer available on YouTube, I have to wonder about the source of the image that User:DBAlex uploaded. --Pixelface 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can take it to DRV if you think the discussion was not closed appropriately. The image is significant for the reasons stated in the fair use rationale and by participants in the IFD. There is no free equivalent, because Auvinen is dead and his home videos are all copyrighted. The YouTube thing is not an issue for the reason I stated in the IFD. Prolog 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't find an image of his corpse? --Pixelface 05:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed his corpse would be much more appropriate!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply here Essesense 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Vice-deputy"

The term makes perfect sense: the backup ("vice") for a member of an organization ("deputy"), in this case the municipal city council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceKarma (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The number of injured sentence...

The incident resulted in deaths of nine people: six students (five male and one female), the school principal, the school nurse and the shooter himself.

The above sentence in the article makes it sound like the shooter was not a student. I think it should be changed somehow to be included with the students part, as in (seven students (including the shooter himself), ...Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps changing students to classmates would do it? 68.175.118.95 08:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "classmates" is much too colloquial (and too cheerful), and also indicates that they were, in fact, from the same class, and I don't think we know this for sure. I believe the correct term should be "pupils", as they were (as far as I understand) in compulsory education. If they were in "higher education" (university equivalent), the correct term would be "students". I changed the sentence to "The incident resulted in the deaths of nine people: five male pupils and one female pupil; the school principal; the school nurse; and the shooter himself, who was also one of the school's pupils". Not perfect, but a bit closer, I think. WikiCou 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That works.--Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Bias

"Auvinen built his own lifestance full of hate." This is very subjective, and doesn't take into account that many of us out here think what he was doing was trying to improve humanity. Take a look at [10] Conservationist2012 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, having read that diatribe at anus.com, that it has about as much value as things that usually come out of anuses. 69.228.26.62 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

69.228etc, That is really ignorant of you. Salamibears58 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another useful perspective that's not morally judgmental of the shooter. [11] Conservationist2012 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

About the date...

I added the info about this tragedy occurring 90 years after the October Revolution, and also added that it was "close to 9/11." However, the latter was removed... Why? Doesn't it sound like he might've done this purposely, noting the date, 7/11? --Xfa — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that says it. Speculative information like that needs a source.--chaser - t 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not sound anything like that. Why? Because 9/11 means September 11th (Middle endian date format, used in North America), and the date of this shooting was the 7th of November. WikiCou 19:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Date of YouTube bannings?

Can anyone help document the specific dates that the shooter was banned from using YouTube? I think he got banned twice, with the second one occurring in October. It would be helpful to look at those events and see if they relate to the purchase of the gun and the anger in the killer's videos. Some experts believe setting restrictions on computer use (even if appropriate) can trigger an outburst of rage... and school shootings. Also, anyone got a count on the number of youtube videos he made and in what period of time? I thought there were something like 60-70 of them but I may have been reading the (cached) youtube page wrong. ZookieByTheSea 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NaturalSelector89 was, according to himself, on YouTube from 3/15/2007 to 10/19/2007. ^{1 (YouTube mirror)}

NaturalSelector89 uploaded at least 142 videos before his account was closed. ^{2 (Google caches, will expire)}

Pekka-Eric Auvinen was given a permission for his gun on October 18. ^{3 (Finnish)}

Sturmgeist89 uploaded his final 89th video 2 hours before the massacre on November 6 (YouTube Time, UTC-8/-7) or November 7 (local time, UTC+2/+3). ^{4 (Google cache, will expire)}

On November 5, Sturmgeist89 had 33 subscribers who are automatically notified upon new video being uploaded. ^{5 (Google caches, will expire)}

--213.216.199.22 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing...142 videos and then 89 in the next account. Is there anyway we can confirm the October 19th date, other than the killer's own posting? YouTube must know such things. Also, how long does it take to get permission to purchase a gun in Finland? When did he apply? It seems odd that he would buy a gun and, the next day, get banned from YouTube -- unless he posted something involving the gun the day of the ban. Would like to know why he was banned. ZookieByTheSea 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Auvinen

The name Auvinen is not introduced until the last paragraph of the "timeline" section. It should be made explicit that he is the shooter somewhere earlier in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltySno (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 2

is it at all relevent that he was playing battlefield 2 before he shot up the school? I personally dont think it is. Its as relevent as saying what he had for his breakfast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.203.58 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to look over his profile. Pulseczar 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Auto-Translate?

