Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Motives

Stalking is a serious issue particularly on college campuses. The narrative in the section on Cho's motives alluded to his stalking female students and disturbing behavior in the classroom. The section was probably deleted to make the article shorter, but by making the article shorter it left out valuable information that may prevent further death. By minimizing the importance of stalking incidents, females do not report the incidents, do not go to court to get a protection order, no action is taken against the stalker (including serious psychiatric intervention) and sometimes this leads to deadly consequences. In fact, if only a single female were killed by a stalker or a domestic violence incident, there would not even be a reference in Wikipedia. In some jurisdictions, reports of stalking result in legal intervention and in others multiple reports accumulate and no action is taken. If more follow-up had been done in 2005 when the first complaints were made against Cho perhaps 33 more people would be alive today. Cherylyoung 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Although I didn't see the section you're refering, so I can't comment on what was in the section. Can you write something that is relevant, short and sourced into the article? You are very articulate and I believe you can come up with something, making sure there's some type of source too, so it won't be considered your opinion or original research. Thanks! Jeeny 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Details about stalking incidents were moved to the article on Cho Seung-hui, which is where it belongs, IMO.Sfmammamia 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Gun Control Debate section

This section has a number of NPOV violations and a few statements that are mistaken at best, or false at worse (ie, the quote about high-capacity magazines being illegal under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban -- only the manufacture and sale of new magazines over 10 rounds was illegal under the AWB, possession of old ones was perfectly legal, and they were easy to acquire in any gun or pawn shop, or over the Internet). I'm starting to clean it up, but would like others to pitch in too. --Tthaas 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what was written in the article - and "clean it up" should not involve complete removal. Sad mouse 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost cleanup to this section would be a clear understanding about so-called "reasonable gun control". The government does not control guns. They only control people. Therefore "reasonable gun control" is really just code-speak for "government control over people", a complete reversal from a government operating under the control and with the consent of the people it governed which formerly existed on the North American continent.

So the government banning murder and rape is code-speak as well? Gregohio 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindsight has 2020 vision: That said, does Larry Hincker not sound, in retrospect like a complete sock puppet? Lowellt 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and people control the government, so it is people control over people. Huh. Anyway, this is original research (well... it is a rant, but I was being polite). Sad mouse 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that what will ultimately happen is that the gun control aspects will be moved to the appropriate (if I do say so) Gun Control Debate page, but I also propose a split page (eventually!) called Media Responses to the VA Tech Shootings. It hink that there is going to be a huge argument about the propriety of NBC and CNN (and shortly thereafter, everybody else) going wall-to-wall with Cho's videos, photographs, writings, and audio clips. This would also be a nice way to fold in the obvious Columbine discussion, ans the media response to THAT incident is likely to be reviewed with the same critical eye. I am not here trying to conduct a debate on the topic, only on where we should put the debate.Haakondahl 06:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It should not be moved - the shooting did not occur in a vacuum, it occurred in the real world. Therefore how the world responded to the shooting was an integral part of the event. Sad mouse 16:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"The name of the play [Richard MacBeef] is clearly alluding to William Shakespeare's play "MacBeth"."

I think that this addition to citation 44 should be removed. There is no evidence that it alludes to Macbeth in any way. If anything, it seems to be a reference to McDonalds:

No wonder your name is McPork - I mean McBeef. While the guys were packing on muscles, you were packing on McDonald's fat, chowing down on three Big Mac's[sic] in three minutes [1]

James Kendall [talk] 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, given focus on pedophilia in the play [2], I interpret the name as a crude genital reference, i.e., "Dick", "beef", in combination with the fast-food reference. Haakondahl 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Control Debate

I think this whole section should be moved to its own article or to gun politics. We could include just a sentence like, "These events have renewed the debate on gun control." And that would be all that is necessary. I think this would cut down a lot of the length for this specific article, while retaining the information. So, either creating a Virginia Tech Gun Control Debate article or moving the content to gun politics is what I think we should do to reduce the length. Rooot 16:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong disagree at this time, particularly about moving it to gun politics where it doesn't belong (there is specific background to this event in the section). There is no rush at the moment to cut down the content, this can be done when the article settles down. -Halo 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do agree, I think gun control is a whole separate issue, and while mentioned here, should really not be debated here.--RobNS 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Gun control is one of the primary topics raised by the shooting. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusstrong disagree. You are correct, yet the article is not about gun control. Another topic raised is the suitability of deathtrap old buildings as classrooms. Note Here, Discuss Elsewhere. Haakondahl 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(new user, please be patient) - wow, it may be a Canadian perspective but for the issue of gun control to be considered a wholly SEPARATE issue from what happened? that's a consideration that causes not a little headshaking from our northern perspective. Anyway, to stick to the point of this talk page: here is something very relevant to the article at hand: "Dead Canadian's Daughter to Push for Gun Control" in her mother's name. Her mother was Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, whose French language classroom was the last stand against Cho and who apparently sacrificed her life for her students in barricading the door. It was also the hardest hit, with the fewest survivors, and was the room in which Cho chose to end his life. Her mother was a strong advocate of gun control. Not relevant, eh? This is the link: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205046 wiki-stikler 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the teacher was specifically targeted for her stance on gun control, it is not relevant. The opinions of victims' children are not relevant to the facts of the event itself. The debate on the causes and issues of the event is a separate, distinct issue. Thus, they may still be important and possibly included somewhere, but not in this article. The article is too long as it is, and these topics can be moved to a separate page. Also, I don't understand your first two sentences. Rooot 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I seriously doubt she was targeted due to her stance on gun control. Cho made no mention of gun control in his letters. Any debate on gun control in United States and/or Virginia is a long drawn out affair with multiple sides presenting multiple arguments. On a personal note, as American Citizen and Virginian, I imagine her daughter is going to find little sympathy in Virginia Congress. They can't stand a New Yorker Mayor, they are not going to put up with a Canadian. Rabbit994 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as a foreigner living in the US I am amazed at how many people here want to pretend that the shooting has no reflection on gun laws. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mis-stating the opposition unfairly. Please see my response (immediately following this) to "Wiki-stikler" for more.Haakondahl 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously (I claim) gun control is an issue closely connected to this event. On the other hand, so are a myriad of mental health debates, media (ir-)responsibility debates, building design (a factor in the death toll cited on some TV reports) debates, open campus policy, and any number of other strongly connected issues. Obviously these things have or could have their own rambling articles. The only practical thing to do is mention the issues here as they bear on the shooting itself, and link to them. Some people will want to turn this article, and indeed the event itself, into a forum for debating American laws on ownership and use of firearms. These attempts will come from the pro-X and anti-X sides. A pox on both of their houses. This article is about the shooting. So I agree with Rooot. Haakondahl 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We could cut down the length of the section by getting rid of International media response. Most foreign news editors are even less educated about US gun issues than the US media, and their response is predictably and uniformly negative. Moreover, the influence of the foreign news media on the US gun control debate is probably close to zero. Both of these factors make the International media response not notable, in my opinion. I nominate this sub section for deletion. The US media response will at least have some influence on the gun control debate.Kevinp2 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth is most foreign news editors are less biased in such issues contrary to American media outlets that are always biased ( and annoying). International media response has to stay if the whole article needs a more objective outlook. Hahahaha1 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From reading the list of foreign news editor opinions, they don't seem to be unbiased, do they? (Unless they subscribe to the common school of thought that one's noble self is always unbiased). In any case, they have little exposure to and understanding of US gun issues. They contribute little to this article. Kevinp2 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a page called Proven Objectivity and Superior Understanding of Non-American News Editors concerning Events Ocurring in America. Or perhaps not. Haakondahl 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find that the international media covered the issue quite well. Besides, that is the international response to the shooting, I think it is heavy bias to leave in all minor responses by schools and sports companies, but to remove the major statements by word leavers. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that they covered the debate well, you must unfortunately not know very much about US gun issues yourself. Moreoever, the international media may like to think of themselves as world leaders but they aren't elected to be so. They are indulging in their characteristic grand standing. Leaving them in here makes as much sense as having New York Times op-eds about the collapse of the Paris Airport Terminal.Kevinp2 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i agree with kevinp2, kinda. I feel that the overall section is relevent and important to the article. But i don't think the section really needs to be that big. There is a lot of useless information, and the section could be cleaned and croped into something worth having-Threewaysround 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is something I recommend deleting. 'On the other side of the issue, the Conservative Voice contrasted the Virginia Tech massacre with the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002, when a disgruntled student killed only two students before he was subdued[118] by two other students with personal firearms they had retrieved from their vehicles, declaring that "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."'

The Conservative Voice is not a well-known source - Wikipedia doesnt have a page about it. I mean, to put in in a section where all the sources are well-known newspapers/media outlet makes the presence of this source a bit ridiculous.Hahahaha1 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and tried to argue this point before, especially because we can verify that their statement is false. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem provided that you replace it with another well known source that provides a similar position in the debate. Kevinp2 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats now how it works in wikipedia if I am not mistaken. We cant use ridiculous sources just to present one side of the debate. Since you are soo adamant about such a source to be placed there, you are the one that needs to bring another 'well-reputed' source that will point out such a view.

If there is no well-reputed source source, then there should ideally be no place for such a view in the article.Hahahaha1 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed, remove anything that is wrong, and if someone can come up with a well researched conservative opinion then it can go in. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

exaclty take out that, and stuff like that and we could have something pretty good-Threewaysround 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have a horribly biased article. At the moment, both sides are represented - whether you agree with them or not -Halo 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, that is not the wikipedia standard - we do not give all sides of a position equal weighting regardless of the quality of the arguments, we show each side exactly to the extent to which they can verify their position. An unverified conservative or liberal position should be removed, and not left in simply to fulfil 'balance'. An encyclopedia is not about showing everyone's opinion, it is about arriving at the most verifiable position. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard, however, is to present both sides of the debate. The Conservative Voice's point about the Appalachian Law shooting, and how it was stopped by law-abiding students with guns, is still apt and should be left in. Here are some possible alternate sources for the Conservative Voice's side: *Ann Coulter

• Baltimore Towerlight
• American Chronicle

Mentions Suzanna Gratia, who worked in the cafeteria in the previous worst school shooting in Killeen, Texas. She always carried a gun with her until she started worrying about the legality of it (Texas had no concealed carry laws at that time). When a shooter entered the cafeteria, she reached for her purse instinctively and found no gun. Her parents and a total of 23 people were killed by the shooter. Her friend also had a concealed weapon and pulled it a second too late, right as the killer shot her. Both women are now concealed carry proponents.

• Purdue college newspaper editorial-- Concealed guns should be allowed on campuses
• Cleveland Plain Dealer
• The National Ledger
• TIME-- covers Suzanna Gratia case in Killeen shooting
• Hawaii Reporter

It's not hard to find these sorts of sources... now you can put these in rather than the one that is presented. ---Gloriamarie 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these links, User:Gloriamarie, I will also review them today as time permits Kevinp2 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I, as a recent VT alumnus who was friends with both a survivor (in the French class where 11 died) and the brother of one of the victims, am disappointed that 1300+ words were given to the gun control debate. Gun control is certainly relevent to the article, and the massacre relevent to the gun control debate, but it strikes an emotional chord with me to see such a large percentage of space (~25-30%) dedicated to what essentially breaks down into politics. Let's not let the fight to balance political opinion distract from the real essence of what happened there. Summarize here, and start a new article - that's my vote on this. David Schroder 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the others: there should be a separate article about this incident and gun control. Columbine and the shooting of President Reagan both provoked a great deal of debate about gun control. This will likely be no different. Gregohio 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the whole section should be deleted & anything new be moved to gun politics. This is one of the fastest growing articles in all of Wikipedia. Less than 24 hrs after the incedent, a large B-class article was created with more than 5 archives of discussion. I haven't seen this in any other article, therefore I want to make this a Good article. We removed all the unsourced & unimportant material, so let's keep on track by deleting all the drama about gun control. We could create a new article about the effects of this event on the debate of guns, something along the lines of Virginia Massacre's effect on gun con control.--Wikiphilia 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with moving this article's Gun Control Debate to the Gun Politics article is that we kick the can down the road to that article, which will logically and inevitably continue to grow as people will add sections about every massacre or gun incident that ever occurred. The best options that I see are: Create a standalone article called Gun Control Debate surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre or decide that there will simply be no gun control debate related to this incident at all. Which incidentally, seems to be happening in the real world as well.Kevinp2 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to shorten the references section?

It's just that part alone is good-sized segment of the entire article... HalfShadow 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that's a good thing-Threewaysround 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article is getting into the 60Kb+ range, and eventually some pruning is going to have to be done. Are all of the references necessary? HalfShadow 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the article is still new, and still has a lot of hype about it. It's been an editing, and vandalising frenzy. After it stablises i'm sure someone will go through all the refrences to make sure they are relevent. But right now the article is evolving too quickly to do any real good.

i get your point, i'm just saying to wait a bit for it to calm down-Threewaysround 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have been consolidating some that are clearly the same source, which has shorted it by about 5. Once the article is more stable, I think we should go through and prune some of the earlier articles, since later articles say all the same things and more. Other things have multiple references where it's clearly unecessary. For example, one statement about George Bush's statement references the statement itself and a news article about it, which is clearly unecessary. But I think we should hold off until the article is somewhat stable.

In the mean time, we should all be careful when we add references to make sure we're using the most concise reference we can. Natalie 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think the fact there's an extra few kilobytes for sources is a bad thing at all, so I respectfully disagree with you... -Halo 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We can cut down references without removing any sources: most major print news outlets in the United States recycle AP and Reuter's stories for a majority of their content. When the end of the article says "The Associated Press contributed to this story" that means the AP wrote it, and whatever media outlet is publishing it just slapped a different paragraph in their somewhere. Also, all of these online stories have been updated several times, and we are occasionally using multiple versions of the same article. Those are clearly unecessary, and nothing is lost by removing them. Natalie 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for the shootings

Does anyone know of any source for the writings where he explains his motives? There are media reports with brief passages in which he explains why he did what he did, but they are very vague.Maziotis 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a "play" that he wrote that got one of his teachers worried. [3] Other than this, it seems that most of his manifesto was video, other than a few scattered notes found in his dorm room. I don't think those have been released yet. Wrad 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's unscientific, but he appears to have just gone batshit. HalfShadow 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, I think I understand what you mean. We may never find the "real reasons" as it may not be such a thing. But I think it would be of great interest to understand something about what happened trough his own words.Maziotis 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of his 'manifesto' was directed towards the 'rich and hedonistic' but to be honest, not a lot of it made sense or was even coherent. I think he just broke. HalfShadow 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we post recent speculations on the news about his mental state. Schizophrenia, etc? Wrad 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

no, not till we can source anything. We can't say anything that someone else hasn't already officially said-Threewaysround 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is the shooter had a massive crush on the girl. She probably spoke to him a couple of times and judging by his mental state - he probably fell head over heels for her and started stalking her. Add his mental state and a couple of guns - we have an incident like this.

However this cannot be verified or anything because none of us can show as proof what was going on in the gunman's mind.

So theoretically, the motive for the shooting is unknown but for all practicall purposes, he was stalking a girl whom he had a huge crush on. Hahahaha1 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i was under the impression that it was his girlfreind (might be outdated news) but yes. -Threewaysround 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That news was inaccurate. Somewhere in the article it should say that police initially thought that the first girl's boyfriend or ex-boyfriend was the culprit, and were looking for him, but Cho was not that person and had no prior relationship with her (other than possibly stalking her).Chunky Rice 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was supposedly stalking someone, but that's all we know. HalfShadow 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We have that - it's in the "Perpetrator" section: "Early reports suggested that the killing was the result of a domestic dispute between Cho and previously alleged girlfriend Emily Hilscher, who was later revealed to have had no prior relationship with Cho.[24]". As far as his motives, I'd say it's rather clear that he was crazy, but until that's in a secondary source we can't print it. Personally, since the article about Cho quotes some of his writing, we don't have to point that out - he illustrates his own insanity just fine. Natalie 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The media is saying, now, that it was not his girlfriend. They said it was mistakenly assumed. Although it's still not clear how he knew the girl and how well, if at all, but doubt it was his girlfriend from what I heard and read from many sources. Who knows why people do this type of horror... there can't be a "logical" reason at all. There is no logic to killing people indiscriminately. I think that's why they call it "crazy" and or "evil" there are no other descriptors to rationalize such behavior. I think HalfShadow's term, "batshit" fits. Who can figure that out? It's so sad. Jeeny 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I came to my conclusion based on the following information 1) His first victims were the girl and the RA. The chances are high that the RA got killed because he was probably doing his job and telling the shooter to get out of the hall. The killer went on to talk about 'You could have prevented it' or something like that in his video. It would most likely be the girl since he had killed only two people at the time he sent the video. 2) The shooter has a history of stalking women. 3) The girl had a boyfriend(not the shooter) at the time of the shooting. Its there on facebook if anybody wants to verify that.(cant use that for a source - I am just providing info) Hahahaha1 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Holden Hall photo

This discussion has been removed. Please see [4] if interested. --BigDT (416) 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Natalie 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have an issue with blanking this section and simply leaving a link to the diff for anyone interested? I'd hate to have him read this discussion and get the wrong idea. (Keep in mind, also, that WP:BLP applies everywhere, not just in articles.) --BigDT (416) 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just archiving it ASAP. The discussion is pretty much over, and it seems inlikely that he'll be reading the archives. Natalie 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is archived, it still shows up in search hits and mirrors. I'm being WP:BOLD and removing it. --BigDT (416) 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Too long" box?

Ahh, not a fan of the too long box, all of the current efforts aimed at "shifting content elsewhere" are proposed for deletion. -Phoenix 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I think the problem is we have a long article, and if we split into separate articles they get AFDed - damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's also the fact there's hundreds of references making it seem longer than it is - I'd say a good third or so of the article size is references -Halo 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed, but from the looks of it, they're headed towards a "keep" or a "no consensus" result, which, as a practical matter, means that they are kept. And the article is too long.Chunky Rice 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not denying that it's too long, but people will go creating dumb articles that will get deleted. The current deletion efforts will stay or have no concensus as is stated above, but it could get messy. -Phoenix 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Two things to consider:
    1. The "Inaccurate media reports" section is quite significantly out of synchronisation with the sub-article Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. All of the original research, still tagged here with {{fact}}, and statements about Geraldo Rivera, who isn't actually mentioned in the sources and which is thus also original research, has been purged from the sub-article and replaced with sourced content. So that section here needs rewriting to bring it into line both with what the sources and the sub-article say.
    2. There is a title dispute, I suspect (although it hasn't been explicitly stated) about the word "Inaccurate". It might be worth removing that word.
  • Uncle G 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Given 1) this article is very long, and 2)the consensus on many of the subarticles AfDs is leaning toward delete, maybe we just have too much information here. Recentism and cruft look very similar after time has past, and the problem may be that we want to include everything, even though that doesn't really fit in with summary style. Natalie 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang currently appears to be keep and merge, either to here or to a media reports sub-article, and there is no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, although it should be noted that several strong opinions to delete have changed now that the article does not pretend to be a biography. That this article is very long is an indication that Wikipedia:Summary style sub-articles like the media reports one will be appropriate, and my two points, about bringing the main article into line with the sub-article and fixing the title dispute, still stand. Uncle G 09:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why somoene keeps archiving my question..

