Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Redundant Material

In the article, there are some cases where information is repeated. One example is that there is a paragraph within the "preparation" section documenting the package that the shooter sent to NBC news. The same information is repeated under the "Shooter's message to NBC news" section. I deleted the paragraph within the "preparation" section because of this redundancy. Thoughts? Quanticle 00:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's plays

Is smoking gun a reliabe source? I read 'Richard McBeef' and another play allegedly written by Cho, but they look like hoaxes to me. Also another source the other alleged play by Cho, 'Mr Brownstone': http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ Xuxunette 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Domain registrations in the aftermath of the incident

Domains like www.cho-seung-hui.com and www.ismaelax.com have been quickly registered and are parked now by domainsquatters. Maybe this can be mentioned somewhere in the article? I just don't know where it would fit, maybe there needs to be a new section like "online impact". -Philwiki 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but that seems too obscure and inconsequential to merit inclusion, particularly when juxtaposed with the impact on society and everything else. It's an interesting bit of trivia, though. -  Ennuified  talk   10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's firearm training??

Does anyone have any information on Cho's training/experience with firearms? Having hit more than 60 innocent, fleeing people (many of whom were shot several times) with the amount of ammo that could be carried on a person suggests that he had significant training. Just the nature and efficiency of the attack seems to indicate a huge amount of forethought. Anyone have any info??

• They were trapped in classrooms, and he shot them point-blank. It doesn't take much skill. Also, Virginia Tech police stated that each victim was shot at least three times (read that today, but don't have the source handy), so it wasn't like great accuracy was required. Since he had two weapons he could keep people covered while reloading the other weapon. In fact, I predict that he didn't do any killing with the .22 at all - it was just for cover while reloading the Glock. It was a slaughter - no skill required. I also read that over 200 shots were fired. That's 6 shots per fatality. --Dan East 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the extent of his experience and training with firearms is unknown. No-one's really said anything about him being into it, but he DID spend plenty of time alone (his roommate said he was gone much of the time, and if he didn't have any friends then what was he doing?) so it's possible he went to target ranges or something - I assume we'll hear about that eventually if he did. Dan East also makes a good point... he shot a lot of people a lot of times from very close range. He wouldn't necessarily need extensive experience with weapons to inflict the damage he did. -  Ennuified  talk   03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho is probably inexperienced. By evidence of the two pistols he had, the Glock 19 and the Walther P22, here goes - he was killing people with the glock, while using the Walther as a threat factor. The Walther is a very weak, plinking gun, for killing squirrels and such. However, it does have slightly menacing look. Most importantly, that gun is pretty cheap because it's actually a poor-quality gun, unlike the glock. Someone with weapons experience would never use a .22 caliber (the walther) as a killing weapon. Applesanity 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact he was shooting people would be enough of a threat factor without needing a menacing gun! Anyway most of these 7 talk pages look like speculation which strikes me as pretty macabre. Perhaps this would be better as a discussion of writing the article. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:02, 18 April 2007 (GMT)

I would love to have some name to agree with... so please sign your posts in talk pages... But I also agree that he had to have some training. 6 shots per people, as someone suggested, per 55 casualties (kills and injured) would sky to the ridiculous amount of 330 bullets. Thinking of a mag of 15 bullets, that ends up to be at least 20 mags. Not very likely --Legion fi 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A doctor from one of the local hospitals was quoted saying he saw many victims with three gunshot wounds. I'm not sure, but I think that's relatively high in these spree cases. This Time article has a federal source quoted that a couple hundred rounds were fired. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1611169,00.html?cnn=yes. I'm interested to see what other statistics come out of this investigation. Mikethegreen 04:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we can't draw any conclusions about his training or experience with guns, because we simply, factually, do not know. Anything beyond that is speculation, which doesn't merit inclusion in the first place, because it's also reasonably possible to think that he'd never fired a gun in his life before April 16th... if you fire 3-4 shots from 10 feet away at a person, they tend to die. The situation and circumstances make it hard to determine if he had training, but I think it's evident that he didn't need it - he wasn't sniping them from a tower like in Texas, or anything. -  Ennuified  talk   10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the Asian efficiency and work ethic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.141.1 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Cho's Uniform

One not so subtle thing that particularly strikes me is that Cho Seung-hui was said to be wearing a tan shirt that looked like a "boy-scout" uniform. Any reference to a tan uniform these days seem to scream US Army Desert Camo. Let's not forget that on an average day in Iraq by the lowball (Iraq Index) tally upwards of 100 Iraqi civilians have been killed violently, daily, for several years now. Yet even when these deaths makes front page news, militarily murdered Iraqis rarely move the Euro/American public. Virginia Tech also has a military cadet corps as part of its college. It is rather like when after the 2005 London bombings the mainstream press conveniently ignored the fact that the bus bomb blew at Tavistock Square - run by the Quakers as a Peace Park. Tavistock Sq has a statue of Gandhi, a Hiroshima Memorial, and a bench with a placard that says "World Peace can only be achieved by ordinary people like you"... (Sorry for the editorial rambling - back to the point)... Shouldn't something about Cho's dress be added to the article? Does it have political significance? 82.35.10.79 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) R.E.D., Research Fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Whether it does or not, it's simply unknown yet, and the article is not the place for speculation. If more details about his motive, intent, and any political message he wished to send through his actions become available, then it may merit inclusion, but it certainly doesn't now, at least not as I see it. Other opinions? -  Ennuified  talk  00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist connection?

I'm curious why none of the major news outlets have commented on the occult "magic triangle" on the murderer's forehead in his student photo. I'll not speculate on its significance and possible connection to South Korean terrorist organizations, but I'm shocked that no official sources have commented. Is this possibly a cover-up by the Freemason-controlled media? I look forward to the alternative media (blogosphere) addressing this vital question. Thanks. 69.250.43.106 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...because there is no magic triangle. thats the reflection coming off of the camera. --KSL 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bush lied and people died. When will we learn? It's no coincidence that a Korean is in control of the UN. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT! Think about it. 24.27.18.25 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the magic triangle? South Korean terrorist organizations? The magic triangle is, as the first commenter said, a reflection off the light (what, a greasy t-zone is a telltale sign of terrorist organizations now?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.191.103.141 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Err...Take this to a Forum. This has no place on the Wikipedia and IMO If it was a "South Korean terrorist organization" They could have done a lot more then just 33 and a lot easier. That and i doubt a terrorist would leave notes and write disturbing papers much less waste so much time on Campus. WillSWC 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye Gods, you've cracked it. Quick, round up the Greasy T-Zones. Dirtysocks 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good to come to wikipedia and learn valuable stuff, like the fact that it's actually Korea that's running the world. I did not know that until now, by yumpin' yiminy. Wahkeenah 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the artcle

reading back through thousand of pages, i've noticed hundreds,even thousnad of spots of vandalism and i suggest semi-protecting the article, which also appear dis-respectful. what do others think??? cheers Thenthornthing 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i thought is was semi-protected, well it was last night, the talk page was too. i'm all for semi-protection, you've got my vote-Threewaysround 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I currently support temporary semi-protection due to vandalism -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

goog to hear, both of you Thenthornthing 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's. I've been reverting all damn afteroon. Coemgenus 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected against editing for all new and unregistered users. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How come I can't post comments here? What's going on? Jeeny 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Page is Now Semi-Protected through April 24th Jdchamp31 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

copyvio of source

I don't have time to deal with this, but several paragraphs in the "background" section are copied straight from this Chicago Tribune article. Some earlier paragraphs which were removed as unsourced were also copied from the article. Someone please remove/rewrite ASAP. Natalie 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of the AP photo is also copyvio. 74.140.227.121 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun images

Are these really necessary? It doesn't seem to add anything to the article, in my opinion.Chunky Rice 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed them. Funpika 19:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? I think it's relevant. Why not? If the victims were beaten to death with rattan sticks and there was a picture of rattan sticks, would you object? Why? It's part of the story. MoodyGroove 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Yes, it's relevant, but it's not like we're illustrating the story here. The picture should add something unique to the article. If someone wants to see guns, go to the article on Glocks.24.15.230.144 22:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a picture of an atomic bomb in the Hiroshima blast article? yes. QED, show the bling bling baby. Maybe we could get some audio animations of bang bang too. 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I really, really hope you're being sarcastic. Rdfox 76 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

oh, so when Americans kill hundreds of thousands of Japaneses it's OK to show the weapon of choice, but when a korean goes on a killing spree and we show his ice it's disgusting. I roll my eyes in your general direction sir! 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a very distinct difference between an act of war and a single person committing multiple murders. Please learn it. Rdfox 76 01:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a political fight, and read the rules about posting on the talk page before you start. The.october.countrys 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GirlFriend

This is confusing.

It states in this article that Emily, one of the girls killed, was Cho's girlfriend. But Police were questioning her boyfriend, so she can't be Cho's girlfriend. Can someone clarify this. Mercenary2k 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen speculation that she was Cho's ex-girlfriend. Regardless, it doesn't belong in the article if it's not reliably sourced. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The speculation on this was baseless, sensationalistic journalism that sprang up in the first few minutes following the shooting. A facebook group created in memory of Emily has posting from both her friends and her REAL boyfriend confirming that Cho-Seung did not have a romantic relationship with her. At best, wikipedia should not serve as a media rumor mill when the accusations are based on no evidence or even witness testimony. It was PURE speculation. [1] President David Palmer 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably stalked her and only claimed that she was the girlfriend, even though she wasn't, obssessive people tend to do that --dputig07 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, as long as you can source it, which you can't as of now for the above. --KSL 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping fairly comprehensive tabs on all the coverage for this event and there's no indication that they were romantically involved, except for a couple of statements about Cho possibly obsessing over her and stalking her. Nothing solid yet afaik. -  Ennuified  talk  01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An earlier version of this article contained a quote from a survivor along the lines of "he said he was looking for his girlfriend". Is this correct?

There are so many reports that Emily was his girlfriend and so many that say she wasn't. Can we PLEASE remove that reference until confirmed? 72.66.204.188 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've read or heard anything about him, you know he wasn't dating any girl. Stalking perhaps, but certainly not dating or any kind of relationship. ~ Rollo44 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotect}}

Please update the timeline as follows:

• 9:50 a.m.: An second e-mail announcing: "A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows" is sent to all Virginia Tech email addresses. Loudspeakers broadcast a similar message.
• 10:16 a.m: A third e-mail cancels classes and advises people to stay where they are.
• 10:52 a.m.: A fourth e-mail warns of a multiple shooting with multiple victims in Norris Hall, saying the shooter has been arrested and that police are hunting for a possible second shooter. The entrances to the campus buildings are locked.

