Talk:2008 Northern Illinois University shooting

Premature and Insensitive

There isn't any confirmed information (beyond there being a shooting) at this moment (4:30 PM CST) and we are already putting up vague details? I would delete this whole article til we have more facts but eventually the details will sort themselves out I guess. Second, I think it's sick to race to put up in article in Wikipedia before the bodies are even cold during these kinds of tragedies. There isn't any pressing need to be there first nor is it critical to get what amounts to speculation on record as quickly as possible. The news medias have turned that into a fine art already and people can watch CNN for the very best in conjecture.

There is a total lack of respect and human decency in Wikipedia in relation to being the first to rumor monger during tragedy for the sake of a freakin' Wiki article and this "article" in particular really demonstrates that. == KeeperOTD (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete it? That would be unnecessary at this juncture. Jmlk17 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The 4Chan comment felt like a sickening plug. --Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.90.191 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there aren't any confirmed details and it's pretty cold blooded to be so...I don't even know what the term is, to be in such a hurry to throw this up before parents even know their kid might be dead. There should be restraint and respect before high fiving over the dead and an article with only a handful of facts. And I agree about the 4Chan comment. = KeeperOTD (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe the 4chan comment was a bit insensitive, but it should be noted (along with other recent school shootings and similar tragedies) that the internet response was incredibly fast - especially amongst forums and message boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.32.96 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shooter

I am not going to put this in yet, since I can't cite it on the internet, but he was killed by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and his name was George something. Missed the last name.--Kranar drogin (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Source is definitely needed. :) Jmlk17 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "George Something" will suffice. Toss it in! ;P Drcwright (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He was Something, but now he's Nothing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was on the the ABC news station local to me, but they were hushed up real quick. So, it might have been a victim.--Kranar drogin (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I herd on tv the guy name was Steve something. Had some wierd last name probalby some Russian guy. Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deaths

Whoever put that three are dead is wrong, they are only seriously injured, as the given source says. Read the source; get your facts straight. The only death thus far has been the gunman. M173627 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's five dead now, according to the chicago tribune. That includes four students plus the perpetrator. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, that is a true update. M173627 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They haven't given out his name yet, they are holding a News conference now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.203.111 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what updates will be given in due time. Oh, and for the guy that referred to the other Wikipedians as "retards" a few versions ago of this page, please be civil. Must we have an edit war over this current event? Cluebert 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific, everyone has some form of call name whether it be a username or IP Address. No one knows who that "guy" is because no one called anyone a "retard". Are you referring to me? M173627 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it 6 or 7?--72.93.80.5 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's 5-plus-1, so it's 6, according to CNN.com from like 45 minutes ago (the last time they say they updated it). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are now 7 dead: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i72zWlWRLvc1ejGI5WpefItEjKCAD8UQOQ0O0 96.230.97.116 Intreverend (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page title

Since this is apparently the only shooting to have occurred at NIU, shouldn't the "2008" be removed? --Zantolak (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Note The VT massacre article is entitled Virginia Tech massacre, with no year mentioned in the title. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove the "2008"? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent... had an edit conflict lol. Jmlk17 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

5 dead?

Is this including the patient that died (according to the Kishwaukee Community Hospital site)? ~Ambrosia- ^talk 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, four people died, plus the shooter, equaling five. Although I suspect that the shooter was not treated at the hospital, so they're not counting him. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune article says "NIU shooting leaves 6 dead", but I'll leave that edit to you on the basis that I'll probably do something wrong. The Hospital site has also said that one of the patients has died. ~Ambrosia- ^talk 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Just checked the article and you are right; it's up to 6 now. I guess things change quickly. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely 6 now. Jmlk17 05:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AP is reporting That the The DeKalb County coroner has corrected

himself, saying five people were killed, not six, in the Northern Illinois University shooting rampage.

AP-NY-02-15-08 1114EST

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQRPPG0&show_article=1&catnum=0

According to CNN, it's 6 dead including the shooter. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Massacre?

I removed this article from the List of massacres but my removal was immediately reverted. Can those who believe this article should be on that list please state their case? Thanks!

Unless additional information is forthcoming, I don't think this event is comparable to the other events on that list. Further, we've established some precedence and consensus by not placing the other "recent" school shootings on that list. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah! This is a very similar incident to the Virginia Tech massacre, so I think it is definitely appropriate. I did originally think about not including it, but the death toll on several of the other events is comparable. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The VT article is called a massacre, but it's not listed on the page. Neither is the Columbine massacre. ~Ambrosia- ^talk 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But VTech isn't on that list...? Nor do I think this event is terribly comparable excepting the obvious similarities (lone shooter on college campus).

I'm afraid that I don't see much merit in your argument. Can you please expand on it, not relying on a comparison to VTech? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering on the news conference they just had there were 22 injuries as a result of this incident. Whether or not it was all shooting related, they didn't say at the conference. A lot of "I don't know" or "we can't say at this time". It doesn't matter to me if its listed on that massacre page. There will be another news conference at 0900 central time.--Kranar drogin (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Virginia Tech massacre article is called a 'massacre' in its title, and there is a link to the list of massacres page in its 'see also' section. So the list itself is probably incomplete. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please offer a substantive response to the original question, preferably one not based solely on your opinion but based on verifiable sources? You've reverted two editors who removed the list from this article and I think you should give both of us a reasonable response. Thanks so much! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, my objection to this list is almost entirely based on it being a subjective and sensationalist characterization. If it become apparent, via verifiable sources, that this is widely regarded as a "massacre" then I'll be more than happy to concede the point. But Wikipedia editors deciding on their own to classify this event in a subjective manner is not appropriate or respectful. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted myself. After looking at the other "massacres" in that list, I don't think this really falls into that category. I originally just looked at the death toll, not the original description,... it's quite clear now that that particular link doesn't belong. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil discussion and honesty! I am sure that we will revisit this issue, probably many times, as this event continues to unfold, more news emerges, and emotions really begin to flow. We'll need all the help we can get to keep this article up-to-date, accurate, and respectful. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "massacre" is somewhat ambiguous to begin with. Dictionary definitions vary greatly on what constitutes a massacre. As there does not appear to be a concrete definition of the word, I think an article's inclusion is inherently subjective. Swamilive (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Same debate as with Virginia Tech. Bottom line: If the media start calling it a "massacre", then wikipedia can do so too. If not, then not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble swallowing this, on grounds that Wikipedia is just as much the media as any major news outlet. Swamilive (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that wikipedia does not originate information. In this case, if no valid source is calling this event an emotion-charged word like "massacre", then wikipedia isn't doing it either. This is the exact same debate as VT. Even today, articles were talking about the VT "massacre", but they weren't calling this a massacre, probably because (1) the body count was nowhere near as high; and (2) it was just one of several shooting news stories recently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)\

Sadly, wiki is more credible than FOX. Which is messed however you look at it. And 6 isn't considered a massacre.

-G

The Boston Massacre killed 5. The numbers don't necessarily matter. What matters is what's verifiable. We can't call it by the POV-pushing term "massacre" unless that term becomes conventionally used in the media, which it hasn't so far. It's a "shooting", obviously. That's a neutral term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion over the use of the word "massacre" on the VT site ended up waiting for the predominant news sources to begin using the title before they used it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be the leading news source, it should collect data from existing news sources and reflect them accurately. When (if) the nation begins calling this a massacre, it will be appropriate to use the word in this article. 71.244.30.121 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Apologies to all regarding my somewhat less than civil edit comments regarding the CBS 2 chicago citation. It's easy to get a bit carried away when things are happening so quickly. But I do want to make the point that we should be mindful of wikipedia's reliable source guidelines when citing information. The most reliable sources we can use are national media sites like MSNBC & CNN, and newspapers; a local television news site, like CBS 2, is going to be less reliable because their journalists are less experienced, pass stories over more quickly, and make more errors. That's why I said they "suck", which I meant in comparison to the big ones like CNN & MSNBC. Even the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper with a very long-standing editorial history and reputation, is more reliable than the junk that the local television reporters feed to us. I removed a reference to a small Florida TV station as well, for similar reasons. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, friend! We understand that this is an emotional topic. Happy editing! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh why can't all quarrels in the world be resolved nicely like this? M173627 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Why are news outlets such as CBS 2 Chicago unreliable? Does Wikipedia intend to generate a list of news sources that are "reliable" and those that are not? How reliable were the national media in reporting the 2000 election results? How reliable was Dan Rather's reporting on George Bush's National Guard documents? Incidentally, the national media relies heavily upon the local news outlets when reporting local news. It's not like they send Britt Hume out to get the scoop every time there is a regional news event. Dan Rather himself came to national prominence as a local reporter during the JFK assassination in Dallas. I would hate to see Wikipedians refusing to accept information from local news stations under a notion that they are incredible--after all, CBS 2 is a "CBS" news outlet. And CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, and every other national media site is going to pass along anything their local reporters say. Who do you think "confirms" these stories anyway? Confirmation comes from the reporters at the local affiliates.Intreverend (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who died

Could someone plz add to the disscusion page a list of the people who died so we can debate weather it belongs in the article. It does not matter if it gets reveted, I can just scan the edit sumeries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.34.215 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if that information has been released yet. Jmlk17 05:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Gun-free" zone?

