Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Useful image of the location of the attacks

I found this picture on the Chicago tribune site. It's actually rather interesting because until this I had figured he was actually going down the halls and entering random classes (as the news had generally phrased it) to shoot up the place. But looking at the picture it looks like all the classrooms were in one place and he didn't really walk anywhere. It's a very informative image so is there any way we could included it with out breaking copyright laws?--Reyals 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. This is an enormously useful image, even if it's behind a registration link. Can we use it as a reference? --Kizor 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Opps I didn't realize it behind a registration link. I uploaded it for discussion purposes only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:29144751.jpg --Reyals 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an exceptionally good image. Pity we can't use it. Cmichael 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we use it as a reference for text? The data it provides - the layout of the classrooms - is something that I haven't seen in the article or any other news outlet. Surely it's somewhere else as well, but this is the only thing we've got at the moment. --Kizor 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"...upon hearing the police..."

The second paragraph says that "[the murderer] committed suicide upon hearing the police during the second attack". Please, remove the "upon hearing the police" part, because we certainly don't know what prompted the murderer to kill himself. (Note the timelime in this article: "the shooter is dead before police arrive".) Our police "heroes" apparently had ZERO impact on the outcome of this event---so, attempting to give them half-assed credit for the shooter's suicide is certainly nothing more than apologist speculation. However, even if the police had arrived two hours earlier, we wouldn't know the killer's motivation.

Not necessarily true. I still think that sentence should be taken out, but the police arrived while shots were still being fired inside Norris, and it would make sense for him to have killed himself upon hearing the police, as there was apparently not very much time at all (I don't know if it's 1 or 2 minutes or more like 5) between his suicide and the police finding him. -  Ennuified  talk   20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd dare say we're in no position to describe Cho's reasons for killing himself when he did, nor whether or not that's related to the police's arrival on the scene. We simply don't have that information, and would be irresponsible to pose imaginings as fact. When the police opened the door, the shooter had committed suicide. Let readers infer what they would.Liquid entropy 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Online suicide note hoax discussion

This discussion is still in relative chaos. I'm combining some sections for ease of reading and clarity. If wrong, slap with fish. --Kizor 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a good move. For anyone coming here to post about it: the 4chan post was confirmed as being a hoax and was NOT posted by Cho. This one needs to be swept under the rug, though it might be worth mentioning later on in a section about online response like you said, along with the Facebook reactions and the fact that various forum discussions knew more than the news did for most of the day. -  Ennuified  talk   12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. With a video about the wrongly accused blogger (Wayne Chiang) at present the #2 most popular one on CNN.com, there definitely needs to be such a section. --Kizor 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take up the Wayne Chiang job if that's considered noteworthy. If anyone else wants to look into it his livejournal page is here and he has a good list of interviews that he has had the past few days. Alot of the focus in his interviews are on 2nd amendment rights and the possibilities that would have opened up for students to defend themselves if concealed weapons had been permitted. I don't know whether this controversy should really be included in the student response section. Maybe another bit about Chiang in the gun control debate section? Blakwyte 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

4chan /b/ Message

Anyone have any information on how he posted his attack on 4chan's /b/ thread? (http://www.thestar.com/article/204030) has some information on it, but I was wondering if anyone could find other sources mentioning it and add it to the main article. -Stexe 71.225.125.176 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read trough the talk page first before posting something. It has been stated that the post you mention was not posted by the perpetrator and it was posted around seven hours after the shootings. --Legion fi 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning of massacre

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204030

"Students at the university's online newspaper, planetblacksburg.com, today discovered a message on a website that seemed to announce the massacre.

Posted early yesterday morning on 4chan, a website that allows anonymous postings, the message warned: "hey /b/ I'm going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous.""

Should this be in there somewhere? 66.169.45.213 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the warning was actually written almost 7 hours AFTER the shooting took place. The link provided above is to a gossip newspaper. CINEGroup 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, while I agree that this shouldn't be in the page, I'd just like to point out that the Toronto Star is the main newspaper in Toronto and is emphatically _not_ a gossip newspaper. 142.151.160.64 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just found it while surfing the web. I didn't do any research. Sorry.

This was discussed further up this page - it's most definitely a hoax. Natalie 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Wave

Straight from a strong hideout of Asian deviants I found this quote "311 Name: Anonymous : 2007-04-17 21:22 ID:VCXrJzcr

   "hey /b/ I'm going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous.""  Is the FBI watching this??? WHY WON"T THEY DO ANYTHING!!!!

the do watch 4chan the fbi responded to a bomb treat for some football game that never would of existed and now some guy is serving a jail sentence. however with a hundred thousand or so annon posts these forums are unmanageable for the authority's 4chan is not a reliable source

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

4chan is not a reliable source, and that posting has already been confirmed as a hoax, given that it was made after Cho killed himself. -  Ennuified  talk  01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this is a new post, i think someone is going to attack vt again. plz report to authorities 24.27.18.25 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

don't be silly. tomasz. 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source : thestar.com. And la times says that he posted "im going to kill people at vtech today" on a forum.--PseudoChron 01:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Star is a gossip paper, I'm not sure it qualifies under WP:RS. And we've already gotten confirmation that it was a typical sicko /b/tard "joke" that was posted seven hours AFTER the shootings were over. Rdfox 76 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, thestar.com is the URL for Canada's best selling newspaper. It is not a gossip paper, it is a leading Toronto daily.74.12.68.159 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)bangthedrum

Both of those articles source the student news site which found the original 4chan post, which we've already confirmed is a hoax and was posted long after the shootings. This topic should be closed from discussion. -  Ennuified  talk   03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has. Anyway, this has caused buzz in major news sources. There's quite a lot of articles out there about the use of online media regarding the attacks, and if we're going to have a section that (which we will, I'm going to write it myself if nobody else does :P), this has enough notoriety and sources to be noted, especially together with other news stories about false accusations online. --Kizor 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't place it in the article until we have a reliable source that confirms it as fake. This sick joke has gone too far, and serves as a reminder that just because it appears in the paper it can not necessarily be cited - the other criteria of WP:RS must also be followed. --129.241.126.121 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, naturally. It won't get articles dedicated to it but might be mentioned in a general one. --Kizor 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This very post actually has been published in this swedish newspaper: http://expressen.se/nyheter/1.642133 (you can see it there), and is in the print-edition as well. pictures will be posted, if it is included in this article sometime, hopefully.

antidepressant-induced violence in young people is real

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030372 talks about it somewhat. Do we know which drugs the shooter was on? Could this be part of the story? 69.117.70.35 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be if there is verifiable proof that he was on the medicine at that it caused this to happen. THe Church of Scientology will have a bunch of damning info, though it won't be a good source in the eyes of most people. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We will never be able to show that the particular drug caused a particular violent episode but if someone dies in lung cancer, it is OK to point that they were a smoker (if they were.) Doctors have been told to try not to use certain antidepressants with younger people to avoid suicides and violent outbursts. Dont know which antidepressants seem to have this problem nor the age range where the meds are not recommended. The studies that raised the concern where by the drug companies themselves. Dnklu 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18gunman.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fV%2fVirginia%20Polytechnic%20Institute%20and%20State%20University&pagewanted=all

we read: "Mr. Cho awoke before 5 a.m., then sat down to work on his computer and awakened Mr. Aust in the process. Mr. Grewal, who shares a room in the same suite, saw Mr. Cho in the bathroom shortly after 5 a.m.

As usual, Mr. Cho did not say anything to Mr. Grewal. No good morning, no hello, Mr. Grewal said. Mr. Cho stood in the bathroom, brushing his teeth, wetting his contact lenses and applying a moisturizer.

He also took a prescription medicine. Neither Mr. Aust nor Mr. Grewal knew what the medicine was for, but officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho’s effects." 201.19.170.38 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a moisturizer???--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A 23 year old man is hardly young or a child. And without some proof, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is many and better sources to know about the link between Prozac type drugs and violence than the Scientology Church. And that link is true for adults too. 201.19.170.38 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is more speculation-type information that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media. So, it's not really up for inclusion in the article until that time. That said, I have had experience with close friends on Prozac, and they have said that it works by taking away ALL your emotions, including both happy and unhappy ones, so that you don't care about other people as much. There is also a very simple reason that antidepressants sometimes allow people to kill themselves-- they were so depressed before they couldn't take any actions or get enough energy to do anything. Once they begin antidepressant treatment, they feel a bit better and can then take some action, and sometimes that results in suicide. If the media (or the man's family) decides to take that angle, it will be covered in the article, I'm sure.--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of some friends on Prozac is not a reliable source about its possible effects. I sugest starting with this book http://www.prozacbacklash.com/prozacBacklash.html 201.19.170.38 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually misspoke in the previous comment. It was Paxil I was referring to. I would only look at scientific, double-blind studies if I was considering taking any of these types of drugs-- the kind you'd find on Pubmed. --Gloriamarie 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media. Paxil? Please read that http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/prozac 201.19.140.36 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