Looking into this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have enough information on this topic to determing if the above edits are appropriate. Can an editor invovled with miuch of this substantiate and either accept or decline to make the above edits? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The CNN 'interactive' thing confirms all three, except the contents of the 10:16 e-mail. The 9:50 one is already mentioned. Quoting it might be another thing entirely... --Kizor 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is only semiprotected, not editprotected tag is needed. CMummert · talk 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Make of this what you will: 'Jill wasn’t familiar with Emily, she put me in touch with another student who was, we will call her Jane to protect her identity. Jane described Emily as somewhat shy, sprite-like young girl. She made friends slowly, but once you were her friend, you got to see her optimistic, witty girl side. Emily had broken up with Cho-Seung-hui about two weeks prior to yesterday, what had started as a promising relationship had turned into a controlling, almost volatile situation. Cho Seung-hui was very dependent upon Emily. He looked to her as his ’saving grace’ and felt that every spare moment the two had, should be spent together. At first, Emily was charmed by his attentiveness, but began to slowly feel isolated, controlled, stagnant. Cho Seung-hui didn’t take the break-up well, for the past two weeks he had been trying to convince Emily they belonged together. '

[2] Hmmmmm!

spelling

the second "thirty" is spelled "thrity." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpm39 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I left that in? Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed. --Kizor 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Virginia massacre.jpg

The image page indicates that the shot was from a security camera and the caption indicates that it is from a cell phone. Could someone correct whichever is wrong? -MrFizyx 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo was taken from the Finnish wikipedia article. The text there states that it was from a security camera. [3] ("Turvakameran kuvaa") --MoRsE 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cell phone. There are no security cameras there. It is unquestionably non-free and needs to be reuploaded locally as we can only use it under a claim of fair use. --BigDT 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the Finnish Wikipedia's caption all that far. I checked out the source it used - the collegemedia.com gallery - and the gallery lists individual photographers, not security cameras. I've read that there are no security cameras on campus, though that was on Slashdot. I'd say it's cell phone footage.--Kizor 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded it locally with a fair use tag. The Commons image is tagged for speedy deletion. At some point in the future after the shock and horror has died down, it may be worth trying to contact collegemedia.com or even a student directly to try and get an image released under the GFDL. --BigDT 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I had many classes in Norris hall during the Five years I was at Tech there are no security Cameras there. I honestly can't remember any security Cameras any where on campus.British Rover 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of massacre in Glock 19, [[Glock], and Walther P22 articles?

There is a debate at the Glock 19, [[Glock], and Walther P22 articles about whether the Virginia Tech massacre should be mentioned in those articles. The sentence in question is: "Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student who allegedly killed 32 fellow students in the U.S. state of Virginia on April 16, 2007, used a Glock 19 and a .22 caliber Walther P22 handgun." I invite everyone to participate in those articles. Astruc 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WTH? I keep getting the wrong section. This page is moving. This is BS. Massacre is not the NAME of the EVENT. Jeeny 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. There have already been comprehensive discussions of this - it looks like we have to leave it as-is now and decide on the name in a week or two, because the discussion ran itself into the ground and was archived. Make sure you stick around for that future decision, though. As for the handgun pages crossreferencing the VT shootings, that's ridiculous, but I doubt anyone will win the argument in favor of it anyway. -  Ennuified  talk  01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

24 Year Old Chinese National from Shanghai?

Originally it was reported by some news stations (on Fox News and other places - not that I watch Fox) that a Chinese national who came to San Francisco after getting a visa from Shanghai, was being investigated for the shootings. What was the outcome of this investigation? Why was a mistake made? Who was responsible for making the mistake? If investigators had the gunman's body in their possession, how did they tie the gunman to the student from China?

Example of this story (Bloomberg Europe): "Authorities are investigating whether the shooter was a 24-year-old Chinese national who arrived in San Francisco on a United Airlines flight on Aug. 7 last year on a student visa issued in Shanghai, the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper reported on its Web site, citing an unidentified official. Jennifer Galt, a spokeswoman for the U.S. consulate in Shanghai, declined to comment." Jimhoward72 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a media screw-up. There is a 24-year-old Chinese national attending Virginia Tech, and he has a pro-gun website referencing firearms. Some reporter or blogger picked that up and ran with it, assuming that because he was interested in guns and was Asian he must be the shooter. http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/2007/04/16/ Thorne 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Schools' Reactions

Is this section actually relevant? Do we really need a verbatim copy of a rather long statement by an official of a school located hundreds of miles from VT? Rdfox 76 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good section to have in this article. I'm sure most schools will have some sort of response and hold events in memoriam of the victims and for the VT community, and still others- I'm sure most- will also send out information about their emergency procedures and etc. FSU didn't do anything special, and to add the responses of every school would warrant its own article. I think that we should remove this section and integrate all current and future information into the articles for the other schools. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See more relevant discussion below. It is highly relevant. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

String citations on victims' names

Some of the victims' names have multiple citations that make it difficult to read. Probably only one citation is needed for the whole section, and it could be placed at the heading, rather than after each name. Rooot 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, a citation might not even be necessary on this page, but only a link to the 'List of victims' page, where all the citations could be located. Rooot 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen editors tag citation required onto those before... I don't see why when the references exist on the {{main}}'d article. 132.205.44.134 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with that is that none of the external master lists seem to include all the known victims. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, couldn't the citations be grouped at some more aesthetically appropriate location? Rooot 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i personally think they are fine. i don't think we could leave them uncited with a link, but perhaps we could list all the citations at the top.-Threewaysround 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current setup is the best we're likely to get. It's a pretty common layout for cite-supported lists here (for example, look at List of people with heterochromia). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• We need to have each name cited individually at this point, otherwise it would be too easy for an incorrect name to sneak in.Chunky Rice 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange and maroon ribbon

FYI, if anyone would like to add a ribbon to their user page, you can use {{Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{administrator}} icon) or you can add Image:Orange and maroon ribbon.svg anywhere you would like.

Can we try not to archive this particular post for a day or two? It would be nice to leave it here for a little bit to make sure we catch anyone who is interested. --BigDT 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think not-archiving this post is a wise idea. Wikipedia is not a memorial service. Nil Einne 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but that means we shouldn't make memorials, that doesn't prohibit small-scale community action. I think it'd be beneficial. --Kizor 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I decided not to remove this message as it was harmless enough but I will strongly oppose any attempt to leave this unarchived or re-post it tomorrow or anything of that sort Nil Einne 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Wikipedia may not be a place for memorials, but it's ok to have a little heart. For those of us in America, this is a rather big thing. This may be the single worst national tragedy we have had since Wikipedia became popular ... so it's rather unprecedented. No, this isn't a place for a memorial, and I personally have removed the template from somewhere that it was incorrectly added to an article ... but I don't think there's any particular harm with having a link to the template on this talk page. --BigDT 22:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia; we have no heart. And this isn't the worst tragedy; that's why this is a problem. People are vastly exaggerating the importance of this. It is just a bunch of people pretending to care and a few who actually care. In any event, its our job to be NPOV. Titanium Dragon 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've never understood the whole ribbon thing for anything, always seemed kind of exclusive rather than inclusive. Makes it seem as if the rest of don't care. Anyway, if someone is looking for a way to show this exclusive feeling about a thing that happened to the entire country, there could be a link in someone's signature for where to get it. Gdo01 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"always seemed kind of exclusive rather than inclusive." - very true. I don't think it's necessary to make a big deal about it.Shapedy 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we use this sort of thing to make all of the VTm articles identifiable -- a symbol? eg. Orange/Maroon ribbon at the top of all of the VTm articles. Monkeyblue 10:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

victim info

should more details about the victim be on the victim list? Like Ryan C. Clark being a triple major in his 5th year, etc. 132.205.44.134 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the ones that weren't so prestigious? What about the ones that were about to drop out, the ones that had GPAs of below 2.0, the ones that weren't such good students? In short none of it is relevant. The professors' info is relevant for their credentials. Almost graduating is not a credential. Gdo01 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Some details are useful, and some are not. Knowing a student's status as a grad or undergrad, or their major, add value to the article. Knowing their grades and extracurricular activities is probably excessive. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can say they were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc year, what they were studying, where they were from. We don't have to say what their GPAs are. 132.205.44.134 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Violask81976 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Unless they're independently notable, I don't see why we need this information. A list of victims is silly, and no one is going to care in a year what they are. Titanium Dragon 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Charles Whitman article provides a good example of a victims list. The individual victims don't merit their own pages, but as noted below how and when they died will probably come to light with developing investigations or reports on the shootings. Deatonjr 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So is there a general rule about when and to what extent victim's names should be included in an article? There are, after all, a lot of articles about mass-scale tragedies that don't have a victim's list at all. Ephraim6888 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule is that we are building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not paper, and therefore we can easily afford to include the victims list. The Charles Whitman article is proof that the victim list is notable, even decades after the fact. Johntex\^talk 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that when I view the category "School killings in the United States" (link located at VERY bottom of article), some of the VT victims' NAMES show up as an INSTANCE of a school shooting. Can someone please correct this? I'd do it myself but I'm just now getting into this whole wikipedia thing and I don't know how. The other listings in this category are actual events/places - not victims - and it kinda bugs me that the victims' names show up in the list I'm just an anal observer, that's all70.177.234.236 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

