Talk:Kent State shootings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Older comments

Was the girl really 14? She looks so tall and big in the photo

Actually, "the girl" is a woman named Mary Vecchio. She and her family endured all sorts of vulgar harrassment from reactionary rednecks in subsequent years, in addition to adulation from progressives in the movement. In 1995 she met the photographer who took the historic picture at a memorial event. [1] Tom Cod 20:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reactionary rednecks? And you want Wikipedia to be a credible source of information? Good god ... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinox137 (talk • contribs)

Antonio Lets go Babyyyy!!!! Martin

News to me too; here's a source though. [2] - Hephaestos

I remember that as being in the press at the time.--Pmeisel 03:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added back in the critical detail that the National Guardsmen were wearing gas masks and had little training in riot control. Welcome comments. clarka 8 April 2004

Unless any guardsmen have reported stated effects of the gas masks (vision impairment, exhaustion), I'd suggest inserting the word "possibly" to start the paren comment. MisfitToys

I wondered if such mention might be in the FBI reports (available at foia.fbi.gov in pdf's), congressional investigation, or civil lawsuits, but haven't plowed through the data to check. A shortcut might be to contact Alan Canfora, who was wounded in the shootings & lectures on the history & impact of the event. RE: shootings vs. massacre, I grew up in the era and fairly near the area, and always heard it as "shootings"; in my mind, at least, "massacre" would be slightly less NPV Taco 05:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

These two details are in at least two reports that I have read on the incident, as are other details that are POV (such as that most of the Guardsmen were middle-aged married men, physically out of shape, who had mostly joined to stay out of Vietnam). The lack of training in riot control and the wearing of gas masks were direct casual factors in the tragedy. clarka 28 Sept 2004

the "wearing gas masks in the hot sun (obscuring their vision and causing heat exhaustion)" bit continues to bother me; on a whim I checked historical data for weather in Kent on May 4 '70, and max temp was 66 degrees F, minimum temp was 43 degrees (that's from Akron, about 10 or 12 miles SW of Kent). So I continue to be skeptical about the "heat exhaustion" bit. Taco 19:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Microclimate data from 10-12 miles away is useless. Try putting on a gas mask, breathing through it, and marching back and forth for an hour and a half. (I'm guessing that you're not a soldier, and not in tip-top physical condition, so you're about the same as the Guardsmen that day.) Now consider that you're doing this in an open field, wearing an army uniform, in early afternoon, after the sun has had a chance to heat things up. You may be as skeptical as you like. Neither of us were there. (I wasn't born yet.) I'd rather rely on reports from people who were. (I do think that someone who was wounded in the shootings might be a tad biased, but that's just me.) clarka 14 Mar 2005

Shootings vs Massacre

• I don't see much in the way of discussion on naming here, probably long gone, but "Kent State shootings" gets 2260 google hits and "Kent State massacre" gets 5150. Massacre was certainly what it's called historically. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the word "massacre" is so much more biased than "shootings." "Shootings" is a better non-biased description of the event anyway: people got shot, versus "massacre," which tends to mean "merciless killing of lots of people." Not to demean or anything, but massacres usually include more than four casualties. For such a controversial and debated topic as Kent State, "shootings" is more appropriate.

Is it really relevant or significant to bring in the Canadian lite industrial band? The year is wrong, and there must be countless other songs that refer to it- don't they deserve equal space?

Don't forget that only 5 people died in the Boston Massacre. --Pmsyyz 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thought is that Boston Massacre was so-named to earn public support for the revolutionaries. "Shootings" may return fewer results, but the ones returned by it are of higher editorial quality than "massacre." Modern media accounts like CNN, the Plain Dealer , NPR use shootings. In addition, Kent State refers to it as either the Kent State Shootings or May 4th in archives and by associated faculty. Kent State University Riot appears to be the favored subject heading in the University of Akron, Kent State, and Ohio State libraries.

I think that the fact that the university libraries of Akron, Kent State, and Ohio State refer to May 4, 1970 as the Kent State University "Riot?", is another topic we should be debating. Surely the majority of people with even the slightest bit of knowledge would not consider the events that led up to the shootings or the students' actions as constituting a Riot. The only plausible use for that term within the context of May 4, as I see it, would be the reaction to the central shootings and the aftermath on the campus of Kent State, and in subsequent days on college campuses around the country. Jimmygodpage 13:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some unbiased sources that refer to it as a massacre - otherwise, it should change. Rkevins82 00:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The entry should be named "Kent State Massacre". There won't be any unbiased sources describing this event. There is inherent POV in the use the of either term: "massacre" or "shooting". However, we should apply the name of the correct term by definition, not just the term used in recent U.S. media reports. I did some general searches for the use of the terms "shooting", "shootings" or "massacre" in the news. I found that "massacre" is most often used to refer to killings with political content. "Shooting(s)" is used in either more random or more directly personal confrontations.

• I searched the BBC for uses of the term "massacre" and returned about 1000 results. There are a lot of political killings referenced in the first few pages.[3]
• BBC search results for "shooting" reveal some sport links and also the targeting of inanimate objects.[4]
• A Google search of the NY Times for "massacre" turns up political killings and horror movies.[5]. The first and third results are used for political killings: Srebrenica massacre [6] and an attack on an unarmed march of the MST[7].
• A Google NYTimes search for "Shooting" search reveals a lot of movie and photography results.[8] A second NYTimes search for "Shootings" results in stories about drive-by attacks and workplace violence.[9]
• General Google news search for "massacre" leads with Tiananmen Massacre, attacks in the Congo Civil War and the Ludlow Massacre.[10]
• General Google news search for "shooting"[11] and "shootings"[12] turn up more random, criminal or purely interpersonal violence.

If we want to be consistent and apply the same standard to political killings as we do to the Tiananmen Massacre, then we should restore the page to "Kent State Massacre". DJ Silverfish 22:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Silverfish for responding. You have certainly done some worthwhile research. I still maintain that "shootings" should be considered for use here, as it appears to be the accepted term by most historians. While you found stories relating to the various uses of the terms in different contexts (thank you), I do not agree that we can place the Kent State Shootings in the same category as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Kent State was not an example of "political killings." The events leading up to the shootings were disturbing to say the least. A ROTC building was burned to the ground, other campus buildings were vandalized, and demonstrations grew to be very large, disrupting the functioning of the campus. On the afternoon of May 4th, thousands gathered to hear speeches in the area around the bell and hill. The National Guard had been called out to stop the violent demonstrations that had already occurred. Here is where the situation gets sticky (for me, at least). The demonstrators were mostly non-violent that afternoon, though there were reports of rocks being thrown, etc. National Guardsmen were sustaining injuries while watching over the demonstration. At one point, the Guard read the riot act, believing that the demonstration was becoming too large. Students subsequently failed to disperse. The Guard moved in in line and removed the students. They fired tear gas, yet students stood their ground as much as they could. The students believed they had the right to protest as they saw fit (though the riot act had been read). I can't get inside the heads of either side. In hindsight, both appear foolish. Poorly trained and under-equipped Guardsmen should have backed-off. Students also should have dispersed after a riot had been declared and tear gas was fired. Did anyone deserve to be shot? No. Do the Guardsmen deserve blame for taking lives? Yes. But the political motivations that I assume you mean (Republican Gov. sends in Guard to quell dissent) does not appear to be the reason for the shooting. Instead, it seems very likely that the Guardsmen overreacted to what they believed to be a threat and fired. I don't know who fired first among the Guard, but from reading their statements, they don't sound like men bent on quashing dissent--as was clearly the case in 1989 Tiananmen (also a non-violent protest, unlike Kent). Thanks for reopening the lines of discussion.Rkevins82 04:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be worthwhile turning this into a discussion about the behaviour of the involved parties. Also, I don't think the determining factor for the use of the word "massacre" should be whether or not we have to do with a "political killing". Just like the anonymous contributor above, I'm strongly convinced that in contemporary use, the word massacre is usually reserved for cases in which the death toll is higher - almost always above 10, and often in the hundreds. The contemporary examples put forward by Silverfish, the Tiananmen Massacre, the Srebrenica massacre, and the events in the Congo Civil War, all had hundreds, if not thousands of victims. The same goes for most of the top BBC hits concerning "political killings", such as the massacre of Setif, the Gwangju Massacre and the recent events in Andijan. To me, claiming that we must use exactly the same terminology for the Kent State events seems like stretching it, whether or not you regard the latter "a killing with political content". In the first two pages of hits, there are also a few events with a death toll of 10-15 people (but none with as few as four) described by the BBC as "massacres", such as the Dunblane Massacre [13], a recent event in Colombia [14] and another in Iraq [15], and a school shooting in Minnesota in March [16]. Incidentally, however, these cases actually seem to lack obvious political context. This might indicate that the "massacre" bar for "political killings" is in fact higher than for civilians on a shooting spree.

It might also be of interest to look at Wiktionary's definition of "massacre":

The killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people; as, the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day, St. Valentine's Day massacre; Amritsar massacre; the Wounded Knee massacre

Note that nothing is said of a political dimension. It might be argued that it is unclear from the definition what constitutes a "considerable number". The St. Valentine's Day Massacre saw "only" seven casualties. The other examples given, however, all seem to count the dead in the hundreds.

To sum it up, "massacre" seems to be a highly unusual word for an event in modern times in which four persons were killed, however tragic and historically important it is. / Alarm 23:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Orangeburg Massacre, the Greensboro Massacre and the Ludlow Massacre are all examples which do not agree with a neat formula of (# dead = massacre).

It was pointed out much earlier in this thread that, judging by Google results, "massacre" is the generally accepted term for the killings at Kent State. The attempt to delimit the use of the term "massacre" to exclude political killings, despite generally accepted usage, is POV. DJ Silverfish 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I did not misunderstand your first post entirely, your original argument ended with the conclusion that the Tiananmen Massacre is a case of political killings we call a massacre, and since the Kent State events are another case of political killings, they, too, should be called a massacre. Considering the fact that the death toll estimates for the former range from 400 to 7,000 I just found the parallel between the two a bit unconvincing. Looking at the examples you originally provided, I simply noted that they generally seem to support what Wiktionary says: in a contemporary use "massacre" applies to the killing of a considerable number of human beings. This does not mean I'm trying to impose the opinion that the term "massacre" should not in any case be used for political killings (which by the way is not my personal POV).

Anyway, dictionary definitions aside, I agree that the logical place for a Wikipedia article on a historical event is generally the most commonly used term for it. But it actually seems as if the above poster got something wrong. When I tried a Google search (excluding Wikipedia references that might skew the result towards Wikipedia's current usage) I get a distinctively different result. "kent state shootings" -wikipedia get 8,340 hits, whereas "kent state massacre" -wikipedia only gets 4,890 hits. So - I'm sorry, even the Google test has a strong margin against "Kent State massacre". / Alarm 13:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to believe Google has grown this much since June, but at the moment Google.ca is giving me 13,000 for "Kent State Massacre" and 30,800 for "Kent State Shootings" (plus another 2000 for "Kent State Shooting"). Regardless of whether or not it's fair to compare to other 'massacres' is moot, if general public opinion considers it to be 'shootings'. Sherurcij 05:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not been active on this page as many of you have, so I'm going to let you guys make the final decision, but what I am about to point out is an issue of tone instead of semantics:

There was wide discussion in some ranges of the press as to whether these were legal shootings of American citizens or not, and whether the protests were legal or not. These debates served to further galvanize uncommitted opinion by the terms of the discourse. "Massacre" was bandied about, as it had been used for the Boston Massacre of 1770 in which five were killed and several more wounded.

I know this acticle is gunning for featured article status, and I really liked the whole thing, except the phrase "bandied about" seems too... slang-ish and not a word that would be used in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure what I would put in its place, though. Maybe a couple of sentences would need to be reworked. Good luck getting this article on the front page! --Jacqui M Schedler 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (probably going to Kent State next year)

When contemplating the use of "shootings" or "massacre" it is important to realize that the debate is based solely on nomenclature and can not truely change the events that took place during the Kent State protests of 1970. However, if attempting to come to a concensus choice based purely on academic reason it is wise to take into account and compare the disputed name and the events of the May 4 incident to related events, even if the subjects be related in name only. When comparing the Kent State "Incident" to the Boston Massacre it is clear as to there connection. I think all would agree that both the Boston Massacre and the Kent State Massacre/Shootings would fail to meet the actual definition, "the indiscriminate killing of a LARGE number of people", for a massacre. However, making a decision based only on the occurences of the day and their fit into defitions is moronic. The most important issue that should be considered when considering both choices, should be the most recognizable and generally accepted term for the event. No one would dispute the labeling of the pre-Revolutionary War, Boston "Shootings" as the Boston Massacre based on its failure to meet the definition for massacre. Clearly the term massacre when used in the Boston Massacre, was cleverly inserted by American revolutionaries and anti-British media outlets in order to gain support for their anti-British cause(s) and further lead the colonies towards war. While the use of the word when referring to the Kent State Shootings has not and was not intended to have the same impact and was great deal less calculated than the propgandistic use by American revolutionaries, the Kent State use does attempt to engender some of the same spirit as the original American Massacre. Its use, admittedly exaggerated, was intended to help grow the already large anti-war and anti-Nixon population within America. Ultimately the word massacre should be used to describe the Kent State Massacre, not because of my political persuasion or feelings about the incident (I wasn't alive at the time), but based solely on the fact that massacre has become the most commonly accepted term for the events that took place on the campus of Kent State University on May 4,1970. Jimmygodpage 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering there is no end in sight for this debate how about we find some middle ground; perhaps "The Kent State Shootings" with a subtitle of "which occurred as a result of United States massacres in Vietnam"

Recent reversion

I read this page recently and learned a lot. So I looked up more about it, and found several inaccuracies, and some parts that were POV. So I made a dozen changes over a couple of days. In some places I corrected information (e.g. moving the downtown violence from May 3 to May 2.) In others, I corrected grammatical errors, such as comma placement. In others, I removed POV (e.g. removing words like "viscously", or rewording "agreed that some decisive action was necessary".) But most of what I did was add good information. I did a lot of research, and added a "Lead-up to the tragedy" section, a "May 1" section, and additional paraphraphs throughout.

So I was quite dismayed and saddened to see that User:Daniel Quinlan had reverted all of my changes, claiming "too much POV to edit piecemeal". [17] This was rude, and it hurt the article. If there are specific parts of the article you disagree with, offer suggestions to improve them. But don't make wholesale reversions of people's hard work.

I'm reverting back for this reason, but I invite discussion as to what parts are problematic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:52, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at what had been removed by the earlier reversion and was surprised that a full reversion was done. The content appeared well-intentioned and the writing seemed OK overall. There should have been either specific corrections or at least a discussion of the changes. --Beirne 15:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The added background and detail provided by Quadell greatly improved the article, and I believe it should be restored. I am interested in hearing why Mr. Quinlan wants the changes reverted. There are a couple loaded terms that could be toned down but overall it's pretty NPOV. --Alexwcovington (talk) 12:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV disclaimer

User:Daniel Quinlan added the NPOV disclaimer to the top of this page, which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

So far, there is no such discussion. For that disclaimer to be relevant, we should discuss what parts are POV, and propose ways of dealing with the problems. So what POV problems do people see in this article? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I edited what I felt needed changing and don't have anything else to change. I went to read how the NPOV process works and it seems to come down to two things:

Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there is and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions..

If someone has something to say, this is their big chance. In the meantime, it might be useful to cite the sources of the new information to help put this issue to rest. --Beirne 23:42, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the npov warning for the time being because it has not been justified on this talk page. The other contributors should know which parts of the text are being objected to and for which reasons, so that they are able to work towards a version which everybody agrees to. Readers should know which statements are debated and which not. regards. High on a tree 08:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is unfortunately not very NPOV:

(I'll add my comments on Daniel's comments directly after each one; the bullet points are his, I've signed my own comments. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC))

• First is the selection of images: there's just one and it's a picture of a dead kid. No other pictures from the events, burning buildings and whatnot.
  • fixed Daniel Quinlan 09:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are now, so this objection is no longer an issue --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Second, "divided the nation along politcal lines" is more than a bit commentary-ish for an article. POV. Not partisan POV, but POV.

Why POV? Did this issue not divide the US along political lines? --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Addition of the word "tragedy". This is new to the article and highly POV.
  • fixed, "shootings" seems to work just fine Daniel Quinlan 09:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The shooting of several young people like this is a tragedy. However, this could be replace by something like "leadup to the shootings" --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning "Promising to end the Vietnam War" is nice prose, but really doesn't amount to a factual summary. This isn't supposed to wax nostolagic about Vietnam area war protests.

It doesn't. The introduction might need some extending, but it's not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus" - this needs to be cited.

Agree. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "not necessarily associated with any of the political machinery at KSU" - it's POV. The article points out that violent actions were not protestors, but that people who were shot were just a bunch of kids. The section goes on in the same vein.

I'm not sure what is meant here. It is not POV to point out that the people involved in the riots previous to the shootings were not necessarily war protesters, but also included elements coming specifically to riot, if this is true. Like the above objection, this section could do with some explicit sources being mentioned. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "appearance of a war zone", holy rhetorical cow

Ehh. The NPOV rules does not mean you have to suck all the life out of writing. Having seen pictures and film of Kent State that day, yes it looked like a warzone --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "(Actually, Rhodes never did declare the State of Emergency which would have made the May 3rd and 4th protests illegal; this was not known by either the students or the National Guard at the time.)" - I'm not sure this is true, especially without attribution; seems like original research or speculation.