Would it be worth having a section on Jack Thompson and his response? 71.127.199.199 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There was one earlier....Remember it would have to be cited and comply with WP:BLP.],and be extremely relevant to the VT incident. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should pass, Jack is blaming it on video games when there has been no credible evidence that this guy even played a video game in his life. -Ravedave 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether he personally has played video games when taking his statements into account? This guy is a well-known crusader against video games and I believe his son plays (or at least buys) video games. Watching someone else play will reveal the same information as playing it yourself. He's a well-known activist against video games. Someone who is an activist against, for instance, premarital sex doesn't have to have actually had premarital sex to be a good advocate for that. They would actually be a hypocrite in a way if they had.--Gloriamarie 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bad grammar. By "this guy" I meant the killer. -Ravedave 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. -  Ennuified  talk  01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ennuified - not in this article. It may be relevant, however, in Jack Thompson (attorney). -- Chuq (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Add it to Jack's article if you want. Nobody takes him seriously enough for it to really be worth a mention here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The old bastard's getting enough soundbite time from this as it is; frankly I find it disgusting. HalfShadow 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no credible third-party evidence that the gunman played video games. There is only evidence that Jack Thompson thinks the gunman played video games. So there should be no discussion of the "video games made him do it" theory unless reliable sources show that he was involved in violent gaming. szyslak (t, c) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, given that he's dead, anyone would only be able to guess his motives anyway, and that would be original research. HalfShadow 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's been said by his high school friends that Cho liked playing Counter-Strike (it's sourced elsewhere on this talk page, look for it if you want to), but it's not relevant to Thompson's statements because it didn't come to light until after JT was on Fox; not to mention that it means absolutely nothing that he played violent video games. I think adding this on Thompson's page is a good idea - I'll do it myself tomorrow if no-one does it tonight. Just leave it off of this page, it certainly doesn't merit inclusion. -  Ennuified  talk   03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Thompson is an utter crackpot and his views are worthless. Christopher Connor 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite NPOV! :) --Gloriamarie 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thompson's a vulture. Merely mentioning his name might conjure him. Honestly, the points where I agree with him make him far more unsavory than the points where I disagree - he sullies and cheapens all that he touches. Seriously, though, is it really desirable or acceptable to include his commentary, commentary which would surely remove accountability completely from Cho's shoulder's and placing on the things in this country Jack Thompson percieves as "bad influences". I'm not big on violent video games myself, and definitely feel like there are better avenues of recreation, but do we really want the friends and family members of the victims who might read this page to read excerpts of Jack Thompsons contentions that videogames, not a daranged psychopath, killed their children? Long story short - please no. Liquid entropy

Blame "Counterstrke"

the interviewer of the suite mate on msnbc mentioned counter strike several times, another instance of the media blaming video games...maybe some one wants to add this or address it in greater length

additionally if you want the Rutgers University response, I can get the email the president sent out.

It's been covered multiple times. Consensus is not to bother with that, but with the event itself. 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

see also here. tomasz. 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ISMAEL AX!!!

Does anyone know of any significance to this name.

Nope. Mumun 無文 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"One popular theory spreading across the web comes from a story in the Koran, the holy book of Islam, about Ibrahim and his son, Ismail." "Where Ismail is spelled Ishmael." "James Fenimore Cooper's novel "The Prairie," Ishmael Bush is known as an outcast and outlawed warrior, according to an essay written in 1969 by William H. Goetzmann, a University of Texas History professor. In Cooper's book, "Bush carries the prime symbol of evil - the spoiler's axe," the professor wrote." "from Moby Dick, Ishmael, is considered an enigma who is well educated yet considers his time on a whaling ship worthy of time at Yale or Harvard."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/ismail-ax-sparks-web-frenzy/2007/04/18/1176696889800.html?page=2 Monkeyblue 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit thin, and definitely not to be taken seriously, but anagramming ISMAIL AX comes up with a few entries, the one most curious to me is "ALAS, I MIX" -- given that the shooter was considered a loner...

Interesting point. There are a series of anagrams in this phrase. Some of them include "AX IS MAIL," and "AXIS MAIL." None are to be taken seriously. I agree with "ALAS, I MIX". Very interesting one. Sigmund1989 10:24, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

it was mentioned in Le Figaro http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20070418.WWW000000339_mais_qui_est_ismail_ax_.html that prior to the events, google search for 'ismail ax' only yield 2 results. Maybe 'ismail ax' is only a googlewhack. 89.80.231.115 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is now being reported that the term was actually AX ISHMAEL. 151.213.177.128 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)gnoko

Here's one article on it: [1]. —Ben FrantzDale 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ISMAIL AX, obviously is an anagram for SALAMI XI (salami eleven)207.118.168.114 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

According to one website, ISHMAEL means "God will hear." This appears to fit with his manifesto to NBC.

There's a typo in the article -- whatever the real spelling, "Ismale" is wrong. Mergy 11:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal interpretation (for all that's worth) is that he is using Ishmael to refer to a rejected outsider who wanders the earth. This is how critics interpret the significance of the name in Moby Dick. Paladinwannabe2 14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion to remove picture of the front page of the sydney morning herald

[[:Image:Frontpage18april.jpg|thumb|The Sydney Morning Herald front page April 18, 2007.]] suggestion to remove the picture from the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, which seems to suggest a relationship either current or prior with the first victim, Emily, which was later stated to be not true. it appeared that Cho was obsessed with the girl and that they had no prior relationship note: i deleted the picture which contains the misleading and contradictory headline YanShen 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For reference purposes, the image is on the right. --Kizor 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone could get ahold of a low-res image of the Roanoke Times or another local paper's front page, that might be appropriate to include somewhere in the article, as long as the readable text on it was reasonably accurate. Maybe tomorrow morning's edition would be good to get a thumbnail of. This is as much a media event now as it is a tragedy. --Dynaflow 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind, it is relevant that Emily was first assumed to be a girlfriend and reported as such. This should be (and is) covered in the text, and the front page could illustrate media response. --Kizor 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Emily Hilscher's roomate

Is Emily's (the first victim) roomate's name relevant. Because i think i might have it. she is listed in the article as having talked to the police and having suggested the wrong person (eg: Emily's boyfriend) - Joetheguy 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if her name appears in multiple reliable sources. We'd better not make the same mistake she made. --129.241.126.121 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found by cross-referencing the Virginia Tech Website yesterday, before they took Emily Hilscher's listing down. Heather Haugh is listed as having the same address (listed in articles) and phone number (one phone per room) as Emily Hilscher's listing. - Joetheguy 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP please don't add information about her unless it's from multiple reliable sources. What you've done constitutes OR and is highly frowned upon in cases of LP Nil Einne 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only OR when he adds it to the article without a reliable source that raises the same issue. All of us have to do research on this and any other article, to determine what is relevant and notable.Kevinp2 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace-time mass shooting

I'm not sure leaving out the qualifying peace-time in describing this as the largest mass shooting in the lead is accurate. I'm fairly sure there were larger incidents during times of insurrection, Civil War, Bleeding Kansas, Mormon wars, etc. The massacre at Ft. Pillow is one such example. Ronnotel 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that all the non-peacetime incidents involved several killers. Here, there was only one. There needs to be a way to differentiate between mass shootings by a group (usually a military group or militia group) and mass shootings by a lone gunman. See also the section I started above at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre#Civilian versus military massacres. It seems that this edit was a response to what I wrote there. Oh, hang on, it was YOU! I need new glasses (or next time you could reply to my comments instead of starting a new section). :-) Anyway, I agree that this edit, which removed peacetime to make the sentence "less awkward" is not ideal. I'll try a different wording involving "lone". Carcharoth 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be coming up with our own phraseology for this either, as that's bordering on original research. We should base what we call it on what the major media outlets are calling it:

• "worst campus shooting in U.S. history" - Wash. Times [2]
• "worst shooting rampage in American history" - NY Times [3]
• "the worst mass shooting in American history" - London Telegraph [4]

So in my opinion, there's no need for the "peace-time" qualifier, either. There's also a good argument to be made that we in the US are not in "peacetime", as anyone who's been in Iraq lately will readily attest. A Train^talk 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree with the NY Time's and Telegraph's characterizations. Ft. Pillow was certainly a mass shooting and/or a shooting rampage and was far worse - I think they need to review their US history. Nevertheless, I think the current wording, 'by a single person' is fine. Ronnotel 14:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, technically, the U.S. is still at war in Korea (under an armistice).204.186.148.4

I also think the current wording is quite good (that being "the deadliest mass shooting by a single person in the history of the United States"). A Train^talk 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we haven't discussed machine gunners in the US Civil War yet... (well, technically they weren't using proper machine guns, but early versions were in use then). But that would be silly. Let's leave it like that for now. Carcharoth 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed :). But remember, we can't synthesize our own original research, we can just report what the sources are reporting. A Train^talk 14:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with A Train's logic, but disagree with "by a single person." As reported by the media, this is the worst mass shooting in the history of the US, period. They don't give the "single person" qualifier, neither should we. I'm especially paying attention to that sentence in this article. -Scientz 12:51p, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't agree that we're engaging in WP:OR - we're simply incorporating the historical record with more time and accuracy available to a reporter/editor under a deadline. Yes, some of these stories use the text 'worst mass killing', but that doesn't mean we have to use that text if we know it to be incorrect. Ronnotel 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a conflicting source that uses the term 'worst mass killing in modern US history'. Is that more acceptable? Ronnotel 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

CNN *just* used the qualifier "modern" which I think settles the conflict we're having here. I think the wording is perfect now. Anyone? --Scientz 01:03p, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

great minds. . . :) Ronnotel 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes great sense and adheres nicely to policy. Well taken, Scientz and Ronnotel. A Train^talk 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article too long?

It really seems to be extending to a ridiculous degree. The timeline, in particular, is too spaced out, and stretches the article. The Response section also seems over-the-top - I mean, come on, Sporting Tributes? I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think that belongs here.Snorgle 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is a very public current event, lets give it time to play out. I have no problem with this article getting very long. After the initial publicity has died done, we can go back and take all the available information and reduce the size, create additional articles and move content around.↔NMajdan•talk

There's no deadline. It's probably a better idea to wait until more information is released and things settle down a bit and then start trimming. Natalie 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --Ddahlberg 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't that long. There are just too many references so it makes the article look long. 206.47.141.21 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point - the ref list is nearly 150. Since most of the refs are US news outlets, and since 90% of content from US news outlets originates with 3 wire services (AP, UPI, Reuters) maybe we could consolidate some refs at some point. Natalie 16:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the subject matter, I don't think this article could ever be too long if the information included is factual. No doubt it will give rise to numerous sub-articles to reduce the length. ~ Rollo44 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui section

It seems appropriate that there be a comparison between this section and the separate article Cho Seung-hui. It appears that this section is much larger than normal for a teaser summary. (This section also could offer improvements for the main article.) Changes probably need to stablize first or the cross editing could be very difficult. Any thoughts? --Lmcelhiney 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Move most of it to the gunman article. Christopher Connor 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline - Bomb Threat

Is the April 2nd bomb threat relevant as part of the timeline... especially since it then says the person who called it in is unknown --Elg26 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

please see here. tomasz. 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Police never said Cho had a girlfriend

Police never reported that the motive was a domestic dispute between Cho and his ‘girlfriend’ Emily Hilscher. This seems to be a miss-reported combination of facts -- that the police initially thought Hilscher’s boyfriend was the killer, and that the killer turned out to be Cho.

