Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Korean reaction

Shouldn't it be "South Korean reaction"? --Abe Lincoln 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since the section only addresses reaction of South Korea. I`m not aware of any reaction from North Korea, and being more specific is good.--24.20.69.240 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed it. --Abe Lincoln 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree, but not very strongly. The thing is, South Korean is a modern political national identity, but Korean is an ethnic and historical identity, and Koreans are distressed about how ethnic Koreans might be perceived in America and around the world. This is a Korean reaction, not a "South Korean" reaction, even if the loudest voice on the issue comes from South Korea. Korean Americans who are not citizens of South Korea have similar feelings to those voiced by Roh and the prominent South Koreans quoted in the press. Still, I see the point of the current naming, as the section currently focuses on reactions from South Koreans. zadignose 13:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's very true, although only the government of South Korea has made any sort of formal statement, AFAIK. Natalie 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and it would be POV to use the reaction of some ethnic Koreans to represent the hypothetical reaction of all ethnic Koreans. -- Jreferee 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this news has even reached the public of North Korea? 66.45.152.134 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been no reference to the shootings on the North Korean government news service at www.kcna.co.jp Kransky 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added the South only where the state or the society is referenced, not where the ethnicity is referenced. These are different states and different societies, and the North Koreans don't care at all (they surely have other problems, and they do not allow emigration). --Abe Lincoln 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Natalie 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq's reaction

I have stumbled upon a Yahoo! News Article last night, and it says that Iraqi students in Baghdad yesterday were deeply saddened by the tragic events at Virginia Tech. And to think that Saddam Hussein's regime and the post-Saddam era were bad enough. You should put that in one of the subsections in Responses, because here's the link if you want to find out more about it, alright? --Angeldeb82 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• There used to be a list of countries offering condolence with links to them[1] until it was removed by someone removed it. I can't be bothered arguing about it, so I'm not gonna re-add it -Halo 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait if someone's giving information about people offering their condolences and sympathies to victims and thier familes of this Massacare i don't THINK you should hesitate to put it up--Missionimpossible 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about Norris 206 (Loganathan's class)

Did Cho return to Norris 206 to finish the students in that class?

I know Cho succeeded in returning to Norris 211 and failed to return to Norris 207 (as the door was blocked).

Also, now that I found out that Jamie Bishop illustrated books for his father, if he is considered notable enough for an article, you will have to change the redirect that I will plant that will point to the victims article. WhisperToMe 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Influenced incidents this past week?

Over the course of the VTECH disaster week, other people have sent bomb threats, or threats of violence, to schools nationwide. Last Friday a man in Denver, Colorado was arrested for attempting to detonate bomb. Today, Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon, WA was closed due to a threat and the campus was locked down by police after everyone evacuated. Shouldn't there be a section listing incidents following the VTECH massacre? These events would not have happened if this massacre didn't occur.209.91.61.251 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reports of the events may not have occured without the VTM spotlight however is there evidence that the number of incidents is atypical? 68.175.118.95 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Were there any events in which the criminal stated that he was motivated by VTM, or where victims and people involved reacted a certain way because of the massacre? Those may be worth mentioning. Wrad 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They didn't mention it explicitly, but as you know humans in general will do anything for attention. That includes copying other people. It seems that people saw an opportunity after the VTM and wanted to express themselves through violence and threats.209.91.61.251 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

wiretap...

my fruend showed me what he said was a wiretap of a girl in the bathroom on the campus during the shotting calling her mother. you can hear her being shot and dying in the recording. i thought it was fake but i was wondering if any of you have heard it or at least heard of it because i want to look into it more--Jesus was a pacifist 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Joseph La Porte

His resistance story is the only one in the collection that doesn't have a news media citation. I looked for one. I googled his name and found him among the victims but did not see a story about resistance. When his searched his name along with "tackle" link I still could find any corroboration. Should we remove his story?

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Control and International Response

I've deleted repetitive arguments but kept the references, except for the Swedish newspaper. All of the others are editorials from newspapers of records, they might reflect the majority opinion of people who might not read them. They are also all from the developed world as well - I did want to mention that. If there's a less loaded word than developed then that's fine too I guess.

I've left Howard's comments because it was notable in the U.S. and elsewhere.

I've also rearranged so that the U.S. media response is clear, and bookends the article. Having all of the pro-gun control arguments from outside of the U.S. is POV to me.

Regards, --M a s 10:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Va Tech shootings and International Response (moved from my talk page)

Hey I wanna strive for a better article too. It seems to me like there wasn't a concensus. Wadda ya think? To me the refs are Ok and they're coming from newspapers of records but they all say the same thing; additionally having the international response as a bookend is ugly and seems POV pushing.

Thanks! --M a s 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The shortening of the article in the way you did it was deleting all relevant details to the international response. The whole discussion on the talk page would be mute, if it was just about the 3 lines you left in the article. There was no consensus, however the absolute majority voted for "keep" and most of the "keep"-votes did not indicate that the section should be shortened to a bare minimum that does not give any substantive information (other than you suggest I count 5 "keep" votes, 2 "keep but shorten" (of them one is by an IP) and 1 "keep but delete" vote - seems "keep" was in the majority after all).

By the way, I reverted the article again to its previous form, as there has not been a consensus yet and it is wikipedia policy not to make changes to parts of an article that has been there for a while depending the resolution of a dispute. Themanwithoutapast 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I disagree that I deleted a significant amount and that I muted the discussion, which was turning to a "you're wrong, no you're wrong" debate. But regardless I see a strong keep, a keep, a keep BUT reference, a Delete, a keep, 2 keep but radically shorten (the IP was from me, sorry I didn't log in), another keep but delete, and one more keep. So that's:

Keep or Strong Keep or Keep and Reference: 5

Delete or keep but delete or keep but radically shorten: 4

Regardless of the accounting there's no strong majority. For now we keep it in as per policy.

Regardless of the actual content, three things haven't been addressed:

1. Leaving the international comments at the end. I've mentioned that this is a nice way to POV push. I recommend changing. I had before, but another user (one of the ones who wanted it gone) reverted.

2. Commenting that the response is from the editorial board of some global newspaper of records. Newspapers of records are fine, but the comment should be made that they are editorials and not global surveys.

3. The international response is fully from the 'developed' world. If we have this in, shouldn't we include the response from other countries developing or not?

Thanks,

--M a s 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on 1, we should move it up in this section.

I agree on 2 as well.

I suggest to give examples that reflect the majority of the views of the international media. They can be from Europe and from other parts of the world.

I will try to take a crack at it a bit later and may also shorten it to some extent in order to address your main concern (that is too much duplication). Themanwithoutapast 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

posthumous awarding of degrees

“ After the incident, Virginia Tech announced that the students killed during the massacre would be posthumously awarded their degrees during commencement ceremonies. ”

I was under the impression that anyone who died while pursuing their degree would be awarded that degree posthumously. Is that impression incorrect? TerraFrost 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking if it's a general practice to award degrees to deceased students? if that is your question, then the answer is no. It's fairly common but by no means is it a given, particularly if the students have not completed a majority of their studies. --ElKevbo 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what I was asking. Thanks for the clarification TerraFrost 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun control and international reaction straw poll

These sections are repeatedly being removed by a small number of users. Can we reach consensus on this issue first?

I say strong keep. Reason? 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. The importance of this event is because of how it effected us, and a large part of that effect is our response to the issue of violence in our society and gun control. There may be room to improve these sections, but that should not involve gutting out the majority of the information they contain. Sad mouse 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also favour Keep. The media reaction is an important part of the debate. If it gets too big then a break out section is the way forward. TerriersFan 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - in its present form this section directly addresses the background and responses to this particular incident. It'll serve as a kook magnet, but that's hardly unique to this article. Rklawton 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't understand why some people try deleting it. --Pejman47 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep BUT reference:I support keeping it, but I might remove unsourceable statements.

Note - section deleted once again by IP 66 45 152 134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.45.152.134 Section replaced until consensus is reached.

• Delete for the "International Media Response" subsection in the "Gun Control Debate" section only. While factual, I fail to see how media opinions outside the US decrying American gun laws are any more relevant to this article than it would be to have a similar section of US media responses decrying Australian gun control laws would be to the article on the Port Arthur massacre. Maybe it'd be relevant to a subsection of the gun politics article, but in this article, I'd say that, at most, this section should be just the opening line, plus references; the quotes are unnecessary and could be construed as POV. Rdfox 76 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly relevant to the article. Perhaps in the long-run it's worth moving to a different article, but it's certainly a notable aspect -Halo 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but radically shorten do we really need to quote 50 newspaper columnists all essentially saying the same thing? Kransky 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

10 references, from 10 different countries. Sad mouse 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but radically shorten This was a U.S. tragedy on the English Wikipedia and should be U.S. centric. Michael Moore hasn't done a documentary on this yet. --202.156.13.1 10:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It was one of those events that really did effect people outside the US, like 9/11, which has a large international response section.Sad mouse 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have no support for this assertion. Second, this was nothing like 9/11 as that was an attack launched by an international terrorist organization. This was an attack launched by a United States resident who had been living here for 15 years, had no proven contact with any international organizations, and attacked his own school. If anything this was a purely domestic event, and the international reaction should only be given cursory treatment. Rooot 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, there is considerable interest abroad. I know - I live "abroad". Interesting that even very conservative newspapers in England come down on the pro-gun control side re this event - thus pointing up that gun culture is an almost uniquely American phenomenon (even though other countries eg Switzerland have more guns per head). If it is true that the only way an American citizen can be safe in a public place is if he carries a loaded firearm - then what sort of comment is that on American society? (luckily I don't think it IS true despite what the pro-gun lobby thinks). On my next visit to the US, should I bring a gun with me? Exile 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The US is a safe country, and part of the reason may be that a certain unknown proportion of law abiding citizens can and do carry concealed firearms lawfully. As far as what sort of commentary that is on our society - to be honest, the vast majority of Americans don't really care what foreign newspapers think about our society. I suggest that you work on your society and we will work on ours. You are welcome to visit us and you will find that we are a safe country with decent and helpful people. If you want to bring a gun with you, you are welcome to do so - you will need to file a Form 6NIA import permit with the ATF. Kevinp2 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the talk pages (especially within a poll) aren't the place for debate on the merits of gun control or its effect (or lack thereof) on rates of murder or "gun crime". For the record, though, Exile is welcome to visit my home in the States with his gun, and I promise not to treat him like a criminal.  ;) 216.52.69.217 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying this was a purely domestic event. Even barring how interconnected the world is now, and how much violent events can impact others around the world, of the 33 victims at least 11 were international citizens (some with US citizenship aswell). Sad mouse 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but Delete the "International Media Response" subsection. As others have pointed out, this is a US incident, by a US resident in a US college, implicating only the US Gun Control Debate. Grandstanding by the International Media, who have ZERO influence upon this debate, has no place in this article.Kevinp2 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At least eleven victims were international citizens - I count an Israeli, Canadian, two Indians, an Egyptian, two South Koreans, two Lebanese, one Puerto Rico and an Indonesian (some of which also held US citizenship).Sad mouse 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican's are U.S. Citizens de facto and de jure, FYI. One could hook on this line of argument and carry on ad absurdem and argue that this is / is not a Virginia only issue. And what, btw, is an international citizen? --M a s 12:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone please insert an image of the cover of The Economist, if it can be considered fair use. http://www.economist.com/printedition/ Gregohio 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I understand people who say that non-US papers shouldn't have their comments included because they dont affect gunlaws in the US -- but while we may avoid including repetitive statements ("the US has too many guns" etc) I think that international observers are capable of making certain observations by virtue of their detachment from American life, and therefore a certain survey of these comments is warranted. The criterion that commentators must have the "ability" to influence official Federal policy is false because all opinion can be compelling, no matter the source. Pablosecca 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While this might occasionally be true, in this particular case, detachment from American life has resulted in ignorance about it. I say this after reading through all of these International editorials, which consist of knee jerk regurgitations about the gun-crazy American society, unaccompanied by much fact or understanding about why so many Americans own guns and are concerned about their right to own them. Uninformed media reports also have to fall by the way side.Kevinp2 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of that, but I still think that the majority of the whole section belongs in either gun control or another article specifically about the gun control debate related to this event. Rooot 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[International Reaction on Gun Control] should go. Columbine doesn't have anything that I can see, nor does the Port Arthur massacre. An opportunity for anti-American flamebating. The Times and the Economist are fine newspapers but their opinions on this matter and on what should go in Wikipedia are irrelevant. --M a s 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (I moved this section up to the straw poll so the opinion of M a s would be included Sad mouse 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

