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 68.55.204.182 (talk) at 14:12, 20 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gun Cpntrol

People are using this article, esp. in the international media section, to argue for gun control. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. Unless plans are also made to completely end black markets and to close the borders with Mexico, it is not clear such tragedies really can be prevented. Gun-control is a complex topic that should not be merged into this article. We see that making drugs illegal has really kept drugs out of people's hands. This simply is not the forum to discuss such things. Please make this section NPOV

Motives

Stalking is a serious issue particularly on college campuses. The narrative in the section on Cho's motives alluded to his stalking female students and disturbing behavior in the classroom. The section was probably deleted to make the article shorter, but by making the article shorter it left out valuable information that may prevent further death. By minimizing the importance of stalking incidents, females do not report the incidents, do not go to court to get a protection order, no action is taken against the stalker (including serious psychiatric intervention) and sometimes this leads to deadly consequences. In fact, if only a single female were killed by a stalker or a domestic violence incident, there would not even be a reference in Wikipedia. In some jurisdictions, reports of stalking result in legal intervention and in others multiple reports accumulate and no action is taken. If more follow-up had been done in 2005 when the first complaints were made against Cho perhaps 33 more people would be alive today. Cherylyoung 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Although the song is not noteworthy, that comment certainly was un-called for. Keep your slang and disgusting diction to yourself, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.3.174 (talk)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.5.139 (talk)

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]
The comments in the video and the manifesto provide insight into the motive. If we took a moral position not to address the rhetoric of evildoers Wikipedia wouldn't have articles on Hitler or Hussein.TimB 05:40, 20 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]

First and foremost cleanup to this section would be a clear understanding about so-called "reasonable gun control". The government does not control guns. They only control people. Therefore "reasonable gun control" is really just code-speak for "government control over people", a complete reversal from a government operating under the control and with the consent of the people it governed which formerly existed on the North American continent.

Hindsight has 2020 vision: That said, does Larry Hincker not sound, in retrospect like a complete sock puppet? Lowellt 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what will ultimately happen is that the gun control aspects will be moved to the appropriate (if I do say so) Gun Control Debate page, but I also propose a split page (eventually!) called Media Responses to the VA Tech Shootings. It hink that there is going to be a huge argument about the propriety of NBC and CNN (and shortly thereafter, everybody else) going wall-to-wall with Cho's videos, photographs, writings, and audio clips. This would also be a nice way to fold in the obvious Columbine discussion, ans the media response to THAT incident is likely to be reviewed with the same critical eye. I am not here trying to conduct a debate on the topic, only on where we should put the debate.Haakondahl 06:05, 20 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]

Also, given focus on pedophilia in the play [2], I interpret the name as a crude genital reference, i.e., "Dick", "beef", in combination with the fast-food reference. Haakondahl 04:36, 20 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]
Strong disagree. Gun control is one of the primary topics raised by the shooting. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubleplusstrong disagree. You are correct, yet the article is not about gun control. Another topic raised is the suitability of deathtrap old buildings as classrooms. Note Here, Discuss Elsewhere. Haakondahl 05:25, 20 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]
Yeah, as a foreigner living in the US I am amazed at how many people here want to pretend that the shooting has no reflection on gun laws. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mis-stating the opposition unfairly. Please see my response (immediately following this) to "Wiki-stikler" for more.Haakondahl 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously (I claim) gun control is an issue closely connected to this event. On the other hand, so are a myriad of mental health debates, media (ir-)responsibility debates, building design (a factor in the death toll cited on some TV reports) debates, open campus policy, and any number of other strongly connected issues. Obviously these things have or could have their own rambling articles. The only practical thing to do is mention the issues here as they bear on the shooting itself, and link to them. Some people will want to turn this article, and indeed the event itself, into a forum for debating American laws on ownership and use of firearms. These attempts will come from the pro-X and anti-X sides. A pox on both of their houses. This article is about the shooting. So I agree with Rooot. Haakondahl 05:11, 20 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]
Perhaps there should be a page called Proven Objectivity and Superior Understanding of Non-American News Editors concerning Events Ocurring in America. Or perhaps not. Haakondahl 05:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find that the international media covered the issue quite well. Besides, that is the international response to the shooting, I think it is heavy bias to leave in all minor responses by schools and sports companies, but to remove the major statements by word leavers. Sad mouse 23:30, 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]

I agree and tried to argue this point before, especially because we can verify that their statement is false. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem provided that you replace it with another well known source that provides a similar position in the debate. Kevinp2 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats now how it works in wikipedia if I am not mistaken. We cant use ridiculous sources just to present one side of the debate. Since you are soo adamant about such a source to be placed there, you are the one that needs to bring another 'well-reputed' source that will point out such a view.

