Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Phonics

2009-03-17T14:23:51Z

CCalloway: rmv excess bold

[[Image:Phonics book.jpg|right|thumb|300px|''Jolly Phonics'' is a [[British]] synthetic phonics method of teaching literacy, developed by Sue Lloyd and Sara Wernham, primary school teachers at Woods Loke School in Lowestoft, England.]]
'''Phonics''' consists of reading based on phonetic building blocks of language, rather than trying to memorize full words and reading based on recognition of words. Having learned the various English sounds (''phonemes''), then the letters they correspond to, children are then able to read many English words. The term may be used to describe two methods of teaching, "synthetic" and "analytic" phonics. Synthetic phonics is the most widespread and produces the best results; analytic phonics is commonly called "phoney phonics", relying as it does on beginning with whole words learnt by global shape ("initial sight vocabulary") and the building of a "keyword sight vocabulary."

Under phonics, once a child learns the basic and simple phonetic building blocks, the child can read any word and any book. [[Public schools]] have typically taught a "look and say" or word recognition approach to reading<ref>"Whole language reading instruction (also known as "look-say" or "sight" reading) is the most widely used method of teaching reading in the U.S. and many other countries." [http://www.halcyon.org/wholelan.html''Whole Language vs. Phonics'']</ref><ref>"The education establishment prefers whole language, while most parents and some teachers prefer a phonetic approach." [http://www.home-school.com/Articles/WholeLanguage.html ''Whole-Language Boondoggle'']</ref>which limits the child to reading only words that the child knows.

One reason [[homeschoolers]] perform better than [[public school]] students on tests<ref>http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp</ref> is because homeschoolers learn how to read with phonics in higher percentages than [[public school]] students do.<ref>Most homeschool curricula are phonics-based. See, e.g., [http://www.pmschoolhouse.com/homeschool-curriculum/Saxon_Math.htm Saxon]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]] it is sometimes described as a "back to basics" approach, which "despite being sneered at by the [[liberal]] tinkerers whose modern theories of teaching have caused so much damage to almost two generations, is turning the tide of illiteracy in some of the nation's most underprivileged areas."<ref>''Dispatches: Why Our Children Can't Read''. Channel 4 television. First aired 27 October 2007.</ref>

==Effectiveness==
A study<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/271817.stm ''C-a-t spells success in early literacy'']. 25 February 1999. BBC News. 10 May 2008</ref> conducted by the [[University of St Andrews]]' School of Psychology, involving 300 children divided into three groups receiving different methods of literacy education demonstrated:
*the synthetic phonics group were reading and spelling 7 months ahead of chronological age
*the synthetic phonics group were 7 months ahead in reading compared with the other two groups
*the synthetic phonics groups were 8 months and 9 months respectively ahead in spelling compared with the other two groups
*the synthetic phonics group had the best levels of rhyme and phoneme awareness

The British ''Jolly Phonics'' synthetic phonics method was found in independent studies to give children, after one year's tuition, an average reading age around 12 months ahead of chronological age. Their spelling age was found to be slightly further ahead, and boys typically did as well as girls. Synthetic phonics has a major and long-lasting effect on children's reading and spelling attainment, and gives children strategies for reading and writing that they wouldn't otherwise have had at the early stages using other methods.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4255069.stm ''Sounds help pupils with reading'']. BBC news Channel. 11 February, 2005. 12 May 2008.</ref>

In 2005, the U.K.'s Department for Children, Schools and Families appointed Jim Rose, former Deputy Chief Inspector of Schools, to lead an independent review to examine best practice in teaching reading, in order to implement a "renewal of the literacy framework."<ref>[http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/features/literacy/1174785/ ''Rose Report'']. June 2005. DfES. 12 May 2008</ref> Rose concluded that synthetic phonics "offers the vast majority of beginners the best route to becoming skilled readers" and should be taught "first and fast."<ref>Rose, Jim. [http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/phonics/report.pdf ''Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final Report''] March 2006. 12 May 2008.</ref>

==Five basic skills==

The basic skills taught through phonics are:
# Learning the letter sounds
# Learning letter formation
# Blending
# Identifying sounds in words
# Spelling the "tricky" words

===Learning the letter sounds===
Synthetic phonics teaches the 42 main sounds used in the English language, and children are taught each letter by its sound rather than its name, eg ''a'' is called ''a'' as in ''a''nt not ''ai''m and ''n'' is called ''nn'' as in ''n''et. This is a deliberate process to assist the child in blending the sounds, and the names of the letters are taught later.

