Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

Appropriate Warnings

Since the semi-protect has been lifted off of this page, I have been delivering 4im warnings to any vandals. Just wanted to check and see if the community thinks this is too harsh or the right move. Kntrabssi 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. --Starks 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(For context, 4im is the only warning given in blatant cases, and subsequent vandalism is grounds for immediate block. It's not for ordinary use.) It's cool. If anything, I'd be harsher. --Kizor 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was doing last night, before the shooter's identity was released, and I'd keep at it. This page is too high profile to let people screw around with it while we give them a series of warnings. Natalie 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Logical Meaning of "Deadliest"

In this entry---as in much of the media---the shooting has been called the deadliest of its particular kind. This perpetuates what I see as a common misuse of the comparative and superlative forms of deadly. Deadly means lethal or likely to cause death. By extension, deadlier means more lethal or more likely to cause death and deadliest means most lethal and most likely to cause death. While this incident has a death toll twice that of the two it compared to (the Columbine High School and University of Texas shootings), it is not necessarily deadlier. This claim is unverified. A better phrasing would involve pointing out the larger quantity of deaths. In case my point isn't clear, here's a simple example that should help clarify: More people are killed each year by Toyotas than by angry rattlesnakes; however, the likelihood of one's death is higher when he is within five feet of an angry rattlesnake than when he is within five feet of a Toyota. Therefore, the angry rattlesnake is deadlier than the Toyota. Furthermore, in the set containing both and only angry rattlesnakes and Toyotas, the angry rattlesnake is deadliest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.202.124.18 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Ah, I did wonder. Thank you; that makes perfect sense. Do you have a particular suggestion for a better phrasing? --Kizor 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the deadliest appellation should even be applied anyway; that's sensationalism. It isn't like it holds the record for civilian on civilian deaths; apart from Jonestown, there's also the 1927 bombings which killed 45 people in a school - that's more than this caused. Titanium Dragon 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

• I was going to suggest changing the title from "shooting" to "massacre," and I'm glad to see that's been done. That's what most of the media are calling it, and that's what it is, a massacre. That being said, somebody please change the title from "Virginia Tech massacre" to "Virginia Tech Massacre." "Virginia Tech massacre" is not grammatically correct. Thank you.

SwedishConqueror 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

• It's Wikipedia convention not to use capitals after the inital letter for titles. See MOS:CAPS. Chunky Rice 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychology and Motives

This section is almost entirely devoid of citations. It needs to be referenced or removed completely, I think. Ronnotel 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree and feel that most of the details of the criminal should be placed on his own page. The event article should focus on material that we know. We don't know why he may have listened to music, we certainly will never know what he really thought about it ... leave that sort of speculation outside of the event-based article. In contrast, we know where he was from and what his major was, those facts are fine to leave in the main article. MCalamari 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section is cited - [1] I also added a citation to this page, after eerie writings: [2]

shouldn't this man be on the article?

[3] felisberto 19:15 ,17 April 2007(UTC)

• No, I don't think so. The article identifies the shooter correctly. Anyone coming here to see if Mr. Cheng was the shooter will quickly learn that he wasn't. NawlinWiki 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Provably just to clear this guy's name. He was a suspect so provably his name should be mentioned David Morón 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Slow Response Issue

For many readers, the reason they may be coming to the wikipedia is to find out why the response was so slow and if there is something that realistically could have/should have been done to protect the bulk of the victims.