If there is no well-reputed source source, then there should ideally be no place for such a view in the article.Hahahaha1 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, remove anything that is wrong, and if someone can come up with a well researched conservative opinion then it can go in. Sad mouse 23:30, 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]
You'd have a horribly biased article. At the moment, both sides are represented - whether you agree with them or not -Halo 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, that is not the wikipedia standard - we do not give all sides of a position equal weighting regardless of the quality of the arguments, we show each side exactly to the extent to which they can verify their position. An unverified conservative or liberal position should be removed, and not left in simply to fulfil 'balance'. An encyclopedia is not about showing everyone's opinion, it is about arriving at the most verifiable position. Sad mouse 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia standard, however, is to present both sides of the debate. The Conservative Voice's point about the Appalachian Law shooting, and how it was stopped by law-abiding students with guns, is still apt and should be left in. Here are some possible alternate sources for the Conservative Voice's side: *Ann Coulter
Mentions Suzanna Gratia, who worked in the cafeteria in the previous worst school shooting in Killeen, Texas. She always carried a gun with her until she started worrying about the legality of it (Texas had no concealed carry laws at that time). When a shooter entered the cafeteria, she reached for her purse instinctively and found no gun. Her parents and a total of 23 people were killed by the shooter. Her friend also had a concealed weapon and pulled it a second too late, right as the killer shot her. Both women are now concealed carry proponents.
It's not hard to find these sorts of sources... now you can put these in rather than the one that is presented. ---Gloriamarie 03:15, 20 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]
With the amount of attention this article is getting, how would a peer review change things? :) --Kizor 23:40, 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]
I don't really think the fact there's an extra few kilobytes for sources is a bad thing at all, so I respectfully disagree with you... -Halo 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can cut down references without removing any sources: most major print news outlets in the United States recycle AP and Reuter's stories for a majority of their content. When the end of the article says "The Associated Press contributed to this story" that means the AP wrote it, and whatever media outlet is publishing it just slapped a different paragraph in their somewhere. Also, all of these online stories have been updated several times, and we are occasionally using multiple versions of the same article. Those are clearly unecessary, and nothing is lost by removing them. Natalie 00:45, 20 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. [3] 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]
He was supposedly stalking someone, but that's all we know. HalfShadow 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We have that - it's in the "Perpetrator" section: "Early reports suggested that the killing was the result of a domestic dispute between Cho and previously alleged girlfriend Emily Hilscher, who was later revealed to have had no prior relationship with Cho.[24]". As far as his motives, I'd say it's rather clear that he was crazy, but until that's in a secondary source we can't print it. Personally, since the article about Cho quotes some of his writing, we don't have to point that out - he illustrates his own insanity just fine. Natalie 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The media is saying, now, that it was not his girlfriend. They said it was mistakenly assumed. Although it's still not clear how he knew the girl and how well, if at all, but doubt it was his girlfriend from what I heard and read from many sources. Who knows why people do this type of horror... there can't be a "logical" reason at all. There is no logic to killing people indiscriminately. I think that's why they call it "crazy" and or "evil" there are no other descriptors to rationalize such behavior. I think HalfShadow's term, "batshit" fits. Who can figure that out? It's so sad. Jeeny 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


I came to my conclusion based on the following information 1) His first victims were the girl and the RA. The chances are high that the RA got killed because he was probably doing his job and telling the shooter to get out of the hall. The killer went on to talk about 'You could have prevented it' or something like that in his video. It would most likely be the girl since he had killed only two people at the time he sent the video. 2) The shooter has a history of stalking women. 3) The girl had a boyfriend(not the shooter) at the time of the shooting. Its there on facebook if anybody wants to verify that.(cant use that for a source - I am just providing info) Hahahaha1 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Hall photo

This discussion has been removed. Please see [4] if interested. --BigDT (416) 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Natalie 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone have an issue with blanking this section and simply leaving a link to the diff for anyone interested? I'd hate to have him read this discussion and get the wrong idea. (Keep in mind, also, that WP:BLP applies everywhere, not just in articles.) --BigDT (416) 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just archiving it ASAP. The discussion is pretty much over, and it seems inlikely that he'll be reading the archives. Natalie 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it is archived, it still shows up in search hits and mirrors. I'm being WP:BOLD and removing it. --BigDT (416) 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Too long" box?