Once again I suspect doomed automatic translation or insufficient command of the English language, impugning the quality of this wonderful Wiki. Cisum.ili.dilm 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. This is a wiki, after all. Prolog 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Four Shootings From Antidepressants

He mentions he hates antidepressants in his manifesto and there's been lots of speculation about what he was on, I've heard the Finnish news is carrying information about antidepressants but I don't speak Finnish. Anyone able to confirm/get sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.74.115 (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I uploaded this on the website, including three sources, but it was deleted, probably by right-wing conservatives. Like the Heath High School shooting, Columbine High School massacre, and Virginia Tech massacre, the perpetrator was on medication also, but this information has been sequentially deleted from this website, not mentioned in the media, and his video detailing this, the only one deleted from youtube.... for further information, check out this link: [12], for people who actually want to find out why this happened--Apmab1 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Columbine's article here already has a mention of antidepressants without assigning proven causation (because there is none), V tech has no reliable sources for antidepressants, just media hysteria to all appearances. I checked, believe me. I know my SSRIs and my shootings pretty well. Do you have any good, solid sources connecting THIS shooter to antidepressants? Or V tech, for that matter, I'd be interested in both. Post them here instead of into the article, if you really do think you're being unnecessary censored there. I don't think anyone censors talk pages. 69.29.74.115 08:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Auvinen WAS using SSRIs, and it was on youtube, will removed:

'Jokela gunman said he used antidepressants

Jokela gunman said he used antidepressants print this The Jokela gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen is very likely to have used anti-depressant drugs, which have been linked with school massacres in the United States. A message written by "Sturmgeist89", a pseudonym used by Auvinen, appeared on the Internet a short time ago stating that he took the mood-enhancers, although he hated them. In a video that he placed on YouTube, Sturmgeist89 displays packages of Cipralex, Zoloft, Luvox, and Prozac pills. The video "SSRI-One Pill A Day Makes You Happy" criticises medicalisation. The drugs in question are Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the perpetrators the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado in the USA, had said that they took pills in the same class of drugs. There is disagreement among experts as to whether or not the drugs can provoke destructive aggression.

In a message he put on an Internet chat room Pekka-Eric Auvinen suggests that he had started using anti-depressants during the past year. "StormSpirit", another pseudonym used by Auvinen, wrote on the Peliplaneetta.net website that he had suffered "from some degree of depression for about a year".

Sturmgeist89 told a Danish former female acquaintance that he felt frustrated and aggressive because of the drugs. On the other hand, in his English-language message he said that he had stopped taking the pills, at least temporarily. At Thursday's press conference police said that Auvinen's autopsy had not been completed, and that it was not yet known if he was under the influence of any medicines. The police are checking with Auvinen's parents and health care officials to see if he had been prescribed antidepressants. He also may have acquired them illegally or over the Internet. The National Agency for Medicines recommends against prescribing SSRIs for people under the age of 18, because of the self-destructive or hostile emotions that they have been known to provoke. ' http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Jokela+gunman+said+he+used+antidepressants/1135231686882 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.200.72 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flags flying at half-staff

On 8th November 2007, flags were flown at half-staff throughout the country by the order and recommendation of the Ministry of Interior. In the article, someone had made a commented question to inquire what flags were actually flown. To understand what the national half-staff flag flying actually means, you must have the background information on Finnish flag-flying customs: For state and municipal offices, the recommendation of the Ministry of Interor was an order, legally binding. For private institutions, it was a recommendation. However, most private building owners (e.g housing co-ops and industry) pay their care-taker companies to take care of flag-flying on all specified days. In a case like this, the janitors of such buildings take care of flying the flag according to the recommendation of the ministry. As a result, almost every flagstaff in any Finnish city was flying flag at half-staff yesterday. However, although majority of Finnish private homes have a flagstaff, many home-owners would skip flying the flag due to the fact that they must hoist the flag themselves.