Needs explicit sourcing again, but not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this originally, neglected to cite; here it is: "The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus."http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm Taco 18:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• "The rally may have in fact been legal, since a state of emergency had not been declared, but there was a widespread belief among both the students and the guardsmen that the rally was illegal." - same issue

Needs explicit sourcing again, but not POV. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "wearing gas masks (obscuring their vision and possibly causing heat exhaustion)" - seems like more speculation, but I think this was there before, continues in same vein

Not speculation as far as I know, it has been widely accepted that gas masks were worn. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 'a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer."' - this really doesn't add anything except POV embellishment

Disagree. Evokes the immediacy of the shootings. It is well known that during incidents like this, time seems to slow down --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Killed were Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder (all but Schroeder were Jewish - a fact often brought up by observers with anti-Semitic predilections, especially since Schroeder was determined to have been merely an observer and not a participant in the protest). - the dead are listed twice in the article, the Jewish stuff seems unnecessary IMO, but I think it was there before

The transition to the consequences is a bit awkward --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "evoking a mythic sense of grief" - do I need to explain?

Yes. There is no doubt that photographs can and do becoming defining images of a time, place or emotion; if this particular photograph is one of those and I think it is, it is not POV to mention it. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 'not only hippies, but also "decent suburban kids"' - again

This passage describes a feeling amongst many people who saw the photographs of the Kent State shootings. Again, it is not POV to mention this. (Though the description of this feeling can be clearer) --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan 09:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

My conclusion is that Daniel has some points about how things are formulated in the article, but that it is overkill to label this article not neutral. I would therefore remove the warning, but take his advice on some points to heart. --Martin Wisse 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quadell's comments to all the above

• This discussion is really helping to improve the article. Thanks to all participating.
• The additional images really help to bring home the feeling of the event.
• I don't think "divided the nation along politcal lines" is too POV, but I don't mind it being removed.
• I don't think tragedy is POV, unless you can find any decent-sized group that thinks the shootings were not a tragedy. The campus called it a tragedy, the National Guard called it a tragedy, the press, the president, etc. Calling the election of Nixon a tragedy would be POV. Calling the Asian Tsunami a tragedy would not be. I don't think calling this a tragedy is either.
• I had originally written the paragraph beginning "Promising to end the Vietnam War" to imply causation, and someone re-worded it to simply state the facts (a change I approve of). I think it's now NPOV, but it could use expanding. I don't think we should refrain from giving background information on the events.
• "There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus" This is sourced: the external link http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm says there were ". . .rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university", and Scott Bills's Echoes Through a Decade also mentions them. Both the sources are listed in the article. My personal POV is that Governor Mayor Satrom and Governor Rhodes were completely unjustified in reacting so harshly to the protests, but I added this line in to counteract my POV and state a fact that might help someone understand their positions. I certainly don't mind it being removed. :)
• "not necessarily associated with any of the political machinery at KSU". I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It was there when I first saw the article. Feel free to remove it.
• "appearance of a war zone". If you prefer, I could quote the opinions of Kent State's history department: "Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone." Or I could quote several contemporary news sources that called it a war zone. It certainly had that appearance, but I could quote other's accounts instead if you so desire.
• "(Actually, Rhodes never did declare the State of Emergency which would have made the May 3rd and 4th protests illegal)" and "The rally may have in fact been legal, since a state of emergency had not been declared, but there was a widespread belief among both the students and the guardsmen that the rally was illegal.; this was not known by either the students or the National Guard at the time.)" This is also sourced: it is backed up by several of the external links and sources, including the Report of the President's Commission on Campus Unrest.
• "wearing gas masks (obscuring their vision and possibly causing heat exhaustion)" - before I got to it, the article said that it did cause heat exhaustion. I added "possibly", since I could find no evidence that it did. As stated near the top of the talk page, the high that day was 66 in nearby Akron, and no sources I have found make the claim that heat exhaustion or limited vision were in effect. I had left the claim in in order to counter-act my own POV (which is that the guard acted with criminal irresponsibility), and I wanted to leave in any claim that might partly exonerate the Guard. But on reflection, I think you're right, Daniel. It's an unsourced claim, mere speculation, and should be removed.
• The quote from a NYT reporter is an uncontested fact. It's not NPOV to quote someone.
• The antisemetic stuff was there before. I don't think it adds to the article, and I agree it should be removed.
• The "mythic sense of grief" was there when I got there. Perhaps it could be reworded. What do you suggest?
• The "not only hippies" bit does describe the widespread perception of the events, as described in several of the external links and sources.
• Daniel, more than half of the problem you have listed with the article were not added by me, but were also present in the version you were reverting to. This is a good example of why wholescale reversion of others' work is an inappropriate way to deal with suspected POV problems. I'm glad you have now listed your objections so that we can work to improve the article.
• Nearly every article on Wikipedia could be improved. You could put an NPOV disclaimer on just about any article, saying it could be made more NPOV, but that's not what the template is for.

So, are there any other POV problems anyone sees, or have they mostly been dealt with? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:16, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion here is very helpful and I think we will end up with a better article. I'll make one comment for now, though. Earlier I suggested that sources be cited. In particular, pointers to the references should appear next to the material in the body of the article. This is not suggested in the Wikipedia:Cite Sources article as strongly as having references at the end of the document, but by pointing to the references next to the assertions in the document it will help show which items are based on research. --Beirne 19:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but every sentence should be based on research and supported by the sources. Should every sentence have a footnote? Which ones? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. You don't want to clutter up the document too much. A couple of ideas would be to either write a few sentences at a time from a source or to limit the pointers to lesser-known or more controversial items.--Beirne 00:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way to provide a balance between readability and explicit sourcing is to mention the sources either at the end of each chapter/paragraph, or footnote them and refer to the general sources at the end of the article. See Wikipedia:Footnote3 for more information on the latter method. --Martin Wisse 07:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Films

Saw the just-added reference to a film about the shootings. As there are numerous films (both fictional/fictionalized and documentary) this probably merits a separate heading like "Films about the Kent State shootings," rather than listing under "Artistic tributes." Comments?

Reference

Does anyone have a reference for the statement "Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, although the distance of the students at that point makes the claim seem unlikely."?

(That is, a reference for the latter part, which is that the distance makes the claim unlikely. Note that they could be in danger from the crowd even if the particular students who got hit by bullets were too far away to put them in danger. Also bear in mind that a student charging at 10 mph can run 70 feet in 5 seconds).

While we're at it, how can the students be throwing rocks *and* unarmed at the same time? Ken Arromdee 05:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses say that there weren't many rocks thrown, and that the throwing was largely symbolic; the distance was so great that there was no chance that any guardsman would have been injured. You have to see it to believe (I live in Kent and visit the site often) the huge distance the Guard was to where the students were at that moment; at the point the Guard began to shoot the students were mostly very far away, down a hill, and not charging at the Guard at all. In fact, the students were already beginning to mill around and disperse. There is a recent documentary film from a couple of years ago (should be in the "Films" section) in which two or three Guardsmen speak, and I think two of them say they felt afraid. But, still today, none will admit to having fired, and all the guns were thrown in a pile after the shootings so no individual could be held culpable. Hope this helps at least a little. I wasn't there in 1970 but a lot of people who live around here were there that day. Maybe we could ask some of them. Badagnani 05:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

State of emergency

Can anyone clarify the differneces between the Mayor's (actual) state of emergency and the Governor's (putative) one? Rich Farmbrough 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The governor claimed that one was declared, but no one actually had. There's probably an official request that has to be sent up the appropriate channels. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just some niggling details

1. Why is there a "See also: Town and gown"? The term isn't really related to the Kent State shooting that I can tell, suggest removed
2. The lyrics Students spray the Kent State Mist/Wishing wills missing clientele/Widows sex legged lost and found really don't seem to have anything to do with the article, suggest removed
3. The Kent State killings proved a catalyst for the formation of the New Wave rock group Devo, who began as a Kent, Ohio performance art group in the mid-1970s; several members were Kent State University students at this time. seems way too tertiary to be considered relevant enough...it doesn't even claim they were at the protest
4. The part about George Segal's 1978 cast-from-life bronze sculpture Abraham and Isaac definitely needs to mention how the artist drew a parallel between the subjects, and the shooting. deleted from documentary section
5. The part about It gave the impression among many observers that Vietnam protesters included not only hippies, but also "decent suburban kids". (Vecchio was a fourteen year old runaway hanging out at campus.) seems POV, we don't need to interpret photo's meanings
6. The photograph was distributed around the world and solidified anti-war feelings. is also rather trite, most photographs are distributed around the world - this could be much better worded
7. The films listed are not even remotely Artistic Tributes, since they're documentaries, and should fall under the References section, or a section of their own...but not in with artistic tributes
8. Several local biker groups were also present. - What the hell? There were bikers on the same city street as students? the horror! All kidding aside, this adds/clarifies nothing, and only serves to POV-muddy the waters
9. And finally, a question about Many young people, including college students, were frightened of being drafted - I admit I'm very unclear on this, but I thought that during the Vietnam War, the sudden increase in student enrollments was that college/university students could not be drafted? I remember hearing it referred to derisively as "to protect the politician's children" or something...am I wrong? Could very well be, would appreciate a Yankee clearing that up

• Sherurcij 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agreed entirely on points 1-4 and 7. On point 5, that is why the photo was so effective - but I guess we need to quote some authority instead of stating it as fact. On 6, the photo was on the cover of many newspapers and was on many TV news programs. It was then used in flyers, protest placards, etc. I think that's the relevant point. On 8, the point is that it appeared it was not only students doing the mischief. I think a stronger statement is needed from somewhere. And on 9, to be draft-ineligible, you had to be enrolled as a full-time student and you had to show the draft board that you were making "substantial progress" toward your degree. If you were about to graduate, or if you were not passing, you could be drafted. Also your non-college friends could be drafted. Women also could not be drafted, and around half of protest attendees were women, so we can surmise that personal fear of the draft was not the primary reason for the resistance. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that somebody went back and wholesale reverted my changes, so I encourage discussion on the talk page if you have an issue with any of the information. Putting things back verbatim is never a good idea, because as well as cleaning up NPOV, I also fixed awkward sentence structure and other things which you've now removed. I put each part back in a separate edit, please do not wholesale revert things. Sherurcij 00:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Many students

The article says "Many students felt that this placed blame for the tragedy on the protesting students and not on the guardsmen." I'm afraid that without a cite, this won't work. Many? Which ones? Was this the prevalent attitude? (Answer: no.) Unless you can point to a reference for "many" students feeling that students were to blame, it needs to be removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits removing stuff from artistic tributes

"Segal's sculpture is relevant to the article, but not to documentaries about the shooting. It didn't even end up in Kent, but over at Princeton." -- I think it's relevant that the sculture was designed to commemorate this event. I think the other user who reverted this removal before agress with me. What do others think? Also, regarding the other removal that I reverted, I didn't think that the text removed was "shilling" -- it simply dscribed the film in slightly more detail, which I think is perfectly harmless and, possibly, useful. Jacqui ^★ 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The sculpture is relevant that it was designed to commemorate the event, and that is already mentioned in the article at An earlier artwork, George Segal's 1978 cast-from-life bronze sculpture Abraham and Isaac, was commissioned for the Kent State campus by a private fund for public art but refused by the university administration. The sculpture was eventually accepted by Princeton University and presently rests in the shadow of the university chapel.. However, a documentary about Segal is not the same as a documentary about the Kent State Shootings Sherurcij 01:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Although the film is entitled "George Segal" it focuses primarily on his creation of this sculpture for Kent State. This sculpture is based on the story of a parent killing his child. The Kent State administration failed to see the irony in Segal's depiction, as in the biblical story the story did not end in death (as it did at Kent State). The Kent State administration suggested that Segal change his sculpture to that of a semi-nude adolescent girl putting a flower in the end of a soldier's rifle. Segal told the administrator, "That's your sculpture; you make it if you want. I've already made mine." This film is quite relevant to the Kent State story, and is not just some movie about some sculptor. I was the one who saw to it that it was added to the May 4 Collection here at Kent State University. Badagnani 19:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Severe content changes

Will you please stop making such severe cuts in the article. For example, the iron bell is called the "victory bell" and you just changed it to "bell." Badagnani 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well technically it was listed as "the iron victory bell" which is a little wordy, so I figured in the hopes of improving this article, we could remove a couple of adjectives. If it's called the "Victory bell", then that's fine, though I suggest we put it in quotation marks since a victory bell isn't really something the common reader would recognise. I guess the only things you changed back that I'd dispute are the word "iron" in the bell, and "with bayonets fixed and weapons loaded" which just sounds poorly-written, no offence.Sherurcij 09:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my post. Your changes were mostly very good. Badagnani 16:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Continuing the push to improve

Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus and the city to tip off a violent political revolution in the United States. should be sourced, or removed. Caught it, it was a comment in Rhodes' announcement, not a rumor Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}
• As the bars began closing their doors to avoid trouble... sounds like we're writing a book, not an encyclopaedic entry, reword/remove
• More than one fire engine company had to be called in because protesters were slashing fire hoses with pocket knives needs to be reworded ('more than one'), and seems unlikely simply given the physics of a pocket knife and a fire hose
• Many arrests were made, names or at least numbers would be better
• A press conference held by Governor Rhodes should be a wikilink
• The Guard chased the students around campus, reword, not a game of hide/seek
• and one speaker started to speak. this should say whether it was a student speaker, or a guest speaker, or whatever, very vague.
• for public art but refused by the university administration. I still dislike this whole section, but if it's in, it should state why it wasn't accepted (less POV than "refused"), giving context
• recontextualized the work in such a way that it came to be considered as a convincing, albeit anticipative, monument sounds like an advertisment for the artist
• Some more images would be nice for the other subheadings, perhaps one of CSNY performing the song, maybe a snapshot from one of the annual memorials, or something?
  • • http://www.may41970.com/May%204%20Commemoration%20Photo%20Archive/CommemorationPhotosArchivePage2.htm#27th%20Commemoration has photos of CSN (sans Y) at Kent State. Young was actually in Cleveland, 1 hour's drive from Kent, at that time (all 4 were being inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that week) but Young chose not to come to Kent with CSN. Badagnani 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mpesa/ksawcpic.htm seems to have quite a few of later memorials, and http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/2002/kentstate/photos.htm has several of the protests two days *after* the shootings) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/2000/04/tuchman.kentstate.may4/kent.images/frank.students.jpg Glenn Frank, the prof, calming students after the shooting

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw40/images/kent-state.jpg This photo's subject has a name, I just can't find it right now

• This is Alan Canfora waving a black flag; I think the photo is by John Filo. Badagnani 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.war-stories.com/images/kent-state-brandt-2.gif Nice colour image of a guardsman

http://www.war-stories.com/images/kent-state-brandt-1.gif Similar

http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/box28/54223.jpg Students protesting

http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/box28/5414.jpg Guardsmen

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/113exhibit34.jpg A cropped version of this was in TIME magazine at the time File:Kent State protestors.jpg is already on Wikipedia

Problems with wholesale reverting

• As mentioned Tensions were high throughout the town, especially on campus. There were unfounded rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus and the city to tip off a violent political revolution in the United States. is a (bad) reference to a statement by Rhodes, there is no evidence of any "rumors", and this paragraph adds nothing that I didn't already sumamrize in the May 3rd day, which is when it happened, not the 2nd.

http://dept.kent.edu/may4/chrono.htm This is one source that gives a slightly different wording for the rumors. I'm sure each source will give it a slightly different way so it's probably best to consult several, *then* reword. Badagnani 21:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Memorials should be listed in chronological order as I put them, not some weird "1976-1990-1978-1970" pattern which makes no sense

• 2.5 acres is not 10 hectares, as I said on the edit summary...why the hell would you re-add some of this stuff?

• This is not an article on Segal or his sculpture, so the information about Princeton University is not desirable in an article about Kent State since it offers no context to say that a statue "today rests in the shadow of the university chapel" which is a very romantic sentence not fitting of an encyclopaedia. It's sufficient to say that after Kent declined the work, Princeton accepted it.

