Talk:Kent State shootings/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Needs work!

After perusing the excellent article on the Virginia Tech killings, I came to this article on Kent State. Wow, what a difference! Lack of references, skimpy background material, use of vernacular ("bikers"), lack of clarity. This article needs a lot of work, and deserves the attention of skilled Wikipedians who can improve it "to complete greatness." Jedwards05 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I used to be a professional history writer, and this piece is far from neutral in tone. It needs some careful editing to fix the anti-student bias. Which is not to say it should lean in favor of the students; it just needs to be written so that a reader can make up his or her own mind. -- AFJ, 24 April 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.202.208.64 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Anti-student bias? You're joking, right? Equinox137 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm not even close to being a professional writer, but I can certainly agree that this article needs a lot of improvement. Many of the sentences are difficult to follow, and the information is very broad. It does not even talk about the controversy that arouse after the shooting. It needs more information. -Glenda 11/1/2007  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.175.1 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs much more improvement. Citation is sort of wrong and sentences doesn't follow well together. I think this article should also include the importance of Kent State and why is it still significant up to this time. -Rosa 11/6/07 Rmlopez06 01:57, 06 Nov 2007


66.252.45.13 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) This article also implies biased views. It makes me think that the authors have never fired a gun nor been on the receiving end of a rock to the face due to enraged masses.

Perhaps it may help to see Kent State in the context of history at that time. In Berlin there was the '2nd of June' shooting by police of an unarmed demonstrator. In Ireland there was the incident in Londonderry. Wikipedia helps in understanding the incident when it describes the fact that; 'Bayonets and Firearms were the few instruments National Guardsmen had at their disposal'. U.S. Federal Troops had performed an outstanding service to their country during the upheavals of the Civil Rights Era. Even in Liberal, sophisticated Sweden, a Police officer feeling threatened by demonstrators a few year ago shot one demonstrator in the leg (over 20 years after Kent State).Johnwrd (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I noted a few problematic usages. I defined ARNG and clarified sentences which over-used the term Guard in reference to the Army National Guard, lest non-guardsmen misunderstand. The terms tear gas and CS gas might be used interchangeably, but I don't know what was in use at the time - if it was specifically CS. Actually, I was only 7 years old when this happened. I'll see what I can find out through authoritative sources. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yale Tape Recording

An excellent article, which to my shame I read for the first time. I've added a link to the recent reports that archival audio has been found at a yale archive. The story is extraordinary. According to cnn, "...the reel-to-reel audio recording was made by Terry Strubbe, a student who placed a microphone at a windowsill of his dormitory that overlooked the anti-war rally. Strubbe turned the tape over to the FBI, which kept a copy." Hornplease 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The additions to the article referring to this recording are terrible. After 36 years there is no super-duper urgency to add every press coverage of the recordings instantaneously, so please take the time to do quality editing rather than having a hash of repeated material as it is now, and please add only material from sources satisfying WP:A. Edison 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

According to MSNBC today, there is a tape showing orders for guardsmen to shoot. There may be a new investigation. -Amit, 05/02/07

I doubt it very highly.....but who knows. Equinox137 05:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a tape recording, not a videotape, of what may be the order to shoot. See http://seattlepi.com/national/1110AP_Kent_State_Shootings.html. Equinox, I hope you'll bring an open mind to this. Tvoz |talk 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been almost a year. I don't think there's going to be any new investigations. Equinox137 (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that it magically came from Canfora right on the eve of the shootings, I find it a little suspicious to be honest. The formal orders that are listed as given in that recording are not used by any unit of the American military and never were and secondly, the military hasn't used "ready, aim, fire" since the Civil War. Semi-automatic weapons made that procedure unnecessary.
Either way, I doubt the tape is enough to open a new investigation. Equinox137 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
One point: it wasn't magical. I mentioned here a few months ago that Alan Canfora was talking about new evidence that had surfaced. What happens now remains to be seen.Tvoz |talk 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I didn't see it then. I agree that what happens now remains to be seen. Equinox137 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
He has a .wma audio file of it on his website. The voices are very muffled. Badagnani 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. Maybe now the families will get something more than a tepidly worded statement of "regret." It would be nice if the actual Guardsmen involved could apologize to the families of the students they murdered, but I doubt that will happen.
The Justice has had these tapes for a while, for anyone entertaining conspiracy theories. The original(s) was in Kent somewhere in a safe deposit box, and Canfora got a copy from the Yale archives, who'd received it in the late '80s.
And they don't say "Ready, aim, fire." Accoding to the article, "Mr. Canfora said the full command is recorded on the tape, with multiple voices shouting “Right here!” “Get Set!” Point!” and “Fire!”"64.132.218.4 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that's not what's in the recording. What I meant is “Get Set!” Point!” and “Fire!” has never been used as formal commands by any unit of the U.S. military - ever. And furthermore, they haven't used the ACTUAL commands for an order to fire ("ready" "aim" "fire") since the Civil War. Equinox137 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A word of caution about Audio Tapes. Due to the emotional impact of recordings, there is a tendency of listeners to believe them 'true accounts'. But in the JFK Dallas recording of the shooting, the Motorcycle Officer is emphatic it was not his microphone on that day.Johnwrd (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a student at Kent State, I have yet to see a memorial honoring the students who stepped up to the plate, and who fought and died in Vietnam. Someone here felt this article was critical of the students actions, and wanted a rewrite. Personally I find it revolting that so much attention is given to 4 brainwashed students vs. the students who did the right thing. To make this article fair I think it should include the students who fought during that same year, and honor them, and those that paid with their lives in the war against communism. majorpain1967 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorpain1967 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a monument to the soldiers, with a poem by Rick Harvey, who was a Kent State student at the time and a Vietnam Vet himself, in nearby Warren, Ohio, where there is a Kent State branch -- Mary from Trumbull Campus of Kent State University 22 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.107.173 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Because, joining the army and dying is expected of a soldier. While those who died for Vietnam are to be remembered & respected for their sacrifice, they are also pitied for throwing away their lives on a whim of their government. Would Vietnam have ever made a difference in the long run? Considering that the US actually lost, probably not. 59.92.51.95 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You're expecting a left-wing university to build a war memorial??? Keep dreaming. Equinox137 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"A left-wing university". Do you have some reason to make that statement about Kent State or are they all assumed to be left-wing in your world? Tvoz |talk 07:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not all, but most of them :) Equinox137 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, the "main" May 4 memorial (there are several markers at the site) originally had over 57,000 daffodils planted on the hill in front of it (adjacent to the commons and Taylor Hall), one for each U.S. soldier killed in Vietnam. Also, although this page is more for discussing the article itself and not the events, I must say: do remember Majorpain, that 2 of the students killed were simply walking to class and were not involved in the protest at all (the location of the shootings is near the geographic center of campus). I'd be careful using the term "brainwashed" to describe the four students killed. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The daffodils are still there (they're perennials), and one of the four was a member of ROTC but had come to question Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes the daffodils are still there, but I do remember an article not too long ago talking about how many had disappeared or died, which is why I said "originally had over 57,000..." I don't think anyone here has kept an actual count on them. That said, "daffodil hill" as it is called, IS a memorial to all Vietnam War soldiers who died. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible the ones that died were never replanted. If you can find that article please add it. Badagnani (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Get Set! Point! Fire!