The flag flown in this case is, naturally, the usual flag flown by the entity flying the flag. For private entities and municipalities, this entails the national flag. For state offices, it means the state flag, and for the military, the swallow-tailed state flag, aka war flag. --MPorciusCato 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Weapon NPOV

User:24.211.233.33 placed an NPOV tag on the weapon section but has not discussed here what in the section is not NPOV. Anyone have any ideas what is POV about the section. I do not see any POV issues with this section. Jons63 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the first ever school shooting in Finland

"This is the second time that a shooting spree has occurred at a Finnish school." The boy who shot his class mates back in 1989 had a list of three pupils, out of which he was able to kill two. Shouldn't it just say "This is the second time that a shooting has occurred at a Finnish school.", as I at least get the picture of a person going gun happy to wipe lots of people out by the word "spree" and not as it was a a sad incident with a disturbed boy who killed his bullies. I agree to that the Jokela incident was a spree with a person going out to whipe out as many as possible, but not the 1989 incident.

Spree Spree (spr[=e]), n. [Cf. Ir. spre a spark, animation, spirit, Gael. spraic. Cf. Sprack.]
A merry frolic; especially, a drinking frolic; a carousal.
Source: 1913 Webster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer Also according to Wikipedias own article "A spree killer, also known as a rampage killer, is someone who embarks on a murderous assault on his victims in a short time in multiple locations." It doesn't state what "multiple" locations is, two different rooms or two different buildings, but I don't see shooting two classmates in one classroom at a morning class would qualify.

Source: http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/haku.php?action=page&id=265051&search=koulu%20harvinaisia

The sentence beginning "Vuonna 1989 Raumanmeren yläasteella sattuneessa" translated:
"During the shooting incident back in 1989 at Raumanmeri senior compulsory school two people died when a 14-year old boy attending the school shot his fellow pupils with a handgun. The motive for the shooting is believed to be bullying"

Source: http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/oikea/id74359.html

"Suomessa 14-vuotias nuorukainen ampui kuolettavasti kahta oppilasta oppitunnin alussa Raumanmeren yläasteella Raumalla 25.1.1989. Molemmat kuolivat saammiinsa vammoihin myöhemmin sairaalassa. Tappolistalla oli myös kolmas poika, joka ehti heittäytyä lattialle. Neljäs poika yritti taltuttaa ampujan."

Translated: "In Finland a 14-year old youngster shot two pupils deadly at the beginning of a lesson at Raumanmeri senior compulsory school at Rauma in 1/25/1989. Both died at the hospital due to their injuries . On the killers list also a third boy appeared, but he did throw himself flat on the floor just in time. A fourth boy tried to disarm the shooter."

GraBBer

80.221.99.110 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it was not a spree but just a thought murder of two persons. Changed to school shooting. --Pudeo ⺮ 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Connection with Linkola?

Latest media reports indicate that the shooter had expressed admiration towards the works of the Finnish deep ecologist Pentti Linkola in at least one video - there is a substantial page related to Linkola in Wikipedia. Is there any reason this connection hasn't been included yet besides the language barrier?

Link to media story (in Finnish):

http://www.iltalehti.fi/jokelantragedia/200711096828132_jt.shtml

Link to related video on Iltalehti media portal:

http://www.iltalehti.fi/nettitv/?27937534 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannehukka (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses to the incident

Do we really need to record that various world leaders sent messages of condolence, saying they were "shocked and saddened"? I don't wish to seem cynical here, but every world leader does that for every tragedy in every country. Could we maybe note responses that went beyond messages of condolence? 199.71.183.2 15:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that.I really wonder if they really cared about it,as they've never cared about anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russka (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that listing the various parties sending their condolences is probably not encyclopedic, but we should list if the shooting results in other kinds of responses, such as security measures tightening in schools, stricter gun ownership laws or widespread campaigning against violent video games, all of which have been put on the table here over the last couple of days. --Agamemnon2 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The School

The Jokela school shooting occurred on November 7, 2007 at Jokela High School (Finnish: Jokelan koulukeskus, literally: Jokela School Centre), a public secondary school in the village of Jokela, Tuusula municipality, Finland.

