Jump to content

Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Three ways round (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 19 April 2007 (→Gun Control Debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Timeline

At one time the article contained a timeline. Then the timeline was removed to a separate page. Now I cannot find the timeline at all. Does it still exist? Cherylyoung 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)cherylyoung[reply]

Jin

Rapper Jin, has released a song in memorial of the Massacre, it can be found on www.hiphopgame.com or at his myspace page www.myspace.com/therealjin

Such events always attract attention whores, nothing new under the Sun.--Svetovid 10:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nothing particularly article-worthy about the song, but that was a pretty unnecessary accusation. tomasz. 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every day

I come to this page everyday before 1st period to read the updates. great job everyone with editing, adding new info, etc.

watching partial clips of cho's video this morning on the news took a toll on me.

it was greatly disturbing.. ill be adding more about it because there was a specific quote..

and the picture of the candlelight vigil

honestly its beautiful


i think it will go down in history as one of the most famous pictures ever.

You also might want to add

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

Excerpts from the video message that Cho sent to NBC


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

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

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

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

65.254.5.139 11:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NBC

Was this NBC thing sent by courier or from a post office or something? I presume the answer is yes because if it was just dropped in a mail box, the timestamp seems irrelevant as it would just be the time it was processed, not the time it was sent Nil Einne 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw on the news, Cho went to the post office at 9:01 and gave the package to a clerk who dated it and sent it off, but with the wrong zip code, so it got to NBC a couple days late. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether the mail was delayed or delivered on time: Fox News interviewed a Virginia postal worker on April 19th, 2007 that said one of the workers remembers dealing with Cho because there was a 6 digit zipcode, instead of five. Having spotted the extra digit, it was corrected on the spot and then processed for mailing to NBC in New York. 68.175.118.95 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Gun Control Debate section

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

Numbers

Should digits be used instelled of spelling out numbers? I mean, thirty-two dead should be 32 instead. I always learned that numbers nine or less were spelled out, or something like that. Nospamtodd 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think spelling them out looks more formal, but it really is a minor detail. As long as it's consistent throughout. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it's pure laziness not to spell numbers out less than one hundred. It looks tacky to not have them spelled out. Jauerback 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree strongly. Wiki style for numbers is that < 10 are to be written, anything over that *may* be written if it is less than two words and it is consistent with context. This is consistent with the technical writing standards I've ever been taught. I believe the bias should be towards legibility - hence the 33 and 29 rather than thirty-three and twenty-nine. Ronnotel 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a hard time reading "thirty-three"? Jauerback 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, in fact I do find 33 easier to read. What does thirty-three have going for it? Ronnotel 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an unregistered Wiki viewer and was reading the comments on this...as a former reporter...Associated Press style had numbers under 10 spelled out...and anything over 10 as digits (five, nine, 33, 100,000) to save space and to be more legible...im ignorant on Wiki style...but its a good rule of thumb...thanks for your consideration...F&B Bart Jason

Bart Jason, you can find Wiki's style for dates and numbers here - it's in line with what AP uses. BTW, as a new user, you might want to take a peak at talk page guidelines. For example, you can sign your comments by using four (~) characters so they are easier to read. Welcome! Ronnotel 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Oldboy

It is being reported that the killer enacted scenes from the Korean revenge movie "Oldboy" 89.155.102.1 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having seen Oldboy, I don't see anything in this situation that jumps out at me as particularly similar. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree whole-heartedly with HBWS' assessment, but the NY Times did write about this in their Lede blog last night, and it has been on Matt Drudge's site today, but let's wait and see if this idea gains any more traction in the media before we add it to this already enormous article. A Traintalk 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article