• When the university ceased commemorating the event in 1976 is much better phrased than your earlier 1976 (the year Kent State University chose to cease commemorating the event)

If you have issues with any specific point, please feel free to address it on the talk page, but since this is the third time you've now gone back and just wholesale reverted others hard work towards improving the article (improvements which have been on the talk page for weeks, and you have not addressed), please think twice before just reverting stuff because it's not your wording. As it says at the bottom of every edit page If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - In an unrelated note, I'd be curious about "7% of a statue was built", how that number was arrived at, and what exactly determines "7%" Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, also need a source for During the day some concerned students came into downtown Kent to offer their time and services with cleanup efforts after the rioting. While many shop owners appreciated this gesture, others were angry which sounds very POV in favour of the students, any reference? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of these statements came from these two references: [18] and [19]. You could probably find them there. Regardless, it should probably be reworded to be more encyclopedic. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Much thanks for the links Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Acres

Bandagani, is there any reason you keep inserting (sometimes valid, sometimes incorrect) translations from acres to hectares in the article? It seems that information would be found on acre or hectare if somebody actually wanted to research it, and is not relevant to an article on Kent State shootings? Plz advise Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My name is not spelled that way. As I wrote in my edit summary, I did the calculation, as you should have originally rather than simply delete. You are correct; I incorrectly reverted the change back to 10 hectares previously but I corrected this error with the correct calculation. A Google search for "acres to hectares" produces a number of engines that will do this. The wonders of the Internet! Good last few edits, by the way. Badagnani 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is why we need a conversion to hectares at all, I think - also worth noting that your "source" is something you (as in "The Kent State taskforce") have written, which isn't entirely impartial, and still only says "Rumors of radical activities were widespread", not that there were plans to "tip off a revolution in the United States" which a tad more draconian. Again, I am removing the statement unless you can provide a source that there was any such rumor. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it, the earlier profanity was bad enough but you have now crossed the line to being very rude! I am not a member of the May 4 Task Force and have never been a member of this group. I do, however, live in Kent, Ohio and know many people who are very knowledgeable about the event, having been there before, during, and after. BTW I asked you to locate other sources before deleting (i.e. books and contemporary newspaper accounts); are you willing to do so or do I have to do that for you? Badagnani 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not my role to find sources for what I don't believe happened, so no, if you want to claim that there were rumors that the student body wanted to overthrow the government by tipping off a violent cross-country revolution...you are going to have to find sources confirming that, otherwise I assume the statement is just 'generous extrapolation' of Rhodes' comments. I apologise if I misunderstood your role at the University, I was working off your earlier comments like I was the one who saw to it that it was added to the May 4 Collection here at Kent State University. which implied you were a student/faculty at the Uni, and involved in the May 4th arrangements Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, I am student and faculty here, in the field of ethnomusicology. As someone who has worked hard to learn as much as possible about this event, I feel a responsibility to make sure that the correct information is known, as there is still a lot of misinformation. As a musician, when I find out about obscure recordings, artworks, etc. I do phone the May 4 Archive (on the 12th floor of our library) to see if they have it, and, if not, recommend that they obtain a copy. Although there are courses taught about it here, most people here are not very interested or knowledgeable about the subject. I gather from your comments that you are unwilling to seek any books on the subject; that's too bad. Badagnani 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to combat the same misinformation you are, we're on the same side. Trouble is, unless there's some specific reference-able reason to believe that somebody was spreading those rumors, then what is a bit of a "definitive eArticle" on the subject should not say it's true Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit about hectares. 70.177.90.238 07:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Heavy on campus context; but zilch on guardsmen?

I'm pretty sure the Guardsmen were pulled off of duty in Akron where they were providing protection on the highways from striking truckers against non-striking truckers. [B. Sutton 4-19-06]

I remember hearing the guardsmen had just come back from something adversarial (combat, or combat training, i forget what) and they hadn't slept for three days. No, this doesn't excuse their actions, but it would put their behavior in context and might help explain why they were trigger happy. 70.177.90.238 07:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you could find a reference for that? I agree it would helpful to at least mention if that's the case. I'm not really certain how the National Guard worked during the Vietnam War, but yeah, it would be great if you could find a reference. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think they had just gotten back from breaking up a very tough strike somewhere else in Ohio, maybe Columbus. There were many other similar confrontations that year. Just before the Kent State events, black activists were shot with shotguns filled with rock salt, I think in Columbus. Badagnani 20:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That huge section on plays/poetry/movies/books/interpretiveDancing

In her 1997 multimedia work Partially Buried, visual artist Renée Green explores the history of the shootings within a wider historical and cultural context. is this actually worth mentioning in an encyclopaedic work? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it sounds suspiciously like a freelance self-employed hobbyist promoting their own work. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bunch more, reading the lyrics to Tin Omen, I'd say that's more of a "reference" than a tribute, and I don't think we want to start listing all pop culture references to something so major, so I suggest we remove it. (IT's a tribute to Tiannemen, with a reference to Kent State) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Artistic tributes section is well written as is, IMO. Badagnani

Okay, I'm getting really damn sick of you just wholesale reverting shit because you don't like people changing your wording. "It was good how it was", no, it wasn't.

• Your apostrophe was wrong, I fixed it, you reverted to incorrect
• The fact Neil Young was born in Canada has nothing to do with Kent State, it goes in *his* article
• The fact Harvey Andrews was born in the UK has nothing to do with Kent State, it goes in *his* article
• we do not randomly direct-quote stanzas from a random song
• Mark Mulcahy, lead singer for the 1980s band Miracle Legion, which reformed as Polaris. Polaris performed songs for the kids' television show The Adventures of Pete and Pete, which ran from 1989-1994 on Nickelodeon. Polaris's version of Hey Sandy was used as the theme song for the show. is way too wordy, it's much better to say A different song entitled "Hey Sandy", commonly thought to be based on Andrews' song, was written by Mark Mulcahy, the song served as the theme for the television show The Adventures of Pete and Pete, which ran from 1989-1994., and if people care about Mulcahy's various musical groups, they can read HIS article.
• The shootings at Kent State have often been characterized as the seminal moment in the creation of the theory of de-evolution What the hell? THat doesn't even make sense, and at best would need to definite citations that a student demonstration brought about "new theories"
• New Wave band Devo by its founders, Gerald Casale, Bob Lewis and Mark Mothersbaugh, all of whom attended Kent State University in the early 1970s. So? I attended school with people who are now NHL hockey players, doesn't mean I should be mentioned in their wiki articles. "early 70s" means they weren't even at the fecking school when it happened, and they definitely do not seem to have had some great encyclopaedic impact on the Kent State shootings.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...stop. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm removing the second Hey Sandy altogether since its lyrics have absolutely shit-all to do with Kent State. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrm

By that time most of the bars were closed and the downtown and campus were quiet. - was 1am a normal closing time for Kent bars in the 70s? Also, removing again the rumors that revolutionaries were planning to destroy the campus and the city to tip off a violent political revolution in the United States which is still not sourced anywhere, except a website run by the May 4th Task Force which says they wanted to destroy the university. Definitely nothing about rumors about overthrowing the United States. Second question is just whether anybody outside the University sphere ever referred to it as "May 4", I'd certainly never read it in newspapers accounts or anything the way "September 11th" and "9/11" are interchangable.Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question about when the bars closed, why not ask someone who was there at the time (there are a lot, it just takes a phone call or email), or get a good book on the subject? A little bit of research (rather than just deleting) will likely solve this problem. By the way, it would be great if you didn't use profanity here. Badagnani 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't delete either of those points, since I admit that I'm not God, and I don't know the answer to either question...hence why I'm asking. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 04:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a source for "several students" being stabbed with bayonets? I see this which indicates one student reported an injury from a bayonet. (And since there is no indication it was a "stabbing", then I feel that wording is rather POV, since it could have just as easily been an inadvertent swipe. So "injury from a guardsman's bayonet" would seem to be much more NPOV. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Many believe the fire may have been set in protest, but the arsonists were never caught. is rather POV, since it says that there's a chance there was no arson, yet then refers to arsonists as though they definitely exist. I'd suggest rewording, especially since we later say 5 students were charged with arson, though acquitted/dismissed. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)}

University officials attempted to ban the gathering, handing out 12,000 leaflets stating that the event was cancelled. is a bit misleading, was there a "ban" or wasn't there? Misinformation is not the same thing as an outright ban. Needs to be fixed. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "massacre" was applied to the shootings by some individuals and media sources, as it had been used for the Boston Massacre of 1770, in which five were killed and several more wounded., while I think the first part of that is useful, I'm not sure there's any reason to draw a comparison to the Boston Massacre. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

families of the victims who were hoping to place blame on Governor Rhodes and the Ohio State Guard. is POV, reword Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Center for Applied Conflict Management (CACM), it developed one of the earliest conflict resolution undergraduate degree programs in the United States. Needs to be sourced, weasely Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet (81 m) away (nearly the length of an American football field). seems a bit POV, would we define 81 metres as being a football field in any other article? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just five days after the shootings, 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. against the war. was that a spontaneous demonstration, or one previously planned? If it was previously planned, then it has nothing to do with Kent State and should be removed. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It gave the impression among many observers that Vietnam protesters included not only hippies, but also "decent suburban kids". If that's not a direct quote that we can source, it should not be in quotation marks. Google shows wikipedia as the only place listing that term in relation to Kent State. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

was dedicated on the campus on a 2.5 acre (10,000 m²) site, for the last damn time, we don't need to convert the word "acre", just wikilink it if you're worried about people not knowing what an acre is. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By Sunday, there were nearly a thousand National Guardsmen on campus to control the students. just a personal inquiry, but since we later say "24 out of 77" guardsmen were involved in the shooting, where are we pulling the number "nearly a thousand" from? And what is the actual number? "nearly" is somewhat weasely Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(Rhodes didn't declare the state of emergency, which would have made the May 3 and May 4 protests illegal; this was not known by either the students or the National Guard at the time [2]). seems weasely since it was my understanding that they didn't know anybody had declared a SoE at that time, not just that "Governor Rhodes hadn't". Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared, how exactly did he "give the impression"? Was there a quote from him? Some police action? As it stands, that's a very weasely sentence that needs to be sourced/removed. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

over 4 million students protested and over 900 American colleges and universities closed during the student strikes. needs to be sourced. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, I'll address points that I'm sure you'll never counter-address or debate

• Burned CDs made by University students as part of a "task force" really are not notable enough to be "musical tributes" in an encyclopaedic article. This is not the place to advertise.
• There is no need to say "Canadian songwriter", the fact he composed the song hints to his occupation, and his nationality is not relevant. People who want to know that can read his article. Same with Harvey.
• Words like "stabbed" and "defied" carry a slight POV bias in them and should be avoided, if we can think of better ways to word it.
• You've gone from claiming that students were slashing fire hoses with a pocket knife, and when I asked for a source pointing out that it was physically impossible, you just changed it to say they were slashing firehoses. Again, a source would be really nice for something like this which is definitely painting one side in a poor light, and doesn't seem to have any commonly-known historical context.
• The fact CSNY is a "folk rock group" doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in theirs
• "much less well known" is poor English, and borders on weasel words. We don't list what countries each individual song was released in, if we want to do that, we create an article for the song.
• Why do you keep randomly putting in snippets of lyrics from "Hey Sandy"? We don't directly quote the lyrics of other songs - and regardless of copyright status, it's simply bad form for an encyclopaedic article.
• The shootings were the catalyst for the theory of "Devolution," as constituted by the members of the new wave rock band Devo, who attended Kent State University in the early 1970s has absolutely nothing to do with the shootings

Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Sherurcij has begun editing here, he has made many inaccurate statements about the Kent State shootings, all the while unabashedly stating that he is unwilling to research by looking at sources beyond the Internet. It has become particularly bad in recent weeks. For example, the May 4 Task Force's 2-CD set is not a "burned CD-R"; these are real CDs, with tracks by The Pretenders, Harvey Andrews, Joe Walsh, Holly Near, Manhattan Transfer, Yoko Ono, and others. Sherurcij should defer to those who know more than he about a subject, as I do when editing here. It will make the article even better, which is something we all want. Or, you can continue to insist that the CD is actually a burned CD-R and we'll keep reverting. That is wasting everyone's time and bandwidth. Badagnani 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one claiming that students were "slashing" through firehoses with pocket knives. I'll give you $50 if you can pull that stunt off even once. You're also claiming that students were 'stabbed' with bayonets, something which has zero evidence. Here's a hint, if it comes from something called The May 4 Taskforce, chances are I'm not going to accept it as being gospel-truth NPOV. But even the Taskforce says *1* student was *injured* by a bayonet, not "multiple students were stabbed" as you seem to keep claiming. I'm curious what "inaccurate" statements I've made, since I never used the term CD-R - I admit I'm not up-to-date on your copyright status on Yoko Ono's work, it could be perfectly legitimate...I still argue that unless she wrote a song about the shootings, then it doesn't belong here. You haven't yet explained why you think it's neccesary to fill the article with irrelevant information such as what country Neil Young was born in, or what genre of music CSNY classifies themselves as. And no, I'm definitely not going to "defer to you" just because you think I "should". If you want me to defer provide damned evidence to back up your claims. That's what WP:V is about. I'm disputing that multiple students were stabbed by bayonets, so I'm telling you, source it or remove it. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • The bayonetings are discussed in books on the subject; one girl ended up with a stomach wound (I think this is mentioned in the book called "What Really Happened at Kent State"). In fact, bayonetings in similar situations were not uncommon during that time, but after the Kent State incident the use of fixed bayonets was abandoned due to the embarrassment that the stabbing of unarmed college students had caused. Probably for now the best thing to do is use that reference and say "at least one female student was bayoneted in the stomach," with a reference. But it seems clear from eyewitness accounts that several students had been stabbed. Yes, it is shocking and hard to believe that it happened in the USA, but it did happen nonetheless. Badagnani 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The slashing of firehoses can be easily sourced, but Internet sources aren't particularly good for this subject; books, newspaper articles (available on microfilm at your local library), and eyewitness accounts in the May 4 Archive are much better. I agree that probably all points in the article should be sourced eventually, but removing well known text by presuming that it's impossible to cut those hoses when everyone who was there saw it doesn't make much sense. I can check to see if the hoses were actually punctured all the way through but I am sure at least the outside covering of the hoses was damaged. To sum up, you seem very interested in this subject, and if you'd like this to be a really great article, why not get some of the books mentioned in the bibliography (there are some good ones) and source each incident? That would be great, making for a really authoritative article. Badagnani 07:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Scan the microfilm, print out the newspaper articles. I've gone to my local libraries to print out hardcopy evidence for Wiki articles, it's not unreasonable to demand you do the same. If I eMail Alan Canfora, will he support that students were slashing firehoses, since you said "everybody" saw them doing it? It's not my job to source each incident, it's the job of the person who wants that incident included, if there's any dispute over it. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Alan Canfora is not the only expert on the subject, but I am pretty sure he was there and saw the hoses being slashed. Yes, he can tell you if they slashed all the way through or not. I have heard him speak on this point and he does say the hoses were being slashed, and does not dispute that students were doing this (although he says that nobody knows who actually got the ROTC Building fire going, although students had earlier tried, and failed, to burn it down). Badagnani 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers on the sources, thanks Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • The cutters of the hose seem to have been Jerry Rupe and Rick Felber. I believe neither was a student, and Rupe (then 23 years old, a sandal maker nearby Ravenna, Ohio) was known as a narcotics dealer with a violent and perhaps also mentally ill personality.[20] Rupe was tried for cutting the fire hose but was acquitted, presumably because an SDS member got his way onto the jury.[21] By the way, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) was removed from the article but it should not have been. It was the most significant anti-war student organization on campus, and organized most of the demonstrations at the time. Badagnani 21:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to removing the Andrews lyric but you have shown bad faith, constantly cursing, reporting people for restoring valid text you have deleted, and refusing to compromise. You do seem interested in this subject but I don't see how I can compromise with someone who behaves as you do. Badagnani 07:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just listed 9 points tonight, you addressed two of them ("The CD is valid", and "everybody knows they were slashing firehoses") and otherwise completely dismissed me, mass-reverting to get your text back in the article. So again, please address each of the points I make, and source controversial claims, or remove them until a source can be provided. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You did assert that the CD was "burned," carrying the implication that it is a CD-R. Please do not continue to make inaccurate statements, then stand behind them; it does not help your credibility here. Your Yoko Ono comment does not make sense but removing yet again the mention of the commemorative CD (almost all songs have the Kent State Shootings as theme) is simple vandalism; please restore it now and show your good faith (which, I have to say, I have doubted up to now). Badagnani 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the points are difficult to address because they come from such an uninformed (and combatively so) point of view. For example, your statement: Burned CDs made by University students as part of a "task force" really are not notable enough to be "musical tributes" in an encyclopaedic article. The group you are referring to is made up of Kent and local community members, as well as students, faculty, and staff of Kent State University. It is not made up solely of students. The 2-CD set is not "self-burned," as you had previously stated, then denied. It contains tracks about the shootings by many internationally known artists and is of course worthy of mention here, and proceeds go toward a scholarship fund. Badagnani 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is a scholarship fund specifically named after the shootings, then it deserves mention, but certainly not through its fundraising CD. Since you bring it up, are they original recordings on the CD or licensed through the labelholders? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked you nicely to restore the text and you refused to compromise. Give me a good reason why I should continue to respond to you here. I feel bad for you, like many students these days, that you're unable to find source material yourself. If you want to know how the tracks on the CD were obtained and licensed, why not write to the email address of the person who put the project together? It's never too late to get into a mode of finding information on your own rather than relying solely on the Internet, and it's really good feeling once that information is obtained and implemented in a Wikipedia article. Check on this, let us know on "Discussion," then put the information back in the article. Badagnani 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm patient enough to deal with your jackassery, so you should be patient enough to deal with mine. That's what makes WP great. I don't personally care how the tracks on the CD were compiled and licensed, I don't think it belongs in the article. But since you dispute that and claim that it does, I'm asking you to provide licensing information and such. "I don't want to find it, go look for yourself" isn't good enough. Again, the onus is on you to back up any statements that you insist be included. (Like the firehoses, the article is much better for readers now that it's sourced, ta). And in case you didn't notice, I'm not relying on online sources for my information, I'm not relying on any of my own sources, I'm demanding that you reference yours - I'm taking stuff out of the article, not putting it in. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks, please. Jonathunder 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Musicians