Does anyone have any information on whether the university was a gun-free zone? Mookrit (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No weapons are allowed on campus. If there is a campus that does allow weapons I wouldn't want to be there.69.137.246.61 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an update on this. This shooting happened in another 'gun-free' zone, just like the Virginia Tech Massacre (and most other shootings). My source is the blog of John Lott, the guns expert. I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the article. We'll probably have to wait until the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies have had a chance to react. Mookrit (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The police carry guns, take your pro-gun fervor elsewhere.69.137.246.61 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your or my opinion on guns is irrelevant. Only the fact that this happened in another gun-free zone is relevant to this article, and I'm asking for contributions on how best to incorporate this into the article. Mookrit (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I believe we should add that this guy was in clear violation of the rules. Niubrad (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Try and keep it pleasant and on-topic guys. I removed this same section a few hours ago for becoming a debate... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this information even relevant? When was the heyday of gun-toting students? How is a place not having guns any more responsible for or connected to the crime than the gun itself? You (Mookrit) are trying to make a political point here, and Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Your vague connection from a gun bloggers website is hardly reliable evidence that NIU not allowing everyone who wants to tote a gun on campus has any connection whatsoever. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Illinois has banned concealed carry of handguns. That's obviously relevant to an article about a mass shooting (hint: the killer didn't just break the law against murder, he also broke the law against carrying a concealed weapon). Mookrit (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty irrelevant, it's like if US where to blow a nuke in Moscow, and people start arguing that US had sign a treaty not to use nukes. _→AzaToth 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In your hypothetical nuclear situation, it would be very relevant to mention the context of the incident, and that would include mentioning the fact that the US had breached a treaty against using nuclear weapons. Mookrit (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to add this fact to the article would be for the gun nuts to ridicule the gun-free zone. It has no place in this article except as propaganda. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, gun-free zone or not is irrelevant. The information regarding this tragedy is simply about a lunatic who wanted to off himself & as many people as possible before being shot down by a tactical team. It's just a shame that authorities didn't get the chance to riddle him with bullet holes before he had the chance to turn the gun on himself. May he rot in hell. -[Rayne] 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Kaczmierczak (or however you spell it) really gives two farts about whether he was in a "gun free zone" or not. He wasn't a current student at the school. He lived in another city. And he's dead now, so I don't think he cares about his "punishment" for violating this law,... Dr. Cash (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant inasmuch as these types of events consistently bring the politically charged debate over gun control to the forefront of the nation's conscience. To be valid for the article, there needs to be reputable news sources discussing the issue or reporting on the relevance to politics, gun laws, and/or the current presidential campaign. The events at Norther Illinois may be very profound in the formation of public opinion and even policy. If this happens, then the significance of these events as a player in that conversation would certainly merit mention on the page. Most likely, it will need to be captured in a "reactions" type of section where the differing views and opinions are both fairly enumerated. 71.244.30.121 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to the gun nuts, the discussion in the article about the Illinois gun law is only relevant because the authorities have raised the question, "Where did he get the guns?" Stating the gun law by itself, with no context, is about as useful as an article about a serial killer explaining that serial killing is illegal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NIU Police chief said this morning at a gun shop in Champaign, Illinois. Also stated that he had a FOID card and obtained the weapons legally, surely this is all over the news now, the reporters were filing their stories as I left. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I saw, 2 of the 4 were purchased recently at that store, legally, and they are still checking into the other 2. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in fairness to the gun nuts, gun control advocates qualify as "anti-gun nuts". At least according to some comments I've heard from the gun nuts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the entry on firearms under General Regulations in the Student Handbook, page 295. "Students may not have or keep any firearm on their persons, in their quarters, or in their motor vehicles at any time while on university property except with the permission of the chief security officer of the university." http://www.grad.niu.edu/apply/0708_catalog.pdf Jason P Crowell (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, and I'm sure the student handbook either implicitly or explicitly also has a rule against murder. Arguably, though, since this guy wasn't a student there, he wasn't guilty of violating the student rule against guns, only the state law against murder. In any case, wikipedia has no business belaboring this issue beyond reporting relevant and verifiable facts; namely, where he got the guns, as reported by the authorities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it might be a relevant and verifiable fact. Looking at the article on gun free zone, it appears to apply to elementary and secondary schools (high schools), not institutions of higher education like colleges and universities. Jason P Crowell (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Illinois does not issue concealed weapons permits, so he was illegally carrying the handguns regardless of school rules or city law. It needs to be verified at state level for where one can possess a long gun (loaded or not), but regardless of one's opinion of gun control or gun rights, it's relevant. 74.7.55.66 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If the authorities report that he was carrying the guns illegally, then it could be reported in the article, although it's hardly relevant given that his intent was murder, not self-defense (except maybe in his warped mind). In any case, it's not up to wikipedia editors to decide if he was carrying them legally or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That the university has no-firearm policy is relevant to this article and should be included. The relevance stems from the fact that the gunman was able to reload at least once, and possibly more than once, without fear of being taken down by an armed student, faculty member or university staffer. We'll never know, but this might have influenced the shooter's thinking when he decided to carry out his plan in the first place, fully knowing that he wouldn't encounter armed resistance. (This was also a factor in the Virginia Tech Massacre.) The wording in the university Catalog doesn't prohibit firearms entirely, but it is clear from the context that the likelihood of the chief security officer granting permission to carry is essentially zero, so it is, for all practical purposes, a no-gun policy. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the article the way you put it, because it's pure speculation as to what "might have happened" if someone else in the classroom had a gun. It's the mantra of the "everyone should have a gun" lobby. And if you include that, you would need to also include opinions about how many more shootings might occur every year if everyone was freely allowed to carry guns. No, it does not belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is irrelevant; but to placate matters after some ennui of this topic, I don't have a problem with stating, "NIU is a gun free zone," so long as the statement is not followed up by any statement alluding to the point that anything different might have happened. Just for once I would like to see a state have a one-at-a-time bullet policy. That way the killers have only enough bullets to kill themselves. Niubrad (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it confirmed that the school has a "No cross-bow" policy? I think that if students were allowed to carry cross-bows this whole thing might have been prevented. Niubrad (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea. Issue every student his own cross-bow. With each cross-bow out in the open, trained on the teachers, every student is guaranteed to get straight-A's. No, allowing students to carry weapons is a thoroughly stupid idea. And introducing that "no gun zone" stuff into the article, even if true, is agenda-pushing as well as being irrelevant... because the only reason to bring it up is to imply that if everyone had a gun, things would somehow be better. No, they wouldn't be better. The amount of shootings would skyrocket. And I can hear somebody getting ready to argue with me about that right now. Which is the reason it should not be in the article. Because it won't "placate" anyone - it will open the door to a whole section on this debate. No. Again I say, NO. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross-bows are not relevant as they were not used by the killer in this case. In any case, I suspect they would be covered under the anti-concealed carry legislation in the state. The fact that we are debating the pros and cons of gun control indicates that it is worthy of inclusion in the article, because the people gathered here are a microcosm of the sort of views prevalent in the broader community. Mookrit (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The liberal bias and ignorance shines on this page. Even the media is calling into question the naive "gun free zone" premise [2] 68.84.8.249 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The people arguing against including the fact that the state of Illinois is one big 'gun-free' zone should come clean about their own bias. It's relevant to state in the "Reactions" section the opinion (properly attributed to a notable second amendment supporter) that gun-control hurts more than it helps. To ignore this point of view simply because it's "speculation" what might have happened had students been allowed to defend themselves is not being honest to readers. Mookrit (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. Please use the article talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not your own personal opinions. Friday (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how convenient. Funny how you bring this up when I chime in. Did you fail to notice the dozens of comments preceding my own? Oh that's right, you're perfectly willing to selectively enforce policy. Business as usual around here. 68.84.8.249 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking to everyone who is off topic, not just you. Friday (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And I say again, on topic, that the only reason for adding this to the article is to push the "everyone should have a gun" agenda. On topic point: It does not belong in the article. If I were to counter with a point about conservative bias and ignorance... well, that would be off-topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not conservative bias to include a point of view if the opposing view is also stated. If you can find a commentator who says that although most shootings have occured in gun-free zones, gun control increases safety, it is NPOV practice to include that. However, if you continue to insist on not including a pro-second amendment viewpoint commonly held in the community, then you are leaving bits of information unaddressed, which presents a skewed picture of the shooting. Mookrit (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's even better to leave both "sides" OUT of the article. There are articles on the topics you're bringing up, I'm sure. And if someone thinks allowing college kids to carry guns to class is a good idea, they're as looney as the guy who did the shootings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