Someone keeps archiving this question. Someone please tell me why, or answer it. It's relevant to this article. 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) 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, but it was probably removed because it was unfree, or had no source information. -Phoenix 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I never saw it on the news anywhere. It would be evidence that Cho possibly had an accomplish.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, that's accomplice. In any event, the fact that it wasn't on the news just adds it to the long list of as yet unproven facts about the incident. -Phoenix 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I looked into the archives and I can't find it. It was on here about 18 hours ago. Around 1 AM this morning for me, 7pm here. I find it hard to believe the image would make it to wikipedia but not the national media. If it was erased from wikipedia, would it still show in the archives? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was probably a hoax or something. Of the hundreds of established users monitoring this article, someone would have noticed if it was a worthwile image and mentioned something. -Phoenix 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for this kind of independent detective work and accusations of assisting a murderer.Chunky Rice 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Especially by deducing so based on one image; which, evidently, was probably some sort of hoax. -Phoenix 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Err,Detective work? I'm just trying to get information on the picture because it's relevant to this article. I want to know where it came from and why it was deleted. Did anyone see it on the article last night?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're so interested, go back in the history and have a look around the time you claim to have seen it. Provide a URL to the revision, and we'll all have a look. -Phoenix 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. I can't find it. If it(the image itself) was erased from wikipedia would it be shown in the page histories?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, but a red image link would be in its place, at least showing that it was there. -Phoenix 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it. It might of only been there for a few minutes and then removed after an edit or two, which would make it too difficult for me to find. Basically the picture showed Cho and someone else (Caucasian, blue eyes) who were both wearing ski masks and both had a pistol in their hands. The color of the masks was sort of a camouflage greenish color. I'm just wondering if anyone else saw it or removed it for some reason.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did see the image at a couple of different points and I believe it has been deleted. I'm not 100% sure of the reason and I don't know who the deleting admin was, but I'm guessing one of three things: obvious copyright violation, no source information, or obvious hoax. Natalie 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are Image:Cho1012.jpg and Image:Cho101.jpg uploaded by User:Uifz. Based on available information, the images are highly dubious;

• The person wear a face mask, so we can't ID him from appearance
• Uifz has not provide any information about the circumstance of the image, despite being urged to do so at his talk page
• Uifz, at different time, presented three different stories regarding the source of the images, (1) pd-self, (2) from a friend, and (3) sent by Cho to NBC.
• In the newer version, the image was cropped to hide the nametag and the "US Marines" tag that was visible in the earlier version.

User:Uifz is welcome to provide further infor.; but at this point, the images are suspected hoaxes. I urge admins to delete them immediately. --Vsion 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tribute to self-sacrificing behavior

Ugh. I complained about "heroic actions" yeseterday, and this is the same thing. This is simply not an acceptable name for a section. Remember, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I'm tempted to just delete the entire section. This needs to go. Titanium Dragon 01:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the future my friend.. without the cold war to kick reality into people, chances are this is the kind of contnet the masses will want --Jimmi Hugh 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the masses also want 9 pages of Simpsons trivia and "PENIS!!!!!!" in half the articles. Sometimes the masses are wrong. Natalie 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do try and say that policy comes first when most people argue what the masses want, but unfortunately in this case, given it is a wording issue, policy has no case. --Jimmi Hugh 02:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Titanium Dragon 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge, TFD, and AFD templates

This page and all of its subpages are extremely high visibility right right now. In the interest of putting our best foot forward, what would everyone think about confining xFD and merge tags to talk pages with a central list of discussions being considered kept here? Most articles that are up for deletion aren't exactly high-visibility ones. But these are. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to keep the templates out of articles? There are enough people looking at this talk page that getting a consensus shouldn't be a problem ... on anything. --BigDT (416) 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• What reason do you have for pretending to people that our processes don't exist? I think that the fact that people can see our merger and deletion discussions underway, and see that experienced Wikipedians treat them calmly and civilly and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, aim for neutrality, verifiability, and elimination of original research, are careful about biographies of living people, and act to eliminate mis-uses of Wikipedia for attacks and soapboxing, is putting our best foot forward. Uncle G 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the discussion I started at WP:AN#Virginia Tech massacre subarticles? Arguments for both sides are put forward there, and my final view is (currently) at the end. Also, did you know that the AfD debate for this article was recently deleted under G3? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre and its deletion log. I'm currently trying to identify the spa that got blocked for creating it, but am having to trawl through the history of this page and talk page, as I can't access the deleted history. Carcharoth 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I saw it a couple of days ago. Uncle G 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial theories sections

I've just nuked a completely unsourced, speculative, bullshit section stating that "some have claimed" that this incident was staged to provide a justification for the US to attack Korea. Those "some"... they're always claiming crazy things... Natalie 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I accidently left out an important sentence: on the off chance that someone legitimate has actually been making this ridiculous claim, please reinsert with sources. Natalie 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is goofy considering Cho was South Korean, and the US's conflict is with North Korea. Gregohio 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Curious if anyone can verify the picture inside the classroom is from this specific event. I have not seen it on any other websites or CNN. As stated elsewhere, wonderful work editing. Neutralitybias 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.collegemedia.com/ and scroll down to the "Monday, April 16th 2007 8:19PM" update. This is the same photo - the photographer released it under the GFDL. Holden Hall and Norris hall are actually both the same building so even though this class was in Holden Hall, they were near where the shootings were going on. --BigDT (416) 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this particular photo need to be the first one seen, in the template at the top? Jmlk17 03:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion in that matter. I'm just answering the question.  ;) I kinda like Image:Norris hall.jpg for the infobox as it's more eye-catching, but I'm not picky. --BigDT (416) 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Victims? More Victims?

There are reports on CTV today that the number of students killed in Couture-Nowak's French class - where the gunman took his life - may be incomplete. Out off 22 students enrolled, apparently only 12 are accounted for: 10 killed, in addition to their teacher, and 2 survivors, now in hospital. The foreign language department head, Richard Shryock, has expressed frustration with his inability to get information about the remaining students and the final moments in that classroom, and fears they may have perished also. Are there any other reports about unaccounted for students? Here is the link for the CTV (Canadian Television Network)report "Gunman committed suicide in Canadian prof's class" http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070419/cho_suicide_070419/20070419?hub=Canada wiki-stikler 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ismail's Ax

Why no mention of this name that he took on? It was tatood to his arm and was used in the return address for his package to NBC. Someone should write this up.

Read the gunman's article. So far it has no importance in this article. Gdo01 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And finger's crossed people will note that he used the Biblical spelling not the Koranic spelling. Sad mouse 16:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected for the 57th time

No, it hasn't really been that many but it seems like it. Looking at the article, there has been nothing but vandalism for the last two hours and thus I have s-protected the article. I really hate having to protect it, but there has been nothing but vandalism and reverts for a while now. --BigDT (416) 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the semi-protection of this article. Vandalism levels are more than high enough to warrant it. WjBscribe 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to give high-traffic articles, as this obviously is, the chance to be unprotected. It is not to be done indefinitely for such articles, hence the constant reprotection. -Phoenix 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the article being semi-protected until the vandalism declines to a controllable level. 450w 19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the term “futile attempt” with regards to victim Jocelyne Couture-Nowak efforts to save students, constitute a weasely attempt to slight her inability to prevent the gunman from entering and killing her and students? None of the other victims in the article reference their “futile efforts” as a cause for their deaths. It just seems a little underhanded and snide, but mayarchibe that was the author’s intentions(?).202.128.1.120 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "futile attempt" constitutes the use of weasel words. Futile simply means ineffective. I don't think that there's a snide connotation there. -Tess

Saying that a murder victim was ineffective in preventing not only her murder but the murders of others in the room kind of puts the onus and responsibility for the deaths on her and not the perpetrator. None of the other victims have their actions as being described as "futile.” Every victims’ efforts at survival were futile but only Ms. Couture-Nowak's actions have been singled out for some reason to highlight her failure, and it's because of that, that it seems a little weasel like.202.128.1.120 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't weasel-like at all. It is descriptive. She failed to barricade the door, thus it was a futile attempt. It is very clean and concise wording. The rest don't have futile because there's no need for it. The first person succeeded in evacuating their classroom; the person went to see if they could help and got shot. Et cetera. I don't see why you're complaining. There's nothing weaselly or putting the blame on the victim about using the word futile. Titanium Dragon 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm "complaining" in fact I started the whole thing by very respectfully asking, "Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the term "futile attempt"..." and I went on to explain my reasoning for thinking so. If that's your definition of complaining, I guess we don't need the talk forum since you can decide everything for us complainers with your declarations and pronouncements of "No, it isn't weasel-like at all." You're the boss dragon, sorry if my complaint wasn't in line with your decree. 202.128.1.120 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit harsh. I'm tired. Anyway, yeah, as is obvious from my prior paragraph, I don't think its a problem. Titanium Dragon 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also attribute the word futile to failure or weekness, this is a trick of wording. It is often useful to avoid using negative words to describe yourself or another persons actions in life. EG. "I failed at a task" sounds much worse than "I was unsuccessful at a task" or "My attempt at the task was unsuccessful". This is because the word success gives the sentence a positive feel to it. (This also works for other words) It is just a trick of words that is useful to know. So if you were to change it, then you would change: "before making a futile attempt to barricade the door" to something like "before making an unsuccessful attempt to barricade the door". Thats my 2c anyway. AaronBoogle 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think "before making an unsuccessful attempt to barricade the door" reads much better and doesn't make the woman sound like she was a failure in her last moments, especially considering that from the sounds of it, her actions in staring Cho down while hustling the kids to the back of the classroom sounds pretty heroic in my book. 202.128.1.120 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, synonyms of “futile” include “pointless” and “worthless” which are hardly fitting to describe the actions of a brave woman attempting to save the lives of her students. Mingus19 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References to TV networks all messed up

I've noticed that some of the references no longer link to a relevant article. The TV networks seem to have a bad habit of using the same URL to post different content. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, don't trust a URL of medium length. Like a blog, the permanent sites of articles have longer URLs. This doesn't always help--sometimes the article is actually moved to a daily/weekly/monthly archive train, with URL shifts along the way (no way to run a media outlet, for sure). If the URL contains obvious date information, good. If it is indecipherable AND LONG, better. Haakondahl 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

talk sub-page for tributes?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online chat forum. As such, it's usually accepted that tributes are not appropriate for talk pages, as seen on talk:Steve Irwin. However, as this article gets an increasing number of search engine hits, users might start posting tributes anyways. The thing is, if we keep removing tributes, people will think that we're pretty insincere. Therefore, I'm thinking about adding the following to the talk page header for now:

Please note that this talk page is only intended for discussion of changes to the Virginia Tech massacre article. Off-topic discussions, including tributes, are not appropriate and will be removed from this page. If you would like to post tributes, please use this page instead. Thank you for your cooperation!

Any thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we were likely to see any problem with this, we would have seen it already. Good thought, Ix, but unnecessary in my opinion. A Train^talk 11:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copycat threats

12 references for one sentence is overkill. The most prominent threats should be briefly described individually to better organize the section. Noclip 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fails WP:Notability, unlikely we will care about copycat threats three days from now. Do we care even now? I propose that the section be removed. Ronnotel 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. I just moved it into a section above. I'm not sure about how appropriate where I moved it was, but I think its fitting enough. It stayed its own section like that for too long, IMO. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who moved it out of the "Other schools' responses" subsection. The copycat incidents are not schools' responses, they're responses by students or others at or near those schools. I've since renamed that subsection so I think we're okay. --ElKevbo 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church??

Why is the information about picketing one of the student's funeral on the page? Is this really necessary? Zehly 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I removed it. Ronnotel 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please change the headline from "Virginia Tech massacre." It sounds like a horror movie--more fodder for a copycat. Virginia Tech shootings would be sufficient. 72.73.29.201 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been a frequent topic - for now, the title reflects popular consensus among attributable sources. If a different term for this incident emerges in these sources, WP will change the title. Ronnotel 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Control

People are using this article, esp. in the international media section, to argue for gun control. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. Unless plans are also made to completely end black markets and to close the borders with Mexico, it is not clear such tragedies really can be prevented. Gun-control is a complex topic that should not be merged into this article. We see that making drugs illegal has really kept drugs out of people's hands. This simply is not the forum to discuss such things. Please make this section NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.204.182 (talk • contribs) Abe Lincoln 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK for guidelines on how to discuss changes on the talk page - for instance, it's helpful to add new topics to the bottom of the page and to sign and date your comments by adding four (~)'s. Also, I'm going to move your NPOV tag to the Gun Control section, since it seems your issue is with that one specific area rather than the article as a whole. Hope this helps! Ronnotel 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the NPOV tag altogether? I think that unless you are going to state specific reasons why the article is NPOV, the tag should not be added. Remember 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. User:68.55.204.182, please either i) let us know what specifically you'd like to change, ii) make the changes yourself, or iii) remove the NPOV tag from the section. Otherwise, I suggest that the tag should be removed. Ronnotel 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no explanation for what part of this section is actually POV, so I'm going to remove the tag. Tagging things as POV requires explaining how the section fails a Wikipedia policy on the talk page, not just a drive-by tagging because you don't agree. Natalie 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Why don't we remove the article altogether since it is obviously biased against the Second Amendment right to bear arms? --Jhvillegas2 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Verylong template

Why keep removing the verylong template? Is it because the article is so popular? If people see that it meets the criterion for a verylong article, maybe they will want to contribute to helping us split/prune the article and prettify(tm) it. Zehly 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The template is supposed at the talk page, see here: Template:Verylong. --Abe Lincoln 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree about it needing the verylong template - if you remove the vast amount of references, the page is actually shorter than Columbine High School massacre, for example. I think people are being biased by the page size rather than the actual length. -Halo 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]

 Done Only full dates are currently linked. --ElKevbo 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]

 Done Image in use is free. --ElKevbo 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

 Done (until more edits are made reintroducing these errors) --ElKevbo 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't.

 Done (until more edits are made reintroducing these errors) --ElKevbo 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, these are some good suggestions. Especially the thing about dates and the picture in the corner. Zehly 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Motive: Mental Illness

Is this the official motive as believed by law-enforcement? Zehly 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"International media response" section was copyvio.

I've removed much of it, as it was a copyvio from [5] - as such it now needs to be expanded. -Halo 17:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

uh, really? please ask yourself if it's absolutely critical to include something before doing so. It's already been marked as 'off-topic'. If anything, the section needs a good paring down. Ronnotel 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, I think the content /would be/ extremely relevant to the section - to show the worldwide media response to the gun control debate - but obviously not something that is a copyvio. I also disagree with your view that it needs cutting down - I even disagree with the implication the article is too long (it's much shorter than the similar Columbine High School Massacre article, for example) - I think people are being biased because the /size/ rather than the /length/ of the article - and it's certainly something that got widespread attention after the massacre -Halo 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was marked off-topic by you. Out of interest, why do you think that it's off-topic? The vast majority of it is directly related as a response to the massacre - whether background law in Virginia, the University's rules, or the fact it sparked debate and the two different points of view. I also don't see what content could be merged with Gun control, as implied. It's also accurate that it did reignite the debate over gun control - a quick look on Google News finds thousands of articles on the subject specifically talking about Virginia, and to not represent it, IMO, would be ridiculous. -Halo 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Showing the "worldwide media response to the gun control debate" belongs in a separate article specifically about the "gun control debate." The gun control debate has existed for a very long time. It has no bearing on the events of this discrete event. The only information that should be presented is what actually happened. It can be mentioned that this event has renewed interest in the gun control debate, but it is not the beginning of it, nor will it be the end. Thus, this whole section can be reduced to: "This event has renewed interest in the gun control debate." Rooot 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I utterly, utterly, utterly disagree in every way possible, and really don't understand your point of view at all. It's the /response/ to this debate, the /background/ to the shootings (Virginia's lax gun control laws, the University specifically disallowing concealed weapons etc etc) which are intrinsic to giving an accurate picture to the reader of what happened, and the media's response to it - of which, probably the most significant one, was about gun control. I honestly don't understand how you are arguing otherwise. The gun control debate is /completely relevant/ to this article, because it was a shooting, guns, and specifically gun control laws, were involved and it reignited a long-standing debate and there was widespread press coverage of it. And that's without even going into the fact I disagree that you think it's too long. I completely and utterly fail to see how you can say it isn't relevant! -Halo 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then we need to include substantial sections on mental health, school bullying, violence in the media, child abuse, racism, materialism, etc. Because ALL OF THESE have been discussed at length in the media as the possible causes of the event. Singling out gun control as the main focus is biased because it indicates that this is the favored cause. That is simply not true. There is no favored cause, but all of these have been identified as potential causes. If we include one at length, we must include them all at length. This will make the article far too long. Therefore, they can all be mentioned, but they should be linked to separate articles that discuss these wholly independent topics. Rooot 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. IMO what you're suggesting is like in Cho's article putting "He had mental health issues" and then simply putting "Mental health" as the main article - it doesn't tell you anything, as all the /specifics/ and the /background/ that make it relevant are lost. I disagree it's singling anything out either, but it's representing a reignited debate where there was a significant amount of press coverage - as such, Wikipedia can cover it as it is biased towards things with multiple reliable sources that are widely discussed in the media due to the policy on WP:OR. I'd actually agree on significant sections on bullying, racism etc. etc. IF there were multiple reliable sources available with lots of information and press coverage, I'd agree, but this doesn't exist, and there is very little background information, so there are only mere sentences. -Halo 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing the specific facts is not what I am concerned about. The inclusion of all the unnecessary analysis and commentary is what is the problem. List the facts to give background, then link to a page containing the debate so that the reader can make up his or her own mind if they want to. We should not force this on the reader because it is a secondary issue. Rooot 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, if you agree with a section about the facts (the "background" section) you have the fact we're discussing over 4 paragraphs of "U.S. media response", one of which covers the viewpoints and the other two support it (which, IMO, is quite reasonable considering the several thousand articles on Google News about it and it summarises it in a tidy way) and an international section. Now, I'd support this being moved to a new article and a summary in the long run, but not now - as it'd inevitably be AFDed, merged and then we're back to square one which would be utterly pointless at this time. -Halo 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But the facts don't need to be restated. One section of facts, and a link to the gun control page. All the responses should be put on the linked page. Just facts should be on this page. This is not "Time" magazine. Rooot 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If you actually look through the international media response, the commentary on gun control is far far greater than references to mental health, school bullying, violence in the media, materialism, etc. You are misrepresenting the international media to justify removing the section.Sad mouse 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. Of course the gun control issue is far greater in the international media response section, as that is the only topic that people are moving into this article because the only sub issue presented in this article is the Gun Control issue. Either we include all the sub issues (ludicrous), or we separate this out. Rooot 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect again. The cited examples accurately reflect the content of the international media and have not been deliberately selected to give a biased opinion. I will assume that you have not read much international media recently, rather than you deliberately misleading the discussion. Sad mouse 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume all you want, the facts have not changed. This is not a debate forum, nor is it a forum for a pro-globalization agenda. In the interest of brevity, relevance, and neutrality, the section should be moved or deleted. Rooot 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that the International Herald Tribune is only sort-of international. It is based in Paris, but is owned by and most of its content provided by the New York Times. Le Monde or AFP would be a better French source.Gregohio 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It rather seems that there is an attempt here to censor the massive wave of criticism of US gun laws and culture found in the international media. Read some of it and it will be apparent that much of the world's media considers that the primary story. Gregohio 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the law is the primary story, then the article containing that story should be primarily about the laws. Such as gun control. The only relevant information for this article are the events which actually happened. The policy behind anything is irrelevant to the discrete events that took place, but can be addressed in a separate article. Rooot 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But what actually happened is that this guy, crazy as a loon, bought two semi-automatic handguns. Didn't steal them or get them on the black market, but from licensed dealers. And, the reaction to that is actually happening. Gregohio 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And that is all that needs to be said in this article. The rest of the debate belongs in a different article, which we can link to. Rooot 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Imagine that! Gregohio 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Consider the article for 9/11 - more than half the article is about responses to it, because the way it effects society contributes to its importance and notability. The anti-gun debate here should be treated like the anti-terrorism debate there - as an integral part of the event. Sad mouse 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Halo, you accused me of marking the article as 'off-topic' and then using that fact to support my argument. That's untrue. As you can see from these diffs [6] [7], it was Rooot who added that tag. Please be more careful in making accusations like this. Ronnotel 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, you have very similar names. -Halo 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Accepted, I can see how one might confuse our names. Ronnotel 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho May Have Referenced Book on Bullying