Since this article is about the Kent State shootings, and not primarily about the songwriters who covered the incident, I see no need for there to include trivia about individual performers. The facts that Niel Young is Canadian, that CSN performed without Young on campus, that "Hey Sandy" wasn't released in the U.S., etc., just aren't relevant. If you disagree, please say so here, but to be honest this has to be one of the lamest edit wars I've run across. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The information is all accurate and adds to the reader's knowledge about the subject, so obviously I disagree on these points. There is, however, always room for negotiation but not with an editor who insults other editors, repeatedly uses profanity and refuses to apologize, etc. That kind of thing makes it impossible to have an adult conversation about anything. Take a look at the archives; it's just appalling. Badagnani 13:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how knowing where Neil Young was born "adds to the reader's knowledge about the (Kent State Shootings)" - I'm not trying to be anal, but just like improving an article means adding important parts to it, it also includes removing the parts that shouldn't be there. My profanity doesn't seem to be quite up to sailor-standards, and is considered PG-rated at best. It shouldn't really mean you'll spend the next 29 days reverting improvements to the article, ignoring edit summaries like If you have an issue, deal with it ON THE TALK PAGE WHERE I LIST EVERYTHING I DO AND ASK FOR COMMENT or rvt, not without building consensus on the talk page, you don't. or PLEASE CONSIDER USING THE TALK PAGE TO ADDRESS SUBJECTS or Next time try responding to what's on the discusson page or reasons listed on talk page (...Young's birthcountry is irrelevant, if he composed a song we don't need to say he's a songwriter, etc or reverting to Quadell's version, you haven't even bothered trying to justify why Neil Young's nationality is needed or as per talk page, Neil Young's credentials belong on his page, not here or as per talk page, Hey Sandy doesn't need to list what countries, that's for an article on the song, lacking that, it doesn't belong here or Hear's nationality and political status are unrelated to the shootings, only her song is or Revert, that text has been on the talk page for months asking you to justify it, you haven't, so it's gone unless consensus says it should stay or again, please reference Talk/editSummaries or .you know, you could better spend this time on the talk page or I haven't seen consensus on the talk page for including biographical information on singers in this article, so it remains out. In fact, looking at the edit history, my entire "continuous cursing in bad faith, refuse to speak to this person, how dare he ask edit my article" seems to consist of a single "damn". Looking at the talk page, I have made 37 edits, in which I said the word "damn" twice. That's it for cursing, three times I said "damn". Never even "Damn You", always "damned evidence" or something. Three "damns" puts me about at less 'cursing' than the 1961 Disney movie One Hundred and One Dalmatians...and for this, you claim you can't possibly be expected to deal with me, or let my edits stand? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 14:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright you two, I get it. You don't like each other. Fine. But this is a place to discuss Kent State content, not personality problems. Discuss each other on each other's talk pages, or on RFCs, or whatnot.

Regarding content, the fact that Niel Young is Canadian is accurate, and belongs in the Neil Young article, but not here. The same with these other artist factoids. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Bagdani, you recently made a change calling it a "compromise". There are aproxomately 80-100 words difference between the version you seem to prefer and the version you have reverted over a dozen times. Your compromise version was two-words different from the version you seemed to prefer. That's not a compomise.

If you'd like to work out a compromise, the best way to do that is to use the talk page, rather than reverting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

comments from an eyewitness of the ROTC building fire

In the Wikipediea article covering Sat., May 2 this phrase appears, "There is speculation about the actual start of the fire". I was a resident in Stopher Hall in the wing of the dormitory that faced the ROTC building. As people gathered at the ROTC building that evening, I was watching from Stopher Hall with binoculars that someone on our floor had in their room. I witnessed someone in the crowd break a glass pane in a door of the ROTC building, rip the cloth curtain from the inside of the door, make a torch with a stick and dip it into the gas tank of a motorcycle that was there at the scene. They lit the torch and tossed it inside the building.

As far as the slashing of the fire hose, I witnessed people pushing the firemen away and saw someone take an axe from the fire truck and chop the firehose with the axe.

My name is Brad Sutton and I was a resident at Stopher Hall from Fall 1969 to Spring 1972.

Very interesting, Brad; thanks for this.

Regarding your witnessing of the specifics of the ignition of the fire, this is probably new information. Many people were in the crowd and must have seen these same actions first hand, but what one mostly hears is that "nobody knows how the fire actually got started" or who got it started, etc., as when the students returned after unsuccessfully trying to ignite the building, it was already on fire. So your information seems new. You didn't state whether there was a crowd around the building at the time, or whether it was the first or second time the crowd gathered, so that we know how what you saw fits with what is generally known about what happened.

Regarding the tool used to cut the hose, a machete was mentioned by an eyewitness in the trial in the documents available on the Web; is this inaccurate? It would seem strange that anyone would have had a machete on hand. Also, regarding the firehose, were you on the ground at this time, or also viewing from the window in Stopher Hall? Badagnani 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly started the fire but I do know it was a young male and I know beyond a shadow of doubt that it was started by the torch I mentioned being tossed into the building. You make reference to the crowd gathering twice. I don't recall that. It could be that they had gathered once but I wasn't aware of it. In other words, maybe I only saw the second gathering. From what I can remember about the crowd, I don't think it was very large. I do remember that I was concentrating with the binoculars on the people who were breaking the glass on the door and making the torch, etc. If there was a machete at the scene, I didn't see it.

I was up in Stopher Hall on the second floor the entire time, so I was looking down on the action. I had no desire to go down and get mixed up in what was going on. By the way, the ROTC building was an indoor shooting range with, I assume, live ammunition inside. It's amazing nobody was wounded or killed that Saturday night.

I've been thinking more about the events at Kent, especially on May 4th. I think what may have happened was a result of human nature. By that I mean, you had a crowd of perhaps 200 or 300 protesters who were taunting, cursing, and throwing pieces of broken bricks at the Guard (obviously trying to inflict physical harm). There were probably a thousand or more people standing around watching and literally surrounding the Guard. Then you had a group of men who were weekend soldiers, who probably didn't like hippie anti-war protesters and to top it off, they had very powerful, loaded weapons. It was a pretty warm day on May 4th, 1970. The Guard was in full battle gear and I imagine they were pretty hot in those uniforms. Their vision was restricted by the gas masks and with all the people who surrounded them, they were probably starting to fear for their lives. I think the students simply pushed too far. That's not to say the Guard is innocent in the matter. I'm just saying I think we saw human nature reacting to being pushed past the boiling point. When those kids ran out in front of the Guard to taunt and curse them, they took a calculated risk. Or maybe it wasn't calculated. All in all, it was a tremendously sad tragedy with the loss of young lives. Brad Sutton 20:26 13 April 2006

Thank you again for your observations. However, if you know the geography of location where the shootings happened, you'll know that the students being fired upon were fairly distant at the time of the shooting, and that the Guard was not in danger from thrown projectiles at that time. It does seem clear that certain of the students (especially the most vocal ones nearest to the Guard) were targeted by at least some of the shooters. Badagnani 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The KSU yearbook that covered the shootings included a reprint of an article from the Sunday, May 24, 1970 edition of the Akron-Beacon Journal which had a 'Special Kent State Section'. The article went in to quite a bit of detail with eyewitness accounts, etc. Regarding the ROTC fire, they had quotes from a plainclothes detective named Tom Willison who saw the fire started by someone who "soaked a rag in the gas tank of a parked motorcycle 'and they lit the rag and put this on the curtains and got it going good' ". He mentioned two other attempts to start a fire which failed. He also mentions the fire hose being chopped with a machete.

Regarding May 4th and the proximity of students to the Guard, it's true that most of the students who were wounded/killed were relatively far away from the Guard. But just moments before, some had been close enough to hit the Guardsmen in their faces with pieces of broken bricks. In the same Beacon-Journal article there are quotes from some of the Guard who were struck in the face and at least one had a tooth knocked out. Some of the students were clearly intent on doing physical harm. That's not a good idea when you're facing someone with a loaded weapon. [B. Sutton 4-19-06]

Images

Anybody else think it'd be nice to at least see the http://www.burr.kent.edu/archives/1990/filo/alanflag.jpg image included in the article? After the Vecchio image, I think it's probably the most memorable I ever saw (Also the side-shot from the balcony, of the guards firing, I suppose). I *think* it's Alan Canfora in the image, isn't it? Anyhow, if you happen to be able to dig around and find a better-quality/larger version of the image that'd be great, or just this one :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Music debate starts up again

Jon Anderson has said that "Long Distance Runaround" (on the album Fragile by Yes, released 1971) are also in part about the shootings, particularly the line "hot colour melting the anger to stone".

Looking at the lyrics, I think we're going to have to institute a policy of "If the lyrics don't mention the shootings, then we don't include songs where the singers say they were inspired by the events of that year...I mean, "hot colour melting the anger to stone" doesn't exactly seem like a direct reference to four kids being killed by national the national guard, whereas "Four Dead in Ohio" does. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I think we're going to have to..."

We operate by consensus here, I think. Badagnani 22:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I put it on the talkpage, sweetie Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Why was the text changed to this: "In 1971 Kent State alumni composer and pianist Bill Dobbins..."

This is inaccurate. The composer was in graduate school at the time, not an "alumni" ("alumni," by the way, is a plural form so cannot apply to an individual). Whoever changed the text, please change it back to the original wording. Badagnani 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Whoever changed this, please fix it. Badagnani 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask once again. Whoever changed this, please fix it. Badagnani 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask yet again. Whoever changed this, please fix it. Badagnani 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Guard injuries

Re: the detailed information about injuries to Guard members just added, the anon editor who added this must be drawing on a printed source in front of him/her, so it would be good if the reference is added, as this information is not generally known. Keep in mind that the Record-Courier article published the day after the shootings stated that no students were killed but that several Guard members had been killed, so it's important which media source is being quoted and to make sure it's corroborated and trustworthy. Badagnani 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, would the anon editor please respond to this? It's fairly important. Badagnani 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Now it's 10 days later and there's still been no response about this. Recently added text now says that Guard members suffered broken bones and teeth. This information, if accurate, is not generally known, so could the person adding this information add citations to back this information up, as has been done in the past here with information that is not generally known? Badagnani 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bikers

One website claims the discussion of bikers' brawling leading up to the violence is inaccurate. I don't know what the case is, but thought I'd stick it here for consideration. The link is [22]. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I wish he would chime in (or edit himself, as an expert on the subject; maybe he doesn't know how easy it is) with more fixes, particularly as regards the above issue which has not been addressed, and other errors or lacunae in the article. Badagnani 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Transmetropolitan

The serial graphic novel (or 'comic book,' if you prefer) Transmetropolitan includes a scene towards the end of the series that is clearly a reference/tribute to the Kent shootings (one panel is even a direct homage to the Mary Ann Vecchio photograph). Would it be appropriate to at least give it a mention in the 'Artistic Tributes' section?--MythicFox 07:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, but there are probably countless references like that in various books. Nevertheless, I suppose it could count as an artistic tribute. Badagnani 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

unattributed quote

I removed the quotes from the single-quoted "'less-lethal' means"; it implies disbelief (unless it's an attributable quote, which I doubt, but feel free to correct me). I'm noting this here because, oddly, this change does not appear in the history, even though the change did "take". Using single quotes to imply the phrase "so-called" is sloppy writing, and probably violates WP:NPOV. Happy to discuss if you like. Graham 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting because the term "less lethal" was developed as a more accurate substitute for the term "non-lethal." (For example, rubber, wooden, or plastic bullets, pepper spray, electrical tasers, etc.) Thus, the term "non-lethal," if used in quotes, would be correct in undermining the veracity of the adjective, since some of these methods do kill people on a regular basis. "Less-lethal" wouldn't require quotes since it's an accurate description of the methods. Badagnani 06:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I guess my point was that if you want to undermine the veracity of an adjective (adverb, in this case: "less"), then do it directly, not with little tick marks. Graham 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

addition of article to Category:School massacres in the United States

I've added this article to Category:School massacres in the United States. I understand that this is a potentially controversial edit. The term "school massacre" usually refers to murder, as opposed to the use of lethal force by authorities. However, many people still consider the Kent State event to be an actual massacre.

Any thoughts? --Ixfd64 09:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kent State in the "School Shootings" and "State Terrorism" categories

Contrary to the claim in your edit summary, I did back up each edit with evidence and quotes from the actual WP articles, such as the very first paragraph of the State terrorism article. You don't appear to have read any of them all the way through. I've explained the category as well. Over and above this, please give me a reason why I should not report you at this point for 3RR. Best, Badagnani 09:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No sir, you have not. It was NOT an incident of state terrorism, it was a RIOT where the National Guard was called to restore order and opened fire because they claimed they were in fear for their lives.

Give YOU a reason? Sorry if I don't bow down before you, but maybe a good reason is that you violated it easily yourself, on top of the personal insults. Equinox137 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, please do give me the four instances of reverts that I have performed in a 24-hour period. Second, you really have not read the articles straight through. If you had, you would have read the following:

The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened, but harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, concluding that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

On June 13, 1970, President Nixon established the President's Commission on Campus Unrest which he charged to study the dissent, disorder, and violence breaking out on college and university campuses across the nation.[10] The Commission's establishment was a consequence of the fatal violence at Kent State and Jackson State. The Commission issued its findings in a September 1970 report that concluded that the Ohio National Guard shootings on May 4, 1970 were unjustified. The report said:

"Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators."

No matter how you may wish things to have transpired that day, the fact is that many of the Guard members, whether or not they claimed self-defense, were aiming at particular students and firing repeatedly at them, with two of the students not even having participated in the protests. Even Nixon's commission found the self-defense claim to have been spurious. Badagnani 09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You presume a lot, I did read it. The fact that a presidential commission that was 1,000 miles away from the scene at the time of the incident says it's so, doens't make it so. Everybody's good at armchair quarterbacking and 20/20 hindsight. Furthermore, where's the backing for your statement that the soldiers "were aiming at particular students and firing repeatedly at them"? Even the all-mighty commission never said that. Do you have a problem with soldiers and cops, Badagnani? Or maybe the Ohio National Guard? Does the fact that you're from Kent cloud your judgement on this issue? Either way, the fact remains about the commission that THEY WEREN'T THERE.

I'm still waiting to hear why this belongs in either the school shooting or state terrorism categories. All the incidents in the school shooting category have to do with a mentally instable shooter attacking students.

State terrorism is defined by wikipedia itself as "controversial term, which means violence against civilians perpetrated by a national government or proxy state. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the International community considers the action justified or necessary, or whether the described act is carried out as part of an armed conflict." Since the National Guard was called in response to the riots and not deliberately terrorizing any protestor or studend by any account, how does this qualify as "state terrorism." Equinox137 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Please give me the four instances of reverts that I have performed in a 24-hour period.

2) (Already explained): It's state terrorism by definition from that article's first paragraph, with the additional factor that the violence took place by the firing into an unarmed crowd with semiautomatic weapons. I don't necessarily agree or agree with the concept of "state terrorism" and that article makes it clear that the term itself is controversial.

