Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Virginia Tech shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Virginia B‑class High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Second Wave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) Ezra Rashkow, Research Fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just zapped the Violent Media blurbs. It is an issue surrounding the shootings, yes. However, there certainly is no concrete link between media of any sort and this killers actions yet. Wikipedia does not do original research nor does rampant speculation by Dr. Phil and others need to be relayed. Simply put, a real world encyclopedia would never include such a section, because there is no direct connection as of yet. Rahga 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post reports Cho was a fan of Counterstrike. [1] --HertzaHaeon 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost 69,000 people playing Counter-Strike [right now]... the fact that he was a fan of it is meaningless. Reactionary responses from the likes of Jack Thompson are as well - he made those claims before any information about Cho liking violent games even came to light because that's what Thompson does. I'm a gamer, I've seen a hundred other instances where he's done this... this is no different. It should not be included. - Ennuified talk 01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [2] President David Palmer 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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.^[1]
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.^[2]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

spelling

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am sure that is most likely referring to video games. I will edit that. Funpika 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Video games?

Any news yet on blaming video games? They usually get around to blaming them at some point. The Behnam 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Read the article, its happened already. Gdo01 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind its been deleted. Gdo01 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Jack Thompson has already got the bandwagon moving on this, as he got on Fox News the night of the attack blaming it on video games, despite there being no information known about the killer at the time. Freecorbinj 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, lets leave Thompson out of this article. He was claiming that the killer used video games like Counterstrike to train before the shooter had even been identified. The man's a bonafide nutjob and no-one who knows anything about his history of accusations takes him seriously - except Fox News, apparently, who called him a 'School Shootings Expert' or something like that. - Ennuified talk 01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Influence of Guns N' Roses song

[4] Should this be mentioned in the article, it's a play the gunman wrote based on the Guns N' Roses song Mr. Brownstone, in it he writes about a character wanting to kill a teacher on a Monday, which may contain motives as to why he did this. Bucketheader 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost like hearsay. Can it be proven?Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's crap anyway: blaming a song/movie/videogame for your or someone else's actions is the ultimate cop-out. HalfShadow 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when music is blamed for this stuff it's crap, and mostly incorrect, but this song and the play based upon it is very similar to the real events; the first lyrics to the song is "I get up around 7:00,get outta bed around 9:00 i don't worry about nothin' no, 'cause worryins' a waste of my time", and when you consider what Cho Seung-hui did at 7:00 and 9:00 speaks for itself, it may just be coincidence but it could certainly be relevent. Bucketheader 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough forums around to speculate all that and more... I don't understand why Wikipedia's talk pages have to serve as one of them. Ephraim6888 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could? How is a possibility relevant? Plus we do not have a reliable source from this. Anything else violates WP:OR. Gdo01 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should include it, but I would say that it is relevant given that the play is violent in nature, is about killing a teacher on a Monday, and the song's lyrics coincide with the times of the killings. If that's not intentional, it's one heck of a coincidence. - Ennuified talk 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the chance is 20%, assuming equal probability for the event to occur on any of the five school days. If you consider that he probably waited until first day of class, which is usually a Monday it is actually probable. If the song was "kill a teacher on the 16th of April 2007", then that would be worthy of note and either intentional or one big coincidence, but seriously... "Monday" is not a huge coincidence. Sad mouse 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

antidepressant-induced violence in young people is real

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, according to this ip locator:[[5]], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Warning of massacre

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204030 "Students at the university's online newspaper, planetblacksburg.com, today discovered a message on a website that seemed to announce the massacre.

Posted early yesterday morning on 4chan, a website that allows anonymous postings, the message warned: "hey /b/ I'm going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous."" Should this be in there somewhere? 66.169.45.213 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

protected

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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).[reply]

"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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

This is a bogus citation [6]. Mumun 無文 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

International reaction (section #2)

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [[7]], 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: [[8]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Announcement of his crimes on VT's online forum?

... and more http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shooter18apr18,0,2210161.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines 134.79.216.76 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Serge[reply]

Jack Thompson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

White House photos

The White House have got some PD-USGov photos of the memorial service that could be used on this article.[9] Evil Monkey 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference wdbj7timeline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "US university shooting: Timeline of events." Geelong Advertiser, retrieved on 2006-04-16.

[wdbj7timeline-1] Cite error: The named reference wdbj7timeline was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[geelong-2] "US university shooting: Timeline of events." Geelong Advertiser, retrieved on 2006-04-16.

[1]

[2]