What's the problem in pointing out that this has never been used by the military - ever? Why do we want to cover this fact up? How is including this violating NPOV? It is not OR or "my view" of military command structure - look it up in FM 22-5 if you don't believe me. [1] [2] Thanks Equinox137 07:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source for the actual orders that would have been used by the Ohio NG, it would be fine to add it, but I think as a footnote would be best so it doesn't look like editorializing. Would that work? Badagnani 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still don't understand why it's a POV issue, but oh well... In this matter, the Ohio NG is still a unit of the U.S. Army and would still fall under that regulation - otherwise known as Field Manual (FM) 22-5. From what I understand FM 22-5 has been superceded by a new regulation which I have linked above. I'll footnote it tomorrow. Equinox137 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Read, Equinox - I didn't say it was POV - POV was the other edit I reverted. Your edit about military orders was OR, as I said. Tvoz |talk 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
NO IT'S NOT! How can proving a negative (that the "orders" heard in that tape are illegitmate) be OR? Equinox137 04:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if the words are hardly recognizable, the validty of the interpretation could be in question, but that's not Wikipedia's job. I would contend though that the entire circumstance of the Kent State Massacre "has never been used by the military". Killing random innocent students is not standard procedure. The same level of incompetence that was expressed in these killings may have also heard in the orders to shoot. And I don't think calling them incomepetent is debateable. If I were threatened for my life by approaching people for whatever reason, I would shoot them, not people casually walking by hundreds of feet away. This was gross incompetence. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

May 4, 1970

No arguing about this today - today I pause to remember the names of four unarmed students who were shot dead by soldiers on an American college campus. It remains one of the worst days in American history. Jeffrey Miller, 20; Allison Krauss, 19; Sandra Scheuer, 20; William Knox Schroeder, 19. Tvoz |talk 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the worst days in American history (with 4 dead) besides the September 11, 2001 attacks (2,993 dead), the Bath School Disaster (45 small children dead), the Attack on Pearl Harbor (2,335 dead), the Columbine High School massacre (15 dead), the Waco Siege (79 dead), the Battle of Antietam (22,717 dead), the Battle of Long Island (312 dead with the serious possibility the American Revolution could be lost)? Not to make light of the deaths of those four young people, however I just don't see the proportion. (And please note, I waited long after May 4 to say something.) Equinox137 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You really do not understand the significance of American soldiers killing American protestors. Why don't you read the Constitution. I'm not going to respond any more, just so you know, as this discussion really doesn't belong here. Tvoz |talk 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Tvoz, I said I didn't see the proportion. I know the Constitution very well and by that, I presume you're referring to the First Amendment. Yes, I know about the right to peaceful protest (which this incident was not) but even then, the First Amendment is not absolute. It doesn't guarantee the right of someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to libel/slander someone, to incite crime, to commit sedition, to use "fighting words" [3] or or protest wherever they please because they feel its their "right". The protestors involved in the Tacoma Port protests learned this when they were arrested and charged with trespassing (among other offenses). As I've said before, a university campus is property of the state government not public property. Legally, they can ban any gathering they want, provided they are not using that discretion to discriminate.
Besides that, American soldiers have fired on protestors long before Kent State, for example: the Bonus Army). Was it right? No. Not in 1970 anymore than it was in 1932. None of those kids deserved to die. But given the circumstances, I can understand why someone on the job that day (soldier or civilian police officer) would open fire that day. Equinox137 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Any day when American soldiers open fire on American protestors is one of the worst days in American history, and the Constitution has very little to do with it. 65.190.89.154 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read a word I wrote. Equinox137 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Eq: Just so you know - that was not me - I am not responding here, as I said. (And I'd never comment under another name or a number anyway.) Tvoz |talk 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Got ya. I never thought it was you. Equinox137 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Miller was armed. He threw a tear gas canister at the Guardsmen. 75.84.203.152 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think pointing out the difference between protesters and rioters would last on such an obviously biased article. One that never so much as mentions SDS. Utter BS. 74.232.112.167 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)bsdnfraje

SDS should probably be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Foley High School shootings?

Am I the ONLY person to notice this in the beginning of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.137.161 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

That was vandalism. It has been fixed. --Knulclunk 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be wise to alert the school, just in case it wasn't? It just freaked me out, especially with the VT thing happening last month and all.

You're right, it's creepy. I sent the administration an email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.187.164 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Photo request

I think that a free image of a memorial/the memorials would be both very appropriate and highly illustrative for "Memorials at Kent State" section. —ScouterSig 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia main page

I just posted this on the Wikipedia: Main Page/Errors talkspace:

The main page now says:

* 1970 - The Ohio National Guard shot at students in Kent State University protesting the United States invasion of Cambodia.