Some example key questions: (1) When did the Virginia Tech Police inform the other police for the county that they need help? Or did they never ask for help? (2) Are they a real police force, sworn, with guns and training for dealing with shootings and their own SWAT team and everything? (3) What were the policies of university security? Where they followed? (4) Where the assumptions that the gunmen had left campus based on something convincing? What? Was that really the assumption at all that caused the seemingly very slow reaction? (5) Who made the relevant decisions? Readers need to be able to judge if the people in charge behaved in a reasonable way, not very reasonable, criminally unreasonable or what? If being objective means we can't look for those facts and expert opinions that help the reader hold officials accountable, than we need to re-define objectivity/neutrality to make it useful. As long as we are looking for facts on all sides of this question and reporting reality, we can be totally objective/neutral, and still talk about the important questions: Was this a failure of policy and administration or was this a totally unavoidable or somewhere in between. Again, it isn't our opinion on the question that should be in the article, it is the facts and expert knowledge that allow the reader to have an informed opinion that should be. I for one don't feel like I am moving yet toward an informed opinion on if the bulk of the death was foreseeable and preventable. The desire to be objective/neutral should not be an excuse for being uninformative, uninsightful and insipid. We can totally look for the same facts that a judge and jury would want to know and, when we find them, add them to the article. An agenda of uncovering relevant reality can drive our search for facts as long as we report those facts accurately and neutrally. People where heading into the kill zone for more than an hour, right? If people did die needlessly, we owe those people that our objectivity should not whitewash the reality that might have caused them to lose their lives needlessly. Likewise, expert opinions on what reasonable care would be can be quoted on both sides without our losing objectivity (although I think this is more complex, i.e., do we need one-for-one, pro/con quotes?) Not focusing on these questions almost implies that everyone did there best and that may not be true. Dnklu 07:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know for certain about Virginia Tech, I can tell you that typically, college police officers are fully-sworn peace officers with full law enforcement powers on campus and the same armament as any other American police officer--which certainly jibes nicely with the footage I've seen of the VTPD officers initially responding on television. In any event, however, I don't think that having any information on this dispute would constitute NPOV at this point; there's simply not enough information available, and that having a section for it would just invite wild speculation and original research that's simply out of policy. Give it a few days, let some more information come out and figure out what the hell's true and what isn't, THEN we can see about having a section on the controversy, all right? Rdfox 76 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at my Columbia Univ. - they dont even carry guns and depend on the NYC police force for anything heavy. I am not sure that this controversy needs to be in its own section. I just think we need to be looking out for anything that helps the reader understand the delay. Dnklu 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the thing. From what I'm reading there wasn't much of a delay. After the first shooting they shut that building down, cordoned off the area and surrounded it with police. There was no indication at the time that it was a mass murderer on the loose, but rather it looked like a murder suicide. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what more you want. We have a time-line. We have a mention that some students have complained about the delay in notification. We have the school's response. At this point, I think that's all that's called for.Chunky Rice 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This was a huge screw-up. There's no other way to spin it. Bottom line, the gunman wasn't in custody, and the other students weren't warned. But by all means, let's wait and see what the fallout will be. The media isn't about to stop asking questions. MoodyGroove 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

GLOCK or Glock?

What is the actual name of the pistol. There is an edit-war going on as I can see.

• The marketing name is GLOCK, in all-caps. Themanwithoutapast 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't use the marketing name, which is obvious from our own article on the company. We don't cap the whole thing. Natalie 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about it can be read here: Talk:Glock#GLOCK_vs._Glock_debate. Natalie 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

insane clown posse paragraph in gunman background section

"A note found on him is beleived to contain the lyrics of the shock horror group "INSANE CLOWN POSSE", also know as "ICP", and was beleived to inspired by a recently released CD titled "The TEMPEST", in which a particular track "The Tower" features graphic lyrical story of an ex-marine, badly wounded during war and disasscoiated with society, whom climbs a fictional university clocktower and begins to snipe civilians, school students, and law enforcement from below. It is assumed that Sheng-hui may have been a fan of the group with attracts a "cult"-like following.[23]"

I think this should be removed. It does not appear to be from any source, as the article cited does not include any of this information 68.32.236.85 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I already removed it for that very reason. Rdfox 76 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please keep it out of the main article. It calls for too much speculation. MCalamari 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be locked.

Their are morons editing this article constantly adding crap like 'pool closed' and other stuff. I think this should be locked like it was.