Jokela School Centre (Jokelan koulukeskus) includes both lukio (high school, upper secondary school) and yläaste (classes 7-9, before high school). Hence the name. Although all the dead pupils were high school students, the two school levels might have had common premises so it might be better to write Jokela School Centre. --88.114.238.161 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Time limit

According to skynews.co.uk Auvinens shooting rampage lasted 40 minutes. Not only 10 minutes. They also said he had a younger brother aged 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

European media calls it a massacre not a shooting, shall we change header ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They like the word massacre so much..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russka (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In Finland one user did change it to massacre. Now it is back to its orginal header. --Peltimikko 10:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Massacre and Shooting could be reasonably ascertained, in this context, as the lethal consequences of a violent act suffered upon a group of individuals at one given time. Taken in that perspective, while the term Shooting would equate the methods used to commit such an act, the choice of that qualifier may suggest nevertheless a vague idea as to the extent of the degree of violence and damages sustained by the victims. I would therefore appropriately vote on the usage - in the present context - of the term Massacre in qualifying acts of the sort where helpless and unprotected victims are faced with an unequal and deadly force. just 19:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The usage of "massacre" or "shooting" should not really be based on that. It should be based on the most commonly used name for it, as per naming conventions. If indeed "Jokela school massacre" is more popular than "Jokela school shooting", it should be changed accordingly. However, a quick Google search gives 16,800 results for "Jokela school shooting" and 479 for "Jokela school massacre". The title should probably stay the same based on this. --Teggles 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here in Finland i can almost hear/read about a "shooting" every day but nothing of this magnitude has ever happened here before. 9 people dead is big in Europe. To name it a "shooting" is almost like downplaying it. Massacre is a stronger more powerful word. I know they call massacres for shootings in USA but this is little Finland. I would like to change the header to massacre. How do we vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shooting's more appropriate in my opinion. Essesense (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Finnish/Swedish/English please

Tuusula is Tusby in Swedish, what its called in English i dont know. In Finland Finnish and Swedish are the dominant languanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please use Suomi wikipedia on this tragedy if you only want Finnish names here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuusula is only a Finnish speaking municipality. Generally speaking, in Finland has also other offical languages, swedish and sami, but only in certain minority municipalities. Read more: Swedish-speaking Finns --Peltimikko 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, in English the Finnish names tend to be kept in Finnish, although pronounced a little differently. This is the English wikipedia so the spelling should be kept as Finnish as that's what most people outside of Scandinavia know. That said, in the comment below there is a lovely link to the wikipedia policy on naming for Finnish places, that should be followed. --Hellahulla 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok you win. However British reporters should at least know how to pronounce TUUSULA because its not TUSSSSSSULA! < Thats how they said it on Sky news. And God knows how many more places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd move to Tussula... JIP | Talk 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Finland. There is no point calling everything in two foreign languages in English Wikipedia foot text, especially when the municipality is unilingual. We use the majority name. Everyone can check Tuusula to see the Swedish-language name, which seems to be rather triviatic here. Of course inform the official names in articles about the municipalities itself, but foot text does not need this. --Pudeo ⺮ 20:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Weapon

From images in the shooter's "media pack" the weapon he used appears to be the version of the SIG Mosquito with the threaded barrel. Would this be worth mentioning? --Hellahulla 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning on YouTube already in June -> structure vs. chronology?

It may get a bit trickier to decide on the structure of the article, now that we know that already in June TheAmazingAtheist in his video Columbine Killers, Mental Midgets & Social Darwinism warned e.g. thus: "We're always talking about ... warning signs. "Could we have seen it coming?" ... If you wanna look for warning signs, there they are. Those are your f*ing warning signs. Investigate those f*ing people!" (The video is almost 13 min, those words are from 09:06 - 09:23 min).

Should the article be reconstructed into fully chronological order or not? I can't make up my mind one way or the other, so who has viewpoints and arguments on this? --Ronja 12:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source has mentioned that other YouTube video, we can cite them. Otherwise, it doesn't really belong in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Wiki's Virginia Tech massacre page is one such example of sound chronological structure and design. I would vote therefore on following a general template containing global item-title descriptors obviously tailored to match current contents reflecting the events unfolding. The subsequent format should facilitate comparative analysis between multiple WIKI docs (through browser tabs / windows). just 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no, we dont need some smartass saying: I told you so. If he is so smart why is he not working as a profiler for FBI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lame buffing. Don't need it in the article. Essesense (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The gunman's article

The gunman should have his own article. He killed 9 people, more than many other school shooters. I suggest we remove his section except the YouTube part ant put it into his own article. I tried it myself, but the idea was struck down by several other Wikipedia editors. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for opposing a separate article is located at Talk:Pekka-Eric Auvinen. Prolog 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"fascination with far Left/Right"

I suggest this part of the article be modified or even removed.