In Cho's videotaped diatribe that he mailed to NBC he made some statements that sounded to me like quotes from movies or books. My guess was that many of his strange statements were excerpts of "hot phrases" he had acquired over the years and not original. One of Cho's raging comments, "The decision was yours" struck me as such a phrase. Upon a Google search I came across a book with a cover that startled me - it shows a small Asian child on a bus being bullied by a caucasian child. Beside the Asian child's head is a large question mark. I believe it is very possible Cho came across this book at some point in his life and it may prove to be a key in unraveling the reasons for this tragedy. Check out my blog about this to see the book cover. - - When the Monster Breaks You - Cho Seung Hui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.86.138 (talk • contribs) Abe Lincoln 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'm afraid that's Wikipedia:Original Research which doesn't belong here. If a reliable source can be found, feel free to add it to the article, but until then please refrain. -Halo 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• My comments are in relation to Cho referring to himself as "Question Mark" and also that others also referred to him as the "Question Mark Kid". Maybe someone will pick up on this and research it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.86.138 (talk • contribs) Abe Lincoln 18:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if they do, good for them, but that's not appropriate for Wikipedia -Halo 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

'Package Mailing' included under Norris Hall Shootings

There has been a dispute as to whether the 'package mailed to NBC' incident should be mentioned in the Norris Hall attack section. Since the other pertinent actions of the gunman (some of which doubtless have not been revealed yet) are covered in the section on Cho, I do not think it is appropriate to include something that occurred earlier (namely the mailing) under the Norris Hall section.

Thoughts?- Markm62 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it IS important that he used the time between the shootings for mailing the package and should be mentioned somewhere in the section "Attacks". Maybe there might be a better place than the current in "Norris Hall attack". --Abe Lincoln 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there ought to be a section between entitled 'Cho's Activities between Attacks' or something to that effect. Over time there will develop a better idea of what he was doing during the two hours such as gathering the chain and lock, packaging and/or sending the manifesto, etc. Thoughts?- Markm62 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the best place for the information is at the END of the first shooting section. Take a look.- Markm62 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need a whole section, especially considering that all the pertinent information can be conveyed in one or two sentences. Natalie 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Abe Lincoln 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

In notes 100, and 108 some of the dates are appearing as red links. Can someone who has some knowledge of the ref formating system fix these? Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Time lapse of this page

Probably off topic, delete if you wish, but here is a timelapse someone made of the VT massacre page on Youtube -Ravedave 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

very cool, thanks. Anyone here want to take credit? Ronnotel 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That was really impressive. I wonder what time span the time lapse encompassed - looked like it was just the first day. Natalie 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was done over a 12 hour period according to the description at YouTube. --ElKevbo 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mental illness" as a motive?

He may have been mentally ill, but surely this is not the motive in itself for the crime? -Phoenix 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree I already asked about this above but no one responded. I'm going to set it to unknown. Zehly 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay unknown until someone in a position to declare such things makes a statement. And by someone in such a position, I mean someone ranking in the Virignia State Police, FBI, or similar, not media speculation. Natalie 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

until we can source something, we should leave it as unknown-Threewaysround 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine survivor was at at VT

Anyone thing that this should be included in this article?

Columbine survivor, Regina Rohde, was a student at Virginia Tech and was on campus at the time of the massacre, making this the second school shooting she has survived[8].--aishel 19:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure if it should be included, it's cool to know, but not really relevent to the article-Threewaysround 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a cool piece of trivia, but the "anti-trivial-facts" mode Wikipedia is in right now refutes its addition. -Phoenix 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Three ways round; I do not think it will add anything to the article at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she was on-campus doesn't make her a "survivor" anyway. If she were in one of the rooms of the dorm or of Norris Hall where the killings took place, yet lived, that would make her a survivor. --Yksin 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now it says that Asperger's Syndrome is a mental illness... This needs to be changed desperately!

Solana

People keep reverting my addition of Solana's/EU's statement, is not Voice of America a reliable source or what is the problem? -Lapinmies 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition when it was about the EU "foreign policy dude" as that smacks of vandalism, poor editing, or simply an addition not becoming of this already-long article. As to why your edits were reverted after you clarified the person's correct title, I can not definitely respond as I didn't make those reversions. I would guess, however, that the addition may simply have been judged not notable enough to add to this already-long article in light of the many other international responses already documented. Isn't there already something from the EU in the article from the current head of the EU? --ElKevbo 21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice anything about EU. -Lapinmies 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted it again. As far as I know that statement is the only one the EU has made and Solana is not just a high ranking official. -Lapinmies 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A general expression of sympathy by a high official who just happened to attend VT is not notable on it's own. Ronnotel 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the footnotes includes a statement from Merkel on behalf of the EU. Ronnotel 21:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it got moved to a footnote. It's nice to know that my memory isn't *that* bad yet. :) --ElKevbo 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Where? I can't find anything about the EU in the article. -Lapinmies 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there. But that is just Merkel speaking as Germany, Solana is the foreign policy head honcho dude and his statements are official statements of the EU. -Lapinmies 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - at one point there was a cite from Merkel speaking on behalf of the EU - it may have been cut as a dupe, not sure. We can add one into the list of countries, but I don't think it merits any special text beyond a footnote. Ronnotel 21:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Prominence about nationality / immigration status

The second paragraph of the introduction is devoted to describing the perpetrator's nationality, race and immigration status in the U.S. Are these facts really the most central data about there is? What about gender, his history of psychological evaluations, his secluded situation in school, etc? The nationalistic focus isn't NPOV. — David Remahl 20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sporting tributes

How relevant, long-lasting, and uniquely valuable is this section? To me, it seems a standout for deletion. Everybody is "responding" to the incident, and this is likely to go on for some time.Sfmammamia 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ya this is definatly one of the more irrelevent sections, i vote we just get rid of it-Threewaysround 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep ... and just wait until this fall, when we will get to relive the media circus every Saturday during football season and every school on the east coast will have a tribute at some point. --BigDT (416) 20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a great deal of support for moving this stuff off of the page. I'm going to remove that section per WP:BRD; let's discuss re-inclusion here if/when my move becomes controversial. A Train^talk 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. Been trying to cut this stuff down for days now. Ronnotel 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it - the actions of a baseball team are really not going to be very important in the long run. Natalie 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree - it needs to go.Snorgle 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested: Automatic archiving

Ladies and gentlemen, this talk page is moving at a fairly prodigious rate and, although it's not as fast as it was earlier in the week, it's becoming cumbersome to archive well. I made one effort to selectively go throw and archive only threads that weren't active anymore, but it was trying enough that I didn't attempt it again and I don't believe that anyone else has, either. By engaging the services of MiszaBot, we won't have to do the archiving ourselves and the bot will take care not to archive discussions that are currently active. Do we have a consensus to do this? A Train^talk 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only if we can define what MiszaBot considers "inactive". If MiszaBot comes with a set definition that's too long (i.e. 1 week) then it will be less than useless, as we have accumulated close to 10 archives in 4 days. Natalie 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's doable - although I'm far from a bot expert, so maybe I'm offbase. I'll drop a note to Misza13. A Train^talk 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be fairly simple to set up and define the timespan to whatever we need to be. --ElKevbo 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I think we should go for it, and probably give it a time frame of 24 to 48 hours, for now. By next week or so we can probably lengthen the time it lets discussion threads sit. Natalie 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try and set it up. Cross fingers, etc etc. :) A Train^talk 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added the script to the page as per the instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. The template is visible at the very top of the page if you try to edit it. By all means, any users with more bot-savvy than me double-check my doings and make sure that I haven't just ruined Wikipedia or Western civilization or anything. A Train^talk 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's Picture

Somebody just deleted the picture of him holding up the two guns. I understand why this may have been done because the picture is offensive to victims families. I believe, however, that under the perpetrator section we should have a picture of Cho to the side. Why not put up his student ID photo instead (the first picture that shows up on Cho's article) ? I would but I don't know how to post pictures on Wikipedia. Tocino 5:42 P.M., 20 April 2007 (CST)

The headshot photo was replaced with the guns photo by an editor who gave the edit summary "less benign version". Then 25 edits later or so an anon removed the gun photo with no explanation. I just replaced the head photo, and have no opinion either way about the gun photo. Someone also just removed the photo of George W. Bush at the convocation because "the Virginia Tech massacre is not a political stage and the article already has multiple relevant photos", according to their edit summary. I think that is not clear cut enough for unilateral action, so I've restored the photo. If people think it's unecessary we should discuss it first. Natalie 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whethwer it is or it is not offensive to some people is irrelevant.--Svetovid 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Should we protect this page? It has been vandalized several times today. I'm a big believer in "we're a wiki", but this is an article that could be more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation if there was vandalism on it. Just a thought. --Trumpetband 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. Put up a proposal for semi-protection. Wrad 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

George Bush photo

User User:Natalie Erin wrote in a section above:

"Someone also just removed the photo of George W. Bush at the convocation because "the Virginia Tech massacre is not a political stage and the article already has multiple relevant photos", according to their edit summary. I think that is not clear cut enough for unilateral action, so I've restored the photo. If people think it's unecessary we should discuss it first. Natalie 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)"

The edit summary given for Natalie's change was:

(revert - it was a notable event)

My response is that, while the Virgina Tech convocation was notable, George Bush's use of the event as a political stage was not, at least in the context of an article about the Virginia Tech massacre. The article already has a photo of the convocation, and many more relevant photos related to the topic of the article have already been included. The reason given in my edit summary is a clear cut enough reason not to have a picture of George Bush in an article about the Virginia Tech massacre. 204.42.27.110 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the photo is political is what I was referring to when I said it wasn't super clear cut. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I'm not going to be so crass as to say his presence at that memorial was a photo op. I really don't care enough to argue the point about that particular photo though - I think you should have replaced it with a different one. We have some pd photos of the convocation at Commons, so I think you should find another one and put it where the Bush photo was. Natalie 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's family response

I'm looking for the source on the family response quoted to see who specificly said these things and it seems that the source is itself. Could someone please find the real source or elliminate the false circular source and put a 'citation needed' thing there? -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 06:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannot be edited 1st paragraph shooter is reffered to as Sueng-hiu cho, when it is Cho seung Hui

Article image

Ok, I think it needs to be decided exactly what image will be used on the top of the page, because the previous image of the campus seemed to be just a randob image that didn't really illustrate the event, but the current cell phone video image of students in the building cowering also doesnt seem right.Rodrigue 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The first image was there only because no usable free images were yet available, and it's difficult to prove that "no free images are availabe illustrating the same thing", in terms of fair use. The cell phone is at least a live image from within the incident. The article is young, an acceptable image will come along soon enough. -Phoenix 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked the previous photo. I strongly dislike the current photo as it's just poorly taken (is that the right word?) - grainy, out of focus, and not a very good photograph. I certainly don't fault the photographer as that was a difficult time to concentrate on one's photographic skills but it's not a very high quality photo to use as the topmost and therefore most important or representative photo. If that's the look one wants to go for (similar to a producer's choice of handheld cameras to convey a sense of realism), then I respect that stylistic choice - but I disagree with it in this case. --ElKevbo 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. While the hallway image is perhaps more relevant, the memorial image is still quite relevant enough and far better on its merits as an image, which is important for the infobox image given its high-profile status. --Kizor 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not post a picture of Cho? I'm serious, anytime we see that face we'll think "Virginia Tech", nothing relates to the shooting more than him. --jmrepetto

Incidentally, it turned out that this was a non-issue: the hallway photo's license requires mentioning its photographer in the caption. The article's now back to having the mourning one on top. --Kizor 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete or severely edit Other schools' responses section

The Other schools' responses can be pared down to a few sentences. Almost every college and university in the United States and many around the world had some kind of response -- a message from the president, a vigil, counseling offered to students, info on how they are prepared to respond to similar attacks, etc. By singling out a few in detail, it implies that these were the only ones. This entire topic can be summed up in a few sentences. Crunch 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. I can't find a single notable event. I tried deleting yesterday but was reverted. Ronnotel 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just trimmed the section. There is currently one sentence noting the responses by many other institution referenced by VT's very large collection of links to those responses. I left in those institutions that are actually offering physical assistance to VT or responders (counseling services, housing, etc.). There should probably be a sentence added about the reaction of colleges and universities who are reexamining their emergency response and communication tools, options, and processes but that could be a short sentence. --ElKevbo 13:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are more generous than I would have been but it's better. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at filtering out some of the press release fluff while keeping the salient elements.Ronnotel 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good edits. I think we're in pretty good shape right now. Like much of the article, this section will need to be watched to ensure it doesn't grow out of control. It's rather nice to be spending my time on good-faith and well-intentioned edits than blatand vandalism. :) --ElKevbo 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

i concur with Crunch & Ronnotel. it's sort of obvious that a large amount of sympathy would be directed at the students and survivors without having to enumerate individual organisations that sent that sympathy. tomasz. 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree Delete the section. Rooot 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree it is fine how it is. It is relevant, notable, and cited. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think you're missing the point, Swatjester. The issue is not that the handful of schools listed did what they did and that what they did was relevant, notable and cited. The point is that thousands of other schools in the US and around the world did the same. But if we mention just these few, it strongly implies that they were the only ones. The |good reference provided to the the Virignia Tech website that talks about the support and response from other schools provides a good summary. I imagine, in time, we will have more similar references that provide such summaries. --Crunch 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point. Thousands of other schools are not sending medical experts to VT. Thousands of other schools are not giving free boarding to the virginia state police. Those are notable, relevant, and sourced statements that are highly important reactions. We're not talking about schools saying "We stand with virginia tech". We're talking about schools saying "We stand with virginia tech, and we're sending 15 trauma counselors to treat the students there". There are only a handful of schools doing that, and this is highly notable. Especially, when said psychologists are nationally reknowned experts in traumatology, such as FSU's response. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then if that's the specific type of support you are addressing, and only that kind of support, you have to be a whole lot more clear that that's what you're talking about. Right now having a sentence like, "Wake Forest University and Clemson University have offered grief counselors and other assistance" is ridiculous because almost every college in America is doing that. --Crunch 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexist?

How is it sexist to use gunman instead of shooter? Cho was a male and therefore a gunman. If we were talking about an unsolved crime where we didn't know who the shooter was, I could see the argument. I'm not really bothered by seeing "shooter," I just question the justification for the change. Lord Bodak 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent change seems silly in this context, and the word 'shooter' all the time is somewhat cumbersome. 'The shooter shot . . .' Move it back to gunman.--Fizbin 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is not saying shooter a bit shootist :-), gunman it is, gunman it should stay. Unless you have authoritative prove that he was transgender, Or what about 'Gunner' not very sexist a term, a load of nonsense. User: Hyades

Don't use Gunner, you'll have a pack of raging Arsenal yobbos howling at your door. ;) Ronnotel 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean from your part of the world, anyway starting to go off topic, was meant as a part of this load of 'nonsense' in reference to terms User:Hyades :-)

Gunman it is once again.--Fizbin 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We say "actor" and "chairperson", regardless of whether the person is a man or a woman. Why is "gunman" appropriate as gender-specific when "shooter" communicates the exact same thing just as effectively? If Wikipedia is going to be gender neutral by policy (as it often is), why should this be an exception? 64.229.236.178 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would use "actress" and "chairman/chairwoman" in those situations. I don't know that it's fair to say "we"... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why is "gunman" appropriate as gender-specific when "shooter" communicates the exact same thing just as effectively?"

Well, last I checked, Cho-Seung Hui was a man. We might as well refer to him as "Xe" or "Thon" instead of "he". Talk about a non-issue. K. Lásztocska 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

why not use "gunperson"? oh, because that'd be stupid. tomasz. 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the Perpetrator section

The way the first line of the section says "Resident Alien of North Korea" right before his name just doesn't sit well with me. That is why I tried removing it twice, but each time I was undid by the same anon. Is it consensus for that to be there? --LuigiManiac 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was South Korean. North Korea is a separate country and has been for over 50 years. He has lived in the US for 2/3 of his life. Gregohio 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed -Halo 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. --LuigiManiac 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. I'm surprised so many people don't know the difference between North and South Korea. Natalie 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do know the difference...I just couldn't remember which one he was from, and I didn't want to get an edit conflict, so I just picked one and saved the page without double-checking. --LuigiManiac 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the various anons who keep making edits to the article that confuse South and North Korea. The edit you were talking about was just one in a long list of edits that were from people who apparently don't pay too close attention. Natalie 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scenes of Resistance

"Kevin Granata left his third-floor office of Norris Hall and went down to the second floor as the second round of shootings took place. Reportedly he heard a commotion and went into the hallway to see if he could help anyone. He was killed there by Cho."

How is this a "scene of resistance"? It just says he walked into the hallway. It doesn't fit with the other's actions of barracading the doors... SGT 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is out of a now deleted section called "Heroic Acts". It was renamed since it is not NPOV. --Abe Lincoln 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He left his office and 'tried to help people' and ended up getting killed. See http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/LOCAL/704180522/1196/LOCAL Over time more details will emerge.- Markm62 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It just seems strange to have 5 bullet points, with 4 of them describing people trying to block or barracade doors and one saying he "walked into the hallway to see if he could help anyone". I don't have a problem with it, but reading though the article it didn't seem to fit with the others. SGT 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a word "help" there to avoid confusion.--Svetovid 03:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

off-topicness of gun control debate section

Can we discuss what should be pruned from this section? I'm not entirely sure which parts people think strays off-topic, so I don't want to just go in and make cuts. Natalie 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virginia_Tech_massacre#Gun_Control_Debate and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virginia_Tech_massacre#.22International_media_response.22_section_was_copyvio. Rooot 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a stab as what I think is on topic:

• The particulars of how Cho acquired the guns, ammo, clips and whether he did so legally or otherwise.
• The specific Federal and Virginia laws that restrict and/or permit gun ownership, in general and on-campus
• The potential impact of more restrictive/less restrictive laws and how they might have affected the outcome
• non-repetitive arguments made in the media and elsewhere on each of these issues.