The sounds are usually broken down into 7 groups:
# s a t i p n
# c k e h r m d
# g o u l f b
# ai j oa ie ee or
# z w ng v ''oo'' '''oo'''
# y x ch sh ''th'' '''th'''
# qu ou oi ue er ar

The letters are not taught in an alphabetical order, and are grouped to reflect their use through the teaching process - the first group s a t i p n, for example, can be used to make more simple three-letter words than any other six letters. The two-letter sounds (''digraphs'') such as th and oo which can make two different sounds are presented in slightly different forms. The letters b and d are also taught at separate stages, as these are a common source of confusion for children. Sounds that can be written in more than one way are taught in their simplest form first, with alternative spellings being introduced later.
[[Image:Phonics exercises.jpg|right|thumb|300px|An example of a stage 1 phonics workbook]]

===Learning letter formation===
Emphasis is placed on the correct formation of letters, beginning with the correct grip of the pencil, and progressing through shape-formation and exercises to the actual writing of the letters.

===Blending===
Synthetic phonics uses blending - saying the individual sounds in a word and then running them together to say the word - rather than the "look-say" word recognition used by [[whole language]] teaching.

===Identifying sounds in words===
Children begin learning how to spell a word by listening for the sounds in that word.

===Spelling "tricky" words===
Some words in the English language use an irregular spelling which defies the blending process, such as ''said'' and ''one''. Children are taught to recognise and remember these so-called "tricky" words.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
*[[Mistakes Due to Lack of Phonics]]

==External links==
*Jolly, Christopher. [http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j28/jollyphonics.php ''The Jolly Phonics story'']. "Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society" J28 2000/2 pp16-18. Online version at The Spelling Society. 12 May 2008.
*[http://www.rrf.org.uk/ Reading Reform Foundation] - [[United Kingdom|UK]] chapter of the organisation set up to tackle the high functional illiteracy rates among children and adults in the United Kingdom and in the English-speaking world. 12 May 2008.
*Shadwell, Jo. [http://www.syntheticphonics.com/articles/Sound%20Sense.pdf ''Sound Sense'']: "How learning to love Synthetic Phonics could revolutionise teachers' working lives...to say nothing of the children's!" Article at syntheticphonics.com. 12 May 2008.

[[category:education]]

Talk:Ad hominem

2009-03-17T14:08:54Z

CCalloway: /* Strong Character = Strong Argument */

{{user GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
A user box I created is a form of ad hominem. Even so, I think it shows that ad hominems are not always bad. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 15:39, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
: So where'd d'ya get that logic? Let's examine the argument.

*Gun control favoured by totalitarians is true you say. We'll return to this statement.

*This is an ad hominem statement.

*Synthesis = this is an example of a good ad hominem statement.

Two problems - assertion no.1, is a debate which should be had somewhere else entirely.
- It doesn't make the use of ad homs any better. In fact, the whole argument's flawed: X, who possesses characteristic A, is a member of Y. Z is also a member of Y. By your reasoning, and by the reasoning of ad hominem users, Z also possesses characteristic A. Aristotle turns in his grave. This is an area already well covered in the article. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

Just wanted to say what an excellent, concise article this is. Well done, chaps :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:12, 23 November 2008 (EST)

== Strong Character = Strong Argument ==
Apologies for the intrusion, but am I reading the second paragraph of the non-fallacious uses section correctly? It seems to indicate that correctness stems not from the strength of the argument, but from the person arguing it.

This seems to indicate, for example, that if a Christian tells you the sky is blue, he must be right, but if an Atheist says it, he must be wrong. Is that the correct interpretation of this verse? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 22:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*Nice try, CCalloway. What it says is, atheists and liberals are incapable of presenting argument because they are basically deceitful, and intellectual discussion cannot be had with dishonest or immoral people. That is called a ''truism''. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:58, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::I see. So, by virtue of being an atheist or liberal, one's arguments are automatically incorrect? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 23:01, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::It matters not if they are, or aren't. There is no logical point in having a discussion with them, sans morality on their part. Atheists are truly just the walking dead, CCalloway, to put it very bluntly. They have no standards of honesty or truth, and most liberals and atheists are deceitful. More to the point, the liberals practice deceit in denying their morality isn't open to question, and using the dodge of "ad hominem attack" to cut off that line of questioning. To a conservative, to a Christian, that dog doesn't hunt. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:10, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

::::I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there, TK. There are both deceivers and honourable men on both sides. There are folks like you on both sides, as well. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 00:09, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, we will then agree to disagree, CCalloway. However, this is a conservative encyclopedia, Christian friendly one, and that is what conservatives believe. Christians as well, eschew moral relativism. Morals, Character and Faith matter. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:59, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:No one here is saying that morals, character, and faith do not matter, nor is anyone saying that moral relativism is correct. I am merely saying that an argument's strength is determined by the argument, not the speaker. Do you disagree? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 10:08, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Rideau Canal

2009-03-17T04:23:28Z

CCalloway: New page: The '''Rideau Canal''' is a waterway spanning the distance between Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and the city of Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and was originally opened in 1...