I suggest changing the line in ‘Possible Motive’ to the following:

Early reports suggested that the killing was the result of a domestic dispute, but this was based on the fact that the first victim, Emily Hilscher, had spent the weekend with boyfriend, Karl Thornhill, who was known to own guns. As police located and questioned Thornhill, the second shooting began. It was at that time investigators realized their initial theory was incorrect.

At this time, Cho is not known to have a connection to Hilscher. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052279&page=1

I'm a new user, so I can't make this change myself.

In fact, according to tonight's NBC newscast, the cops chasing down Thornhill is the reason so little action was taken to warn the campus. Wahkeenah 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of this great tragedy, that the police leaped to the conclusion (if understandable) that the boyfriend was to blame, and got sidetracked away from finding the real culprit. Apparently, they were questioning him and realized he was not the culprit when the reports of the second wave of shootings came in. The poor woman would have been alive if she had stayed late with her boyfriend :-( Kevinp2 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference errors in 'Preparation' section

Not a registered user, so can't make the changes myself, but at the moment, we have:

9 mm Glock 19 and a .22 caliber Walther P22 handgun.[30] Cho purchased the 9 mm Glock 19 at Roanoke Firearms[31] on March 13, 2007, and the .22-caliber handgun was purchased February 9 at a pawnshop in Blacksburg.[32]

Where the references are:

• 30: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/first_gun_bough.html
• 31: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/cho.profile/index.html
• 32: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18148802/page/2/

Reference 30 names the Glock, but simply says "a .22 caliber handgun" for the other; reference 31 doesn't mention the guns at all, and reference 32 gives details on both. The way the citations are used in this passage is therefore clearly wrong, since, with the exception of reference 32, they don't support the statement they're attatched to.

My suggestion would be to remove reference 31 altogether, and to quote reference 30 and 32 together at the end of the passage. With the citations done nicely, that looks like this:

Officials believe he used a 9 mm Glock 19 and a .22 caliber Walther P22 handgun. Cho purchased the 9 mm Glock 19 at Roanoke Firearms on March 13, 2007, and the .22-caliber handgun was purchased April 13, 2007 at a pawnbroker in Blacksburg .

If anyone wants to cut and paste that, that would be helpful.

-- Tom Anderson 2007-04-18 18:55 +0100

Pictures of the victims

should we put up pictures of the victims? Mercenary2k 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it. Maybe on the List of Victims page, but not here.Chunky Rice 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do, it would be best put on the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Also, since they would be fair use, fair use rationale would be required for each photo.↔NMajdan•talk 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No. They aren't notable, let alone their pictures. Titanium Dragon 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, man. They are notable, but I would agree that pictures don't belong in this article. Possibly in the list article, but that is a separate discussion. Tyro 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe "not encyclopaedic" would be a more sensitive rephrasing. tomasz. 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, please do put up pictures if you can. Knowledge is conveyed in many manners and visual illustrations are a great way of reinforcing text. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It just blows my mind that someone would think a list of victims is inappropriate. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote we delete the picture of the kids hiding. Not only is it creepy beyond on reason, it also serves no real purpose. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 04:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

There should be more about the Facebook response in this article, considering this is a college event and almost every student uses it.

There's a group: "A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech Shooting [5]" which has 230,000 members. Including 1800 pictures that combine the VT black ribbon with their school logo and the words "Today, we are all Hokies"

Someone should also mention the history of this black VT ribbon because it is now being used by almost every student at VT as their facebook picture. [6] --Bbabul01 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• i remembe a similar discussion yesterday but about myspcae, it was deemed irrelevant. Thenthornthing 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is completely unnecessary. 129.237.2.66 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand why everyone always votes myspace and facebook as unnecessary or irrelevant?? Every college student in the country uses these outlets to express responses to events. I personally think CNN is irrelevant, but everyone uses them. Maybe my points raised above are unnecessary, but something needs to be said about it. Bbabul01 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

you might personally think CNN is irrelevant, but it's still a powerful news-gathering organisation that specialises in facts, as opposed to the digital equivalent of a scrapbook. tomasz. 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That'd be original research though. If you can get some citations from the reliable sources about the MySpace and Facebook response, possibly. -Halo 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Here's a Forbes.com story about MySpace/Facebook response. Jawns317 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• the thing about myspace and facebook is that they arn't creadible sources. Anybody can put anything on, so your not allowed to cite it as a refrence, and we are supposed to cite and refrence everything that is in the article. That's why they're not allowed-Threewaysround 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They are most certainly reliable sources if they are indeed the topic of discussion. If one states that "There are one billion people in a Facebook group formed only two days ago" and cites that group then that is prima facie evidence of its existence. More detailed and subjective facts can likely not be sourced via those sources but to declare that those sources can never be cited is short sighted and wrong. We must use them with great caution but they are certainly usable in certain limited circumstances. --ElKevbo 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule that says we can't ever mention Facebook or MySpace. The problem yesterday was that people were providing MySpace pages as sources of information about news and victims of the massacre, which is definitely not within the reliable sources policy. We certainly can discuss their role in students' communication, coping, etc., provided our sources are news outlets like Forbes. Natalie 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is inclined or interested, here are some mainstream media reports about the the use of social networking and similar tools in relation to these events:

• Dateline NBC is using Facebook to identify friends of the gunman
• Technology Becomes a Coping Mechanism: Popular social networking site becomes bulletin board for information (MSNBC)
• VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE ONLINE: Students flock to social networking site (San Francisco Chronicle)
• Facebook becomes bulletin board for Virginia Tech (Reuters)

(Links shamelessly stolen from Gary Stager - but there are others out there if anyone cares to look!) --ElKevbo 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just a small clarification, but it is not likely that students were putting up Facebook profiles as memorials. There have, however, been countless Facebook groups about it, both for the shooting as a whole and for individual victims. Currently, the article just says "Facebook pages"; but perhaps we should mention the groups being created here and/or in the main Facebook article. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Victim List

Could someone please reduce the number of citations for this section. There has to be a single source by now that lists these so that the whole section can be given ONE citation. Is it really necessary for some of the victims to have 3 citations? 129.237.2.66 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but some may be unreliable, so they are double checking and adding another citation to be safe. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having too many citations is NEVER a bad thing. What if, in two years, some of these links stopped working and it just happens to be the one that was kept. Then we would've wished we kept all the citations. Too many is never bad.↔NMajdan•talk 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

as mentioned in a post that'll be archived long since by now, print media traditionally rely on two reliable sources, and that seems a good standard for something with the potential for unreliability Pupster21 mentions here. tomasz. 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that does not answer the question as to why we don't just give the whole section a citation instead of every single victim. I am saying that the section is difficult to read because of excessive, redundant, citations. 129.237.2.66 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i think it does answer the question as to why we don't give the whole section a citation: because it's safer at this stage to have more than one citation and also to have the individual names cited. plus that each source is not necessarily mentioning the same names. and we know what you are saying, thank you, we read your previous post. tomasz. 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility in answering this question. I am suggesting that we can still have multiple citations, but for the whole section instead of each individual victim. I am saying that, by now, there should be multiple sources that contain a complete list of victims. Each of these sources could be cited as a citation for the entire list on this article. When you cite a table, you don't cite each individual element of that table, but rather the table as a whole. 129.237.2.66 19:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, i can see your point there... perhaps we should still effect a compromise and wait until the editing of this dies down and we get some more complete source articles as per Chunky Rice's comment below this one. tomasz. 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)`

• It was done this way initially because the names where trickling in and we wanted to make sure that each was sourced. The whole article could have the refs consolidated quite a bit, but I was going to wait a couple days for things to settle down and a few comprehensive articles to surface.Chunky Rice 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not necessary to have a victims setion at all; Wikipedia is neither a place for lists nor for memorials, and the list of victims has no encyclopedic value. Titanium Dragon 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot express in words how Disguesting I find the last Comment. Its their NAMES for heavens sake. How bad is that? WIthout them there would be no shooting or article in the first place. If we removed everything else the names should stay assuming they're correct and the next of kin have been notfied. Its not a memorial but have a little heart. I don't see how listing the names is a bad thing and if anything makes a better article. Better yet lets just removed the whole article. Since we don't want the shooter to have a memorial and we don't want the school to have an article since its a memorial. WillSWC 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have completely failed to address the issue. As I pointed out, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to have a list or to use Wikipedia as a memorial. Your argument is an appeal to emotion. Wikipedia, however, is not about emotion. Wikipedia isn't politically correct. It is an encyclopedia. You seem to not understand what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias simply do not include chaff like a list of names. They cover important events, ideas, people, places, and things. Just because they died doesn't make them important at all. The article is not a memorial. There's no need to include the names of everyone who got shot. It is important to describe the event and its consequences and causes, but this is just a pointless aside. Titanium Dragon 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with WillSWCs comments, having the names is encyclopaedic to my mind. It's not a memorial, it's the facts. Victims names are well known in many other famous murder cases, too many to bother listing. Jsc83 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So its encyclopedic as long as they're Americans, and not say, Arabs? Its a massacre if it is done by a Korean, but its only killings if done by US soldiers? Frankly, its disgusting how biased people are without realizing it. People use slanted language and are biased. Haditha Killings doesn't have a list of victims. Nor does the latest bombing attack in Iraq. Its simply silly. There's no reason to list the victims of every event because it isn't meaningful to list them. Unless they're notable, there's no reason to include their name. Titanium Dragon 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, the title is determined by what the event is known as in the media, so you can yell at them about bias, not editors here. Chunky Rice 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It actaully is being called all sorts of things in the media; indeed, the most common inline reference to it appears to be not massacre but shooting. However, that will be brought back up later, I shouldn't have brought it up again; basically it was moved to this name, and may or may not stay there, but moving it again would be disruptive ATM.

And as for other stuff exists... doesn't that undercut the argument for the victim list? Titanium Dragon 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes no comment on the list. It simply states that pointing out other articles that do and don't have lists is irrelevant to the disussion of this one.Chunky Rice 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree WillSWCs is being overly emotional, but it may just be that we have to wait until things calm down. When people start to act a bit more sensibly, then we can trim down the article. At the moment some people seem to be getting offended when honest comments about the non-encyclopedic nature of the article are being made.