What do you guys think? Because if the mods don't lock this article then we are going to have tons of unconfirmed news such as names of victims, the 'confirmed' motives and anything else we don't know the answer to.Lyokofreak101 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree: i think the article is suffice for those viewing it for its basic information. i suggest locking it as well so that we are able to clearly sort out confirmed facts about the more specific issues after a period of time (2-3 days). Matthew Yeager 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is 4chan raiding Wikipedia or something? At the moment this article is on the front page, and as a matter of policy (I don't know which policy, mind - perhaps something along the lines of 'my head is bloody, but unbowed') such articles are not protected. If we're clearly and definitely losing, perhaps, but the amount of watchers should head off even coordinated attacks. --Kizor 17:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of returning it to semi-protected status. While it's not nearly as fast-and-furious as it was earlier, as long as it's still on the main page, this article's gonna be a magnet for every /b/tard and other fuckwit would-be vandal looking to insert idiotic memes into a page. Rdfox 76 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree: The amount of false information in the article is already high, it does not help anyone if it gets even higher. Example: the link to a blogger citing an entry on 4chan that allegedly contained a statement by the assassin from 5am in the morning announcing his intentions. Themanwithoutapast 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Seriously. We have more than enough editors present to deal. If it is a problem, just protect it from anonymous editors and newly registered users, but I don't think so - this is a good way to draw in new editors, so I'd keep it unprotected. Titanium Dragon 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect. Enough going on to have to deal with petty vandalism from all the anon and new editors. PubliusFL 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect. I keep seeing stuff posted that's removed shortly thereafter. I plan to be more active in the editting later today, but as it stands, I think it would be far less of an undertaking if the article was semi-protected.J 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pool's Closed Due to Aids is a trolling meme.

One of the more obnoxious ones, IMHO. Natalie 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd actually be in favor of a semi-protect. It's a barrage right now and there's a good chance that anyone coming to see the page is going to pull up a vandalized version, even with a bunch of good editors being vigilant (which we do have).Chunky Rice 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Semi-protect is definietly a good idea for the next few days. I've reverted a bunch of anon vandalism just in the past couple hours. Coemgenus 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• About half of the anon edits are good edits or at least well-meaning, but a lot of those good edits are reverting vandalism done by other anons. So I would support semi protect, at least for the day. Natalie 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree -- Any article that gets a lot of traffic will get it's share of idiot-vandals, just like a main-page featured article. But there's also enough diligent bonafide editors to keep it's integrity. If there is a semi-protect put on it, at least make it for a short duration. bobanny 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• No chance. Whilst semi-protection for an hour or less might be permissible if there's a sustained attack from multiple IPs, we don't semi-protect high profile articles linked from the mainpage for any length of time. We are a wiki - we encourage new users to contribute. Besides which, vandalism here will be sighted within seconds and reverted in a click. Annoying yes, but that's all. And don't poll on this - we have a policy of being a wiki - the editors on a specific article don't get to lock it down because that concept is annoying them. Protect for an hour if there's a sustained attack from multiple IPs, other than that, forget it.--Doc^g 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone's annoyed by the concept of anonymous users. The problem is that, currently, at least half of the anonymous edits are bullshit. And that's about 100 edits over the last 2 hours. Natalie 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree -- If there are over 100 edits in 2 hours, then Wikipedia needs to put a semi-protect on this article. I was reading down the list of victims, and Anna Nicole Smith's name showed up. These anonymous users are beginning to piss me off a lot. I'm removing Anna Nicole Smith's name. Sigmund1989 12:48, 17 April 2007 (PDT)

Victim Myspace links

Is it really necessary or appropriate to post links to the MySpace pages of some of the victims? MySpace will likely take them down soon, anyway, and it feels like an attempt at a memorial to me. Rdfox 76 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, links to MySpace generally fail the external links policy. The one that was just added has been removed, and any future MySpace links should be removed as well. Natalie 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. As to my knowledge MySpace will only remove pages of deceased members per requests by family members. These pages offer further information about the victims than is available elsewhere at this point in time. 71.244.157.89 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. The problem isn't whether the pages will stay up or not, the problem is that MySpace is not a reliable source. Anyone can make a MySpace page about anything, with no verification at all. MySpace links are not allowed as per our policy on external links. Natalie 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