Ronnotel 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to support point #3 as it seems to be too speculative. Rooot 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of it should be removed. The event is important only because of the impact it has on people - to those intimately involved, it is the murder of people they care for, for those of us a step removed it is the issue of violence in our society - you should not remove the impact the event has from the actual event (consider the article on 9/11 where more than half the article talks about the non-immediate impacts). If the sole reason is the length of the article, there is far more irrelevant information that is included (such as the section on Fox not airing some episode of some TV show, or the individual responses of multiple universities all saying the same thing). Sad mouse 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To make sure I'm clear: you're saying you don't think any of the section is off topic? Natalie 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the background could be reduced, since much is in the article above, but no, I don't think the gun control debate section is off topic, in fact I can say that easily 95% of all the discussion I have heard about the shooting has been on gun control. Sad mouse 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the general idea of a section on the gun control debate is relevant. I originally misread the tag and thought it said that parts of the section were straying off-topic. Having taken a second look I see it says that the entire section is straying off topic, which seems wrong. So I have no objections to just removing the tag entirely. Natalie 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag says that the section "may stray." That does not mean that the whole section strays, but rather that parts of the section stray. By definition, it has to start at the right place in order to "stray." But, I digress. There seem to be two people who think that the section is still good: Sad mouse and Halo. Look at the "Gun Control Debate" discussion section above and the ""International media response" section was copyvio." section above and you will see that they are clearly in the minority on this issue. I believe that the information may be important, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to include it in this article. It should be either moved to gun control or to a stand alone article which details the debate on gun control relating to the Virginia Tech incident itself. Either way, most of the section should be removed from this article. Rooot 21:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should look through the history page for the article and you will see that multiple users added to and improved the international media response (I actually have not added to the section except to replace removed references). It is only a few people who want to remove the entire gun control and international response sections for POV reasons. I note that you have already been formally warned (twice) for your actions on this article, so I hope you do not take unilateral action and delete the sections. Sad mouse 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial part, however, IS unsourced, and if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, the first two sentences before Gun Control may end up being deleted if they are not sourceable. --AEMoreira042281 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's designed to be an introduction, and is supposed to be proven by the following paragraphs, ala a Wikipedia:Lead Section. -Halo 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the "deadliest mass shooting in modern US history"

This event was not actually "the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history". I changed it to "one of the deadliest..." because there have been several other massacres with a higher death toll. The Colfax massacre of African-Americans by Ku Klux Klan members in 1873 resulted in 105 deaths. Also, the Sand Creek massacre of 1864 resulted in as many as 185 Cheyenne killed. And the Wounded Knee massacre of 1890 resulted in 300 Dakota Sioux dead. Of course, I don't mean to minimize this tragic event, but it was historically inaccurate the way it was originally worded. I suppose one could make the argument that these are not "modern" events, but I'm not sure what the consensus on that term is. Mycota 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I made this point more than once, but my edit kept getting deleted, as did the discussion on the Talk page. Hopefully this edit will stick now--it's unfortunate that this phrase keeps being used in a quite sensationalistic way. Efrafra 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The modifiers of "civilian" and "by an individual" keep gettting placed and then, for some reason removed. I don't really know why.Chunky Rice 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I put "deadliest school shooting" for now. Gdo01 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The current term of "single-perpetrator mass murder" should seem accurate. If it is to be modified, then peacetime could be added to the term. --AEMoreira042281 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any of those sound like accurate descriptors. I wonder why those terms were removed... Mycota 21:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comparative examples are arguable, in my opinion, so I deleted them from the media section. I agree that the comparative language by the media is overdone and inaccurate, but I doubt that comparing this incident to military massacres provides any better or more accurate perspective. Should be in the historical context section anyway.Sfmammamia 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although the first example was perpretrated by civilians, it was a different situation in that it was a mass attack, rather than done by an individual. I put this in the media criticism section since it was a response to media reports, rather than a general comment on historical relevance. Mycota 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before - see here for the latest. The consensus was mass shooting - not sure I see a reason to change it. Ronnotel 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If a consensus does develop that there's a need for a change, I recommend single-perpetrator mass shooting, as the Bath school disaster was a single-perpetrator mass murder that killed more people in the US. Rdfox 76 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it amounts to attaching enough adjectives to it to make it "work" and to save face for the short-memory media who went a bit off the deep end with this characterization. Wahkeenah 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording was decided by consensus last week after several attempts to get it right. "Modern" is indeed the qualifier that rules out both the Bath school disaster and Native American killings during the westward expansion. Also, make sure the archives are checked to make sure you aren't changing something for which consensus has already been met. Scientz 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Motive - Feelings of Abandonment?

I think the source of Cho's anger was because of shunning. People stopped talking and associating with him out of fear and anger following his two stalking incidents some months earlier. Also, Cho talked about his "imaginary" friends Jelly (KY) and Spanky (Hand), a jocular figure of speech used by Cho to describe masturbation to his two room mates. This was misinterpreted by his roommates to indicate insanity, they ignored him out of fear and isolated him further.

Expulsion of Ishmael and His Mother. By Gustave Doré.

The attempt at reaching out to the two women, was perhaps the first time Cho attempted to break out of his autistic isolation and emotionally connect with another human being. The result was police knocking on his door and a two-day stay in a mental hospital. This pattern seen in some young adults with autism and Asperger's syndrome, its is called "gaining insight". As autism alleviates, the autistic feels lonely and makes their first failed attempts at forming friendships and relationships. Cho's social skills were very poor, his initial attempts at sociality was met with ridicule, fear and persecution.

Cho's mention of Ishmael (Ishmail Ax), who was abandoned to the desert to die, indicates that Cho's predominant emotion was abandonment. If you look at the picture you can see how Cho might of felt. Diamonddavej 22:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. Gdo01 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! szyslak (t, c) 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice woodcut, though. --Kizor 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reports of the anguish of his own family, and how they could never get him to talk, tend to deflect the tendency to somehow blame others for his behavior (as he himself has done). However, it's reasonable to conclude that he was improperly diagnosed. He was, essentially, in a world of his own, and would not let anyone in. Wahkeenah 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is NOT too long

As suggested in Wikipedia:Article size, I ran a preview of this article with all references removed. Even though I didn't remove all that wasn't "readable prose" (for example, I didn't cut the table of contents, lists or tables), the version without references didn't trigger the longpages warning. Therefore, even though the full wiki text totals out at around 60K give or take a few, readable prose is less than half that, below 32K even. szyslak (t, c) 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo. I agree with you, I'm not sure what people are complaining about. Once the inital hype wears down the article will get cut to the "right" size, and relevant text will be moved their proper destinations. -Phoenix 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other reactions

Here we go again. Now we have a bullet list of sporting and other tribute reactions -- this has the same problem with recentism as the sporting tributes section, which was deleted earlier per discussion. This will be going on for days, possibly weeks, could we please refrain?Sfmammamia 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

new subsection under "perpetrator"?

now that more information is coming out about Cho Seung-hui's earlier life and problems, the order of the perpetrator section is getting a little wacky. would a subsection under the first sentence or so the deals with the mental/behavorial problems he had through childhood and high school be too much expansion here?Sfmammamia 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

blog postings as refs?

The Norris Hall shootings section now contains details found only in blog postings -- those are the refs cited. I've tried to remove them, but they've been reinstated. Other more experienced editors -- what say you?Sfmammamia 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs fail WP:RS. Using blogs to demonstrate a point about blogs violates WP:OR. If we want to communicate a fact about this event, we need reliable sources. If we want to communicate a fact about blogs, we still need reliable sources that make the point and not the source material. In either event, the blogs have to go. Rklawton 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who reinstated Saved by the Blood. Guillermo Colman Personal Blog. 21 April 2007 into Norris Hall shooting. At first i was hesitant to include blog, but this blog belongs to Guillermo Colman himself, which is the first hand account of the shooting in the Hydrology Classroom. Please note: It is a direct account from the victim, not an original research. Therefore I think it warrants an exception, and I'd like to flag this blog inclusion in the references as an exception, according to WP:REDFLAG within the clause of Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known and Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media. Indeed media coverage on Colman's account has been minimal because according to his blog, he has been trying to avoid contact with the media and let himself recover. Nevertheless, the WHSV News and USA Today have included Colman's story from an interview, with content close to the blog entry. However, I still think inclusion of Colman's personal blog in the references section is still necessary, based on the Redflag reason above, and also to provide means for Wikipedia reader to contact Colman directly for cross checking by virtue of emails or blog comments. Chaerani 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Chaerani here. To paraphrase someone smarter than me, the point of forums and blogs being given as non-credible is that their information usually comes from random guys on the Internet making stuff up. In this case the source personality is credible even if the medium itself isn't very. --Kizor 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Just saw http://www.virginiatechmassacre.com/ go up as an external link (some sort of charity/support group site). It doesn't really seem to fit the content of the other links, safe to remove? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Doh, always forget to sign Spencewah 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because words like heroes and angels in one statement tell me they are either lunatics or just highly biased.--Svetovid 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-Hui vs Seung Hui Cho vs Seung Cho

An article in Slate indicates the gunman went by Seung Cho and that his family used the Americanized form. 209.148.113.42 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A seeming consensus on this has been reached on this at Talk:Cho_Seung-hui#Naming_order_POLL_.28again.21.29 --Dynaflow 07:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Current anymore?

Should the current template remain on this page anymore? Not too much more will likely be added, barring a major development. --AEMoreira042281 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably stay for another couple of weeks - until traffic dies down. --BigDT (416) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

Cho may have been 23 but wasn't his parents still paying tuition? And he probably went back home during the summer! So why weren't they informed that their child was having so much problem at school?? If his parents would have known, they would have pulled him out and none of this killing would have happened. So for the sake of "privacy", 33 people were killed. How silly and stupid. I am quite surprised this issue has barely been raised, but I am quite positive Cho's family are wondering this. 66.171.76.138 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia does not include our own speculation or opinions in articles. This is outside our scope. --BigDT (416) 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FERPA. --ElKevbo 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

'scuse me? tomasz. 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FERPA Dirtysocks 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

gotcha! thanks. tomasz. 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an adult is an adult, no matter who might be giving them money. I'm 23 and my grandparents help me with my college tuition, but that doesn't mean that school calls them when I miss a day of classes or anything. This has actually been in the news occasionally in the last few years because there have been some suicides at college campuses, and the students were receiving counseling through the school. Then when they committed suicide, the parents got angry because they hadn't been notified that their child was having problems. I think one college may have been sued over this, but can't remember. Natalie 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A few colleges and universities have been involved in lawsuits related to the perceived legal responsibility of institutions to provide mental health care or act on mental health issues in particular ways. It's a messy and evolving area of law but a very interesting one that seems to have few bright lines and clear-cut answers. --ElKevbo 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

References

The title of reference 86 is wrong - it's President Bush, not former President Clinton. The Link of reference 106 is wrong: should be a short hyphen between 2007 and 04. Seems to be a special character actually. Can someone correct this please? I'am not allowed to ... Daniel.zwink 15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bush/Clinton one is fixed. I can't find the problem with 106. Can you make sure that the number is still correct and if so, give more details on what should be changed. Thanks. --BigDT (416) 15:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime its reference 100 - the one with the text "U.S. gun culture costs lives!". It's the hyphen between 2007 and 04 in the URL, that is translated to "%E2%80%93" (at least in my firefox ;-). Daniel.zwink 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine connection?

The Columbine massacre occurred on a Tuesday of the third week of April, as did this. Have any sources in compliance with WP:RS seized on this yet? --AEMoreira042281 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC) This happened on a Monday, not a Tuesday, although the week in April is the same.

More notable of a connection is that Cho praised Harris and Klebold for being martyrs. Also notable is the student who attended Columbine in 1999, and also Virginia Tech during this ordeal. I believe both of these facts are noted in the article. -Phoenix 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical character of shooting should be in lead paragraph

As was correctly pointed out above, this was not the "deadliest shooting in American history" as has been reported in the media. However, it was the deadliest shooting by a single perpetrator in American history. The media refers to this, accurately I think, as the "most deadly shooting spree in American history." Shouldn't this language be in the first paragraph and not buried in the article?--Mantanmoreland 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Incidentially, I was looking into other school disasters and found the following, horrific, incidents: Collinwood School Fire, New London School explosion, Our Lady of the Angels School Fire, Aberfan, Schoolhouse Blizzard. I'm not sure whether to be reassured or not by the implication that weather, fires and explosions are still more deadly than human-perpetrated killings. Carcharoth 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add as follows to the lead paragraph: "It was the most deadly shooting spree by a solitary gunman in U.S. history."--Mantanmoreland 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some would define a shooting spree as solitary by nature, but let's not get into that, as there are two well known cases of pairs: 1 and 2 (huh? one of the killers there has been released from jail!). I would also avoid convoluted wording. Keep it simple, and split into two sentences if need be. Carcharoth 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed two or three times prior. I think the phrasing "deadliest mass shooting in modern US history", as it existed for about two or three days, is the most accurate, compact way to state this. Modern in the sense it doesn't compare to massacres during past times of war or insurrection, mass shooting in the sense of multiple shooting homicides. Spree has a possible connotation of serial murder to it, which can be avoided with mass shooting. Ronnotel 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fine. You do need some sentence in lead to indicate the historical significance.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

4Chan Troll

Somebody on /b/ made a post about killing people at vtech and changed the date to make it look like it was from before the incident. This shop then appeared as fact in a major Swedish (I think) newspaper. This is a pretty big piece of misinformation, maybe it could go in the "false reports" article or something? In b4 some wikifag says "it has something to do with 4chan and is therefor unworthy." -Anonymous

Congratulations. That last sentence completely undermined what was a fairly decent argument by revealing you to just be another /b/tard out to glorify his pathetic little den of nastiness by linking it to a tragedy. (And before anyone yells at me, in case you didn't know, "/b/tard" is the name used by readers of 4chan's "/b/" board, the one that produces such lovely things as stupid memes and this sort of hoax.) Rdfox 76 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but please try to keep yourself calm. There's no point in being uncivil. Anyhow, a section about the role of new media is in planning, and this might be worth mentioning there since it is, after all, a pretty big piece of misinformation. I'll get back on that in time. --Kizor 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not unworthy cuz it has to do with 4chan, it's just not that much of a story. there's a good deal of discussion about it in the archives. tomasz. 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one said we couldn't discuss it because it was on 4chan - anons were claiming that it wasn't a hoax, and we were using the fact that it was on 4chan to keep it out of the article because it wasn't real. There's a big difference. Natalie 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he should be counted in fatalities

I don't think the amount that where killed at the VT shooting should include him. I would state my reasoning, but I'd rather let you figure it out. To put it very, very, very nicely, he is a piece of crap. The template should be changed to Victims and Shooters or something else. Nwbeeman 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But he was killed in the shootings. It's an objective fact. --ElKevbo 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup; it's not something that's up for discussion, there have been plenty of worse incidents in the world of mass murder by one guy and they are always counted in the fatality total. -Phoenix 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're letting your feelings cloud your judgement. That decision is not for us to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.148.28.80 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

just say 33 dead including the killer/shooter. Makes everyone happy, and it provides the most informations in the smallest space.-Threewaysround 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatality = dead. Seung-hui Cho = dead. Seung-hui Cho = fatality. It's pretty simple math. --Dynaflow 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's logic you are using there, not maths... Carcharoth 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Railing Against Christianity

I think this idiotic claim by NBC and ABC and a few other sources should be added to the innacurate media section. For whatever 'railing' should mean, the videos themselves have shown Cho to be someone who likens himself to Jesus, not one who hates Jesus and those who follow him. Religious propaganda like this is damaging and only furthers hate reactions to this incident. Even if Cho is condemning Christians on videos not yet released, his ramblings are either incoherant or only in the sense of the "not true Christians" typical argument. There are other huge propaganda methods being used by major media sources to identify him as a muslim well before that can be known. I haven't heard of a video where he mentions infidels or Muhammad either and Just as well I have never headr of Muslim evangelists being in South Korea. Maybe we should create a "false media page of the virginia tech massare" and add a link here to it, since so many people validly argue that this one page is getting long as it is. Whatever happens we should not sacrifice any valid information entirely. -youngidealist edited:209.129.85.4 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may belong on his article rather than here but anyway, yes I have seen no specific quote of his that supports that he hates Christianity or that he is Muslim. This probably stems from the Ismail thing. Gdo01 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video nor do I care too, but keep in mind that we don't go for novel syntheses of facts here. If the media is characterizing his rants as anti-Christian, it's not our place to call that claim inaccurate unless we can attribute that analysis to other secondary sources. That doesn't mean we should include something if we know/believe it to be false, but, rather, that we publish other attributable claims, not our own conclusions. --BigDT (416) 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand if this is already established in the wikipedia guidelines, but I gotta say, I think it's a dumb rule. If censorship of the internet ever increases, this will only serve as a harbor for what would eventually be just anothr conservapidia if you make it clear that no obvious or self-observable points can be made.-youngidealist 209.129.85.4 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikia, among plenty of other websites, offers free Wiki hosting where you are free to setup a website that holds any POV you want or draw whatever conclusions you want. But Wikipedia's goal isn't to make a political statement or any such thing. We can reconsider that policy if and when the internet becomes an Orwellian environment. --BigDT (416) 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is dumb, but it is not a rule, even though many people seem to think it is. Wikipedia is under no obligation to present as true information for which we have independent evidence saying it is false, and in fact we should actually actively search and remove such misinformation because it goes against the fundamental principles of an encyclopedia. If you see statements that do this, please don't believe the argument that it is the wikipedia policy. Sad mouse 22:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't go for novel synthesis of facts, however since we have the primary sources we can use them to verify secondary sources. Primary sources always take dominance over secondary sources, and if a primary source shows the secondary source to be incorrect we do not include the secondary source (unless it is noteworthy in itself, in which case it should be presented in the context of the correct primary source). Wikipedia is not a place to just repeat any claim made in the media. Sad mouse 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So if someone wants to take a primary source (NBC) and note that it contradicts itself between the video shown and the verbal statements made by the news casters, then that can be put in the article right? So, all someone needs to do is quote NBC's anchor that said it and quote Cho straight from the video to make this point, right? Would anyone mind doing this? I think it's really important to point out these false assumptions to the best of our ability in the article. Youngidealist 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems valid and worthy, if you have the time that would be a good contribution. Sad mouse 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added it. Let me know what you think. I'm a bit new to contributing to wikipedia so I'm not sure if there's anything I missed. The second reference is NBC's videos of Cho. I would have used the same report video that falsely claimed Cho as "railing against Christianity", but I don't like how they are practically telling us what he's saying right before he says it, and some people who look at it will possibly be confused by hypnotic suggestion. Also, I might have tried youtube for a video that will likely remain in place, but I'm not sure if that's prefered on Wikipedia. Youngidealist 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not worst

is this taken into account? --Striver - talk 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Bath School disaster is mentioned in the article. Thanks for the link. Carcharoth 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A blog of someone with a bone to pick isn't a great source. News reports generally refer to this as the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history, not the deadliest massacre or school incident. See Virginia Tech massacre#Historical context. Phony Saint 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate news reports will use deadliest shooting is modern US history. However, I've seen many drop the modern and thus leave out many of the 19th century massacres from Utah, etc.. :( Hopefully, more reporters will start checking here first. Ronnotel 00:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Post office