They more than "shot at students" - they killed four students and wounded nine students, one of whom has been paralyzed for 37 years as a result, on the campus of Kent State University. This is taking NPOV to an extreme, and in fact I believe it is misleading. These facts are not in dispute whatsoever, and they are crucial. For the first time in US history, armed soldiers were brought onto a US campus where they shot and killed four students and wounded nine, one of them for life. You do a disservice to the truth to characterize it as merely "shot at" when there were deaths and grievous injury and saying "students in Kent State University" which does not clearly state that the protest and shootings were on campus. I hope this can be fixed quickly, before it scrolls off. Thank you.

It should read something like:

* 1970 - The Ohio National Guard shot and killed four students on the Kent State University campus who were protesting the United States invasion of Cambodia. Nine other students were wounded, one of whom is paralyzed for life.

Tvoz |talk 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with your suggestion. I don't see that it breaches NPOV. Equinox137 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dean Kahler

Dean Kahler's story is extraordinary but adding him to the very first paragraph in such detail (all the students killed or injured are notable in their own way), as well as not mentioning the type of paralysis he suffered (from the chest down), I think, is not the best idea. He can be mentioned in this level of detail later in the article. Badagnani 00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that I agree. I have seen here a tendency on some people's parts (not yours) to minimize the impact of the shootings. See the section above where the Wikipedia front page on Friday said that the students were "shot at". This is a gross understatement, and one that does damage to the truth. This was not changed, even though it was brought to their attention. So while I think the article absolutely needs to be neutral, I also think that it is important to be crystal clear just exactly what happened - that people were killed and at least one injury was grievous. I have no objection to adding "from the waist down". I don't understand why you feel having this up front is not a good idea, but I am interested to know. Tvoz |talk 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He was just here at Kent State and I was a few feet from him, have heard him speak, and admire him very much. But, the lead paragraphs should not have an undue emphasis on any one individual. We don't want to minimize or maximize. There are many more bits of information that could be added to the lead but are not, as they work better in the main text of the article. Badagnani 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to do it is to say something like "four students were killed and nine injured, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis." That is factual avoids all the extra verbiage. Badagnani 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the "shot at" text on the main page. Regarding the lead, I do support adding a qualification that at least two of the students (both killed) were not participating in the protest. You had added Kahler as one of the students not participating, but the source you just added unequivocally states that he was. Badagnani 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was not the one who added any of that text - I was just adding citations to back up that some of the people shot were merely walking to class or observing. On closer look I noticed that Kahler was in that sentence - had been added by another editor - and I removed him and added him to the previous graf. Just to be clear, I don't think we should go into the nature of all of the injuries in the intro - they should be and are covered in the body of the article. But to my mind, the deaths and a lifetime injury should be noted up front, and the way you just edited it here is fine with me. Tvoz |talk 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Equinox137 07:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with posting information

I attempted to post a list of guardsman on the hill and Michael Busch reverted it and THREATNED me with banning. I was very careful to cite the source of the document. the information is contained inthe appendix of a book.

Is this wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zetb2007 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I saw your edits, and they seemed to include private and speculative information, written in a confusing way. I would encourage practicing encyclopedic style in your sandbox, or on a less contentious article. Meanwhile, lurk on this article by "watching" it, to see how editing is handled when there exists a great deal of information on a divisive, well covered and thoroughly investigated historical event. Thanks! --Knulclunk 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Posting the info? Possibly. Threats? He could get banned himself. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a battleground. He shouldn't be allowed to do that. --Defender 911 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Check the talk page. The threat was a generic "could lead to a block from editing" warning. Perhaps a little strong, but hardly mean. --Knulclunk 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Checkes and double-checked. Still, the threat of a ban is extreme and shouldn't really be allowed. Anyway, as I said before, Wikipedia isn't a war-zone. I'm not going to argue. --Defender 911 23:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Legality of Protests

Since there is some dispute on how the courts ruled on the legality of the protests, can anyone provide the actual case citations from either the trial court or the appeals court? Thanks. Equinox137 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found the U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling the 1974 dismissal by the trial court and the 6th Circuit if anyone's interested. It's SCHEUER v. RHODES, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) [4] Equinox137 07:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's the big problem I have with saying authoritatively that Rhodes getting a court order would make the protests illegal. (1) The university is state property - it can ban gatherings, protests, whatever, anytime it wants, especially when there is a concern for public safety. This is why a College PD can arrest someone for trespassing on campus grounds where it wouldn't be able to on pubic property (such as a city park). This is also why municipalites can require demostrators to have permits As long as it's being applied fairly (i.e. applied to one group and not the other) then there are no 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment/Equal Protection issues. (2) There is no authoritative source on the court decisions on the issue. I'm trying to find the appeals court decision concerning this in particular, as I did with Schuer v. Rhodes, but it's going to take some time. In the meantime, I suggest that the legality of the protests not be referenced until something authoritative can be found. Equinox137 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't use a case from four years in the future to determine legality or illegality four years in the past. This site discusses the issue. Further, this shouldn't be about opinions whether state property renders protests automatically illegal (I think if it were private property rather than a state university that would be more argument for control of protests, in a nation where peaceful protest is a right enshrined in our Constitution) but facts of whether the protest of May 4 was officially banned or simply assumed to be banned by the Guard. Badagnani 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using Scheuer to determine the legality of the protests, although it would be completely appropriate to do so, given that our legal system is guided by stare decisis. That case concerned whether or not the civil trial should have been dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It had nothing to do with the protests themselves although the case was a direct result of it. (It might shock you guys, by I agree with the Supremes in that case.) The site you referred to (which is also the sourcing for the paragraph) covers the confusion over who ultimately decided to ban the protests. No one disputes that occurred. The thing I'm concerned about is the actual legality of the obvious decision by someone to ban the protests. Furthermore, I'm not saying that it being state property renders protests automatically illegal, what I'm saying is that a university administration can ban a protest any time they want - after which it would be up to the students/demonstrators to present a prima facie case that their First or Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated and compel a court to order the ban lifted. Obviously it didn't happen in this case and regardless of what was assumed by the Guard, a police officer did read the Ohio Riot Act at the beginning on May 4, so it sounds like that's covered either way. I'll bet dollars to dounuts that the trial court and the 6th Circuit saw it that way as well based on the antedoctal evidence I've seen on the various May4/KS websites, but I'd like to see the actual case summary before saying for sure. Either way, the way that paragraph was phrased sounded awfully hokey. Equinox137 09:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the citiation. It's Krause v. Rhodes, 570 F.2d 563 (C.A.6 (Ohio) 1977) but unfortunately, the only site carrying the full text of the citiation is WestLaw.com, which is a pay site. Equinox137 08:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Murder in the United States