CNN says the students are using Facebook... 132.205.44.134 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

4chan posting

The note that the Seung-hui posted on 4chan before the attack is a claim that was posted by one blogger, and has no reliable source. Doesn't that qualify it for being taken out? 209.190.211.3 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, was it posted AGAIN? Between this and the other vandalism, could we PLEASE get this article semi-protected again? Rdfox 76 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people are against the thought of semi-protecting this article, which I disagree with strongly. However, the ones in power have spoken. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

this has now been verified by the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204030
I have found a second copy of the posting at http://www.planetblacksburg.com/2007/04/sick_internet_joke_or_real_thing.php JensenDied 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC) The 4chan post is fake. The timestamp is wrong. 71.162.88.233 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC) agreed, the 4chan post was a photoshop!

The reference to the 4chan post should be deleted. The Toronto Star got it from the planet blacksburg site, and that picture is fake. No source == doesn't belong on wikipedia. 71.162.88.233 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

VA Tech charity?

does anyone know if a fund has been set up for the families of those affected and the school? Maybe donations could be taken to start a scholarship in the memory of those who died. (Mad_Gouki 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

That's not really relevant to this discussion Spencewah 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to get in touch with the school itself about that. This is an encyclopedia. Natalie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant, since it falls under University's Response. VT sent an email to its alumni network that included where memorial funds could be sent. I have not found a site for the donations, all I have is an email describing how to make out the check and where to send it. If anyone can find a link, the name is "Virginia Tech Family Fund" and it is organized by Tom Tillar, Vice President for Alumni Relations. --Scottieb 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Seriously, we need to DISCUSS and determine how he will be named. Cho Seung-hui is formated to have last name then first name. yet its been mentioned that last names per MoS are to be given ? either way i've just refreshed the page and have seen this changed back and forth a couple times now! DISCUSS this matter before we change it back... and forth... Matthew Yeager 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion. The MoS's meaning is that FAMILY names are to be used as short references, unless disambiguation is needed. Korean names, like most Asian names, are given with the family name first and the personal name second. While it's often reversed in translation (for example, "Saotome Ranma" becoming "Ranma Saotome" in translations), Wiki shouldn't do that when the correct order is known; we certainly shouldn't be using Cho's personal name in place of his family name. Rdfox 76 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i completely agree, just needed to be stated so ppl would stop changing it back and forth. Matthew Yeager 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I put an invisible note about Asian names, so that should at least stop the more well-meaning people that just don't know how Asian names go. Natalie 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

why is it then that i still see Mr. Seung-hui, when that's his personal name? Jettd42291 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Rdfox 76 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean cultural taboo?

The article currently mentions "The words Ismail Ax, possibly an alias, were found written on his arm in red ink, which is a Korean cultural taboo. " Can someone expand on this or link to a relevant article? I find it interesting but confusing, not being familiar with Korean culture myself. ike9898 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that, I'm very intrigued at the implications, but for now (without a source) it seems baseless. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a source on tha page, it links to a page that says for computer programmers to never put Japanese of Korean names in red. Check it, it's number 26 i think. Violask81976 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that it is inauspicious and unlucky to write people's names in red ink in Korea. It means that they are marked for death or for exclusion from a given community. However, we do not know what 'Ismail Axe' means and so to connect the two is inappropriate for now. Mumun 無文 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not connecting them, it's stating that it war written in red ink. The act of writing a name in red ink is a taboo. THat's what it's saying. Violask81976 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's connecting them by assuming that the words are a name. Right now, we don't know if that's true. Natalie 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that Ismail was his nickname (but no evidence as to whether Ax was), as well as a Flickr photo of the killer. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eldarossell/203788467/ KeithWright 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viola81976. We do not know that 'Ismail Axe' was someone's name or nickname. The taboo is writing someone's NAME in red ink. Mumun 無文 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