According to the picture "Aerial photo showing location of Norris and West Ambler Johnston Halls." in the first part of the article, would it be possible to locate the post office where the packet to NBC was sent? Also, where was Cho's dormitory? It would give the picture about what distances he had to make between the first shooting and the masacre. (It would give a better insight to the situation, I mean how many more people could spot (and stop) him before he started the killing spree, maybe some police office on the way in between, ect.) Merewyn 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that would be a great addition to not only the article, but the picture. --wpktsfs 22:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"spot and stop him"? Don't be silly. He had guns on open display? I presume he had them hidden under a coat, or something. Carcharoth 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but highlighting the post office would be great. Carcharoth 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In his biography, at least, it is mentioned that his dormitory was "just west" of the dorm where he shot the first two people, and other sources have said it was Harper Hall. As to where the post office was, I have no idea. Natalie 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From memory, top right of the picture. Some news website will be bound to have it highlighted, and failing that, Google Maps is your friend (look up the Post Office address). Carcharoth 00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This event lends an extra layer of meaning to the expression "going Postal". Wahkeenah 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That expression, incidently, was the result of media sensationalism after one violent incident by a post office worker. Natalie 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And the expression soon gained the public's stamp of approval. Wahkeenah 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ZIP it. HalfShadow 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

injured number conflicts again

Right now the lead says 17 were injured, and the infobox says 29. Which one is right? Natalie 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The discrepancies stems from the fact that people were injured jumping out of windows and what not. I suppose seventeen were actually shot. -Phoenix 23:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Would anyone mind if I changed it to "shot 49 people, killing 32 and injuring 17, before committing suicide"? Natalie 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as it's true and sourced! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, there is more confusion: the "Victims" section states: "Excluding the deceased gunman, there were 61 people shot: 32 people were killed, and 29 were injured." Yargh. Natalie 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So perhaps seventeen were injured indirectly, such as jumping out of windows? -Phoenix 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think someone misread a source somewhere - some of the news websites had information on how many wounded people went to various specific hospitals, so someone may have read "17 wounded were transported to Memorial Hospital" or whatever, and thought that was the total number. Or I'm just totally wrong. I'll hunt around on the internet. Natalie 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Washington Post says about 30 injured, and a NY Times article from the 18th says 28 injured transported to the hospital, of which two died. So 29 is at least possible, while 17 appears to be a gross understatement.

Optimize decision-making process

Articles on several of the victims have been created, and every single one of them has been nominated for deletion. This is starting to get counterproductive. Let us resolve this in a more practical manner: hold a single discussion on whether or not those people would merit separate articles — and this includes the point of whether or not any information that might surface in the next few weeks should be enough to merit a separate article (or should it just be included in this one). If anything, make it two separate discussions: one for the students and another for the faculty. As far as the students are concerned, the situation is rather similar: they were not notable prior to this incident, and have become notable solely in connection with it. This clearly makes it possible for a single decision to be made that would apply to them all. Once this is done, we would be able to apply it immediately — if it is decided that those articles should exist, then any AfD on them would be speedly closed on sight; if it is decided that they shouldn't, then all entries created would be deleted (possibly with any relevant information added being merged into this article).
If we don't do that, then we will end up having to go through +30 AfDs, all with the exact same merit. Redux 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. Michael Jordan's father got an article, and he was only famous because of his son and his murder. Rklawton 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree, the student articles should be treated as a group (altho from what I can tell, the Emily one is the only one left), I would disagree for the professors. Firstly, for I think 2 of them, a consensus has already been reached that they are noteable per WP:PROF. The other two are still being consider per WP:PROF and perhaps other criteria. However the key thing here is because they are different people with different histories we can't consider them together. Each has to be considered with it's own merits. In fact, even Emily should probably be treated seperately from other students. Altho I don't think there is any merit to keep the article on her at the current time, given the fact that she was the first and there are rumours she may have been targetted, it's better to consider her seperately. For other students, if there is nothing that makes them that unique in terms of notability, they should be considered in bulk (but since there doesn't appear to be any, this is peobably unnecessary) Nil Einne 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Emily Hilscher isn't the only one left - Waleed Shaalan has an article (currently in AfD). I agree that the professors need to be considered separately, since there is a good chance they may have met the notability standard. But I doubt that we will find our that any of the students met the standard, so any articles on them would be inappropriate. Natalie 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree. Waleed Shaalan and I just noticed Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan appear to be similar to Ryan C. Clarke earlier, cases where it's claimed the people were somewhat heroic. Those 2 can probably be considered together and likely should be deleted. Some degree are 'heroism' is IMHO simply not enough to merit an article, it can be adequetly covered here. If they are awarded a medal or something of that sort then possibly although that should probably still just be covered in their articles. There are [erhaps some circumstances which could lead to some of the deceased students becoming noteable in the future but as I often say, wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we wait for that to happen not anticipate it will happen Nil Einne 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as it was going to happen anyway, I put Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan on AFD. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lead - discussion

Is it too early to discuss the lead of this article before rewriting it, or are we waiting for the article to stabilize? Perhaps we should consider developing a brief outline here on the discussion page, summarizing the key points, etc. I'd also like to suggest simplifying first sentence. In my opinion, the present sentence tries a little too hard to cover everything in one go. Something along the lines of "The Virginia Tech massacre occurred on April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University campus in Blacksburg, Virginia" or similar could be a good start, and subsequent sentences further develop the entry. Anyway, the idea here is to discuss the lead in some detail before any edits are made. JordanSealy 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, In case it's changed it currently says "The Virginia Tech massacre was a university shooting that unfolded as two separate attacks approximately two hours apart on April 16, 2007, on the campus of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States." I've just woken up, so I'll recuse myself for a while. --Kizor 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo from PSU tribute

PSU students pay tribute to the fallen Hokies

The photo to the right has been released under the GFDL. Basically, the PSU student section made a large VT at their college football spring game. --BigDT (416) 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Autopsies completed

I'll leave it to others to determine whether they want to try and make use of some of the initial details here [9] at this time, or wait until the full reports are released and digested by the press. W.C. 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to add

Two of Cho's plays can be found at this url: http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/richard-mcbeef-cover-page/20070417134109990001 209.212.89.242 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

more quotes and refrences from cho's video because i can't edit on this comp

Red Sox played in green jersey's with black VaTech patches to honor the victims of the attacks.

Excerpts from the video message that Cho sent to NBC

"You just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart, ripping my soul."

"Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust fund ... your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough ... to fulfil your hedonistic needs."

"When the time came, I did it. I had to."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2060764,00.html

65.254.5.139 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This would bring more unwanted attention to this sad human being which would have only helped get his point accross. I think the article on him is big enough as it is as well as the media attention. Let's keep it the way it is. CharlieP216 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The comments in the video and the manifesto provide insight into the motive. If we took a moral position not to address the rhetoric of evildoers Wikipedia wouldn't have articles on Hitler or Hussein.TimB 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim and the creator of this section. The above quotes from Cho and more are important quotes that are worth taking from the video to expand upon. The least we should do is post his quotes separately from the article so that people who want to can reference them. -youngidealist68.231.200.13 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that those quotes, or at least some similar to them, should be included. The guy wasn't born nuts, rightly or wrongly he had big issues with people from better off backgrounds whom he felt were mocking and abusing him. This is how he justified what he did to himself.

"This would bring more unwanted attention to this sad human being which would have only helped get his point across"

Which is exactly what must be done. How can we deal with madmen if we don't know what's going on in their heads. Lunatics generally show warning signs or fixate on certain things, it's how we identify them early, and what better way to spot a lunatic than by being aware of their lunacy so that we know it when we see it.

The foreign media is making something of the fact that he felt (rightly or wrongly) that he was outside of the American Dream, and that people inside it were mocking him, so they think that it's important.

perfectblue 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please transcribe the full text of the known video clips and put it somewhere (maybe Wikisource)? Readers don't want to go to an external web site and install unwanted software to sit through drivel by a madman, but we might skim. More importantly, right now it is easier to justify this as "fair use" and NBC probably would still be embarrassed to claim copyright on the text (maybe?). Also, the statements that "most" clips were released make me wonder what the rest were about - a scorecard of what's out and what's been suppressed would be nice.204.186.20.241 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Massacre'

'Massacre' is too one-sided a term for what took place. A more neutral term like 'killings' or 'shootings' is more appropriate, if indeed the NPOV policy is to be upheld. If you wish to pander to the emotional masses, you would do well to keep it as massacre. Vranak

But your opposition to this term is not backed by anything so...--Svetovid 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your support of massacre is not backed up by anything so... Vranak

The key with "massacre" is that its definition specifies the killing is indiscriminate, whereas your other suggested words do not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The location of the killings shows discrimination. Why not a parking lot, a shopping mall, a movie theatre? Vranak

Besides Spencewah's point, it was initially decided to not pre-empt the media and give the article whatever name the incident would come to have. 'Massacre' won out over 'shooting' after it turned out that the former had been adopted into wide use. --Kizor 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So consensus gentium is a good reason for doing things now? Ah, let's see if American Idol is on... Vranak

I guess I still don't see your evidence for massacre as an emotionally charged term. Spencewah 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: but are you sure you mean 'evidence'? I think you mean, a compelling explanation or rationale, yes? Or would you like court-signed papers from expert witnesses stating that 'massacre' is not an appropriate term? Vranak

You know what I mean, don't get snarky =) Spencewah 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I have a bad habit of taking words at face value.

First off, and I said this earlier, a massacre really means a rout on a battlefield. The students who were killed were not expecting battle that day.

Second, I find massacre to be pejorative: it has connotations of badness, evilness.

Third, it's a poor descriptor: shootings gives more information: a gun was used.

Fourth: it just doesn't feel right. For some reason massacres and guns don't go together. Massacres and chainsaws, massacres and meat cleavers, massacres and katanas, sure. Vranak

To be honest, I'd be fine with "shooting". And by Kizor's consensus argument above, shooting beats out massacre in the Google news search. Put it up for a vote? Spencewah 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Virginia Tech massacre" actually beats "Virginia Tech shooting": 5,609 to 3,718. "Massacre" is in prevalent use in CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. --Kizor 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, massacre sounds to emotional. It'd go with shooting. Soldiers massacre when they commit genocide, people shoot. perfectblue 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you would also need to change "Columbine massacre" to "Columbine shootings" and Boston Massacre to "Boston shootings". A compromise would be to have such articles rendered as "such-and-such shootings", and with "such-and-such massacre" redirected to "shootings". Another example of a "massacre" was handled this way: "The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre..." Wahkeenah 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A massacre need not be on a battlefield. Unless you consider the site of the Bostom Massacre to be a battlefield instead of a town square. And the Redcoats used guns, not chainsaws. Wahkeenah 11:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll revise that: a massacre occurs between two sides that expect a fight. Vranak

Expecting or not expecting a fight does not enter into it. Wahkeenah 03:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it does. Vranak

Your definition of "massacre" does not agree with the definitions of neither dictionaries, the press, or other Wikipedians. Massacre has nothing to do with a battle. Consensus on this talk page has chosen to go with the media's term for the time being, which is currently massacre. (It would help if you looked in the archives before bringing this up again.) Phony Saint 04:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you can quote dictionaries all you want, but the term is still lurid and sensationalist, appealing to the overwrought emotions of the 'shocked and appalled' masses. If you took NPOV policy seriously this would have remained at 'shootings'. Vranak

According to WP policy, we must use the consensus term that has developed in the media. It's not our place to judge whether it is emotional or not. I think there's strong evidence cited above that the media is settling on Virginia Tech massacre, if it hasn't already. Ronnotel 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then that policy is deeply flawed! You think that Wikipedia should follow the lead of such stellar news organizations as ABC, CBS, and Fox News? Vranak

I'm of the opinion that "massacre" is overly lurid and sensationalist, and I wish I could say that English-language media and I saw eye-to-eye, but it's definitely more complex than. Let me pull some evidence together.

• Google search for "virginia tech" shootings yields 14,900,000 hits.
• Google search for "virginia tech" massacre yields 6,710,000 hits.

But: the New York Times has lumped their coverage under the heading, "Massacre in Virginia", as have the LA Times, CNN, and even the Beeb. The usually stolid Financial Times does not use the word prominently, but it does appear in their coverage. I it all rather tasteless, and I am frankly surprised by it, but consensus does seem to be forming behind "massacre". Pity, but the article should stay at this title unless that changes. A Train^talk 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

‘Virginia Tech shootings” 1,900,000 is a bit different from “Virginia Tech massacre” 2,500,000, but also worth noting is the converse: “Shootings at Virginia Tech” (906,000) vs “Massacre at Virginia Tech” (877,000). Not to mention “Virginia Tech” shootings (16,900,000) vs “Virginia Tech” massacre (12,300,000). Also, even more interesting, “Virginia Tech shooting” gets a whopping 3,900,000 – that’s about 150% of massacre. That seems to be the most common term. Titanium Dragon 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "massacre" as deriving from Old French for "slaughter" and meaning "The killing of a number of human beings under circumstances of atrosity or cruelty." The definition fits this event just fine. Wahkeenah 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of dictionaries out there and just because yours says one thing that doesn't make it objective fact. Dictionaries are written by falliable people, just like us, so let's skip the middle man and just discuss the word in terms of what it means to us. Vranak

We are not here to be lexicographers. Rooot 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Vranak

Says WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rooot (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

For example, the My Lai Massacre involved lining people up and shooting them. This distinguishes the term "massacre" from "normal" battlefield activity, in which presumably both sides are armed and are conducting "normal" warfare. Wahkeenah 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare with Battle of the Little Bighorn and Battle of the Alamo. Although in both cases the defenders were killed to the last man, and thus the term "massacre" is sometimes used (especially with Little Bighorn, as "massacre" was a term often used in connection with the Indian Wars), these were both military engagements, not the slaughter of unarmed civilians. Wahkeenah 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the article was originally the 'Virginia Tech Shooting', but near the begining it was moved here. I forget what the reasoning was but it was good enough for it to be moved here, go look at the first couple archives and see if that convinces you-Threewaysround 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• A train, your searches are false. The complete phrases have to be searched as: "Virginia Tech shootings" vs. "Virginia Tech massacre". Here's what we get:

• "Viriginia Tech massacre" 5,930,000 Ghits
• "Virginia Tech shootings" 1,960,000 Ghits.

It is rather obvious what these events are known as. (→Netscott) 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read my whole post, then you saw that I was doing my best to be open-minded despite my POV, and ultimately came to the same conclusion that you did, just using different searches. A Train^talk 06:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Its actually far more interesting that Google is actually giving MORE results when you -wikipedia; when you don't -wikipedia both get fewer than half as many hits. Also, you didn't run the best one of all: If you try and run "virginia tech shooting" -wikipedia, it gets over 9,000,000 hits - even more than "virginia tech massacre" -wikipedia. So by your logic, the page should be called "Virginia Tech shooting". 06:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A mass-killing is actually more likely to be a 'massacre' if it takes place off of a battlefield. A key component of a massacre is that one side is unable to defend itself. Rooot 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My paper said: mass shooting rampage.... idk... its a tough time to argue this. Let's give it a rest please. --wpktsfs 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah let's just give all of Wikipedia a rest... it's good enough right? Vranak

That's not helpful. A Train^talk 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychotic illness

I take Psychology course in high school we are on the chapter of psychotic illness so after this occured my teacher asked us to figure out what kind was the killer suffering from. i have reached the conclusion of Paranoid Scrizophrenia. But i am still surprised because what would aggrivate him so much that he would do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missionimpossible (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Look up ASPD Spencewah 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but warning signs don't mix beacuse i heard somewhere he gave warning signs and i am pretty sure after looking up in cnn i didn't find that he was a pyro a warning sign of ASPD thank you though for your help--Missionimpossible 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope your teacher has taught you that it's impossible for even a trained expert to come to a conclusion at this point about what mental illness this individual might have been suffering from based only on news reports we now have. --Crunch 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's impossible but we were just guessing --Missionimpossible 06:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. Anchoress 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen I am sorry if i offended you in any way but i don't think i deserve that kind of language.--Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon has been warned.--Dynaflow 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was on a SSRI antidepressant. http://nomorefakenews.com/index.php http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/04/19/the_virginia_tech_shootings_a_psychiatric_drug_connection.htm 201.19.199.254 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He could be but i heard he gave warning signs in his english class his teacher went and complained to the university officials also he wrote some sort of a Manifesto and during his interview was heard saying "You made me do this" anti deprresants don't make you delusional, or give warning signs they might make you homicidal or sucidial though.--Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How about finding a more reliable source than a person who writes about past lives and mind control? Phony Saint 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/19/194210.shtml?s=lh

or that: http://www.healyprozac.com/ 201.19.199.254 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The first barely mentions Cho, let alone it speculates based on media reports; the second doesn't talk about Cho at all. Until a reliable news source writes specifically about Cho confirmed to be on a specific type of drug, we shouldn't mention it. This isn't the place to speculate. Phony Saint 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article. If you'd like to speculate about Cho, that's fine, but this is the wrong place for it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then could you tell me the right page where to go and speculate about him. thank you --Missionimpossible 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a sentence saying that it is a taboo in South Korea to discuss mental illness. South Koreans might hesitate to get treatment for mental illness, but it is not a taboo at all to discuss mental illness generally, or anyone's mental problem or illness. --chunwook 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Go back to China"

In the portion of the article mentioning that Cho was bullied in high school, I think it might be relevant to note that his classmates said "Go back to China." The reference about the high school bulling does mention it. Why is this relevant? It just shows that certain segments of the population cannot tell the difference between a Chinese, Japanese, or a Korean. Recall for instance, that several news coporations at first claimed that the perpetuator is a Chinese national. I also remeber WWII posters produced by the US government that tried to let Americans to determine the difference between a Japanese and a Chinese. The main point is that there are racial stereotypes involved, but we don't need to promote this POV except to say that Cho's classmates told him "Go back to China" even though he was for all practical purposes a Korean-American. 61.229.182.23 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with what you're saying is that this is not an article about racial prejudice in the United States, it's an article about a shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech. I'm not disagreeing with the point you're trying to make, but the fact of the matter is that it is entirely irrelevant to the article, as it is not directly related to the article itself. Unless it's shown that the shooter acted specifically because people mistook him for being Chinese (which I sincerely doubt), the material is irrelevant. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 96.224.58.54 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...you would think if racism was an issue Cho would have volunteered that information in his 1,800 word rant. Kransky 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this might be irrelevant, but somehow bias might have contributed to Cho's anger, so please describe this possibility. 24.131.202.186 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one feel that it is a very, very big part of Cho's history, and should be included in Cho's article, not in the VTM article. It is relevant to the shooting though. --wpktsfs 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this By The Way request: About that "Son of a ..." comment of Cho's elderly relatives, is the Mirror.co.uk new source reliable or is it made up by the media? I would be concerned if it is not from the elderly person as that indicates yet another stereotyping attempt by that media: putting words into someone's mouth as if they claimed doing it! To maintain neutrality of this article please explicitly cite that new source next to that statement rather than at showing the source at the footer. 24.131.202.186 05:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Just wanted to congratulate editors who worked on the international reactions section. The John Howard part in particular is IMHO a lot better. As I've mentioned before, the CNN characterisation of it as an attack on (decrying) the negative gun culture of the US was clearly inaccurate as if you see what he said (and consider the upcoming election), it's quite obvious what he's trying to say. Nil Einne 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you give your reasoning for why the international reactions section should remain in the article or be removed, in the straw poll above? It has been proposed for deletion. Sad mouse 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Victim Status

Should we list the statuses of the victims? I know 27 were injured. Just by looking at the list you don't know if they are the ones that were killed , injured, or if the list is a combination of both.ShadowWriter 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the injured people's names have been released, so all of those people on the list are people who died. I can make sure it's clear who the list refers to. Natalie 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the names have been released, but a partial list deleted from the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page a while back. I'm unsure whether to put them back. -Halo 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinked dates in references

Does anyone know why so many of the dates are redlinked in the ISO format (for me, anyway)? I assume this has to do with the changes recently made (and undone) to the cite web template but I don't know what this would be happening given my (very limited) knowledge of that template. Anyone know what's going on? It looks quite ugly and seems indicative of a larger problem (but perhaps one limited just to me). --ElKevbo 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's linking the whole date, including year - the difference between 23 April 2007 and 23 April 2007. That's the only thing I can think of that would do that. Natalie 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i fixed a few of these yesterday. looks to me like someone's replaced the hyphens in dates (e.g. [[2007-20-04]]) with – ndashes. tomasz. 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest shooting

I object to the following claim in the initial summary paragraph:

"... making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history."