International reaction

This whole section seems to add little to the value of the article. I suggest removing it entirely, even if for no reason other than brevity. Rooot 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i think a bit is helpful, reducing/compacting it could do, but i think removing it entirely is a bit extreme-Threewaysround 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's compact as it is, you can't make it much smaller without removing statements entirely. Anyway, I'm under the impression that this is par the course with major tragedies. --Kizor 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's valuable right now, if not necessarily for the article in future. newsong 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the current vs. future value. The article is acting as a news article at this point and will become stable in future. --Lmcelhiney 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, the reactions from Korea are important, given the gunman's status as a foreign national. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iranian reaction is also interesting, with the current tensions in mind --MoRsE 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how any country's leader offering "condolences" is worthwhile for this article at all. It is not novel nor useful. I'm sure that every leader questioned has offered sympathetic remarks. If a particular leader says something out of the ordinary, by either being excessively negative or incredibly eloquent with a positive message, then I would understand including it. Otherwise, it seems like wasted space. Rooot 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is valuable. It shows the far reach of the impact of this tragedy, and how various countries are lending their support. However, the formatting is wretched; the flags are childish and clunky, and the text should be transferred from list to prose; I've re-added the template that states this last factor. It could even be expanded, if necessary. María (habla conmigo) 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought the bit about the Korean official who was making contingency plans for Koreans was fascinating and relevant (WP:Relevance). Why would a Korean government official dump such a steamer? Why would someone claim to be making plans for the safety of a group of Americans who happen to be Korean, who number in the millions, and are spread throughout the mainland USA and Hawaii? How could the Korean government suggest such a ridiculous thing? Please do try and incorporate this in NPOV fashion etc somewhere in the article. Mumun 無文 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other countries lending support is important with things like wars and earthquakes, not school shootings. I agree that the international reactions (with the exception of the South Korean government's) are materially irrelevant and add nothing to the article. They do, however, make it longer and more tedious to get through. --Dynaflow 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this would qualify under my "out of the ordinary" test. Contrast this with the German government's response. The section definitely needs to be shortened. Rooot 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the history of the response by far right groups and xenophobes in the US to events like this, the Korean government statement is not surprising. They obviously weren't suggesting a mass evacuation but preparing to aide any Koreans who were the unfortunate victims of any of such people and perhaps also offering advise to their citizens to take care. It is the international norm that foreign countries will aide their citizens who have problems in said countries. I don't therefore see anything unusual about the Korean government's statement Nil Einne 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which - ah, I see María already brought it up - there's some dispute about how to present this section. One way is as straight text, another as a bullet-point list with icons of the countries' flags and the countries' names in front. I don't feel that the latter is at all clunky or childish. Instead, it's an elegant solution that makes it extremely easy to search, and is more compact as well. Note also that this way is used in the Response_to_the_2005_London_bombings article, and that the list-to-prose tag asks for conversion to prose or the writing of a lead. There's now a lead. --Kizor 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, Kizor. I hadn't previously seen the London Bombings response page, although I think it's a somewhat different scenario when the response/reactions from different areas composes the entire article. I still think the flags are an eyesore and quite unnecessary, but I could let that be filed under personal preference. :) You are correct in saying it now has a lead, however, and that's an improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if there is so much info to fill this section, as time goes by, that it's given its own page, as well. María (habla conmigo) 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, María. :) I'm less sure about how much content is incoming, but we'll see as it does. --Kizor 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's totally appropriate. When the UK soldiers were held by Iran the comments are responses by other nations was important and relevant. Everyone in the world realises what a tragedy it is, and everyone can sympathise on how they'd feel if their child was murdered while at University. It shows that the worldwide community shows disgust for such horrid behaviour by one human towards others. The flags and stuff though are not necessary, and once this story cools down maybe these comments won't be so important. But that's something far off yet. I can assure you, this story has been headline news and has taken up most broadcast time in Europe. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In short time, this section will become irrelevant. The reaction of the Queen of England or the Prime Minister of Iraq isn't noteworthy; I'll bet you could find 100 more international reactions if one were so inclined. It turns the page into a cluttered list. Deatonjr 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it has been shortened to a concise statement regarding other nations', plus the South Korean response regarding possible attacks against S.K. citizens, which is much more appropriate.Deatonjr 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything it bloats the article. Can't it be smooshed together in a clear two or three sentence statement? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the international reactions have hardly encyclopedical value. These expressions of sorrow and regret are very predictable. It makes me wonder if wiki saves all international reactions to someone say winning an oscar. More intersting would be a compilation of eg.. irani or germann regret statements and solidairity statements, over a period of 5 or 10 years. I don't think a tragedy like this should be the place for every governments propagandatory showing of their "human face". Although the iranian comment is curious, in the context of the recent exchanges of public statements, Merkel is the only one adding something by immediatly revocalising european support for the disarmament of the usian people. It is the one comment actually showing an attitude and the discusion is obviously part of the topic without merkel. Superfluous is a good word for this.80.57.243.16 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly i am against inclusion of the gun-pictures. That is a weapon fetish, he could have used any gun. Not even the types matter, at least .. could someone give one good reason why the type matters outside the police investigation? And it is not a very diffuse case of police work. Although i do wonder if u can shoot your own face off with either and still kill yourself(i suppose then). What i think is relevant about the guns is that he obtained one from a pawnshop days prior. All the rest is sensationalist at best.Its awfully standard that after a (mass)murder in the us the weapons were bought in weapons stores, and i dont see how it can be surprising.80.57.243.16 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I woke up to see it gone, what a waste. It was very informative and a method of easily acquiring information. Who knows how long those links will stay active? And what a pain it is to sit there clicking through over and over. I suggest that it be put back in. Virginia Tech Mechanical Engineering 2008 (current student), Bigmak 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Killer's Writings

Hello, two of the writings of the killer are available at http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ but I don't know how or if they should be linked. They are pretty brutal writings. Zehly 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I never get to say, as long as autofellatio is illustrated, we shouldn't refrain because of the content... Wikipedia does not blush. --Kizor 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Should be in Seung-Hui's article, at the least. --Kizor 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They are already there. Well the Smoking Gun one is. The AOL blog hardly seems a reliable source to me Nil Einne 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bomb threats

If the police chief has said that the bomb threats were not linked to the shootings, then why are they still included in the timeline? Rooot 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He's said that they haven't found any connection between them yet, not that they're unconnected. Additionally, they apparently found a bomb threat letter on Cho's body, so a connection may yet be made. Rdfox 76 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if there was no direct connection, the recent bomb threats probably influenced the administration and police response to the situation. That said, this article says that a note left in Cho's room also included a bomb threat... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't source this at the moment (read: can't be arsed) but I read earlier today that at least one of the bomb threats involved Norris Hall, where the larger shooting took place. Regardless, we should wait until we know one way or the other if they were from Cho or not. -  Ennuified  talk  01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of the shop

I don't see the relevance of identifying the shop where Cho bought his guns by name. It seems to me that it has none, and could result in someone taking inappropriate actions against the shop itself. Thoughts? Rdfox 76 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's useful in that it serves as confirmation that he bought the guns from a legitimate dealer, rather than one of those fly-by-night gun shows. As for someone taking action... the store's owner was willing to go on the record in interviews, and going after someone surrounded by a store full of guns is a pretty stupid idea anyway. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

yeh no one ever goes through with stupid ideas... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.170.254 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I was implying that the owner is probably capable of taking care of himself, should it come to that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually more worried about someone choosing to vandalize or otherwise attack the shop after-hours while it is closed. However, if the owner went on the record in interviews about it, then I withdraw my objection. Rdfox 76 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Or someone could take action by suing the shop owner. Even though it probably wouldn't go anywhere, it still might cost him money. Natalie 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the shop owner. I'd rather not see him harmed or his business vandalised, though I understand the sentiment. What's policy on including this? Doesn't anyone know? I would like to stay neutral, so I guess I'm just here to promote the further discussion of the inclusion.--JUDE ^talk 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

stuff

please add to the article how easy it is to buy firearms in the USA. You would think they would have learnt their lesson by now. Also - it should be documented what the entry requirements are for virgin tech - i.e. does being mental help?

i do not wish to insult anyone - i am discussing what should and what should not be in the article. it is free speech and open to debate.

Free speech is one thing. Encyclopedic is another. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Buying firearms would belong in articles about gun control and gun laws, not in this specific article. As for entry requirements, Virginia Tech has its OWN article, which would link to its OWN website that would lead you to specific requirements. Again, not encyclopedic. Jessikins 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This has no place in the article, and being the intelligent person you are, I'm sure you know that free speech only applies to governments, not to private organizations like Wikipedia. ugen64 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The gun control section should be removed, I think. It's obviousely biased. It only mentions those who support gun control. Really it seems to be using the quotes as an excuse to advocate those policies. I think it would be more appropriate to shorten the section, because it's important to inform that this has spured a debate. It is a bad idea to make this a place for the debate to occur. 216.79.155.3 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugen64, I hope you know I was responding to the above unsigned poster. Jessikins 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

clarification

This sentence:

"9:05 a.m.: Cho seen in Norris Hall, an Engineering building[5]. Doors are chained shut from the inside to prevent escape."

Who chained the doors shut? The police? The guy himself? ugen64 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that Cho did so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what they officially said last night at the press conference. I'm sure you can find the transcript somewhere if need be. --Ali'i 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Context

Woo Bum-Kon's massacre in Gyeongsangnam-do is accroding to the article, the worst spree killing ever. Unfortunately, we seem to be missing an article on the massacre itself, and the Gyeongsangnam-do doesn't mention it. If it's accurate, I think it should be referenced in the historical context section, as a comparison. (like the current ones about US only massacres) 132.205.44.134 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And with regard to US-soil-only shootings, the killings at Wounded Knee had nearly 10 times the number of deaths. I understand the need to distinguish between acts of terrorism/war and what we are calling "shootings," but I don't really think Wounded Knee could be called terrorism or war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrhain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

April 16th-21st has become an anniversary of sorts for school massacres, so yes it is relevant, pertinent information that should be included. In fact, I think these two days should become memorial days so everybody will know to be careful of copycat massacres in the future. In this case it's better to be safe than sorry. I'm sure a lot of people are not aware of the fact that columbine and other incidents occurred either on the same day or the next day. This is a fact and it's valuable and relevant information, it should not be discarded as unimportant, because it is important for people to know so they can raise their level of preparedness and be careful. Personally, if I was in college on April 16-20th, I would wear my bullet proof vest on that day and probably bring along something to defend myself with. Just imagine if one of the people in that classroom had some sort of weapon they could have used to stop this killer sooner.. how many lives could have been saved if people were more aware of what day it was and that it was a day people should have been more careful and on alert. Also, police presence should be stepped up greatly on these two days, just in case. Not only in colleges but also in high schools around the country. 75.74.96.253 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...and it's completely irrelevant, because this happened on April 16th. Let's not clutter up what's already a very large article with this kind of coincidental stuff unless there's a confirmed link, m'kay? Rdfox 76 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was off by a couple of days, I updated my comment.. happy now? 75.74.96.253 So are you really trying to say that people should be totally ignorant of the fact that multiple, similar tragedies.. a lone gunman, kills a bunch of people, at a school.. all within a few days of the same date, that's not a meaningful coincidence? It's not something that should be mentioned? Are you kidding me? That's like saying 9/11 is not an important date to remember. 75.74.96.253

No, I'm saying that until the police announce that they've established that the date was more than pure coincidence, there's no reason to mention it. It happened on the same day that income taxes were due, too, which is a lot closer to being a significant coincidence than being four days before one school shooting's anniversary, and two completely unrelated events' anniversaries. If Cho had done this on one of the anniversaries, I'd be in favor of keeping the information. But when it's half a week off of the anniversary date, then it's very tenuous at best. Rdfox 76 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Something important happened every day of the year, otherwise "this day in history" would be awfully boring. Unless someone SPECIFICALLY says it was intentional (and most likely, any day you choose would be "close" to another school shooting) its not notable and not worth nothing. Titanium Dragon 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho had prepared for this, he had a lot of ammunition, he had a bullet proof vest, obviously skilled and practiced with firearms, witnesses said he reloaded very quickly as if he was trained, this was premeditated and planned act.. do you really think he didn't do his research on effective ways of accomplishing what he set out to do most effectively? He achieved what he set out to do, he killed a lot of people and in the end finished killing when he decided he had done enough and ended it on his own terms. So you expect me or anybody else to believe or think for one second that he didn't read up on Columbine or the other school massacres? You seriously don't think the date had any significance? If so then you people are really thick skulled. I don't need the police or anybody else to come out and say there was evidence to support whether there was any "link" or not, it's blatantly obvious! 75.74.96.253 03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

look out for cut-and-pastes from news articles

I just had to rewrite this:

Professor Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the university's English department, said she did not personally know the gunman. But she said she spoke with Lucinda Roy, the department's director of creative writing, who had Cho in one of her classes and described him as "troubled."