Now that the events of this incident are starting to die down a bit, I think it may be appropriate to turn our focus to consolidating this article, for obvious reasons (and if they're not so obvious, 68k is all I need to say). I don't think it should be halved in size or anything, but I think that some sections are unnecessary and some are repetitive, so a good look-over of the article is in order. Of course, there's still stuff out there that can be added, but be selective of what you add and where you add it. In particular, I'm suggesting a cut back in size of the whole responses section (and its subsections) and the Cho Seung-hui, who already has his own article. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I added the {{verylong}} template. Jauerback 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see you took it down. Never mind. Jauerback 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. If you think it should be up there, go ahead. I just don't want it to suggest to others that "Yeah, we should split this article into a million more articles." But maybe I'm just being paranoid! └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unecessary splitting is a real concern. But so is the article length. I'm sure we can find a happy medium. Natalie 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a second look, it seems like most of the information about Cho could be moved to the main article about him. With what we have now, there's basically no reason to have a separate article about him, so will people mind if I move about 90% of it over there? And what should we leave here - what's most important? Natalie 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the content works for me. His article already has some of the material, so it should be possible to reduce redundancy. All that really needs left in the main article is a short summary. --StuffOfInterest 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the you leave some of the background of Cho, and maybe some of the possible motives. Maybe even the motives section should be pulled out to its own section, but I don't know. The preparations thing seems unneeded, but maybe it can be integrated into the timeline article or something, but maybe just leave some parts about how he bought the guns. It should probably all be in one section, without subsections. Just basically, leave anything that has to do with the logistics of the massacre. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the article length thingy so I added the {{verylong}} template. Zehly 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good bit of the Gun Control Debate section should be moved or summarised, as well as Sporting Tributes, and Tributes to Self-sacrificing behaviour. That last part is about Librescu and can be covered on his own page.(sorry forgot to sign!)Snorgle 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems overkill (no pun intended). And the tributes (sporting, the hero thing) and the copy cat sections should be either removed or reintegrated. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's looking better, but a lot seems to have been added to Cho's Possible Motives. I think it's too in-depth, and most of it should go on his own page.Snorgle 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Scientz, I guess you shouldn't delete that large amount of text without overwhelming consensus or putting them elsewhere. --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but at this point, I think people should be thinking about what will be relevant two weeks from now, even two years from now. I can imagine (had Wikipedia existed then) that the Columbine article would've looked like this as well, but look at it now. If we're to be an encyclopedia, we should be thinking of what a good article would like as something for posterity, not what it should look like as a newspaper article the day after it happened. No? Scientz 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right!! It's just that there must be a consensus and that the deletions must be transparent, since many people worked at it. Just make a proposal what to delete or to move to another article, maybe in a new section below. You have to give the other users a chance to react. --Abe Lincoln 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the section on Cho has actually gotten longer since I proposed shortening. I'm going to be bold and move a lot of it to the main article on him. Nothing will be deleted, just moved. Natalie 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was just worried because of the deletions in the section with no refering article. Abe Lincoln 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the gun-control debate bit has been added back again, I liked the shortened version, myself. And I agree wtih Natalie that a lot of the Cho section should be moved to Cho's article.Snorgle 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to carve out about 5K of text (from 66K to 61K). I throw down the gauntlet and challenge all comers to do better! Ronnotel 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut a huge pile from the Cho section - nothing needed to be moved because it was all at his main article. I pasted it to User:Natalie Erin/sandbox in case anyone needs the sources or anything. So it's a little bit better. Natalie 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, I salute you. Ronnotel 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone shrink the head shot of Cho? It's freaking huge. Natalie 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the huge amount of chopping that is current being done to the article at this time. The "international reaction" section was utterly butchered, for example, losing much of the information that was there (for example, the response of the former Korean foreign minister) so I've reverted it to an earlier version. Many paragraphs are being cut short and don't flow as well just for the sake of cutting it down, something I strongly disagree with. There's nothing wrong with a long article /per se/, but there's much wrong with an article that's just cut down indiscriminately. -Halo 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that any cutting down can be done when the article settles down and that there's no rush to do it right now, particularly as I doubt anyone could do a good job with the sheer amount of edits the article is still getting -Halo 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to mention a lot of the content was removed without it being removed to the appropriate section, so I'm readding it -Halo 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that too much is being chopped out. A lot of the article's physical size is due to the extensive footnotes (over 100). As far as the actual readable text goes, it isn't overly long right now. - Itsfullofstars 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'd argue it's now too short compared to an article like Columbine Massacre. -Halo 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restatement of focus. I think that really, we should not be taking whole slices out without making sure that the flow remains intact. I also think, though, that a good copyedit or two are in order for later, so that even if the flow isn't good now, it can be taken care of later. I just don't want for this article to become a huge indiscriminent mess of info, so that is why I suggested removing stuff. Maybe I was premature in suggesting that this article has died down a bit, but I still think managing the article as it goes along is key. └Jared┘┌talk┐  16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure the {{verylong}} tag is necessary. In an article with 140 or so references, don't citations make up a good percentage of the length? If there were no citations, I'd imagine the length would go down by 10K or so. Plus, given that the subject is still front page news and we're still getting new information every minute, is this article's length truly our number one concern? I think we should shorten this article eventually, not immediately. I have removed the tag, but if you must put it back, go ahead. szyslak (t, c) 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article's length has already been shortened from 68K to 61K. szyslak (t, c) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding new information