This claim is fraught with inaccuracy, inconsistency, and mere opinion. Moreover, ranking the Virginia Tech massacre by body count in the summary does a grave injustice to the seriousness of the event. The Historical context section is accurate, appropriate, and comprehensive in discussing how the event measures up to prior, related events. I advise this claim be removed from only the initial summary of the article.

I know this subject has been discussed "many times" and I understand there was a so-called "consensus"; however:

"Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." (Wikipedia:Consensus)

Adraeus 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So, could you elaborate on why "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" is inaccurate, inconsistent, and OR, and why what you say would change previous consensus? Have you reviewed the previous consensuses to see why they chose what they did? Phony Saint 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Ambiguous — The phrase "modern U.S. history" is ambiguous. Modern Times identifies "modern history" as referring to events that occurred within the period of 1701 to 2007. Some individuals believe that "modern" means "present-day", or in this case, "21st century." Vernacular use of a word in a formal context is often ambiguous and can be false when interpreted as formal use. Other definitions of "modern" include "relating to a recently developed fashion or style", "characteristic of present-day art and music and literature and architecture", and "ahead of the times".[10] None of these definitions apply to the word "modern" as used in the current context.
2. Inaccurate — Per definition, all killing sprees that primarily involved firearms that occurred between 1701 and 2007 must be considered to establish the legitimacy of the claim of "deadliest [shooting] in modern U.S. history".
3. Inconsistent — The Historical context section explicitly identifies Mountain Meadows massacre, Wounded Knee massacre, and Fort Pillow massacre as deadlier shootings in U.S. history. The phrase "modern U.S. history" given the definition of Modern Times encompasses, and does not exclude, these events. The Historical context section, at least, recognizes that there have been deadlier shootings in modern U.S. history despite the initial contradicting claim.
4. Original research — Claiming that Virginia Tech massacre is "the deadliest [shooting] in modern U.S. history" despite evidence to the contrary is opinion, even when cited. The mainstream press often uses such phrases as talking points without regard for factual accuracy. A proper citation would explicitly attribute the claim to the author. For example, "According to Christine Hauser at New York Times, the Virginia Tech massacre is the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history." At that point, this statement would be best left to the inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre article.

Adraeus 09:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adraeus - First, thanks for adding your input here. I apologize for rv'ing you earlier - my intent was to preserve the status-quo while we discussed your concerns here first. There has been considerable interest expressed that some sense of the historical context of this attack be included in the lead paragraph. While trying not to be morbid, it's extraordinary, indeed, historic, that a single gunman was able to kill so many armed only with two sidearms. Many have felt that this element needs to be captured up front in some way, especially in light of so many media sources using this element in their own ledes. Given this, many different phrases have been attempted to characterize it - 'single-perpetrator', 'peace-time', 'civilian', etc. All have been rejected as wordy, in appropriate, or WP:OR. The only phrase that has persevered has been deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, which, btw, is highly atrributable to MSM reports. I think the only real contention you have is whether the term modern accurately qualifies the attack in line with the historical record. While I see your point, I believe the majority of editors will accept the term modern as an adequate balance between the need for compactness and the desire for accuracy. I disagree with your use of Modern Times as a starting point. Modern in the context of US history is very different than modern world history - for instance, see this syllabus - where modern US history begins in the latter stages of industrialization, mid-1890s. For the casual reader, the term does not unnecessarily break up the flow of the paragraph, while the more astute reader will take it as a cue to investigate further and be drawn to the Historcial Context section for further discussion. Please accept that this phrase was not taken lightly and considerable thought and discussion has gone into developing it. Ronnotel 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the use of the phrase "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" as ambiguous, inaccurate, inconsistent, and original research. If "mass" is included in that phrase, I also dispute the use as redundant. I do not accept the vernacular use of the word "modern" in a formal, historical context. Therefore, prior consensus is no longer valid. The editors of this article are thus presented with three options of which I am aware. Casual disregard of my position is not an option.

• Preserve the status quo while reverting my edits in bad faith, contradicting Wikipedia:Consensus and meriting Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• Accept the placement of the {{disputed}} tag on the face of the article.
• Collaborate, in good faith, to either ensure the statement's specificity and accuracy or remove the statement altogether. This option might involve completely rewriting the statement to maintain consistency with the Historical context section, or properly attributing the statement to an appropriate source.

Adraeus 18:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adraeus, I think you'll find it easier to reach compromise when you avoid the thread of dispute resolution should you not get your way. Nevertheless, I for one am all ears. Here are some basic requirements I think we should be able to agree to on how to phrase this:

1. context - multiple MSM ledes cite the historic nature of the attack - our lede should do so as well.
2. readability - must keep it brief and not interrupt the flow of the paragraph
3. attribution - as per WP:ATT, we must be able to attribute whatever we use or it will get tossed as WP:OR
4. accuracy - the statement should reflect our best understanding of history and be consistent with the Historic context section.

I'm open to any phrasing that meets these four guidelines. Ronnotel 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Modern US history" is more specific than 1701-2007. That time frame by itself is greater than "US History" as the United States was founded in 1776. So, "modern" should be a subset of "us history." I don't know what would qualify, but my guess would be somewhere since the Industrial Revolution would be termed "modern." 129.237.2.66 16:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes in formatting for victim list in the "List of victims" article

I changed the formatting for the list of victims so that victims are organized by classroom. WhisperToMe 05:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Online video response

It seems inappropriate to have a sub-topic like this, I've removed it. It was only one sentence which couldn't really be expanded on and was purely related to gun control which appears later on, at length, in the same article. There was also no need to have a large video thumbnail for such a tiny subtopic, and the link seemed to lead to various videos that had nothing to do with gun control (perhaps spam?). If anyone disagrees with this removal, feel free to reverse, but please reply with a reason :-) Mentality 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Smells spammy to me. I concur with its excision. --Dynaflow 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree, i almost removed it myself, at the least extremly POV in relation this article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute massacre???

For now, I have reverted the title change back to Virginia Tech massacre. This type of change needs to be discussed, first I think. More importantly, it needs to be attributable. I believe the most common usage in the media is Virginia Tech massacre, hence we must use that term as well. I'm open to counter-arguments, but please cite policy when you do so. Thanks. Ronnotel 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know google hits is a stupid metric, but FWIW, virginia tech massacre gets 2.5M hits, while virginia polytechnic institute massacre gets exactly 4. Ronnotel 16:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The legal name is "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". The common name is "Virginia Tech". Their logo uses "VT" - an abbreviation derived from their common name. It makes little sense to use the organization's legal name in this context. We're not writing legal documents here. We're writing an encyclopedia article, and the key to good writing is clarity. Rklawton 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No one ever refers to it as Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Even my grandparents say Virginia Polytech or VPI. You're way off. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "You're way off" when you're all agreeing -Halo 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody calls it Virginia Polytech. It never has been called that. The only people who call it VPI are old people and UVA fans. (Somehow, UVA fans get a rise out of thinking of us as a midmajor. Whatever.) Every single media guide put out by the athletics department has a section called "Just Virginia Tech, please" that explains the proper name to use. See page 4 of [11] for a copy of this statement.

In 1970, the official name of the school was changed from "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" to "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". "Virginia Tech" is a recognized "informal" name and, in the interest of not having to write out the full name everywhere, should be used in this article. Anyone changing the a reference to VPI should be politely notified of the correct name. --BigDT (416) 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is rediculous. I have changed all VPI references back to VT. Whoever made the change just did a blind search and replace. They changed it in interwiki links, the Commons link, and references (in other words, misquoting the source). There is no way that any such change was made in good faith. --BigDT (416) 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Side issue, but 'good faith' is a loaded term. Let's just say the changes were a bit on the bold side of the BRD cycle. Ronnotel 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has whoever made this unilateral change been approached? I'd much rather tell them now why what they did isn't correct than have them show up in a few days and re-make the change. Natalie 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Website set up for Pictures around VA Tech after the massacre..

Visit the website here "After the VA Tech Massacre" for photo's that are being added to show more about the campus around VA Tech and the beauty there along with the sadness. Debbie M. 24.254.6.200 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to contribute photos that you personally photographed from your collection to Wikipedia? If so, please make an account and see Wikipedia:Fromowner. In order for Wikipedia to use an image, it has to be released under a free license - either under the GFDL or into the public domain - so nothing from your site can currently be used here, but if you would like to contribute one or more photos under a free license, they would be greatly appreciated. --BigDT (416) 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Or best wishes

All the graduating students here at bayview wish to send our thought' and prayers to the students and teacher's; Jason-Reigns, Alex-Vicman, Craig-Lewis, Katie-Osban, Timothy-Lane, Hector-Veluzua, Omar-Richardson, Matt-Petterson, Sean-Fritz, Olivia-Brown, Nick-Lumiski, Louie"Too-Tall"Bries, Otto.M.Smith, Veronica-White, Eric-Neirdon, Stacy-Weinberg, Tammie-Waylon, Harrold-Birch, Ellen-Blackwood, Corey-Dechins, Oscar-Perez and student counsel president Cindi-Poloso:The graduating class of 07: agian our best wishes. -Never forget, 4/16/07, VT stand strong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bayview hs students (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate the thought, but does this really belong on the talk page? Ronnotel 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys may want to post this on Techsideline.com if you would like it to be seen by VT students and fans. --BigDT (416) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[b] thanks for the suggestion's i hope we did'nt break any rules. love the site[/b]

Max Karson

There's an article on Max Karson, a university student expelled for comments on the massacre, at the University of Colorado. IT's currently at WP:AFD (Articles of Deletion), and some people say it should be merged here. Please leave your opinion. 132.205.44.134 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims section, its existence and contents

The victims of the massacre currently have their own page, which lists them in relative detail, and a small section in this article, which gives their names in a compact form. The victims page is currently undergoing an AfD and there's been a fair bit of seesawing over how they should be covered. I and Yksin figured that talking things out would be much more productive than undoing each other's work, and that a significant change like this should be discussed in peace.

To reiterate myself from user talk, the names of the victims are quite useful to have in the main article. They provide single-click access to those victims with articles - legit ones, I know student victims' articles are getting zapped as we speak, but several faculty members have passed WP:PROF. (The fairly ugly template with these links is losing its TfD and was removed from the article.)

More importantly, it needs to be mentioned that five faculty members were killed, and the victims section accomplishes that efficiently and elegantly, giving the reader more information at a glance than what could be given in the text without greatly disrupting the text flow. Repeated mentions in the text were clumsy and I saw no real way to improve them. And when at least some of the faculty members have proven independently notable, there's no real point in saying that five were killed and not saying who they were, forcing the reader to hunt for that information. --Kizor 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I really think that we can lose the list in the main article. One sentence underneath the link to the list page, giving a basic breakdown of the numbers would be at least as easy to read as an entire list, when determining the number of professors vs. students, if that's something that is important. Further, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a person looking for information on specific victims would go to the list of victims. It just makes sense.Chunky Rice 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also must admit that the way it's currently formatted strikes me as unaesthetic, though I'm willing to give a try at figuring out a better formatting if it turns out the list has to come to the main article. I'm hoping that won't occur, as the article is lengthy as it is & the list looks very good as it is on the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page -- but we don't yet know how that AfD is going to come out (looks pretty even at the moment.) I hope that someone's got a copy of that article in their sandbox in case it does fail AfD, for the data on it. I already had to revert it once when one of those opposed to a victim list unilaterally blanked the page & turned it into a redirect back to this article. --Yksin 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC) -- P.S. I'm not so sure the template is losing its TfD... but I sure hope that if it's kept it's at least removed from the articles of those victims who have their own articles, because it looks truly tasteless & insensitive on those pages, in my opinion. --Yksin 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll just reiterate here for the sake of argument. I personally feel that having a separate list for the victims strains the bounds of notability. Being that the size of the list is going to be limited (I doubt it will top 33, and if it does it certainly won't go over 40), there's no chance of it taking over the article. But I find that dropping the list in it's own section in the middle of the article really disrupts the prose and looks rather tacky. Thus, I think we should use a sidebox, ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster articles. This will also dis-encourage people from adding crufty, memorial-type information to the list, which can be a concern, and provide a place to link to the professors' articles (4, if I'm not mistaken). As for information in the box, I think it should stick to name, age, faculty position/year in college, and maybe where they were killed. Natalie 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the tackiness of the list, I wholeheartedly support the previously discussed idea of a sidebox, which would be an unobtrusive and very functional solution. The size of the article is no argument: The section is small and compact, a sidebox would be much the same, and the victims are a very important part of the massacre. If you want to trim, try trimming the monstrous and at points ridiculous response section. (I leave the article alone for one day and it grows to ten times its size... sheesh. :P) --Kizor 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sidebox is an excellent idea, and I'm also in favor of trimming the response section. Most of that stuff is recentism and won't be notable in two months. A line or two of text explaining that other schools held vigils and what not should suffice for the purposes of an encyclopedic article. A Train^talk 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the reaction was identical, and the specifics really have no bearing on an encyclopedia. If we cut that down to a general reaction with a few speciifcs for contents sake then the article will probably be of a readable length. --Jimmi Hugh 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Titanium Dragon 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of notability

Re: "notability," what I've found through the course of the many AfDs emerging from this & related articles is that a whole lotta people don't seem to understand what notability in a WP context even is.

Per WP:NOTE, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So the issue in terms of notability is, "is the subject of the article notable or not" -- not "is every person/place/thing mentioned in the article notable or not", which is covered by the WP:TRIV policy. Now all of us seem to be able to agree that the Virginia Tech shootings is notable enough to warrant an article; most of us agree that a list of victims is non-trivial enough to include in the Virginia Tech article (though there is a vocal group who seems to believe that even this amounts to being "a memorial") -- but the major disagreement seems to be whether the victims list should be contained within the main article, or is large enough to require it to be split off into a subsidiary article, where it is at the moment (& undergoing AfD, its fate at the moment uncertain).

I would suggest that people decide that if they believe a victim list belongs with this article, whether within the main article or on a subsidiary page, that they also come to some consensus as to how much information is needed for each person, & what can be deemed "trivia" or "memorial." For the record, WP:NOT on memorials reads, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." My stand is that while each of the victims was coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family, that does not detract from their notability as a group for being included as a list in this article or as a subsidiary of this article. Although the "lets delete them all" faction will disagree, I continue to believe that WP:NOTE and WP:NOT are both being used incorrectly and spuriously as arguments against retaining a list of victims and basic identifying info about them.

Now I'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks, & while I'll have my laptop, I don't expect to be doing much more than checking in during that time. Good luck. --Yksin 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have an excellent point, Yksin, and I'll start the dicussion off: I think any victims list should be limited to the following: name, age, position at university or year in school, where killed. Nothing more. Natalie 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, would add only place of origin. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

However you look at it a list of dead people cannot stand in its own right! It is not encyclopedia content, it would be an obituary. Of course leaving it on this page is fine as it simply adds points the the main subject. Basic information related to the University will be needed to ensure some level of notability within the article. --Jimmi Hugh 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about it "standing in its own right"? Its importance here is because these of its pertinence to a major historical event. --Yksin 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you did. You mentioned editiing the list for notability whether it was in the main article or a subarticle. I agree it needs editing, but it is a single set of non-notable facts that cannot stand in an article of their own. --Jimmi Hugh 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, but I don't regard a subarticle as "an article of [its] own." Its an article that is created because the main (parent) article has grown so large that there are size considerations, per WP:SIZE. It is a standard practice in Wikipedia for large articles to be broken up into smaller subsidiary articles to they don't mess up the ability to read for individuals who are still on 56K modems, or otherwise have slow connections. And if you were to go back & read my comments in the AfD debates for the Virginia Tech victims list, & the Charles Whitman victims list, you'll see that size of main article is consistently a criteria I use in stating my own opinion on whether such a list should be a subsidiary article or merged into the main article. --Yksin 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As has been noted by more than one person, N is not additive; lumping together a large number of non-notable things is not notable itself. I am one of those who agree that the list of victims is not notable, but that is irrelevant. I don't think their names are necessary; it is obviously important to note that people were killed, and their names could be used inline if some narrative of the events comes to be, but a list is just gratuitious. A list of names is entirely meaningless and unremarkable unless the names in that list are remarkable unto themselves, and in this event, it seems there were two people max who died who were important enough to merit articles. Titanium Dragon 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance of these people's names is not even really from their notability, but because the basic facts about them add pertinent information about a significant event. As is the case for the Columbine massacre & the victims of Charles Whitman the UTexas clocktower sniper, who the "delete 'em all" faction have also been trying to get rid of these last couple of days. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been trying to get rid of them because they aren't notable. These lists are nothing but effective memorials. Their names, their ages, their majors - none of this really matters at all. If you said X students and X faculty members were killed, it'd get across all the same information in far fewer lines. The rest is simply inconsequential, the same way we don't note minutate in every article. Its also very biased, as those who died in similar events don't have lists of victims for the sole and simple reason they weren't Americans. Obviously it isn't notable, as if it was notable, we'd have it for every such event; that it is only for Americans means it isn't notable, and is simply a way of eulogizing the dead. Titanium Dragon 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make some kind of WP:POINT about coverage of mass killings that didn't occur in America. If you're unhappy that those articles (whichever they are) don't include lists of victims, {{sofixit}} rather than trying to make that point here. The names and basic details of the victims here are important factual information about the event; indeed, the fact that these people were killed is the only reason we have an article on the killings in the first place. To leave the information out would create unnecessary imprecision; if we have the ability to be precise rather than vague, why would we elect not to do so? The names of the victims aren't in and of themselves any more notable than the names of the buildings where the shootings occurred, or the names of the plays written by Cho, or the name of the student who shot the cell phone video, and yet all of these facts are small but vital supports of the body of the article, and without them it would collapse into a heap of "there was this guy and he shot some people, the end". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point about non-American mass killings; I'm trying to show that it isn't notable. I don't think victim lists SHOULD be on any of these things; they're meaningless. Their names mean nothing. It isn't about "leaving out their names"; names being mentioned inline is FINE. What I object to is articles like "lists of X killing" or the sections in these articles which consist of lists of names which mean absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to erase their names inline, but rather to get rid of the pointless list section which sits around in the middle of the article and accomplishes nothing at all useful.

