Jump to content

Talk:Stockton schoolyard shooting

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

Untitled

[edit]

Note the following paragraph (from the version i saw on sept 18 2005) is probably very true but POV. It should be rephrased. Anti-gun forces shrewdly targeted the looks of weapons hoping that the confusion would ban those types of weapons they felt were most dangerous. The end result was the now-expired Federal assault weapons ban which limited semi-automatic firearms to those which lacked certain military-style characteristics like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips.

This is a discussion page, don't remove other's comments

[edit]

Here are my comments that were removed:

(Note, I did not include the name of the Murderer. It is common for people to seek posthumous notoriety and infamy through their action. I feel it is appropriate to deny them that.--Asams10 18:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)) --Asams10 00:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need NPOV

[edit]

A critical guideline for Wikipedia is a Neutral Point of View. There is a lot of anti-gun control POV in this article and needs removal. Also, deleting the name of the perpetrator of this so-called Stockton Massacre or the school names is an Orwellian attempt to erase part of the historical record.

Moreover, this article is about the Stockton Massacre and not about the subsequent assault weapon bans. You (Asams10) mention that "The Stockton Massacre was the spark for gun control. It's like talking about the Boston Tea Party without reference to the American Revolution". Well, check out the Wikipedia article on the Boston Tea Party and you will see that it does mention the American Revolution (just as my revision mentions that "As a result, that same year, California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act that bans firearms similar to the one ***** used in his crime."). But the Boston Tea Party does not go into discussion of the American Revolution, much less discuss the justification for the Revolution.

If you must discuss the advisability of 'assault weapons' bans, then create or amend an article on that, but this article is about the Stockton Massacre.

Please wikify and NPOV-ify this article. Madman 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not my article and neither is it yours. I didn't add all the NPOV rhetoric. The name of the Murderer is irrelevant without the balancing context of the names of the five victims of his murders. You put the scumbag's name in after you list the five murder victims' names, and I'd be cool with it. I'm not the revisionist, I was attempting to make relavant points. History is important in context. While I don't necessarily agree with the context presented and I'm not anti-gun myself, I leave it to somebody else to remove the anti-gun control rhetoric. But I think a thorough treatment of gun control needs to be included as this event was the spark if you ask people on both sides of the issue. --Asams10 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs revision

[edit]

This article definitely does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. The two basic problems I see are that (1) you, Asams10, continue to purge the name of the perpetrator. This is against Wikipedia policy. Should we also delete articles on Adolf Hitler or John Wilkes Booth or Jim Jones? I would add the names of the victims if I had them, but am unable to locate them. That should not prevent us from naming Patrick Purdy as the perpetrator.

Second, the discussion of the advisability and intent of the subsequent 'assault weapons' ban or a "thorough treatment of gun control" does not belong here, despite the fact that the so-called Stockton Massacre was one of the triggering factors in the ban (see my discussion of the Boston Tea Party, above).

Since you, Asams10, seem unwilling to make any changes to the article, I will suggest that we delete the article entirely. In particular, the name 'Stockton Massacre' is to a large extent a loaded phrase itself and is apparently not in wide use (e.g. Google shows only 248 references).

The bottom line, though, is that this article as written violates Wikipedia conventions and needs editing or outright deletion. Madman 05:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete it then. This is really a minor footnote in the history of multiple murders. The reason I'm unwilling to allow anybody to name the murderer is because nobody is naming the victims! John Wilkes Boothe killed Lincoln, right? Who has a greater place in history. Had John Wilkes Boothe killed somebody less important, we wouldn't care, eh? Adolph Hitler is not in the same class as either Booth or the nutcase we're talking about. MadMan, you and I obviously disagree, however it's not Me that wrote the article. I think any article that lists a murderer should also list his victims. Here's what would be nice. Put a nice bio on each of the victims. Songs they liked, favorite foods, hopes, dreams etc. Then print a bio of the monster that committed these crimes as a contrast.--Asams10 06:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some cleanups

[edit]

Per the 3 tags on the this article, made some major edits.