When we add new information to this article, let's mind we put it in past tense. I had to go and clean up a couple places written in present tense. Right now the counselors and the Red Cross might BE there, but two weeks from now they will have BEEN there, so we need to write our articles as such.

NEW INFO: (New user here so am not sure if I am contributing in the right way/place.) There is more information on the French Canadian teacher and her apparent sacrifices in her classroom, which was apparently the hardest-hit with the fewest survivors. The French class is also apparently where Cho returned for the last time before taking his own life. She has said to have ordered her students to the back of the room in a "futile" attempt to barricade the door. Furthermore, although "at least 10" in the class were killed, not all 22 of the enrolled students have been accounted for, and only two are known to have survived. The significance of these events suggests that they be included under the "shootings" section and there surely will be much more detail in the coming days.

Please see this link to The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204866 for the full article published today. The story seems worth following up, especially if you're going to include the info on other professors who sacrificed their lives for their students, no matter what section it's put in. (BTW, I have noticed above that someone is calling the TO Star a "gossip" paper. Although this paper seems to have erred in an early detail from 4chan, it has won many awards for original investigative reporting and can generally be trusted for solid research. It is the major 7-day weekly paper for Canada's largest city, and its credentials are normally trustworthy - certainly not to be dismissed.) wiki-stikler 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Responses to its own page

I vote that we move the section "Responses to Virginia Tech Massacre" to its own page. Zehly 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you shouldn't delete that large amount of text without overwhelming consensus or putting them elsewhere. --Abe Lincoln 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I say we leave it there. The responses are what make up this page, so its important that they stay here. Maybe try to reorganize them better and they will look good. There is also already enough problems going on about extra pages, so leave it as it is for now, probably. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The section has become long in its own right. Break out a separate article and do a teaser in the main article. This will help cust down the length of the main article, which is now an issue. Realkyhick 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is being reported that Cho watched the movie repeatedly before his rampage. 75.89.75.106 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko[reply]


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

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

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

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

Please Semi-Protect this page again

Please semi-protect it again, it's been abused far to often of late.--RobNS 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm surprised that it would be unprotected at this point.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only see 5 instances of vandalism in the last several hours, and this probably one of the most-watched articles in the encyclopedia right now. Are you seeing more vandalism than that? Please point it out to me if so. A Traintalk 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so... I'm sure overt vandalism is quickly reverted, but I'm concerned that as long as the article is unprotected, more subtle vandalism and falsehoods could make their way into the article and not be noticed due to the high speed at which edits are occuring.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay vigilant. I personally won't s-protect the article right now if only because I see a good deal of constructive edits coming in from IPs. I'm more than willing to hear new arguments as they come up, and I won't overrule another admin who chooses to protect. A Traintalk 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that semi-protection is not needed at present. The page is well watched and vandalism levels are low. WjBscribe 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Control Debate