"There was some concern about him," Rude said. "Sometimes, in creative writing, people reveal things and you never know if it's creative or if they're describing things, if they're imagining things or just how real it might be. But we're all alert to not ignore things like this."

She said Cho was referred to the counseling service, but she said she did not know when, or what the outcome was.

because it was copied straight from a Chicago Tribune article, which was probably copying the AP. Please keep an eye out for plagiarism from news sources. Natalie 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal gun regulations

It should be noted that until the law was not renewed in 2004, only 10 bullet-magazine clips were available for purchase, rather than the 33 bullet-magazine clips now available. Sad mouse 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What law? Explain the permissible sales of Glock 17s (17-round magazines). Rooot 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. Cho reloaded frequently enough, according to witnesses, that it was likely he was using standard ten-round magazines instead of extended magazines. Even if he was using extended magazines, he would have just as easily been able to carry the same amount of ammunition in the smaller magazines and reload. Rdfox 76 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One would have thought that the frequency with which a mass murderer had to reload their weapon would be of importance in the execution of their plans. Going from having to reload every three victims (he used 3 bullets each) to every ten victims may have had a role in the unprecedented success he had in mass shooting. Sad mouse 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you think of it another way-- someone defending themselves against a killer like this would also be affected by having to reload so many times. The argument can go both ways.Gloriamarie 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No it can't - for self defence against one person ten bullets should be sufficient, 33 bullet-clips seem to have little practical use beyond mass murderers. Besides, I never said that the issues should be given as evidence for one side or the other, simply that it should be stated. Sad mouse 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making all sorts of assumptions there. One is that the person interested in defense is a good shot. The second is that there is only one attacker. In reality, if you are defending your life (as opposed to going on a suicidal killing spree) your every bullet counts and is more precious. That is why it is extremely important to have the firepowere when on defense. Johntex\^talk 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is tenuous, not applicable to the current event, and is certainly not conclusive enough that the ammunition should not be mentioned. Sad mouse 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about not putting the ammunition into the article. I'm simply pointing out that you are logically incorrect about the need for large capacity ammunition clips for defense. They are very much relevant to defense. Johntex\^talk 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note 10 round magazines are not considered standard, they are considered restricted or reduced magazines. Most shooters/industry refer to 10 round magazines as restricted or reduced capacity, standard magazines which pistol is designed for (15 rounds in case of Glock 19) and extended or Hi Capacity to refer to standard magazines or third party magazines that hold more then Pistol was designed with. In Virginia it is permissible to purchase 33 round magazines but not carry them in certain places without Concealed Carry Permit or being at range. However, since little detail has come out about the weapons, it is a good assumption since it was purchased in Virginia, he recieved Glock standard of 2 15 round magazines and if he purchased more, they were likely standard or extended capacity magazines. Also note, most users can reload a Glock in probably 3 seconds are less. Given state of most students, I seriously doubt magazine capacity would have made a slight difference if any at all. Rabbit994 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop quoting factual errors from ABC News. You are referring to magazines. Not "clips." Also, the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 had nothing to do with, or law against high capacity magazines. Please get your information correct before making conclusions. Applesanity 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reloading rate is irrelevant; Kip Kinkel had a gun with 50 rounds in its magazine and fired off the whole clip, but killed only two people. What made this guy so successful was, most likely, competance with firearms combined with shooting people at very short range with the intent to kill. Titanium Dragon 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kip Kinkel did, however, hit 25 people in the cafeteria with his shots. That's a 50% rate compared to the 4% rate you mention, and he probably hit many of them more than once. He had taken gun safety classes and presumably was pretty competent with firearms--and while maybe not the best shot, he wasn't so bad. Luckily, he didn't hit them in vital enough areas to kill them. This guy was closer to his victims and in a less wide-open area.Gloriamarie 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion it is irrelevant, I think it should be stated as a simple fact, and if a later report finds it did or did not influence the killer's capacity, that can then be added. Sad mouse 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To those saying the ammunition he used is irrelevant, we mention the guns he used, so I assume that is irrelevant? If he had used an Uzi or something else that was illegal until recently that would certainly rate a mention, or why not use the same standard for ammunition? Sad mouse 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uzis as you understand them are almost essentially illegal in the US. Strawman argument here. The guns that the killer had were not illegal. Filing off the serial numbers was illegal. One of his guns, the .22 Walther P22 is practice gun, for killing things like squirrels. the glock 19 is actually a very small gun. The killer didn't have high-capacity magazines - the guns he bought don't fit them. He just kept on reloading. Applesanity 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, he had two weapons! Whether they held 50 rounds each or 10 doesn't matter. He could cover people with one weapon while reloading the other. What he did was like shooting fish in a barrel - no skill required. The students were trapped in a small classroom with nowhere to go, and he likely shot perceived threats (males) first. It is not necessary to assume he had any particular skill with firearms, short of being able to load, cock and pull the trigger without dropping them on the ground. --Dan East 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea: When the full list of victims is known...

When we know every victim's name, we should change them to various boxes on the page like at Columbine High School massacre. ShadowUltra 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. I know I suggested this a bit ago and I think other people have to over the course of the last day, so it sounds like it's pretty agreed upon. We just need the list to stabilize. Natalie 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its encyclopedic to include a list of the names; its kind of pointless really. They aren't notable and they aren't meaningful. Obviously people with their own articles should be listed, but not many (if any) of those were killed. Titanium Dragon 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The victim list is notable and common practice. Please see Charles Whitman. Johntex\^talk 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be, because it isn't notable and clutters up the article. We delete non-notable stuff, and we don't write down the names of all the victims of other massacres. They're all snowflakes with a combustion temperature of 250 C, so they're all the same to me, and after a year or so, all the same to everyone else as well. Titanium Dragon 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But the proof that you are wrong is that the Whitman incident was decades old and people still care about the list. People have tried to remove it before and they have never been successful. What is "notable" to one person is not notable to another. I don't spend much of my time reading our articles about villages in Indiana or cities in China, but I don't feel the need to delete them either. You snowflake example does not make any sense. First of all, what are you talking aobut "with a combustion temperature of 250 C". Second, you won't find national news coverage that lists "snowflakes", so an article listing snowflakes obviously fails to meet WP:V and WP:RS. In order for your argument to make any sense, you need to stick to sensible arguments. Johntex\^talk 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 250 degrees C is the combustion point of the human body, so snowflakes is a descriptive (and possibly sarcastic) term. Snorgle 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

not a fair use excerpt

Student Nikolas Macko described to BBC News his experience at the center of the shootings. He had been attending a math class and heard gunshots in the hallway. Three people in the classroom barricaded themselves inside the room using a table. At one point, Macko said, the shooter even attempted to break down the door of the classroom and then shot twice into the room; one shot hit a podium and the other went out the window. The shooter reloaded and shot into the door again but the bullet did not penetrate into the room. He stated there were "many, many shots" fired.[10]

I am the original author (this was edited by the BBC), and this is not a fair use excerpt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.53.202 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Wow, you work for the BBC and you are a Virginia Tech student who called 911 at 9:42 am? You get around so much! What's your secret? Natalie 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention his IP says he is from Fresno, California. Gdo01 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I need to find the original text that I wrote and submitted to BBC. Thanks, as that is what I meant. Please verify with comcast that the IP is fresno, as the third-party lookup is incorrect (since Jan 13 comcast migration)

Thanks, I guess that's the reason. Gdo01 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that your ISP says you are in Fresno and you are also claiming to have been on the seen and called 911, this paragraph wasn't copied from the BBC article. The only thing that is quoted is "many, many shots", which is attributed. Copyright law doesn't cover the information, only the words, which we aren't using. Also, the BBC article doesn't have an author credited, which usually means it's a collaborative work of the news team. Natalie 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to this ip locator:[[4]], the ip in question is located in Blacksburg. And considering it's the only locator I've used that tells me I'm located in British Columbia instead of Illinois, it's probably right. Just saying. HalfShadow 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed it again - sorry for the discrepancy - it sounded very much like rephrasing what my words were (This was related in a comments submission on BBC.co.uk - they call it an 'e-mail'), but if you all think it's ok, I have no problem with it. I thus tried to delete this, but wiki reverted. 24.127.53.202 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually reverted your deleting of this thread - we don't delete talk page threads for any reason accept libel. I understand you were doing what you thought was the right thing, but we keep everything. It may be that the paragraph was a rephrasing of the original, but I think that would be hard to demonstrate, given how cut and dried journalistic prose usually is. Also, as far as I can tell the BBC article has undergone a few rewrites since then, as information has been updated. Natalie 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, once you've submitted something to a news organization, all rights have reverted to them. BBC has sole authority to make a fair-use claim on this, but since it's a brief excerpt in the context of a "scholarly" article, they can't and they won't. What exactly is the problem you have with this? Are we misquoting the article? --Dynaflow 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained above, I withdrew my objection to it, but essentially I was wondering about whether it was fair use, apparently someone more knowledgable in this regard than myself believes it to be ok. It was not a matter of it they would, it was simply a matter of if it is right as quoted. I think that it is correct re:some rewrites. Anyways, as far as I'm concerned the debate is over. Apologies for not knowing re:deletion. Thanks for letting me know. 24.127.53.202 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

time is incorrect

9:45 a.m.: Students in the engineering building Norris Hall call police to report more shots have been fired.[98]

I called 911 at 9:42 a.m. This is first-hand information, verified with T-mobile USA for accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.53.202 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Date April 16, 2007 7:15 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. (UTC-4)

the correct time is 9:40 to 10:05 a.m. Again, I was in the building and these times are based on T-mobile USA records. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.53.202 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Uh did you call from Fresno because that is what your IP is telling me. Anyway, firsthand info is usually not reliable and therefore not acceptable under Wikipedia policies. Gdo01 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Call up the AP and get them to run a correction. Then we can include it. Natalie 22:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be a reason to check the facts, to be fair anal, but this one agrees with the media outlets. --Kizor 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the facts in the future when source available (911 recording). I am correct, as I made the call, from Room 205

I still want to know why you are in Fresno or why your IP is configured to say that is where you are from. Gdo01 22:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll be checking the recording when it comes available. Never fear. --Kizor 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to point out so you all know it is incorrect :) I'm just glad to be out of Norris. (sorry for the messyness, I'm not used to using the editor here, as I don't usually edit wikis much).