However, you've done us a favor, by giving us a preview of the direction this page would likely take, if this "gun free zone" issue is allowed into the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of a "gun free zone" is relevant to this article, and I'd like to point out some other wikipedia articles to show how to incorporate this issue into this new article.

The Appalachian School of Law shooting and the Pearl Mississippi School shooting were both stopped by law abiding gun owners. In both of these cases, the law abiding gun owners never pulled the triggers on their guns.

Meanwhile, the Luby's massacre in Texas, were 23 people were murdered at a restaurant, took place in a "gun free zone." The law abiding gun owners in that restuarant had left their guns in their cars, because the restaurant was a "gun free zone." This had such an effect that the state of Texas responded by chagning its laws, and making it legal for law abiding gun owners to carry their guns in public places such as the restaurant where this took place.

Likewise, the Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people were murderd, also took place in a "gun free zone."

All 4 of those articles mention this issue, so it makes perfect sense for this new article to also mention this issue.

In various news sources, critics of the "gun free zone" claim that it's an invitation to criminals and murderers. It's very easy to find sources with their positions for the article.

Defenders of the "gun free zone," well, they prefer not to talk about this issue in newspapers, or anywhere else. So it is very difficult to find sources to use for the article.

I did find one quote, however, for one of those earleir articles. A year before the Virginia Tech massacre took places, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker bragged about how the school was a gun free zone, and said, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." [3] Every time someone adds that quote to the article, someone else erases it. There's a long section on that article's talk page about this issue. Given that the quote is well sourced, and given that the quote is from a public official, it's very relevant to the article. But some people want to censor the truth.

Anyway, my point here is that this new article should definitley talk about how the school in Illinois was a "gun free zone," and we can follow those other articles as role models.

Grundle2600 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And push the everybody-should-have-a-gun agenda? Sure, that'll make things better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never touched a gun in my life. I am not pro-gun. I am not anti-gun. I am pro-truth. The article should tell the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, and good for you for being honest. Truth? You should learn how to use a gun. You should respect a gun, take control of it, not fear it; it's the power of life and death in your hands, and not to be taken lightly. When I say "should", I mean "it would be good for you to do so", not "you are obligated to". It's a matter of choice in our relatively free society. Truth? Anecdotal evidence, cited by politicians in support of their position and agenda, is really slippery. Truth? Keep in mind that the pro-gun people have a paramount purpose, namely of selling as many guns as possible; good ol' capitalism. In any moral dilemma, apply the axiom of "follow the money", and you'll arrive at the truth. Truth? Regardless of their anecdotes, common sense tells me that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there will be. Guaranteed. Meanwhile, making this article yet another battleground for the endless pro-vs.-anti-gun debate just doesn't seem productive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You said, "common sense tells me that the more guns there are in society, the more gun violence there will be."

If this is true, then how come there has never been a mass public shooting at any U.S. gun show?

So-called "common sense" is not a valid source for articles at wikipedia. You need to cite a verifiable source.

John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime makes a very clear distinction between law abiding gun owners, and criminal gun owners. If all the people in the U.S. who own concealed carry permits were to form their own country, that country would have the lowest murder rate of any country in the world. This is fact, not opinion. It is a fact that people with concelaed carry permits are extremely law abiding. It is the criminals, the ones who don't have a permit, and who have never taken any gun safety or training classes, who are committing the crimes.

The reason that "gun free zone" is relevant to this article is because the state of Illinois does not issue concealed carry permits, so law abiding people at that school were prohibited by law from defending themselves. I gave examples of other wikipedia articles that incorporated the concept of "gun free zone" into the articles, as examples of how the concept can and will eventually be incorporated into this article.

Part of that concept includes the article mentioning that "gun free zone" prevented the law abiding people from defending themsleves, but did nothing to stop the murderer from getting a gun. I am guessing that you did not read those other articles. Because if you had, you would see that it is indeed a very important part of the those articles.

I'm very confident that the Wall St. Journal or some other reliable source will eventually report on how the "gun free zone" in this new shooting made it possible for these murders to occur. When I find such a reliable source, I will add it to the article.

I don't have to use a gun to write about it. I have written plenty for the Tesla Roadster article, but I don't own one of those.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's opinion, not fact, and it's pushed by those who want to sell guns. And while common sense is not a citation, it does figure into whether to add something to the article or not. If you find the WSJ bringing the subject up, though, then have at it. As far as the gun show analogy, that may or may not be a true statement, but if a shooting has never occurred that doesn't predict or prove that it never will. America is an inherently violent society, and the more guns in circulation, the more violence there will be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another flaw in the argument, so obvious that even I overlooked it, is that guns would have been no deterent in this case. His intent was to die. So when he bursts in, he'll spray the room from his Uzi or whatever, before the gun-toting students have a chance to blow him away before he would have anyway. So the "deterent" factor pushed by the gun freaks is bogus and self-serving. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrect; you are thinking like a sane person because you haven't been trained to do otherwise. In my opinion, the remote possibility of armed resistance could have made a difference here. Not by way of the fear of death, because the shooter was perfectly willing to take his own life, but via the possibility that in performing his final act, the shooter himself could be trounced by those he thought were so weak and unworthy of life. In this person's mind, nothing could be any more humiliating - shame being a greater motivator than life or death in this case. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Logic demands a compromise: [4] 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Settling the issue: I submit to the editors that if this shooting had occurred in one of the few universities that allow students with permits to carry concealed handguns on campus, it would absolutely be reported in the media that said university had a policy that allowed guns. I have no doubt this media coverage would be reflected in the subsequent Wikipedia article(s). Now, if you all claim to be fair editors, you must apply the same standards in differing situations. If you would be willing to include "university X allowed guns to extent Y," then you must be willing to include, "university A disallowed guns." If you can't or won't do this, then you are a biased editor; and it appears that we have a large number of biased editors involving themselves in this article. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is necessary to find a source that confirms that NIU was indeed a "gun free" campus, but beyond that, I see no reason to bar a matter of fact from the article, especially when considering the aforementioned standard of fairness. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason to bar it is to prevent the article from turning into a battleground over "what if" speculation that can't possibly be resolved, because you cannot predict future behavior of deranged gunmen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; you want to bar an NPOV fact based on a debate which may or may not ensue. You're simply revealing your own bias here. A university's gun policy is a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, NIU prohibited guns. There is no POV whatsoever in that statement. If a "what if" battle is started over this, then such commentary will not be included in the article, but simply noting the university's gun policy is not part of a "what if" discussion. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not "settled". It is not possible to know what "would have happened" or "would happen" in other circumstances; and because no one currently knows what was in this guy's head, it is also not possible to predict what he would or would not have done; so those speculative arguments do not work for forcing this subject's inclusion into this article. As someone said earlier, if someone like WSJ starts talking about it, thus providing a citation of some serious media discussion, that could be a different story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC) _{Post moved by 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)}