any more info on this? why is it considered taboo to write a name in red in korean culture?!?!?71.252.66.134 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)ahnicaricoohh 2:58pm ET

see above. Natalie 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would a Korean taboo apply to a 23y old legal US resident (since he was 8) majoring in English? User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural taboos are often passed on through immigrant families, even though they have moved from their country of origin. Taboos are no less a part of cultural heritage than music, fables, religious worship, rites of passage, clothing, and what have you. But really, we don't know if the words on his arm were an alias, someone else's name, words he liked, or whatever, so the bit about the taboos has been removed from the article. Natalie 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you should take it out. It's a fact that he has that written on his arm, in red ink, correct? -Violask81976^User_Talk 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see. Never mind then. Violask81976 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Historical context"

I suggest this section to be removed. This is not the The Guinness Book of Records, a sentence in the first section (i.e. the introduction) should be enough. Those who are interested in statistics may look here

• School shooting or
• List of school massacres

Furthermore this is no "Historical context", the historical context would be the events led to this tragedy (which shouldn't be described in WP). --Abe Lincoln 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is historical context and it can be described in Wikipedia, but it has to be first discussed in secondary sources. Natalie 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - how come? The death tolls and incidents are not in dispute. The section was first started because there were too many valuable comparisons to fit in the introduction at all. Surely we can find secondary sources for "deadliest school shooting" or the like, if that's what you mean. --Kizor 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

April 19th-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 19-20th, 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.

Except that most shooters aren't likely to be that stupid. If they know this is going to happen, they will simply make a new day. This is the same reason September 11 is arguably one of the safer days of the year in the US Nil Einne 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Richard McBeef" play

Cited source doesn't discuss this play - this needs to be cited. 204.154.43.244 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes it does. Now, I'm not sure if Smoking Gun meets WP:RS, but there's nothing in the comment that's not in the reference. Rdfox 76 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I saw a different reference before - probably just clicked wrong -_- 204.154.43.244 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd wager that the Smoking Gun probably counts. They basically just host a variety of documents, all legally AFAIK. They do some analysis, which might not meet RS, but the documents themselves should. Natalie 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is IMHO whether we can trust them enough that the documents they host are really what they claim they are Nil Einne 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cell phone or security camera

Could someone please identify the true source of the image used of students hunkering down in Holden Hall? HokieRNB 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

IT says "cell phone", i dont' read anywhere that it's from a security camera. Violask81976 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no security cameras - it's definitely a cell phone and thus non-free. It probably qualifies for fair use, but it needs to be uploaded locally here as Commons will get rid of it as soon as someone notices it. --BigDT 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This link cites the source as "Security camera footage showing the pupils of a French class taking cover during the shooting at Virginia Tech". HokieRNB 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was discussed below, found to be cell phone footage and reuploaded locally under fair use. --Kizor 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Profiles of the Victims

BBC has a list of the Victims with a small biography with pictures

I suggest you guys check it out and incorporate that into this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm

Mercenary2k 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We appear to be using the Virginia Tech student newspaper (which updates more swiftly) to source the dead, but there may be some biographical information there. --Kizor 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

it is speculation that the first victim was Cho's girlfriend and that she was cheating on him plus the citation goes to Clark

Loner

it says the virginia tech. spokesman described the shooter as a loner. i just don't like the word, i don't really think the spokesman went up there and called him a loner spesifically and anything less would be OR. I'm not sure about that press realease, so that's why i came here first. Any thoughts?!?