• This has been discussed extensively above. Please look through the prior conversation on this matter above and in the archives. The majority of editors were in favour to keep the international reaction to this incident. A precedent for this is for example the article on 9-11. Themanwithoutapast 13:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There was certainly not a majority in favor of keeping this. Look in the archives yourself, Archive 11 to start with (there are several sections in this Archive), before making such wild claims. Rooot 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this debate and there has been no such majority to keep the International Reaction section. Most of the debate has been about the Gun Control section itself, not the International Reaction subsection. This section is useless to this article. The International Media is NOT well informed about the US gun control debate, its reaction is entirely skewed and one sided, and the US citizenry pays no attention whatsoever to what foreign newspaper editors think about this. The influence of the foreign media is ZERO, and is not notable at all. If we keep them in, we just humor their grandstanding. I again say that we should get rid of this. It makes as much sense as posting New York Times op-eds about the collapse of the Paris Airport Terminal building.Kevinp2 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there was a majority is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. There has, however, been extensive discussion about this. Natalie 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people say that the VT Massacre was a "world event" and others say it was just a "USA event." International media may not know the USA gun control debate, but they do know the USA gun-death statistics, which are unique in the Western world. Nothing compares. It would seem then that learning about international reaction (and opinions and recommendations) could be quite informative.Que-Can 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun death statistics are part of the larger picture of homicide statistics (include non-gun killings) and violent crime statistics. The foreign media fixate on the gun death statistics, and ignore the others, even though those shows the US to be right in the middle of the Western world with respect to violent crime. Like I said, the foreign media are skewed hard to one side, and in any case, while you may wish that they might be informative, it doesn't change the fact that the US population DOESN'T CARE about their opinion. I am sorry to have to keep pointing this out. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make their opinion automatically notable to an article.Kevinp2 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While it may be that the "US population doesn't care" about the international reaction to the VT Massacre, people in other countries are quite interested, since the American experience with guns and the gun culture is informative when creating and amending laws. This was expressed in the Australian Prime Minister's reaction (in the article). He was using the American example, e.g., the availability of guns, as one not to follow in Australia. Very often other countries study and follow progressive and positive American examples on social issues, etc., but American firearms' legislation is rarely copied outside of the USA. The way I see it, including "International Response" with the article broadens and informs the debate about the causes of these tragedies, and how shooting deaths like these can be prevented not only in the USA but also in other countries.Que-Can 06:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be true if the International media were actually informed about US gun issues. Reading through their editorials, the only thing that I am informed about is their ignorance of US gun issues. Perhaps that should be a separate article and their section could be moved there.Kevinp2 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review what Wikipedia is not. It's not an advocacy encyclopedia and is not a forum for debate. Regardless of how much or how little should stay or go this should not be a bookend to this tragedy. --M a s 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi M a s, your opinion has been noted. If it is okay, I am going to replace the international reaction section, not permanently, just until we reach a consensus. I agree with your point that many Americans may not really care about the international response to the shootings, however many non-Americans were affected by the shooting (both directly - a third of the victims held international citizenship, and indirectly) and many of the users of wikipedia are non-American and may be interested to read their response. Sad mouse 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Sad mouse is the final arbiter of all disputes concerning this section of the article. Rooot 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Summery of arguments The point of contention appears to be the international reaction section, with little argument to delete the other sections. I have tried to be neutral and summarise the arguments to keep or delete/reduce this section below. Sad mouse 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep

1. Response to shooting is a large part of the event and dictates notability, addresses background

2. Former featured article 9/11 has a large international reaction section

3. Roughly 1/3 of victims had international citizenship

4. Detachment of international media allows valuable opinion on US culture, broadens debate

5. Response in general is valuable and adds to the article (demonstrated by the domestic response which is a significant section of the article ~1/4)

Delete/Reduce

1. International response irrelevant to US event

2. Purely domestic event

3. International media have no influence over US gun policy

4. International media is ignorant about US gun laws

5. Columbine (featured article) and Port Arthur (start class) shootings do not have similar section

Analysis Keep point 2 and delete point 5 cancel each other out – both strategies have been used in featured class articles. Keep point 3 negates delete point 2 since it shows the event was not purely domestic. Delete point 4 seems to be an opinion, unless there is specific evidence that the international response section contains reasoning that is verifiably incorrect (which seems unlikely considering several domestic news sources reach the same conclusions). The broad keep argument is therefore – 1) the event was an international event, and 2) response to the event is considered valuable and the international reaction broadens the spectrum of response given. The delete/reduce argument is therefore 1) domestic response if valuable but the international response is irrelevant to Americans and has no influence in America.

Is this a joke? Your wording is so obviously biased that no person unfamiliar with this topic could possibly understand the opposition to your point with this list. You use terms like "ignorant," "irrelevant," and "purely." to describe the opposing point of view. You are casting that point in absolute terms. On top of that, point 1 of the "Delete/Reduce" section is a conclusion for the rest. I am going to lay out what my personal arguments are for this, but I am not so pompous as to believe that I can honestly reduce everyone else's arguments into a convenient list while retaining their intended message.

COUNT I

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE BELONGS ON A DIFFERENT PAGE

A. Whether different gun laws would have affected this event is pure speculation. There is no way to possibly know this for sure. That includes either Cho's purchasing of the weapons or anyone else's ability to carry weapons. Either way, there is no way to know. Therefore this is all worthless palaver.

B. The purpose of this article should be to provide factual details relating to the event. Any analysis of gun control is exactly that, analysis. This type of information does not deserve substantial treatment here.

1. Policy issues belong on pages devoted to the policy in question.

2. There is already a page devoted to this debate: gun control. If that page is already too crowded with material, then two feasible options exist besides keeping it in this article. First, a new, separate page could be created devoted specifically to the gun control issue and the Virginia Tech Massacre. This would be much like the list of victims page. Or, perhaps the information is not that important anyway. If it is not important enough regarding the gun control debate at large, thus not warranting its inclusion on the gun control page, then why should it be given special treatment here?

COUNT II

THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE SECTION TO THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE IS OVERKILL

A. Every single sentence in the section is pro-gun control. By itself, this might not actually be a problem, if it is true that every single country in the world agrees that the lack of gun control was the problem here. Besides the obvious problems with verifying this, this point may not actually matter for my argument.

B. Postulating that every single country in the world agrees on this, why does it deserve such a large section? Every quotation says essentially the same thing. It is redundant to keep each of these entries in their current state.

C. The international responses may or may not influence the United States' policy on guns. However, besides the fact that there were a few international students killed in this event, there was nothing else "international" about it. It was a US Resident, at a US College, without any international influence. If this does cause international debate on gun control, that will also be a separate event. Much like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand may have been a cause of World War I, but they are given separate pages. The aftermath events were their own thing. It would be inappropriate to include substantial treatment of World War I on Archduke Franz Ferdinand's page, just as it would be inappropriate to include substantial treatment of gun control and the international reactions to it on the Virginia Tech Massacre page.

COUNT III

GIVING THE GUN CONTROL SECTION SUBSTANTIAL SPACE AMOUNTS TO FLAME-BAITING

A. The Virginia Tech event has brought significant emotional reactions out of people. Adding gun control to this is fuel to the fire.

B. Not everyone who comes to view the page cares about the gun control debate. If it were on a separate page, they would not have to see it if they did not want to see it.

COUNT IV

GUN CONTROL AND THE VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE ARE INDEPENDENT

A. The gun control debate has been going on for a long time before this event, and it will go on for a long time after.

B. As mentioned above, whether this event would have taken place but for different gun control laws is pure speculation.

COUNT V

OTHER CAUSES FOR THE VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE DO NOT RECEIVE SIMILAR TREATMENT

A. Bullying

B. Child abuse

C. Mental health

D. Racism

E. Culture of materialism

F. Socio-economic pressures

G. ETC.

H. Singling this single potential cause out for special treatment is nothing less than endorsement of that cause by our editors.

These are my personal views, and do not reflect what I think anyone else believes. I encourage everyone to share their thoughts on this matter as well. Just don't let anyone else speak for you. Rooot 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rooot on Count V. To single out the gun control debate aspect of this alone and leave all the other possible debates out (socio-economic, mental health, social-awkwardness, etc.) is a POV framing of the event. I'm not sure how to rectify this though. Ikilled007 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why you are so angry, considering you did not list these points in the straw poll, so how was I meant to summarise them? My opinion on this subject is clear, but I tried to be neutral in summarising the different arguments, I don't see any obvious error, I acknowledged that some of delete points countered the keep points, and I refrained from making a conclusion. Despite the obvious emotion, your list doesn't really add much - Count I is that the entire section should be removed, you are the only one to have put forward that opinion in the straw poll. Count II was already stated above by others and I included it in my summary, you will note that Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand actually includes a substantial section called "consequences", so I am unsure why you used that example. Count III makes little sense, why should the test be "every single person who visits the page must be interested"? Count IV is true, the gun debate will continue regardless and we don't know the effect different gun laws would have, however I am uncertain how that modifies why international opinions should be removed? Perhaps you could elaborate? Count V is true, other factors did not receive similar treatment in the article, and this is because they did not receive similar treatment in the media. Google news search for "bullying" and "Virgina Tech" (1247 articles), "racism" and "Virginia Tech" (187 articles) or "child abuse" and "Virginia Tech" (103 articles) compared to "gun control" and "Virgina Tech" (4399 news articles and understated due to clustering). You may personally disagree with it, but gun control was the most associated factor in the media with the Virginia Tech shootings. If you feel like researching racism, etc and adding them, that seems worthwhile. Sad mouse 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because these have been listed over and over throughout the discussion on this topic. You chose to create yet another arbitrary break in the discussion with your "straw poll." The comments in this poll do not take in to consideration a large chunk of the discussion that has already taken place on this topic. See Archive 11. Rooot 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rooot, I will share my thoughts, and trust I will not be censored...