Auvinen's social Darwinism and fascination with both far right and far left ideologies are very similar to those of Columbine shooters

Auvinen was in no way fascinatedby far leftist thought. Certainly fascism. He believed in the concept of "Ubermensch", which inspired Hitler to carry out genocide of anyone he deemed as unfit. What does far-left mean in this article? Stalinism, anarchism, anarchist-communism? Maybe Stalinism, as he had admiration for both Hitler and Stalin, but Stalin could hardly be called a sincere leftist.

Where is the proof that the Columbine shooters idolized either ideology? That influence is minimal if nonexistant.

From the Wiki article on the pair:

Some people, such as Robyn Anderson, who knew the perpetrators initially stated that the pair were not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Adolf Hitler in any way (considering that the attack was on Hitler's birthday), as was speculated early on by the media. Anderson stated that in retrospect, there were many things the pair didn't tell friends.[13] In his journal, Eric mentions his admiration of Natural Selection and how he would like to kick it up a few notches. He writes how he would like to put everyone in a super Doom game and see to it that anyone who is weak dies and anyone who is strong lives. On the day of the massacre, Eric wore a white t-shirt with the words "NATURAL SELECTION" printed in black.

A personality profile of Eric Harris, based on journal entries and personal communication, suggests behavior patterns consistent with a "malignant narcissism...(with) pathological narcissism, antisocial features, paranoid traits, and unconstrained aggression."[18] The report notes that such a profile should not be construed as a direct psychodiagnostic evaluation based on face-to-face interviews, formal psychological testing, and collection of collateral information.
Block quote

No mention of leftist leaders or philosophers at all.

So in conclusion, please make the correct changes, somebody. The references to "far left" and "far right" are vague, irrelevant at best as both shooting perpetrators were basically narcissistic, anti-human, social darwinists and neither fall into either the "far left" or "far right". Well, maybe "far right".--76.203.75.227 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, you make the changes. You appear to have editing ability and proper English abilities. --Teggles 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, if the problem was only that one sentence. I could not find anything else suspicious re: far left/right - the teacher's statement a few paragraphs prior is verifiable, so I left it as it was. --Ronja 09:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ronja, the testimony by the professor is fine where it is, just this sentence without sources or context could have lead to this being seen as definitive proof that he was motivated by the these politics.--76.203.75.227 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally added the far left/far right bit, along with the paragraph it appeared in. This was because of the teacher's quote, and the repeated instances of "revolution" appearing in his ramble and going-out speech, which had a distinctly anarchist or Marxist tone. However, it might be noteworthy that even the Nazi party were considered "left" at the more radical and socialist points of their history- left/right politics are ill-defined to begin with, and when concerning ideologies that are not in power nearly impossible to quantify properly. So, I guess I'm in favor of the sentence being stripped. I may put in a replacement that's more accurate, focusing more on the social Darwinism/eugenics similarity or simply an interest in "radicalism".

As for the Columbine kids, having read one essay by one of them on Nazism and several police reports regarding their personal effects having both swastikas and the odd hammer and sickle on them, I think the fascination with both ideologies is established (please don't make me dig up citations, it's not that important anyway). This doesn't make them (or him) politically motivated, IMO they were probably just fascinated with it for the violent, disenchanted youth value genocidal dictators have. Auvinen's ideas reek of Nazism, but I can't recall overt references to it besides the teacher's quote, which could be wrong. His favorite books (Fahrenheit 415, 1984, Brave New World) echo the dictatorial theme, but that's still not solid enough to cite for comment. 69.29.74.115 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, further. Natural Born Killers, which appears on his favorite movies list, was also a favorite of the Columbine kiddos. The bit about evolving "one step further" than humanity in his manifesto is stolen from both Natural Born Killers and the Columbine kids. More parallels, but I don't think I'm up to writing them up, if someone else wants to they can. Honestly, however, I think there's at least a books'-worth of material on the mini-cult to mass murder that's sprung up for these kids since (and surrounding) Columbine. Cataloguing all of it is probably not an encyclopedia's function, simply allusion to the existing material about it is better. 69.29.74.115 10:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Auvinen was in no way fascinatedby far leftist thought. Certainly fascism. He believed in the concept of "Ubermensch", which inspired Hitler to carry out genocide of anyone he deemed as unfit. What does far-left mean in this article? Stalinism, anarchism, anarchist-communism? Maybe Stalinism, as he had admiration for both Hitler and Stalin, but Stalin could hardly be called a sincere leftist.
No? Stalin was an extreme left winger who killed more people than Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