  • Removed some of the detailed material in the "Repercussions" (formerly "Aftermath") section about discussion of assault weapons etc. I think this getting too far outside what should be the scope of the article, but that's not the main reason. The main thing is, this is discussed in the article assault weapons in a lot more detail, and also in the article on the Federal law that was passed, and elsewhere. You don't want the same material floating around in peripheral articles like this, because then you can end up with all different versions. Better to keep it at least somewhat centralized, with links.
  • There was some stuff earlier on the talk page about not putting in the name of the perpetrator? C'mon, seems pretty clear that if the event was notable the person who did it should at least be named. (Look at it this way -- why should he get off the hook? Everybody else has to bear responsibility by name for their actions.) I guess it would be OK to add the victim's names too, but I can't find them.
  • After my edits, I removed the POV and Wikify and Cleanup tags, I hope that meets the standards of the original tagger, if not, sorry, by all means restore them. Probably if it needs a tag at all IMO it should be the Expand tag. It DOES need expansion -- What time did this occur? What was Purdy's previous history? Where did he get the rifle? Does anybody know if he had some connection with the school, did he hate kids, or was it just random? What exactly was wrong with him? The PLO stuff -- did he have some real interest or connection with that or was he just nuts? -- but I don't have that info. Herostratus 08:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job, Herostratus! I'm the one who added the NPOV tag and this article certainly meets my standards (in fact, it's better than my attempt back to address NPOV/Wikify/Cleanup back in December). Many thanks. Madman 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glorifying the Murderer

[edit]

I'm not a revisionist, but it's absolutely revolting that the name of the murderer is listed while the names of his victims is omitted. I will continue to remove the name until somebody comes up with a list of the victims to print. Funny, it's really hard to find that list. It is as if NOBODY cares who the victims are, they just feel good about themselves reveling in the fact that evil weapons were banned and those poor HUMAN BEINGS who died were nameless martyrs? Patrick Purdy has become a HERO of the anti-gun movement and some justice is due here. If you're trying for historical accuracy, list all of the players.--Asams10 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the poster who added the names of the victims. I think overall the article is much more appropriate at this time.--Asams10 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I find it absolutely revolting that the names of the victims are here. I find it hideously inappropriate that they are only mentioned because of something that was done to them which prevented them from having the chance to make an impact on the world that would merit their own page. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Ironically..." at end of article

[edit]

Hi Asams10. Regarding this sentence at the end of the article: 

Ironically, neither California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act nor 
the Federal assault weapons ban would have prevented Purdy from legally  
purchasing the weapon he used to commit his crime.

Well, a couple of points:

1) I really do think that for such a short article it's getting off the point too quickly. If it was a much longer article, maybe it would be OK. I think it'd make sense to have more detail on the actual event and on Purdy, if the article is to include more info. (Herostratus)

  • While there could very likely be more data added about Purdy, Herostratus, I'm not sure that it's necessary. There is a consensus that the Stockton Massacre was the trigger (so to speak) for both the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (particularly the former), so it's important to mention those, as you did so well in your rewrite. And I believe it is also important to point out that the "fix" imposed by legislators would not have fixed the problem that prompted the fix. And, from a purely technical viewpoint, this brings a nice symmetry to the article: subject, repercussions, back to the subject. Madman 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Also, I think we'd certainly need a source. My understanding of the Federal law is that certain guns were banned by model name. So why wouldn't Congress have included the model name of Purdy's gun? So I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems odd, do you have a good source?

3) And, if what you wrote is true, it kind of leaves it hanging as to why Congress did that. Was it because of a typo in the law or some other dumb oversight like that (in which case, I guess that's an interesting bit of trivia but getting that much further away from the massacre, and doesn't that belong under the article on the law). Or was there some kind of lobbying/shenanigans so that Congress's intent was subverted (in which case, that's important, but doesn't that also belong in the article on the law). (Herostratus)

  • Frankly, I don't think it's up to us to speculate on why the eventual bans would not have prevented the Purdy from purchasing his gun. IMHO, you touch on the answer when you mention the "struggle" to ban "assault weapons" without banning semi-automatic hunting rifles. But again, that is (to quote you) "getting that much further away from the massacre" Madman 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) As I said before, I don't think it's a great idea to tag stuff about the Federal law onto articles like this, because it leaves information just hanging about. The public reaction, sure, but not getting into details of the law.