Many other articles include international reactions. Search for "international reactions". The argument may be one-sided - but you are welcome to include any international reactions praising the gun culture of the US if you can find any. There may not be a similar section for Columbine - but that could be because this is a case of 'once bitten, twice bitten'. The international community is expressing concern that lessons weren't learnt after Columbine. It is highly relevant to this article as it has sparked a lot of interest. Just because 'some' people want to ignore the international reaction is no reason to leave it out. And Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs? Don't make me laugh. 203.97.51.149 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs" - actually it is simpler than that - like many countries, we simply don't pay any attention to outsiders and their newspapers commenting on our domestic matters. You may desire that we pay attention, but we don't.Kevinp2 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably those Americans that think like you will just skip the section, while those Americans who do pay attention to the international community (and those from outside America) will read it, so what is the harm in including it? Also, I believe you do a disservice in thinking that most Americans have a similar outlook to you, as someone who lives in America there are many Americans who do actually consider international opinion. Sad mouse 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, there are many Americans who do pay attention to international opinion. Additionally, regardless of how many Americans choose to ignore international opinions, a huge number of people in the world pay attention to, and do care, about what America does. American events have impacts on people outside of America. Wikipedia is not just for Americans. A number of international students died in this attack, plus multiple professors/teachers and a grad student, but even if it had been only U.S. citizens it would still be something people in other countries paid attention to. Like it or not, an event like this is of international interest and does have some part in shaping the way the world sees us.

Kevinp2 wrote: "we simply don't pay any attention to outsiders and their newspapers commenting on our domestic matters. You may desire that we pay attention, but we don't."

Fine, feel free to skip over the section if you don't care about it, but please let it be there for those who do. You might even consider that IF international opinions were more accessible in our domestic daily media that some portion of the population might like to pay more attention than they currently do. Pladuk 18:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this will still get read. The background section is informative and should stay. However, the media response sections are disproportionally huge and push POV through sheer size and repetition. Paragraphs of quotes from international papers should not be included in this article when, for example, the controversy about more aggressive mental health policy is not even covered at all. Instead, the international and US media sections should be combined and dramatically shortened into a “Media Response” section which is more broad in summarizing the views. General policy comments/quotes/references should go into the general gun control debate article, if applicable.Tyro 09:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyro, you are correct that this section pushes huge POV. This article is about the incident, and gun control can be linked from it, with references back to this article. Unfortunately, Wiki has become a soapbox for people to spout their POV from, most notable on current "hot button" topics. The smell factor for me is this: if a discussion about parts of an article dissolves into arguing the points of the topic (eg. trying to prove ones POV), then the part being discussed DOES present a POV. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an item for discussion. Yes, gun control should be mentioned, as should mental health, immigrants/ firearms, campus security, etc. There should not be fully 1/3 of the article dedicated to something that is RELATED to this article. Also, it seems disrepectful, to me, to us Wiki as a soapbox for gun control in an article about people tragically losing thier lives. This article is about those people, the shooting, and the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

Finally, if a gun debate discussion of this length belongs in this article, why is it not in similar articles about school shootings? Please note, I did not say omitted in the others, but to the length of the topic included herein.

I just re-read this entire discussion section and something struck me: the delete/edit arguement throughout is "this section is POV/ overly-extensive." In reading the responses, its seems as though the Keep side doesn't even dispute that it is/ isn't POV, just why it should still belong there. I think I smell something (see above.)Neo1973 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo1973 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I need help from a New York Times subscriber!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html

Since I do not subscribe, I can't view this anymore.

What is the name of the survivor girl mentioned in the graphic from Norris 204 (Librescu)? I want to establish a redirect from her name to the "Virginia Tech massacre" article. WhisperToMe 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service. They might be able to help you find a copy of the article you're looking for. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You can use "wikipedia" as both the username and password to access it.--24.20.69.240 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shootings

I'll be blunt: "massacre" is a loaded word and so the page's title is at odds with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there is precedence for using "massacre," that should be fixed, too. I propose then that we change this to "Virginia Tech shootings" which does not dramatize the incident. All related articles would also change their name. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In what are now several pages of archives, this has been debated extensively. "Shootings" just didn't convey the proper appraisal of the incident according to a majority of the editors. "Shootings" does not convey deaths. People get shot and live. "Shootings" is ambiguous with respect to numbers -- more ambiguous than "massacre." However, massacre doesn't fully capture the essence of this incident either, a fact I tried to point out several times but couldn't seem to get support for. Massacres have been committed with cars, swords, knives, and gas chambers, just to mention a few tools. I thought "shooting massacre" or something along that line would convey properly both the method and the numbers involved. I think we're stuck with what we have though. Ikilled007 11:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really up to WP to decide, we're obligated to use the most common usage in the media. Many have cited the prevalence of Virginia Tech massacre over any other phrasing hence our use of the term as well. Please see past discussions. Ronnotel 11:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that nearly everybody else has gone with "massacre" in their coverage of the event, I don't think we should buck the trend. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not true at all; see below. This is a common misconception, and is used by the people supporting the massacre title, but it is untrue. Titanium Dragon 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is, see even lower. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; since I first heard about the page's title (on NPR, of all places), I thought it was a bit sensational and unencyclopedic. While in my opinion being encyclopedic should come before copying mainstream media naming trends, though, there _is_ a strong consensus to keep the current title. Since the worst case is that it's an issue of bad style (rather than being POV or deceptive), it seems there's little to be gained by fighting to change that consensus. 216.52.69.217 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

{edit conflict) Messedrocker, I agree with you that "massacre" is a sensationalist name, but the vast majority of sources have attached that label to the event. Usage in the sources has to trump POV, so that we can call things by their most easily recognizable names. I wish the media hadn't seized upon such a lurid word, but it did, and we're stuck with it. As others have pointed out, you can cull much, much more debate on this topic from the archives. A Train^talk 13:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think that shooting is better, as it is actually as commonly used as massacre. Its used inline in many such articles, and in referring to it, and google shows Virginia Tech shooting is as prevalent as Virginia Tech massacre. It also doesn't help that Wikipedia early on went with massacre (due to various emotional people and a six hour poll), as that may well have had some impact on things. I think it should be under Virginia Tech shooting. Titanium Dragon 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A number of examples of shooting instead of massacre:

• • Associated Press: [2]
  • CTV: [3]
  • Newsday: [4]
  • CBS News (which uses both terms interchangably): [5]
  • New York Times: [6]

Titanium Dragon 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the article on the Columbine High School incident is called a massacre on Wikipedia. Wrad 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good example of WP:BIAS, given the Haditha killings despite being more popularly known as the Haditha massacre. The reality is that while Columbine is referred to as a shooting quite a bit, it is called the "columbine massacre" more often than "columbine shooting"; however, it is called both. I think that it'd be better to rename both pages to shooting, because they are more precise and much more NPOV names, and are still commonly used, but I suspect the same WP:BIAS will prevent it, the same reason that Haditha killings isn't called the Haditha massacre on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When googling the web, 'virginia tech massacre' and 'virginia tech shooting' both return about 3.5M hits. However, when googling news articles, massacre gets 8k to shooting's 4k. I would argue that news articles are more likely to be attributable than the web at large. Ronnotel 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search on lexis/nexis news among major newspapers for both terms. "Massacre" was used more often, but the margin was close. Until further notice, I don't think a title change/page move is justified unless it really swings the other way. Maybe just a note that they are sometimes called the VT shootings, if anyone feels that's needed. Wrad 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "Virginia Tech massacre" isn't a very neutral name, for the same reason Haditha massacre isn't a neutral name; massacre is used to elicit an emotional response, which is why so many people objected to titling the Haditha killings article as a massacre. Titanium Dragon 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Massacre is often used as a POV term. However, that analogy doesn't seem apt in this case. It's not as if there are two sides competing to out-propagandize each other in the media. It is possible to use the term in an NPOV context - and if it's going to be used anywhere, this seems like an appropriate instance. Ronnotel 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would also like to point out that the Columbine massacre article is a featured article on wikipedia. Basically, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change the page name, all the things linking to it within wikipedia, and threaten to misdirect all the pages linking to it outside of wikipedia. Wrad 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any POV problem as I can't see that there is really any alternative point of view that is excluded by describing this as a massacre. This man set out to kill a large number of people and this is exactly what he did, calling it a massacre seems a perfectly accurate description. TimVickers 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tim here. To whom is the current wording unfair? Spree killers and lone gunmen? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to come off as incivil, but I don't see why we should do what all the sources say — granted they all say "massacre" but they also believe in dramatizing news because drama = high ratings. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. I also am not a big fan of the naming of the other articles on "massacres" as those should be renamed, too. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to do what sources say because going against all sources is original research. Remember what Ikilled007 said above: In what are now several pages of archives, this has been debated extensively. Forgive me if this is rude, but I don't think we need to restart such a long discussion. Nyttend 13:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Difference in arrangement of name

Is it worth mentioning in the article that traditionally his name would be Seung-Hui Cho? That the current use is Americanized? --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He was Americanized, and he himself wrote his name in the Western style. So, no, I don't think so. Titanium Dragon 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And actually, his name would traditionally be Cho Seung-Hui - Cho is the family name and Seung-Hui was his personal name. Natalie 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checking. I know it was mentioned in the media, so I didn't know if it was worth including in here. And I didn't mean to put it Seung-Hui Cho... I had his name on my mind and didn't even realize I didn't swap it around. <-- That's what happens when you sacrifice sleep to edit pages! Ha. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And how. :) Natalie 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive bot

Archive 11 is now 225K. Rooot 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bot appears to have instructions to start a new archive when it reaches 250K. WjBscribe 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"tragedy"

What definition are we using for 'tragedy', and how do we objectively determine that the VT massacre qualifies? The common meaning seems to be something like 'a very saddening event', but that's pretty subjective. I propose that a more neutral noun be used, like 'event', 'shooting' or 'massacre'. Kravic 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we defining it as a tragedy somewhere? Natalie 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I found "tragedy" four times in our words, and once in quotes, which we obviously can't change. I'm in support of changing the other "tragedy"'s to incident, shooting, etc. Natalie 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy is a peacock word and shouldn't be used unless it's within a quote. "Shooting" or "Incident" is a much better choice. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken all the "tragedy"'s out except two that were in quotations and about a million in the refs. I changed on to incident, one to events, and two to shootings, I think, and removed 1 sentence that was really poorly worded and unsourced. Natalie 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mass Murder" vs "Shooting Spree"