3) (Already explained): for whatever reason, the School massacres category was deleted a few days ago, leaving only School shootings. It isn't exactly the same as Columbine but does fit the category and is the only remaining category into which it will fit. Badagnani 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than report, I'd very much rather you edit in a thoughtful manner, first reading the articles, then considering how your recent (obviously strongly felt) edits fit with the already-soureced material there. Badagnani 10:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem with police or soldiers; do you have one? It's fairly well accepted that Alan Canfora, who was "in the face" of the Guard earlier in the day, was shot in the hand (he was earlier waving a black flag; this can be seen in a lot of the photos). He then ducked behind a tree and heard bullets hit the tree just after. Some Guard members selected targets (i.e. unarmed students), as they are trained to do, and fired at them, while others stated that they shot in the air or into the ground. Two of the wounded students, Joseph Lewis (who was giving the finger to the Guard just before being shot) and James Russell, were each shot twice and other survivors of the shootings report multiple rounds being fired directly at them, and seeing gun barrels pointed at them. You may wish the Guard to have been in a life-or-death situation as many people still do but the facts are not with you. The students had largely dispersed and most were far away in a distant parking lot when hit. You should visit the site of the shootings someday and you'll be quite surprised at the great distance. Badagnani 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How could I possibly have a problem with police or soldiers when I'm defending them? Furthermore, since when does Canfora become an authoritative source? He is giving one version of the events that happened. Of course, the students were hit more than once with multiple rounds fired at them. So was Amadou Diallo, so what? All these other allegations of soldiers deliberately targeting students sounds suspiciously as though it came from the students/rioters themselves. You may wish for the students to be innocent in this incident, but the facts are not with you either, sir. Furthermore, neither you, nor a commission of beaucrats can determine whether or not an officer (or soldier, in this case) had a reasonable fear for his/her life. Did the guardsmen know what kind of weapons the students had with them (aside from the rocks they were already using?) - no. Also, 75 feet is NOT a great distance, nor is 265 feet when weapons are involved. If you've fired on a range, you'll know what I mean. Equinox137 10:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really claiming that some of the Guardsmen did not select targets (i.e. students), then fire upon them, and are you also claiming that many of the unarmed students were not very distant from the Guard? You imply (no, in fact you state) that the students were not innocent, but in fact as I have mentioned no fewer than two times already, two of the four slain students were entirely uninvolved in the protest, none had firearms, and the protest had largely died down and dispersed, with most in a distant parking lot. Again, you are showing that you are not well informed on this subject, but it's never too late. Although you wish something to be true (or not true, in this case), in all these cases you are incorrect. Badagnani 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• • If the shooters are going to fire into a crowd, they are obviously going to have a select the target(s) they perceive is the greatest threat (if the shooter has a conscience), so obviously they selected targets. I don't believe I ever made the claim that they didn't select targets. I know that 2 of the students, out of the 13 total hit, were not involved; I know that no firearms were found on any of the students/protestors (however there is no documentation anywhere of anyone being searched, either); and I know that (conflicting reports state, according to may4archive.org) the protests had died down; and I know that the targets were located in a "distant" parking lot. I'm not debating any of that. However, the distance involved is not great. However, the M1 is a long range weapon designed for combat in Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion of the west, so the largest distance involved here is peanuts compared to what an M1 is truly capable of, which is a maximum effective range of 550 meters/600 yards and a maximum total range of up to 2 miles.
  • Put yourself into their position. You're wearing an M-71 gas mask, which is extremely uncomfortable, claustrophobic, retains heat and sweat, and most importantly, obscures your vision. (Fortunately, the M-71 was replaced by the M-80 gas mask in the mid 1990s, which is more comfortable and easier to maintain). The rioters have already set fire to one building. There were rumors of a sniper engaging your fellow soldiers. You're getting pelted with rocks, debris, and your own tear gas canisters. Another soldier has already been injured. You're ordered to disperse a gathering and end of surrounded, or at least you have the perception of it. Some students may be armed (keep in mind, you have to go into a situation such as that with that presumption). You see what may be a weapon carried by a student/protest in the "distant" parking lot. Even today, that's all probable cause you need to engage the target and the amount of rounds expended makes no difference, whatever it takes until the target is down. Equinox137 09:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "The rioters have already set fire to one building."

No, they didn't. To this day no one knows who set fire to the ROTC building.

The fire department didn't. The police didn't. Neither did the National Guard. Who does that leave? Who has the motive to do that? Canfora himself says the SDS did it (before blaming it on the FBI). Equinox137 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "There were rumors of a sniper engaging your fellow soldiers."

God help us if soldiers start using deadly force on unarmed citizens based on rumors. 64.132.218.4 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The are incidents in the law enforcment world all the time when there are reports, 911 calls, (i.e. rumors) of an armed subject and an officer opens fire when he/she believes that suspect has a weapon. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Equinox137 09:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From the recent documentary "The Day the War Came Home":

FIRST GUARDSMAN: I had a person targeted. I pulled the slack out of the trigger –

SECOND GUARDSMAN: I assumed that we were firing warning shots, and I fired my weapon in the air.

JOHN CLEARY: I jumped on the ground, praying I wouldn't get hit.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: Hundreds of people were falling on the ground. And I believe that many of them were being hit.

ALAN CANFORA: There was one tree near me, which was right in the line of fire, and as I got behind the tree at the last second before my arm reached the safety of the tree, that’s when I was hit.

JOHN CLEARY: The next thing I know, I got hit just below the shoulder blade in the back on the left side.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: That person that I had targeted was standing in front of me yelling, “Shoot me, mother [bleep], shoot me!”

SECOND GUARDSMAN: Everybody else is running away, and there's this one male coming towards us. His right hand was in the upward position giving an obscene gesture, and his left hand was somewhat behind his back.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: My mind was racing. My mind was telling me that this is wrong, that this is not right.

JOE LEWIS: I was giving an obscene gesture for the first time that day, but I wasn't screaming, and I wasn't moving.

FIRST GUARDSMAN: This is not right. This is not right. This is not right.

SECOND GUARDSMAN: At that point, I felt that I was in jeopardy, and I fired on the individual, and he dropped.

JOE LEWIS: And I believe someone said that they heard me say, “Oh, my god, they shot me.”

SECOND GUARDSMAN: Next thing that I remember was there was an order from the rear of where we were, someone yelling, “Cease-fire!” which stopped immediately. Badagnani 11:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More quotes:

"This student was Joseph Lewis. Guardsman Lawrence Shafer admitted that he aimed at him and shot him because Lewis was giving him the finger."

"Shafer also admitted bayonetting a disabled Vietnam vet sitting in a car the evening before, because the man was bad-mouthing him. Guardsman James Pierce wrote in his after-action report that the students were 'savage animals'. J. Edgar Hoover wrote in a memo to his top assistants six days later that the students 'got what they deserved'." Badagnani 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I have to ask about this documentary. I'll admit I've never heard of it until it was mentioned here, however I researched it and the only place I could find references to it is on left-wing websites. That leads me to believe it's a Fahrenheit 9/11-style "documentary." If that's the case, I would think everything contained in the program has a suspectable bias, wouldn't you say? Given that and the media's proclivity to sensationalize an incident, I'm not willing to judge the actions of an officer (or a soldier acting in the capacity of a law enforcement officer) based on either a likely politically biased documentary or a media account. I wasn't there (and correct me if I'm wrong, you weren't either) and I did not see what prompted the first soldier to open fire, whom was not identified in this article, to do so. Did he spot a possible weapon among the protestors? We don't know what the first shooter saw. The very fact that the DA did not appeal the court's decision to dismiss the charges against the soldiers leads me to believe that there's more to the story (as there always is) than any "documentary" or media account has presented.

Secondly, we already know that two of the students killed were not involved in the protests - no one disputes that. You're correct, I said that the students were not innocent in this incident. There was no reason it should have escalated to the point where local police couldn't handle the situation and military forces had to be callled in to restore order.

Third, I'm not arguing that these students deserved to be shot. Was it excessive use of force? Yes. Did the Ohio NG fuck up? Absolutely - no argument here. However, this incident began with and was escalated by the protestors. It's not mentioned, but I'll bet the ones that were identified (that weren't shot) were prosecuted.

Either way, this incident does not belong categorized as either 1) a school shooting - which Wikipedia has generally categorized as incident involving a mentally unstable shooter trespassing into school grounds and opening fire on students or faculty due to personal issues, which the soldiers were not OR, 2) state terrorism - a politically loaded and difficult to define term which vaguely means the state proactively terrorizing it's citizens by summary executions, real torture, the knock in the middle of the night, extermination camps etc. that occured in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, et al. If you're to refer to this incident as "state terrorism", then any incident involving excessive use of force on a citizen by a law enforcement officer (or a soldier acting in a law enforcement capacity) would qualify as "state terrorism" - which ultimately dilutes the term. Equinox137 05:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, the cited film is not a "left wing" or "conspiracy" film by any stretch of the imagination. It is very good and* shows various viewpoints, including two Guardsmen who participated in the events and who have different views from one another. Watch it and decide for yourself what you think about it. Badagnani 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get it? Equinox137 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I checked it out from the Kent State library. But I think it comes with [http://www.amazon.com/13-Seconds-Kent-State-Shootings/dp/1596090804/sr=8-1/qid=1162015170/ref=sr_1_1/102-6922932-7243332?ie=UTF8&s=books this book]; maybe a local library in your area has it? Badagnani 06:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend reading this article, which I've just found; it has some important information about the Guard's actions. It's long but worth the slog. Badagnani 05:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a bit. By the way, I thought the 'school massacre' cat had been cleared out? It looks like this article is the only one in the cat. Equinox137 06:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the article - very interesting, indeed. Even it doesn't absolve the protestors of any guilt, though. In fact, it makes them look like asshats for making "demands" of the authorities as though they were in a position to do so (i.e. that arrestees be released/given amnesty and the NG be withdrawn from campus). It outlines that there were so many different versions of the story, both on the part of the soliders and the students that no one could figure out what was heads or tails of what had actually happened. In fact, it points out Section 2923.5, Ohio Revised Code which provides that "any law enforcement officer or member of the Militia (i.e. the Ohio NG) is guiltless for killing, maiming or injuring a rioter as a consequence of the use of such force as is necessary and proper to suppress the riot or disperse or apprehend rioters," which seems to me to give the soldiers' actions legal backing. The law was on their side. This was probably why the court dismissed the indictments outright when a prosecution was attempted. Although the killing of the students, in particular the two that were not involved with the protestors is tragic, there were in the middle of a volitile situation.

What's also interesting is that the grand jury report placed some responsibility/blame on the "23 concerned faculty of Kent State University" for distributing a document on May 3, 1970 which exacebated the situation. I think that needs a mention here too.

Finally, when firing a rifle, 250 yards is nothing. Believe me. Any decent shooter can hit a target at center mass at 350 meters with either an M-16A2 or an M-4. If those soliders were guilty of anything, it was of shitty marksmanship. Equinox137 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article should be in some category, and in thinking about it I agree that the use of "school" is confusing because one thinks of primary/secondary schools rather than universities (which aren't called schools at all, for example, in the UK or Australia). So perhaps a new category is needed for Kent State and Orangeburg. Badagnani 06:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • And don't forget the Jackson State killings. (Everybody forgets that one.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I agree these three events need to be in a "University Shootings" category. I personally don't know how to create one though, so I'll have to leave it to someone else. Equinox137 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts in regard to the above: it's agreed that there were some positive outcomes to the shootings: fixed bayonets (which were indeed used that weekend) were done away with, as was, I believe, the use of live ammunition in such situations. (Many of the students apparently didn't believe the rifles could really have been loaded until the last moment.) Also, Canfora and probably other students who were shot were angry that none of the Guardsmen were punished for the killings (though some did, in testimony, state that they did shoot at students), but angrier that Nixon and the (at the time up for re-election) Governor Rhodes had let the situation escalate to the point it did. So the application of "state terrorism," in their minds, would carry the implication that the calling out of the Guard in the first place was partly to score political points. ROTC buildings had apparently earlier been burned on other campuses without similar shootings. Just some thoughts. Badagnani 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Fixed bayonets are not longer used, however the military is issued live ammunition when assistance is requested by civil authorities (ref. 1992 LA Riots, JTF-6 Border Patrol Operations, and Hurricane Katrina). I can see where the application of "state terrorism" would be present in Canfora's mind as well as others, but we have to consider two things: 1) that's Canfora's (and the protestors') POV, 2) the term "state terrorism" was not in use in 1970, unless I'm mistaken. That said, I don't think anyone can argue that the politicians of the time escalated the situation. Equinox137 07:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for "This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy." / Nixon reaction may be misleading

According to Stanley Karnow, the statement is attributed to Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, not the president:

"The administration initially reacted to this event [the shootings] with wanton insensitivity. Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler, whose statements were carefully programmed, referred to the deaths as reminder that "when dissent turns to violence, it invites tradegy." Vietnam: A History, p.612

Furthermore, the reaction of Nixon to the shootings portrayed by Karnow is at odds with what is currently drafted in the article. Karnow continues:

"One night, accompanied by his valet, he drove to the Lincoln Memorial, where young dissidents were conducting a nocturnal vigil. He treated them to a clumsy and condescending monologue, which he made public in an awkward attempt to display his benevolence. But not long afterward, when several senators nearly succeeded in restricting his military activities in Cambodia, he decided to stop 'screwing around' with his congressional adversaries and other foes. He ordered the formation of a covert team headed by Tom Huston, a former army intelligence specialist, to improve surveillance of domestic critics." Vietnam: A History, p.612

--Dkwong323 07:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As no one defended the draft, the subject text was replaced to describe the Nixon White House's reaction to the shootings as "callous". References to source material from Stanley Karnow and Henry Kissinger are identified in the References section. --Dkwong323 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Media-Plays-Cellophane Xerox

In 1993 the play Cellophane Xerox, written by Frederick Gaines and directed by Rick Davis, premiered at the Thearter of the First Amendment at George Mason University. If memory serves, the play centered on the conflict between a father and a son and to my mind captured a snese of the generational conflict that was sharp and very disturbing in Kent in May 1970 and thereafter. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdietzvt (talk • contribs)

Kent Legal Defense Fund

Immediately after the shootings, a medical defense fund was started to help defer costs of medical expenses for those who were wounded. I have the recollection that it was quite successful given the broad public sympathy aroused by what had happened.

In September 1970, imeediately after the Grand Jury indictments were issues, Kerry Blech, Don Dykes and Tom Dietz incorporated the Kent Legal Defense Fund to offer assistance to the Kent 25. Attorneys had advised not to include anyone who was indicted among the officers and board, so the KLDF couldn't be created until it was known who would be indicted. The funds to incorporate were raised by soliciting contributions at the Student Union. The incorporation was done in Akron because it wasn't clear what attorneys in Kent or Ravenna would take on the task. Funds were raised by benefits concerts, sales of buttons and posters, donations at speeches and by a direct mail campaign. The funds were used to provide a minimal retainer to insure each of the Kent 25 had an attorney and to support the appeals process through the federal courts, which was led by William Kunstler and the Center for Constitutional Rights, among others. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdietzvt (talk • contribs)

Article quality is deteriorating

Everyone should be distressed that the quality of this article is deteriorating. Numerous short out-of-context edits (many with axes to grind) have turned an improving good quality article into muck full of non sequiturs and generalizations that are not directly tied to Kent. Maybe some of the early contributors can save this work, but it needs help from good assertive writers and editors. Help! Readers of this article need to know what was going on in Kent! Some sore points follow.

Lead paragraphs:

There were significant national consequences to the shootings; hundreds of universities, colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country along political lines.

This point was clearly illustrated when President Richard M. Nixon attempted to justify the shootings :with the statement, "This should serve as a grave reminder that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.

>> OK -- Were there significant national consequences other then the closing of educational institutions? If not, just write about the educational institutions. What point does Nixon's statement clearly illustrate? As of this date, there isn't any point -- fix it or get rid of it. Shouldn't the major Presidential Commission findings be noted in the lead?

Lead up to the shooting:

This section is inaccurate (and inappropriate) because it says nothing about what was specifically going on in and around Kent, Ohio with the various protestors, demonstrators, police, university officials, state officials, etc. before May 1. For demonstrators, the obvious trigger for the demonstrations is entirely omitted -- the start of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia. Who were these demonstrators, and why were they planning protests? Was there riff-raff (e.g. bikers) who exploited tensions between protestors and public officials? How were the state and local public officials of the day prepared to deal with demonstrators and protestors -- whether violent or non-violent?

I made a minor change to this section heading calling it "historical background", because that's clearly what it is. There's nothing in that section specific to the Kent State events. SparhawkWiki 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

May 1:

Did the distriuptions caused by intoxicated bikers have anything to do with demonstrators or demonstrations earlier that day?

May 2:

This applies to the whole article, but it is particularly apparent here. Rather than writing sentences might imply connections between events, it is better to just list the events and explain the connections that can be explained. Otherwise, what is written can confuse and mislead. For example:

When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was under way and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building was burning.';

This is a simple sentence that gives facts about three different things, but it invites confusion. Were these three things directly related to one another or not? Did the burning have anything to do with the National Guard? (If not, let's develop these ideas separately. If so, there is explaining to do.) Arson is implied -- is everyone sure it was arson? How do we know that there were more than one arsonist? Did anyone claim responsibility?

What was the rationale for the declaration of a state of emergency? Was the rationale appropriate given the events of the time? (The article implies that Rhodes believed there were revolutionaries at work -- please alaborate). How is it known that it was "protestors" who cheered the burning of the ROTC building that night (did anyone ask them who they were are why they were there)? What were these protestors protesting? Was the burning an act of violence as the Nixon Administration claimed? Were there alot of noisy bystanders watching the building burn?

May 3:

The use of the term "protestors" is overly broad. Students and well as other people were protesting -- again protestors had different causes.