family of environmentalists

according to the news the family was described as somwhat extreme environmentalists--Ezzex 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct. His mother is a member of a club started by an extremist who sees the world as over populated and that something needs to be done about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"extreme environmentalist mother" according to Finnish tabloid "news" that is. --213.216.199.22 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give links to the news articles? Much appreciated! --Pudeo ⺮ 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This makes no sense

"The gunman then began walking around the school, knocking and pounding on classroom doors, then firing through the doors. >>>>>He was selecting and shooting people at random.<<<<<<<<<<"

If he shot people at random he was NOT selecting. Those two dont go hand in hand. ^^^^Bob Lee Swagger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should "Warning already on YouTube in June" stay out?

I seem to have a difference of opinion with User:88.195.14.243 regarding relevant content for this article. Even though this is an anonymous IP, there might be just one editor or a stable group behind it - their contributions and commenting style seem to stay fairly consistent over time, at least lately.

This is my first experience of a section deletion that I do not agree with, so please advice, if what I write below contains faulty understanding of WP:LOP#Behavioral or WP:EP#Preserve information.

I put the following section in (though it was quickly developped by others into something a whole lot better than my original text), and User:88.195.14.243 deleted it:

According to Wired, one YouTube user, TheAmazingAtheist, drew attention to Auvinen's videos on the site in June 2007. TheAmazingAtheist urged the police (although he never actually contacted them personally) to investigate Auvinen and some others, too, because they were in the habit of posting videos that glorified school shootings and the Oklahoma bombing. TheAmazingAtheist warned that these YouTube users "were showing warning signs of being more than simply infatuated or interested in violence."^[1]

The first deletion was without an edit comment, so I routinely reverted it, mostly per WP:NOTCENSORED. Then User:88.195.14.243 deleted the section again, with this edit comment: "Signs"? We dont need people who says "I told you so". I then let the section stay deleted and brought the issue here to be discussed, in hope of a consensus.

Here are the diffs:

As I am somewhat peeved about this right now, can someone who does not have a strong opinion about this section being in or out please leave a message on User talk:88.195.14.243? It feels like they are on-line now, but they should be alerted to that this is being discussed, anyway. And I am not in the right frame of mind to do that - sorry!

Thank you all for your time, friendly regards --Ronja 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard Finnish police really dont like those "I told you so" types. Should he not be working for FBI as a profiler if he is so smart? And an atheist in Christian Finland?! Try another day. Bob Lee Swagger 88.195.14.243 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting comments that are in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Relevance of content, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Preserve information and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias. Do you have any such comments? How a person or organization (here: allegedly the police in Finland) feels about a veriafiable fact (here: the video happened and Wired reported about it) is not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Furthermore, I truly hope you are not seriously advocating that we leave out all information about Finland where the original source is non-Christian. That would create a systemic source bias utterly in conflict with WP:NPOV. --Ronja 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord i could have made those predictions easily myself. How about my prediction? Thousands upon thousands of people will still die in Iraq. Im i wrong or right? Get my point? If im correct lets publish it to a bloodthirsty crowd and if im wrong lets forget about it. See how easy it is? Other religions are somewhat accepted in Finland atheists on the other hand are not so good. Some fatso that spews his f:ing this and f:ing that hate is not a good source. He should get a job with the FBI since he "knows things". Or perhaps sell his story to some trashy tabloid? Bob Lee Swagger 88.195.14.243 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheists not accepted in a widely secular country? I suspect it can be hard for some americans to understand the concept of a national, mostly symbolic church that you only visit for weddings and funerals, but you could at least try. (for example, consider the fact that over 80% of all Finns are members of the main lutheran church, but only around 40% of all Finns think there is a God.) 83.252.191.212 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue: is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports taking out a verifiable fact that is clearly connected to the topic of the article? This is not about whether you or anyone else likes this information, the person who originally presented it or the magazine/website that reported it. This is about whether the information is true, verifiable, and relevant to the article. We know it is fact and verifiable and I invited this discussion to get clarity about its relevance - re-read the text above, please. When the article develops it may well be that this piece of information becomes less relevant - or maybe more. We can not know which it will be, so we should follow WP:EP#Preserve information for the time being.