The '''Rideau Canal''' is a waterway spanning the distance between [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]] and the city of [[Kingston]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]], and was originally opened in 1832. The canal was built as a defense against "[[American]] aggression," something that would have been without precedent at the time.

Today, the canal system is used alternately as a theoretical defense and a skating rink. In 2007, the site was designated a [[UNESCO World Heritage Site]].

The Daily Show

2009-03-17T04:12:07Z

CCalloway: Grammar

'''''The Daily Show''''' purports to be a [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on cable network [[Comedy Central]]. It is known for catering to an audience of [[public school]] teenagers, more than 60% of whom, a study of one school district found, watch television for over three hours a day.<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>

[[Liberal]]s have recognized the [[leftist]] slant of the show by giving it a [[Peabody Awards|Peabody Award]] and nine [[Emmy]]s.<ref>IMDb - Awards for The Daily Show [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards]</ref>

== Early Years ==

The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 [[Jon Stewart]] replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on ''The Daily Show'' ==

Jon Stewart is a noted [[liberal]] and is currently the host of ''The Daily Show''. He often satirizes [[George W. Bush]], the war in [[Iraq War|Iraq]], [[United States Congress|Congress]], and [[United States]] foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Like other network news channels, Stewart often shows video clips, sound bites, and news stories in which Republican and other Conservative [[politicians]] are made to look silly, often edited or taken out of context so that they appear to be contradicting themselves, or showing [[United States Senate|Senate]] speeches that seem ridiculous. However, he gives a notably easy ride to President [[Obama]] and most other [[liberal]]s.

== Correspondents ==

The comedians can be seen as showing a [[liberal bias]] while performing their "news" stories. The segments are usually aimed at poking fun at and satirizing the political parties in power. Thus, Stewart began by [[mockery|mocking]] [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as the [[Second Amendment|Right to Bear Arms]] and the [[Pro-Life]] Movement, or [[Christianity]].{{fact}} One segment in particular, "This Week In God", satirizes [[religious]] values while mocking [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> During the episode aired June 27, 2007, [[Lewis Black]] compared Conservapedia's "[[Homosexuality]]" article to [[Wikipedia]]'s, sarcastically describing it as "way more interesting," mainly because Conservapedia's article described it far more graphically. In their coverage of the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|2008 U.S. presidential election]], most of the guests have been liberal, such as former president [[Bill Clinton]], first lady [[Michelle Obama]] and former [[British]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]].

== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==

[http://www.thedailyshow.com The official ''The Daily Show with Jon Stewart'' website]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Daily Show, The}}

[[category:Television Shows]]

Talk:Ad hominem

2009-03-17T04:09:18Z

CCalloway: /* Strong Character = Strong Argument */

Talk:Ad hominem

2009-03-17T03:01:52Z

CCalloway:

Talk:Ad hominem

2009-03-17T02:46:13Z

CCalloway:

Ad hominem

2009-03-17T02:42:09Z

CCalloway: /* Times When Ad Hominem is Not Fallacious */ Revised.

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] which takes place when one argues by denigrating one's opponent, instead of actually dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed.

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

== Examples of Non-Fallacious Use ==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==

American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [[Special pleading]]
* [[Argumentum ad populum]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Ad hominem

2009-03-17T02:30:26Z

CCalloway: /* Ad Hominem Not Always Fallacious */ Fix gibberish.

An ''argumentum '''ad hominem''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument against the man"), is a [[logical fallacy]] which takes place when one argues by denigrating one's opponent, instead of actually dealing with the flaws in the form and function of the opponent's argument. Note that the statement made in an ''ad hominem'' argument does not have to be false for this type of fallacy to have been committed.

== Classical structure ==
Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:

# A makes claim X.
# A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
# Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>

== Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable ==
The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:

# It is an [[appeal to emotion]] rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref>
# It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Forms of Ad Hominem ==
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial expression of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the [[kettle]] black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref>

== Example ==
The statement

:'[[Richard Wagner]] was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis'

might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.