I just had an edit reverted, regarding the change in like in the article summary, pointing to Shooting_spree. Based on the definitions explained in the pages for Shooting_spree and mass_murder I believe that mass murder applies more accurately in this instance. Can anybody comment on the appropriateness of one vs the other? Please note this is entirely separate from the above discussion of "shooting" versus "massacre." Whysyn 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that both are technically correct, however, I prefer "shooting spree"... if only because the incident had two distinct shooting locations on the campus. As I said before, both are correct but most people interpret "mass murder" as being a whole lot of murders in one place, while a "shooting spree" can travel. What does the media call it? Perhaps that should be the determining factor. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your change prompted me to look at the two pages referenced. To be honest, I thought killing spree was more apt based on the definitions on each page - mostly because killing spree has a connotation of a an act by a single perpetrator over a short time period whereas mass murder seems like it encompasses a larger set of events. I'm not terribly fussed one way or the other, however. Ronnotel 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My take hinges heavily upon the following statement from the Spree_killer article: "mass murder and serial killings have connotations of being pre-planned." It is quite clear from many media accounts that there was significant planning involved in this massacre. In the same statement in the Spree Killings article, it is contrasted by stating "Spree killings tend to be spontaneous acts of violence." Again, this incident has been widely reported to be anything but spontaneous. Seeing as we are referring to this event as a "massacre" (see above discussion) further supports the usage of "mass murder" as defined on Wikipedia. As well, the mass_murder article states "typically at the same time, or over a relatively short period of time." Given, "short period of time" is subjective (and relative), both shooting occurred in the A.M. hours of the same day, which is arguable a "short period of time." Whysyn 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken - like I said, not fussed one way or the other. Ronnotel 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that the Columbine article links the words "shooting rampage" to the page "mass murder." Given the similarities, the link change makes sense to me, so long as the words on the page remain "mass shooting." I also note that both pages (shooting spree and mass murder) reference this event. I will make the change (since I was the one who reverted it). Sfmammamia 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that in this case the difference seems to hinge on planning, I am in favor of mass murderer. Natalie 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that within context, some variant on spree killing makes more sense than mass murder, given the apparent lack of discrimination in choosing the victims. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hit bull. Ikilled007 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that this was obviously premeditated. Do any of these terms include this? --Iriseyes 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapon types

Sfmammamia, you removed my short mention of the weapon types under "Attack". It is ridiculous not to mention what weapons were used in the killing very early in the narrative. As a reader, I need to know what he was killing with as the attack unfolds. Was it a fully automatic weapon? Was it a B-B gun? Did he only have a single weapon, and if so, how come he wasn't stopped by bystanders when he reloaded? As I read the article I see a picture of Cho holding two pistols. Hmm, so maybe he used two pistols in the attack? Finally, 2/3 of the way down the article, I see this "The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19." So he purchased two pistols. Interesting, am I to assume that he actually killed people with these weapons? Because the article doesn't say that. We have 50 references saying he killed people with a 9mm Glock and a .22 caliber pistol, but the article doesn't state that fact once. The weapons used in the killing is one of the most fundamental facts of the article, and must be stated extremely early on. --Dan East 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, I'm not sure why it would be removed although I haven't done much work on this article or studied up on the story. Aaron Bowen 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The weapons are mentioned right under attacks - is this what was removed, Dan, or was there an earlier mention? Natalie 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I added it back in, and as Sfmammamia (try typing that ten times fast) said, I think it's incorporated into the article better than my first attempt. --Dan East 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your second try (in placement as well as sentence structure) is better, because it does not interrupt the narrative. I'm of a mind that what happened to the people is more important than the technical details, but I'm certainly no expert in how crime articles should be written. I changed the peacock word of "wielded" (my dictionary says "to handle..with skill and ease...to exercise authority or influence, for example effectively") to "used." I note that the attempt to insert the weapons into the infobox was unsuccessful. My only lingering concern is that those who are concerned about the weapons details will want it further clarified -- my understanding is that one weapon was used in the first shooting, both were used at Norris Hall. That level of detail is already in the timeline article and the Seung-Hui Cho article, so if we can live with the single sentence as now placed, I think we'll stay in agreement. Sfmammamia 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not either Sf should the Columbine High School massacre article serve as an example? It is an FA. Aaron Bowen 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: using the Columbine article as an example--perhaps at some future point, when the subject matter is stable enough, some intrepid editor will be able to fold the timeline and the main article into one. My sense is that, at that point, it would make sense to use the Columbine article as a model. In my opinion, it's still too soon after the event for that. The investigation is still unfolding, details will continue to come out as the investigations proceed, and I think it's only after those investigations are completed that anyone will have an encyclopedic perspective on which details are significant. Just my opinion. Sfmammamia 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wielded vs. Used

Regarding this diff, has it been concluded that Cho in fact used both weapons? HokieRNB 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point--looking at the articles about the police report this week, the answer is yes, but the statement should be sourced. Here's what the Roanoke Times said: 'His Glock 9 mm weapon was used in both shootings. The other handgun, a Walther .22-caliber, was used only at Norris." I will add the ref. Sfmammamia 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

injured number: source?

I've been hunting for a source for this statement in "victims" section:

"During the two separate attacks the shooter's bullets hit 61 people, killing 27 students and 5 faculty members, and wounding 29."

I know there was earlier discussion about the number of injured and possible confusion over causes of injury, because some were injured jumping from the windows. A more recent NYT article says 24 were injured in total. How best to handle? Sfmammamia 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Virginia Tech web site includes a prominent memorial to those killed, listing their names, but specifically does not list the names of the wounded. Instead, it provides the statement: "The university also recognizes the injured survivors of these tragic events. However, we cannot release names of these survivors because of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations." Because of conflicting accounts, I suggest we use something like 'more than 20', and then footnote the number to reference the confidentially concerns that prevent an official number from being cited. Any one else? Ronnotel 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the injured number is in the infobox, with a CNN article cited as the source, and I don't see anything in that article about the number injured. Remove altogether from infobox? Sfmammamia 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a bold edit and remove numerical references to how many were wounded and base on the above ref - we'll see if it stands. Ronnotel 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to adding a sentence to the footnote giving a rough estimate of woundings? I'm thinking something like "News reports indicate that somewhere between 20 and 30 people were wounded" or something. Natalie 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that, but couldn't figure out how far to go since all the number are unreliable. Give it a shot. Ronnotel 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, has anyone seen any source quote a number greater than 30 injured? That's at least a start, and it would make it clear that it wasn't, say, hundreds. Natalie 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about something like: "A gunman shot dozens, killing 32. . ." That's easy to support and provides some sort of numerical estimate. Just a thought. Ronnotel 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Natalie 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

It is only fair to the Wikipedia community that we recognize this article having major flaws and is ongoing in our improvement. The amount of argument in the talk page is reason enough to see clearly that not everyone is satisfied with any section of this article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles Also in a sense this article is an ongoing event as the investigation has not ended yet. Davumaya 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Large discussions do not automatically mean major flaws and NPOV; we could just have content disputes or large amounts of speculation. That this article is "ongoing in our improvement" is not unique; I'm fairly certain most articles are not FA status yet. I'm removing the tags pending any problems you see with the actual article itself. Phony Saint 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - NPOV tags should be in regards to specific issues that have on-going debates. The talk page actually seems fairly quiet now compared to a few days ago. Ronnotel 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the NPOV warning tag is not necessary in this case. Articles of this sort are rather unique because facts are being released continuously, requiring a dynamic article that is constantly changing. It is also unique in the number of contributors, which is vastly greater than for the majority of normal articles. Those two factors can lead to articles that sway back and forth, both in POV and in quality. Things are settling down now, and are much quieter than in the days immediately proceeding the incident, so the article should increase in quality as editors can look at it holistically. --Dan East 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really not seeing a lot of disagreement here. There's certainly lots of discussion and every once and awhile new anons pop up with a completely off-topic comment, but that seems par for the course with this. And as was stated before, NPOV tags are really supposed to be for specific disputes. Natalie 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that the massacre navbox has officially survived its TfD...

(The following conversation occurred on Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre last night, California time:)

Redesign

I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.

Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:

The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to like this design. I've never been overly sure the template needs a map included. Something like this would take up about the least amount of vertical scroll space. --StuffOfInterest 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I dislike the navbox - a parable

As one with both a deletionist agenda and a horrifying, secret love for crufty navboxes, I can tell you exactly why the Virginia Tech massacre navbox irks people. There is a feeling that, once the excitement of the chase wears thin and Wikipedians start treating this subject like encyclopediasts rather than scoop-hungry journalists, the "story" will collapse into two articles: one on the perpetrator, one on the act perpetrated (see Marc Lépine and the École Polytechnique massacre for a foreshadowing of the eventual intellectual fate of Seung-Hui Cho and the last, desperate act of his terminal frustration with his fellow human beings).

Two articles, plus a link to the institution where the dastardly act occured (Lépine merits one whole sentence at the end of the article for the École Polytechnique de Montréal) would hardly justify a navigational template. It would simply be seen as a self-indulgent and unjustifiable waste of space whose function could have been easily handled by in-article links, and that assessment would probably be right.

The present form of the navbox is not really the problem. A map plus categories of links is not necessarily inappropriate in all contexts if it's done right. Here is a navbox I put together for University of California-related articles a week or two ago:

Virginia Tech massacre
Articles
Perpetrator • Victims
Timeline

Note the use of a map and several categories of links. However, all of the links have some sort of permanence as to their Wikipedian notability that one honestly can't say is possessed by a lot of the satellite articles that spin wildly about the Virginia Tech massacre. Also, the map in the UC navbox is actually useful in figuring out where a lot of the links' widely-distributed subjects are physically located. The VT-massacre template's map, on the other hand, points out one precise location (if you can really call a big, red dot covering 150 square miles or so of Virginian countryside "precise") that most news junkies already know by heart and which, if a reader is unfamiliar with Virginian geography, is just one click away in the Blacksburg, Virginia, article.

If you truly want to put together a navbox with lasting significance and which won't be continually rubbished by self-righteous deletionists, I would not bother with one specifically dedicated to the VT massacre. Instead, I would put together a box on school shootings, shooting sprees, or some other categorized topic that really does have enough stable articles to justify creating a navbox and can sustain demand for one. My 2¢, plus a quarter or two. --Dynaflow 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope none of those comments were made with any cutting sarcasm. I certainly meant no offense on your behalf, and I apologize if you received my comment in that manner. Furthermore, I am neither endorsing nor expunging this template (see struck comment). But as it were, there is no consensus either way, and it will most likely stay. If it survives, I think it would serve a great function for this event only because it is a hot event that many readers looking for centralized content would want to know about. I, personally, don't consider this a critical issue, but you definitely should reiterate that argument on a more visible page.

On a brief digression, I solicit your excellent template skills for determining whether {{UCLA}} should be redone. It seems to me slightly larger and less picturesque than the others, which are solely your creations. ALTON .ıl 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No sarcasm was meant; I am entirely serious on why I dislike the very idea of a VT-massacre template. See my comment towards the bottom of UCLA's Talk page for why I haven't redone that one yet. --Dynaflow 04:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the massacre template be nuked. Any takers? --Dynaflow 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor design, ugly implementation. Sorry, but it's a mess and a distraction. Second the motion to nuke. Ronnotel 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a TfD nomination. --ElKevbo 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It already survived one this week. Can we subject it to double jeopardy? I'd just like to see the thing ruthlessly hunted down and removed from all the pages. --Dynaflow 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Context

Still don't like this section title. The historical context would be political, social, cultural or maybe economic background, not who shot how many people under which circumstances. Cho is not a historical person, though he may wish he's become one. We shouldn't pretend he is one, for reasons of morality but also for reasons of correctness. He is a criminal, "just" an extraordinary perpetrator in history of crime (just one special part of society). So maybe you review the title once more. --Abe Lincoln 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: This section sounds to me like a Guiness Book of Records entry anyway, but as it seems to disturb noone...