No need to have this debate in two places; it is already under debate here.↔NMajdan•talk 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a little different because that is an AFD on the List of victims article, while this discussion is about the list of victims in the main article. The AFD discussion seems more or less split over keeping and merging. Titanium Dragon is arguing that we should delete that article AND the list here. Which doesn't make sense to me.Chunky Rice 20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm making the argument on lack of notability. Who was killed is irrelevant unless they are independently notable; note the Haditha killings page doesn't even have a list of victims. It is quite obviously bias towards Americans, specifically dead young people. Its silly. Their names simply don't add anything to the article, clutter up the page, and aren't meaningful, unless they are notable (as arguably a couple of the professors who were killed may be - we'll see). In the end, it just isn't encyclopedic - encyclopedias aren't going to include random lists of names like this. Its basically used as a memorial. Titanium Dragon 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing that they're notable unto themselves, outside of this article (or derivative articles), but they're obviously notable in the context of the event. Again, I remind you that whether or not another article has such a list is irrelevant. Also, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia and is not burdened with the same limitations that they are so saying that one wouldn't have this information is also irrelevant.Chunky Rice 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an encyclopedia wouldn't have the information because it isn't important. Being concise and cutting useless stuff like this is a good idea, not a bad one. And my point in pointing it out was that this was an example of a pervasive bias. I'd bet money that the number of "victims of blah" pages which aren't American is very small indeed, and this indicates it isn't notable and that it is simply an American bias in Wikipedia which is causing these pages to be included as memorials. There's no reason these people are any more notable than those of any number of other incidents. I cannot see a possible counterargument to this. These people are no more notable than those for similar articles without such lists. They just aren't notable and aren't worth mentioning. I know many of you are emotional, but you have to think about NPOV. I find thinking "If an alien wanted to learn about Earth and its events, what would be relevant?" is useful. A list of random names is unimportant and doesn't aid comprehension of the events; its soley for memorial purposes in this case. Titanium Dragon 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be stupid to NOT print the names of the victims. The list is managably short, it's got factual value, and the deaths of those people is kind of the point of having an article in the first place. You're suggesting that we cover the rest of this in exhaustive detail, and then rush past the victims with a quick "Cho shot some people, the end, now back to more international reactions."?-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be stupid; it'd be standard. A list of names is meaningless. Why would we put up meaningless information? A name contains no information at all. If there was some pattern to who was killed, that might be interesting. But their names are just unimportant unless they're independently notable, in which case it should probably be noted inline that they were killed. Titanium Dragon 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Using your logic, we should not have names of anybody in any article that's not notable. Is that your stance?Chunky Rice 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Names aren't meaningless: they serve to distinguish the people who were killed from the people who were not. Leaving out the identity of the victims would be like leaving out the time or location of the shootings. After all, it's not like that particular dorm (or that particular minute) is independently notable either, right? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

References fix

I don't really know how to do it, but currently the first two references in the "University response" section are in a different style than the rest. I'm also not even sure if this is really important or not, but I figured I point it out. Jauerback 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

International response

In Australia and the UK, the vast majority of articles reporting on the topic include condemnations of the US gun culture (including one by John Howard, so it is not only media, but also the governments). The pro-gun people here will probably not want to include it, but by and large (in Australia and the UK at least) the international response has been the revival of anti-gun discussion. Sad mouse 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have asked that we add the quotes and discussion about control back in the "international reaction" above already (the section gave a broader overview on reactions yesterday, but this information was removed), but people were not listening. I for one think that currently the "international reaction" section is rather POV, as it omits what both governmental officials and the international media had to say about the incident. Themanwithoutapast 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it makes it seem like the only response was condolence, while in Australia (for example) the strongest response by the Prime Minister was actually a condemnation of US gun culture. If no one comes up with a good reason to censor the international response (one would think it merits more than a mere list of countries) I will start to add them back in. Sad mouse 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that bit based on widespread consensus yesterday, and I dislike the implication that I "censored" anything. Something needed to be done, since the previous version was too long and unwieldy, and I tried to cut it down to a decent length - I don't have a problem with a paragraph on the condemnation of gun culture, but I think listing every response is quote-cruft and more than a couple of paragraphs in the section is overkill -Halo 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No "responses" should be included, it's a just a platform for some very stupid people to turn this tragedy into a political point. I'd propose deleting the entire section and may do so later.--Rotten 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more appropriate for the Gun Control Debate section.--Gloriamarie 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Media response

'On the other side of the issue, the Conservative Voice contrasted the Virginia Tech massacre with the Appalachian School of Law shooting, which occurred about 130 road miles (210 km) to the west in Grundy, Virginia in 2002, and declared, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun."'

This is a case where I feel wikipedia should be more critical. It is correct to report that the Conservative Voice did indeed make that quote. However any quick search brings up examples where school shootings have ended abruptly by police or non-violent means, so it is actually an incorrect statement. Rather than just uncritically repeating quotes, a little thought should go into them to make sure that they are not simply a vehicle for bias. Eg I would suggest '"... and (incorrectly) declared, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun."' Sad mouse 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

however right or righteous you feel it might be, we can't be critical in that way – for one thing, it's original research, for another it produces unprofessional-sounding writing, starting to sound like blogging or something. we could, however, set quotes from reliable sources "against" each other to represent the spectrum of recorded opinion. just have to wait for a secondary source to argue the Conservative Voice article. for the record i feel it's incorrect too. Columbine arguably ended "abruptly" and that was because its perpetrators had guns, not the law-abiding citizens they were firing on. tomasz. 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree both with saying it is original research (it is not, it is simply showing facts that discredit the quote) and with saying it is not wikipedia policy (consider articles on global warming and evolution, there are many quotes saying that both are made up by a liberal conspiracy and the articles contain references which discredit their unscientific claims). An encyclopedia does not need to wait for the media to report something as false before saying it is false - it simply needs a verifiable source. In other words, if I bothered to find a single well verified example showing the Conservative Voice's opinion was incorrect we have enough to say it is incorrect without waiting for a media report. Sad mouse 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's here to be balanced. If you're trying to state the other side of an issue, it definitely defeats the purpose to cut down the quote as being inaccurate. If the quote is overly opinionated or incorrect, find another one that does the job. Criticizing the media is what blogging is for. Blakwyte 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If the New York Times said that World War I occurred in 1811 and that quote was for some reason required, we could say it is incorrect with a simple link to the WWI article without waiting for another media outlet to say it is inaccurate. Encyclopedias do not require media soundbites to correct misstatements. Sad mouse 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a much more controversial statement than your example. The definition of "abruptly" in particular is extremely ambiguous. But the point of this section of the article isn't to present facts, it's to present opinions, and it doesn't seem that you can (or should) really judge whether the Conservative Voice has stated an opinion that is based in fact or not. If you have another article that more accurately states the flip-side of this argument, then by all means present it, but I think discrediting their opinion completely defeats the purpose of this section. Blakwyte 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of the Conservative Voice is of value only if it is based in fact, my preference (over saying it is incorrect) would be simply to delete it. Showing two sides of the argument is fine, but only show factual sides. Sad mouse 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a perfectly valid opinion, although poorly worded. If you want it changed or removed I suggest finding another quote that shows the pro-gun side of the argument, or getting consensus for deletion. Blakwyte 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

you wouldn't need a direct contradication of the NYT's source, but you would still need a verifiable source of the War's actual dates (which would clearly be easy to find). tomasz. 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is my exact point, so if I go get a single example showing the Conservative Voice's opinion was not factual, we can site that without waiting for the media to contest it. Sad mouse 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i suspect you'd have an easier time finding a fact to support a date like the First World War than you would to disprove an opinion like this one which could easy lead to a nuanced and expansive debate that doesn't belong here. we're collecting the facts about this incident, not editorialising about whether such-and-such would be possible and supporting or disproving hacks' personal theories. tomasz. 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of evidence for the Conservative Voice's statement. From what I've read (in opinion pieces, haven't checked to see how much research they've done) it is government policy during an event like this to "seal the perimeter" and wait, which is exactly what happened in this case and the Columbine case, where the killers ultimately just decided to stop. I could probably look up some hard evidence on this if anyone is interested in reading it. Blakwyte 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• It offers two examples of quotes from prominent people in either side of the debate. Perhaps a more appropriate quote should replace it, but I'm definitely against editorialising as you propose as I'm worried it may be seen to show a bias (and is WP:OR). -Halo

It is not editorialising if a verifiable reference is included. We should not simply repeat every prominent opinion uncritically, and do not in the best wikipedia articles. Sad mouse 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like repeating prominent opinions uncritically, Wikipedia isn't for you I'm afraid - as anything else is original research and leads to all sorts of bias problems. I think it's fine as it is (even though, for the record, it's not my personal viewpoint) -Halo 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect and not the criteria wikipedia uses, see the examples I gave at global warming and evolution. Sad mouse 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, see WP:V and have stated my viewpoint. Also worth noting the articles you linked to aren't featured (and as such aren't held up as following Wikipedia policy), and Wikipedia is consensus rather than precedent-based. Either way, we have differing opinions, and I don't want to spend all day on a talk page arguing about it -Halo 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving the media section as is. It currently presents boths sides of the issue and in a fair and NPOV way. Trying to poke holes in one side's opinions will open the door to doing the same to the other sides. For example, the section state "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an American gun control group, said that it was easy for an individual to get powerful weapons ..." One could easily argue that it isn't easy in this country to get powerful weapons, and provide evidence to back that up (such as by saying that people in Washington DC or NYC, where there are strict gun laws, have difficulty in obtaining powerful weapons). We should merely offer both sides' referenced opinions and let the readers draw their own conclusions. --Alabamaboy 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if both sides were subjected to some critical thinking. Sad mouse 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people do a lot of critical thinking on this issue. Some other possible sources for the gun rights side of this section could be Reason Online. --Gloriamarie 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's correspondence with NBC

I'm currently watching non-live press conference on BBC World that states that the gunman is believed to have sent material to NBC between the first and the second shootings. It's in as much detail as possible at MSNBC. Get this looked at, NOW. (Sorry for not doing this myself, but I'm on break from the article right now, doing creative writing) --Kizor 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

included images, video, writings

mailed BETWEEN the two shootings to Steve Capus, head of NBC News

EDIT: I believe in the video Cho says "This didn't have to happen." speaks of hatred, rambles, lots of profanity (much like his plays). 151.213.177.128 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

Video/Pages sent to NBC

Apparently Cho, when he went to reload and write the "disturbing note" recorded a video and prompted it be sent to NBC. It was sent to NBC, turned over to police, whom turned it over to FBI. It also came with multi-paged statements. Anyone have any more information?