Comments? Herostratus 06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I have a good source. I'm a federally licensed firearms dealer and I deal with this law every day. Purdy could have purchased the weapons even during the Clinton ban because the guns were grandfathered. Oregon had only the Federal ban to deal with. The guns were STILL available in Oregon during that time. I know, I was there. So were the guns. Purdy was neither an individual adjudicated mentally ill nor was he committed to a mental institution. He'd plea bargained 7 felonies down to Misdemeanors and, therefore, even today would have been permitted to purchase that weapon... Brady Bill, Lautenberg Ammendment, Clinton Ban, Roberti-Roos ban, etc. It's one of those sick ironies. Those laws were enacted in the name of justice for those killed by Purdy and others and yet those same laws would not have prevented him from LEGALLY purchasing the rifle he used. Besides that, what law would have prevented him from killing if he wanted to? He was killing... isn't that against the law also? The proper analogy is to burn the wagon when it throws a wheel and kills its rider. It's the person behind the gun and any law that doesn't address that person is worthless to prevent crime.

My source? Title 18 USC Chapter 44 and Title 26 USC Chapter 53. Remember, California law don't mean squat here because he bought the gun in Oregon, a contiguous state. Sure, it would have been illegal to drive across the border with the gun if the laws were intact, but he was bent on mass murder, now, wasn't he?--Asams10 08:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I do like the article as is presently written. I believe it is very NPOV and lays out the facts of the case in a succinct, professional manner. This is a particularly notable achievement since gun-control is such a POV subject. I would vote to leave it as is. Madman 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll... you make good points, so OK, let it stay. How about a couple of very minor changes:

From this

Ironically, neither California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act nor the Federal assault weapons ban would have prevented Purdy from legally purchasing the weapon he used to commit his crime.

To this

(Utlimately, though, loopholes in both California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act and the Federal assault weapons ban assured that neither would have prevented Purdy from legally purchasing the weapon he used to commit his crime.)

I'm suggesting putting in "loopholes" (refers to the grandfathering) so the reader is not left totally hanging wondering "why?". I thought the parens just help set if off a bit, more like formatting thing. And "Ironically" is not quite right -- its often misused, I always have to look it myself. (Now THIS is irony) Is "loopholes" an OK word to use here do you think?

These are all pretty minor, so you think we have a good-to-go here? Herostratus 17:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't loopholes. The word 'loophole' infers that there was some flaw in the wording of the law and that, had those flaws been corrected, he would not have been able to get the weapons used. This is untrue. The laws were flawed in their foundations. They presupposed that some guns are worse than others. One must take the position that Purdy, in the absense of a gun, would have not committed murder. Propane, gasoline, hatchets, rope for strangling, baseball bats, suffocation devices, kidnapping, torture, stabbing tools, drowning, etc. are all methods which are UNCONTROLLABLE and would still have been open. I don't like the word loopholes. The law is a loophole in that it does not address the criminal act, only one type of one tool possible to use in these murders.--Asams10 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to the word "Ironically" (I myself inserted it), although I believe it a good description of the outcome: The event triggers legislation that supposedly addresses the event but doesn't. I suppose it would truly be irony if the legislation increased availability of weapons. I continue to like this final paragraph since it brings us back to the subject at hand. And the paragraph does need some sort of leading adverb (or is it an adjective?) -- we could use "In the end. . ." or "Ultimately, . . . " or some such more neutral word/phrase.

But certainly "loopholes" is a much less apt word, generally defined as "ambiguity" or "technicality". The reason that Purdy could have purchased his rifle even under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is not due to any "ambiguity" or "technicality" but because the Congress ultimately decided not to ban that specific type of semi-automatic weapon. We can debate why they didn't -- but due to the fact that there are 535 members of Congress, it would be difficult to ascribe one motive to all of them. In the end, any analysis of the Federal AWB is too detailed to be discussed in this article and we can only (IMHO) state the outcome - that the AWB or California's R-R wouldn't have prevented Purdy from purchasing that weapon. Madman 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

The thing about "ironically"... it IS commonly used to mean "contrary to expectations" (or "by unfortunate coincidence"), and probably in another 10-20 years that will be standard; dictionaries are already starting to include that meaning. But technically, its meaning is narrower and hard to define but sort has has to include a "twist". Irony would be if a legislator who opposed the bill was killed by such a weapon, or if a legislator who supported the bill was killed because he didn't have access to such a weapon. Believe me, I can never remember this either and had to go look it up. I hate to be such a geek about it but other editors will come along anyway and change it.