Would the inclusion of this article in Category:Murder in the United States be appropriate? Although the National Guard members who opened fire were never convicted, many people still consider the Kent State shootings to be murder. Would this be POV? --Ixfd64 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate. --Knulclunk 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Big time. Equinox137 05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Arguable on both sides. Keep it off until a conclusion can be reached in the Wiki community. Thank you. --Defender 911 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This article should be retitled "Kent State massacre", but I'm not sure the term "murder" is best here. Government-sponsored killings of innocent activists are rarely termed "murder". 65.190.89.154 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That comment explains why it's not called 'massacre', because you are wrongly presuming innocence on the part of the entire body of activists. Their violence is thoroughly documented, which is why it's so mystifying that people try to place all the blame on the National Guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The activists may have resorted to violence, but they had nothing lethal on their side. You can't honestly say having a rock thrown at you justifies shooting someone with the intent to kill. Only if the activists had come at the National Guardsmen with real weapons - that actually posed any threat to anyone at all - would the actions of the latter have been rightfully considered self-defense. However, as IP user 65.190.89.154 stated, killings performed by members of the United States military are difficult to classify, as what is considered "provocation" may be different for them than for civilians. Who knows. As stated, we need a broader consensus before categorizing it as a "murder". Mikhajlovich (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
While the category tag was removed, I do want to comment on this. First, the removal of the article from the list of murders in the United States was the correct move. The guards were not convicted, regardless of any public opinions (including my own). Second, this should also be in a "protests in the U.S." and "riots in the U.S." category unless it already is, in which case the probper links should be added. Finally, the comments regarding the massacre itself, I feel, would be best moved to a blog or forum off of Wikipedia and a proper link be established to the blog/forum. It's good to see alot of input on the subject. --Delta1989 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"Killings of innocent activists" if I recall correctly, of the four killed two were actively protesting and two were just in the path of the bullets, far from any point of conflict between the guardsmen and any "activists". Naaman Brown (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You can't honestly say having a rock thrown at you justifies shooting someone with the intent to kill. Only if the activists had come at the National Guardsmen with real weapons - that actually posed any threat to anyone at all - would the actions of the latter have been rightfully considered self-defense.
the guardsmen were outnumbered up to 20 to 1 at the height of the protest, 20 people can easily stomp someone to death. I think murder is out of the question as a description, but a few things are overlooked here. One is that these guardsmen were put in a bad position and the only tools given to use were tear gas and bullets. The tear gas didn't work well and only served to make people angrier. Another issue is that the protest was by students angry with national policy and looking to release their angst on whatever authority figure showed up. Who in this case were kids just about their age and may have enlisted in the guard to avoid being killed in Vietnam. Portraying them as "government forces" by be correct by strictest interpretation but in reality they were individuals doing something they'd probably rather not do and were scared at an angry mob of people throwing anything that wasn't nailed down.

Democracy is always a balance of rights- the students right to protest balanced with other students' right to attend classes and get an education, the university and town's right to have their property protected from destruction by angry mobs. At no point do we have the right to destroy property and harm people rioting over foreign policy.

Regarding shootings at Jackson State University ten days later

There is a statement in the middle of this article that seems rather irrelevant:

"On May 14 of the same year, two students at the historically black Jackson State University were shot to death and several others wounded, under more questionable circumstances, and without arousing as much nationwide attention as the Kent State shootings had. (For more on this incident, see Jackson State killings or the information at the African American Registry.[18])"

I suggest that this be written to highlight its relevance to this set of shootings, or be removed altogether. 69.121.41.162 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is extraordinarily clear. Playing dumb is bad faith editing. 65.190.89.154 03:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we are supposed to draw the inference that the media placed a lesser value on the lives lost at Jackson State. If that is what the author intends to imply, I think he or she should produce evidence. Persons who play the "race card" without evidence of racism annoy me. 207.138.225.101 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jackson_State_massacre is sort of similar -- is there a page with a list of, for instance,law enforcement massacres? 168.251.194.19 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Massacre

I note that Kent State massacre redirects to this page, and that other, similar massacres in history - wherein government forces murdered civilians for protesting government policies - are termed as "[such and such] massacre". There is no legitimate reason, aside from sensitivity to extremist viewpoints in the United States, to continue calling this article "Kent State shootings". It should be changed to "Kent State massacre". A cheap acknowledgement in the lead paragraph is insufficient. I would appreciate discussion on this move, and I will initiate the move myself soon enough. 65.190.89.154 03:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It has already been discussed in archived talk pages and the consensus was to refer to the event as "Kent State shootings." 70.168.32.250 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would support the change. Tvoz |talk 06:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has been had in the archives and is also on the image talk page. Your suggestion is coming from a POV and unencyclopedic view: "extremist viewpoints in the United States"; "government forces murdered civilians". The article lays out the facts and repercussions fairly clearly, there is no reason to give the article a weasel word title. --Knulclunk 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a strong case to rename most of the other articles, not to rename this one. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A Map?