Saying I'm trying to remove their names inline is WRONG. Read what this section is titled. The point was to get rid of the list, not to remove their names inline. Titanium Dragon 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the names mean nothing. The name of a person who died serves to identify the person who died. Ergo, it has meaning. This seems like it should be obvious, and I don't understand why you're disputing it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was a vote, I would've voted remove section. It's too much. --Jambalaya 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon. The names will mean nothing to the general public; basically, they take up space, but add no meaningul information. Are the names, ages and majors of the victims relevant to this article? In no substantial way, I'm certain. --Tail 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get across. Thanks Tail, you said it very succiently. Titanium Dragon 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as to the relevance, since it's precisely these sorts of details that anchor the narrative in reality, but it doesn't seem like we're going to come to any agreement on that point. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed because there is a separate article specifically for the list. The link to that article is all that is necessary. Rooot 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the content and moved the remaining section to the section "Attacks". --Abe Lincoln 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perfectly fine, as far as I'm concerned; there's no need to have the list in both places. Bear in mind, though, that someone may attempt to merge and redirect that list back here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooter's nation of birth in lead?

Why is it necessary to mention the shooter's nation of birth in the lead of this article? It doesn't seem to be important enough for this article. --ElKevbo 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. His nationality (not birth) is important for two reasons. He is not an American citizen, but the shooting is characterized as an American shooting. Secondly, there were false media reports that the gunman was a Chinese national (as detailed later in the article). Cho was also teased to "Go back to China" as a high schooler. Thus the confusion over his nationality is very real and should be clarified at the first mention of his name. The fact that he is a permanent resident of the US means very little, Seung-Hui Cho has no voting rights in the US and could have faced deportation to South Korea had he committed a less atrocious felony and not killed himself. --Naus 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, until very recently, all school shootings in the US had been perpetrated by middle class white students, and the media regarded it as a suburban phenomenon. The Red Lake High School massacre was the first US school shooting where the gunman was white and poor. Granted, we can't point all of this out in the article, as it's original synthesis, but we can point out that the gunman was a South Korean national. Natalie 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We can't state something but we can insinuate it? --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What insinuation? That this massacre was not committed by a middle class white American? It wasn't. --Naus 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing one solitary fact in the lead of this article to attempt to provide our own "balance" and "prove the media's theories wrong" is not what we do here. We don't engage in original research or opinion-making directly or subtly. --ElKevbo 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we say, "The Columbine massacre was committed by natural-born American citizens Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?" szyslak (t, c) 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the lead is supposed to breifly summerise the entire article/event. it's made to basically answer all the basic questions, and give someone the just of what happened. i think that right now it's doing that. i think we hsould just leave it alone-Threewaysround 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with Three Ways. tomasz. 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How much does a person remember up to age 8? (I personally don't remember much). By indicating this killer is a Korean immigrant without specifying "Up to age 8" or "immigrated to USA at age 8" is not alright. By not clarifying only 2 out of 17 of his schooling years occurred in Korea, a blank statement on his nationality mislead some into anti-immigrantation sentiment. --HtcWiki 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HtcWiki; by expounding upon the fact that the shooter is a Korean National, it seems that there might be a push to shift the blame away from America. However a person living in a country for 8 years, then living the next 15 years in America, it seems that the shooter was raised and heavily influenced in an American environment. I am not saying that this article should exclude the nationality identification of the shooter, but to not make a big deal such as constantly tagging "Korean National" after the word shooter. This tagging has been done in news to create more shock and awe appeal, for ratings, but let's keep wikipedia more about the information, and less about entertainment. Pgaru 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all about "remembering up to age 8," it's about fitting in as a young immigrant and being teased as a result of this ("Go back to China"). Seung-Hui Cho did not magically know how to speak English once he arrived in the US at age 8. That Seung-Hui Cho is a South Korean national is an important encyclopedic fact as discussed above. --Naus 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That all seems like speculation verging on OR. --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you should tell HtcWiki that as I was addressing his speculation. My position is what I wrote in my first response to you above. You want to tell me what is OR about that? --Naus 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of the statements, yours and HtcWiki's, appear to be OR to me. One or both could be true as I haven't closely followed the media reports about the shooter in the past few days; apologies if my knowledge is out of date. --ElKevbo 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep if for no other reason than the Korean government and public made it an issue. The President issued an apology - even if it was not necessary the Korean public he appeared genuinely ashamed of the event. Kransky 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient argument to keep it. It was reported in our media to the Korean government, not generated from -- this story has already been construed as some kind of a international situation when it is purely domestic. Seung-Hui Cho developed his mental issues and inabilities here in the United States and under the influence of American culture and the English language. Regardless of "early warning signs" or supposed autism, the true manifestation of his psychology happened on U.S. soil and society. This is all very clear and clearly now, the news has decided to stop talking about him as a South Korean national. Also we know he grew up middle-class and particularly in a wealthy area, he is not merely a young immigrant and we have no right to judge the situation or place it in a perspective that is not the facts themselves: middle-class family who happened to be Asian. Ie Harris isn't a British American and McVeigh isn't a Scottish American. Wikipedia is an international product, right now we are white-ing it out by inducing the topic of race and nationality when NO connection has been established yet. Davumaya 01:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In response I refer you back to what I originally said: Keep if for no other reason than the Korean government and public made it an issue. Your comments about Seung-Hui Cho developing a mental illness due to the influence of American culture sound a bit loopy (if not insulting). Why not say his Korean background made it unbearable for him to be in the shadow of his Princeton graduate sister? Kransky 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Korean background?" Please save me the disgust of having to call you out as a racist. If it's the judgement of the Wikipedia community to white-out this incident as a case of "that poor immigrant" then I guess I can't stop racism in its tracks. No one speaks about Dylan Klebold's Jewish ancestry being a laughable irony with his Nazism. The Asian American Journalists Association did issue a press release urging the media covering the tragedy to “avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason.” I suggest someone place that in a useful spot to soften the slander we're commiting. Davumaya 07:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...talk about somebody with issues (and you stalking around my User:Kransky page was a bit creepy). My original point was complementary of the Korean government and people for going any responsibility they needed to take for Cho. Then you said that Cho's actions were due to American culture; I was just raising the stakes in this pretty tawdy argument. It is you who is making Wikipedia a soapbox. Kransky 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unhappy about how Korea's action was portrayed as "shock and sense of public shame". The shock is reasonable but stating that the nation of Korea has public shame does not seem right. Many other individuals commit crimes, yet there is no national shame for that matter. Therefore by saying Korea has national shame for this one person who lived most of his life in America, the statement is implying that Korea is trying to appease the world and almost saying that it is Korea's fault. I do not think public shame should be added, unless the nation of Korea was to blame. Pgaru 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going on media reports from international and Korean sources (BBC, Korea Times). I also don't think the Korean people needed to feel ashamed for the actions of one person, but that is the way many felt.Kransky 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NYT article on this page

The New York Times has done an article on this page. Good work everyone, all 2,074 of us! -Ravedave 06:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been mentioned a few times in coverage of the role of new media, but an article dedicated to this page is another thing entirely. Good work, folks. I'd be obliged if someone with a paper copy could scan this and link to it here - it'd go a long way towards explaining what I've been doing to my course instructor. --Kizor 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice quote Miikka. I really like it. --155.52.25.46 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:) --Kizor 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it would be nice if Noam Cohen, the author of the NY Times article, would indicate whether he has been an editor of this article. Not that I think anything sinister is going on - but I, for one, would like to know whether any of my fellow editors are about to write an article like this. I also wonder how many professional MSMers might be contributing to these pages in their spare time. Anyone else feel the same? Ronnotel 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The account used to contact me made its first and only edit in doing so, though it was registered in January. No reason to think that he did, especially not when the point of his article is trying to make sense of Wikipedia's process from an outsider's perspective. --Kizor 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see that, thanks. Ronnotel 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not have email set up, Kizor? I got an email from him instead of on-wiki contact. Natalie 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do. I got both, the contact slightly before the e-mail. This might be because I'm special. Incidentally, excellent work there. --Kizor 09:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, specialness. I have to remember to pick some of that up next time I'm at Target. :) Natalie 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho was enrolled in a VA Class on Horror Films and Serial Killers

Arguably one of the most mitigating factors along with his mental illness. Why does the article make no mention of this? DutchSeduction 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How is being enrolled in a class a "mitigating factor"? What about everyone else who was enrolled in that class? Wahkeenah 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All of Cho's school records could lead to mitigating factors. If there is a valid source for this information then I think that it is a reasonable point to make, that at least Cho might have learned the first names of the Columbine shooters and felt that he understood them as well as the unibomber by being influenced in this class. It would make a great argument to not allow students who show a history of violent or threatening actions to be a part of abnormal psychology courses. I think the fact is a good one to point out if only for that potential speculation. Youngidealist 09:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not speculate. Wikipedia records fact, nothing more. At least, that's the idea. Some articles speculate, but that does not mean they are correct in doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.3.68 (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

We can report on the speculations of others, of course, if this is mentioned in an editorial by a prominent pundit or something of that nature. Even in that case, though, I think the information would be a better fit in Cho's article than in this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor'easter is not a formal term

Nor'easter is simply how a certain region pronounces the actual word northeaster. It's a slang term. Wikipedia should not adopt a colloquial New England dialect in a formally written encyclopedic article.

'Northeaster' is more accurate and more understandable to any reader outside the eastern United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.8.199 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

It's actually British English and OED-certified. See Nor'easter: The term "nor'easter" comes to American English by way of British English and the points of the compass and wind or sailing direction. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the first recorded use in the English language of the term "nore" ("north") in association with the points of the compass and wind direction is by Dekker in 1612 ("How blowes the winde Syr?" "Wynde! is Nore-Nore-West."), with similar uses occurring in 1688 (". . . Nore and Nore-West . . .") and in 1718 (". . . Nore-west or Nore-nore-west."). ...

As noted in a January 2006 editorial by William Sisson, editor of Soundings magazine, use of "nor'easter" to describe the storm system is common along the U.S. East Coast. Yet it has been asserted by some that "nor'easter" as a contraction for "northeaster" has no basis in regional New England dialect and is a "fake" word, which is a parochial view that neglects the little-known etymology and the historical maritime usage described above. --Dynaflow 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized how badly-written that explanation is. I'll do some copy-editing on the article later. To summarize the article's convoluted explanation, the term "nor'easter" is not, in fact, a contraction for "north-easter." The incorrect term "north-easter" is just a back-justification without etymological justification for why the much older and better-established word "nor'easter" looks and sounds weird. "Nor'easter" is the proper term for the type of storm in question, in any variety of English. --Dynaflow 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input from the OED. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. gives both "nor'easter" and "northeaster" without comment (no mention of regional restrictions or "informality", and it's _certainly_ not "slang"). It _does_ give the definition at "northeaster", and "nor'easter" says simply "a northeaster". If both forms are acceptable in American English and only one ("nor'easter") is acceptable in British English, it's hard to make the case that we should use the less-common form on the weight of one reader's opinion that it sounds colloquial.216.52.69.217 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

motive: current phrasing in infobox

Currently the top infobox says:

Motive: Hatred against specific classes, revenge for prior bullying

I see these as gross assumptions. I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia and am finding it difficult to search the discussion archives for this topic. Was this motive arrived at through discussion? I note that the article on the Columbine shootings still says, "Motive: Unclear". Other views?Sfmammamia 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Sf - we should not be listing a motive until it is sourced. I have changed it back and would suggest that any unsourced changes to the motive be reverted. Natalie 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than debate his motives (to what end, I wonder?), I have simply removed the tag from the infobox. I assert that nothing of value will be lost. Ronnotel 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kangalert.com

An editor (perhaps more than one) keeps inserting a reference to Kangalert.com in the middle of the "Law enforcement response" subsection. The editor who has most recently inserted this link wrote on my Talk page that "i just came accross the link a few days ago in the news and thought it was pertinent there. I know it could appear as linkspam, but i figure people's lives could be at stake in the future if we DON'T include it."

I object to using this article as a means of advertising this or any other product. I have removed the reference several times and I ask editors to (a) cease from inserting this material and (b) remove it if it inserted again. Unless there is a clear connection between this company and this incident, it should not be in this article and certainly not slapped in the middle of that section. If there is such a connection that I have missed, I apologize. But right now it looks like old fashioned spam and unwelcome advertisement that has no place in this or any other encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. While the service may be legitimate, it'd be like posting a link to Geico on the Princess Diana web page. It's completely in poor taste. If your service is legitimate and useful there are more appropriate ways of getting the word out about it. Most obviously would be simply calling campuses and talking with administrators about their concerns. SteveRyherd 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent Spicynugget the gentlest possible warning about spamming. If the link continues to show up, escalate accordingly. --Dynaflow 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It showed up again today. We have our own bot-assisted spam list somewhere that we may need to put it on. --BigDT 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit not Censor

I respecfully disagree with ElKevbo, for I am in law enforcement and part of the problem that the Virginia Tech Administration and campus safety faced was there inability to communicate with the students in real - time. The kanga link does look like spam at first - but there are a few reasons it is not: I think there was something like a two hour delay before the students got an EMAIL. As editors of wikipedia it is our job to ensure that pertinent information is delivered to our readers, ESPECIALLY if it could save lives. We are not even sure that this incident is completely over, threats continue to surface nationwide [12].

Editors should insert the kanglink because:

 - students have a right to know about this type of company
 - law enforcement personell have the right to know about about this type of company
 - its not linkspam if we include other companies like kangalert who can notify students in the event of a crisis.
 - there is a clear connection between this company and the incident

its a bit like trying to talk about the world trade center incident without mentioning Guilianni. If we try to censor out Guilianni from 9-11 we have done our readers an injustice, just as if we try to censor kangalert. I am not saying that kangalert is the 07 equivilant of a Guilianni, I am saying it just looks suspicious when ElKevbo perhaps wants to supress information that could help.--65.214.112.56 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Your comparison is completely arguable. Guiliani has a place in an article about 9-11 because he played a central role in the aftermath as the mayor of New York. A "right to know," as you put it, does not extend to including, discussing, or referencing companies who provide related services. That's advertising, and wikipedia does not do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfmammamia (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I would agree, widespread WP policy is to remove references to commercial products, especially when they could be seen as an endorsement. I see nothing suspicious in ElKevbo's behavior, most Wikipedians are pretty aggressive about stomping on spam when they see it. Ronnotel 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By the anons logic we should have links to smoke detector companies in fire, for life jacket companies in boat, and for helmet companies in motorcycle. Natalie 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Kangalert. The main difference between Kangalert and ads for fire and smoke detectors is that people know about fire and smoke detectors and use them with religious fervor. University Administrations and Student advocate groups have no clue that Kangalert exists and can notify students on their cell phones instantly in the event of a crisis. If we fail to mention Kangalert, we have become so extreme in our anti-commerce view that we are threatening the lives of young people trying to learn. The more appropriate question probably, then is not whether or not to include Kangalert, but whether or not we as responsible editors should include, discuss, or reference companies that really could save lives. People already know about smoke detectors. People don't know about kangalert, and that is one of the reasons this crisis was so horrid. If we choose to taboo a company - just because its a company - it seems like a grave judgement error, and the blood of future students could be on our hands. Widespread WP policy is to remove references to commercial products, especially when they could be seen as an endorsement - that should be the case - in every case except for this case.67.184.156.250 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can do without the spam. Mentioning the company by name in no way, shape, or form, is necessary to get the idea across. --BigDT 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is relevant information in the cited article, such as the fact that VT police had been investigating a text messaging system at the time of the incident. However, there's no mention of Kangalert by name, nor should there be in the article. Ronnotel 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request to have Shadowbot blacklist this domain. That should take care of it. --BigDT 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. We should still look out for mentions of the company sans links, as the IPs agitating for its inclusion have yet to demonstrate any direct connection to this event. Natalie 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

victims myspace pages

recently, MyDeathSpace.com posted a list of the victims, including Ryan Clarke. the link is here. do you think we should post these? Nocarsgo 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The victims' personal web pages are not relevant to this article. Phony Saint 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace links are generally frowned upon, particularly in an article which is about an event that involved many people. The only situation I can think of where MySpace links might be okay is individual bios/band articles, but I'm really not sure if those are even considered acceptable. Natalie 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A diary on MySpace is acceptable under the same circumstances as other blogs: If we're attributing a direct quote or opinion voiced by the writer of the blog, it's OK for that purpose, but if it's used as factual verification, that's not kosher. Since all of these people are dead, it's a moot point in this case (but for example, if Cho had posted an online diary before the shootings, we could pull quotes from that and say, "Cho said, "X.") -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference issue with Korean reaction

The reference for the following paragraph doesn't support the statement (about the Korean car accident involving the US military vehicle):

There was later criticism of the Korean government's overly defensive posture, and some commentators contrasted the lack of a backlash in the U.S. to the Korean public's passionate response when a U.S. military vehicle in Korea accidentally killed two girls.