It is semantics, I realize, but this is a classic case of irony. Those laws made in the name of Patrick Purdy and sparked by his murders would not have stopped him from doing the crime in the first place. It's like passing a law against suicide. Sure, you can all walk around shaking hands and congratulating yourself saying that blood will no longer run in the streets, but making it illegal, by its very definition, won't stop suicide. That's irony. Making a law in the name of preventing "A" from happening again, when, if the law had been in effect, "A" would still have happened. I think that it's a good word but perhaps another phrasing should be used.--Asams10 16:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK I see that "loopholes" is not an appropriate term. I did question that myself. OK, I'll go along with your version, just changing "Ironically" to "As the laws were written". That change is so minor that I'm going to go ahead and post it, assuming its OK with you; but if it's not, by all means revert and get back to me here. I'm posting this:

(As the laws were written, though, neither California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act or the Federal assault weapons ban would have prevented Purdy from legally purchasing the weapon he used to commit his crime.)

Yes I know that gun control laws are a very contentious issue. I do appreciate your willingness to engage on the issue. I hear what you're saying, that any politically and constitutionally possible ban on automatic weapons is always going to fail. (I guess another person could take the view that the law would've worked fine if it had included all automatic weapons and no grandfather clause (rendering all such weapons immediate contraband). Of course that would have been pretty draconian, and the people probably wouldn't have stood for it, and maybe not the Supreme Court either, but that's all speculation. "Politically possible" is a constantly changing unknown, what the Supreme Court will say is "Constitutionaly allowable" is a constantly changing unknown, and of course for whether a law "works" (produces a desirable outcome), you'll get a different answer from each person you talk to.

Interesting topic, but I think the answer is: I don't know. And neither do you (or anyone). It is not one of those things that can ever be answered completely, like a mathematical equation.

But I especially don't know the answer when I am editing Wikipedia. In fact, when I am editing Wikipedia, I don't care whether there even is an answer. I am only concerned with including verified facts or commonly-accepted analyses in as neutral a way as possible. Let people come to their own conclusions through perusing neutral research.

You've done a fine job editing, I have no complaints at all. It's just that a little warning bell goes off when I see a strong point of view expressed on a talk page. It's absolutely allowable, I just worry that strongly held views might leak into article space. Frankly, I was leery that you were wishing to include that final paragraph in order to make a subtle point, which is why I went round and round on this. But I am satisfied you have separated your opinions from your edits in good Wiki manner. Carry on! Herostratus 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"either ignorant of the fact that ..."

[edit]
No sources are needed. These are the facts. LOGIC is what dictates that the editor quoted (it was an editorial) is doing one thing or the other. He is either ignorant of the fact or he is intentionally deceptive. It's a fact that it's either one or the other, not a point of view. This isn't a point of view at all nor is it original research. The reader can choose between the two alternatives and it is completely the readers choice to make up their mind, but the alternatives are still FACTS and not opinions. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with truth. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability. the logic is your logic; that makes it WP:OR. I'm reverting again. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The article about Patrick Purdy should be merged into this one. It seems pretty pointless to have two articles about the same topic. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. If anything, the Patrick Purdy article should be deleted. Articles on homicidal/suicidal retards serve only to glorify their existance. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact aside that Wikipedia explicitly dismisses mere offensiveness as reason to edit or delete articles, to delete the article in question would be even more pointless than to keep it, as it is needed anyway to create a redirect to the Stockton massacre article. And no matter how disgusted you are by this incident, it certainly was a notable event and therefore deserves its own article. That the perpetrator has to be mentioned in it, and if it's only for completeness sake, should be obvious to anyone. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with the merge to this article per WP:BLP1E. The perpetrator should not have an article and its existence gives no information that isn't already in this one. Trusilver 02:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the merger-template. For reasons, see below. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Biographícal information about Patrick Purdy

[edit]