I think we should have a map of Kent state in this article, with all the major places labeled. As it stands now it is very confusing to follow what was happening. It would be great if we could also put in arrows showing the movement of the protestors, the national guard and everyone else, but even just a labeled overhead map would help immensely.Father Time89 21:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea - I wonder if there are any that have been or could be released into the public domain. Anyone reading here who has contacts at the archives? Tvoz |talk 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
First thing, a map of the campus then would be a bit different than a map today, and secondly, you'd need a map of the whole city if you want the area with the bars and downtown (where the windows were smashed), etc. Otherwise I'm sure there are plenty of maps available here (I live in Kent). Badagnani 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a map would be fabulous! The downtown stuff would not need to be included. Only the campus would be necessary, the location of the buildings mentioned, parking lots, etc. Surely a map was published showing the location of the Gaurd and the victims as well? Even if a map including the locations of people is too controversial, locating Patience Hall, Taylor Hall, Blanket Hill, The Commons and the ROTC building would be immensely helpful! --Knulclunk 01:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There are presumably maps in a number of the published books on the subject. Some are better than others. Badagnani 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If someone wanted to pass along a good reference, I can redraw it in Illustrator->.svg --Knulclunk 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The map of the shootings is incorrect. It shows the place of William Schroeder to be in front of Taylor Hall, closest to the position of the ONG. In fact, he was one of the students killed in the parking lot some distance away from the ONG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.190.10 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FBI field memo: unsourced?

I can't believe that the FBI field memo from 1973 is tagged with a "citation needed." Is it OK to remove it, or is there an explanation for this? - 65.116.143.83 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Propose to merge the articles on each of the victims into this article. Notability derives only from the Kent State shootings. Each of the articles have only one or two paragraphs of personal background; there rest details the shootings. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss:

  • Oppose. Each article provides details not found in the Kent State shootings article. Badagnani (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - personal details are not appropriate for the Kent State shootings article, but are completely appropriate for the individuals. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Details for any individuals should not be directly embedded in the Kent State shootings article, but should be in separate articles, where appropriate information and links may be stored.BlueOrb talk 05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for the merge, I am closing this out. I am still of the opinion that none of these articles show notability, except as derived from the Kent State shootings; I believe that none of these would survive AfD. This might be better served by merging into a single article similar to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the close. But in my view they are not analogous - these articles have more sourced information about these four individuals than the VT list which is just a list with the barest of identifying information. Tvoz |talk 21:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources Gone

Cites #14 and #15, the NYT and CNN articles on the audio tape are not available on their sites. Can we get a permanent link to them? Kelora (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just saw this. I'll look into it. Tvoz |talk 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Altered photo

Why is there a whole section about the altered photo? Yes, it was clearly photoshopped to remove the fence. But that doesn't affect the purpose of the photo, which is to show Vecchio's grief/anger. I would prefer we use the original photo, but I don't see a need to devote a section to it. Superm401 - Talk 16:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, it would be appropriate to move the Altered Photo section to John_Filo and then just link to that article.--Jeff (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It has a valid place in the article because of what the altered photo is trying to represent aka parties are trying to erase the fact that there was a fence to keep protesters off the field. -- Esemono (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources in the article for the viewpoint that it was altered for that reason. Without reliable sources that claim that, I don't see a point to the section. Superm401 - Talk 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that the fence was removed because the fence post was distracting from an artistic point. (why does she have a post in her head?). It should remain in the article because of the conspiracy theories involving the event itself. An altered image is unusual in ANY news story, particularly one of this magnitude. By the way, it is unlikely Photoshop was used in the mid 1970s. --Knulclunk (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Knulclunk, except for the reference to conspiracy theories :) Tvoz |talk 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Adobe Photoshop® was not used. I was using the term photoshopped in the generic sense. I also agree that it was most likely done for artistic reasons, and this is not notable. See below. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have a section on the photo because it is an example of the extremely standard, boring practice of fixing a salvageable photo with an unfortunate aesthetic flaw, then it doesn't belong on this article. If we have a section on the photo because we are trying to imply some political motivation, than that is original research -- unless we have a citation to a reliable source attesting to that motivation. I have removed the section in the absence of such a source. Nandesuka (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Implying a political motivation is totally inappropriate. However, we can report notable allegations of such motivations, if there are any. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Save Us 229 has removed both images from the section on grounds that they exceed fair use (the altered image is still in the infobox). I agree with this, again unless notable allegations of political motivations are sourced. Superm401 - Talk 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any notable, reliable sources that allege such motives? There are currently none in the article that do so. Nandesuka (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the one photo definitely merits fair-use in this article, but I agree with JeffMilner that the discussion of alterations belongs at Filo's articlespace, not here. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the one photo in the infobox didn't meet fair use. The old revision repeated the same image in the infobox in the context of the article and an almost similar image claiming fair use, but the images were being used to compare similarities (only difference being the missing post). That is what I felt didn't meet fair use. Not only that but the exsistence of the altered image is questioned itself here. — Save_Us † 00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Info box is not in NPOV