It is settled by virtue of logic, and this post is a total non sequitur. I'm not referring to "what if" situations, I'm simply stating that the university's policy is worth mentioning because it would be mentioned if it was anything other than "gun free." I can guarantee that. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First you comment, "guns would have been no deterent[sic] in this case," then you claim, "it is not possible to know what "'would have happened.'" Perhaps you should adhere to your own standards. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The first is my personal opinion, the second is a fair factual statement. And you miss the point. It may be factual that it's a gun-free zone, but the only reason for bringing it up in the article is to push a viewpoint, i.e. the "implication" that it being a gun-free zone "allowed" this to happen, which cannot be proven or disproven. It's basically "passive" POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's basically "passive" POV-pushing, is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Furthermore, if a shooting occurred at The University of Utah, which has a permissive gun policy, would there or would there not be a mention of this permissive policy in the ensuing Wikipedia article? YES or NO? The obvious answer is YES, and because you refuse to apply the same standard to this article, in addition to your stated unwillingness to adhere to WP:AGF you should recuse yourself from this discussion. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason anyone has given for including it in the article, is for the purpose of drawing attention to it, based on the notion that if students had guns, this wouldn't have happened. And that's precisely why it should not be included. It's pure speculation. And speculation about what "might happen" at some other school is also not a justification for including it. If there actually is a shooting at a gun-permissive school sometime, then you've got something... provided you can find reliable sources discussing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even believe what I'm reading. You first reaffirm your lack of good faith by stating that any edit that notes NIU's gun policy is pushing an agenda by default, then you state your willingness to apply a double standard: You would mention a schools permissive gun policy even if that policy was unrelated to the shooting. In other words, you're willing to discuss gun policies at gun permissive schools, but you're unwilling to discuss gun policies at gun prohibiting schools. You have no business editing this article - I mean that. 68.83.210.47 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. There is no reason to bring up a school's gun policy, permissive or restrictive, no matter what school it is, unless it's being discussed by a reliable source. And don't lecture me about "assuming good faith", when the only argument being posed here for including this fact has to do with trying to make a point about what might have happened if guns were permitted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Discussion" isn't a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it simply needs to be factual and notable information from a reliable source. Regardless, you can rest assured that NIU's gun policy will be discussed at some point. It was in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting (and it's included in that article), and this situation is very similar. Heckler & Koch (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

the only argument being posed here for including this fact has to do with trying to make a point about what might have happened if guns were permitted. False. I included my personal opinion in one paragraph, then in another paragraph I logically outlined why NIU's policy should be noted: It would be noted in other circumstances, and it has been noted in the Virginia Tech article. Heckler & Koch (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I say again, that the only reason being offered for inclusion of this fact in this article, as stated by others in this section, is for the purpose of making a point of some kind. It's a fact, but it's not a "neutral" fact, because its mere presence carries with it an implication or an inference. That's why it's objectionable. And I say again, if appropriate media are discussing it, and it can somehow be cited in a neutral-point-of-view way, then it could be worthy of inclusion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact, but it's not a "neutral" fact, is basically the definition of a violation of WP:AGF, and it's quite frankly reminiscent of some of the rhetoric from 1984. If I was to include that fact into the article, you aren't at liberty to look at this talk page and decide my (or anyone else's) motivation for inclusion. --Heckler & Koch (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly am at liberty to look at anything that anyone says about anything on wikipedia, as is any other wikipedia reader. To suggest otherwise... well, that's 1984-think. And the "assume good faith" argument is out the window, when you all have stated explicitly the reason you want this "fact" in the article, namely to prove a point of some kind. Posting information for the purpose of proving points is against the rules. I'm reminded of a situation with the Enron case, where someone kept posting that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling had been in the same college fraternity. He was trying to make a point, to get people to jump to a conclusion, while arguing that it was somehow a neutral fact. And he was less obvious about it than you all have been. You have at least been honest here and stated why you wanted it - to push a point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't get to twist words, this isn't the Daily Kos. You ARE NOT allowed to project motive onto other people's edits and make edits of your own based on those projections. Those are the rules, and you are currently in violation of them and/or have expressed your intention to violate them. --Heckler & Koch ^Talk 08:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Several editors in this discussion have made it clear that they want the info in the article because it supports a particular viewpoint. That's not "projecting motive", it's reading what they wrote, and is fair game. Meanwhile, feel free to go ahead and list the various places in the article where I have violated rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that can be used for the article. Illinois state law requires that anyone who is transporting a gun keep it unloaded and in a storage container. Therefore, concealed carry is illegal in the entire state, and that includes Northern Illinois University.

My post in this section which is dated "05:28, 16 February 2008" explains in great detail why the issue of "gun free zone" is relevant to this article. I cited several other wikipedia articles as examples of how to properly incorporate the concept into this current article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason for bringing it up is to try to "prove a point", which is against wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yet another violation of WP:AGF --Heckler & Koch ^Talk 08:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I cited 4 specific examples of wikipedia articles that properly incorporate this type of information into their articles. If you want to learn how to properly incorporate this kind of information into an article, please see my post dated "05:28, 16 February 2008" Grundle2600 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the purpose of all of it is to try to make a point. It doesn't belong in any of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another violation of WP:AGF and a non sequitur rebuttal. Grundle2600 has stated the standards for incorporation and you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. You simply repeat, "no, you can't because you have an agenda." --Heckler & Koch ^Talk 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You all have already usurped any "good faith" I might have assumed, by making it clear that you want the info added in order to push a particular political point of view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

The article currently uses the word "smuggled" to describe the way in which the firearms were brought onto campus. "Smuggled," by definition, indicates that guns were brought onto campus in violation of campus policy and/or the law. The inclusion of this information is grounds for elaboration on the campus/state policy. Since some form of policy or law is already indicated by the article, you Baseball Bugs, must now argue that elaboration on the facts already presented in the article is somehow not worthy of inclusion. Feel free to argue against the expansion of agreed upon facts in an encyclopedia, but I consider this issue settled. --Heckler & Koch ^Talk 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Smuggle" is a colloquial, slangy term that is probably not appropriate to the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of how to write a proper article

This section is getting so long, I thought I'd create a subsection with a few examples of how to write a proper wikipedia article.

Here are 4 examples of other articles. You can use these examples as guidelines for this article.

Appalachian School of Law shooting

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personal owned firearms....

Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm

Luke Woodham

He went on to wound 7 others before Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham

Virginia Tech massacre

In 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572 was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university opposed the bill, which died in subcommittee in January 2006. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, and stated, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Luby's massacre

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89.

About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide.

During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms.

According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person.)

Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law was sponsored by State Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, who was present at the Luby's massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. The 1995 Texas law, signed by then-Governor George W. Bush, became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

Grundle2600 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask for some clarification regarding the use of the term "gun-free zone" in this discussion? Is it related to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990? I'm not sure how that act relates to NIU or any college and university, since it mentions elementary and secondary schools (high schools). Is the term "gun-free zone" being used colloquially in this discussion if it's meant to refer to the entirety of Illinois? I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that a "gun-free zone" generally means guns are strictly forbidden in both cases of guns being concealed carry or locked and unloaded in a case. I don't mean to nit-pick but if we want to include the "gun-free zone" status of NIU in terms of law, then we need to be specific. Jason P Crowell (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. The phrase "gun free zone" refers to any place where guns are prohibited. Here is a source that can be used for the article. Illinois state law requires that anyone who is transporting a gun keep it unloaded and in a storage container. Therefore, concealed carry is illegal in the entire state, and that includes Northern Illinois University. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is really an excellent question. I don't see an article under that expression, so I assume it's a synonym of some kind, and probably a politically-charged one at that. If it means guns are prohibited, then because murder is also prohibited, that means it's a murder-free zone also. Which it apparently ain't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means that guns are prohibited. But people who commit murder don't obey the law. That is the point of the excerpts from the other wikipedia articles that I posted. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, you want to emphasize in the articles that people break the law. Now there's a news flash. College kids also often break the laws against underaging drinking. I was reading someplace recently that 80% of criminal acts against college kids comes from other college kids(which may or may not be the case here, depending on how you look at it). So we should arm them and see if that, along with underage drinking, makes those numbers go up or down. And let's help that process along by beating the drum for it in the wikipedia articles. Good idea. And the conservatives accuse the liberals of "social engineering." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Kazmierczak