Sorry for the accusation. It seems I was using an outdated IP information program. Sorry for doubting you are from Virginia. Gdo01 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry; like I said, most locators think I'm in America. HalfShadow 22:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. I thought I'd provide you all with a heads up to the correct information, and an easily verifiable source (when available). Thanks for all the hard work from all of you.

Also sorry for the lack of sigs - I am learning this still. 24.127.53.202 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims section is broken

The "Victims" section is broken, and causing page stretching. I added enough line breaks to fix it, but my edit was reverted by someone. I know it wasn't efficient (I had to add about 4-5 line breaks to make it work), but now the page is broken -again-. If someone could fix the section properly, that'd be great. --Kenjoki 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite for Rachael Elizabeth Hill

The lsiting of Rachael Elizabeth Hill as a victim appears to be cited, but the number just links to an empty line in the footnotes. I suppose the cite could have been removed-I didn`t find it in the page history but I`m not sure because of the activity this page has had (and because I`m not a very advanced wiki editor). I didn`t find a cite in a quick Web search, but I`ll keep looking.--24.20.69.240 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I haven`t found a cite, and there`s no response here, I`m going to remove her name as a victim. If anyone does find a cite please feel free to put it back. --24.20.69.240 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but now it is back with the same problem, and the article is now semi-protected so I can`t remove it.--24.20.69.240 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

protected

why this is not semi-protected?--Pejman47 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors keeping an eye on edits, thus there's little reason to restrict the freedom of building on the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be there are to many edits to keep up with be it pov misinformation etc. seconds by second it's happening, more time is needed before semi-protection is lifted ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is on Main Page, and it is Wikipedia policy to not protect any page linked to Main Page.--Scheibenzahl 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, we are supposed to avoid protecting articles that are on the main page. It's not absolutely forbidden, but should be thought about and any protection applied is supposed to be short. Natalie 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right Natalie. Johntex\^talk 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD needed for sub-articles

I see that people have started writing articles about victims. I would like to nominated them all for delete. Some one has already put G. V. Loganathan for AfD. Please have a comment on the AfD entry. This whole article has a tone of sensationalism, and it needs to be addressed.--Scheibenzahl 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you back that up at all? MoodyGroove 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I agree to the extent that there shouldn't be a page for each victim, just because they were a victim. However, some of the victims are notable in their own right that they should have articles, G. V. Loganathan included IMHO. I wouldn't support a blanket AfD for all. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 02:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the alleged tone of sensationalism. I think the article is coming along swimmingly. MoodyGroove 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Really?

The 2 threats were directly related to the shootings.

I don't think this is true.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supergeo (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know, they have not been solidly connected yet. Beyond that is speculation. -  Ennuified  talk  01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough. No more vandalism. Leave it protected. Have some respect.

Don't let it be open to vandals. I just removed two pictures of female genitals. Don't unprotect this. Have some respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supergeo (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

"Other schools' responses" is unneccesary (disputed)

99% of schools have made either an official statement on their homepage or a public announcement. --Starks 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line on other universities responses? Flordia State is the sister institution of VaTech so that could be appropriate. However, Ohio State is not connected with VaTech in such a way. Nearly every university in the States has put out a response on their homepage. I don't think they should all be included. Whats the consensus on the line here? 65.189.129.140 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)unsigned

Agreed, we can all assume that most universities around the world will have some kind of similar message.--RobNS 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not unnecessary. FSU is clearly appropriate. OSU is offering physical assistance. That is clearly notable. There is a commented statement in that section delineating notability for inclusion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's explicit POV for us as Wikipedia editors to decide which institutions' responses and offers are noteworthy (2 out of hundreds, likely thousands?). --ElKevbo 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way? We refuse inclusion for stuff all the time because it is "non notable". We have a page called Wikipedia:Notability. Why then would that be POV? It's part of our job as editors.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Only highly notable, important and relevant information should be added. For instance, FSU is relevant as it is VT's sister school, and it adopted the same security measures as VT did immediately after the event. That merits inclusion. OSU pledged an offer of physical assistance. That is clearly notable, that is no different than the FBI pledging assistance.

The FBI actually has resources that can be utilized at VT. OSU does not. (I live in Ohio and attended OSU) What would be relevant is responses from schools that have dealt with similar situations, i.e. U Texas, Case Western, and Kent State. User:GregOhio 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What is NOT notable is "XXXX school offered it's condolences". We'd be flooded with that.

Remember all statements must be sourced, and cited reliably. Also, there is a <!-- Commented --> section stating that in the Other schools section, and saying do not just randomly add schools onto it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that every school, whether given in the statement or not, is going to offer some sort of assistance to VT if needed, so what exactly makes OSU's statement notable? User:Saget53 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have reverted it based on your own personal thoughts. Awesome. Why is Radford University not included? They are allowing Virginia State Police to stay in their dorms while they work on the case (per homepage). And there is a world of difference between the FBI pledging assistance and a university pledging assistance. Wake Forest offered the same assistance (per homepage). They are not included. Its POV for the inclusion of these two universities. 65.189.129.140 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please review what POV actually is. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IF you can find a cite for the Radford statement, that is highly notable. I just added UVA's medical services. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it and added it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does every university have to be included? You are from Tallahassee, home of FSU. The user that posted the OSU one is from the Ohio area. If we had every person posting about their own personal school, it would be madness. A general note would be fine. You have decided on something with only your consensus. 65.189.129.140 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in D.C., home of American. Note, I didn't include Americans. In fact, I went through every virginia accredited institution of higher learning (except community colleges) and searched for support offers: The only ones that I found were Radford, and UVA. If I find any more, I will add them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is more than 1 school in DC. Aside from that, every single ACC school has offered their support and help. As per your "consensus" they must be included. 65.189.129.140 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

wrong. Miami has not. Boston College has not. Please don't make things up. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

do not imply that I am lying. Miami and BC are holding a candlelight vigil. How does that not show support? How does it show any more or less support than any other university? 65.189.129.140 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Candlelight vigils are not notable. Sending emergency services, or other actual support staff, like Radford, UVA, Clemson etc. are doing, is highly relevant. Nobody is including any school that just says "we support them" or has a vigil...everyone is doing that. Please read before you argue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You would do well to read and article and understand the context before you argue. Just because you are an admin doesnt make you a demi-god 65.189.129.140 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I just found out 7 of the members of the Big Ten have offered their support. Include them as well. 65.189.129.140 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me the links? And what kind of support offers did they make, did they say "We support VT" which is not notable, or did they say "We are sending XXX" or "We are prepared to offer this resource to VT", which is notable..⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They made the exact same response as Ohio State. According to your above defination, OSU should not be included. Their statement only implies that they support VT and are willing to support them if needed. Read over the article. They do not mention sending any resource or offering any resource. They are merely spelling out that they will help if needed. Are we going to penalize every other school because they did not explicitly declare "XXXXX stands ready to provide any assistance to Virginia Tech that they may identify in the days to come" as OSU did? According to your consensus we are doing this. 65.189.129.140 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the OSU article: it said they are standing ready to send any resources requested. That's completely different than what you said. It's not a penalty to any other schools, this isn't a game that someone wins or loses. And please stop saying "My consensus". It's incivil, and does nothing beneficial. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I say your consensus, because 4 total contributors decided that they werent necessary and you were the only one to oppose them. Now you are adding as you see fit. Obviously its you acting on your own reasoning to keep these schools. Going to the OSU article, standing ready to send resources is the same thing as they are willing to support them if needed. It means the same thing. BUT according to your own defined reasoning and reasons for inclusion, OSU does not explicitly declare what they are sending. Therefore, according to your reasons, they shouldnt be included. OSU is not providing material support in any way nor did they offer any particular resource. It is not notable to include them. Period. 65.189.129.140 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you supported it above. But that's irrelevant. Civility still applies to you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY I supported keeping FSU (hello, I am eyes, I read things), but that was before I noticed that you yourself went there and may be guilty of inserting your POV into the article. Because you attended the university does not make it notable. I attended OSU and I still maintain it is not a noteworthy response

• We should split the list of schools off in the fashion of List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. That is the proper way to handle this information. Johntex\^talk 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We should split the entire "responses" section off into its own article: the police, schools, international etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed 65.189.129.140 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as well. Johntex\^talk 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory Information about Bomb Threats

Under the "Norris Hall Shootings" heading, there is a sentence which states:

"In the week preceding the events there had been two bomb threats directed at Virginia Tech—the first at Torgersen Hall, the second at multiple engineering buildings. The 2 threats were directly related to the shootings. The university had offered a reward of over $5,000 for information on these threats."

Later in the article under "Timeline," it states:

"On April 2 a bomb threat to Torgersen Hall is called in anonymously. On April 13 a bomb threat to Torgersen, Durham, and Whittemore halls is also called in anonymously. An additional bomb threat, this time to engineering school buildings, was found at the shooting scene at Norris Hall. Virginia Tech police chief Wendell Flinchum has stated that the bomb threats are not linked to the April 16 massacre. However a written bomb threat similar to the ones that were phoned in was found in Cho's dorm room."

I am not a Wikipedia expert so I am not sure the exact correct way to fix this, but clearly the information is contradictory or at least incomplete, so I wanted to bring that to the attention of someone who might be better able to fix it.

Archesophos 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Archesophos

Im also a new user (four days old I believed, so I will be able to edit soon), but i think the correct way to do it is to delete the part that says that it is connected because it has no reference.--Legion fi 03:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

no original research

The gunman wrote "Ismael Axe" on his arm but we do not know that this was an alias. Do no t re-insert false information and give bogus citations with non-relevant information or you will be reported for persistent vandalism. Any questions? Mumun 無文 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a bogus citation [5]. Mumun 無文 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Though, Ishmael and the story of Abraham's axe might be hints behind intent.

Alas, we do not speculate at Wikipedia. Please provide your legitimate source here. Mumun 無文 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Page size

Just a thought, I find the page becoming monstrous in size. Suggestions as to how to reduce it into sub-sections?--RobNS 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a current event, so it's going to be fairly active. Some of the sections that haven't been active for some time or are covered in other, more active sections could be pruned, though. HalfShadow 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it's a little wild right now. But maybe more info on the shooter could be placed on his page alone. Same with international reactions. Just a thought. Cheers--RobNS 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit the place could use some cleaning up, but I wouldn't know where to begin, myself. I think it'd probably be pretty busy in here regardless. HalfShadow 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I think RobNS was talking about the talk page, not the article. Natalie 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So was I. HalfShadow 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Natalie, I did mean the article page, but this page is getting heavy too.--RobNS 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the subsections thing that made me think you were talking about the discussion page, since we already have subsections on the article page. That said, this article really isn't that long yet, especially if you factor out the timeline and the victim's list. Natalie 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The size of the article seems like it's gotten fairly stable. If you really think we need to rduece it, the victims list has already been split off into its own page. I suppose that section could be deleted, with the relevant information going over there. Chunky Rice 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or a side bar; that would reduce the overall length. Natalie 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre at Virginia Tech vs. what?