I think the Info box, with the "attack type" and "perpetrator(s)" is not npov. This incident was involving the Nation Guard and a mob, so to call it an attack is not correct, nor would it be to call the Ohio NG the perpetrators. Besides, the mob was throwing objects at the National Guard, and this would be enough to also include them as perpetrators in the act. Mgw854 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to note that the above is hardly an NPOV comment. Tvoz |talk 06:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed both the "attack type" and the "perpatrator" boxes. Equinox137 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC),
Which part? Equinox137 (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I posted my comment above yours, Equinox, not below yours, so please leave it where it was. I was talking about Mgw854's comment immediately above it, which is not a neutral comment. (Hint: the word "mob".) I was not addressing your reply, nor did I revert your edit in the article - the infobox wasn't mine, and I don't have strong feelings about it either way. Tvoz |talk 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to get snippy about it Tvoz, there was no bad-faith on my part. I moved it because it seemed harder to read at first. That said, is there some requirement that an editor's views posted on the talk page be NPOV? (Feelings on the infobox noted.) Equinox137 (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, I didn't mean to suggest that you moved my comment with bad faith, so I'm sorry about that implication. I was pointing out that I wasn't saying your edit was N POV, but that the comment above was. No, there's no real requirement that talk page comments be neutral (although it is more pleasant that way), but when evaluating a suggestion it is completely reasonable to evaluate the context in which it is made, and in this case it seems to me that the conclusion that the protestors were a "mob" and therefore somehow perpetrators of their own murders, is a rather POV position. So I question the validity of the suggestion. But, as I said, I don't think the infobox wording is all that important - I'm much more concerned with the accuracy of the article. Tvoz |talk 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
10/4. Your context is much better understood now. Thanks, Tvoz. Equinox137 (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've actually got to side with IP on this one. WP:SUBCAT says "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory", and I think that applies here. While that's certainly not a hard and fast rule, I don't see what's to be gained from a reader going to Category:Kent State University (for example) and seeing both an article on the shootings and a subcat for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Category:1970 in the United States, Category:Opposition to the Vietnam War, *Kent State shootings, Category:Riots and civil unrest in the United States and Category:University shootings? Mspraveen (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
These were being deleted too and I don't think they form a subcat of the main one anyways, or do they? Mspraveen (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Kent State shootings appears to be a subcat of all of those except Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States, so I'd say the same logic applies. WP:SUBCAT does allow double-categorization if there's a good reason to do so; I just don't see one in this case, although I'm open to hearing others' arguments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like an open-and-shut case for me: An IP improved the article according to guideline, three so-called "established editors" assumed bad faith and now reasons are fetched to keep the changes out of the article, else they would have been wrong all along. --Yooden ☮
I'd ask that you assume some good faith yourself, Yooden. I agree that the changes that the I.P. made were good ones and that they should not have been reverted, but the I.P made little attempt to explain itself, and the attempts that it did make were kind of belligerent. That said, I don't see any argument for ignoring guidelines here, so I'll delete the categories. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
AGF has limits, please offer an alternative explanation of the events. I agree that the IP was a little too excited, but the summaries are very clear: "IT'S ALL IN THE MAIN CATEGORY" and "ALL of this is ALREADY in Category:Kent State shooting (main cat)!" This should have been at least reason to pause and take a closer look. --Yooden ☮

Why did you remove [[Category:Kent State shootings| ]]? I see that the article is linked on the category page, but couldn't this confuse some bots or other automatic procedures? --Yooden ☮

I deleted it because I'm careless. I've restored it; thanks for catching it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Should Category:Kent State shootings be placed in Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States? It makes sense to me. Superm401 - Talk 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other bullet

I recall reading somewhere that an investigation found, bizarrely, that one of the four students had been struck and killed by a bullet that was of a different caliber than any the Guardsmen were using. Does anyone know if there is something to this or is what I read a fabrication?--66.75.48.94 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard this, but please stick to discussion of how to improve the article - this is not a forum to discuss the event. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick Google search turned up nothing, but if you do find sources supporting this claim, it would be worth mentioning in the article (in a neutral tone, as much as possible) - but at first glance, it seems dubious. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the original query was referring to this article: http://25thaviation.org/Facts/id960.htm. Note that it's a reprint of a 1974 article from American Opinion, which is the forerunner of the New American. And therein lies a problem: it's published by a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society. The citation from the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram (May 9,1970) should be confirmed before this item can be considered to be substantiated by a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.128.138 (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Untouched photo

That is not the untouched photo. The original is available online, although I can't find a decent quality version of it. This is the first one I found using Google, but I'm sure there is a better quality option; http://www.juanfernandopacheco.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/kent-state-1970.jpg Note the entire bottom and left section that was cropped, to create a more emotive photograph. However, this means that the originally published photograph is also touched up, similar to the removal of the unfortunate pole through the head. Does this matter? Or am I just being irritating... It might be useful to note on the photographer's page, but I just got confused about the mentioning of the photo being untouched on this one. Ladonite (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify this in the infobox, though maybe not in the most elegant way. Superm401 - Talk 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Knulclunk's edit removing anything about retouched or original from the caption - this is discussed in the article about John Filo and is irrelevant here, especially since the article doesn't go into this peripheral matter. The photo we are using is the Pulitzer-Prize winning photo, and it is the iconic image of Kent State, so is appropriately labeled now. (However, I wouldn't oppose having a mention again in the article of the fact that the photo was later retouched, as we did for a while.) Tvoz |talk 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's not a big deal, and I'm fine with not mentioning the retouching in the infobox. However, if we are going to mention it in the infobox (as we were before), Ladonite's right that we should note that the Pulitzer isn't the original either. Superm401 - Talk 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Tvoz |talk 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of protestors

Someone tried to change the number of protestors from 2,000 to 50,000. I reverted that since 50,000 is very unlikely and there was no source. However, we don't have a citation for 2,000 either. There is the NPR piece, which says, "Several hundred demonstrators had gathered on the Commons at noon for a scheduled anti-war rally. Several hundred more were cheering them on or merely watching them and a troop of National Guardsmen posted nearby." Of course, that's vague, but false precision is no just inaccuracy.

Does anyone have a better/alternative source? Superm401 - Talk 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Badagnani (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. I've put that in. Superm401 - Talk 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronologies

The chronology sections, like Thursday, April 30, Monday May 4, etc. are missing inline citations so it's hard to tell whether they're verifiable. Superm401 - Talk 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

Finally! Great job Goldfishbutt. (good name too) --Knulclunk (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That Map is incorrect. Bill Schroeder was NOT the closest killed student.

How many students?

Student_Strike_of_1970 says 4 million students were involved in the strike, and yet this article says 8 million. Kyle McInnes (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bikers removed

Information about bikers removed in this edit. I believe this reference comes from the Michener book, which Alan Canfora (and others?) states is incorrect and spurious. Badagnani (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Article!