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

  • Strong disagree at this time, particularly about moving it to gun politics where it doesn't belong (there is specific background to this event in the section). There is no rush at the moment to cut down the content, this can be done when the article settles down. -Halo 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do agree, I think gun control is a whole separate issue, and while mentioned here, should really not be debated here.--RobNS 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unless the teacher was specifically targeted for her stance on gun control, it is not relevant. The opinions of victims' children are not relevant to the facts of the event itself. The debate on the causes and issues of the event is a separate, distinct issue. Thus, they may still be important and possibly included somewhere, but not in this article. The article is too long as it is, and these topics can be moved to a separate page. Also, I don't understand your first two sentences. Rooot 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I seriously doubt she was targeted due to her stance on gun control. Cho made no mention of gun control in his letters. Any debate on gun control in United States and/or Virginia is a long drawn out affair with multiple sides presenting multiple arguments. On a personal note, as American Citizen and Virginian, I imagine her daughter is going to find little sympathy in Virginia Congress. They can't stand a New Yorker Mayor, they are not going to put up with a Canadian. Rabbit994 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well, here is something I recommend deleting. 'On the other side of the issue, the Conservative Voice contrasted the Virginia Tech massacre with the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002, when a disgruntled student killed only two students before he was subdued[118] by two other students with personal firearms they had retrieved from their vehicles, declaring that "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun."'

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

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

Removed information

If anyone wants to check out the stuff that was removed, there a diff here. None of it was merged with other pages, so should probably be readded to the article. -Halo 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've readded the majority of it to the article. If anyone wants to split it up into separate articles, notably the Cho Seung-hui article, I'd agree with it, but outright deletion is a bad thing, and would solve any concerns about it being overly long -Halo 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, everything in our section on Cho is already in the article about him, which is why nothing was merged. There was nothing too merge. Natalie 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. I thought Natalie's version was much stronger. Ronnotel 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. For example, I've just added basic information like his highschool, where he grew up and his Korean name to his article. I'm sure there's plenty of other information ready to be merged -Halo 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I stated above, I copied everything I had removed from the article into a sandbox of my user page: User:Natalie Erin/sandbox where it could be retrieved with the sources. So if I missed something, the solution was to add it to the main article about Cho, not just blanket revert me. Natalie 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie, just want to let you know that your version was beautifully done, & it should go back to that version after it's been ensured that all relevant info is in the Cho article. --Yksin 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy, concerns, and now considered as a feature article? News?

I have concerns about this article. Don't get me wrong, I believe it deserves to be included as it is a very notable subject. My concerns relate to the issue of What Wikipedia is not. This is a developing news story. It is all over the world. Wikipedia has sister projects, especially Wiki news.

  • From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
    • News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

Another concern is this article is becoming too large. This is because it is a breaking news story and new information is constantly coming in. Please don't jump on me. I'm just trying to learn about Wiki and really love the concept and would like to keep it, as I assume most of us do, credible and a valuable source of information and education. Thanks for any consideration, that do not to bash me. I am commenting in good faith. Jeeny 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I seriously doubt that this article will get FA status in its current state. Someone nominated it, sure, but such is the nature of open editing. Wikis, by their nature, are organic. Yes, this article is getting a lot of attention because of the news and the size is part of that. Once we have a few weeks of distance, no doubt it will be streamlined and cleaned up more. I'm not sure what your concern is, really.Chunky Rice 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will get cut down when it has settled down. The amount of edits is too huge to make a reasonable job of it right now. In time it will be possible to successfully split everything into separate articles without losing details. Wikipedia is not a news source - this means no WP:OR, which this article has avoided - as you can see in the 158(!) sources. There's no "first hand news reports". -Halo 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome of the FAC, whoever wrote the bulk of this deserves a well-deserved pat on the back for the text and references. It seems that someone can type faster than I can talk. andreasegde 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chunky Rice is entirely correct. If you glance at the debate over at FAC, you'll see that the article hasn't a chance of passing right now. The article's length and the amount of trivia in it is simply an artifact of recentism, and will eventually taper out. Your concerns are most appropriate, Jeeny, but don't worry too much about it right now. A Traintalk 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guys for your comments. You've all made very good points. My concern was more of the featured article issue than any other, Chunky Rice. As for the reasons I stated, such as it is still a breaking news story, and lots of information and edits are constantly added. I also agree that this is a well-sourced article and the editors are to be commended for their dedication to updating this article, as Andreasegde said, she's right! I can't keep up! Good job. Thanks for being civil everyone. This tragic event is very sad and more information coming in, is very disturbing. (nothing really to do with Wiki though, just my opinion, this last sentence.) Jeeny 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about the featured article issue. It's way too large, and not stable enough. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 140

