Jump to content

Talk:Capitol Hill massacre

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

Untitled

[edit]

R.I.P. people. this is so sad. P.L.U.R. -Zenzizi 04:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seattle's in pretty serious shock right now. Chadlupkes 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the link to the shooters name bounce back to the article. I'm taking that off until we get more details and need to break out the name into a separate article. Chadlupkes 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy address text

[edit]

Is it really necessary to have all of this: "2112 E. Republican Street (just east of the intersection of 21st Avenue E. and E. Republican St., one block north of Meany Middle School and three blocks south of Holy Names Academy)" in the introduction of the article? I'm gonna leave this in place for the moment, presuming that people in the seattle area may wish to use this for directions or some such thing for the next few days, but after that there's really no need for even the address, much less the rest of that. --Xyzzyplugh 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't even think it needs to be there now. I don't mind the address, and saying "it is near a middle school and catholic academy" might be useful (to who, I don't know). But yeah, the extensive directions are un-necessary, even now. SchmuckyTheCat 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some sort of semi-specific location should be included, I think. Cf Wah Mee massacre, which locates the club on Maynard Alley just south of King. We could make this "E. Republican Street just east of 21st Avenue E." --Lukobe 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The address is sufficient. None of the neighboring locations are in any way relevant to the article. My edit note was "this is an encyclopedia, not a Seattle tour guide". --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Much of this is well cited; the "Timeline" section isn't. Is there any chance that someone who wrote that part could indicate sources for such information as the specific makes of handgun? I'm not doubting it—it all looks accurate—but a year from now, it will be much harder to find these citations.-- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an excellent ref for each named weapon and two timeline references. They aren't the references used when originally writing that section, but they do for retro-footnoting. One reference is used twice because the facts are separated by several paragraphs. SchmuckyTheCat 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Is there any chance that we could get a picture of one or more of the victims at the top of the article and relegate the murderous S.O.B.'s face to the section about him? I'm guessing that we could legitimately come by a picture that would be released under GFDL: quite a few of the victims' friends and families have been reasonably communicative about what happened. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Huff's picture down, and replaced it with a scan of The Stranger's cover for that week. There might be better images out there but I think that image has an iconic quality to it. hateless 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Martin

[edit]

Image:Cheesetits.jpg

Can someone incorporate it? SchmuckyTheCat 02:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing in this wiki editor, but the fact that Huff's image is still the primary one on this article is a travesty. I was just reading about my friends and was brought to tears by this asshole. Sorry for being unprofessional here, but someone please get Huff off as the main photo of this article. PLEASE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.192.193 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014

I understand your feelings, but if we have a picture of a murderer then it will usually be on the page about the murder/s they committed. Few of them are notable enough to have their own page. Wikipedia policy is that WP is Not censored - 220 of Borg 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana song (not)

[edit]

It may be worth noting that there is no known song named "I Want To Know Now" by Nirvana. (Damned if I can find an RS ref.) The police found an MP3 titled as such on Huff's computer, and it can be found on some file-sharing networks. Belief is that this was a mis-labeled MP3 by another band, Cellblock 5. [1] - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert here, and I don't have something that rises to the level of a reliable source, but while there may be no released song by that name, a Google search on "I Want to Know Now", Nirvana readily turns up lyrics. Indeed, a search on "I Want to Know Now", "like you just did something to kill someone" turns up nothing but (a) these lyrics, on several sites, all attributing the song to Nirvana, none to Cellblock 5 and (b) an article about Kyle Huff. So I would suggest that we might want to remove the positive claim that the song does not exist. In any event, I have removed the supposed citation for it not existing, which was to a Seattle Times article that says that it does exist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it before (the claim the song doesn't exist). I'm no expert either. It's a conundrum, our sources say Huff liked the Nirvana song but others say the song isn't by Nirvana. It's entirely possible that some ivory tower pinheads (who the Times is quoting) found a mis-named MP3 on his computer and assumed it was Nirvana simply because the file was labeled Nirvana. Fans keep saying the song doesn't actually exist. Clearly the thing to do is make sure our writing puts the questionable claim in the mouths of the academic study cited by the times. SchmuckyTheCat 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree; by echoing the assertion uncontested, we spread the misconception further. The problem is finding an RS for it. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm troubled by that as well, I tried a few months ago to find something saying it was an unreleased track or cover or something and couldn't. I've seen so many academic studies of youth culture that just plain get it wrong that I could entirely believe that it's absolutely wrong and not by Nirvana, and that the song is entirely irrelevant to Huff writing NOW on the steps (it's more likely a sample in some techno track). SchmuckyTheCat 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - stopping by from the post on Talk:Nirvana (band).
Nope, there is definitely no Nirvana song by that title.
Google searches really don't help in this regard, given that the lyric sites pull anything and everything. For example, if you do a Google search for "Everclear" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's", a number of sites come up. However, Everclear has never performed that song - it's just a mislabel. (It's actually by a band called Deep Blue Something.)
The true experts about Nirvana songs would be LiveNirvana.com, who have an extensive list of every known Nirvana song, released and not, including live jams and covers. [2] They have nothing on such a song.
There are several problems here. The first is that no journalistic source has ever questioned the Fox report. The only person who openly challenged it was Richard Lee [3], but it's hard to say if he's a reliable source. (Do a Find on that page for "I Want to Know Now", and you'll see his questioning of SPD Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer on the subject.)
But, mainly, the Nirvana aspect of the report is a very minor assertion in a rather lengthy report. Seriously - it's one sentence in a thirty-plus page report. The trick is that the Seattle Times highlighted that statement, and, as such, so did other outlets carrying the news.
There is no way that the Nirvana suggestion was the most important element of the report. The panel was simply guessing as to where "NOW" came from - it wasn't a statement of fact. The easy solution here is to summarize the report rather than highlighting a relatively unimportant part of it. Honestly, under the circumstances, I'd leave the statement out all together, so long as it's replaced by a true summary of the report's conclusions. -- ChrisB 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was spread through the media makes it notable. Media coverage is as significant a source (often, in practical terms, more significant) than any official report. - Keith D. Tyler 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that there is no proof,i have all the cd's and the songs not there. if i cant find something ill remove it.ill give it a week. "FOUR TILDES" 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have removed the text about the nirvana song,if ya want it on there,get me some proof.FOUR TILDES 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHAC numbers

[edit]

This anonymous uncited edit gives a different (if correctly understood) number of attendees at the rave and attributes it to CHAC. Is there a citation for this? If not, we are probably better off without an unverifiable claim as to what someone at CHAC said. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just someone from the CHAC covering themselves legally. With people always trying to push teen dance ordinances in this town, it's a wise move.

The current statement about attendance is the most accurate. I don't know how to cite someone who was involved directly with the event attendance taxes, however I was the one who handle the affair of taxes for the event. I would like to see a better article come up about Seattle Raves. It was painful to discover that when you search the Seattle Raves, only this tragedy comes up. We have such a long history and culture; it would be a shame to only be represented in Wiki by this article. I am more then willing to help. -- Travis Webb

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Capitol Hill massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 18:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capitol_Hill_massacre&oldid=1208694271"