It was sent to NBC, not CNN. [7] 129.120.86.70 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

link to the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/?GT1=924667.107.106.110 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been inserted into the timeline at 9:01. Can we get a source for that timestamp? 66.162.41.118 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NBC just showed some of the video and the papers sent in the package. The reason they believe it took as long to show up as it did was because of the wrong zipcode. The feds have the originals, of course, NBC copied them first. Pictures of guns, a knife, hollow-point bullets lined up "artistically" and a bunch of text with no paragraph breaks and it goes on and on for pages, they say. Not sure what is written on those pages though. Jeeny 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the hollowed out bullets should be noted as well throughout the article, because this sounds like he used this inhumane method to ensure that people would be killed. From what I recall hollowed out bullets are likely to break on impact and cut through multiple organs, rather than only doing damage in one straight line. I first thought it was odd that he could manage to kill so many people with only 27 shots fired into the German classroom but this changes things because even when he misses, the likelyhood of damage through riccochet is vastly increaased -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Can someone make the lead bigger? And archive this talk page. 129.120.86.70 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Copycats

Would it be worth including some of the copycat threats? Darrik2 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No. You'd just be giving them attention. Think of them as the real-world equivalent of trolls. HalfShadow 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

well put.Sierrarose23 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What about now? I added the reference to (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_108200741.html) noting that UC Hastings College of the Law has been evacuated due to a copycat threat. Worth including? Qnonsense 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His Photo released on MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ 151.213.177.128 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

POV

VT Killer ruled a mental defective. He was not legally purchasing his firearms under Federal law. This article acts as though there was no gun control present. The simple fact is, this criminal lied (shocking) and circumvented existing gun control laws.

ref: http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

The federally prohibitive criteria outlining the reasons an individual may be precluded from the transfer/possession of a firearm or firearm-related permit, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., §§ 922 (g) and (n), are as follows:

[...]

A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

ref: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

Cut the bias Wikipedia, cut the freaking bias. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[8] HalfShadow 22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the best you can do in the face of facts? Ad hominem attacks? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

'Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control?' HalfShadow 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to make the project accurate. Respond to the facts, enough ad hominem attacks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, to be blunt: do it and stop complaining that we're biased. HalfShadow 22:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking over at WP:OR if this conclusion can be drawn based on the given facts--certainly on the face of it, it looks like an illegal purchase, but that depends on the ATF's definition of "committed to a mental institution". scot 22:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed He was adjudicated a mental defective. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't rely on the media to provide this self-evident information. They have been making this error the entire time. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we do. Chunky Rice 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I tend to agree with the analysis based on those articles, but I think that it constitutes original research. We need a source to cite, especially given that we have prior sources saying that it was legal.Chunky Rice 22:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reading this wrong. I've looked into it and been in discussion with another person, and he underwent a magistrate-ordered mental evaluation where he was deemed to be normal and was released the next day. This is the problem with original research when people read supplied information incorrectly, or haven't got all the facts and draw wild conclusions -Halo 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zing! HalfShadow 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't bother to read the ABC reference I provided. A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. That is all that is required to make the purchase illegal. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

According to AP[9], he signed a paper forcing him to have a mental evaluation, nothing more nothing less. I doubt courts have the ability to do anything different. This is original research, if it's picked up by mainstream news sources it can then be included. -Halo 22:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." = illegal purchase. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The magistrate signed the order because of evidence Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness. = illegal purchase. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Matter of interpretation on the first point IMO, particularly as the two sources seem to contradict each other over the magistrates ruling, therefore whether you're right or wrong, it's original research and shouldn't be included -Halo 22:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Point is, this article reads as if everything was done by the book. At the very least, it is unclear if this is true or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia exists to repeat the events as reported by others, not create its own... well, original research -Halo 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, interstate transfers of firearms (buying/selling) must go through an FFL. Was this pawn shop an FFL? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are right or wrong, we can't include it until we have it from a reliable source.Chunky Rice 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All sources say guns were purchased legally. But you may be right he could have lied and avoided those laws.Billbobjoe 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 stated specifically before that since he had voluntarily admitted himself to the mental institution no gun laws had been broken. sure there'll be an online version somewhere. tomasz. 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ABC source I provided says otherwise. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Article from USNews here. A quote:

Despite being temporarily detained at a mental health facility in 2005, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui's name was not added to the federal database meant to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining handguns because he was never formally committed to the facility, U.S. News's Will Sullivan has learned.

Can we let this settle now? -Halo 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the pawn shop an FFL holder? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The US News article above should be included, but to say that Cho's firearms purchase was illegal would be synthesis, which we can't do. Any inquiries or logical deductions made by us are original research, and policy is very clear on that. All we can do is report what the sources say, not draw our own conclusions. Let's all keep cool heads here. A Train^talk 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone else please put the above in the article? I've been up for 35 hours and I'm getting some much-needed sleep. Thanks -Halo 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Just be on the lookout for info surrounding the pawn shop. Interstate transfers must go through an FFL holder. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• speaking of which, "A 1968 federal law prohibits those who have been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness from buying firearms. Because he had not been committed, Cho could legally purchase the .22-caliber and 9mm handguns he bought in February and March and used in this week's attack." ibid. tomasz. 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Both shop owners are presumably living people. WP:BLP requires that any potentially negative information about a living person be well sourced. Saying that they illegally sold him the guns is unquestionably inflammatory and unless other media outlets are phrasing it that way, we should not and that language should be removed on sight. In the interest of accuracy, I see no problem with having no adjective at all, but we absolutely should not characterize the sales as illegal. --BigDT (416) 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop. An illegal sale does not necessarily mean the shop owners did anything illegal. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all moot until it starts showing up in reliable media sources; BLP is just another reason not to put our own deductions into the article. None of this (or any of my reasoning above) is an obstacle to including this kind of information should it start to appear in the press. A Train^talk 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No source, no add. If it turns out that the sale WAS illegal, someone else will notice and report it soon, and then we can cite them. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So far there is nothing to indicate that his gun purchases were made illegally, nor that the normal Virginia gun purchasing process was violated in any way. Wahkeenah 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaargh! The point is not that he got them legally or illegally - the point was that it was so easy to get a gun! All he had to do was fill out a form (and possibly lie). Here in NZ to get a gun license you can be interviewed, have your family interviewed, have your gun cabinet inspected - it can take months to even get a license! You're saying the law did everything right to prevent this simply by asking him to be nice and tell the truth on his form? There goes than negative gun culture again (pity that this article refuses to document it). 203.97.51.149 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly agrees with you, that the gun laws in Virginia are too soft. But the law is what it is. It also turns out that the guy probably was not legally entitled to get a gun, but the ones who knew about him did not have a process to communicate with others who needed to know. Maybe this case will change that. But the ones who sold the guns are apparently not legally liable. Wahkeenah 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun purchases were legal] according to CNN. A Train^talk 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my (original) research on this subject: Cho was probably ultimately qualified to buy the gun since he had not been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. However, he likely lied on the ATF Form 4473 question 12(f) which asks a very broad question about any kind of mental health determination or order. If he had answered truthfully Yes, as the question asked, the gun dealers would have put the sale on hold until the whole mental health issue had been sorted out in his favor. His failure to answer Yes is likely a federal felony in its own right. However, it is unlikely that the sale would have been ultimately prohibited.Kevinp2 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NBC releases some of Cho's Media

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b5_1176937612&p=1

Transcript

rough transcript of Cho Seung-Hui's media manifesto, which was released by NBC Nightly news

package was sent from an "ishmael" (spelling unknown)

When the time came, I did it. I had to. You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today. But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off. You just loved crucifying me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time. I didnt have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no. I will no longer run. If not for me, for my children. For my brothers and sisters that you fucked. I did it for them.

Cho also referenced Dylan and Eric as "martyrs" in his media, but this was not shown on TV.

EDIT: more excerpts from NBC News

You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.

Do you know what it feels to be spit on your face and to have trash shoved down your throat? Do you know what it feels like to dig your own grave? Do you know what it feels like to have throat slashed from ear to ear? Do you know what it feels like to be torched alive? Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement? You have never felt a single ounce of pain your whole life. Did you want to inject as much misery in our lives as you can just because you can?

You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.

151.213.177.128 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

• Is he accusing NBC? It seems kind of unclear from context. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe he is accusing NBC, in fact it has been stated that these videos do not provide us with any information as to who he is explicitly accusing. 151.213.177.128 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)gnoko

EDIT: more from pdf files sent to NBC

Oh the happiness I could have had mingling among you hedonists, being counted as one of you, only if you didn't (fuck) the living (shit) out of me. You could have been great. I could have been great. Ask yourself what you did to me to have made clean the slate. Are you happy now that you have destroyed my life? Now that you have stolen everything you could from me? Now that you have gone on a 9/11 on my life luke (fucking) Osama. Now that you have (fucked) your own people like (fucking) Kim Jong-Il. Now that you have gone on a hummer safari on my life like (fucking) Bush? Are you happy now? All the (shit) you've given me, right back at you with hollow points. Don't you wish you finished me off when you had the chance? Don't you just wish you killed me? Number of the Anti-Terrorist. (drawing of 2 figure-eights) You wanna rape us John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us Debra LaFaves? (Fuck) you. Let the revolution begin!

75.89.75.106 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

Error

A gunman killed 32 people^[5] and injured another 29 before committing suicide, making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Attacks

There were two attacks in two buildings. The first was in the West Ambler Johnston building, starting at 7:15 a.m., where two died, and the second at Norris Hall, where 31 died.