There has been considerable discussion regarding this event in relation to past events - see archived pages. In order to prevent instability in the lead section over the claim of this as the 'deadliest mass shooting in modern US history', this section was added to provide supporting details. If we remove it, I'm worried the lead paragraph will become unstable, again. Ronnotel 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but at least the title could be changed, into something like criminological classification or dimension in comparison - you surely find better ones, I am not a native English speaker. But historical context is just not quite correct. Don't you have suggestions? --Abe Lincoln 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, it sounds like we as Wikipedians are trying to make up for the media's inaccuracies, which somewhat follows the same vein as the rest of the "Inaccurate media reports" that were deleted. It shouldn't be that hard to find article sources that directly compare this incident to previous shootings, right? Phony Saint 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, what you are trying to say. --Abe Lincoln 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to say whether Virginia Tech massacre was the worst or not; there are reliable sources that do that for us. The "Historical Context" as it stands now lacks any reliable sources. (No, other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources.) Phony Saint 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, "Historical context" could be renamed "Comparison to other mass shootings" or something similar. "Historical figures" or "historical context" are rather vague terms and not something I'd want to debate. Phony Saint 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand, that Phony Saint agrees, that the section should be removed at all, and that Ronnotel is only afraid, that the lead paragraph could be enlarged as a consequence (what in my opinion is not a reason to keep it).

I again strongly suggest removing this section. WP is not a tabloid or the Guiness Book of Records. If someone is interesseted in a comparison (from a criminological perspective), he or she may find it in the according articles as School shooting. Anyone who opposes? --Abe Lincoln 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses in Professional Sports

I was thinking about adding a "Responses in Professional Sports" to the Response Section, because their are quite a few in the "Other Responses" section. Plus there are many more examples. Let me know your thoughts.Jwalte04 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 11#Sporting tributes. Nobody's particularly in favor of an extremely long list of tributes. Phony Saint 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

understood.Jwalte04 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted sports tributes that don't involve fundraising--the ones deleted seem like gestures that won't be terribly significant in the long run--they will probably be repeated by just about every major sports team. If you disagree, please read the earlier discussion and discuss here before re-adding? Sfmammamia 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What classroom had Justin Klein?

I added Klein to List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#Injured_students.2C_classroom_not_stated - But I put him in a "classroom not stated" category as I cannot tell what classroom had Klein. WhisperToMe 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Snow?

Hi. I have watched the videos of this on tv, and in at least one of them, where there were police officers running, there was snow in the picture. I think I heard from at least one tv source that they mentioned it was cold. Snow in Virginia in April seems quite rare to me, and the source could be the tv. So, should it be included in the article, or is this mere coincidence so unimportant that it deserves absolutely no mention in the article? Also, has this been disscussed before, or even, is it already mentioned in the article? I read most of the article, and didn't see any mention of the snow, and the pictures made it quite unobvious it was even cold. I don't have time to read all the archives, or didn't. Could someone please answer, or is this too unimportant? Also, as a side note, CNN said that the perpetrator had mental ilness, paranoia, and was bullied in high school, so couldn't this be a possible motive, or is it too vaugue? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the motive, I think we need to avoid speculating as to a motive. Speculation is irresponsible and should be avoided at all costs. (I was in high school when the Columbine shootings happened, and the rampant speculation about those kids motives certainly affected other teenager's lives negatively.) I completely agree with you that the perpetrator's mental illness likely played a huge role, although I'm not sure if that's a technical motive, but that's neither here nor there. That said, I really don't think we should list a motive or possible motive unless one is definitively declared by law enforcement. Now, there's a pretty good chance that will never happen but there's nothing we can do about that. Natalie 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlash?

Not enough to say either way right now, so I'm not adding it to the article, but just saw this http://www.nbc13.com/gulfcoastwest/vtm/news.apx.-content-articles-VTM-2007-04-24-0008.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.176.142 (talk) 20:57, 24 April, 2007 (UTC)

Worst shooting in US history?!

Is this country really that uneducated and ignorant? Or is it just that white people are what count? I was under the impression that the worst mass shooting in U.S. History was the massacre ate Wounded Knee or Sand Creek!!

"I can't take one more of these headlines," said Joan Redfern, a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe who lives in Hollister. "Haven't any of these people ever heard of the Massacre at Sand Creek in Colorado, where Methodist minister Col. Chivington massacred between 200 and 400 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, most of them women, children, and elderly men?"

And:

"At Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota, the U.S. 7th Cavalry attacked 350 unarmed Lakota Sioux on December 29, 1890. While engaged in a spiritual practice known as the "Ghost Dance," approximately 90 warriors and 200 women and children were killed. Although the attack was officially reported as an "unjustifiable massacre" by Field Commander General Nelson A. Miles, 23 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for the slaughter. The unarmed Lakota men fought back with bare hands. The elderly men and women stood and sang their death songs while falling under the hail of bullets. Soldiers stripped the bodies of the dead Lakota, keeping their ceremonial religious clothing as souvenirs.

"To say the Virginia shooting is the worst in all of U.S. history is to pour salt on old wounds-it means erasing and forgetting all of our ancestors who were killed in the past," Redfern said." --207.81.87.20 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the worst school shooting in modern U.S. history. Phony Saint 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read the footnotes associated with the text - it spells out in some detail the qualifiers that apply to the description in the lead. In particular, see footnote 103 which specifically references the Wounded Knee Massacre. The term 'modern' distinguishes this event from those prior incidents. Ronnotel 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction to my previous statement: the lead doesn't indicate that it's the deadliest school shooting or done by a single perpetrator, and neither do some news reports. Someone else should fix that as I can't find appropriate wording.

In addition, references 102 and 103 don't link to reliable sources, so most of the Historical Context section isn't reliably sourced. I'm fairly certain that can be corrected with current sources. Phony Saint 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but the pages pointed at by notes 102 & 103 do have reliable sources - presumably all one would need to do is bring those sources forward and link to them rather than the wiki pages. Ronnotel 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of the reference entirely. Its not the worst school-related killing, its not the worst mass shooting... its just sensationalism. We should just nix the whole "worst ever" because if you have to qualify it not once but -twice- that's far from the worst. Titanium Dragon 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that the article on Columbine has this sentence in the summary: "It is the third-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and the 1966 University of Texas massacre." For internal consistency, it seems entirely appropriate to have a similar sentence in the summary for this article. Sfmammamia 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rank ordering them is silly; I don't think its particularly notable unless its the worst. Titanium Dragon 04:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, now it is even MORE incorrect, as the Bath School Disaster was modern and about 50% deadlier. Titanium Dragon 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

80 years ago isn't terribly modern... HalfShadow 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bath School Disaster was not a school shooting, so the Columbine sentence is technically correct. Whether it belongs in that article should be discussed on that article's talk page. All I'm saying is that a statement of significance would be internally consistent. Sfmammamia 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A few hours later, no takers, so I made an attempt. Externally referenced, at least. Not perfect, but I believe the summary needs a statement of significance of some kind, similar to the Columbine article. Sfmammamia 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Also, as a side note, from this, the toll was 38, higher than 33. That was still far less notable than this, though. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, Heaven's Gate was at least as notable as this. It was a very big deal when it happened. However, like all such things, it has faded from memory as this will in 10 years. Titanium Dragon 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate is not comparable at all, in that it was a totally different type of incident. Sfmammamia 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was very much comparable in scale and sensationalist coverage, much like this incident. Its death toll was also similar. Claiming otherwise is recentism at work, which is the fundamental problem with this article. Well, that and memorializing. Titanium Dragon 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparing a cult mass suicide to a school shooting? Sorry, I maintain they are very different TYPES of incidents. Sfmammamia 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is pure sensationalism. If the statement has to be qualified so many times, is it really worth making? Also, can somebody qualify what counts as modern U.S. history and what doesn't? Are we talking 10, 20, 50, 100, or years here? Possibly more? I think it might be beneficial to the article and its readers if we added something about it being the deadliest shooting since Sand Creek or whichever the last massacre was that was mentioned above. —Mears man 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that Cho killed American citizens in the United States of America, whereas the killings of native American tribes during the Westward Expansion--however tragic--hardly qualifies as the killings of US citizens, or on soil that was yet incorporated into the republic as "America"? I don't want to minimize the tragedy, but the natives weren't even citizens of the republic. Scientz 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning a historical event such as Sand Creek in the lead would be out of context and most likely confuse the reader. Also, the phrase modern US history is generally interpreted to start in late industrialization - mid-1890's - see here for a course syllabus. Googling for the phrase deadliest shooting in modern US history picks up about 1800 hits in the news space, here is but one. However, the current phrase, deadliest school shooting in modern US history, picks only seven. As per WP:ATT, I believe we should be using the most commonly used term for this event. Ronnotel 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is WRONG. It isn't notable either. All it is is sensationalism. If you have to qualify it three times because it wasn't the deadliest school related killing and it wasn't the deadliest shooting in all of US history then it isn't worth mentioning at all. It is pure recentism. I'm tired of people coming on and trying to make more of this incident than it was. This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial, not a "aw, we feel sorry for you", not a sensationalist press. Titanium Dragon 08:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's 'wrong' about the phrase as it stands - deadliest shooting in modern US history. You need to cite a reference before claiming it's wrong. I also disagree with your charges of recentism or sensationalism. The phrase as it stands is highly attributable - which is the relevant benchmark for us to use. Ronnotel 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that, without additional qualifiers, it's blatantly false. Is it the deadliest shooting by one person or by any number of people? What qualifies as recent U.S. history? That multiple news sources stated it is not enough; it's a trivial fact, one the news sources didn't go over in detail. We don't have to include every tidbit of information, especially when it's false. Phony Saint 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reference above about the qualification of the term modern. Rather than make a blanket assertion about what's true or false, please cite references to support your assertions. If you can find attributable evidence that the statement is false, then fine. Ronnotel 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron: I guess some people just don't give up. Titanium: Please give it a rest, your assymetrical interest in the wording of this issue is getting rather tired. The Wikipedia community has gone over this time and time again, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. The qualifiers have been added to increase the accuracy, and the archives of this discussion are filled with evidence of the community's decision. Scientz 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The qualifiers are hinting at WP:SYN; that is, no third-party sources have directly compared Virginia Tech with others, nor qualified what they mean by modern U.S. history. The problem is that you're attempting to connect A and B when a third-party source should have already done so.