I would like to add some information about Patrick Purdy, though it seems that some people think this is not appropriate. Per WP:BIO1E I'd say that Patrick Purdy does not merit his own article, so the only possiblity to provide the information would be to add it here. And by looking at other articles about similiar incidents we find that many of them do include biographical information about the perpetrator.
See Luby's massacre, Xerox murders, Westroads Mall shooting, Aramoana massacre, Northern Illinois University shooting, Akihabara massacre, Jokela school shooting, Strathfield massacre, Hungerford massacre, Nanterre massacre.
So would anyone mind, if I'd do the same here? (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know if you're related or what your motivation is, but you were giving six paragraphs to glorify the short and meaningless life of the murderer and a few sentences on the actual crime. This is clearly WP:UNDUE considering that the biographical article on Purdy is only a paragraph or so long. Put it there. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, where did I glorify his life? Was it the part about him being a drug addict, his numerous conflicts with the law or his apparent racism? And why should I tell what he has done once more in his biography, when it has already been explained in the Details-section? And as you would probably be against maintaining an article all about Purdy and his life per WP:BIO1E, after all it was "short and meaningless", where do you think the information should be presentend? You want to know what my motiviation is? I want to provide information that is critical to the topic, as the motives for his deed lie within his life. You on the other hand seem to want to withhold this information for whatever reason. So, what is your motivation? And why exactly do you think it is WP:UNDUE to add a biographical part, when it has been done numerous times elsewhere? (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think the information needs to be presented anywhere. There are no legitemate motivations to kill little kids so any attempt at providing motivation is fruitless. He was a nutball... that's why he did it. End of bio. Patrick Purdy was crazy so he killed innocent children. There ya go. You're crying censorship, I'm crying undue. There's a happy medium, I'm sure. Give me a break, who the fuck cares if he was a quiet child. If I were the parent of a kid that got shot, I'd want every bit of information about the 'troubles' this prick had burned and his grave unmarked. It's a travesty that his 'infamy' can be bought for the price of a case of ammo and an ugly rifle. This was a chicken-shit cry for attention and you're giving it to him. This 'celebration' of his many failings is in no way called for or helpful from a historical or encyclopedic point of view. You point to the guide about biographiew but conveniently ignore this little snippit:
Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
There is tons of information about this deadbeat but you're seriously arguing that it's important to say he was a "quiet child"? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your reaction to this matter seems overly emotional to me and most of your argumentation looks like it is a violation of WP:Offensive. Maybe you are personally affected by this incident, I don't know.
Anyway, according to the quote you've presented – yep, I didn't read that far, my fault – I will put the information into the Patrick Purdy-article. I can live with that and hopefully you can, too. For me the matter is settled. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmmm, murdering children isn't offensive? I'd like to see you justify that position. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton massacre (transferred from my talk page Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Ok, so what's your problem? We have, besides others, articles about Seung-Hui Cho, Jeff Weise and Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold so providing information about the perpetrator is nothing new. As per WP:BIO1E I'd assume that the person in question does not merit his own article, which means that the information should be provided within the article about the massacre, which is also nothing special if you look here and here. And it's not that the article is that long already so a little bit more content wouldn't hurt. BTW you didn't provide any reason for reverting my edit besides your perceived balancing problems. And exactly what is disputet in my addition?
And who are you anyway to throw around 3RR-templates. You certainly don't look like an admin. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I basically told you above why I did not add the content at the murderer's, but at the massacre's article. And so far you've not provided any reason, why my addition is disputed. So, I ask you again, what's your problem with the information I have added?
And no, I don't think you were nice, by simply ignoring my proposal to discuss this matter at the Talk-page, reverting my edit without giving any reason and slapping that 3RR-batch onto me.(Lord Gøn (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I'll assume good faith. Good faith implies that you didn't know about the 3RR, otherwise you would not have been edit warring. Further, I'll assume now that you don't know the procedure for editing. Add content. If the content is disputed, said content should be removed until it's discussed on the talk page and a concensus is reached. This is a community and you're trying to bully your your content. Moreover, it's my responsibility to put the 3RR template there, not an admin's. Finally, you are being awful abrasive about this when you aren't following guidelines on how the editing process should run. Understanding all of that, please plead your case on the talk page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see at the examples provided above, what I have added to the Stockton massacre article, meaning that little biography about the perpetrator, is nothing unusual. So why should I ask for permission to include this information, if similar articles also contain biographies about the perpetrators? Sorry, but where's the reasoning here. It's not that I have committed the crime of doing something new and original. It has been done before by others and there were never any complaints. And further the article in question is part of the WikiProject Biography, but there was, so far, no biography there. So, I don't see any problem with the information I have added and why it could ever be a matter of dispute. And, I'm sorry, but your initial reason for reverting my edit "The article needs some serious balance out of respect for the victims and history." sounds to me like "I feel offended by this, so shove it up your ass!" So, reverting my edit multiple times, plus the 3RR-template looked to me, as if you were desperately trying to get rid of information that you found to be offensive.(Lord Gøn (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You've been warned and you're refusing to discuss it on the talk page, preferring to edit war. You're violating civility, assuming good faith, undue weight, and probably a few more that you're in danger of violating. All you can say is that you've 'figured out my motives'. Good luck with that. Take it to the article discussion page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD discussion was to merge content from the Patrick Purdy article into this article, a practice that is in-line with our current norms. If you have an issue with text that you feel glorifies Purdy or anything of that nature, feel free to discuss those issues here. But the accusations of edit warring, incivility, etc. do nothing but piss other contributors off. Talk about content, not contributors. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change please