I really don't know the stats but I know 2 + 31 doesent = 32.  Razorclaw  20070418231712

Cho is the 31st person that died in Norris Hall. The 32 number is victims only.Chunky Rice 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification,  Razorclaw  20070418233200

Untruthful Media Reports?

Untruthful (from Webster's):

  2.  Given to falsehood; mendacious.

"Untruthful Media Reports" seems to imply that the information was purposefully false. It would seem that "Inaccurate Media Reports" would be more, well, accurate - as I'm sure that the early media reports were not purposefully incorrect.

Bobcooley 00:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm maintaining a rather loud silence about the amount of effort they likely spent to ensure the accuracy of this scoop, I have to agree with you. Changed. --Kizor 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Should The NBC package be split into a seperate article

24.234.97.79 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It should be included in this or the killer's article, as appropriate. Titanium Dragon 00:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably both places, I would think. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NOT the deadliest

This was not the deadliest non-military civilian massacre in US history. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was. Can someone change this, or at least get a source that proves the Virginia Tech shooting as the deadliest. (KingBurgermon 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

in modern US history. tomasz. 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

twisting of words. Most people wont catch the "modern", and who's to say what modern means? last twenty years? last hundred? last thousand? far to subjective, and discounts history( mountain meadows, wounded knee). If another qualifier were added, say "deadliest single perpetrator massacre" or such it would be ok. I'd change it, but I'm new enough to be locked out of editing this article. Sierrarose23 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not so much twisting of words as reporting what the verifiable sources are saying. tomasz. 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on this earlier in the day - look in the archive. Several news sources have used 'worst mass shooting/killing in modern US history'. It's attributable so that's what we went with. BTW - the Fort Pillow massacre was worse than Mountain Meadows. Ronnotel 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just change it to recent history? Then you have you cake and can eat it, too.HalfShadow 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be attributable or it borders on WP:OR. Find a statement that says 'recent history' and you're good. Ronnotel 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably word-twisting, but couldn't 'modern' be 'recent' by default? I'm just trying to find a way to make both sides happy. HalfShadow 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because the news is sensationalist doesnt mean wikipedia needs to be. I like the idea of changing the word to recent from modern. And I would dissagree with it being original research. It is just a single word change and technically both "modern" and "recent" mean the same thing in this context, though they have different implications. Also, the occurence of larger massacres in the past is common knowledge. Ignoring them, regardless of what the headlines are saying, seems to discount a significant amount of US history.. Sierrarose23 05:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Have you read Mountain Meadows Massacre? It was carried out by a militia, and the area was under martial law, and it was a group carrying out the massacre, not a lone gunman. Comparing the two makes no sense at all. Carcharoth 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW - here's the earlier discussion and the consensus that was reached. Ronnotel 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Mountain Meadows was an act of war, specifically the Utah War. szyslak (t, c) 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ethnicities of the victims

How are the ethnicities of the victims relevant? AFAIK no one is claiming this to be a racially motivated attack, so it seems like adding the races/ethnicities of the victims is unecessary. Natalie 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And it keeps getting posted. Kudos to who ever removes it so quickly 67.99.36.75 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing it when I see it. I do believe that an attributable statement describing the attacks as non-racist might be appropriate - but only in the Motives section, not where it keeps being put. Ronnotel 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I just couldn't stand looking through 500 diffs to see why it was there. Natalie 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Concern about terrorism

Over at FreeRepublic, etc., a major initial reaction to the shooting was the assumption that the shooter was a Muslim terrorist, and the writing or tattoo "Ismail Ax" (sic) was seen as conclusive proof of this. Should we include this? Ethan Mitchell 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone in the media commented on this? Free Republic isn't a reliable secondary source for commentary about themselves, and "some random dude on the internet jumped to conclusions before the facts were in" doesn't seem particularly surprising or significant. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Speculation, let alone speculation from a single group on the internet, should not be included. Tyro 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

FreeRepublic can be a bit dodgy as a source anyway. Natalie 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit dodgy? That's like saying St. Bernards are kind of big... HalfShadow 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not suggesting we use FR as a factual source for the shooting; my interest is that the article capture the range of cultural reactions to the shooting. Are blogs a better source than FR? Ethan Mitchell 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs aren't generally considered reliable for something like that. If you get a print editorial by someone like Maureen Dowd or Charles Krauthammer, or a large newspaper story ABOUT blog reaction, that might be workable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The media doesn't seem to be talking about his religion (perhaps intentionally avoiding it)- he does reference Christian ideas in the tiny amounts of his writing I've seen, and supposedly highly anti-Christian ideas elsewhere. (Ismail may also be a mispelling of Ishmael, which lacks Muslim ties). According to the South Korea article, most South Koreans express no religious preference, and the rest are mostly Christian or Buddhist. Going by that, it seems highly unlikely that he's Muslim. Until we find out more, we can only speculate.

Wayne Chiang

Hey You all... We don't have much info on Wayne Chiang... The dude who collected weapons and was accused at first... I started a little blurb about him int he "inaccurate media reports" section, prevoisly named "untruthful media reports"... I changed the name and added that section...

I felt that it was too sloppy the parts i added, can you guys help he fix it up? This is the first major edit ive made to a significant event's article...

-- OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

you may be able to contact him through his livejournal and find more information there, www.livejournal.com/~wanusmaximus

he is a self described shooting enthusiast, a Virginia Tech grad, a former resident of the AJ dorm, and I believe he is Taiwanese. 151.213.177.128 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

• Oppose Chiang is a footnote at best, he just got caught up in the initial hysteria because he fit the current description of the shooter. Spencewah 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing as how he is still a significant person, although otherwise unrealted to the incident, i still think he should be listed

-- OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support He should be definitely listed in this section. Play really well into the "Inaccurate Depiction". After all the paragraph right above it talk about how everyone thought the shooter was chinese. Yongke 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree, he should be included, because his story shines light on the irresponsible reporting in the wake of this awful event. Fsu23phd 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Yes, The first female victim was appearantly Chiang's girlfriend right? So he was the only lead at first and it was because the police were so certain that he was the murderer that classes were allowed to go on. Since Cho was stalking the girl, I am interested to find out if the boyfriend's apprehention kept him from attending a German class.... If what I'm saying is correct then I think it should be noted. -youngidealist68.231.200.13 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ammunition

I added the details about the ammunition the shooter used. When I raised it in the discussion previously some pro-gun people thought it didn't warrant mentioning that the 15-bullet magazine he used (allowing him to shoot without reloading as frequently) was illegal until 2004. I think the ammunition is as notable as the guns that he used, and it is certainly relevant to the gun control debate that he would not have had access to the fire power he used if this had occurred prior to 2004. Sad mouse 02:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/REPOSITORY/704180366/1013/NEWS03

You may be misunderstanding the law and the way semiautomatic handguns handle ammunition. The standard Glock 19 magazine holds 15 cartridges, while from 1994-2004 merchants in the US were limited to selling new restricted-capacity ten-round magazines to citizens. This applied only to magazines manufactured after the ban went into effect. Any citizen could still purchase the hundreds of thousands old magazines; they were just more expensive than they used to be due to supply and demand. Also, to reload a modern semiatomatic handgun, you simply press the magazine release button and slide in a fresh magazine. If you aren't saving your magazines, it takes less than three seconds. The murderer killed 30 people in the mass shooting. Even assuming five rounds per victim, that's 150 shots. 15 reloads from restricted-capacity magazines, and 10 reloads from full-capacity magazines, for a total of a 15-second difference in reloading time, over the course of a shooting spree that stretched through four classrooms, in which eyewitnesses indicate that the murderer took his time. If the law in question had been extended past 2004, the full effect would've been that the killer would've had to pay more if he'd wanted to save 15 seconds. This is presumably why many editors don't think that the detail is important enough to include in a general-encyclopedia article on the shooting itself. 216.52.69.217 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the article you link to seems to misrepresent the situation: 1994-2004 restricted-capacity magazines were limited to ten rounds, which the article doesn't mention. It instead, without comment, quotes a Brady Campaign rep saying "If you have four or five rounds in a clip rather than 15, the shooter has to reload and reload". This may be the next step the Brady Campaign _wants_, but it certainly doesn't represent the situation under the 1994 ban.216.52.69.217 13:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The most people in any one room was 10, therefore it was certainly relevant that he used 15 clip magazines. You may think that he could have performed the same killings with a crossbow, that does not justify removing the reference to him using a gun. Sad mouse 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly think that the difference between a crossbow and a ten-round firearm is comparable to the difference between a ten-round and fifteen-round firearm, then it's clear you're uninterested in improving the discussion. Hopefully more reasonable people will see my paragraph above and either understand why the detail is unnecessary or present a more compelling justification for its inclusion. The issue is how much detail a general-encyclopedia should go into (should we note the country of origin of the firearms? Notable users of those models? More powerful alternatives the shooter could've used? Their accuracy compared with other firearms of the same caliber? The manufacturers' recommended applications for those models?...). Given how little effect the 1994 ban would've had on the situation, it falls, IMO, well below the threshhold for inclusion, and its inclusion would only serve to push a "weak gun control kills!" POV. 216.52.69.217 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the guns and ammunition used are clearly relevant to an article on the shooting, and the federal ban is clearly relevant to the gun control issue. Sad mouse 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the statement is relevant because, as it states, it was illegal to MANUFACTURE the magazines from 1994-2004. It was not illegal to own them at any point during the ban. If it had been illegal to own them during the AWB, then the point would be valid. I think it should be removed unless someone can come up with a compelling reason why the ban on manufacture is at all relevant to the possession of them. Lord Bodak 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the gun control section. How is it not more important than hundreds of other details in the article? They are the bullets that actually killed the people. Sad mouse 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The ban on manufacture of high-capacity magazines has nothing to do with the bullets that killed the people. High-capacity magazines were extremely easy to come by even during the manufacture ban, because possession of them was still legal. Why does it matter if it was legal to make them or not when it was still legal to have them? He had them, and he would have had them if the ban had been renewed in 2004 or if the ban had never been passed in 1994. The manufacture ban has no bearing on the shootings. Lord Bodak 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making a number of assumptions for which you have no basis. Sad mouse 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. High-capacity magazines have been available for the Glock for the entire life of the Glock. They were not unavailable during the manufacture ban, so what is the purpose of the statement being in the article? Lord Bodak 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This may have been dealt with previously but did he have lots of full magazines with him? Or did he reload the magazine(s) with bullets at the second shooting location?