I want to give my respect to the people who created this article. This subject is usually skewed as shooting protestors who were ordered to leave, and not the reality- which was some students protesting and the vast majority, including many of those shot, standing around hearing no clear order to leave and without the infamous injunction, often alleged, having been granted let alone served by the time of the shootings.

Good work on the neutrality and accuracy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Night Riders from the Jim Rhodes quote

There is a question as to what organization Rhodes was referring to. Is this the Ku Klux Klan (what the link currently points to) or The Night Riders, a relatively minor vigilante organization from the early 20th century? My belief, considering Rhodes' conservative politics, is that he was referring to The Night Riders, but the sources I looked at didn't say.

I believe this link should be changed unless we know for sure that Rhodes was referring to the KKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiralh (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Well, first, I fixed the above wikilinks in your post to add "The" - to the vigilante group, not the band, but secondly, I don't know why you'd conclude that Rhodes' conservative politics would not lead him to refer to the KKK. I'm no Rhodes fan for sure, but I don't think his politics embraced the Klan. But more importantly, as you say, the "Night Riders" were obscure, short-lived, 60+ years earlier, and localized to Kentucky and Tennessee - he was born and raised in Ohio; the KKK were often referred to as night riders, and clearly much better known and more analogous to the brown shirts. Given the context of his statement, I think it is more reasonable to assume he is referring to the Klan. I would not agree with changing it to The Night Riders, absent anything that clearly confirms that was his reference. Tvoz/talk 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it really be worded "...and also the night riders [a reference[citation needed] to the Ku Klux Klan] and the vigilantes..."? Wardog (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

This article lists a scene in the movie Watchmen as an "Artistic Tribute". The scene in the movie was part of a larger montage of scenes that establish the film with an "alternate history". I think it was obviously a recall of the 1967 protest where a man was placing flowers in the rifle barrels, an event that is described in the Wikipedia article "Flower Power"[1] a photo can be seen here. http://www.it-ru.de/forum/download.php?id=10120&sid=af8ca67892b94f463512cc04f785f020. Unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing to suggest people were placing flowers in the National Guard's rifles, and the scene has no relevence to Kent State. It should be deleted unless any source could show otherwise. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. 124.148.223.73 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Rorschach

Reminder

This and other article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the given article, not a discussion forum on the article subject. I've removed several well-meaning posts which are simply telling stories. Unless it has reliable sources and is posted here to discuss whether it should be included in the article, it shouldn't be posted. See WP:TP --JonRidinger (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

In looking at the sources for the article, much of the chronology relies on the May 4th Task Force website and May4.org from the Kent May 4 Center. Neither of these are truly neutral, third-party sources. We need to be careful how they are used. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

12:24 not 12:22

I don't suppose 2 minutes really makes a difference, but I've updated the time of the shooting event to reflect the one accepted for official observance by Kent State University. The KSU web site states: "12:24 p.m., the time that the Ohio National Guard fired" (see headings "May 4, 2010" at http://www.kent.edu/about/May4Commemoration/Events-Listing.cfm, and "Candlelight Walk and Vigil" at http://www.kent.edu/about/history/May4/memorials.cfm), rather than the time currently cited here as 12:22, which appears to be taken from the Joe Eszterhas/ Michael Roberts book from 1970. 12:24 has been the established time since at least 1975, and I don't see any reason that the KSU community shouldn't be deferred to here. --Chachap (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

clear references

Reference(s) from above:

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_power

NRHP listing

In mentioning the listing on the NRHP, I don't think it's a good idea to simply cut and paste the words from the nomination or the website, even if it comes from a federal agency. Nyttend and I had a discussion and as far as he understood, because the nomination forms aren't written by federal employees, the writing itself doesn't fall in the public domain (there was a similar issue with a photo on a NRHP form that ended up being deleted as a copyvio). Even if it did, cutting and pasting, to me, is poor writing and violates Wikipedia is not a mirror site, not to mention the whole plagiarism aspect. On top of that, remember, NRHP nomination forms are written by people to promote a given site or building, so POV and boosterism can come into play. We don't need to sell the readers on why the site is important; we just need to inform them that it is and is now listed on the NRHP since March 5, 2010. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're refering to this: "According to the National Park Service in March, 2010:

In 1970, student unrest was considered the major social problem in the United States. On May 4 of that year, Kent State University was placed in an international spotlight after a student protest against the Vietnam War and the presence of the Ohio National Guard on campus ended in tragedy. On what would come to be known as the day the war came home to America, the National Guard shot and killed four students, wounding nine others. The Kent State Shootings Site is considered nationally significant given its broad effects in causing the largest student strike in the United States history, affecting public opinion about the Vietnam War, creating a legal precedent established by the trials subsequent to the shootings, and for the symbolic status the event has attained as a result of a government confronting protesting citizens with unreasonable deadly force. Today, people continue to visit Kent State University to see the site of the shootings and the University has begun plans for the construction of an interpretive center.[1]


Reference:

  1. ^ "Weekly Highlight 03/05/2010 Kent State Shootings Site, Portage County, OH".
which I added to the article a few minutes ago, along with other development. It is the National Park Service's summary statement about the listing, within its series of webpages about weekly featured NRHP listings. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT plagiarism: the quote is explicitly given, as a blockquote. I am well aware of plagiarism and copyright issues. This is a different situation than other cases where a NRHP nomination document has been cut and pasted from. For many NRHP nomination documents like this one, the document itself is probably not public domain as it is written by private parties, not Federal employees. It has been held in previous cases that accompanying photos are not put in the public domain by including them in an NRHP application, and likewise for text. Again, the quote here is from a Federal website, and I believe it is a summary written by National Park Service staff, and does not appear in the NRHP application document. So there are zero issues of plagiarism or copyright present.
About whether the full quote is useful to include, that's a different matter of opinion and editorial discretion. YMMV, but i thought the full quote here was relevant and helpful. At first, i had included a shorter quote, just the last half, starting with "The Kent State Shootings Site is considered...." I won't oppose someone else choosing to develop this article differently, drawing on the NRHP document and the NPS webpage references which i added, and using less quote or no quote from that summary. --doncram (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and specifics! When I first saw it I didn't realize it came from the NRHP website and not the NRHP forms. I edited the quote to just part of one sentence, that being the sentence the NPS used in describing why it approved the listing on the NRHP (the significance of the site). The rest of the info in the quote simply repeated the background information this article is already discussing in detail, so it seemed redundant to include the entire quote. I also removed the line about the United States government putting its "stamp" on the event and site as it seems somewhat ambiguous (stamp of what?) and POV. The actions of a government agency (the NPS) shouldn't be interpreted as an action or acknowledgement of the entire government. I do hope to see this section broken off into a separate article in the near future. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does come from the NRHP nomination form: see page 12. I've not suggested that it's plagiarism (if you attribute sources properly, you can't be guilty of plagiarism, even if you commit other problems such as wilful and intentional copyvios); all I've said is that copying nominations is a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are saying something critical of me or not; i guess not. I do see when you point to there that the first 2 sentences were taken from the nom form by the NPS staff that composed the summary statement. The whole paragraph was not there, or not all together in one place if it is there, in pieces. And the nom doc was not my source; my source was the NPS summary (someone can accuse the NPS of plagiarizing or copyvio, but it wasn't me!). I guess you're repeating/clarifying something you said previously to JonRidinger.... --doncram (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not plagiarism if sourced...didn't mean to sound accusatory!! :) --JonRidinger (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My bit about plagiarism was a response to and clarification for (not criticism) Jon, whose words did not sound accusatory. Sorry if it sounded problematic; it wasn't meant to. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Forty years later

I've asked why this 40th anniversary is not commemorated on the Wikipedia front page today. Feel free to comment. Tvoz/talk 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Gunshots fired at National Guardsmen before they opened fire?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/new-light-shed-on-kent-state-killings/print/

75.84.238.18 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please read WP:TPG; I have referenced it here before as there have been multiple instances of inappropriate topic discussion here. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for memorials or for discussing/debating the topic itself. Even this "new" evidence (which many believe is old evidence that has been settled) really shouldn't be here unless its inclusion in the article is being discussed. Simply posting it for information's sake isn't really relevant to improving the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"citation needed" How cited do you want it?!

Removed citation tag on the FBI quote in Casualties. It's text copied from the image one section above it, it's introduced with the citation "The FBI memo was prepared by the Cleveland Office and is referred to by Field Office file # 44-703". Really, it's sufficiently cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psud (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Terry Norman was proposed for merge into this article last September by an IP, but no discussion area was created; so let's discuss it here. I support this merge, as that article seems like a case of WP:BLP1E, and contains poorly sourced negative statements about a living person. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Note the RS I added below names Norman. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kent State and the Perfect Coup

I am not an editor on this page. However, I noticed something that may significantly change this page as it makes the claim that what happened was a planned event by people opposed to the USA. So I'll leave this for the regular editors to mull over.

Have fun. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

Here is a key WP:RS from the Eakman report:

At a minimum, the FBI documents strongly challenge the received narrative that the rioting in downtown Kent was spontaneous and unplanned, that the burning of the ROTC headquarters was similarly impulsive and that the guardsmen's fatal shootings were explicable only as unprovoked acts.



The FBI files provide, in short, a hidden history of the killings at Kent State. They show that the "four dead in Ohio" more properly belong, in the grand sweep of history, to four days in May, an angry, chaotic and violent interlude when a controversial foreign war came home to American soil.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

UNM bayonet sources

An editor has inserted into this article a statement asserting that the National Guard bayoneted 10 people at the University of New Mexico shortly after the Kent State shootings. Two sources have been provided. The first is a vague reference to the New York Times of May 9, 1970. The (presumably) relevant article doesn't mention bayonets being used at all; it merely states that "at least 10 persons, including television newsmen, were injured." The second source does clearly mention this but it's only mentioned once, in passing, and with no supporting evidence. So I don't think these sources are good enough to support such serious accusations. If this event did occur, surely other, better sources can and must be found. ElKevbo (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I searched for "new mexico" university protest bayonet in Google News and the clicked on the link to search the archives when that failed. I got four hits. The Modesto Bee and The Daily News from Bowling Green, KY both ran the same AP story saying that 11 people were sent to the hospital with bayonet wounds. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times also have articles, but from the blurbs in Google News the statements were a bit less direct, with the NY Times saying "11 per-~ sons suffered what were de-~ scribed as bayonet wounds when National Guard troops advanced on 200 ..." and the LA Times saying "-A National Guard comman- der, whose troops were ac- cused by University of New Mexico students and newsmen of stabbing them,. said Saturday ...". Both Times' are more cautious, or more pro-Guard, depending on how you look at it. I then checked Google Books and found this statement in a snippet: "... but far stupider than the life-threatening trauma of bayonet-ready National Guard troops on campus stabbing students in 1970...". The book was written by a former president of UNM. I assume book has more details but is only available in snippet view. The statement does help confirm the bayonetting, though. Also, U.S. News & World Report mentions "a bayonet attack by National Guardsmen on demonstrators at the University of New Mexico". So I suggest using the AP story from the Bee as the source for the sentence in the article. --Beirne (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I dispute the fact that the Times article doesn't mention bayoneting. It gives a direct quote from a journalist saying that there were bayonet wounds, including himself. However, would you be willing to leave it, as Beirne pointed out, with using the article from the Modesto paper? I think the Times is good enough, personally. What about citing them all? This also brings up the fact that the same statement on the U of NM's own entry is uncited at all; why would they allow their entry to go on like that without being disputed? --Jtodsen (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think using the AP source would be fine. And I think it would be a great idea to add the source to the UNM article, too. Thanks all! ElKevbo (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_State_shootings/Archive_2&oldid=1053196212"