The name of the shooter was officially release. It was Steven Kazmierczak. 164.58.180.210 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we know why they waited so long. It probably took all night to get the spelling right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck! Wikipedia still can't get the spelling right! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The news media can't get it right. Wikipedia is not to blame for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

let people without a long, glowing history of vandalism make edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.2.83 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely related, but here's his written request from 2004 to become a member of the university's chapter of the American Correctional Association, where he became the treasurer. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 19:37Z

Main Page and News Portals

shouldn't this article be on the main page, and the varioius news portals? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be. There was a news portal of the shooting @ that school in Germany not long ago... -[Rayne] 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.93.60 (talk)

Actually, I came here to applaud whoever was responsible in keeping this article off the main page, and encourage everyone to keep it that way. "If it bleeds, it leads." is the credo of the mainstream media. Wikipedia should be able to rise above that kind of thing. mdf (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can review the criteria for main page inclusion and discuss its candidacy for inclusion. Please be aware that the vast majority of killing sprees/massacres do not merit inclusion on ITN - this has been the case for shootings over the last 3 months: Tinley Park (5 dead), Kirkland city council (5+1 dead), Louisiana Tech (2+1 dead), Westroads Mall (8+1 dead). Madcoverboy (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of name

I'm watching the press conference and they just spelled his name for the press - they spelled it "Stephen". That gets zero g-hits, but is it possible that everyone has been assuming up until now? --B (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it's steven with a v, per UIUC website. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they can't even spell his first name right. No wonder he was on edge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does somebody keep reverting this to "Stephen" -- the press is reporting "Steven". Please get your sources right, people! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the Tribune. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SOMEONE NEEDS TO DELETE THE LINK TO U of I's WEBSITE. THEY HAVE DELETED STEVEN FROM THEIR REGISTRY AND YOU CAN NO LONGER SEARCH FOR HIM. HE WAS LISTED THIS MORNING, SO THEY MUST HAVE JUST REMOVED IT.

Done. Noticed it myself before seeing your message. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

USAToday spells it "Stephen". That doesn't mean it's correct. "Steve" obviously is the abbreviation for both "Steven" and "Stephen". [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Before UIUC deleted his information from their directory, they spelled it "Steven". I think USA Today is wrong. Most other media references I see spell it "Steven". Dr. Cash (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN is spelling it "Steven". [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

With the apparent current lack of proof of the spelling, maybe the article should simply point out the discrepancy, until the news media get their facts straight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone can verify the UIUC spelling, that's what we should use. Superm401 - Talk 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to do if they took it offline. And probably no one thought to take a print-screen of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at the information before it was deleted, and it said Steven, not Stephen, but I have no way of officiating it since it's just information I copied. LanceSugar310 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence the undermining of a basic wikipedia premise. In theory, the article you were reading was from a "reliable" source. In fact, there is no such thing as a "reliable" internet source, because internet articles only last as long as the editors of CNN or anyone else decide to keep them online. Books are much more reliable, since they are "hard copy" and will endure as long as they don't get confiscated, burned, or otherwise rendered unreadable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. I don't mean to criticize, but isn't that completely shunning what we're doing here in the first place? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It points out the risk in trying to keep a supposedly-encyclopedic article up-to-date based on shifting sands of current events. Hence the disclaimer at the top of any "current news" article. But it's a problem I have with wikipedia's approach in general. There was a theoretically reliable and verifiable way to confirm the spelling. Now there isn't. So what is wikipedia supposed to do now? Punt? Well, sort of. Until there is absolute reliability on the spelling, or until the supposedly "reliable" news media outlets get their stories straight, both spellings should be reported. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Touché. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From a chched version of NIU's Sociology page: Steven Kazmierczak. My search term was (minus the parentheses),( "Steven Kazmierczak" -shooter sociology ). ( "Stephen Kazmierczak" -shooter sociology ) returned zero results. Without going into too much detail, I have been able to read a number of private communications from sociology students and faculty from various schools and these emails, from people who knew him and worked with him, all refer to him either as Steve or Steven, never Stephen.128.186.153.249 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since he was an NIU student at one time (right?) and if there is still a link to NIU that gives the spelling, then you've got a verifiable source. Not necessarily an unimpleachable source, but at least a verifiable source which could be included in the article. However, the discrepancies of the spelling of his name should be covered in the article, at least until such time as the media come to some agreement on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly make those changes, but I seem to have forgotten my login info. If I am able to recover or ecall it before someone else gets to it, I'll do it. I can find 3 pages from NIU that list him as "Steven." I doubt that private correspondence will work, especially since I'm not willing to share the emails, but at the very least they serve to verify the public sources that exist.128.186.153.249 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (aka smallwhitelight, currently without password :[ )

Well, I managed to remember my login info, but now I can;t figure out how to enter references. Seems I'm not good for much other than constructing clever search phrases. Only the cached versions fo the NIU pages work. The others have been taken down, so anyone who is looking to verify the spelling should use my phrases from above and view the cached pages only. cheers.Smallwhitelight (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it has to be logged-into to read, I don't think it will be acceptable here anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The cached pages with the correct spelling are visible to the general public. It was my wikipedia login info I couldn;t recall, causing me to be unable to edit the article page to reflect th ecorrect spelling. Sorry for being unclear.Smallwhitelight (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

so basically everyone knows it is spelled 'steven', but no one will change it? 12.39.2.83 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The theory that "everyone knows it", on a point of fact like this, is insufficient as well as being an untrue generalization. It has to be verifiable. And if there is contradictory information, both have to be reported, until such time as there is agreement. Wikipedia does not originate facts, it reports them. And if the "facts" are contradictory, then that needs to be made clear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

someone was right all along, who was that? 71.229.80.58 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The universities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

you've been exposed as a fraud. don't be so uppity and arrogant next time. i will await your apology for being so painfully wrong on this subject. thanks in advance. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Press conference

I was just at the press conference at NIU, got quite a few photos, walked by Cole Hall and got some pictures too. If anyone thinks they are useful I can add them to Commons and place them in the article when I get a chance.69.137.246.61 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think photos of the press conference all that valuable to the article. What we really need is a photo of the immediate aftermath from yesterday, for the top corner. A photo or two from the inevitable memorial services and activities on campus would also be good to have, too (so keep snapping ;-) ... Dr. Cash (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You might be able to make a fair use argument on some of the pics taken there yesterday but would think it unlikely you'll get too many free photos from yesterday, I was too catatonic to do anything yesterday, I'm still numb. Cole Hall was cordoned off and there were several police vehicles, including a mobile FBI station vehicle of some sort. Got some shots of all that, plus the multiple satellite trucks outside the press conference, shots of Peters and others. I also took 7 minutes of video which includes the NIU officials IDing the shooter. Meh either way, just thought I would ask, I won't inlcude them.69.137.246.61 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and throw your photos up in Commons. I'm sure that we could use one or two of them given the complete lack of photos currently in the article. Thanks so much for taking the photos and offering to let us them! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate and within Fair Use to post an excerpt of a campus map of NIU? I have an image from the catalog of the middle of campus that I could upload. I altered it by highlighting the building number in red. I hope that doesn't come across as morbid.Jason P Crowell (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier Incident

The news conference stated that the previous incident was not related. The press release from December 10, 2007 states that the threat was not believed to be credible. http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2007/dec/campus_alert.shtml I can't find the other alerts from that day, but I had an appointment on campus and recall that the main reason stated by NIU for closing the university that day was an ice storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason P Crowell (talk • contribs) 17:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Even though the earlier incident was not related, I think it's still worth mentioning here. It's still part of the overall "story". Dr. Cash (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I live in DeKalb, either Jason is misrembering (as Roger Clemens would say) or just plain wrong. This incident was well publicized, and noted as the reason for campus closing in December. Do a little research you will see this to be true.208.82.225.232 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NIU does not appear to archive all alerts posted on the webpage. The alerts of the morning of December 10, 2007 stated that the ice storm was what finally made them close the campus. The threat or violence was not considered to be credible but the weather was a clear and present danger. I was supposed to drive there that day and had to cancel a morning appointment. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a former NIU student, and know many people that attend. I live about 30 minutes east of the school so I hear EVERYTHING that happens from numerous sources (current students that attend) That incident was the reason for the closing. Not the ice storm. They cancelled classes for that day due to finding that threat. (SubaruFiend (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

• I still have the e-mail they sent: "Details: Continuing concern over icy streets and sidewalks and poor travel conditions, coupled with concerns and questions related to the previously-released campus alert, has resulted in a decision to close the university on Monday, December 10. Final exams scheduled for Monday will be rescheduled for Friday, December 14." 76.16.239.136 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my recollection. Maybe it's a difference in interpretation. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Phillip Kazmierczak merged.