Eyewitness accounts report him wearing a vest which is assumed to held extra magazines. Time it takes to load loose bullets into empty magazines is considerable and it's safe to assume in the time it took, he simply expanded all magazines he had previously loaded. Rabbit994 17:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Distractions

On April 18, NBC News received a package from Cho timestamped between the first two murders and the rest of the massacre two hours later. It contained a 1,800-word manifesto[50], pictures, and 23 videos.[51] In the videos, sent in QuickTime format , Cho discussed his religion and his hatred of the wealthy.

Radikaos 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the Mention of Quick Time Really relevant

At least so people understand that he didn't send them 23 video tapes, but I imagine no information would be lost if we said "digital video files" or similar. Natalie 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see now, OK. Radikaos 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Better Introduction

It is not known what, if any, previous firearm experience or training Cho had completed before the massacre. It is not known where or how Cho obtained the chain with which he locked the doors at the stairway in the engineering classroom building.

Maybe the idea of the chain should be introduced before this, would make for a better flow in the article (personal opinion)

Radikaos 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture

I think the main picture needs to change. All it shows a bunch of students standing around. The iconic picture of this massacre is 4 cops carrying a bloodied student....Thats what is needs to go in the main boxMercenary2k 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's iconic doesn't really matter. Sure it's nice to have such an image up, but there's no hurry...-Phoenix 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure that "what's iconic doesn't matter"? I'm sorry, but having a picture of a group of students AFTER the incident is not relevant to the main theme of this article. As long as it's free, a non-disturbing, acceptable image from the actual event should be included. WiiAlbanyGirl 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to Commons:Virginia Tech and pick the photo of your choice ... but it has to be free. There's no way that having a non-free photo in the infobox is fair use on a subject like this - because there is an obvious replacement - any free photo. --BigDT (416) 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

KS based "hate" church planning to picket the funerals of the VA Tech Massacre victims.

Topeka, KS based hate-fueled Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, plan to "preach" their hate filled message at the funeral's of the VA Tech Massacre victims. These pickets usually consist of signs containing defamatory slogans, such as God Hates F*gs, [subject] are in Hell! (in this case, they would claim the victims are in hell), and others I don't feel are neccessary to repeat here.

The WBC Sites: http://www.godhatesamerica.com http://www.godhatesfags.com

News sites on the picketing plans: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/national/main2699800.shtml http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/12273/virginia-tech-protection-needed-as-with-columbine-funerals-and-memorial-services-pastor-fred-is-coming-to-spread-his-screed-at-vt/

Forgive me if I have added this entry wrong. Kennethv 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, those people are still around? Isn't that guy like, 90? Natalie 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. Kennethv 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And not to be upstaged, you can assume that Vince McMahon, Jerry Springer, and Bozo the Clown will be there, too. Wahkeenah 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is that I wish we as a country would give them absolutely zero press. If you ignore the school bully, eventually he will go away. At any rate, I don't know that this warrant a mention in this article until there is actually an incident. (No opinion on a mention in the WBC article.)--BigDT (416) 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What became of the time when the worst disruptions at public events were from streakers or Rockin' Rollen? Wahkeenah 04:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Other churches thing they're subhuman monsters. HalfShadow 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind churches - biker gangs are morally outraged. Natalie 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The title: Virgina Tech 'massacre'

Come now, this is no place for sensationalism. The word 'incident' is more neutral and therefore more appropriate. I'd also be content with 'killing spree', 'murders', 'killings', or 'shootings'. A massacre takes place on a battlefield, not a campus. Vranak

FYI, this was discussed Monday and there was a consensus to rename it from "shootings" to "massacre". --BigDT (416) 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree on the consensus part...it was decided by a very small group of people who thought that they could define the actual title of the article. Voting was done over a small time period, less than 24 hours after the incident. Is that appropriate to vote on the FINAL name of an unstable article?? WiiAlbanyGirl 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was previously discussed. The dictionary definition of "massacre": "the intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people." Krimpet (talk/review) 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in *a* dictionary definition of massacre, it's original meaning was where one side in a battle was easily dispatched by a more mobile and able fighting force. One guy going around killing people with a gun is not a massacre, it's not butchery, it's a killing spree. Vranak

So, what, would you prefer "Virginia Tech killing spree"? The reason given for its current title is that "massacre" is attriutable to a number of reliable news sources. Don't bite me, I'm just passing on the message since you elected no to read and comprehend the previous archives. -Phoenix 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference... how about 2007 Virginia Tech killing spree. That title doesn't pin blame on the perpetrator, as 'massacre' does, but it still has the sensationalist air, which Americans seem to love. Vranak

We have already discussed this and reached a general agreement that this article should be called Virginia Tech massacre. End of discussion. Mercenary2k 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We? No, we is you and I, and we're discussing it right now. Vranak

Hello Vranak. Wikipedia has defined massacre, and VT certainly fits the description. If, however, you have new information about the original meaning of massacre that's not in Wikipedia, and that would provide a new definition of the term, then perhaps you could contribute this information to the Wikipedia "Massacre" article. Right now, Wikipedia does not support your contention, but it is always open to having its articles improved.Que-Can 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Que-Can, if that is your real name. Wikipedia has defined massacre has it? Wikipedia is not a person, Wikipedia doesn't make decisions, Wikipedia does not define anything. Say something that makes sense next time, please. Vranak

if i may... you're right, Wikipedia is not a person. it is a community of many people, and as such it actually does make decisions, lots of them, and define things. both the decisions and definitions relate to the content of its articles. tomasz. 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No Guice, Wikipedia makes absolutely no decisions. Wikipedia is a website, a catalog, it has no agency, no executive powers. There is no hive mind at work, it's a bunch of individuals who try to reason with each other. Or, when that fails, the 'cabal' makes a decision. But even that cabal isn't Wikipedia, it's yet more individuals, albeit ones with more closely-aligned interests than Wikipedians in general. Vranak

semantics. the community writes articles and it does makes decisions, regarding how those articles are presented. tomasz. 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept that. :) Vranak

"I'm not interested in *a* dictionary definition of massacre, it's original meaning was where one side in a battle was easily dispatched by a more mobile and able fighting force." so actually, you are interested in a dictionary definition of massacre. your problem seems to be that you want it to be a different or more specific one. tomasz. 09:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who is claiming consensus is NOT paying attention. There was no consensus. What happened was someone moved it arbitrarily on the basis of six hours of people voting. That's not how Wikipedia works. I complained about it, and it was decided by a number of people that it will be move locked to prevent constant move wars and disrupting editing of the article. Simply put, the people who have a vested interest in sensationalism are keeping it as massacre. In a week or so, most of them will have wandered off, and we'll probably have a real discussion about the issue. Massacre is a very, VERY non-NPOV term, see Haditha killings, which was changed off of Haditha massacre for NPOV reasons. Basically, to call this a massacre would be biased. It should be named Virginia Tech shootings, with a "if you're looking for 2006 Virginia Tech shootings, blah. Wikipedia has NOT defined massacre, contrary to the claims of random people who don't know what they're talking about. This should be called Virginia Tech shootings, but as I said before, we'll deal with it in a week when the article isn't being edited every minute of every hour of every day. Titanium Dragon 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my search results from google news searching these phrases in quotes.

1. "tech shootings" 3,009
2. "tech massacre" 2,687
3. "tech tragedy" 971
4. "tech killings" 325
5. "tech murders" 158
6. "tech mass" 134

It looks like "tech shootings" has a slight lead in headlines on news sites. The term shootings is more NPOV than the term massacre, so maybe we should consider a change to Virginia Tech shootings? Mytwocents 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In a week or two, either the name "Virginia Tech massacre" or "Virginia Tech shootings" or perhaps some other name, will be firmly entrenched, and that is what will be used. This is what happened after the killings on September 11, 2001: an obscure term "9/11" was coined by the media and caught on quickly. It has been used ever since. So, time (and not some Wikipedia editor) will tell what it will be called.Que-Can 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Firmly entrenched? Oh please, all it takes ia a couple mouse clicks to change a title. Vranak

i rather think Que-Can meant "firmly entrenched" in the sense of "in the world at large", rather than in that of wiki-namespacing. tomasz. 09:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the masses think? Wikipedia is about correctness, not consensus gentium. Vranak

the reliable, verifiable sources, not "the masses". tomasz. 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And who decides what is a reliable, verifiable source, praytell? Vranak

i believe that's up to consensus and the guidelines, but i'm uncertain about that, so don't quote me. anyone? tomasz. 10:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• This survey was rather demonstrative of what a significant number of editors thought the title should be. Just today I was watching CNN as the NBC Cho news broke and the whole time they had the info bar towards the bottom of the screen titled, "Viriginia Tech massacre". (→Netscott) 10:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is about correctness, not consensus. Vranak

It's an established name for school shootings. See, for example, Columbine High School massacre, or the whole list. Both terms, shooting and massacre are used. IMO, if you deliberately kill tens of random people after planning it, it's a massacre.--Svetovid 11:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I don't like the word massacre because of its pejorative connotations. It sides with the victims. I don't think it's fair. 32 people murdered, one suicide. Let's not overlook the one suicide. Vranak

I don't see anything wrong with siding with the victims here. It's not like they asked to be shot, or even knew the kid who killed them (Unlike, say, the Columbine massacre, where the shooters knew all their victims). Even your dictionary definition of massacre is revalent, "one side in a battle was easily dispatched by a more mobile and able fighting force." When one side has all the guns, and the other doesn't have any, it's a massacre. See also: Boston Massacre, Katyn Massacre, and several other Massacres where the battle was all one-sided. Massacre did not just start being used to describe shootings of this kind, it has been used to describe this and similar events for years.Paladinwannabe2 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Que-Can, because I actually said the same exact thing MUCH earlier on Tuesday morning (maybe someone actually did pay attention...or we're all just repeating ourselves). Very soon, our culture and our media will define the title of this article. As I said before, Wikipedia is not responsible for coining the title of cultural events!, our media and culture will do that for us. And once that happens, we'll have the appropriate title for the article. Case Closed. WiiAlbanyGirl 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon's account matches my recollection: there was no concensus to move it from "shootings" to "massacre," someone just arbitrarily decided to go with it a few hours into a discussion about it. Also, you can't go by Columbine High School massacre -- that article has undergone moves between "massacre" & "shootings" a couple of times over the past couple days too. --Yksin 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This again, eh? I am also of the opinion that the move occurred after insufficient discussion, and my personal thoughts are that "massacre" is a POV sensationalist term. Nota bene for those liable to take offense: I am not calling any one editor or group of editors sensationalist, but I am saying that the word massacre is generally used as a propaganda term to incite strong passions (or sell newspapers), and a more neutral, encyclopedic name would be "shootings".