To give another example, early reports indicated the shooter was Chinese, and that is attributable; do we include it just because somebody did state it? Do we include qualifiers that the shooter was not, in fact, Chinese? Are the qualifiers attributable in relationship with this event? Phony Saint 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Many, many sources (1800+?) have used the phrase as it stands. That's overwhelming evidence of attribution and we're simply following WP policy by including the phrase here. Let's not get caught up in semantic games and focus on sources. Please cite sources to support your assertions and you'll have a better chance of convincing others of your point of view. Ronnotel 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ron. Semantics is the game being played here. Also, please refer to my comment that "Has it occurred to you that Cho killed American citizens in the United States of America, whereas the killings of native American tribes during the Westward Expansion--however tragic--hardly qualifies as the killings of US citizens, or on soil that was yet incorporated into the republic as "America"?"Scientz 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most news reports do not clarify that it is the worst killing of United States citizens in an incorporated state. If they do, I'd like to see them. You and Ronnotel can only qualify the statement based on your own interpretations. At best, we can say that news sources call it "the worst shooting in modern U.S. history." Phony Saint 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Our intepretations of the English language are based on denotation, not connotation. "The worst shooting in modern U.S. history." Exactly. Which also makes this a perfect illustration of how you're playing semantics with this issue. "Modern" is a matter of historical study, which (as qualified later in the article) means something akin to "since World War II." Again, your semantics are doing nothing to add to the article, not to mention the fact that issue was already decided by consensus at least two weeks ago. Scientz 11:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It is not, in fact, qualified later in the article, unless I'm missing a section. Previous consensus did not scrutinize sources, and no source states anything other than "the worst shooting in U.S. history" or "the worst shooting in modern U.S. history," which is all we should put in there, attributing that phrase to news reports. (I would question why consensus at least two weeks ago - the day of the shooting - would matter, but that's irrelevant.) Phony Saint 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but this type of assymetrical semantic nonsense is why I don't edit more often. However, I do credit you for not waging an edit-war. Scientz 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you at least point me to where the qualifiers are, instead of repeatedly dismissing my statements as semantics? Phony Saint 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It IS semantics because using "modern" to be historically accurate without including reference to Sand Creek or Wounded Knee does not violate WP:OR policy on connecting A to B. Read the example in the policy. That example and this situation are hardly similar. Your attempt to draw comparison between the two is what qualifies this as semantics. Your insistence on revisiting an issue that has already been decided goes against Wiki policy on consensus. Not to mention that Wounded Knee and Sand Creek don't belong in this article for other reasons, but the ones cited are the easiest to understand with clear references in the policy. Scientz 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You do realize that I'm attempting to drop the issue, and that all I'm wondering about is where the qualifiers stated to be further down the article are? It seems you and Ronnotel don't agree on what "modern" means (he says 1890's, you say post-WWII), and I just really want to read the sources. Phony Saint 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be removed entirely because it adds nothing to the article. All it seems to be is sensationalism. The Bath School disaster was deadlier. Lots of massacres of Native Americans were worse. It is simply not meaningful. If it was the worst, bar none, in US history, then sure, include it. If you have to use ambigous words like modern, then it probably isn't worth including. Just because the news sensationalizes doesn't mean we have to. Should most of Clinton's article be about the Lewinsky affair because the news media is stupid? No. We're an encyclopedia, and deadliest isn't all that meaningful when you qualify it twice. Titanium Dragon 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon here. News sources are actually pretty unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing, so it is best to not propagate inaccuracies. Either leave the sensationalism (any sentence beginning "worst ever") out altogether and wait for a reliable source to get the historical context correct, or limit the historical context to relevant material (other US school shootings and other 'modern' mass shootings). The Bath School disaster, as a set of homicides, is probably the only other relevant historical event. The 19th century Indian massacres are of a qualitatively different type, as are the much worse school disasters involving fires (I pointed some out in the talk archive, see Category:School fires) so mentioning them here without a reliable source making the comparison for us, is too much like original research/synthesis. Carcharoth 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that a statement of scope and context adds "nothing" to the article is clearly not a consensus view here. One of the first questions anyone asks of such incidents, for better or worse, is, how bad was it? How did it compare in scope to other similar events? It's not sensationalism to label the incident as it has been labeled by thousands to date. On another point -- the continued use of other unrelated examples thrown into the discussion here (now school fires added to the list!) -- This was a shooting incident, by one man with two handguns. It should be compared ONLY with other shooting incidents. To do otherwise fogs the context, and in my view, appears a deliberate attempt to downplay the significance and divert attention from the specifics of this event. The guy used handguns. Sfmammamia 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the worst shooting of its kind in US history. The school shooting is bad enough, but what that guy did at the Bath Massacre in the 1920's was an isolated incident of insanity. However, 220 school shootings in 12 years is not isolated, and speaks to a modern American sociological phenomenon. Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were military campaigns against non-citizens; as tragic as they were, they are not the same type of incident as the modern phenomenon. "Deadliest shooting in modern US history" is a perfect wording to reflect exactly what this was, and the description is in no way sensational. Titanium, I don't disagree that the news media is sensational, however I disagree that the current phrasing is unencyclopedic. Scientz 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take out room number

I feel that, out of the respect for the people at Tech who live in the room where the victim was shot, the room number should be removed from this article. I wouldn't want future residents to have gawkers coming to their hall to see where it all happened.

ThanksJaxter1987 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be callous, but it's not Wikipedia's purpose to be "respectful", and anyway such a determination will almost inevitably be one of non-NPOV if it is allowed to be made. If there are other valid reasons for removing that information, then by all means remove it. But the facts of the matter are what they are, and the whole world has to live with that. Matt Gies 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally find the room numbers unecessary (I removed class room numbers a few days ago for the same reason) but if other people feel they really add something I don't mind keeping them. What do we think - are the room numbers relevant or not? Natalie 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the classroom numbers are acceptable, because those are generally public spaces or at least spaces frequented by many people. They are less person than the room numbers in the dorm, which people live in, next to, or near. So, leave classroom numbers and get rid of dorm room numbers. --Daysleeper47 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning sounds, er, reasonable to me! --ElKevbo 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave both. None of the above is grounds for removing content. 64.236.245.243 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone remember, users without account only count as half of those of us with accounts. 64.236.245.243, your thoughts are duly noted. --Daysleeper47 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Anons are treated equally, although there are some rare exceptions (IPs can't vote at WP:RFA for instance). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find your comment distasteful and inappropriate, Daysleeper47. If there is a joke here that I'm missing? --ElKevbo 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of including room numbers? Does it add anything to the article? Is anyone going to care in a year? We need a good reason to include things, not just no reasons to keep them out. Natalie 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It was irresponsible of Time Magazine to include the dorm room number in their article, and it is irresponsible to include it on Wikipedia. I don't see how the specific room numbers in any way add to the article. That it is factual is not enough; it also needs to be relevant. Furthermore, I feel it is a violation of the privacy rights of anyone who will ever live in or near the room in AJ; Jaxter is right to be concerned about gawkers. As a VT student, I'm furious at the disregard the national media have shown for the Virginia Tech community's privacy and grieving, and I'm saddened to see Wikipedia brought down to that level. I'm removing the dorm room number; personally, I would prefer to see it removed from the edit history, too, although that's probably not possible. Geoff 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove trivial information. We don't need to record everything (that job belongs to other people, and later researchers will go to those sources, and won't come here - they shouldn't anyway). Wikipedia should provide general, in-depth coverage of the event, allowing people to understand the event and read background information. Wikipedia shouldn't be providing a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened and where. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Not all 'true' information needs to be included in an article. Carcharoth 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Making a list of injured individuals by name

I started accounting for injured individuals as described in media accounts - See Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded - I also included the injuries sustained by the wounded. I also included names of uninjured individuals, though in the end they will NOT be listed with the injured in the victims list. WhisperToMe 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only one question. Why? Who is interested in a list of the injured? Carcharoth 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who wrote List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre included the injured. The timeline at Columbine_High_School_massacre includes the injuries sustained by the victims. WhisperToMe 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whisper, I'm afraid this may stray into original research. See this Associated Press article from today, which says, "Most of the 25 people hurt in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history are healing in private, declining or ignoring interview requests." Sfmammamia 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sfmammamia, the sources are right in front of you. WhisperToMe 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101219.html EDIT: Whaddya know? It's the same article. Either way, I can just pick another one from my list - they all describe names and injuries. WhisperToMe 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries may also be straying into areas of questionable taste and utility. --Dynaflow 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? The timeline on the article? WhisperToMe 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would also question the utility and tastefulness of the Columbine bloody-laundry list. Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it doesn't mean it should be emulated. At least the Columbine list's creators refrained from including the even more gratuitous "blow-by-blow" details of the victims' respective terminal brutalizations. The Klebold-Harris snuff pic is also a nice touch; perhaps that will be emulated on the VT list as well? One can only hope. --Dynaflow 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does "Mark Taylor shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll." NOT look like blow by blow to you? Anyway, I hate it when WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to completely ignore precedent. No, one cannot ignore precedent. You just have to be very careful with precedent. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is okay when someone creates an obviously blatant error, and then creates another one and uses a previous one to justify it. WhisperToMe 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That line doesn't exist on the list of Columbine victims page, as far as I can see. As for "precedent," the point of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS invocation is that there is not necessarily any precedent in Wikipedia. We're not arguing a case in common-law-system courtroom; we are discussing what, exactly, is a useful addition to an encyclopedia. Also, this VT list does not simply emulate the Columbine list. It goes beyond it towards a whole new level of grisly tragedy-voyeurism (except, of course, for the cool, totally encyclopedic, brain-chunks picture of Klebold and Harris -- the Columbine list is still ahead of y'all there). --Dynaflow 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow: 1. If one set of editors (I.E. Columbine editors) believed that a detailed explanation of what the bullets hit is encyclopedic, then we will determine the same thing too. The injuries are encyclopedic as they accurately illustrate EXACTLY what happened in those classrooms in Norris Hall. Also, aside from the one entry that mentions what the bullet that hit Strollo and the bicep mention for the guy in 204, I cannot possibly see how the list for V-Tech is more detailed than the list for Columbine. See, that's two entries... two. And, even then, I would still keep them. Strollo's entry illustrates that the bullet severely wounded her and had the potential to kill her. A Wikipedia encyclopedia article can go into some detail, Dynaflow. Also, we are not sanitized. I believe I can find an entry about that. In fact, the only reason why pictures like Goatse aren't on Wikipedia is because those pics are copyrighted. I understand that the details of the shots may disturb you. That is to be expected: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored mentions that contents may be disturbing. WhisperToMe 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whispertome, "Not censored" is nothing at all like "not edited." Questions of taste and propriety are absolutely within our standards. That is, in fact, in large part what editing is. Responsible editing, in fact, is more about deciding what to exclude than about deciding what to include. Nandesuka 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand on my point. I will exclude anything not verifiable and I will also avoid peacock terms. There. That should be enough to end that point. WhisperToMe 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "grassy knoll" comes from the timeline listed in the main article. Dirtysocks 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From the side conversation going on at Dynaflow's talk page

[BEGIN COPY-PASTE]

Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? That article has lists of injuries. So, then, why can't V-Tech? By the way, the claims of original research are false; I have provided extensive press sources from various newspapers. WhisperToMe 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else made the call on original research, not me. The Columbine list also strains the rubrics of good taste and encyclopedic merit. See the talk page for a more-complete response. I will have that page on my watchlist. --Dynaflow 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