(Number may have changed) is to a google cache of an article. Can someone chenge it to a direct ref? Rich Farmbrough, 17:18 19 April 2007 (GMT).

I looked at this (it's now #104) and the reason it's a google cache is that the original article was removed, because the reporting is gone. Has this false reporting been noted in any other media outlets? If so, we should be using them a reference, not the google cache. Natalie 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name order

Someone has switched the name order to personal-family again, despite the fact that the article about Cho is currently using family-personal. I don't care which one is decided on eventually, but we need to be consistent in our usage. I'm going to change them back. Natalie 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientz had actually already done it - thanks! Natalie 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Semiprotection 2: the revenge!

I semiprotected the article for 5 hours due to a recent spate of IP vandalism. It should unprotect automatically at approximately 18:50 EDT. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho information should be merged to Cho article

At some point earlier today, someone had done a beautiful job of shortening it with direction to the main article on Cho for further information. So who went & wrecked it again? What a mess. --Yksin 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are refering to Natalie, who had shortened it, and Halo who reverted. There is an on-going discussion here. Ronnotel 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diff would be here. Funpika 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above. The person who deleted it didn't merge it with Cho Seung-hui and just deleted half the information on the page, so I "wrecked" it to add the merge template to allow that to happen, since I'm strongly against removing relevant information. I've had a go at merging, but I've not had the chance to do a proper job. -Halo 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To save effort, may I suggest that we start from Natalie's exquisitely edited version and build up from there. Ronnotel 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thanks for explanations. That makes sense to me -- merge the info to the Cho article, then go back to Natalie's excellent for this article. --Yksin 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Cho section needs shortening, a lot of the information under 'Possible motives' is just background info. How, for example, are his plays possible motives? Plus, all the information on here is already in the Cho page so i don't really see the need to merge. Spugmeister 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Halo. Ronnotel 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at merging earlier with Cho Seung-hui, but I may have missed info. The "old" version suitable for merging can be found at User:Halo/Virginia Tech Perpetrator -Halo 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information is already there, except possibly a few details. The Cho article is organized a little differently than our section was, but I think the two versions hit all the key points. Natalie 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments! The one last problem is that the picture is enormous again, but I think I remember how to fix it. Natalie 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I dropped it down to 125 pixels, which seems like a more typical size. I'm not sure why the default thumbnail size it so big, but this seems better. Natalie 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victims section

Please make the victims section longer than one sentence. One sentence is not propoer Summary Style. --GunnarRene 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shine"

On CNN (Larry King I think) they interviewed his roomates. They mentioned that he would play the song "Shine" by Collective Soul at all hours of the day. It would often wake them up at night. In addition, he would also write the words on the walls of their suite. I think the song was dear to him, and that he may have identified with the lyrics.

"Shine"

Give me a word/ Give me a sign/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Lay me on the ground/ Fly me in the sky/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

Love is in the water/ Love is in the air/ Show me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Teach me how to speak/ Teach me how to share/ Teach me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

I saw/heard it myself, but does anyone know where I can find a transcript of that interview? As proof the detail was mentioned?

EDIT: Found... http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/music/archives/2007/04/collective_soul.php

Day of the week

Why does the lead paragraph say "Monday"? The day of the week is not usually mentioned.--Mantanmoreland 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with WP policy regarding days of the week, but given that it was at a school, which operates on a weekly schedule, the day of the week seems at least peripherally relevant.Chunky Rice 19:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. "Monday" in the infobox, so that is covered. I would just remove it from the lead, not the infobox or article.--Mantanmoreland 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's no need to have the day of the week in the lead, although it is appropriate somewhere else in the article. Natalie 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review?