That article was split from this one and combined back some time later after editors on its talk page came to the remarkably uncontroversial conclusion that the content would work better as part of this article. There are a number of school shootings where the perpetrator is best described separately, but also others where he or she is best covered as a part of the main article. This one appears to be the latter now and for the foreseeable future.

It is possible to split Stephen Kazmierczak off again if that's found to be for the best later on. If you think so, please take the matter up here. If someone else does so without discussion, please revert it and ask him to voice his opinions here. And please remember to stay polite and we'll all have an extra nice happy special time. Thanks, Kizor 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go back in a separate article. Many of the details about the shooter, while notable, do not seem particularly relevant to this article at this time. Kaomso (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't necessarily have much to do with the shooting, but they do function as basic background of the shooter, which does. Agree/disagree? Anyway, since the article's still in a highly volatile stage, it's probably best to sit back for a while and see how the situation develops. --Kizor 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging these two articles. Having a section entitled 'the perpetrator' is not appropriate since the article is on the shooting, the event itself. Specific details and biographical history on the perpetrator himself should go in his own article, including only enough details here so that we know who the perpetrator was and where he came from. But THIS article does not need his publication history and other information. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the original page's discussion somehow be seen rather than the merge/split debate needing to be repeated here? Since a "non-noteworthy" perpetrator may shoot-up another school soon, is there some place the debate/exchange can take place so that some policy or agreement can be reached? Daven brown (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen_Phillip_Kazmierczak#Controversy/Merge/Redirect/Delete--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the short amount of time involved here, I really don't think enough time was given for consensus to develop in that debate. I think this needs to be overturned. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with the merging of these articles. What makes this man any less significant than Seung-Hui Cho? Paradoxsociety (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have undid the merger & redirection, and reinstated the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre has a separate article about the shooter also. It's a function of how much information is known. When his name wasn't even known, there was no point in a separate article. Now that his name is known, and as information begins to accumulate, a separate article is more justifiable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you undid all improvements to the text made while merging. --Kizor 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Come help me. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you drop someone else's signature and add your own?

I'm working on it. Come help me.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What was that about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't use that account unless I have to... But whatever.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of shenanigan is this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation of changing your user ID makes no sense. But skip it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The perpetrator's page needs to be merged back in here. He's not notable independent of the event at this point, so there's no reason not to leave it in here. Tired of people making too big of a deal about school shootings and trying to use Wikipedia to make a point or leave a memorial. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen_Phillip_Kazmierczak#Controversy/Merge/Redirect/Delete--72.93.80.5 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone -there- wants it merged as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By any definition of "everyone," your statement is categorically false. You may, however reasonably argue that there is a "consensus." --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the urgency? How's about waiting a few days and seeing if any new information emerges that justifies retaining the separate article? If not, then merge them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. This decision is really beyond me. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Being or not being an admin has nothing to do with it. Normal editors can and do merge articles all of the time. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. All that's needed is consensus... and common sense. However, an admin might still be needing if the process gets messed up, but that can happen anywhere. Again I say, what's the urgency? Give it a few days and see if the other article grows. It might, because his story might be interesting. Unlike the character at VT, who for people who knew him it wasn't necessarily a surprise that he went nuts, this guy seems to be opposite. You should let it ride for a little while so you won't have to be going, "Merge! No, unmerge! No, merge!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Types of weapons

The first citation actually mentions four handguns (I'm guessing press error on this one, since two glocks are mentioned of differing calibers) and a shotgun on page two, despite saying he used 3 handguns and the shotgun on page one. As with VTech, I think the weapons section should show as precise a description as possible, as it is apolitically important to the topic of weapon legislation. I'm almost certain the "Remington Shotgun" mentioned will turn out to be a Remington 870 pump shotgun, and that article also mentions Glock, Sig-Sauer, and Hi-Point pistols. Models/calibers can be filled in later as the information becomes available from the police. 74.7.55.66 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Kevin Cronin from the ATF in this video http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=218692, the weapons were a Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun, Glock 9mm, Sig-Sauer 9mm, and a Hi-Point .380 caliber. Jason P Crowell (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Can we get rid of it? And by that, I mean every single protection available. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Really? I think it's better without all the random vandalism. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's better and more wiki with more contributions. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• True, but I'm not interested in reading every random person writing how this guy is "burning in hell" or how he's "such a douchebag" when I can read what people who actually use this wiki and are familiar with its procedures have to write. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The protection was ill-timed and unfortunate. I don't think the levels of vandalism at all supported the imposition of semi-protection. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the protection needs to stay. If an IP address has a relevant fact, it can be posted on the talk page for consideration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am usually against semiprotecting current news, but it is just personal taste. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bugs. Why not just edit the talk page? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have contacted the admin, since I don't feel like undoing something another admin did just a few hours ago. If you don't want to wait, you can try requesting unprotection at WP:RFPP. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

72.93.80.5, I don't think it's a good idea. The event is not ongoing (the shooter is dead, identified etc.); we don't need instant updates. Since the event is still recent, though, it will attract vandalism. The protection expires relatively soon 2/18/08 16:00 UTC. By then, the article shouldn't be such a vandal draw, and anons can help clean up. Superm401 - Talk 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

72.93.80.5, I agree with Superm401. If you really REALLY want to edit, why not just create a wikipedia account already? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an account. I am able to edit the page. That's not the point. This page has plenty of eyeballs to stop vandalism. Well, Sad. It's Wikipedia's loss.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Loss of what, the vandals' ability to vandalize? The need for constant reverting rather than actually adding content? No. Current events are typically kept semi-protected. Allowing vandals full access to a current event story really undermines wikipedia's credibility. You and recent new users that might have sincere information are free to post suggestions on the talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... chill.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, are we forgetting that this an article edit and not a chat room? No one is battling you, we're just explaining why the protection is there. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, chill, and stop deleting my reply's. I don't delete yours. Some etiquette please.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Can everyone agree that this statement and everything above from "OK, chill" down is unnecessary to this discussion? The point of my deleting it was that THIS IS NOT A CHAT ROOM. It is a discussion, and such informalities don't belong in this discussion. Get it now? LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Chill. I "get it." --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, since you keep replying. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Chill. I've got it. Wow. Please stop deleting stuff. It's rude. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Lance, please do "chill" and stop deleting others' comments. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave this here until someone else with the right mind deletes unnecessary discussion that has nothing to do with the article. Dude. LanceSugar310 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The page does have plenty of editors, but they would prefer to work without frequent interruptions of vandalism while the article is in the news. Superm401 - Talk 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all pretty capable of doing our part, and though you may have an account, someone else who wants to edit that badly can get one, too. I mean no criticism of you, it's just anyone can take part in editing a protected article, as long as they have an account, which is available to them in ONE STEP. It's still a wiki in every sense, so I'm not sure where the argument is in what you're saying. LanceSugar310 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not know that recent new accounts can't edit either. But I think it's just a few days wait before they can, by which time the semi-protect might already be lifted on the article. And as I said, if the IP address raising this issue sincerely wants to edit, he is free to post information here for consideration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the protection was misapplied to this article as the level of vandalism was nowhere near high enough to justify semiprotection. Protection is not preventative and it's not established if one merely suspects that vandalism might occur in the future.

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and the comments here that "they should register or post here on the Talk page" are contrary to our norms and quite saddening. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was IP vandalism, and I am not going to apologize for semi-protecting briefly to avoid more. If you look at my protect log, you will see I unprotect more than I protect. Semi-protection was, and is, justified in this case and this time period. Superm401 - Talk 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

black ribbon deleted?