I'm worn-out. I hope I got the points across. --Dkwong323 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot to address. Alan Canfora and others maintain that the thing about the bikers never happened, and that the early street protests and window smashing was done largely if not completely by students outraged about the bombing of Cambodia. I think the article makes this fairly clear. If Canfora is correct, the biker reference, wherever it came from, should be omitted. I don't agree that the article is as bad as you claim (in reference to the sections you mention). Regarding the burning of the building, it is indeed a mystery who started it, how, and when. The students had tried and given up earlier in the evening. I believe Nixon's statement, seeming to blame the victims, is significant, as is the student strike triggered by the Kent State killings. Regarding the motivation for and reaction to the burning of the ROTC building, it was a target as ROTC buildings were across the country at that time, as a symbol of militarism. Do you question that the cheering occurred? I think it's mentioned in eyewitness accounts. Hope this helps to answer things. (Does it?) Badagnani 06:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the well organized activities of student anti-war groups on campus (primarily SDS) before May 1 is deserving of discussion, to give the May 1-4 protests context. Badagnani 06:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apparently have failed to get my points across -- my questions are not for me -- they're for everybody. I'm glad you feel better about your explanations here in the discussion section. This is only the discussion section. But what about the article that must stand on its own merits alone for all those wonderful people out there in the dark? So your only suggestion is to omit the biker reference, no? Anyone disagree? --Dkwong323 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about "you feel better about your explanations"? I did not write those sections of the article. And I clearly mentioned adding more about SDS and its earlier role on campus. If you would be more specific about new proposed additions we can evaluate those but regarding the burning of the ROTC building, for example (the second, actual burning), it's just a mystery, to everyone. There's just no way around that. Badagnani 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bikers

Alan Canfora, who was there, has maintained on his website that the Wikipedia is bad because it mentions that bikers were doing a lot of the disruption and vandalism on the evening of May 1. However, he claims that this is inaccurate, although it appeared in at least one book and was repeated by others--he claims that the students, angry about the escalation of the war into Cambodia, were the ones who unleashed the vandalism, no bikers. So the removal of the "bikers" info is probably a good edit. Badagnani 05:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the link: http://alancanfora.com/?q=node/1 Badagnani 06:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful about relying on Canfora for information. He seems to have a lot of conspiracy theories of his own, such as blaming the FBI for the ROTC building fire, immediately after admitting his was on scene was the students attempted for a second time to restart the fire that the fire department had already put out. He even compared the attempt to a "Three Stooges" routine. Today, Canfora is the chairman of the Barberton Democratic Party (since 1992) and states "The Iraq war, like Vietnam, is based upon lies. War criminal George Bush is just a Nixon clone but Bush is protected, until November, by a Republican Congress. History will truly repeat in 2007 when a Democratic Congress impeaches Bush or forces him to resign." This guy has had a political axe to grind for 40 years. Not exactly a source for reliable information. Equinox137 07:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV / Alternative Neutral Source

This article is clearly biased. From the beginning to the end, it uses weasel words ("attempted to justify"), unsourced statements, and other methods of subtly showing one viewpoint. Again, though, just my opinion... -Dbwiki148 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this is based on Alan Canfora's account of the incident. As has been pointed out previously, I don't know enough about KS to re-edit it, although if it's not obvious, I'm not very sympathetic to the students/protestors in this case. Equinox137 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the NPOV designation, but I disagree somewhat with the bias designation. The current WP article appears unbalanced because it is poorly organized, and ambiguous and incomplete in many areas. (See my earlier comments.) The treatment is not encyclopedic. I suggest that readers and researchers can get a very balanced, clear, straight-forward treatment of the events in "The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University: The Search for Historical Accuracy" by Jerry M. Lewis and Thomas R. Hensley. The article was published in THE OHIO COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES REVIEW, VOL 34, NUMBER 1 (SUMMER, 1998) pp. 9-21. That article contains a hefty bibliography and evaluations of the many books and articles on the May 4 events. Of great value is an analysis of many of the important questions surrounding the May 4 events that still have not been answered with certainty. The contributors to WP articles can learn from Lewis and Hensley how to treat uncertainty in an objective, organized manner. Significantly, the article is posted on the Kent State University website and is listed as an external link in the current WP article [23]. ----Dkwong323 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two hundred years?

Should we add that the kent state shootings and the boston massacre occured almost two hundred years away from each other? It's a strange coincidence, seeing as the two events are very similar. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubsty (talk • contribs)

That is interesting, but I'm not sure how that could be worked into the article. Badagnani 04:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a trivia section could be added to the article with that statement in place. Equinox137 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are starting to be looked down upon by WP, especially in serious articles such as this one. I've seen several people say (and I agree) that if a fact is important enough it will fit into the main body somewhere. If it can't then it's probably not important enough. 86.136.252.93 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection. None. Let's keep it to the facts, please.Knulclunk 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree - there is absolutely no connection. Tvoz 10:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

References are in a sad state

This article, about an important American historical event of the past half-decade, is in disrepair, due solely to its lack of inline citations. I don't personally know where to start with this article, having never edited it, but this really needs some work. There are a ton of NPOV problems that would go away with proper citations. Please take a look at WP:CITE and see what you can do. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image filename change

There is also a discussion about changing the filename of the Filo photograh to Kent Sate shootings.jpg. Everyone is encouraged to offer insightful opinions on the image talk page
--Knulclunk 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Murders?

Ok, new hot button issue here. IMHO, if we are to de-POV this article, the reference to the deaths as "murders" need to be replaced. That is taking a very anti-military/guardsman POV. Let the reader decide if they're "murders" on their own. Equinox137 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And calling them just "shootings" isn't POV? As if it was accidental? COMe on. Tvoz | talk 04:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. A shooting is just that - a shooting. In this case, no it wasn't accidental - however they were never legally "murders" - they were deemed justified use of force after subsequent investigations and by the courts. The Simpson case is a different animal- Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered - however their killer wasn't convicted. The question of whether OJ was ever justified in using deadly force was never asked. In the KS case, it was asked and answered.

Incorrect, I'm afraid. The Scranton Commission investigated the deaths and their report said: ""Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified."

Nope. The Scranton Commission was not a grand jury or an appeals court. Nor were they either soliders or police officers trained in use of force scenarios (all of them civilians, if I'm not mistaken). When I said it was asked and answered, I meant by the judge that dismissed the indictments. Equinox137 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vice President Agnew acknowledged that it was "murder" but not in the first degree - see my referenced addition to the article, taken from a piece by respected journalist I.F. Stone.

Agnew was not the state District Attorney or US Attorney assigned to a potential prosecution. He was not qualified to make such a statement. Equinox137 10:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still talking about the legal outcome. I am talking about the definition of murder which, as you already agreed, is not contingent on the legal outcome. Tvoz | talk 10:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, you could say that every officer-involved shooting was a "murder" too. Maybe at DailyKos or Democratic Underground it's ok, but not here - at least not according to the "policies". Equinox137 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Equinox, are you accusing me of being - gasp - a Democrat? Tvoz | talk 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, never, TVoz....I could never accuse my favorite lefty of being as weak minded as a - gasp - Democrat.  :) Equinox137 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the killings were not accidental, then they were deliberate. There are no other choices. You may think they were justified - I do not, nor did the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, known as the Scranton Commission. But they surely were deliberate. The guns did not go off accidentally. The bullets did not ricochet and unexpectedly kill them. The definition of murder is an act of deliberate killing. That the murderers got away with it is a sad fact of life - it happens every day. That does not change the facts for the victims, nor for the rest of the world as witnesses, nor for Wikipedia. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. Their killer or killers got away with it - as evidenced by the fact that no one has yet been convicted of the crime. It may have been OJ, it may not have been OJ - I don't care to discuss that. But no one, no one, thinks they were not murdered. It's not POV, it's obvious fact. And it's a matter of definition. "Justified use of force" may speak to whether the individuals could be held legally responsible - it may have kept them out of jail - but it does not change the fact of the deaths being deliberately caused, nor does it change what the President's Commission said. Saddam Hussein was murdered too - he was deliberately killed. We call it "executed", but it too is murder - state-sanctioned murder - which is what I would call Kent State as well. You may believe in capital punishment, or you may not. I don't care to discuss that either. It may have been justified, it may not. But he was murdered, and the students at Kent State were murdered, and Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. I'm sorry if these comparisons make people uncomfortable, but the facts are what they are, and the semantics - and legal maneuvering - are beside the point. More below. Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The killings were in self defense and like it or not, the courts sided with that argument. The guardsmen that day were acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time. Was their training in riot control poor - absolutely. Either way, what the Scranton commission said has no effect on anything - that was a federal commission investigating a state matter. What it boils down to is that if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD. Please refer to Ohio revised statute § 2903.02 for further information on this issue [24] Equinox137 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD. " So Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were not murdered, by your definition, except that earlier you said they were. The Guardsmen were not convicted of murder, I agree with that. The article doesn't say that Guardsman X murdered anyone. But the students were deliberately killed, and that is murder by definition. Legality vs reality. Courts are not always right, I am sure you know, and all that happened is that a case was not made to prosecute them and thus they were not proven guilty. That doesn't make them innocent - it makes them not proven guilty legally. You do see the difference, I hope. But, as I said, I am satisfied for now to have the Agnew quote from I.F. Stone, as it illustrates how people characterized the killings, and that's the point I think needs to be made more than changing instances of "shootings" to "murders" which, you will notice, I never did. By the way, your link did not work. Tvoz | talk 10:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, have you considered the possibility any of the surviving guardsmen could sue Wikipedia or even you in civil court for libel by insinuating that they committed murder? It's not unheard of. Equinox137 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not "insinuating" anything. I am quoting reliable sources and describing an historic event about which a great deal has been written. No specific names are used. But even so, I'm not going to reinstate the change that you reverted, because I don't want to edit war, and I think the referenced material I just added is a better way of introducing this concept into the article. (By the way, the original words were not mine.) Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) Equinox137 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Agree - Not Murder Equinox is correct, the term "murder" is inappropriate and divisive. “Shooting” does not imply accidental at all; it is a word used all the time. If a shooting is considered an accident, it's clarified as an "accidental shooting." I can't believe you're defending the use of the word "murder" in this article, Tvoz. We can’t be throwing terms like that around WP entries so carelessly. (It kinda makes your argument on the image file renaming thing suspect, too…) --Knulclunk 06:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it's a discussion. And there is nothing careless about what I have said. Tvoz | talk 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Although you're right that it's a discussion, he's also right in that what you said was careless. Wikipedia ranks among the top on search engines and gains a lot of exposure. Those guardsmen are still alive and have the potential to sue both Wikipedia and the posters for libel in both state and federal court on the basis that they weren't convicted of any crimes - in fact, any indictments were immediately thrown out of court. That is why Wikipedia has a policy that they do follow rather strictly on biographies of living persons.

You may have the opinion that they were "murders" and I respect that and won't begrudge you that opinion. However, putting that in the main article - which is supposed to be a documentation of the event - opens up a whole new can of worms. However, I've noted you said you won't revert it, so I'll quit kicking that dead horse now. Equinox137 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Last comment and good night: this is not a biography of living persons, it is an account of an historic event and without any names being mentioned I am not at all sure that you are right that there is a potential threat of libel or that WP:BIO even applies. But the way the article now reads it is the characterization of the killings that is included, and I feel strongly about that being there, as it speaks directly to the reaction of the country at the time of the killings. That the courts didn't pursue this is, I believe, shameful but true. And you really didn't respond to my point about the Simpson-Goldman murders - the determination that someone was murdered is not based on whether any individual is proven guilty. That determination speaks to calling someone a murderer, and I didn't do that. But.... I'm more or less satisfied with that aspect of the piece now. (ALthough I am not at all satisfied with the quality of the piece overall - it does need work, and not because of POV - it needs real references.) Tvoz | talk 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct that I didn't respond about Simpson-Goldman....it was getting way too late in the night...some of us have to go to couch in the morning, ya know. Anyways, you're correct - the determination on whether or not someone was murdered is not a conviction, it's based on whether or not a crime was determined to have been committed. In the Simpson-Goldman case - it was determined, in the KS case - it was not.

I agree that this needs some real references, and I can say the POV is even getting better. Equinox137 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree-Murder

I argue the credibility of the "...if they're not convicted of murder- IT'S NOT MURDER...PERIOD." claim made by Equinox137 for the following reasons:

• The American Constitution gives Americans the right to protest peacefully.
• In the event that some or all demonstrators are protesting in a reckless fashion, it is the job of any official hired to keep order to preserve life. This means the use of conventional non-lethal weapons.
• Although the guardsmen were aquitted, this DOES NOT settle the issue on the murder of the Kent State students.

* The American Constitution gives Americans the right to protest peacefully. The key word is peacefully. These people were NOT protesting peacefully. Otherwise, the NG wouldn't have been called in the first place.

* In the event that some or all demonstrators are protesting in a reckless fashion, it is the job of any official hired to keep order to preserve life. This means the use of conventional non-lethal weapons. Name a state or federal statute stating this and I will agree with you, whoever you are.

* Although the guardsmen were aquitted, this DOES NOT settle the issue on the murder of the Kent State students. Absolutely it does. In fact, they weren't ACQUITTED, they weren't even TRIED.

How many times do we need to go over this? If you want to call it "murder" at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, or whatever source might support that point of view, that's fine. But claiming so here taints what limited credibility Wikipedia has. Equinox137 08:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we need to go over this? If you want to call it "murder" at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, or whatever source might support that point of view, that's fine. But claiming so here taints what limited credibility Wikipedia has. THIS IS THE TALK PAGE! I DID NOT EDIT THIS ARTICLE, AND THUS DID NOT "TAINT" THE CREDIBILITY, EQUINOX137. ALSO, MOST DEMONSTRATORS, THOUGH UNORGANIZED, WERE NOT RIOTING OR DEMONSTRATING IN AN OTHERWISE RECKLESS FASHION. ANOTHER THING! THE COURTS DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! JURORS MUST FIND THE DFENDENT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

However, I will say that I have not yet found any law (state or federal), statute, or local order defining the use of and/or conditions for using any conventional weapons, lethal or nonlethal, against reckless demonstraters.

(1) You don't need to yell, whoever you are. (2) I thought the talk page was about "improving" the article, as opposed to the debate about the event itself, which this has turned to. (3) The events described on May 1 and May 2 involved setting bonfires and chucking beer bottles and other debris at the police. Not exactly holding hands and sing "Kumbaya" or "Give Peace a Chance" was it? (4) Courts don't have to be right, but it's in court where "murder" charges are heard. (5) Yes, jurors must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however no jurors did - because this never went to trial. Equinox137 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is starting to go too far.

• The "riot" started when several students who had been drinking began hurling empty beer bottles and stones at the guardsmen. People throw things at cops all the time! Only a necessary amount of force is directed at the offenders (please see police brutality or police riot).
• Once again, you are forgetting the First Amendment. Yes, this is the talk page. The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to.
• The charge should not affect the jury's decision. In the OJ Simpson murder case, the courts contradicted themselves! Though aquitted in a criminal court, a civil court found him guilty. The charge? Murder!
• There were civil lawsuits filed. Why don't you check again, Equinox 137?
• Quit calling me "whoever you are"! I have a name. If I could tell you, I would.
• Finally, I was not yelling. I accidently left the Caps Lock putton on.

Actually, as Wikipedia is not an agency of the United States government, nor of any state of the United States, the First Amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. Private corporation/non-profits are allowed to restrict speech within their own property as they see fit. ("Congress shall make no law...") Wikipedia's rules state, as you'll see if you scroll up, that this is the page for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article itself. Not sure how that could be more clear. Natalie 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True...so I've decided to move the debate to WikiProject AntiWar. A vote is open to everyone who would like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

• This debate is starting to go too far. Agreed
• The "riot" started when several students who had been drinking began hurling empty beer bottles and stones at the guardsmen. People throw things at cops all the time! Only a necessary amount of force is directed at the offenders (please see police brutality or police riot). That's what the dictionary calls a riot. I don't know about Ohio law, but in my state, throwing objects at a law enforcement officer is felony assault on a peace officer. Again I don't know about Ohio law, but that probably extends to the NG that were present to assist local law enforcement. If chucking debris at the cops, committing arson, and preventing responding fire-fighters from doing their jobs doesn't qualify as a riot, what does? As far as lethal force, I've gone over it repeatedly - no sense in kicking a dead horse.

Who is kicking what dead horse? I DROPPED OUT! This discussion is over! The new debate forum is my talk page. You have already voted. You know that. DROP THE DEBATE ALREADY! --Defender 911 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, you are forgetting the First Amendment. Yes, this is the talk page. The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to. In what context am I "forgetting" about the First Amendment?
• The charge should not affect the jury's decision. In the OJ Simpson murder case, the courts contradicted themselves! Though aquitted in a criminal court, a civil court found him guilty. The charge? Murder! No argument about OJ, but in the KS case there was no charge - the criminal indictment was dismissed.
• There were civil lawsuits filed. Why don't you check again, Equinox 137? I never said otherwise. I specifically said "The only thing the U.S. Government could legally do is hear Section 1983 suits (which were all dismissed, IIRC) and appoint a symbolic commission to "investigate" the matter - which is exactly what happened." BTW, a Section 1983 suit IS a federal civil suit (Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983)
• Quit calling me "whoever you are"! I have a name. If I could tell you, I would. Sign your posts then.

FINE, I WILL! Defender 911 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC) HAPPY NOW?

• Finally, I was not yelling. I accidently left the Caps Lock putton on. Fair enough, but leaving Caps Lock on makes it appear you are yelling. I'm sure you've been around the net long enough to know that.

I know, I'm just too lazy to fix that. If someone else could, I'd appriciate that. --Defender 911 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, as Wikipedia is not an agency of the United States government, nor of any state of the United States, the First Amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. Private corporation/non-profits are allowed to restrict speech within their own property as they see fit. ("Congress shall make no law...") Wikipedia's rules state, as you'll see if you scroll up, that this is the page for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article itself. Not sure how that could be more clear. (1) I never said anything about the First Amendment applying to Wikipedia - where did you get that from? However, libel laws still apply as in the case of John Siegenthaler Sr [25]. While I'm to understand there's federal libel laws don't apply to online corporations - there are state libel laws that do. (2) Didn't you just say "The talk page is for the discussion of (A) The article or (B) The event to which the article is referring to." According to the Wikipedia guideline "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages." [26] Equinox137 05:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Another user said that. Sorry.