• That's what Dateline is calling it now. Now what? Jeeny 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• In response to a recent edit of the article title from "massacre" to "tragedy"; there is a good discussion of "massacre" vs. "killings" vis a vis the Virginia Tech massacre on the Talk:Haditha killings discussion page. There is no reason to see this as anything but a massacre. Deatonjr 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This should be called a shooting; this is blatent racism/nationalism on the part of Wikipedia editors. Shooting is much more NPOV. However, this has been brought up before; maybe in a week it will actually be dealt with, but until then people who don't understand NPOV will still be around. Titanium Dragon 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TD, I agree with you, but you're not helping things by insulting them... they have a valid argument for calling it a massacre. -  Ennuified  talk  01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I too agree TD presented a good arguement about the name issue. I agree with him about "shootings" even though I personally believe it is tragic, a massacre, etc. But, this is not its name. This is pure speculation. Perhaps, good speculation as it may just be called and known forever as "the Virginia Tech massacre" or some variation thereof. But, what. I too think it is much too soon to name the tragic event. Jeeny 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read a few archives from today and yesterday you'll see that we've already discussed the living snot out of it - they are not going to waver. I'll contribute to another discussion on it in favor of changing the name from massacre, but I'm not going to personally pursue it beyond that until this has all settled down. -  Ennuified  talk   01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been four or five long threads about this topic, and it's only been about a day and a half. Maybe we should just let it rest until things settle and the page isn't being edited 10 times a minute. Natalie 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible that they called it a massacre because there was a break of time between the first two shootings and the rest of the shootings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.191.103.141 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I doubt it, the definition of massacre (both literal and implied/semantic) doesn't have anything to do with that. If anything, that would lend credence to the people arguing for it to be "shootings" since that makes it two connected events rather than one ongoing one, though I'm not sure I would define it as such. -  Ennuified  talk   03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap people! How long are people going to argue about the name? Surely the main thing is that people can find the article? What is wrong with having redirects from all conceivable names? Virginia Tech shootings or Virginia Tech massacre or Biggest Thing To Happen In America On The 16th Of April 2007? 203.97.51.149 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

International reaction (section #2)

Any reason why most of this has been deleted? TerriersFan 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i say put it back Mercenary2k 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

where do you draw the line with what countries get included? The S. Korea one is the most important. 65.189.129.140 00:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's back and should stay back until there is a consensus on here. No need to draw a line; if it gets too big then a sub-article is the way forward not deletion. TerriersFan 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to at least include the reaction of foreign heads of state, such as the Queen of England, presidents, prime ministers. --Yksin 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone said earlier on this talk page, any world leader asked will say they are shocked and saddened (or other such words) by the events, so we don't need a list of 100 world leaders all saying the same thing. The South Korean one is pertinent as the alleged gunman was Korean and the ROK government have said they are taking steps to protect their citizens in the U.S.. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When things settle down here, we can have a separate page for that, it could actually matter what was said, by whom, and when.--RobNS 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have parked a copy at User:TerriersFan/International for ease of restoration. TerriersFan 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• The South Korean reaction is obviously the most significant. But the fact that a country like Iran, given the international context, has expressed sympathy may have some interest too. - Fils du Soleil 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut most of the quotes from heads of state. Every time anything bad happens in any country, pretty much all heads of state/governing bodies express some kind of sympathy. Maybe just a paragraph that says something like "Many foreign governments and heads of state expressed their condolences in the days following the massacre, including [list a half-dozen of the more notable ones]." And then the info on South Korea, because I agree that it is relevant. Natalie 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is restricted to sympathy, I think is not relevant. Comments that include criticism of gun-policy or anything more substantative would be appropriate, though, in my opinion.Chunky Rice 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This section adds NO VALUE to the article. TerriersFan: grow up. Rooot 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Official statements by a foreign country regarding this incident is a priori highly notable, and should always be included. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What qualifies as an official statement, though? Does it have to be resolved through the country's Parliament/Congress/equivalent, or is it anything that comes out of a leader's mouth. Natalie 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for not responding. I think that depends by country. If the head of state makes a statement, that would count. If it is parliament/congress/whatever, that would count too, though we would have to differentiate, i.e., the first case would be "President XXXX said ...." and the second would be "The legislature of XXXX resolved ......", not just "Australia (or whatever) said ......"⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the suggestion by Chunky Rice as a compromise and am happy to do the trimming (by about half) if it finds favour. TerriersFan 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• We should split out the list of countries making a statement of support or etc. We can do this in the same way we have List of locations which held February 15, 2003 anti-war protests. That is the correct way to handle the information. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the section is not overlarge. However, it is likely to grow and if it gets too big then a sub-article is the way to go, I agree. TerriersFan 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Austalian Prime Minister John Howard is an arch-conservative and close ally of George Bush, yet he vociferiously condemned US gun laws. Seems relevant to me.

I would hardly call little Johnny Howard an 'arch conservative' - at least, not compared to the rest of the world... nor did he 'vociferiously condemn US gun alws' - he actually stated that following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Australia "took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture, that is such a negative in the United States, would never become a negative in our country."PalawanOz 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless this list includes [every] country in the world's reaction, it should be limited only to those which are of significance. Only the responses that have some controversy or noteworthiness should be included. The section is way too big. 66.45.152.134 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Would suggest adding in the responses of the countries which have lost citizens in the attack. Currently that would include Indonesia, India, Peru, Puerto Rico and Canada. Suggest adding in seperate paragraphs for each of these countries. TSim 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

nota bene: Page archiving

When you archive the talk page, please take care not to archive a sub-heading where an active discussion is taking place. A Train^talk 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan "Stack" Clark?

I've taken out a couple instances of the quoted nickname. It doesn't seem to appear in the sources and I'm not sure that it's appropriate, regardless.Chunky Rice 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a nickname in part for his involvement in the Marching Virginians. http://www.music.vt.edu/performance/ensembles/mv/index.shtml MVhokies 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm still inclined to leave it out of the main article, but if someone wants to put it back in, I won't revert.Chunky Rice 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for his "Stack" nickname, in case someone wants to use it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041700442_2.html Dnowacki 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the news is getting it from his Facebook account. -  Ennuified  talk  01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On an AOL page that's linked for his plays, an AOL staff member talks about how he was friends with Ryan, and refers to him as Stack. http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ 71.127.199.199 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go to People magazine's website, it says that his nickname was Stack, and I think that People is a credible source, don't you? Polarbear400 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, his own Facebook page has Stack in the name field. There is no doubt he went by Stack to many people. But I'm still not sure it's appropriate in this whole context. 72.66.204.188 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

His nickname doesn't really strike as that important a point, really. HalfShadow 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the point here, and agree, now that I think about it. His nickname isn't really relevant or important, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. -  Ennuified  talk   10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mass killings"

An anon added "Virginia Tech mass killings" to the lead. I haven't seen any news sources using this term - most of them seem to prefer massacre or shootings - so I removed it. If others have seen this term in wide use, then it might be okay, but at this point it seems like an WP:NFT problem. Natalie 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this decision. Kntrabssi 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooter executed/made sure he killed?

I heard on the news today that the doctors said that the shooter shot most of the victims three times, once in the legs (presumably when they were running away), then once in the chest, and once in the head. Does anybody have a source for this and thinks it should be put somewhere in the article? Lg1223 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• If we can find multiple reliable sources on this, it would be appropriate to include, but just one guy saying it, I think doesn't make the cut.Chunky Rice 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the only thing I have heard talking about multiple gun shots.[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.wounded/. I don't think that is enough to say one way or the other. I am also excusing myself from this article now I am way to close to the issue to be objective.British Rover 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gun Control Debate section

Hello. I'm new to the talk page so I hope I do this correctly. If the community decides that the gun control debate section is important enough to be on this page, I would suggest that the January, 2006 defeat of House bill 1572 in the Virginia General Assembly , "a bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus", and the debate surrounding the bill itself, seems particularly relevant to this event. The link is: [[6]], and there are many more discussing the particulars. The link to the text of the bill as introduced in the Virginia General Assembly, January 20, 2006, is here: [[7]] I didn't want to edit the page initially, but wanted to solicit users' reactions to the proposal. Be well. --Russcote 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That has been brought up before, and I think we're going to have to wait to see what secondary sources say about this particular bill. The point is an interesting one, but right now anything conclusions we Wikipedians draw would be original research, which is not kosher. And you did this talk page post just fine - you even remembered to sign, which lots of people forget. Natalie 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Info on Bill 1572 is already in that section and everything is presented in a NPOV way. I agree with Natalie that we don't want to draw any conclusions on our own. As the debate on this continues in the coming days, we'll merely add well referenced and NPOV info to this section. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Natalie and Alabamaboy: Thank you for the responses. I can see now that this page moves very quickly. The information about which I spoke wasn't there when I started the section, but is now, I beg your pardons. Thanks again.--Russcote 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This article has been moving at lightning speedy since it started, but it will probably calm down a bit by the weekend. Natalie 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

references

I have noted a couple of areas with {{fact}} tags, so can someone with proper references please tend to these? Karrmann 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Correction

In the background content of the shooter, there are two periods after the first paragraph (right after depression) and should be corrected.

Fixed. --BigDT 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ismail Ax.....

Anyone know what it might mean? It looked similar to a name i saw in the book Animorphs. But i just checked and its not it. Close though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

No, and neither do those investigating yet. What we have under "Possible motives" section is pure speculation (the citation is for something of an editorial article). Trusted news sources such as AP and the direct source, the Washington Post, say that it is unknown at this time. Moreover, it's spelled wrong and the details about the speculated religious allusions aren't exactly accurate, but this paragraph keeps being reposted as is anyway. I'd assume it's a handle (Cho was an avid gamer), but that's nothing more than a guess--just like the guess we're unfortunately including as fact. Efrafra 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was established that Cho was sometimes known Ismail, as it was kind of hard for others to pronounce his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.191.103.141 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

The "entire internet" is speculating. We will probably never know and, as such, speculation shouldn't be in the article, even if it is "sourced speculation" --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All at once, the world went searching for the meaning of Ismail Ax.Niubrad 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

http://bangkokker.blogspot.com/2007/04/meaning-of-ismail-ax.html Fvdham 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

White House photos

The White House have got some PD-USGov photos of the memorial service that could be used on this article.[8] Evil Monkey 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call! I will upload some to Commons. --BigDT 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurray for public domain photos! Thanks for bringing these to our attention. Natalie 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some other photos from an author who contributed some photos he took. If anyone else uploads anything free, please put it on Commons:Virginia Tech. --BigDT 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Table for victims with photos

Apparently someone uploaded the pictures of the victims on the, List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page.