When we had this discussion earlier, I offered historian Franklin Hodder's description of the Boston Massacre as support for my viewpoint: "For a full century the history of the American Revolution was based upon propaganda. A striking example of this is the popular conception of the Boston massacre, a street brawl between common soldiers and town roughs, an event of such slight importance that it was followed by two years of peace..". [10]A Train^talk 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, there are no final decisions, it can be moved again. (But not, please oh please, to anything withthe word "spree" in it...) Rich Farmbrough, 16:59 19 April 2007 (GMT).

Definitely not "spree". :) A Train^talk 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Immigration as reason for killings

Some people are blaming immigration and the cross cultural transition as the reason for the killings.

http://vdare.com/pb/070418_vt.htm

just wondering whether you guys want to include this in the article

Mercenary2k 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

irrelevent. If everyone who can possibly tie this shooting into their own personal political agenda is featured on wikipedia we'd be swamped. Later, after things have calmed down a bit we can determine which of the political debates lasted longer than one editorial, whether that be gun control, free speech, immigration, mental health services, or whatever else. In the mean time I dont think it belongs. Sierrarose23 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All kinds of attention whores and morons will, of course, blame anything. Just see: this cartoon --Svetovid 11:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ismail Ax tattoo

Here is one theory on what the tattoo means, it's the only one I have seen so far. [11] -Ravedave 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist, but why is it that we see the normal spelling; "Ishmael" in photo released by NBC, while we have heard the word was written as "Ismail" Ax?

In any case, this theory can't be used here as we have seen contradiction from other reports.--Gerash77 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the writing got smeared between the taking of the photo and his death, or maybe he accidentally washed it off and re-wrote it after using the toilet. Who knows? We haven't even seen a photo of the arm yet, so it's way too early to jump to any conclusions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to back that theory up at this time. 'Ismail' seems to be a misreading/mishearing of 'Ishmael', and the little I know suggests the killer was not Muslim. Ishmael has ties to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religion, as well as being the name of the protagonist in 'Moby Dick'. We need more information before we print theories, otherwise we risk sounding as clueless as TCSDaily does in that article. Paladinwannabe2 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Motives: Psychologizing

I removed the paragraph quoting an Australian psychologist's viewpoint -- I think this kind of distance diagnosis is inappropriate, as it is obvious the commenter never directly assessed the shooter. It has been reinstated by its original contributor. Other viewpoints? Sfmammamia 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - its a throwaway comment for a press piece not a reliable comment that deserves to remain in an encylcopedia Phurge 09:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroic Acts

This section needs to be renamed and encylopedized. Its pretty bad right now. It should probably be integrated inline into the narrative of the attack; it shouldn't be singled out and DEFINITELY shouldn't be called something as POV as "heroic", which is completely inappropriate for an encylopedia. Titanium Dragon 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ? John Reaves (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know how to feel about it. The name is indeed anti encyclopedical. But also... relevance?... maybe it could fit in a narration on the facts, but sounds like trivia in an encyclopedia article. Another suggestion could be to move the info to the a personal page of those who did the so called "heroic acts". I don't do the edit myself as i feel it needs consensus --Legion fi 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is definitely some room for (sourced) vignettes that illustrate key actions of the victims as they dealt with this shooter. I agree that "heroic acts" is a totally inappropriate title and invites wikipedia to list people as "heroes" when that is not our judgement to make. Perhaps we would frame these vignettes as "well substantiated events during the shootings that have no time stamped record" ... clearly things happened that aren't on the timeline because we don't know when exactly they happened. This section will give us room to list them even if we can't fit them into the timeline (yet) MPS 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet there are many Reliable Sources, very reputable newspapers, that designate these people as such. I would think that most people would consider barricading a door with ones body while allowing everyone else to escape is heroic and we have many citations to back it up. --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are quotations of multiple sources (even reliables ones) saying they are heroes. But we cannot add it to the article because they violate the NPOV Wiki standar. Sorry. --Legion fi 08:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroic would of been rushing the attacker to stop him. No one did that. The whole section needs to be eliminated and integrated into the rest of the narrative. Zynkin 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole section should be cleaned from Not-Neutral POV and integrated into the section Norris Hall shootings. --Abe Lincoln 08:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i'm the one who created Heroic acts section. My intention is to record the so-called-heroic act done by the victims and other non-notable students during the massacre, particularly in the case of Lumbantoruan and Zach Petkewicz which is not mentioned in any dedicated article at all. Liviu Librescu and Kevin Granata's heroic acts are recorded in their respective article pages, and I felt the need to acknowledge and record the action of Lumbantoruan, Petkewicz and others, if any, for people who didn't have their own pages dedicated in wikipedia. I agree if the section Heroic act is merged under Norris Hall shootings (If based on consensus), in order to clean it from POV language, but to retain the action and chronology of the event, acknowledging the heroic acts by the non-notable victims.Chaerani 08:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal: Move the section (or at least the parts that are not describtion of events but media reaction to it) to "Responses to the incidents" (may be after "University response") and rename it "Tribute to self-sacrificing behavior" (or something like that, I am not a native English speaker). --Abe Lincoln 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I restructured it. You might adjust the wording, remove redundant parts and make continuous text out the lists. --Abe Lincoln 08:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(New user here so am not sure if I am contributing in the right way/place. Do I mention things here for others to edit or put it in the article myself? For now, am leaving it to those more keen.) There is more information on the French Canadian teacher and her apparent sacrifices in her classroom, which was apparently the hardest-hit with the fewest survivors. Please see this link to The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204866 . The French class is also apparently where Cho returned for the last time before taking his own life. The significance of these events suggests that they be included under the "shootings" section. (BTW, I have noticed above that someone is calling the TO Star a "gossip" paper. Although this paper seems to have erred in an early detail from 4chan, it has won many awards for investigative reporting and can generally be trusted for solid research. It is the major 7-day weekly paper for Canada's largest city, and its credentials are normally trustworthy - certainly not to be dismissed. Anyway, the story seems worth following up, especially if you're going to include the info on other professors who sacrificed their lives for their students, no matter what section it's put in.) wiki-stikler 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Court Documents related to case

I am not too familiar with wikipedia's stance regarding these, so I'm posting them here first since they're in .pdf format:

• Warrant used to search Cho's room Please note on the fifth page, Item #1, the chain investigators are arguing is similar to that found to chain inside Harris Hall and Item #1, a dremel tool, investigators are arguing was used to file the serial number off the guns
• Court order declaring Cho an imminent danger Please note on the Doctor Certification on page 4, such declaration is marked "is not".

Hope this helps. -Shirley Grace 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an article about this?

I already got enough information on the news, why is their already a wikipedia article on this s***, it makes me sick that their is one. Useless debate, and just adds meaningless talk. I do a search result on this and their is already a wikipedia page UNBELIEVABLE.Wrs888 07:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article makes you sick does it? Tell me, what did you eat for breakfast today? Vranak

there's an article about it because it's an important event that happened. its purpose is nothing to do with debate, as our purpose is not to include our own opinions but to report facts in a neutral way. don't be silly. tomasz. 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now now, let's keep to WP:NOOB. Wrs888, as an ever-expanding encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes coverage of some events that you wouldn't find in the confines of a paper encyclopedia. A medium like WP allows for increased insight. Yes, this may come with considerable amounts of vandalism/POV, but its a great collaboration that we can come up with an article more comprehensive and fine-tuned than anywhere else. That having been said, this event will probably be in many paper encyclopedias as well in the future. It's that notable! --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

fair cop. sorry for being snippy, Wrs888. tomasz. 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay maybe I understand their needs to be an article but this discussion just adds meaningless talk. This discussion is already talking about "copycats", "deadliest massacre EVAR", religion, gun control or other retarded topics such as "Wikipedia as an Events Calendar". I find that very repulsive. Topics such as that adds nothing to to the discussion other then it being offending and disrespectful, seriously doesn't that offend you? So Valley2City if you're going to call me a noob, then I might as well call you retarded for discussing in a retarded topic, so who's biting who? How am I suppose to take this discussion seriously when you guy's are talking about nonsense like "roomates say he used facebook to stalk girls, more on self-reference", what the f*** is that? This whole discussion is getting on my nerves. Wrs888 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is calling you nothing. In fact he was kinda defending you. Follow the link. Nothing wrong to being new... Im new myself... 5 days old. And yes there are some retarded post in this talk page. So just ignore them... those are not part of the main article... And the point of having a talk page is to have a place where people can talk about the article, without editing it. --Legion fi 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrs888, the link I referenced, WP:NOOB is a policy of "Please do not bite the newcomers" and was directed toward tomasz. It would be a bad thing to scare new contributors off because there wouldn't be anybody left. I was in fact defending you as you are still learning the nuances of Wikipedia. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is someone pointing a gun at you, forcing you to read it? --Svetovid 10:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ouch. tomasz. 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

tomasz I don't know whether that ouch was directed toward myself or toward Svetovid, but I meant my WP:NOOB as a constructive reminder. As for Svetovid: dude, not cool... too soon... --Valley2city^₪‽ 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Older image on here yesturday...

There was an image on here yesterday that showed the shooter and another person both wearing masks. The other person appeared to be Caucasian. This image was in the article last night. Does anyone know what happened to it, Where it came from, why it was removed?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)