[edit]

Come on! Stockton is such a large city, this shouldn't be called Stockton massacre. Instead, (name of school) massacre. cyanidethistles {Tim C} 02:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Information in "Details" Section

[edit]

I did a little cleanup to the "Details" section. I was considering cleaning up the sentence about the victims (nevermind that part - my change is not necessary after all) and happened to notice that the cited reference from The Deseret News does not appear to be the correct source for the children's names and country of origin. That article does not name the children at all. Can someone provide input on where the information is actually from? I don't have time to do a search at the moment, and I thought more experienced editors might know off the top of their heads. silverneko (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source:
Five Children Killed As Gunman Attacks A California School
BTW there is a little footnote behind the sentence mentioning the childrens' names, hinting that the source is a Washington Post article from Jan. 18, 1989. Here's an incomplete version: Rifleman Slays Five At School. Though Ran Chun should apparently be Ram Chun, according to the NYT-article. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fatalities

[edit]

It is agreed that Patrick Purdy died during this event. Why is there a list that says, "Fatalities" that presumes to be a list of fatalities but leaves him off? Can we come to a consensus that doesn't list the murder on the same list with his victims yet also does not ignore the fact that he was a fatality? The term "Fatality" is all-inclusive and the term "Victim" is to broad for a list of this sort. I proposed "Victim fatalities" as a compromise, but it was reverted. Are there any comments on this? Can we at least agree that the term "Fatalities" is imprecise and needs to be changed? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

[edit]

Please do not attempt to "move" this page by cutting its contents and pasting it into a new article (such as Cleveland Elementary School shooting (1989)). This breaks the contribution history and fragments the discussion. If there is consensus for renaming the article, either use the "move" tab, or ask for administrator assistance at WP:RM. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inapproprate Deletion of Purdy's Criminal History

[edit]

The key figure in this article about a criminal act is Patrick Purdy. His criminal history is relevant, and well-documented and properly referenced. Please stop deleting it, Trasel (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson visited the school after the shooting

[edit]

http://www.news10.net/news/featured/story.aspx?storyid=62018&catid=49

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090118/A_NEWS/90119005/-1/A_SPECIAL0252

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=62072

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jul/09/michael-jackson-triumph-and-tragedy/

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-02-08/entertainment/ca-1950_1_stockton-unified-school-district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.82.232 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2011/01/cleveland-school-shootings-and-michael.html

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=7315 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.82.232 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really tiny quibble.

[edit]

I know this is not a major issue in the article, but is it accurate to say that he was arrested for 'homosexual prostitution'? I genuinely don't know if the law in the States makes that discrimination (I live in Europe). If not, should it not be changed to just 'prostitution'? How relevant is it that it was committed with men amd if it is not relevant to the main point of the ariticle, why is it there? Was the guy gay? Is there a suggestion that that contributed to his crime? Don't get me wrong. If it is relevant (and I confess I would need some convincing) I would have no problem with something like 'he was arrested for prostitution after trying to solicit whoever/wherever'. But to make male to male prostitution a seperate crime (if it is not) is like the idiotic phrase 'white' slavery. I hope someone can clarify. Many thanks. 85.72.36.254 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is of any help, the official report has the following to say about the incident:
August 27, 1980
Fifteen year old Purdy approached an undercover Los Angeles Police Department vice officer in West Hollywood and offered to perform an act of oral copulation for $30. He was charged with a violation of Penal Code section 647b (solicitation of prostitution, a misdemeanor). Purdy was arrested and booked as an adult after stating that he was eighteen years old.
(Lord Gøn (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to find this information. It would seem to back up my point that he was arrested for 'prostitution' as opposed to 'homosexual prostitution'. Could someone correct accordingly? I'm afraid I have no idea how to do that. 85.72.36.254 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