== Times When Ad Hominem is Not Fallacious ==
* The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. Technically, this is ''not'' an example of ''ad hominem'', because it is an attack on the specific argument and/or the evidence advanced to support it.

* [[Conservatives]] understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument. [[Liberals]] and [[Atheists]] are outraged by examination of an individual's character, considering it to be a personal affront, mainly because they are moral relativists. Conservatives understand how important it is that those debating an issue be [[trustworthy]], otherwise a true debate/discussion cannot happen. An immoral person is of course incapable of making a legitimate, intellectual, argument because they come from [[deceit]], like [[Richard Dawkins]].

* In the modern legal system, most judges allow the prosecutor to attack the credibility of those who testify on the stand; such [[witness impeachment]] can call into question the character, impartiality, honesty, or competence of a witness.

==Other meanings of ad hominem==

American Heritage Dictionary says:
:The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem]

== References ==
<references/>

== See Also ==
* [[Special pleading]]
* [[Argumentum ad populum]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2009-03-15T19:07:04Z

CCalloway: /* Suggested addition */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid [[liberal denial]] by others.

::: Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

: That's not even close to the level of the examples here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::He killed himself, a Catholic man, and a cat. That puts him above Asa Coon's kill count, and, depending on how you count the cat, above or equal to Kimveer Gill's kill count. [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:59, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

::: We don't count cats as humans, and you're ignoring the huge disparity in numbers wounded. Also, a working 24-year-old who is no longer a student is not considered "young".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: I didn't suggest you counted cats as humans. Asa Coon wounded four, Bonestroo wounded a deputy and killed a Catholic man. That's not that far out of scale. You've got one example of similar age on the page, and one that is three years older. Why are you so opposed to this entry? [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 15:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2009-03-15T18:59:19Z

CCalloway: /* Suggested addition */

Talk:Young mass murderers

2009-03-15T18:14:55Z

CCalloway: /* Suggested addition */ new section

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

and Italian widows.

equating black with evil makes nuns and ministers evil ? thats not correct. Does lead one to wonder why black was selected especially as Nuns are the brides of christ , maybe white is a real challange laundry wise. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:50, 21 November 2008 (EST)

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
: perhaps just remove the few who didnt kill more than 1 ?

== Teach Marksmanship ! ==

My initial response to this article is probably going to seem bizarre but the death count and number wounded leads me to a professional condemnation of their marksmanship. If the intention was to kill rather than just create confusion then more injured than dead is inexcusable [[User:Markr|Markr]] 13:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I find that comment incredibly distasteful (not that i lost any friends in these attacks) but never the less, spare a thought for the parents and friends of the victims - would they like to hear that comment? (just my opinion - nothing personal) ---- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:58, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity"? ==
In the article it is said that Tim Kretschmer was "indicative of anti-Christianity". I haven't found any evidence for that proposition. I also asked for a reference but my edit was reverted. I guess that he was kind of atheist, but some reference would be appreciated. I have been actively looking for it but I haven't found. So to someone who doesn't have such a presupposition, it can be quite hard to believe without a reference. So if someone has a reference, please add it. --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 18:21, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

:"I haven't found any evidence for that proposition" may mean you haven't yet opened your mind to it. Atheists censor disclosure of the harm they cause, but that doesn't prevent the use of logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

::You're trying to say that I haven't opened my mind to a proposition that atheists are behind these mass murders? I'm not sure if I understood right. But if I did understand right, I want to tell you that I'm quite sure that Kretschmer is also an atheist, because I have analyzed the school mass murders in Finland quite deeply. [http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fapologetiikkawiki.org%2FKoulumassamurhat&sl=fi&tl=en This article] is mainly written by me and it should prove that I have opened my mind to the idea of mass murdering atheists. But you have to understand that we can't just guess. It doesn't prove anything. So I'll ask again. Is there any proof, that is not just a claim, that Tim Kretschmer was an atheist or naturalist or anti-semitist or anti-christian? --[[User:Erkkimon|Erkkimon]] 20:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested addition ==

[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18390116/detail.html] Derik A. Bonestroo, age 24.

"Boulder Undersheriff Tom Shoemaker said, "The suspect ... fired a shot into the ceiling and yelled something about religion to the employees.”

"He (the suspect) barged in and wanted to know who was a Christian and who wasn't a Christian," said Sheriff Joe Pelle." [[User:CCalloway|CCalloway]] 14:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)