--Anchoress 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Scroll down to the paragraph that starts "Consider: in 2002, when a US military vehicle ran over two girls in a street, Koreans came out en masse to hold candles in protest outside the American embassy." Kransky 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it does now. ;-) But that wasn't the article that the link opened to when I posted the question. Anyways, fixed now. Thanks for notifying us. Anchoress 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Glorifying the murderer

The photo with 2 guns looks like a movie. Do we want more "stars" like this? I don't think we should participate in mass murderer's self-promotion. Even sensationalist media outlets that showed his video had second thoughts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction was it looked like a video game character. Considering the discussion surrounding our supposed culture of violence, I think it's extremely appropriate. 66.57.224.66 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC) del

Anybody who sees that photo as a glorification while knowing who is portrayed in it is messed up in the head.--Svetovid 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not universal thing seen as glorifying, nor do we know what he would have considered glorifying, so I really don't think we can remove anything that may possibly be seen to be positive in any way. I, for one, think the photos he sent to NBC are really embarrassing, but that's just me. Natalie 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Legal purchase'

Does anyone know if indeed the guns were purchased legally? I ask because I heard somewhere Cho lied on his background check about whether he had mental health issues. If he lied, the purchase was not legal. Might be a technicality, but even minor details are important in cases like these. 66.57.224.66 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) del

This New York Times article says that he should have been inelligible, but it sounds like it was a mistake on the part of the state of Virginia. Apparently there is a mismatch between Virginia law and federal law on what constitutes "adjudicated as a mental defective" and his court-ordered outpatient treatment wasn't registered in whatever database they check for gun purchases. They don't mention whether or not Cho lied on the application, but I'm guessing that he didn't given their focus on the missing information in the database. Natalie 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the questions on the form 4473 asks if the purchaser has ever been "committed to a mental institution". Answering in the affirmative means the dealer will decline the sale, so Cho therefore must have replied "no". I'm not sure what the process is for purchasing a firearm in a case where you'd have to answer "yes" to a question (like "have you been convicted of a felony") but the restriction no longer applies (like you have been pardoned). scot 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but being ordered to undergo outpatient counseling and being committed to a mental institution are different things. Apparently, though, the federal law specifies having been "adjudicated a mental defective" and would have considered the judge-ordered outpatient counseling as such. The Virginia law, OTOH, didn't register that required counseling as an adjudification (word?) of mental defectivity, so he didn't show up when they checked their databases. The question on the form doesn't seem to cover all of the law, which is odd. Natalie 15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Conservative Voice

under other media responses, it notes that the CV claims other school shootings ended abrubtly when armed citizens took action, however going thru the records of all shootings to occur on college campuses, there has only been 1 such case. I think if Wiki is gonna echo this agendaed claim, we must also provide an accurtae portrayl in order to retain credibilty.

The article specifically attributes that quote to CV (though it should attribute it to Platt), and it specifically states that "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." There were two such incidents: the Appalachian School of Law shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. (2 out of 22 is a bit small to be making conclusions, however.) Phony Saint 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is out of those 22 shootings, how many times did a student or faculty member have a gun and face the shooter? It's talking about shootings that were abruptly ended, not shootings in general.

Two of them did, as I said. (Did you look at them?) I took my count from school shootings. Abruptly ending is a vague term, though. Phony Saint 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same vien, the majority of these shootings end 'abrubtly' when the attacker turns the gun on himself. I think there's like another 2 or 3 in which police subdue the assailent. Likewise, I only examined college campus shootings.

I had this same point. I think by any reasonable definition of abrupt, we can say the CV's generalisation is incorrect. If they are using an unreasonable definition of abrupt... I think this quote should be removed and replaced with one that is not making unverifiable claims. Good to see you bring it up here, rather than stealth delete as is being done to the international media section in a piecemeal fashion. Sad mouse 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I absolutley agree. I'm not sure what the proper procedure here is, but I would like the attention of an admin on this manner. We've pointed out the falliblity of the claim, let alone the insensitive nature of it.

I'm not an admin but I do believe it's time to pull the CV quote. 1) it's simply not true and even though it's presnted as a claim, at least some context must be provided 2) it's incredibley insenstive 3) the consevative voice is not a realiable or notable news source IBelieveThat 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why an admin? They don't quite have the final say. The CV is about as POV as the Brady Campaign above it, and the governor makes a statement (just below those two paragraphs) about how they're both insensitive for using the incident for their own purposes. I think it can stand for now. Phony Saint 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate media reports article

I don't think that it is necessary to shorten this article at all, but that being said, I see too many people stripping valuable information from the massare article because they want to tell others where it belongs. I removed the excess on the masacre to nothing but a link to the inaccurate media reports article because while I'm against it, I am even more against the idea of having only a few posted here. We should post something about all or none of the contentions in inaccurate media reports on this page. Please respond and discuss here before changing it again.Youngidealist 04:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as the summary paragraph is there due to WP:SS. I don't think the solution to missing information is to delete the incomplete info. (Perhaps you could elaborate on what should be added?) Phony Saint 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Forking:

See also Wikipedia:Content forking In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc. See: Wikipedia:Content forking, Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles.

Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page.

It seems to me that you are blocking the POV of other innacurate media reports being mentioned. Either a list of all of them should go up in this article, or none should. Putting only some here distracts people from actually cleaning up the inaccurate media reports article. I am going to leave this for you to comment on or change before I change it myself, as I had expected you to do before. Besides, it's not just important that it is allowed by the rules, you should be trying to show unbiasedness and fairness on wikipedia.Youngidealist 04:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just incase this is where we are getting hung up, look at the main "inaccurate media reports on the virginia tech massacre" page. I think your point is already there. If it's not then i apollogize for not having moved it there when I deleted itYoungidealist 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the summary is missing something, you can rewrite it rather than deleting it outright. The style guideline states that there should be a summary paragraph; what you changed it to doesn't follow that guideline. Phony Saint 05:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I went and tried to review the main inaccurate media page to tidy it up a bit and it seems that there are only two major points on it, so I made their categories and I'll now go and add the one that is missing. Also, if someone else comes by and deletes either point in summary to "shorten the article" please be supportive in making sure that the removal is reverted. I origionally took out everything because I didn't want to have to keep fighting people who cut out the points completely for this reason.Youngidealist 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The inaccurate media reports on this article are supposed to be a summary of what is on the main article. I placed the points that I removed in the talk section of the main article so that they would not be lost or forgotten. Please discuss and add to the main article before adding to this article's section. -Youngidealist 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There were numerous inaccurate statements in the media, I would suggest that only the most notable make it to the article, with petty mistakes going into a sub article (if anyone is bothered to accumulate petty mistakes). Besides the one listed, two highly notable (made by major news sources, repeated by secondary sources and used as reasoning in suggesting motive) were absent, I added them as follows. Sad mouse 01:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• New York Times incorrectly stated that the package to CBS news was addressed from "Ismail" , when it was actually addressed from "A. Ishmael". The NYT mistake was copied by several secondary media sources.

• Upon airing and releasing the video tapes, NBC claimed that Cho was "railing against Christianity" and numerous media reports claimed that Cho “spewed anti-Christian rhetoric” , however after the release of the videos numerous media downgraded this to “mentioned Christianity” as the released statements did not contain anti-Christian messages but did include self-comparisons to Jesus and Moses.

Well, the subarticle was deleted as noted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sneed. Its AfD raised some concerns such as verifiability: that is, nobody has written an article on the inaccuracies themselves. Phony Saint 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the summary of the deletion, it says "The matter would appear from the discussion to deserve a brief mention at Virginia Tech massacre". I agree with the conclusions of the deletion summary, including that Michael Sneed should not be editing the section and I doubt that minor error or conspiracy theories should be granted their own page. The brief mention should, I believe, include only the three major media errors, each of which is 1) significant in scope; 2) present in major media outlets; 3) repeated in minor media outlets; 4) was used extensively in speculation of motive; 5) in the case of two points is still used in speculation of motive in media sources that have not issued a correction (eg see Conservopedia article on the anti-Christian Ismail killings). Given this combination of importance and notability, and the final decision that media reports when not minor or of a transient nature "deserve a brief mention", I am unsure of why my following addition was deleted (not by you, I know). For verifiability I have included the NYT false report, the accurate report and an example of the false report being propagated after the accurate report came out. Also, of note, I actually found out about this incident from a news report that highlighted the NYT error (although I can't remember the original newsreport). Finally, this is a case of us putting the primary source ahead of secondary sources in noting that ongoing reports are inaccurate, and is therefore good referencing rather than original research. Sad mouse 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The New York Times incorrectly stated that the package to CBS news was addressed from "Ismail" , when it was actually addressed from "A. Ishmael". The NYT mistake was copied by several secondary media sources.

I removed "Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed was cited as the source of initial reports by news outlets such as WBBM, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and the Herald Sun that the gunman was a "24-year-old Chinese man" who had come to the US on August 7 2006, arriving in San Francisco on a United Airlines flight, on a student visa issued in Shanghai. Sneed herself did not identify her source for that information. NBC News additionally reported that the gunman was not a student at Virginia Tech." from the first dot-point, since the original source of the error and the details are less important. For a brief summary it is probably sufficient to just say the wrong person was first identified. Sad mouse 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to say that the first point was the only really important inaccuracy, causing China to respond. [13] I could've sworn it had sources before. The others are kind of minor points and don't have articles written on them; the Ismail/Ishmael part is covered in Cho's article already, albeit awkwardly. Phony Saint 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The other two are still being used (currently) in the media to label Cho as anti-Christian. That indicates the gravity of the error. Also, the mistakes have been mentioned in the press, but really that is of secondary importance to notability and verifiability, and since the references verify the mistake and the current usage as a key "motive" indicates notability, I think all three count. Also, since they are stripped down to the minimum, this section is only about as long as before. Sad mouse 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks to both of you, Sad mouse and Phoeny Saint. I was almost unhinged when I saw that he main article was deleted, but I am releived to find that both of you have fixed up the section on it, and even made it better than the earlier summaries.Youngidealist 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see the significance of the Ismail/Ishmael reporting error. Has the spelling discrepancy somehow biased the coverage? If so, we need a sentence that explains that impact and a reference that indicates what effect the error has had. Otherwise, I think that bullet should be deleted (again, as I was the one who deleted it earlier). Sfmammamia 05:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was just a reporting error in the NYT, however in secondary media sources (for example the one cited in this section) eg Apparently, on the morning of April 17, an express mail package was sent to NBC containing a rambling note and videos about Cho Seung-Hui. According to posting on the Michael Savage website showing a sender address as A. Ismail. It is well known that when people convert to Islam they often take on new Islamic/Arabic names. In his "multimedia manifesto" he spewed anti-Christian rhetoric. A. Ismail on the letter may have reference is to Ismaili - a member of a branch of Shiism that follows a living imam and is noted for esoteric philosophy. It may take a while before the motives are known and if there is any relation between Cho and the Islmaili sect of Shiism. Others have proposed that it is the reference to Ismail the son of Muhammad. Ismail is a common name including that of the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and prominent Azerbaijani poet and statesman Shah Ismail Khatayi. So you can see that in this example (and it is just one of many), that spelling mistake was used as "evidence" that Cho was Muslim. You could try writing up how the mistake was used in media reports, I was trying to keep it as brief as possible, but if you added this reasoning that would make the noteworthyness more obvious. Sad mouse 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added two sentences and an Associated Press ref. Sfmammamia 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Inaccurate section again, it's completely original research. Barring any reliable articles specifically written about the errors, I don't think we can include any of it. (I don't really consider the People's Daily to be reliable either, although we could include it if we must.) Phony Saint 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That goes against the conclusion of the deletion page, which said that a summary of major should be included in the article. Also, as I outlined above, placing primary resources ahead of secondary resources is correct referencing rather than original research. Plus the errors have been mentioned in the media, but that is less important than correct referencing. Sad mouse 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The American public's stance

An Opinion Dynamics poll recently found that 76 percent of Americans believe stricter gun laws would not help to prevent shootings like this in the future. Since this constitutes a very strong majority, in light of the gun control debate presented in this article it might be worthy to mention this somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.15.226.72 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it merits inclusion. This just tells us what one set of Americans had to say in a particular poll on a particular day. But whether or not Americans believe stricter laws would prevent such shootings has no bearing on whether laws would actually have an impact on shooting sprees. It's just an opinion, taken from what may be a very fickle group. Including such a factoid without an attempt at synthesis wouldn't help the article, and would constitute the inclusion of "indiscriminate information," but any attempt at synthesis, or to interpret such a poll, without a verifiable and reliable source for such synthesis, would constitute Original Research. It's better left out entirely. zadignose 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to mark reservations about the source - Opinion Dynamics have been known to report statistics that seem to be biased towards the right in my experience. -Halo 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is relevant and warrants inclusion along with the rest of the info in that section. We are already quoting papers that have a definite editorial bias, so even if this source tends to lean a certain direction that should not preclude its use, with proper attribution, of course. Johntex\^talk 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say a cautious yes, but only if the group who did the poll is a respected neutral pollster. The public opinion is valid (and I am saying this as someone who disagrees with them). Sad mouse 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth including. First off, I don't see this garnering significant public attention. Second, the particular question ("Do you think tougher gun laws can help stop things like the Virginia Tech school shooting, or do you think the people who commit these kinds of acts will always find guns?") is a false dichotomy and thus a very poor question for a survey. Finally, I don't feel this is important enough to justify lengthening the gun control section(s) in this article; they're already way too long and off-topic, IMHO. --ElKevbo 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, biased question. Turn my cautious yes into a strong no. Sad mouse 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be a better poll because they ask the same question in a number of different ways (plus CBS/NYT is more reliable).... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/poll-on-gun-control/

summary, most (two thirds) Americans want more gun control, but only a minority (one third) want a complete ban. And roughly the split was - extra gun laws would help (about a third), concealed weapons would have helped (about a third), neither extra gun laws nor extra concealed weapons would have helped (about a third). But the poll also shows this is pretty much the same as before, so we should not go into details in this article beyond saying (at the most) "the American public's opinion on gun laws remains as divided as prior to the event" or something. Certainly the poll above should not be used, because it only asks a pro-gun question, rather than the NYT which asks both a pro-gun and anti-gun question (and finds that a strong majority of Americans come against both) Sad mouse 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it. Let people make up their own minds about whether access to guns is good or bad. If every gun disappeared tomorrow, would there be no murder? If every person had a gun tomorrow, would there be no murder? Etc. Ikilled007 11:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wikipedia proved reliable in tragedy

Congratulations to those who have contributed to this article as your efforts have given significant credibility to Wikipedia:[14]

• Wikipedia serves as Internet news source on the Virginia Tech shootings
• Link by Link The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia
• The Latest on Virginia Tech, From Wikipedia
• Wikipedia proved reliable in tragedy
• Wikipedia makes news

-- Jreferee 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In true Wikipedia fashion, I must caution that it's all the same story, picked up by multiple sources. And multiple citations don't necessarily add credibility. But that's a whole other discussion I suppose. --Crunch 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reprints of the same story reach different audiences and increase the fame/importance of the covered topic. The cited stories are recognition of efforts by the Wikipedia editors of this article that resulted in increasing the believability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia and that recognition has been spread to various geographic areas by multiple reprints of the same story. -- Jreferee 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say... I haven't done any editing on this apart from the odd vandal revert, but I've been watching it closely. I think people don't give Wikipedia the credence it deserves in cases like this... the article is extremely well referenced and a real credit to all those who worked on it. I'm glad Wikipedia is finally getting some (deserved) positive attention in this case. Wikipedia isn't all about vandals and nonsense being added to articles and this article proves it. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to include this information in the article? Christopher Connor 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if coverage of our coverage is newsworthy in itself, yet, but there is a talkpage template to acknowledge use of a Wikipedia article in the news media. I suppose this would qualify. Anchoress 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Do we not have faith in our product? --Crunch 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, but we don't ever reference ourselves in articles if at all possible. It's policy. A Train^talk 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean "It's guideline"? ;o But it's still bad to add any of this to the main article unless it comes under significant press coverage. Phony Saint 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to avoid self references. Best to leave it out, I think. Ronnotel 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good policy. I agree. --Crunch 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohio State University reaction

An editor has repeatedly inserted text into the "Responses from other educational institutions" subsection about the reaction at Ohio State University. Other editors have repeatedly removed that text. The most recent version of the text in question reads:

The Ohio State University President Karen A. Holbrook released a statement that is linked from the university's homepage since the day of the shootings and that was sent out in a campuswide email to students and faculty on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 shortly before campus cable networks began practicing new emergency broadcast tests. She asserts that "Ohio State stands ready to provide any assistance to Virginia Tech that they may identify in the days to come." Furthermore, OSU police released information on their preparedness for dealing with similar situations that featured local news coverage and front page newspaper coverage.

I am one of the editors who has removed the text (twice, I think) and I have asked the editor who has inserted the text to please discuss this here on the Talk page. I assert that OSU's reaction is not sufficiently different from the reactions at hundreds of other institutions to warrant inclusion in this article. It is not enough that the president of OSU has offered to provide assistance as many other institutions have done likewise. Further, as OSU has not actually provided material support, it does not warrant inclusion along with other institutions who have.

I recognize that the inclusion of the Penn State tribute may be seen as contradictory to my position and I acknowledge the perceived disconnect. That material has already been considerably shortened from its original form but I would not object if someone were to remove it completely. That there is a very nice GFDL-licensed photograph of hundreds, perhaps thousands of PSU students actively participating in the described events makes it an attractive addition to this article. --ElKevbo 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this material more than once as well, although I did once attempt to paraphrase in line with the other material out in the interest of compromise. However, nothing I see in the cite seems noteworthy. I would also ask that anyone who wants to reinsert it please state your reasons for doing so here first so we can understand what it is that you think is noteworthy. Ronnotel 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but I would like to mention that the Ohio State response was featured on the front page of USA today. They showed a largge image with the OSU logo and the VT logo and the text read "Today we are all Hoakies". Thus, I would say that the Ohio State reaction seems to have recieved some prominent media attention. I have not seen a similarly prominent example with respects to any other school. Johntex\^talk 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other universities listed are worded as if they offer support, which OSU HAS DONE! Thus, I kept the following:

The Ohio State University has offered "to provide any assistance to Virginia Tech that they may identify in the days to come."

The above is uniform with the other universities there, but as the person above me stated, OSU also appeared on the front page of USA Today and had various other events, discussions, activities, etc. that make the university's response more than minor and at least notable like those others mentioned. --Horace Horatius 03:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While OSU being listed on the front page of USA Today is notable, OSU is also one of the largest universities in the United States and has been in the news alot lately due to the success of their athletic programs. Unlike the other universities listed, OSU has not offered any actual support. Every other university has provided some sort of physical support. OSU simply has not and should not be included. The only thing OSU offered was a very strongly worded statement of support. 140.254.47.113 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how one can compare a statement offering assistance with the actual assistance given by the institutions listed (Penn State excluded). It seems like an inappropriate excuse to promote OSU. --ElKevbo 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And on that note I removed OSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and UVA's offers of support. I thought there was something in there about Wake, Clemson, and UVA actually providing support (i.e. sending counselors instead of just offering them) but I was mistaken. As we find citable evidence of institutions actually providing support, more info should be added. It seems like there are many institutions setting up special funds and collecting money to be donated to VT (similar to the already-documented pledge at ECU) and those should be documented in some manner, even if it's just to mention a few prominent examples. --ElKevbo 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The reaction of one of the largest univerisities in the country is relevant and notable. --164.107.223.217 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But there are 20 schools on the order of an Ohio State (Michigan, Texas, UF, etc). The PSU tribute is something phenominal ... and the ECU donation is significant given the size and that we are traditional rivals. If OSU's tribute is significant in and of itself ... ok ... but the size of the school doesn't alone make it significant. --BigDT 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but today, the local newspaper had a FRONT PAGE article about how one of the professor victims is an OSU graduate. --164.107.223.217 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)