Read well the policy documents I have linked to above. Learn them and live by them, if you want to edit Wikipedia in the future. If you can not justify your recent actions with Wikipedia policy, you are vandalizing by intentionally biasing the sources of this article by deleting facts that are true, apparently only because they come from a primary source you don't like. The IP number you use has been warned about vandalism at least four times this autumn and blocked twice, before you started to edit this article. With this article you have repeatedly introduced unreferenced claims, never justified your edits with an edit summary except if the edit was reverted and twice deleted the same verifiable fact because the primary source appears unsympathetic in you personal taste. Since you started to edit this article you have been asked to behave differently four times, by various editors of this article. If you continue this behavior I have no choise but to ask that the IP you use is blocked. I will post this warning on the IP's talk page, User talk:88.195.14.243, as well. regards --Ronja 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"With this article you have repeatedly introduced unreferenced claims," Really? Say where because I can back up everything i said/added to the article. "Nice" touch to make threats too... And your question. Coin flip statements are not considered trustworthy, especially from nihilistic atheists. Bob Lee Swagger 88.195.14.243 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this couldn't be mentioned. However, it is not really notable enough to have its own section, and "Warning already on YouTube in June" is a bit unencyclopedic heading, so this information should be merged to some other section. Prolog 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "prediction" of the youtube user "The Amazing Atheist" is highly controversial seeing the nature of his "warning." First off as it even says in the Wired article The Amazing Atheist did not actually contact the police or authorities. Second off if you've actually watched The Amazing Atheist videos that deal with Pekka-Eric Auvinen you may have noticed that The Amazing Atheist seems more interested in "winning a discussion" and "setting things straight" then actually helping Pekka-Eric or preventing any kind of catastrophe to erupt (the videos in question are filled with insults and sneers at Pekka-Eric) In reality the dispute between The Amazing Atheist and Pekka-Eric was the result of some bickering between them in the comments of videos after which The Amazing Atheist decided to target Pekka-Eric through his videoblogs. The bad blood between The Amazing Atheist and Pekka-Eric rules out any chances of the "prediction" being a neutral observation or even one that had good will. The videoblog titled "I knew this would happen" posted by The Amazing Atheist has been severely criticized by other members of the youtube community including by those directly involved in the dispute between The Amazing Atheist and Pekka-Eric. The comments for this video have even been disabled by The Amazing Atheist though there were (and are) still people who posted negative comments in The Amazing Atheist's personal profile on youtube.

In short: the news reports regarding the "prediction" are based on a hype instigated by The Amazing Atheist himself. And the majority of those who support the idea that the "prediction" was correct are fans of The Amazing Atheist's youtube videos. My advice for wikipedia: let it cool down first and don't contribute to any hypes, see if any other media pays attention to this first (which I doubt in the case of serious media btw) Or if wikipedia does decide to mention the "prediction" then for the sake of neutrality they should also mention that there was bad blood between Pekka-Eric and The Amazing Atheist and maybe devote some lines to their dispute. But this would still bring up the question of relevance in relation to the actual school shootings which the page is about, it's not a page about Pekka-Eric or his past. For those interested: the beginning of their argument can be seen in the four months old comments of this video:

http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=AtYXYFNRXW8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DAtYXYFNRXW8

I'm just trying to contribute to this discussion, I hope this is helpful. UltimateEnd 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Prolog for a good point (with which I agree) and UltimateEnd for constructive opinions and lots of new info (I had watched TheAmazingAtheist's video, but knew nothing of its context). Maybe we keep the text here on the talk page for now - if needed, we can always put it back in, as a part of, say, some kind of analysis of the media coverage and public discussion in connection to this incident. --Ronja 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

References

^ Ryan Singel. "YouTuber Warned of Finnish Gunman in June, But No One Listened". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 2007-11-10.

