Talk:1986 Cokeville Elementary School hostage crisis

The gasoline bomb

Did it kill Doris or just severely injure her? The article is contradicts itself on this.--GoldenMew (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The explosion from the gasoline bomb only injured Doris. After the explosion, David returned from the bathroom, shooting and killing her, then killed himself. Kmsdemon (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

Why not move this to Cokeville Elementary School and also include some general information about the school? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is too much of a digression from “Cokeville Elementary School” to be unified. Hellenophile07 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

WHY?

There's no written why they did it... none knows?

Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.26.179 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus ties are what Is mentioned in the cited LA Times article. 2001:470:1F0F:287:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Young only sold weapons to white extermist groups and was never a member. But there is also the blidingly obvious fact that he attacked an all white school for money and nothing else (lets just ignore the madness for a second). Fishplater (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of what I've read, based on available links here in Wikipedia, are accounts from one law official who had been involved, his four children were in the Cokeville Elementary School when the bomb went off. This man had read the journals that Young had taken with him into the classroom he'd taken over and Young had written something to the effect that he wanted to take these children with him into his afterlife where he'd be some form of an Almighty, a god though not THE God, as far as I understand.

A separate article I've read claimed Young, having once been Cokeville's town Marshall for a brief 6 months, knew the children of the very small Cokeville population, 515 at the time of the terrorist attack, 19 May 1986, had been significantly intelligent, having the majority, between 1977 and 1986, achieving higher than average scores in their state exams.

The article went on to explain how Young believed he was some sort of chosen, self-proclaimed almost godlike person whom, in his afterlife, would be reigning over the "intelligent children" in his so-called "brave new world".

There really is no logic to Young's crimes-- logic is what all of us seem to be searching for in this story, as well as most any other-- we want to believe there had been a fully formulated and rational, regardless of mental illness, plan, plot, hypothesis and expected outcome here, as in all other events to take place. However, sometimes big events or even small events have no purpose, we have to seriously accept how some acts of terror are just there to be terror... Or they deliver things of other natures, things we also require as beings of spirit, as well as intelligence. The Cokeville, Wyoming incident of May 16, 1986, poses many, many questions even to this day-- marking for record as Thursday, 23 March 2017.

Nonetheless and back to what I'd intended to build upon, where Young's "Brave New World" is mentioned and then I go into logic... I sincerely believe Young believed he truly had a purpose, but it can't even be forced to make sense. As a main for instance-- Young claimed to want to procure the intelligent children in order to take them to his idea of whatever his "brave new world" had been, where he'd then rule over them. However, in his same exact efforts, Young talked/wrote about his plan enacting or entailing reincarnation! Therefore, one cancels out the other. There's no point in believing in his "brave new world" where he reigns over these intelligent children if the "brave new world" is non-existent based on the claim by Young of how each person killed that day would go on to be brought back to life --reincarnated! Thus, everyone would be returning rather than going anywhere, most especially to any wannabe brave new world. Kristen J. Cook (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Id like to add that the 'one law offical' was not actually at the scene at the time. Young would not have known the kids and maybe vaguely known some of the family names. Also, this page refers to his daughter as Penny, when her name is clearly reported as Princess. Might fix that??? hmmm Fishplater (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixing one error creates another possible error

I added a closing ref tag, </ref>, to fix the error message, but perhaps in the wrong place, asthere is more text in the footnote than just the URL, unlike other references. (I tried moving it and that only made it worse.) I am still a rank amateur at this, not doing a lot of editing, so I really do not know how to fix the footnote. Good news is that teh article itself looks correct and the link in the footnote should be clickable.Sallijane (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

June 2020

I recently extensively edited this article by adding more cited information. If you see something that you don't think belongs, please discuss it here. Consensus is required to warrant deletion. Thanks. GyozaDumpling (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Still using pseudonym for Young's daughter. Is there a reason why - should be change it? Fishplater (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)