[edit]

I will be requesting a title change for this article next week, but I wanted to start a discussion here before doing so, in an attempt to find a rough consensus before proceeding. The last page move was unilaterally made without any discussion on the talk page, and I'm not going to do that for something which is likely to be controversial.

The current article title is wrong for several reasons. It does not meet NPOV titling requirements; it is confusing because it implies that the shooting occurred in Cleveland, Ohio; the school's name is "Cleveland Elementary School", not "Cleveland School"; and it's not the only shooting to have occurred at a school named "Cleveland Elementary School" in the state of California (the hatnote makes that clear, although that article is also getting a move request to a title which focuses on the shooting, not the pepetrator.) My preference would be to move this article to [[Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton)]], keeping in mind that the San Diego shooting might end up at [[Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego)]], and create a disambiguation page at [[Cleveland Elementary School shooting]], with links to both events.

I'll wait a couple of days before submitting the move proposal, to see if anyone has another proposal. The current title, though, has to be changed.

I have started a related discussion at Talk:Brenda Ann Spencer. Horologium (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving this page, since the current title isn't that clear, though I'd suggest Stockton school shooting as the new destination, which would save us the disamb. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus Tiggerjay (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Cleveland School massacre → {{no redirect|Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) – The current article title is wrong for several reasons. It does not meet NPOV titling requirements; it is confusing because it implies that the shooting occurred in Cleveland, Ohio; the school's name is "Cleveland Elementary School", not "Cleveland School"; and it's not the only shooting to have occurred at a school named "Cleveland Elementary School" in the state of California. Relisted again. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Relisted again. Jenks24 (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Horologium (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I did a bit of research to see what was the point in having the "(Stockton)" disambiguator, and the reasoning behind it is that there is also supposed to be a Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) article as well. Well, technically, with the material in Wikipedia right now, it's supposed to be a redirect towards Brenda Ann Spencer. However, that being said, from looking at these two articles, and the material in Wikipedia, there are only two articles that could be named "Cleveland Elementary School shooting" in Wikipedia, and the topic in question here seems more notable (considering that the "San Diego" topic would end up being a redirect to a biography). Anyways, there's the research behind Wikipedia's current state of affairs with this topic name. Now, my turn to vote. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(E/C) Until I converted it into a disambiguation page earlier today, Cleveland Elementary School shooting was a redirect to the BLP about the shooter at the San Diego school (which did not--and still does not--have a hatlink to the Stockton shooting). That is the primary reason for the disambiguator; there were incidents in two different California schools of the same name, ten years apart. Horologium (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Follow-up to Steel1943) As I have outlined at Talk:Brenda Ann Spencer, I want to restructure that article into a discussion about the shooting, rather than the perpetrator, similar to the structure of this article, which simply has a brief discussion of the shooter. (WP:PERP is the relevant guideline.) Rewriting that article would entail a rename as well, and it is logical that it should have the same name as this article, with a different disambiguation. I don't think Spencer herself warrants an article, but the incident itself is notable. Horologium (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response regarding my notes. If that is the case, I honestly think this move could happen in the future, but probably requested differently (once those edits have been completed.) With the articles in the current states that they are in, it seems like this move request might have been made a bit prematurely, given the plans to edit these articles. In relation to this note, my "Oppose" vote below stands, which could be changed if this move request was set up differently. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move as requested in its current form. Per my note above, this move would cause a disambiguation issue. I believe the better option for this move would be as follows:
Cleveland School massacre → Cleveland Elementary School shooting
In addition, the current Cleveland Elementary School shooting should be deleted for speedy deletion criterion G6 for being an unnecessary disambiguation page that has all of its article titles piped (which should not happen on any disambiguation page in this manner per WP:PIPING), and then Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) should be created and made a redirect towards Brenda Ann Spencer. Lastly, there should be hatnote on the "new" Cleveland Elementary School shooting article with a reference to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Steel1943 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that this shooting is the primary topic? There is a lot of noise out there (from mirrors and undocumented scrapes), but I don't see anything that indicates that either incident is the primary topic. Horologium (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of TWODABS is that when there are only two dabs there is no benefit to a dab page. If neither is obviously the primary topic, then just pick one. In this case the more recent one is more likely to gain attention, I would think. But it really doesn't matter, because no one is worse off by treating one as primary, even if it's not "really" primary, as long as it has a hatnote link to the other. The worst case is that for those seeking the other they are just one click away, just as they would be if they had landed on a dab page. --B2C 00:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't just pick one if there is no primary topic. That's not the point of TWODABS at all. "if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." WP:TWODABS. The point of TWODABS is "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed" TJRC (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the closer of the other discussion created Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) as a redirect. If that is chosen as the name for this article, the redirect page will presumably have to be deleted first. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More about the shooting, less about the shooter