If the bullet hits were not relevant - if what I posted there was posted to an article about sunflowers and kittens, you would have every right to remove it. For instance, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has "Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."—Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

Note that the disclaimer does not say "Wikipedians will try to trigger your post-traumatic stress disorder whenever possible." Anyway, that's not my objection (and note that it's not a "true" objection because I haven't suggested the article be taken to AfD). All I'm saying is that the "annotated list" is tasteless and useless, on top of being voyeuristic and exploitationist, and it doesn't merit the time and effort that's being poured into it. --Dynaflow 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[END COPY-PASTE]

You should not read massacre articles if you do not like hearing details about... a massacre. Anyway, your proposal in fact will sanitize the article. That's something not desireable for an NPOV encyclopedia. WhisperToMe 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, one last thing: The details will not stay on that page forever - Once, and I mean once a timeline is established, I will move the details of the injuries to the timeline. Until then, the details should stay with the injured list. WhisperToMe 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your phrase, "accounting for injured individuals," in your opening message. If your ultimate intent is only to create a partial, incomplete list of the injured from media accounts, without drawing any conclusions as to how many people were ultimately injured, either by Cho in the attacks, or in their efforts to escape, THAT would not be original research. Any attempt to draw conclusions or total it up (what I thought you meant by "accounting") WOULD be original research (synthesis serving to advance a position). Sfmammamia 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How would that be OR? (Oops, I jumped the gun) Yep. By not stating "This IS the amount injured" (I placed "This list is partial" in many of the ports), I have fulfilled my duty to not make it OR. WhisperToMe 04:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I.E. I stated (I just added it to Norris 211's injured list, though)... "Injured students in Norris 211

(This list is partial)

• Allison Claire Cook"

I also added: "Injured students, classroom not stated" to account for people who I know are injured, but I do not know where they were at the time.

I have no sources that describe where Justin Klein was, so I cannot say where he Justin Klein was.

WhisperToMe 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The only place to get an authoritative list of injured would be from Virginia Tech itself. However, they have declined to release the list (correctly in my view) citing confidentiality concerns and in fact, the HIPAA law. See footnote 3. Best to drop it, I think. Ronnotel 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just drop it. No need to list the injured if you can't find a single reliable source that claims to be a complete list, and compiling a list from different sources is original research. And listing the details of the injuries is not encyclopedic. It is something you would find in a voyeuristic ("an obsessive observer of sensational or sordid subjects") and sensationalist tabloid newspaper article. I might read those articles, but I wouldn't expect to read that sort of thing in an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NBC News documentary

This section was removed by Ronnotel because "there were hundreds of stories on this incident - dressing one up and calling it a 'documentary' does not make it notable". However, au contraire, Ron, the documentary does have notability because it was produced by NBC News, the very organization that Cho allegedly mailed his "media package" to. And I'm pretty sure NBC News has enough credibility and reliability (despite what some conspiracy theorists may believe). I think it should be restored. Ron didn't show any evidence of other hour-long "stories" that aired on primetime cable TV produced by a major worldwide TV network for a documentary channel like The History Channel.

The History Channel aired a documentary film produced by NBC News, Virginia Tech: Eyewitness to Tragedy, on April 26, 2007 about the massacre.[7] This may very well be the fastest-produced documentary of an event so soon after it occurred.

-Eep² 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that there are many, many stories on this event. What makes the documentary notable? If you can distill that down into an encyclopedic description and attribute it to reliable sources, then fine. For instance, it might be notable if there was an independent review of the documentary that can be cited. However, the text simply stated that a documentary had been rushed out in 'record' time, or some such - which simply doesn't add anything beyond the hundreds of cited references already here. Ronnotel 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a documentary, not a "story". Name one televised "story" that has been an hour long and has been an extensive timeline of events about this massacre that aired in primetime on a cable TV channel--go ahead; I'll wait here... The notibility is in the elapsed time it took for such a documentary to be created after such an event. -Eep² 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is fine so long as you can attribute it to a reliable source - i.e. a published article that describes how quickly after the event the documentary was produced. Ronnotel 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to visit the source link I originally provided with the claim, Ron? "In a case of instant history, The History Channel will be airing a one-hour special on the Virginia Tech shootings Thursday at 10 p.m." implies how fast the documentary was produced after the event, to me... -Eep² 21:06, 28 April

An independent source, not a self-serving reference, please. Ronnotel 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, TelevisionWeek[8] (not this TV Week) isn't affiliated with NBC News... -Eep² 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That reference does not state how the documentary was notable. You're going to have to tell us why it is notable according to Wikipedia notability guidelines, not your own definition of "notable." Phony Saint 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link by Conservative Voice

I had removed the link by Conservative Voice simply because its not a reputed link. Can somebody put a link from another reputed source there?Hahahaha1 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "reputable", as opposed to "reputed"? I tried, with Ted Nugent's commentary on CNN. Better??Sfmammamia 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Personally speaking I dont agree with the whole Ted Nugent view because its like saying ' All countries should be allowed to develop nuclear warheads to protect themselves from nuclear attacks'. But that said, as long as the source is 'reputable', its fine.Hahahaha1 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC as external link

Is there a particular reason we have MSNBC's front page as our first external link? It seems like giving undue weight to one particular new outlet, especially since it's been here since before the news about the package broke. I would like to remove it, but if there is a reason it's here I will not, obviously. Natalie 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Natalie 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like it was added back in inadvertently with a large revert by Dynaflow. I removed it once again. If a single news outlet is chosen, it should probably be http://www.CollegiateTimes.com/, the VT newspaper. Sean

Sorry about that. 207.127.128.2 was on some sort of rampage and incrementally blanking the article, section by section. I undid one of the series of blankings, not realizing the extent of the damage, and while I was trying to find the last intact version to restore everything to how it was before the IPvandal showed up, one of you must have been editing the fragment I had just restored. Such is the price we pay for working on the encyclopedia not just "anyone," but anyone, can edit. --Dynaflow 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, these things happen. At least through the magic power of binary there is not end of things that can undone. Natalie 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sneed?

I notice the entry about inaccurate report by Michael Sneed from Sun-Times has been totally removed. Looks like there are quite a few Philistines on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).

I have added the related section back. This is an important incident related to the massacre. You shouldn't try to hide the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).

The problem with the entire "inaccurate media reports" section is that it is original research: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts (...) without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Unless there are reputable sources that discuss those media inaccuracies, the section should go. Skarioffszky 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are talking funny. More than one news source reported this inaccurate report. For example: http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2007/04/18/ill-informed-chicago-columnist-scares-the-hell-out-of-china/ What's more, the whole incident was a self-evident fact need no original research. By your logic all first-hand news report is original research! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Combining first-hand news reports into a synthesis that has not been published by reputable sources is original research. If there are sources that discuss the Michael Sneed report, please cite them in the article. But the rest of the section remains original research. Skarioffszky 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would say it. Here is one from Huffington Report, what do you have to say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/virginia-tech-shooting-o_b_46159.html

Well, of course I would say that; it's official policy. Do we agree that the Ismail/Ishmael bit and the part about "railing against Christianity" should go? Skarioffszky 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What official policy? Are you saying you are some officer on Wikipeida? By my understanding this is a free encyclopedia everyone can edit. You asked for "reputable sources" and I gave you one. Your claim that the section being original research has been proven untrue. Isn't it obvious? Anyway I will keep reverting it back in the future if you keep deleting it without a valid justification. You can delete the Ismail part if you want to . But I will add Michael Sneed's name on the section since she is reported in some respected media.

By "official policy" I mean official policy. Maybe you should read it some time. Skarioffszky 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I appologize for the misunderstanding. How about this: we keep and expand the first part about inaccurate report of killer being Chinese since it's verifiable and is not original research and delete the remaining?

Fine with me. This article by James Fallows of The Atlantic Monthly might be useful. Skarioffszky 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of duplicated material

I removed a large amount of material which was a complete duplication of most of the article. (It caused the size to jump from 65,699 bytes to 115,809 bytes.) I could not simply undo the change since there were conflicting intervening edits. It is possible that there may be some editorial changes lost. Bear475 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Teachers

Do you think that teachers should say anything if sign in behavior change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if this is not in direct relation to the writing of this article, I would point out that this is not a forum for general discussion on the article's topic. --Dynaflow 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007 May 2nd the intro text includes these sentences: ``In 2005, he had been accused of stalking two young women[8] and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[9] At least one professor had asked him to get counseling., after describing Cho as an English major at University. The article would be better served for now by replacing the above quoted text with a summary that an independent investigation is ongoing. 68.175.118.95 05:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

VT Massacre Pictures

The massacre took place in West Ambler Johnston and Norris Hall. Why is one of the pictures shown on the page of a French class in Holden Hall? Holden Hall was not involved in the shootings.68.37.233.7 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite

Holden Hall and Norris Hall are the same physical building. Floor 2 of Holden is right down the hall from floor 2 of Norris. --BigDT 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is this picture from the French class where the 11 people were shot?68.37.233.7 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite

No ... it is a different French class. The VT timetable (accessible from [9]) has Elementary French with EB Dandridge from 9:05-9:55 MWF in Holden 212. That is almost presumably the class this picture is from. The French class that was shot was an intermediate French class taught by Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. I'm guessing that the class that was shot was removed from the timetable. --BigDT 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page from vandalism?

Should "semi-protection" be applied to this article? It's been vandalized fairly frequently. Semi-protection prevents edits by anonymous users and people whose accounts are less than 4 days old. It seems justified to me, but I'd prefer to have an admin make the call on it and insert the tag.

Here's a run down of vandalism in the last 16 hours:

edit vandalism undone at

• 14:07
• 11:31
• 10:32
• 10:27
• 10:21
• 9:08-9:09

• 6:40
• 1:05

move vandalism undone at

• 11:52

Thanks --Pladuk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good idea to have an admin make the call, as they are the only ones who can semi-protect articles. However, I think that enough people watch this that the damage being done by the vandlism is minimal, and it is more beneficial to allow anonymous editing. --Sopoforic 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not worth worrying about given the number of editors still watching this article, but you're welcome to request semi-protection. --ElKevbo 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I'm glad to understand the process better. I'll hold off for now, but will do another vandalism audit sometime tomorrow to see how it's going. Thanks --Pladuk 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Selection of Image of Shooter

I don't believe that the image of the shooter is representative. The image is the one taken by the shooter himself, and therefore serves his message (or propaganda) to the community about himself, and does not represent the person that you would have seen during his day to day life. Using this image lends weight to his reasoning in committing the crimes on that day, which is unjustifiable. By using this image, emphasis is given to the extreme nature of this person which would not be visible normally. The pose and display of weapons in the image may provide incitement or inspiration to others. The image is likely to be offensive to victims of the crimes. Victims need to reconcile in some way with the perpetrator of crimes committed against them, and this image does not serve this purpose. The image serves the glorification of the shooter, and the popularization of horrific crime. Merxa 04:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's particularly iconic about this incident, having been shown repeatedly in the news. Whether or not Cho's intent was to get that particular photo shown all over the world, who knows. As has been argued previously, if someone gets inspiration from this article, they have far greater problems than we can hope to rectify by censoring our articles. (If you want a "representative" picture of Cho, there's one in his article, though you probably won't like the other pictures. It's not like we have hundreds of pictures of Cho to choose from.) Phony Saint 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo was deleted again today without comment. I have restored it. This has been discussed previously; check the archives if you are interested. I don't have strong feelings about this particular image, but feel there needs to be an image there. Sfmammamia 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of gun information

The Attacks section keeps getting edited to add the following:

Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a small-bore .22 caliber Walther P22 semiautomatic handgun and a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 handgun.