• True...so I've decided to move the debate to WikiProject AntiWar. A vote is open to everyone who would like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I'm moving the vote on to my talk page. I can't keep the vote on WikiProject Anti-War. Anyone can place their vote. Defender 911 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no statutory law or case law that cover the use of force, however each police/sheriff's department has what's called a "use of force continuum" that governs their use of force policy. The use of force continuum is usually approved by the City Attorney/District Attorney/AUSA/whatever before it is put in place. When officers deviate from that use of force continuum, that is when you will see excessive force/assault/manslaughter/murder charges filed against the officer by the DA in the jurisdiciton it occurred. A good recent example is the Sean Bell case in NYC.

Here's a generic example of the use of force continuum:

In level I, the subject is considered compliant. The officer's response would be the use of verbal commands and simply his presence. These are known as cooperative controls.

In level II, the subject is considered passively resistant. The officer would respond with contact techniques such as the escort position and other touch techniques.

In level III, the subject is actively resistant. This level would require the officer to use compliance techniques, such as OC spray, or control and restraint techniques.

Level IV involves an assaultive subject. The officer operating within this level of the model would use defensive tactics and impact techniques along with intermediate or personal weapons.

Level V on the use of force model is the highest level of force, deadly force. Here, the subject is in the assaultive stage and is an imminent threat to cause death or serious bodily injury. The officer would be authorized to use deadly force to stop the subject. Equinox137 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the necessary amount of resistave force must be sufficiant to cause "death or serious bodily injury", why did the NG open fire on the students if they were only throwing beer bottles? They lack the necessary accuracy and velocity to be deadly at a distance, and the NG has tanks and armor. A stone against a tank typically does little damage, and a gun could shatter a stone instantly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

All an officer has to articulate is the reasonable belief that the amount of resistive force is sufficient to cause death or serious injury - which the NG apparently did. Also, I don't remember anything in the Wikipedia article, nor any documentary about tanks being present there. Equinox137 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond with one final coment: I'm dropping the argument where it is. Anyone or any group with an opinion who wants to contribute that opinion may do so at WikiProject AntiWar on the Talk Page. I'm sorry that I do not have a user name and, therefore, can't be identified by anything other than my guest number. I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this bage and will check in on both this page and WikiProject AntiWar from time to time. Thanks again.--Defender 911 (formerly guest 68.49.250.152) 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "killings?" "Shootings" only implies that shots were fired and if premeditation is requisite for the term murder then killings should be used instead as it states exactly what occurred. The word might have a negative view but shootings simply isn't accurate to what these national guardsmen did. They intentionally killed unarmed civilians, surely that warrants a term more severe than "shooting."

Some of the students were wounded, not killed. Badagnani 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Killings" is fine, but consider this - any time a police officer shoots and kills a civilian, whether that civilian is armed or not, whether the officer's actions were justified or not, it's still referred to in the media and elsewhere as a "shooting". Equinox137 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

At least in the United States, where both the shootings took place and this website is based, the word "murder" implies malice. I'm of the mind that the guardsmen were definitely in the wrong, but I don't think it meets the general legal definition of murder. And the WP:BLP policy doesn't just apply to its literal namesake - it applies to any living person. If the actions are going to be called murders, each instance should be in attributed quotes. In other instances, I really don't see what the problem with shootings is. That seems pretty neutral/factual to me. Natalie 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not writing a legal document and do not have to "meet the general legal definition of murder". Malice? They stopped in unison, they turned in unison, they aimed and they shot directly at the students, fully aware that they had live, deadly ammunition in their guns. They aimed and fired. Not in the air. Not at their feet. They shot Jeffrey Miller in the mouth and killed him. That's aim, friends. That's no accident. That's malice. That's murder by government authority. Then after he was dead they went down to where he was lying and turned him over with a booted foot. One of them planted a "throw-down" gun on him and I guess someone thought better of that disgusting act afterward. Look it up. It's not in the Wikipedia article, but look it up yourself. While you're at it, read the transcripts of the farcical trial - complete with the judge calling the governor "Excellency". Blind justice. They murdered those four and wounded nine. One of them has been in a wheelchair for 37 years. Malice? You can re-write history all you want, but you cannot change the facts. This article has been very carefully tended. It is as NPOV as the subject will allow - Equinox you are on record saying that it is NPOV. We've been round and round on this many times. No, this is not the Daily Kos or MoveON. Nor is it the Birch Society or the Army News. These were not accidental deaths. These were shoot-to-kill murders of unarmed civilian students protesting an illegal war. Exercising their constitutional right to protest, the same right that soldiers are supposed to be fighting to protect. It is the most shameful event in modern US history, and I am not going to stand by while it is whitewashed. Tvoz | talk 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) Duh! You don't think the military might have loaded weapons on occassion? They weren't carrying weapons for their health or to look pretty. They didn't in LA in '92 and they didn't in New Orleans in '05 - and guess what, they had to open fire in those incidences too. (2) I'm on record as of the 6th of January saying that it was NPOV. That was over 2 months ago and it has been edited plenty since. (3) Referring to the event as "murders" will open the POV can of worms all over again because (a) this was not a peaceful protest, it was a riot and (b) the shooters involved were able to articulate fear for their lives before a court of competent jurisdiction. (4) The History Channel just ran an account of the KS shootings with interviews of the police, the guardsmen, and the students and there was no reference by any of them about any planted weapons on anyone.

We can go round and round about this (again) but I will end by saying this - Wikipedia already has a dubious reputation for having an overly liberal bias. In the case, referring to this incidents as "murders" will not help that reputation. Equinox137 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I believe this was the first time American soldiers shot and killed unarmed civilians, student demonstrators, on American soil. If that doesn't bother you, so be it. They should not have had loaded weapons. (2) Fair enough about the timing of your NPOV acknowledgment -I had not looked at the date. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, so I apologize. I don't think it is POV now, but you're entitled to your opinion. (3) This is very much in dispute. (4) I assume you have also checked the sources I provided regarding this. There was no gun - the guard captain who lied about taking a gun off Jeff Miller's dead body to the grand jury then recanted his lie in court. But the damage was done regarding the claim of self-defense. As for Wikipedia's so-called liberal bias, I've saeen as much arch conservatism here as rank liberalism. Read some of the edit wars on the various candidates' pages. Tvoz | talk 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with him. --Defender 911 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with who about what? Equinox137 07:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) No, not by far. The only first was the "student demonstrators" part. Remember that the military was responsible for law enforcement before the creation of police departments. (2) Thank you. (3) Which part? About (a) opening a new can of worms> (b) whether or not it was a "peaceful" protest or (c) whether or not the shooters could articlate a reasonable fear for their lives (the standard in any law enforcement involved shooting)??? (4) Where is your source for all a guard officer committing perjury at a grand jury? At what civil trial (because there was no criminal trial) did this same officer recant his statement? Do you have a source besides DemocraticUnderground?? (Who's leaning are obvious?) Thanks.Equinox137 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the sources for the planted gun (on which student was it planted and exactly when and how was it planted, and by whom?), and the turning over of one of the slain students with a booted foot? I don't recall hearing of either of those incidents. Badagnani 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Filo's account states a NG Sergeant (which is not a "Captain" or an "officer") turned the Jeffery Miller's body over with his boot. Nothing about planting a weapon on him. [27] Equinox137 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

: INSERTING A COMMENT JUST BELOW THIS BOX

EQUINOX: I just saw this comment above dated March 24 from you. Did you not read the very next comment that was already here before you posted yours - I posted it on March 12 directly below this - where I corrected an error that I made about the gun planting? It gives two sources for the story which was that a Captain in the Guard CLAIMED to the Grand Jury that he found a gun on Jeffrey Miller's dead body, and this was one of the sources for the Guard's incorrect, specious self-defense claim, and that he recanted the claim in court? Why don't you read it now then - it is DIRECTLY below the comment you posted on Saturday. By the way, posting your comments in the middle of a discussion isn't really that helpful for readers, as it could give the false impression that the following comment was in response to yours - in fact my apology below was posted two weeks before your comment, and it was not responding to you, as if your comment made me look into it further. Play nice, won't you? My apology for my error and clarification in fact was posted TWO HOURS after my error, and was not responding to you. I'm putting this here so future readers get the correct flow. Now, why don't you read what I said about sources of the story. I never said that Filo's account was about the false gun story. I said that Filo's eyewitness account - he was there as you know and he saw it - was about a Guardsman turning Jeff Miller's dead body over with his boot. And I did not say the Guardsman who turned over his dead body with his boot was a Captain. The Captain is the one who lied to the Grand Jury and said he took a gun off of Miller's dead body. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, by the way, is it not? Was he still feeling like his life was in danger when he lied to the Grand Jury? Or was he trying to frame the protestors as violent? Four students slaughtered, nine wounded, one paralyzed for life. And you're still making excuses. I would have hoped that 37 years later there would be more dismay and less cover-up. Shameful. Tvoz | talk 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tvoz. I'm a little confused. I wasn't attempting to make anything seem as though you apologized to me. Either way, this talk page is getting so long, I think it's time that it's archived. I'll try to find the sources you're referring to (in ref. the Captain) and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Which source are you talking about - DemocracticUnderground or Alan Canfora's site? My position on the NG vs. the students/protestors still stands though. Equinox137 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'm moving the end of the "inserted material" box to just below this, as what follows it was actually posted earlier. Yes, archiving sounds like a plan. I'm getting a headache too. Tvoz | talk 04:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

: End of inserted material

Apologies- I misspoke slightly: the self-defense claim was fabricated by a Captain in the Guard who claimed to have found a gun on Jeffrey Miller's dead body and claimed that he confiscated brass knuckles from a protestor; he then produced an actual "throw-down" gun and brass knuckles when questioned by authorities, saying that these were those weapons; he "repeated these false claims under oath when he subsequently testified before the Ohio special grand jury". See Gordon's book 1995 edition, page 188; also see this report. I'll get back to you on the boot (just read it earlier today again, but have to find the source). Tvoz | talk 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on the Guardsman's boot turning over Jeff Miller's body: see this, John Filo's eyewitness recollection], and I've read it elsewhwere. Tvoz | talk 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you think is the most shameful event in US history really doesn't matter here. Calling them shootings or killings isn't a whitewash: arguing that the guardsmen were in the right would be a whitewash. Natalie 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see below

An addendum to my previous comment: I think the horror of this even is perfectly clear from simply reading about the event. I seriously doubt that any reader is going to come across this article, read it, and come to the conclusion that those four students deserved to die. Using a loaded term like murder (or riot, for that matter) almost makes for a weaker impact, because it seems like we are aiming for a specific reaction. Natalie 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One correction: following the shootings, for months, there were indeed numerous letters to the editor (many from parents of college-aged students) in newspapers in Kent and around the country which expressed the opinion that the students not only deserved to have been killed, but that "they should have shot more" or "all of them." That statement continues to be expressed by some to this day. Not all people are as thoughtful as we Wikipedia editors, I suppose. Even with all the facts, some people still have a need to believe that if the students hadn't done something horrible and deserved it, something like this would never have happened. It makes for an interesting case study in psychology. Badagnani 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

True, there are people who think that, which I think is where the desire to use the word murder comes in. And it's an understandable desire - I think the shootings were attrocious, and so I want other people to think the same way. But coming on to strong in those cases can have the opposite effect, I think, which is why I think we should use a less loaded term. Natalie 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if there is a book or something that reproduces or analyzes some of these letters to the editor, that would be a great addition to the "Aftermath" section. At present, there is really only imformation on the anti-shooting reactions, for lack of a better term. Natalie 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I don't know of any such source but a few hours in the library with the microfilms of the Record Courier and Beacon Journal would probably turn up a few hits. Badagnani 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two research projects on my plate right now for my real job (college), but I can look for some secondary sources tomorrow or Tuesday. I work at my campus library, conveniently. Natalie 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I'll post this, not in response to the immediately preceding comments): Look back through the talk pages and you'll find examples of statements made by other editors that the guardsmen were in the right. (I myself blame the governor and president first and foremost, then whoever gave the order to fire, then the individuals who did fire. But I note that many of the guardsmen did -not- fire, and that is significant as well.) There's one source at least that is included in the article that claims that the guardsmen were in the right, and I haven't had a chance to see how that got in there but I'm inclined to remove it as it is not a reliable source. As I said, I think the article is overall as NPOV as the subject will allow - I was responding to what has been said here on Talk, and out in the world, not the content of the article at present. I did not suggest that we include in the article my characterization of it as the most shameful event in modern US history although it is - I am merely trying to cut through some of the equivocating about the horror that you, Natalie, and Badagnani, do see but some do not. I reinstated the word "murder" a few days ago in one place when someone else introduced it because quite honestly I still feel that it should be so stated. But I have not reverted it again, in the interests of consensus - as long as the section remains that includes long-term effects and Spiro Agnew's calling them murders. But unfortunately there are some here who continue to defend the actions and justify the shootings, and that is whitewash if it creeps back into the article, and that is what I won't stand by for. Tvoz | talk 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(aribitrary unindent) That all makes a lot of sense, Tvoz. I did misunderstand your own goal; thank you for clarifying. As far as the source that claims the guardsmen were in the right, I didn't happen to notice that but I admit I didn't do a deep reading of the article. If it is a reliable source, I think it's fine to include it as long as any statements made by that source are attributed to the source, instead of being statements made by Wikipedia in general. Of course, if its just somebody's friend John at the bar last night, it should obviously go. And I agree that the section including Agnew's quote and the long-term effects should definitely stay. I would even be open to expanding this section, considering how well known the shootings are, even to people who weren't alive when they happened. Natalie 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz, that's an excellent interview with Filo. Regarding the source from the National Guard magazine, it's full of mistakes, and includes several statements that are diametrically opposed from what everyone saw and experienced that day. Badagnani 04:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you know this site - I am eager to see if this actually comes to pass, and if we can finally get the truth about the order to shoot. Tvoz | talk 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re shootings/killings. I agree with Equinox that we should retain "Shootings" as the word. I may be the only one in this group of commentators who was active politically at the time, and FWIW, I participated in several serious protest rallies against the shootings. Nevertheless, intent was never proven,and "shootings" is a pretty strong word in its own right, and is NPOV. (Sorry, if I put this in the wrong location: this page is getting tough to find stuff and edit.)

Bellagio99 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bellagio (fancy meeting you here!) - you're not the only commentator here who was politically active at the time and who was involved in protesting this - I was as well and there may be others. And actually we're not really debating this now - at least I'm not - to be clear, I think that "murder" is the correct word to use, but I am not reinstating it in the article at present - see my comment above from 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) where I explicitly said that (Equinox, please note too). I'll leave it for now with this from the Scranton Commission report, appointed by Nixon:

Even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators. If evidence is uncovered regarding an order to fire, I'll be talking about this again. Tvoz | talk 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again....Tvoz, the Scranton Commission was not a body that had the jurisdicition to investigate this incident. Their existance, while did come out with some sound recommendations, was symbolic. Furthermore, none of those individuals were cops or anyone that would have experience to judge whether or not there was justification for lethal force. The state courts in Ohio did and the outcome is obvious. Was their an "order" to fire? No - no order was/is needed. Was there inadequate fire control disicpline? Absolutely - otherwise there wouldn't have been two students down that were not involved in the protests/riot. If you think it's possible KS is the last time the military will ever have loaded weapons at a demonstration or riot, think again. The military, both the NG and active, has dealt with several incidents since, as I've referred to repeatedly. Would you want to have to respond to a civil disturbance, where there is always the possibility of weapons being discharged at you, unarmed? If you've ever worked in law enforcement, you'll know what I mean. Equinox137 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is a little off, Equinox. Kent State wasn't a "disturbance". It was a legal demonstration - see the First Amendment - which the students there had every right to participate in. Coming, armed, to a legal demontration is at best unnecessary. And, in the case of Kent State, it led to horrendous consequences. You have some experience in law enforcement? What does it tell you about firing point blank at people that you have no reason to think were armed. Frankly, I can only hope that someone with your atttitude stays as far away from law enforcement or military work as possible.PaulLev 08:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I misread the part in this very article about the arson (bonfires in the city and burning down the ROTC building) and civil disturbances (i.e. throwing beer bottles and debris at cops) that the local police were unable to control, leading to the NG being called in the first place? If these people were peaceful demonstrators, I would agree with everything that Tvoz has said, but these were not peaceful demonstrators. To answer your question about firing point blank (which didn't happen at KS) ant people that one has no reason to think were armed (which the guardsmen had no way of knowing at that time) - I can tell you it doesn't work that way. The legal ability to use force doesn't hinge on whether or not the subject is armed, it depends on whether I as an officer can articulate the imminent threat of deadly or bodily harm.