I suggest we create a table in which the pictures of the victims can be placed besides the information about the victims like I did for the first two victims.

Mercenary2k 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's good for the list of Victims page, but it's excessive here. The article is already getting overlong.Chunky Rice 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the table for the first two victims looks rather ugly and out of place. It should be removed back to a list or paragraph. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I created the table is because we can show the pictures of the people killed. But if someone has a way of creating a collage of the victims then its even better. Mercenary2k 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why pictures of each victim is important for this article when another article exists for victims specifically. The table will look nice there, but make things overly long a cluttered here. -- ${\sqrt[{\tfrac {_{32^{\circ }\mathrm {F} }}{^{0^{\circ }\mathrm {C} \;\;}}}]{_{\infty }}}\approx {\tfrac {\sin('d)^{\underline {\flat y}}}{\mathbb {Z} y+\Re _{\varnothing }\!{n!}}}\otimes$user|TALK 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that article might get deleted. thats why i did this. Mercenary2k 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a very good reason. Duplication of the large table is unnecessary. There's plenty of time for discussion and people who want the list of victims page preserved.Mikethegreen 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheated on Him??

I think it is wildy irresponsible to say that his supposed girlfriend (which has not been confirmed by any source at all to actually be his girlfirned) cheated on him and was the cause of this carnage. Is Wikipedia really prepared to assign partial blame on all of this on a dead 19 year old girl? I know I'm being melodramatic, but that has got to go until there is concrete and indisputable evidence that A) they had a relationship B) that she cheated on him and C) that had anything to do with the killings. Bluefield 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what the article says. It says that this has been reported - not that its true. An important semantic difference. I say leave it there. MojoTas 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it says purported. This is wrong and needs to be removed/changed 72.66.204.188 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To implicate her in any way is irresponsible. This isn't a trashy news paper, it is an encyclopedia.Bluefield 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The Washington Post article in citation 9 directly contradicts this information, stating that the victims boyfriend was actually a person of interest who was being questioned at the time of the second shootings, cooperated, and was later released. The only source reporting a relationship is the Sydney Morning Herald. Mickyg9 03:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks much better now except for the 'Victims' section. I'm not really sure how to word it better because yes, indeed, some sources have reported it (as doubtful as I am) 72.66.204.188 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

White house response

Why is Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's quote preceded by "In response to questioning"? That fact is not contained within the citation given, thus it is unverified. Further, many quotes given in this section are in response to a question, but no other quote is preceded by "In response to questioning". This indicates to me a POV, and should be removed. Npatwari 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the actual White House press briefing transcript. The quote was taken from a response to a question related to gun laws and gun issues. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

I removed the following sentence from the Gun Control Debate section, but it got re-added.

After the shootings, Bradford B. Wiles, a graduate student at Virginia Tech, published an editorial in the Roanoke Times calling for a change in Virginia Tech's policy

To me, this isn't exactly relevant, since it's just one random student in a huge university creating an editorial. It's inherently POV-pushing and doesn't add anything to the article, and as such shouldn't be in it. Any thoughts? -Halo 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a cited portrayal of an apparently widespread feeling that represents one of the major viewpoints. Why not include it for balance? Yaf 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an editorial, and is inherently POV. It's inclusion doesn't show there is "widespread feeling" (which seems to be original research), as there's only one person making their point of view, and that person isn't an authority on the subject. I feel it's best to just leave it out, and try and remain simply towards the facts, in order to achieve some sort of balance. -Halo 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your description of the sentence doesn't take into account the fact that "random students" don't just "create" editorials in the Roanoke Times at will. The Roanoke Times is a major publication in the region where this incident occurred, and is a reliable source. Mentioning the article is appropriate for a balanced discussion of the gun control debate stemming from this incident. PubliusFL 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but surely you can agree that editorials are, in general, bad things for an encyclopaedia to cite, since they are inherently POV-pushing? Rather than having a "balanced discussion", which seems like it's going to cause edit wars and all sorts of hell as it ends up editorial vs. editorial, surely a better thing to do would be to report the facts and let the reader make up their own mind? -Halo 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles viewpoint maybe valid, but it was not written in responce to this incident, but rather to the campus lockdown resulting from the manhunt for William Morva in August 2006. Mickyg9 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have a girlfriend at all. He was stalking that girl he first killed

From what I heard on the news, he never had a girlfriend. The first girl he killed was a girl he was stalking, and she called for help. That's when the resident advisor came. Malamockq 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the source, please? Natalie 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of the problem I had with all the information in the article some 30 minutes ago, I don't think we have had confirmation either way. I really think we should hold off making any girlfriend/boyfriend remarks until confirmation. The text we have in 'Possible motives' is probably okay for the time being seeing how that was indeed reported quite a bit initially. 72.66.204.188 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He said it - "the news," Ms. Erin. Is that not specific enough to include in this article as a sourced, reliable reference? hbdragon88 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not specific enough. "The news" could be a national news source (CNN, BBC, New York Times, Associated Press, etc), it could be a local TV news broadcast (generally a bit more sensationalist), it could be a blog (not as reliable source). And even if it was a reliable source, we need to know the source, name of the story, date, etc. That's what citing sources is. Natalie 04:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was being quite ironic about it (I do know what is the threshold is for a source), although that doesn't translate well over hte Internet. hbdragon88 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn lack of intonation and body language. Natalie 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did write "weeee" in the edit summary [9], a giveaway, I daresay? hbdragon88 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been if I had seen it. There's been so many edits to this page (6 archives already) and the other page that I decided trying to look at the history was an excercise in futility. By the time I've paged through the diffs there are 50 more diffs to look through! Natalie 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This girl truly did not know Cho. I think it's rather sickening that the media reported all those lies about the situation. I'll look for a source, though, as I understand the no original research policy.--JUDE ^talk 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents demand firings over incompetence

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266460,00.html Flavourdan 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the full text of this article as it is copyrighted. Please visit the link if interested. --BigDT 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait ... so these parents are TWO parents - a husband and wife - of someone who is alive and was nowhere near the shootings ... good grief, talk about a loaded headline. --BigDT 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone's bucking for 15 minutes of fame. HalfShadow 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder why this was even news-worthy for Fox News? It's not a lawsuit even. 72.66.204.188 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude. It's Fox News. Fox news is the visual equivalent of The National Enquirer. Nuff said. HalfShadow 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless this point was brought up in all articles. WHY was no cancellation of classes???? First shooting 7:15 classes were cancelled 10:15 after the second shooting. It is incredible that two people brutally executed with the gunman on the loose means nothing in America, classes continue business as usual. Flavourdan 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to get in to a debate about this. The common rebuttle to that seems to be "you don't shut down a city when there is a murder in one house." 72.66.204.188 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If anyone feels otherwise, post on my talk page and we can discuss it there. As far as I'm concerned, any attempt to fire or blame the event on the officials in charge is essentially nothing more than scapegoating. -  Ennuified  talk   11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A college campus is a house now? It was a screw-up. Plain and simple. MoodyGroove 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Bomb threats section

I'm taking this out - it's only one line long and there's no sources stating that these two things are linked. We aren't mentioning the escaped prisoner that ran through their campus last year, so we shouldn't mention these bomb threats. Natalie 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I had references stating that police were trying to link the events. Also, references state that the format of the threat notes found in his dorm, the engineering hall and the previous threats were similar. --Dan East 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, do they need their own section? I think those things were in the "background" section before. Natalie 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interview with fellow roommates

Here's a very interesting transcript of an interview with two of Cho's former roommates that lived with him in 2005 and 2006.[10] Interesting tidbits include: He referred to himself as "Question mark" and said he was his own brother. He stalked at least 3 women and was confronted by police over it numerous times. He would call his roommate and pretend he was "question mark", asking to speak with Cho and other such nonsense. He said he had an imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly". He was extremely isolated, and was never seen with anyone. Usually he would not respond when spoken to. He would sleep with the light on. He made suicidal comments after being confronted over stalking. He would play the song "Shine Down" by Collective Soul over and over on his laptop. Don't know how encyclopedic any of that is, but it is definitely fodder for the amateur psychologist in us all. --Dan East 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just read it, jeeeeze. On the right we have Jack Thompson blaming video games, on the left we are blaming the lax gun control policies, when in reality, this boy was mentally ill. I suppose as a bystander where does one draw the line between weird and mentally ill. Thus, it's unfortunate that Cho didn't receive enough or the appropriate medical attention.Niubrad 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Candlelight vigil photo

To the anonymous photographer who took this beautiful photograph and released it into the public domain: Thank you! It's a beautiful photograph! --ElKevbo 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, this may not be the place to comment but that's definitely a touching photo. -  Ennuified  talk   11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

possible plagerism?

I'd just like to point out the fact that some of the things that Cho writes in his "McBeef" play (specifically page 8) are quotes from Weather Man, the black comedy with Nicholas Cage ("He's an asshole. I don't like his face... his asshole face"). I don't know if this is relevant or not, but it seems that he wasn't even clever enough to come up with his own material. Could it also be possible that this leads to further proof that movies contributed to his batshit crazy behavior?

This is just an observation... hopefully I'm not off-base here. 24.22.220.230 04:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. One of Wikipedia's content policies is that we do not include original research. Any novel interpretation or synthesis of facts should not be included in an article. Thus, unless another media outlet mentions it (and it is relevant to the topic), we would probably not include this detail. --BigDT 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's firearm training??

Why nobody mentions that the victims just lined up like sheep to be slaughtered one by one. Pathetic. We are about enter a new Dark Ages, no wikipedia then either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.18.188 (talk • contribs).