[edit]

I am just learning about this tragedy on this 25th anniversary, so I am not an expert on the subject. As an information consumer, I would like to be able to read more about the tragedy, precursors, and effects (at least in California) rather than seeing such a large section about the shooter. Just a thought for those who are working this page to consider. Thank you. Taram (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally ill

[edit]

In the 'Reaction and aftermath' section, I removed a external reference for a Congressional bill passed in 2007 [1], as the bill had no bearing on this event which occurred in 1989, nor was this event directly referenced in the bill. As this reference was used to qualify the statement that Purdy had never been adjudicated as mentally ill, I removed that statement as well. If there is a different reference which affirms that statement, please feel free to add it back. But for now, I'm being bold and taking it out. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 23:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stockton schoolyard shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few changes I plan

[edit]

I've noticed that the graphical location for the shooting isn't listed on the page. Figured i'd add one. As for the perpetrator, the Cleveland Elementary school shooting comes down as one of the more high profile mass shooting incidents in American history. Wikipedia articles on other high profile incidents usually feature the perpetrator having his own page. I understand that Taram is opposed to having more information about the shooter, but the notoriety of the incident in my opinion is up there with the Amish school shooting or the Charleston church shooting. I understand the Wikipedia goes out of their way to avoid using the perpetrator(to minimize copycat crimes. Can anyone tell me the requirements for the perpetrator to have his own article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Nickel_Mines_School_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts

I've noticed a couple small Wikipedia articles that got less national attention where the perpetrator has his own article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamoru_Takuma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Leibacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lake_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Weise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein

I'm not trying to glorify Patrick Purdy. I just think that the high profile of the incident calls for a separate article. Keep in mind that I could be wrong. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is for giving the shooter his own article aside from fact that it needs to minimized unless it's high profile.


One more thing. While the media hasn't been able to find a motive for the shooting, I think it's obvious that personal and legal stress, racial hatred, and eviction are the primary motives for the shooting. I was wondering if I could mentioned. On the other hand the media doesn't go right out and say it. Maybe mentioning it wouldn't be proper for Wikipedia policy, but I wouldn't know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk97NI91LDM

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Mercury News archives now behind a paywall

[edit]

I've just fixed up a few references with this edit (replaced broken links with live ones, added an archive link on another) but I couldn't find free versions of the San Jose Mercury News articles. The Mercury News archives are now behind a paywall, with a $2.95 fee per article. I checked on the Google News Newspaper Archive but they don't have this newspaper.

If someone knows of an alternative source for the cited facts, it would be good to replace these broken references with live links. Nffwp (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia/Racism

[edit]

On an NPR program about anti-Asian racism in the U.S. broadcast on 27 March 2022, it was said that the killer had hours earlier been ranting in a bar against Asian immigrants. Can someone get a good source on this? 2600:6C67:1C00:300:F0F1:EEB7:74:D9DE (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested RM (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 18:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting → Stockton schoolyard shooting – Remove “1989” from the title as the city being named is an adequate identifying factor. MountainDew20 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject California has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate further participation ASUKITE 17:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving the biography

[edit]

I Understand keeping Patrick Purdy (the killers) Biography on the page as he committed suicide right after but he should have a different page for the Perpetrator like for most cases Mantttt4 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockton_schoolyard_shooting&oldid=1217392212"