This information is already covered in the Background section:

The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19

What is the point of describing the same information two times? This seems intended to keep bringing attention to the guns. Is this to help out in the ongoing disputes about the Walther P-22 and the Glock 19 articles? Kevinp2 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Redundant and pointless. You should remove it. Ikilled007 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier. Please read the earlier discussion before removing again. Sfmammamia 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The archive bot is archiving too fast, argh. Ok, how about this: "Cho used two handguns during the attack." That seems like an appropriate level of detail at that introduction to the article.Kevinp2 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Archiving

Is the bot set at 250k? I think it's archiving a lot more quickly than it should be. Given human nature, I doubt seriously that most editors are going to peruse that many pages before re-arguing the same points. To date we've had important discussions on wording, relevant information, and NPOV -- discussion now relegated far too deep into the archives to be noticed. It's my humble opinion that the the talk page should not be archived more than twice per week to give users a reasonable amount of time to see what this page is all about. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, Ikilled007 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On other pages with important previous discussions, like Talk:Abortion, linking to important discussions in the archives from a summary list has been helpful. This may be helpful here for easy referral. I haven't followed this enough to do this myself however. Though I'd agree the turnover of archives here is probably too fast, it's very difficult to follow. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:58, 1 May 2007 (GMT)

Funpika already removed the bot archiving instructions. I agree that this has slowed down enough to either remove the bot or scale it back considerably. --ElKevbo 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With the bot gone and things slowed down, it may be time for someone familiar with previous discussions to sort them out, in order to avoid repetition of old arguments, as mentioned above. Wrad 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Media response

I have created a concise section on media response, as first item in the Virginia Tech massacre#Responses to the incidents section and have ejected most of the relevant content to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Paragraphs have been excised from Virginia Tech massacre#Perpetrator, and Virginia Tech massacre#International_response. Article size has been brought back to 58k. Ohconfucius 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre"?

So... just curious about other people's opinions on this. I personally feel that the word "massacre" might not belong in the title of this article. I know that the Columbine shooting's article includes it, but I guess I'm just asking about the use of the word in general. I feel that "massacre" is a very emotional word, the sort of thing you'd find in evening news reports. I feel like "shooting" would fit better, as well as fit in line with most other articles about mass shootings. Opinions? --UNHchabo 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed recently. Look at this archive here Wrad 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rapid archiving of these pages always cuts off such discussions. The reality is that yes, it might get moved, massacre isn't a very neutral name, and shooting is as common if not more so. I don't think it will be movable for another week or so though. Titanium Dragon 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "massacre" is a very strong word, and I too think that it might be best to consider using a different word in the title. —Mears man 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, this has been heavily discussed previously. The frequency with which this event is named in the media as "Virginia Tech massacre" has a strong bearing on what we call it here. I removed the addition of "Virginia Tech murders" as a second name because "Virginia Tech massacre" is still the most common name, by a factor of 8 to 1, in a quick search on Google News. Sfmammamia 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Injured number of injured withheld[3]"

Fact box says "number of injured withheld" but going to the links shows it is only the NAMES that are withheld , not the number. Wikinews says "15". GangofOne 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As of a few days ago, at least, every news source was saying something different. I don't know where Wikinews got their number, but it's definitely wrong and woefully out of date. If an official count has been released, that's great, but we need a reliable source for it. Natalie 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - my logic for that text is that if Virginia Tech is specifically withholding the names, then no other reliable source can confirm the number since they would need the list of names to verify their count. If Virginia Tech released a number of wounded, then that would be reliable - but so far they haven't. Ronnotel 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is no secret, I just had a peek at Roanoke Times, a local newspaper, they say that the number is "28" [10] --MoRsE 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. To say the number is "withheld" is just inaccurate. GangofOne 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When two sources provide different information, we should give preference to the most reliable. In this case, I suggest that the most reliable source is Virginia Tech. Given that other sources are presumably unable to confirm their estimates should call their reliablity into question. My preference would be to simply remove the line from the infobox. Ronnotel 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider a local newspaper to be a very reliable source. The should keep a very close eye on the events. --MoRsE 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this story from yesterday says that Virginia Tech now says that 25 people were injured, based on police reports. They are careful to add that the total includes those injured by bullets and those injured jumping from windows to escape. Sfmammamia 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus, we have conflicting sources with the most reliable source failing to publish a number. Perhaps we can say dozens - I think most sources would be in line with that. Ronnotel 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I think you have said before that the most reliable source is Virginia Tech, and they are now saying 25, based on police reports, so I consider that a reliable number at this point. Anything wrong with that logic? Sfmammamia 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread you. Yes, you're right, VTech is indeed quoted as saying 25 people injured. Let's go with that number. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indention in TOC

Why are the subchapters of chapters 1 indented in the table of contents, but not those of the chapters 2 and 3? It looks weird. --Abe Lincoln 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It does look strange. It must be a technical issue. I will try to post to the right page.Monkeyblue 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Posted to WP:VPT. Monkeyblue 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I keep putting a merge template on this page and it keeps getting deleted within mere hours. Can anyone explain to me why they would be so devoted to making sure that I can't suggest something like that? I believe that this should be merged with Virginia Tech article and then seperated. If thats even possible. Whoever is doing it please stop. Amaraiel 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the one deleting it nor do I condone deleting it without discussion. But I would not support such a merge and I am sure that such a suggestion would be rejected by the vast majority of editors. That shouldn't stop you from making the suggestion, however - I could be wrong (it's rare but it happens :). --ElKevbo 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing this thread when I removed the template. It should probably still go on the talk page rather than the article... That said, I don't believe there is any way to cleanly merge the vast amount of relevant information from this article into the article on Virginia Tech. Further, there is no reason to merge them... one is an article about an important American educational institution and the other is an article about a criminal act of historical and monumental significance. The two are related only by geography and circumstance. The latter will eventually be a mere footnote of the former. HokieRNB 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amaraiel, you've tagged Virginia Tech massacre and Virginia Tech for merging three times over the past few days with no justification on their talk pages. You're the one responsible for starting discussion about the merge. After tagging something, you should put your reasons on the talk page afterward. Phony Saint 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Article documents notable event - merging into Virginia Tech would result in a too large page. Can't see any strong reason why such a merge would benefit the topic. Ronnotel 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Most strenuous objection possible. See my argument above. HokieRNB 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. The only connection between VT and the massacre was that Cho was a student there when he went on his rampage. If he'd been studying at some other school, he would have killed people there instead. There's no real reason to merge the two in the first place. The suggestion to "merge the articles, then separate them" is unnecessary, since it results in the exact same situation we have now, two separate articles for two separate notable items. If you're gonna suggest a merge, don't just suggest it, tell us WHY we should do it. Rdfox 76 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is an article about an institution. Virginia Tech massacre is about an event which happened to involve that institution. The proposal to merge the two is like saying that the article series on the American Civil War/War Between the States should be merged with the article United States Army. Also, read WP:RECENT (which, of course, is not official policy and thus need not even be acknowledged, even if it makes a lot of sense) before you decide that the bulk of the article on Virginia Tech should be dedicated to what is, in the end, an unfortunate event that happened one day in a very, very old place. --Dynaflow 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Absolutely not. Suggesting that this should be merged with VA Tech would be like suggesting the Columbine massacre with Columbine High School. Additionally, this is a historical event - though it's not significant enough to have a huge passage in a history book about early 21st century American history, to date, this is the largest/deadliest mass shooting in the history of the country (1776-2007). --myselfalso 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentiment is pretty clear, I'm going to remove the tag. Ronnotel 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amaraiel's Response to Merge Rant

Amaraiel's Talk Page --Amaraiel 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You're surprised -- shocked! -- that editors are editing from their own viewpoints. Where else would they be editing from? We are not, as your self-described rant would have us be, as pure of human foibles as the Word of God. If that's what you're looking for, go out to the desert, find a nice cave, or buy some magic mushrooms from the guy down the street. God may just drop by and give you some pure knowledge there and then, but you will find only fellow humans here. --Dynaflow 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say let's just be kinder to new wikipedians in the future. Obviously he was unfamiliar with merge tags and the rules connected with them. If someone had posted something on his talk page, this may have been avoided, rather than shooting him down again and again in public. Wrad 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my knee-jerk response above; I was still in sockpuppet-fighting mode from another, much more acrimonious dispute and I wasn't patient enough to go through the entire history of this one, and I especially didn't realize the relative inexperience of the editor involved. I've discussed this with Amaraiel at my talk page, and we seem to have reached a mutual understanding. Sorry for biting the newcomer. --Dynaflow 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Range

Cho and Emily Hilscher seemed to have both practiced on some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.182.171 (talk) 18:05, 3 May, 2007 (UTC)

Could you please state where did you hear (or read) this from? It is indeed interesting, but useless if it is just speculation --Legion fi 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard if from TV news (maybe ABC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.182.171 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I added a blurb about Korean Americans fasting in response to the massacre

I added a blurb, under the Korean response, about Korean Americans who are fasting for 32 days in response to the massacre. Fsu23phd 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion-Religious Response

I would just like to suggest that in addition to the school, media, and university response that info regarding the church or religious response be included. There was much media regarding this - particulalry New Life Christian Fellowship and Blacksburg Christian Fellowship and Intervarsity and Campus Crusade's presence and response. Just a note - I don't have time currently to do it myself. Gatorgalen 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole "response" section is likely to be scaled back as most of it isn't particularly meaningful, so I'm somewhat loath to add yet more stuff we're going to get rid of. Titanium Dragon 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium. Aaron Bowen 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Student creating FPS map of his school

Maybe this one is worth of including somewhere in the article? ;] [11] Jan Winnicki * 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's very relevant to this article, as this incident really had nothing directly to do with Virginia Tech (Did I just use the name that way, like "Kent State?" Argh.), and the severe paranoia about violence in schools long predates this "current" massacre. --Dynaflow 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Intl. Response - undue weight?

I believe that the international response section needs to be trimmed down. It seems like undue weight given that it's longer than the domestic response section. It also seems repetitive - similar criticisms again and again. Ronnotel 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Rooot 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly. --M a s 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted a similar comment a while back on the talk page. The size of the section and repetition of information in it pushes POV with respect to the size and detail of other sections in the article. It needs to be trimmed down at a minimum.Tyro 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've built on other efforts and continued to trim; it's now shorter than the domestic response section. Sfmammamia 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Contingency Plan

Would it not be prudent to outline the procedures taken by the school from the time the first shootings occured in West Ambler from the time the shooter was found that morning? --Amaraiel 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is being done in the timeline article. --Sfmammamia 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)