YouTube ban as the trigger?

What seems remarkably relevant to me is that YouTube banned the shooter and removed his 100+ video posts within a day or so of his obtaining a gun. Two questions follow: "Which happened first, the ban or the gun purchase?" and, if the gun purchase followed the ban, "Is there a waiting period or did the permit process allow him to obtain the gun shortly after he applied for it?"

We have data from the shooter, himself, placing the dates within one day of each other. Better would be an official record from YouTube telling us exactly when they banned him and, then, match that to the gun purchase. Also, why did they ban him, at that particular moment? What did he post that triggered the ban?

All this is compelling but probably still too much in the realm of conjecture to place in the encyclopedia just yet. However, it suggests that the YouTube ban triggered a release of rage, much as Harris and Klebold became enraged upon being restricted from their computers. It is worth more investigation. Surely we can figure out the exact day he was banned from YouTube... (See Talk entry above where the killer notes the day [accurately?] -- "Date of YouTube banning")

ZookieByTheSea 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source for any of this information, it's original research and speculation and doesn't belong in the article. I really don't know the exact time when the videos were removed, but the article should not contain any speculation by editors. YouTube removed his videos for being a terms of use violation. --Pixelface (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting angle, thank you ZookieByTheSea for pointing it out. I think it warrants its own header on this talk page (I should have been clear about that, sorry), which I am adding now. We need to follow this: but as you say, it may take time before there is anything solid enough to put into the article. --Ronja 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that YouTube incident was probably not a trigger, at least not verifiably. The process of getting a gun permit in Finland is two-phased: first you apply for a gun acquiring licence (takes ca two weeks), then you buy a gun with this licence, and then you go to the police to show your gun. They check whether it meets the criteria set out in the licence and issue you a gun possession licence, which may have a fixed or indefinite term. Auvinen had at first applied for a licence to acquire a 9mm pistol, but that application was denied, as the gun was unsuitably efficient for a beginner. He had to settle for a .22 caliber pistol, for which he was granted a licence. The media reports about the licence type do not specify whether Auvinen was granted an acquistion or a possession licence on 19th October. --MPorciusCato 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not verifiable yet. May not ever become verifiable - it depends a lot on what evidence the police find and what kind of analyses are published later on. --Ronja 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Retarded speculations. Stick to facts morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finland? The third gun richest country in the world??

Only after USA and Yemen?? Is this really true? Some politican called it BS and said we only have 1,6 million guns + 300,000 unlicensed ones. So whats the truth really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page. --213.216.199.22 20:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are on the wrong page.

88.105.78.200 (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, as that page is a total mess that needs to be re-written 50%. And since this is about guns and a massacre its not off topic. So Finland is the 4th GUN RICHEST country in the world only after Usa, Yemen, Switzerland, ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page.

Shin-chan01 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Movies and writings

I think the article should use the term "video" or even "video clip" when referring to his YouTube contributions. This is after all the term most native English speakers would use when speaking about such material. The wording "movie entitled "Jokela High School Massacre - 11/7/2007"" gives the impression that it was a full length film distributed through regular distribution channels. The word "movie" implies a production with cast and crew. WikiCou (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and changed. Prolog (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Vs Massacre

Shouldn't this really be called a massacre to be consistent with other articles? The Westroads Mall massacre had basically the same amount of fatalities (including the perpetrator) as the Jokela school massacre (called a shooting here), yet one has "Massacre" and the other has "Shooting"? The same for the Columbine school massacre and so on. I'd suggest that for the sake of consistency, the main title be "Jokela School Massacre". Gyper (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Auvinen announced this event in his Youtube films as being a 'massacre'. I think people do not want to give him more credit than necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRBlom (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] Ryan Singel. "YouTuber Warned of Finnish Gunman in June, But No One Listened". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 2007-11-10.

[1]