Frankly, I can only hope that someone with your atttitude stays as far away from law enforcement or military work as possible. I'm sorry you feel that way Paul, but as listed in my page, I already did military work a long time ago and if it's not obvious, I'm already in law enforcement work. Equinox137 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that two of the students killed were not involved in the protest, the distance between the students and Guard was very great (have you visited the site to see for yourself?), and the Guard was not in danger at the moment the few members huddled together, then turned, aimed, and fired. Your comment is simplistic and oversimplification should be absolutely be avoided on both sides of the issue. Badagnani 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which comment, Bad? Equinox137 06:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go, Equinox, mis-stating the facts. "Furthermore, none of those individuals were cops or anyone that would have experience to judge whether or not there was justification for lethal force." Really? Have you bothered to read up on the Scranton Commission, which is actually called the "President's Commission on Campus Unrest"? Or are you too busy accusing people of being Democrats? One of the nine members of the President's Commission was New Haven Police Chief James F. Ahren. He might dispute your claim that none of the commission members were cops. Another was Benjamin Davis. Let's look at Mr. Davis' background. He attended West Point, and graduated thirty-fifth out of 276 in his class. Not bad. Then he went into the Air Force, where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant General. Perhaps he had some experience at judging military response to events. He retired from the Air Force in 1970 and became Cleveland's Public Safety Director - the person responsible for police, fire and EMS services. DOes that sound something like someone who might have experience to make judgments about lethal force? Furthermore, you have said several times in various discussions that the Commission had no jurisdiction to investigate Well, you see, they were appointed by the President. They were charged with investigating and reporting. As an independent entity, not an Ohio court in bed with His Excellency, Governor Rhodes, as the presiding judge at one of the trials referred to him. And let's not forget that the President who appointed them was Richard Nixon, hardly a friend of the protestors. They had Presidential authority to investigate - do you get that? By the way, you are correct that their report consisted of recommendations, not unlike the 9/11 Commission. That's the way it works. Congress makes the laws. But to trivialize the importance of the President's Commission's report, as you insist on doing, does a disservice to history and to the truth. However, you're not alone. Nixon distanced himself [28] from its findings too. Tvoz | talk 06:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that sound something like someone who might have experience to make judgments about lethal force? No. While you've got me that Chief Ahren was a cop, Davis was not. Being in the Air Force and retiring to become a "Public Safety Director", while gives the man some credibility with foreign and military policy, doesn't necessarily qualify one as educated in law enforcement use of force. Anyone that works in law enforcement can smell bureaucrat a mile away with that one.

Do you really understand how the Constitution works, Tvoz? In particular, the Tenth Amendment? Just because the President "gives" a comission the authority to investigate a matter, doesn't mean they had the legal authority to do so. This is for similar reasons that the federal government couldn't intervene in the Terri Shaivo case. Let me repeat this for one last time, this was solely a state matter. There were no federal assets involved at KS: no U.S. Marshals, no active duty military....nothing. There was no martial law declared, like in the '92 LA Riots. There has to be a federal issue for the U.S. Government or courts to get involved in a case, situation, or incident. Contrary to what you see in the movies, they can't just come in and take charge when they want to. The only thing the U.S. Government could legally do is hear Section 1983 suits (which were all dismissed, IIRC) and appoint a symbolic commission to "investigate" the matter - which is exactly what happened.

As far as "trivializing" this commission's report, I've said in the past that It did, to its credit, recommend changes to police and military procedures for civil disturbances - which were implemented. What more do I need to say for Christsakes? Equinox137 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've made several edits such as removing "attempted to justify" ref:Nixon, speculation, and unsourced references to vague "several other studies". What else needs to be done to de-POV this article so the tag can be removed? Personally, I don't see many POV issues left. Equinox137 07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - didn't see this before I wrote on yr page - I think your edits improve the piece. I agree that it's pretty much NPOV now. Tvoz | talk 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. Unless anyone objects, I'm removing the tag. I'm also canning the statement about the Kent store owners until someone can source it. Equinox137 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Court Order?

I ask this because I really don't know. The article states (Governor Rhodes) also claimed he would obtain a court order declaring a state of emergency, banning further demonstrations, and gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared. In most states, the governor can declare a state emergency or martial law independent of a court order but subject to a timeframe. Was this not the case in 1970 Ohio? This statement sounds a little suspect, but I don't know about Ohio law to make an accurate edit on it. Equinox137 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on Court Order

The article states that on Saturday, May 2: Kent's Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency on May 2 and, later that afternoon, asked Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes to send the National Guard to Kent to help maintain order. Then during Sunday, May 3rd press conference, it states that, He (Gov. Rhodes) also claimed he would obtain a court order declaring a state of emergency, banning further demonstrations, and gave the impression that a situation akin to martial law had been declared. However, Rhodes did not declare the state of emergency, which would have made the May 3 and May 4 protests illegal.[6]. The question is: Wouldn't the Mayor's May 2 State of Emergency and NG call up be the guiding declaration making all subsequent protests illegal? --PBHWS 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that since the university grounds is state property (as opposed to public property) that no court order would be necessary. At least that's how it works in my state. Equinox137 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Scranton Commission

I think it's important to note in the article that the Scranton Commission was a federal body that was tasked to "investigate" KS among other incidents. Since no federal assets were involved at KS such as the regular US Army (as in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st, etc), the FBI, the US Marshals, etc...KS was purely a state matter. The feds did not ever have the jurisdiction to get involved, until the time that Section 1983 civil suits (i.e. civil rights suits) were filed in federal court - years after the fact. Thus, the Scranton Commission was in reality a powerless body in the vein of the US Civil Rights Commission or the 9/11 commission that could only issue an advisory opinion. What the Scranton Commission finally reported gave the left some political ammunition, but it had no actual effect on the students nor guardsmen involved themselves. Equinox137 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That "advisory opinion" is exactly the point - there is a long tradition of presidential commissions like the Warren Commission, 9/11 commission, etc - whose independent investigations can determine the truth of what happened in a particular event, outside of the control of, say, a governor who was intimately involved in what led to an event such as Kent State. Their independence is the point - so don't minimize their importance here. We're supposed to be writing an article that tells what happened - not limited to what may have been tainted decisions not to indict. The Scranton Commission was an important piece of this, not a political tool of the left. Tvoz | talk 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was a political tool of the left (in fact, Scanton was a Republican, if I'm not mistaken), however what I am saying is that it was a federal commission designed to investigate an incident which had nothing to do with the US Government itself. The police were state agents as were as the national guardsmen. All the subsequent legal issues involved state law, such as the indictments of the guardsmen and the indictments and prosecution of the students noted in the article. Everything involved the State of Ohio solely except for the federal Section 1983 civil suits from 1970-1979 (which is pretty common in excessive force claims against law enforcement to this day). The Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission, the Church Commission, the Cox Commission, etc.. all involved federal issues or issues involving federal law. The Scranton Commssion did not.

It did, to its credit, recommend changes to police and military procedures for civil disturbances - which were implemented.

The only thing I'm saying is that those facts might be noted in the article and we can let the reader decide how important they were. If not, it's not big enough of an issue to start a new POV debate over... Just a suggestion :) Equinox137 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the I.F. Stone quote from Agnew? Your edit suammry says it wasn't blocked - not sure whatyou mean by that - but I think it should be in. Tvoz | talk 09:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reentered it. I deleted it earlier by mistake. Equinox137 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Huston Plan info is not tangential

Here is an online source that links the Nixon move to implement the Huston Plan against anti-war protestors with the Kent State shootings:

Final Report Of The Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities

United States Senate

April 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIm.htm

(emphasis added) “A decision was made. The President would be asked to meet with the directors of the four intelligence agencies to take some action that might curb the growing violence… The meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was not held in May, because plans for, and the reaction to, the April 29 invasion of Cambodia in Southeast Asia disrupted the entire White House schedule. In the aftermath of this event, the meeting "became even more important," recalls Huston. The expansion of the Indochina war into Cambodia and the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State had focused the actions on antiwar movement and civil rights activists. …As soon as the reaction to the Cambodian incursion had stabilized somewhat, the meeting between President Nixon and the intelligence directors was rescheduled for June 5th. It was to start a chain of events that would culminate in the Huston Plan.”

--Wowaconia 08:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. If it is directly related to Kent State, then that should be made clear in the text of the article (it isn't, now). Badagnani 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've added the date. Nice work. Badagnani 08:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On Nixon tapes, talk, and focus around Kent State shootings

On a discussion on my talk-page this was requested

"The recently released Nixon tapes show that Nixon apparently also asked Haldeman, after he heard the news about the shootings, if the shootings had been set up or something similar, but I cannot find this reference. If you come across it, please post to the Kent State discussion page, because it's significant."

While I could not find any Nixon comment wondering if someone in his Administration had set up the Kent State shootings, I believe this is the information being sought...

All of the following quotes are taken from the book

Four Dead in Ohio: Was There a Conspiracy at Kent State? By William A. Gordon, 1995, North Ridge Books, Lake Forest CA (ALAN CANFORA RATES THIS WRITER AND HIS BOOK WITH A "THUMBS DOWN."

So? Who made Canfora the authority on all things Kent State??? Equinox137 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"go beat up on these demonstrators"

Gordon asked John Ehrlichman Nixon’s chief domestic advisor “You wrote in your book during the 1968 campaign Nixon told the Secret Service to go beat up on these demonstrators…And then the last time there was a leak of White House tapes, journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that Nixon told Haldeman to get Teamster thugs to beat up on protestors.”

Ehrlichman replied “That was the nature of excess rhetoric a lot of the time. Nixon knew darned well the Secret Service would not do it. He knew darned well I would not have the Secret Service do it. So he felt comfortable in venting his spleen that way. Now, as between him and Haldemann, I do not know what came out of that, but he [Nixon] was given to these rhetorical excess, and it is going to be very hard for people, when they listen to the tapes, to be able to separate the real from the hubris."

"these bums"

Gordon writes “Three days before the shootings, Nixon, speaking extemporaneously at the Pentagon, denounced antiwar protestors as ‘bums’. Nixon said: ‘You know, you see these bums, you know, blowing up campuses. Listen, the boys on the college campuses are the luckiest people in the world—going to the greatest universities—and here they are burning up the books, storming around like this, I mean—you name it. Get rid of the war and there’ll be another one. And then, out there, we got kids who are just doing their duty, and I’ve seen them. They stand tall and they’re proud.’”

John Ehrlichman told Gordon that this was solely about one event “The ‘bums’ business was related to an incident in Stanford, where a professor from India had all his research papers destroyed in a fire which was the result of a protest.”

"invites tragedy"

On May 4, press secretary Ronald L. Ziegler read Nixon's statement that Kent State "should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy." At the time Newsweek declared that "this came dangerously close to saying the students deserved to be shot." Ehrlichman agreed with that characterization of Nixon's thought that they had brought it upon themselves.

Gordon reports this was the common take at the time:

"J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, definitely felt that way. A memo has surfaced that Hoover sent to five of his top assistants on May 11, 1970. In it, he admitted telling White House aide Egil Krogh 'that the students invited (the shootings) and got what they deserved.'

"Immediately after the shooting, many of the townspeople and Guardsmen who were on the campus reacted in the following manner: 'How do I feel? I feel it’s about time somebody let them have it.'

“'Shooter' James Pierce 'didn’t feel they [the demonstrators] were people but "savage animals."' That is what Pierce wrote in the after-actions report his Guard superiors asked him to fill out.

"Two-G Troopers, Sergeant Lawrence Shafer (who did fire) and Lieutenant Alexander Stevenson (who denied firing, although not all the attorneys believed him) both admitted that while they had manned command posts the night before the shootings, they had bayoneted men who were sitting in cars. Shafer admitted under oath that he had bayonetted a disabled Vietnam veteran who had bad-mouthed him because he had been in no mood to take any guff."

On Nixon's focus

In Gordon's interview Ehrlichman also says that when Nixon decided to go into Cambodia, “He called me in and said, “Look, I’m going to have to lay aside domestic matters for a period of perhaps ten days and you are going to have to bring me all the decisions you want made right quick. Otherwise they are going to have to be deferred for a week or ten days. …The expectation was that he was not going to have to devote attention at all to domestic matters…The Kent State shootings derailed that assumption that he was going to be able to stay out of domestic affairs.”

Ehrlichman characterizes Nixon's general view on protestors as secure in the knowledge that the polls were with him so he did not have to care too much about them, he could even use examples of the acts by the more militant among the demonstrators to appeal to the majority of Americans who wanted law, order, and security. Remember "Within a week of the shooting, a Newsweek poll indicated that 58 percent of Americans blamed students for the deaths at Kent State. Only 11 percent blamed the National Guard."

Gordon also notes that H. R. Haldeman in The Haldeman Diaries said that “Nixon was very disturbed by the killings and ‘afraid that his decision [to invade Cambodia] set it off.’”

I leave it to the consensus of editors of this page to do what they will with the above info, I have to get back to filling the massive gaps in our articles about South America.:--Wowaconia 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I'm pretty sure this just came out in the last 2-3 years, with the release of the tapes. He asked, something like the day after the shootings, if they'd been "fixed" or something similar. Badagnani 10:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found only two references to him using "fixed" on tapes and none of them were about Kent State and even conspiracy sites that claim he orchastrated murder at Kent State to punish students who had shouted him down in previous appearances make any mention of him saying anything incriminating on the tapes (which would go far in arguing their position).--Wowaconia 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, you're correct--he was referring to the photo of the napalmed child in Vietnam as possibly having been "fixed. " I remembered wrong. Badagnani 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Terry Norman

There's a thoroughly researched Tampa Tribune article about Terry Norman here. Badagnani 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote please

A vote debating this issue is on my talk page. It is (so far) the closest thing to a debate forum on the subject. Please stop by. --Defender 911 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

artistic section deletion

I reinstated the section because (1)forking it off to another article was not discussed here, and (2) it is unnecessary because the "readable prose" on this page is only 31K, well within any suggested guidelines for length (and those guidelines are only guidelines, not requirements). See Wikipedia:Article size#What is and is not included as "readable prose" for more - footnotes, external links, markup, etc. are not included in this suggested length guideline. But about (1) - major changes to a page ought to be discussed on talk before doing them, especially when there is an active group. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Kent State shooting as a potential good or featured article, especially in light of recent events. In order to help make editing and reading this article easier, I moved the pop culture references to a new article, Kent State shootings in popular culture. The Kent State shootings aren't important because of the songs about it, the songs about it are important because of the event. Tvoz, I wish you had helped with this by creating a short introduction to the pop culture stuff instead of reverting the entire thing. The problem of reaching a consensus is that it often takes weeks and even several months for people to respond on talk pages. That's why we need to be bold.

Essentially this article is not yet at a higher level of greatness because either enough people a) are not interested in helping improve it or b) those who are interested in helping improve it are being hindered. I can help turn this into a GA or FA, but with difficult to reference popular culture trivia at the bottom of the page, this will be impossible.

For now I'll work on adding referenced and improving citations already there. --Wasted Sapience 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that consensus is not always fast, but this page tends to have a reasonably active group of editors and response time is likely better than in some, so I wouldn't reach that conclusion before trying. And speed isn't everything, any more than size is. My experience with FA and GA is that if you want to try to bring an article up to those standards it's a good idea to do it collaboratively, and certainly your help is appreciated, if indeed going after FA/GA is our goal. But again, my experience has been that bringing articles up to status can take weeks in any case - see the various Beatles' articles if you're interested.

Your hypothesis that people aren't interested in helping to improve the article is not correct, in my view, nor do I see any indication from anyone else that they have been hindered. So I don't really know what you're getting at with these two points.

As for the length of the piece, which was the original reason you gave for the deletion -if that;'s what you meant by "hindered", I don't think that has had any role in this. It's not 43K of readable prose in any case - it's within the GA/FA guideline of 32K of readable prose.

Of course you're right that the importance of the shootings doesn't derive from the way it has seeped into the popular culture, but that is an important facet of any discussion. That Kent State has made such an impression on our culture is more than a footnote or a separate article - it's indicative of the seachange in our thinking that occurred as a result of the event. And I think it is not something that should be relegated to a "See also" as an interesting side-note. I think the article can use work in many ways, and I'm sure that includes some of the pop culture references, but I for one am not in some kind of a rush toward FA/GA status if that would mean denuding it of some of the depth it now has.

All of that said - I welcome you to the project for sure, as it's always good to have fresh eyes and new energy - and I hope we can improve this article about an event that has great and lasting significance. Tvoz |talk 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is "in popular culture", except what is truly and deservingly notable, presents three huge problems in bringing an article to GA or FA status. First, it is often difficult to cite reliable sources for in pop culture trivia. Second, it ususally increases the article size greatly, making the sometimes difficult job of staying under 32K per page even more difficult. Third, it reduces encyclopedic appearance and makes Wikipedia look like an episode of Jay Leno.

There are essentially two ways to deal with unsourced or poorly sourced pop culture trivia. The first is to move all of it to a new page, "X in popular culture." This allows the information to remain on Wikipedia without compromising the integrity of other articles. I've done this several times. The second it to delete the information until a reliable source is found (if at all), and anyone who has a reason to delete unsourced information on Wikipedia is fully right to do so. However, people often complain about "important facts" being lost. Somehow I question how important a fact can be if we can't find one reliable source of it.

I can think of plenty of ways to improve this article further (adding more info to the citations, searching through newspaper archives for more references, ect). However I am seeking as part of my personal WikiMission to find and improve a few select articles to complete greatness. Without the co-operation of other Wikipedians, or their essential uninvolvement allowing me the freedom I feel I need to acheive this greatness, this is not possible anywhere on Wikipedia. --Wasted Sapience 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)