Should this article be Peer Reviewed? If anyone else thinks so I will nominate this article for Peer Review. Funpika 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe we should wait until it's a little more stable. Natalie 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's no need to rush.Chunky Rice 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is still information which is still developing (i.e. motives). Real96 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian speaker to read ref?

This ref: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8690&_PRID= and currently number 34 is in Romanian, a language I cannot speak or read. Can someone who does read Romanian please add a title, publication title, and date to the reference? Currently it is only the hyperlink, which is generally frowned upon. It also needs the little language marker, but I can add that. Thanks. Natalie 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Response picture

Since the VT vigil picture is aligned to the left, the code for the picture should be entered before the title "Student Response". This is a Wikipedia guideline. This will make the page look more organized.66.76.60.154 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does that say it is a guideline. Funpika 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've read the image guidelines and they really don't say anything about placement. Natalie 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

Please don't call it the "Virginia Tech Massacre" I don't know how we should refer to it - but I - and many others can't stomach that choice of words.

It's a word that describes this event, hope this helps. --Rypoll 20:25, 19 April 2007
  • Wikipedia doesn't pick what to call things. Wikipedia titles things based on what reliable sources are calling something. If you want to change the title, talk to the media. ♠PMC♠ 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOX News

This channel is discussing this matter RIGHT NOW. 205.240.146.156 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What matter? The shootings? Natalie 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat this is FOX news. They're the TV version of the National Enquirer. HalfShadow 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of nice to see them covering actual news for a change, instead of a breaking report about John Edwards's latest haircut. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for disclosing your POV. You may now refrain from editing any articles. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fox news generally plays one side of the fence, not both like they should. It's not POV if I'm right. HalfShadow 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not policy that editor's can't have a point of view - just that they can't edit to promote their point of view. Natalie 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Haizum may have nothing better to do with his(?) time than pick at other editors, but I do. Every second I waste refuting his(?) arguments is a second I could be getting something accomplished... HalfShadow 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to shorten the references section?

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

that's a good thing-Threewaysround 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the article is getting into the 60Kb+ range, and eventually some pruning is going to have to be done. Are all of the references necessary? HalfShadow 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article is still new, and still has a lot of hype about it. It's been an editing, and vandalising frenzy. After it stablises i'm sure someone will go through all the refrences to make sure they are relevent. But right now the article is evolving too quickly to do any real good.

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

(edit conflict)I have been consolidating some that are clearly the same source, which has shorted it by about 5. Once the article is more stable, I think we should go through and prune some of the earlier articles, since later articles say all the same things and more. Other things have multiple references where it's clearly unecessary. For example, one statement about George Bush's statement references the statement itself and a news article about it, which is clearly unecessary. But I think we should hold off until the article is somewhat stable.
In the mean time, we should all be careful when we add references to make sure we're using the most concise reference we can. Natalie 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism?

I think you should cut this line, it's clearly racist:

"Reprisal attacks against Koreans would make little sense considering how many African-Americans murder people on an hourly basis in the United States of America with no retaliatory actions against other innocent blacks."

i'm pretty sure that was vandalism, and i think it might be gone now anyway-Threewaysround 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the section about him and the tapes he sent to the NBC gone?

That's so current.. im sure tons of people want to read about it

I think you're referring to material that was moved to Cho's main article. If so, it was done for reasons of space, no need to duplicate material. Ronnotel 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the shootings

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

Here is a link to a "play" that he wrote that got one of his teachers worried. [2] Other than this, it seems that most of his manifesto was video, other than a few scattered notes found in his dorm room. I don't think those have been released yet. Wrad 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damiano photo

Hi William Chase, I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to have your name incorporated into the caption (yes, I saw the photo's page), and I think that having it copyrighted and credited to you on that page is sufficient. Fair? It's just too inconsistent with all the other photos on Wikipedia. Bflorsheim 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that person is actually paying any attention to this page - the photo was uploaded to Commons, which is it's own independent website. Natalie 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Tech_shooting&oldid=124209670"