-Threewaysround 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on the front pages of CNN.com and FOXnews.com... not much wiggle room. --Kizor 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC.com / Clicked

I have asked Will, the author of Clicked to put a small note near his link to the article here on Wiki or to take down his link. The note is to mention that the page has been vandalized a few times and to wait a few more days before linking to the page again so that a lot of the informational queries can be ironed out. Such as the note with Insane Clown Posse ( I was reading the article when that info was on the page, linked to the web page that it was supposedly from 325 i believe, came back and the mention of the note had been deleted thank-you)

international reaction

maybe since there is a section that is a list, we could devide it into subsections with subheadings (it would be a level 4 heading i beleive). This would make it not be a list, and some sections that are simalar in simalar parts could be grouped into slightly larger categories such as continents, instead of spesific countries. Any thoughts?!?!

peace out-Threewaysround 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea to have it in list form... But I suppose this is one Wiki rule we can't get around. newsong 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

should we implement my idea then.-Threewaysround 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the tag was taken off, if it is put back on, i will rearange the information myself, but lets see if it will keep like this.-Threewaysround 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to change it because I did think it needed a header. Anyone object to what I wrote or changed? newsong 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Three ways - I don't think it's necessary to have subheadings for this section, it's small enough. Other comments: I deleted one doubled item, but kept the second reference. I think perhaps if there are many more of these we should rearrange them. Are they currently just thrown together? Perhaps an organization method would be to put Canada and Mexico first, since they are on the same continent? Then the EU... Then others... That's just an idea.newsong 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok i get what you mean. I say unless anybody really objects we leave it as is (perhaps the rearranging of the order would be fine). I'll see what i can do about the rearranging. peace-Threewaysround 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

nevermind it's already in paragraph form, guess we dont' have to worry bout it anymore.-Threewaysround 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction of South Korea

South Korea government insists that the gun society in the United States is a cause in this murder, and is requesting that it doesn't become South Korean's racial discrimination. [4]

• Seoul Shinmun

"The excellence of the firearm technology of USA was proven by this again." [5][6]

• Hankook Ilbo

"Freedom of arms carrying" [7][8]

• The Chosun Ilbo　"Here is Iraq. "　[9]

--KoreanShoriSenyou 19:39, 17 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)

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)

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

Violent Media

I'm not saying that the shootings were caused by violent media. However, two prominent figures have so far gone on televison and claimed violent media to be the source. Therefore it is an issue surrounding the shootings and there is no reason to remove it. It does need editing but removing it all together takes away responses. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a talking point and is an 'issue' of discussion. Why this section is continually being removed as 'nonsense' and so forth by Flavourdan is beyond me. -William Desby 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

THen I get told off for "taking it out" when i'm the one putting it back in. Violask81976 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Jack Thompson is a (characterization that would probably constitute eight or nine violations of WP:BLP in a mere five words deleted) and hardly a recognized expert in the field? Rdfox 76 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News sure thinks he's an expert, watch the source and they call him an expert on school shootings for some reason. It doesn't matter that it is Jack Thompson, the fact that it is currently considered as a reasoning is enough to put it as a current issue surrounding the shooting. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite his perceived lack of expertise, he was recognized as such on national television (Fox news) and has a very loud an powerful platform. Despite his rather unprofessional nature, he makes big waves - waves that get him air time on top rating television news networks. I'll let Dr. Phil stand on his own. This is a social issue, not all of which are covered by experts, and many of which are not purported by experts. His influence on violence and so forth in the media, however, is undeniable after the 'hot coffee' episode. -William Desby 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseless speculation has no place in Wikipedia articles. The section itself admitted they have no idea if the perp ever played a video game, they are just speculating without any basis. Do not keep reinserting nonsense. Flavourdan 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We know it has not basis. We know that they can't prove the connection. However, before a motive has been made and before any actual connection is made the blame is being placed on Violent Media. It is an issue raised on National Television and as such has a purpose in the section of the article labled as Issues. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 20:07, 17 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)

edit request

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)

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. [10] ("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)

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)

More on media influence

The line 'It is currently unknown what role violence in the media played in influencing the shootings' should probably be edited to say 'It is currently unknown what role, if any, violence in the media played in influencing the shootings'. At this point even the suggestion that there is a connection between the two is premature and unprofessional. 204.69.40.13 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but a couple of editors keep reinserting these bogus claims, because they were said on TV I guess they must be in the article. Everything that was said on TV should be in wikipedia apparently. Flavourdan 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that is most likely referring to video games. I will edit that. Funpika 20:26, 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)