Why was the black ribbon image deleted? The image has appeared on numerous websites, and specifically here downloaded from flickr, which I believe is licensed by creative commons. So what's the issue here? Dr. Cash (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:NIU huskies ribbon.jpg is being disputed as a non-free image. Logos are usually copyrighted (just as you aren't able to upload Microsoft logo with a Creative Commons license, you can't do the same with their logo). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos can actually fall under fair-use if a low resolution version is used to represent it, which I think is the case here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, though, every time a disaster happens, the article is subjected to "memorializing", which is against the POV rules, hence the ribbon doesn't belong anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are rules against using Wikipedia as a memorial; it is an encyclopedia, not a source of junk online. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you verify the truth of that last part? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem, Derek. The logo includes the logo of the NIU Huskies, which is copyrighted. Therefore, the user who created it cannot release it under a free license (it is as if I pick a promotional image of some singer, put it in a ribbon, and release it for free). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't create the image. The flickr user you copied it from probably didn't create it either and even if they did, they did not pick a license compatible with Wikipedia. Even if the flickr user had created it, it incorporates the NIU logo, which is obviously copyrightable as a creative work and obviously not GFDL. You can't just find an image on the internet and make up a license for it. It might qualify for fair use if some notability for it can be established beyond the fact that some flickr users have it on their page. If and when the news media picks up on this logo and it becomes iconic, then it would be appropriate to use under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's official. The ribbon image is on the NIU.edu index page. I'm not sure if it should be in the article, but thought i'd mention the provenence. Jason P Crowell (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, NIU is now encouraging businesses and media outlets to display the image, based on this statement on their website: "Post a Ribbon. Schools, businesses and media outlets across Illinois and the country are posting the ribbon at the top of this page on their web sites in a show of unity and sympathy with the Northern Illinois University community." So displaying the ribbon in this case would be legal, and not a copyvio. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the copyright issue at all. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does, if the school releases the copyright on it. Someone would have to look into that. Encouraging everyone to display it doesn't mean they've given everyone free rein to post it on any website they want to. Which I think is the point you're making. Someone should find out what the school's policy is for this specific item and act (or not) accordingly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Virginia Tech Massacre page, there are plenty of illustrations that show the "memorializing" of the slain, so it could be presented here, provided that (1) the school says publicly that anyone can display it any way, any how; and (2) the article merely describes what it is and resists the impulse to gush about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see those arguments, because the university has stated publicly that they expect mass-copying of the image on the internet. So wikipedia, and everyone else doesn't need to worry about the threat of a lawsuit. However, that being said, our purposes for displaying it are somewhat different, since we want to cover the story and shouldn't necessarily "show support", which would be a violation of WP:NPOV (even if everyone is essentially on the "same side" here; who's supporting the perpetrator?). Anyway, I think there will be plenty of much more suitable images to put in the article, after the many events on campus and such,... Dr. Cash (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Did they merely say they "expect" it, or that they "encourage" it? Also, you've got a point about blindly displaying it. Did VT issue something similar? If so, I don't think it's on that page. But photos connected with the memorial service are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, I forgot! Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church supports the perpetrator. How could I be so stupid! His views MUST be represented in the article at all costs [NOT]! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The perp may yet prove to be a sympathetic figure. That possibility exists. But not due to anything Phelps has to say. Ironically, given the "gun free zone" debate, if Phelps were to show up in an "everyone has guns" zone, he probably wouldn't last long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting back from the derailing of the issue ... aside from images used under a claim of fair use, Wikipedia only accepts content where the copyright holder explicitly grants a license that permits redistribution, any use (including commercial), and modifications. Their grant of permission to use the logo does not imply a grant of permission to redistribute it or to modify it. Wikipedia content has commercial downstream uses and if we use the image here, it will be redistributed. Because we have no permission to redistribute it, we cannot use it. --B (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Until someone actually asks them, or finds out otherwise, no one here can say with certainty whether wikipedia has permission to use it or not. That is, if NIU were to say "we give everyone unrestricted permission to use this," then presumably they would mean it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this page (http://www.niu.edu/tragedy/community.shtml) they write this about the image: "Post a Ribbon - Schools, businesses and media outlets across Illinois and the country are posting this ribbon on their web sites in a show of unity and sympathy with the Northern Illinois University community." I think that simplifies the copyright and license allowing use, but that still may not be compatible with Wikipedia. Jason P Crowell (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It kind of implies that they're OK with it, but it doesn't quite say that, so I'm not sure it's open season on the Husky ribbon. Someone should write to them and say "Are you OK with wikipedia posting this and allowing everyone in the world to likewise copy it?" and see what they say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are willing to release the image into the public domain or license it under an appropriate copyleft license then we'll be okay with using it. Otherwise, it's still non-free. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Except we keep talking to each other and not to them. Of course, their offices might be closed just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Victims

What's the purpose of this section? Why not just say X members of the faculty and Y students died? Would be much better information. The names and ages of the individuals isn't really relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and written dispassionately, then it's relevant because someone might want to know about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find "someone might want to know about it" to be very convincing. Any other rationales or justifications? --ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "because the media are covering it and it's verifiable"? Now explain why it's not relevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by those arguments, either. :)

Personally, I'm not in a rush to add or remove this list. There's no deadline and as long as the list doesn't become lurid or disrespectful then I probably won't campaign hard for its removal. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, the media covering it doesn't necessarily mean it is -relevant- to us; lots of things are verifiable but unimportant. We're an encyclopedia; we don't have any reason to include it because it doesn't add anything to the article and just takes up space. Part of being an encyclopedia is cutting out irrelevant information, and I think the list of names is simply not noteworthy and makes the article ugly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If the names are not noteworthy, then the victims themselves are not either, and none of this matters. Then you might as well delete the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The names are indeed noteworthy. They should be recognized. if they are not recognized, then it's almost as if the shooting never happened..... therefore why even further discuss the shooting? The reason that this event is so terrible is because of what happened to the five students that died. They should be named and noted and recognized. Otherwise, why even talk about the shooting? SubaruFiend 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your logic. Further, I remind you and everyone else that this is an encyclopedia article, not a memorial. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, not a memorial. But they are still noteworthy. Without their names, it is seemingly not an incident. Their names are facts of the shooting. SubaruFiend 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will just weigh in to note that you should get information on what the consensus has been on other shooting/masacre articles on Wikipedia. I know for some of them the determination of debates/votes/consensus/etc. has been that merely being a victim of a no-doubt horrendous crime does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements. See the categories to check out other articlses N2e (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. We should consider how we've handled this in the past but I also don't want to discourage others from bringing up the topic again for discussion in a different context. That both the context is different and consensus changes are very good reasons to encourage discussions of topics even after they've "been settled." Further, it's an excellent way to draw in new contributors and demonstrate the value of our processes that are centered on open discussion and resolution of challenges.

I'll have to look back to figure out the final consensus and how we reached it (and how many times it changed!) for the VaTech article but it was a very emotional discussion. It was complicated by the fact that several of the victims there were obviously noteworthy outside of their status as victims of that shooting so they had their own articles being created. I don't think that will happen here so hopefully this discussion won't be quite as complicated. But it's still a good discussion to have! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Virginia Tech Massacre also compiles a list of the victims. It is not directly on that particlar article, but there is a link to a seperate page that lists everyone out with age and location. Names of the victims are relevant. For obvious reasons the Va-Tech names were on a seperate page, (there were many more), the NIU victims were far less, so they can be listed directly on the article and it will still look cleanly noted, either way, they should be noted. If it's been done in the past, why change the rules now? Names are relevant facts of these sorts of scenarios. (SubaruFiend (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

IIRC, the "separate article" was motivated more by a compromise between those who wanted to list the victims and those who did not than by space considerations.