Because it'is not true. And please sign your post on talk pages. --Legion fi 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What do execution style shootings and the Dark Ages have to do with each other? Natalie 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User has now been warned not to use Talk page as a forum. --Dynaflow 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

International reaction (section #3)

The only international response that is remotely relevant to this article is the South Korean one. All other responses add NOTHING to the article as they all say exactly the same thing: "We offer our sincere condolences..." They have no place in this article and I move to dispose of the unnecessary information. There are a few people who disagree that this is appropriate. Therefore, we should make it clear now that this section is immaterial so that there will not be any future reverts to the garbled mess that is the current section. Rooot 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree to Roooot. The best approach would be to consolidate that section into a brief 1 or 2 sentence paragraph stating only that numerous international leaders and diplomats experessed their condolences. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we just create a separate article for it? It seems pretty important that s many different nations expressed such outpouring so soon after the even occurred. Killintimeslowly 04:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, should be Transwikied to Wikiquote, like Execution of Saddam Hussein -Halo 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Wikiquote is the perfect place for this information. We can summarize the gist of the responses here, with a convenient link to Wikiquote for more information. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say I push for it to stay right where it is. I think its great to have the international response and it is indeed Relevant. WillSWC 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I support its removal and replaced with a statement saying that a world leaders expressed sympathy. Every world leader will be saying the same thing, and we don't need to include their exact words. I don't think we can compare to the London bombings for instance which was much more world affecting. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay for now until the page has settled down, and then we can reach a consensus. Just removing the lot seems extremely hasty IMO -Halo 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is standard practice for politicians to offer statements of condolence anytime a lot of people die under unusual circumstances anywhere in the world (Katrina, Bali bombing, 9/11, the Tsunami). These quotes just doesn't strike me as that notable or meaningful, and they don't need to be covered in such detail.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be replaced with a sentence stating that many countries offered their condolences and then go into Republic of Korea's response rather than an outright deletion? -Halo 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did before you reverted it. Rooot 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't - you deleted most of it and didn't clean it up properly, leaving a one-item list and the sub-standard opening sentence. -Halo 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, the current opening sentence is sub-standard? Had you paid any attention whatsoever, you would have noticed that I left it intact. I added the phrase, "Of note was the South Korean response:" and left the South Korean section intact as well. These are exactly the things that you suggest we change. Rooot 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chill out, folks. It's only Tuesday and this article has existed for 36 hours or so at this point. No decision we make is completely irreversible, and we are under no obligation to get the whole article figured out this minute. Natalie 05:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rewrote it now, including keeping it fully sourced and improving the formatting. If anyone wants to revert, go for it. -Halo 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that they should be removed altogether, save perhaps anything with reference to South Korea. Pablosecca 05:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To restate what I said in the last discussion we had about this a few hours ago, I like removing or consolidating any generic condolences message, and only quoting the notable ones (like South Korea and perhaps Australia). Quite frankly, reading a long list that consists of nothing but this: "Prime Minister Someguy expressed his 'shock and sorrow for the people of Virginia' on the floor of the SomeCountry Parliament Tuesday. He said 'the prayers of the people of WhateverCountry are with you today." is boring. Natalie 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It amounts to various countries making editorial comments about the USA. It adds no value to the article. Wahkeenah 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than evaluating a more global perspective instead of an American-based one. --Hemlock Martinis 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A long list of countries offering their "sincere condolences" hardly illustrates a more global perspective, as we can assume that all countries offer this unless they say otherwise. Rooot 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The reaction of Iran, for example, was especially interesting given current U.S. relations with them. Also, we don't assume anything unless we can cite it. --Hemlock Martinis 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have named one other country. The list was over a page long. By your logic, the page should be several hundred pages long as the opinion of every single country is relevant. As I proposed earlier, this type of information adds no value to the article. Rooot 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't set up straw men; as I said, citations are essential, and if a country's response isn't noted in a news article, then it obviously isn't notable. The section was fine the way it was. --Hemlock Martinis 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You are setting up a straw man by saying that I am setting up a straw man. The section was completely unmanageable the way it was. The bottom line is that only materially relevant information should be included. A multi-page list of countries giving "condolences" is not materially relevant. Rooot 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It adds great Value to the Article. While you would expect it it shows that the world will not stand for such acts. If its THAT debated then simply move it to another page until this dies down and debate it then but don't just delete it. WillSWC 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change the all caps subtitle but you changed it back? Can you please put it back in lower case, as caps is considered impolite and inconsiderate (imagine if everyone did it?). Thanks -Halo 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the countries offered a bit more than just condolences. From memory, Australia and the EU said some negative comments about US gun laws/culture. Such comments probally are relevant and should be reincluded. (e.g [11]) I do like the solution devised for the nations offering only condolences however. Rafy 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly inclined to restore the longer version on the basis that Rooot got his way by losing his temper and essentially banging on the section until it gave. --Kizor 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The USA is often criticized for meddling in the affairs of other countries. If the USA has no right to do so, neither does any other country have the right to inflict its views on the USA. What other countries think about this is of no relevance and adds nothing useful to the article. Wahkeenah 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the US is citicized for trade embargoes, invasions, things like that. This is international dialogue, and if that had been banned out of a hurt sense of pride, the planet would never have survived the Cold War. Further, offering of condolences is as neutral and uncontroversial as you can get. --Kizor 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither condolences nor criticisms add any useful info to the article, Dude. Wahkeenah 08:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Planning of the Massacre

The article cites a source that says Cho planned this for a while. But several sources on MSNBC have said he *didn't* plan this for very long. How do you cite a TV news broadcast? It was on the most recent episode of Countdown so I can add it by citing that. GarryKosmos 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC has transcripts of a lot of their shows at msnbc.com - you may want to try there. --BigDT 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact method of citing a news broadcasts but source citations generally need the following things: name of source (i.e. name of book, name of TV channel), author or other person involved (which could include anchor/presenter), date and time (with time zone), publisher (name of publisher and country). This information means that even if you don't know how to format the source properly, other people can still find it, which is the ultimate point of sourcing anyway. If you can link to anything online, like the transcripts BigDT mentioned, that's even better, of course. Natalie 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the transcripts, but it doesn't look like it's up. It was the 4/17/07 8 PM EST broadcast of Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann and was during an interview with him. He asked a Chicago Tribune source and the reporter said that according to sources in the police, the attack wasn't planned for very long. GarryKosmos 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun purchase timeline?

In the timeline section, it states that the .22 was bought first. In the background section, it says that the Glock was bought first. Just wanted to point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.48.240.20 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Obama comparing mass murder to the comments of Imus

Obama mourns the slain students "There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html Will this end the political career of Obama? Needs mention in respective articles or here? Flavourdan 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How could it end Obama's political career, when it seems to have hardly even begun? All the blogger you link to has to say that's bad about Obama is that he's perhaps too head-in-the-clouds and not pragmatic enough, but the same has been said about many successful politicians. Kasreyn 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the mp3 of his speech that's there. Flavourdan 06:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr -- it seems to me that all he's doing is mentioning different kinds of varyingly metaphorical violence, two of which are currently hot potatoes. He did not say that these incidents were comparable in scope, or the damage done, and saying that he compared mass murder to Imus is ignoring the listing of all the other kinds. He is pointing out injustices in society and calling for a stop to all. --08:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement about Mayor of Nagasaki shooting in article

The following statement keeps getting re-added

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an American gun control will of course omit the fact that according to CNN, on April 17, stated that the Mayor of Nagasaki Japan was killed by a gun in a country that claims to have banned guns and made the streets safer. The story also runs in the April 17 edition of the Seattle times.

Now, I strongly disagree with it. Not only is it strongly POV-pushing, it also implies something that's false (which is that Japan has guncrime problems, which it doesn't - one of the reasons this shooting is so exceptional). Any comments? -Halo 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The events are unrelated, so there is no need to intertwine the two together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halo - this statement does not belong on this page PalawanOz 06:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in full. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In Japan for year 2006, only 70 cases using gun occured and of those, only 19 cases were homicide. [12] Even compared to UK which had just 46 homicide last year, as Japan's population is double that of UK, the likelihood of murder by gun in Japan is around 1/5 that of UK. Or in other word, UK has 5 times the problem that Japan has with gun control. I think these numbers give a very fine rebuttal.--Revth 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

9:15 shots fired claim removed

I removed the claim in the timeline that shots were fired in Norris Hall at 9:15. This does not match the university's official statement of the timeline of events, nor any description of the events that I have seen. The source cited is a photo or image of the Collegiate Times which does not appear to be available any longer. Furthermore, as any student on campus can tell you, the Collegiate Times is notorious for typographical or factual errors, and should probably not be cited as the sole source for such a major claim. Geoff 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecole Polytechnique Massacre

Does anybody think the 1989 Montreal Ecole Polytechnique Massacre is relevent? It's the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. If somebody else agrees, find a way to work it in. Maybe near the end when it talks about Bath and Columbine. Are there even any other famous college shootings? (Wasn't there one in Texas with a guy in a belltower?)

There's several. They're all linked in School shooting, which is already on the page -Halo 07:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Header Image on Infobox

I don't know what happened in the past few hours as changes are very hard to track due to the immense amount of edits on this article. Stating this, I am wondering what happened to the original picture header on the infobox that had the caption:

Injured students being evacuated from Norris Hall, where 31 of the 33 killings occurred.

I think this particular image gave the article a great sense of identity as does the image in the infobox on the Columbine massacre page. It is also the image that appeared on most newspapers that were distributed on the 17th of April. Views? Opinions? --Ddahlberg 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Word up on that. I checked the history and found that the image has apparently been deleted. It most likely failed our highly restrictive and unfortunately necessary copyright and fair use policies, which have made getting good pictures of the event a chore. --Kizor 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatalities

I do not think it is honorable or accurate to lump the death of the 'killer' with the deaths of those he killed. The initial paragraph should mention that he committed suicide, but it should not say that there were "62 people shot, including the perpetrator," as though being a perpetrator and being a victim are equivalent. Logophile 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They are equal in that they were human beings. (If you dispute that I could link you to some light philosophical reading on this, but I think that would be getting too much off-topic.) This was a tragedy for the shooter as well. --Kizor 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines were saying "33 dead". Obviously, that includes the perp. It's fair to list him as long as it's clear he was the presumed murderer. However, to paraphrase a famous humourist from some generations ago, writing about someone he didn't like and who had committed suicide, "He (finally) shot the right guy." Wahkeenah 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the reality that I inhabit "killer" does not mean the same as "victim." And no, it was not a tragedy for the killer. He 'caused' a tragedy. The newspapers are monstrous for counting the person who caused the deaths among the dead, as though their is no difference between shooter and those shot. They are crass, insensitive, and not even accurate.202.174.144.202 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as Kizor stated "They are equal in that they were human beings." Also, was this incident not a tragedy for the killer? I think Shakespeare may disagree.Niubrad 10:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They were human beings, but one of those human beings was a murderer, while the others were innocent victims. No, it was not a tragedy for him. He chose to kill himself after viciously attacking and killing others. Logophile 11:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

that's your opinion. however, we don't distinguish here between "good dead" and "bad dead" or somesuch. we do facts. tomasz. 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Word choice in the infobox.

Hi all, the infobox on the right uses the word 'Injuries'. I think this is the wrong word choice and it should be 'Injured' or, even beter, 'Wounded'. I understand that due to template restrictions this may not be easily changed, but 'injuries' isn't correct in my opinion. Apologies for my edit which messed up the template. Regards, Stijn. OneNight 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)