With respect to "the rules:" There are no rules governing our actions in this situation. SO the "rule" is that we all work together to figure out what the rule should be in this particular instance. I don't care for anyone to attempt to shut down discussion by pointing to another article as having established a firm "rule" that we must follow in this article without discussing or questioning it. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was using the term "rule" loosely. Yes I realize there is no set rule that states whether or not they should be listed on the article or not, or on a seperate article. I was simply implying that if it's been done in the past, why not continue to do it if it isn't hurting anyone. (and yes I realize that not ALL things that have done in the past should continue, but in this particular instance it is not causing any harm and for SOME people it is a relevant point to have in the article). (SubaruFiend (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Listing the victims' names is not "memorializing", it is factual and could be useful to someone who comes to wikipedia wanting to find out their names. "Memorializing" would be "Jack brought an apple to his teacher every day" or "Jill was a hot babe sweet girl who was loved by everyone". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

Umm--is there really a reason to link this to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre? 129.59.61.48 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

yes. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. This one has been back-linked from that page also. Unless the news sources draw the comparison or can prove a deliberate connection, it amounts to "original research", as there is no (currently) known connection between the two events other than the coincidence of the days. In contrast, it's fair to link the Oklahoma City bombing with the "Wacko in Waco" disaster, because the bombing was planned to fall on the same day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i disapprove of your use of "wacko in waco" and find it offensive. please update it to a more politically correct reference. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge your disagreement with that colloquial term and of your finding it offensive, and I point out that I called it a "disaster", thus keeping the comment fair and balanced. Now, back to the original question: What citation can you provide that connects this event with the 1929 killings, other than the obvious and coincidental calendar date? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, original research in the See also section?? Sorry, but that is not true. According to guideline, As with all advice in guidelines, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section should be approached with common sense. Massacres that occurred on Valentine Day could be linked without waiting for some media to reference them. In other words, the See Also section is not part of the article itself that needs to be referenced. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Now tell me this: What does your common sense tell you about any real connection between the 1929 gangland killings and the 2008 killings? Should we look up every shooting that's ever occurred on February 14th and similarly link them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was mainly objecting the rationale given to prevent that link from being added here. Massacres that occurred in similar context (by author, date, significance, etc) could be linked, although it is more proper (to prevent what you said about linking to every single massacre) to link to a List of massacres executed during St. Valentine's Day, for example. Sorry if I sounded a bit too harsh there! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Luckily, this is a gun-free zone. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the media has started to refer to this incident as "(the second) St. Valentine's Day massacre," so I think that the link is appropriate. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the citation? If you've got a good one, hopefully more than one since you say "some", then it could be valid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Try doing a search for "Valentine's massacre Illinois" on Google News. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they're making a playful connection because of the date. Unless major news media start to conventionally call it that, then it's very questionable here. The one was a gangland killing with a specific "business" reason behind it. This was just some nut shooting a bunch of people at random, as far as we know at present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Grace was referring to it as the Valentines Day Massacre. (I don't recall if she included Saint or not.) There is also a semi-similarity in geography to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre since DeKalb is about 60 miles from Chicago. Still, I'd like to see some more evidence that it's linked by more than the imagination before including the link. Jason P Crowell (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We could give them a pass on the "Saint" part since that part of it gets little usage nowadays. And you're onto the point that her calling it that was likely just hype. Anyone who has watched her show knows that it's an emotion-charged program. If the usage persists and spreads across the media, then there might be something to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I myself had also thought of the Saint Valentines Massacre and the only way I found a connection was not only because of the date, but because he was studying the justice system and I can only imagine that he had learned about that particular massacre in the course of learning about the justice system. Since we have no motives yet, people are going to start to try and find connections and what not. If he was studying the justice system and wanted to emmulate that massacre, but make it modern day, then he not only followed suit on the date of that particular massacre, but it almost seems as though he tried to make it modern day by following suit with the Va-Tech Massacre. This is ONLY a theory, not any sort of fact. Another thing I thought thought of (being that I used to take classes at NIU and my sister is a current student) is that there use to be a sociology class taught in that very classroom. Even though he never exhibited any sort of angry behavior in the past, perhaps something had set him off in that particular class, another student, the professor, and he held it with him through the years only to come back and try to shoot that particular class. Again, this is only my speculation and theory. The Chicago Tribunes website has a few first hand accounts from some of the students in the hall that day and some noted that he poked his head in a couple times before he came in all the way. Another noted that they had seen a woman come in and sit in the back before the shooting happened, she had no notes, no books. Just sat. When the shooting began she stood up crying and ran out. They are looking for this woman. Whatever his motive was it may or may not be some sort of copy cat to the Valentines massacre and/or the Va-Tech massacre. Or it could have been his own conceived seperate plot. Until all the details come out we won't know for sure. SubaruFiend 09:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Until or if we know what his motive might have been, lumping it in with 1929, or any other mass-killing for that matter, amounts to speculation and original research. FYI, I also made the immediate connection to Valentine's Day when I heard the news. That doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the article, though. Just the facts, man. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming...

Should this article be renamed to NIU massacre like VT? miranda 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless that becomes its standard reference name in the media, which I don't think it has. It's just one of several shootings this past week or so. You can only have so many such events tagged as "massacres". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

# of wounded?

The math works out to 16 wounded (22 shot including perp with 6 dead = 16 left over) yet the little box says 15 wounded. Heatsketch (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article [7] says he shot 21, killing 5, before doing himself in. That's 16. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Motive?

The killings happen on Valentine's Day. His girlfriend had just broken up with him in December and he stopped taking his meds. Perhaps a selfish self-pity response to regain control and "get back" at girl.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.147.178 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is merely a speculation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is merely speculation, and besides that: "Northern Illinois campus Police Chief Donald Grady said Friday at a news conference that the shooting was not the result of a failed love affair."-According to the most recent news release of the L.A. Times. 64.231.209.118 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

# of students in class

I have read from multiple sources (I can not retrieve them at this moment as the computer I'm on does not allow me on certain websites, but if you google it there are MANY news reports of this number) that state that the number of registered students in the class was 162. (google "162 registered niu shooting"). The article should reflect the appropriate number of students at the time of the shooting since saying 150-200 makes it seem that there were many more students in attendance then there actually were. If there are only 162 registered it is almost CERTAIN that not all were in attendance that day so the number that the perpetrator actually shot at was more in the 100-150 range. (SubaruFiend (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good. If you've got a good source or two, go ahead and correct the number in the article, please! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was listening to WGN radio720 that evening and a student who had been present called and stated that there were about 125 present that afternoon. She claimed that he did a roll call count in order to give extra credit to those who showed up. She said the instructor did that to encourage students to be in class. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard record of it, unless WGN has archives available from that day. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Name and other facts

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Chamapign, where he was a graduate student in Social Work, lists his name as: Steven Phillip Kazmierczak. See http://www.uiuc.edu/resources/announcement1.html. Kaomso (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And pronounced kaz-MEER-check, according to that site, cutting through the alphabet soup. If they can't agree on his formal name, maybe it's safer to keep as "Steve". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN's press conference today just confirmed the "Steven" spelling as well. The wikipedia article has been adjusted. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Steven" is correct spelling. I had looked up his U of I PH (phone book) entry on the night of the 14th, and saw his name spelled as "Steven". (the entry, for some reason, has been removed from PH since then.)--Ragib (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Political Science Undergrade Adviser in an e-mail to all Political Science Majors, she states that Cole Hole will not be reopened this semester, and will possibly be closed forever, this was an e-mail sent out to all Political Science Undergrad Majors, I can't add this in since i'm not registered, if you guys want to wait until President Peters gives that statement fine, just wanted to let everyone know that is what is going to happen to Cole Hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.202.92 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would take that as hyperbole or hysterical reaction, at least the part about it being "closed forever". This is a state-run institution, and they can't just stop using a public building just because they feel badly about the shooting. However, as you say, if the University President decides to do that for real, and assuming he has the authority to do it, it could be worth mentioning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

She stated that it will no longer house classes, but that the building will not be in use for the rest of the semester for anything, it was also stated on the news that Cole Hall was closing down this semester. She stated that in the future it might be used for other purposes whatever those will be.

I think I would wait a bit before posting that, although one would assume she might have talked to the higher-ups before asserting that decision. The problem is, if you close down a building, you have to make the space elsewhere. I would think they would re-open it after the psychological wounds have healed a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NIU does have a history of re-appropriating servicable structures for administration, greenspace, memorials or for other issues and then bonding for new student-oriented buildings elsewhere. That's one of the reasons why the campus is large and spread out. Jason P Crowell (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)