Ahh, not a fan of the too long box, all of the current efforts aimed at "shifting content elsewhere" are proposed for deletion. -Phoenix 22:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. I think the problem is we have a long article, and if we split into separate articles they get AFDed - damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's also the fact there's hundreds of references making it seem longer than it is - I'd say a good third or so of the article size is references -Halo 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed, but from the looks of it, they're headed towards a "keep" or a "no consensus" result, which, as a practical matter, means that they are kept. And the article is too long.Chunky Rice 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not denying that it's too long, but people will go creating dumb articles that will get deleted. The current deletion efforts will stay or have no concensus as is stated above, but it could get messy. -Phoenix 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things to consider:
      1. The "Inaccurate media reports" section is quite significantly out of synchronisation with the sub-article Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. All of the original research, still tagged here with {{fact}}, and statements about Geraldo Rivera, who isn't actually mentioned in the sources and which is thus also original research, has been purged from the sub-article and replaced with sourced content. So that section here needs rewriting to bring it into line both with what the sources and the sub-article say.
      2. There is a title dispute, I suspect (although it hasn't been explicitly stated) about the word "Inaccurate". It might be worth removing that word.
    • Uncle G 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given 1) this article is very long, and 2)the consensus on many of the subarticles AfDs is leaning toward delete, maybe we just have too much information here. Recentism and cruft look very similar after time has past, and the problem may be that we want to include everything, even though that doesn't really fit in with summary style. Natalie 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why somoene keeps archiving my question..

Someone keeps archiving this question. Someone please tell me why, or answer it. It's relevant to this article. There was an image on here yesterday that showed the shooter and another person both wearing masks. The other person appeared to be Caucasian. This image was in the article last night. Does anyone know what happened to it, Where it came from, why it was removed?Wikidudeman (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about it, but it was probably removed because it was unfree, or had no source information. -Phoenix 23:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw it on the news anywhere. It would be evidence that Cho possibly had an accomplish.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that's accomplice. In any event, the fact that it wasn't on the news just adds it to the long list of as yet unproven facts about the incident. -Phoenix 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I looked into the archives and I can't find it. It was on here about 18 hours ago. Around 1 AM this morning for me, 7pm here. I find it hard to believe the image would make it to wikipedia but not the national media. If it was erased from wikipedia, would it still show in the archives? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a hoax or something. Of the hundreds of established users monitoring this article, someone would have noticed if it was a worthwile image and mentioned something. -Phoenix 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the place for this kind of independent detective work and accusations of assisting a murderer.Chunky Rice 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Especially by deducing so based on one image; which, evidently, was probably some sort of hoax. -Phoenix 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err,Detective work? I'm just trying to get information on the picture because it's relevant to this article. I want to know where it came from and why it was deleted. Did anyone see it on the article last night?Wikidudeman (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so interested, go back in the history and have a look around the time you claim to have seen it. Provide a URL to the revision, and we'll all have a look. -Phoenix 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I can't find it. If it(the image itself) was erased from wikipedia would it be shown in the page histories?Wikidudeman (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, but a red image link would be in its place, at least showing that it was there. -Phoenix 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find it. It might of only been there for a few minutes and then removed after an edit or two, which would make it too difficult for me to find. Basically the picture showed Cho and someone else (Caucasian, blue eyes) who were both wearing ski masks and both had a pistol in their hands. The color of the masks was sort of a camouflage greenish color. I'm just wondering if anyone else saw it or removed it for some reason.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the image at a couple of different points and I believe it has been deleted. I'm not 100% sure of the reason and I don't know who the deleting admin was, but I'm guessing one of three things: obvious copyright violation, no source information, or obvious hoax. Natalie 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are Image:Cho1012.jpg and Image:Cho101.jpg uploaded by User:Uifz. Based on available information, the images are highly dubious;
  • The person wear a face mask, so we can't ID him from appearance
  • Uifz has not provide any information about the circumstance of the image, despite being urged to do so at his talk page
  • Uifz, at different time, presented three different stories regarding the source of the images, (1) pd-self, (2) from a friend, and (3) sent by Cho to NBC.
  • In the newer version, the image was cropped to hide the nametag and the "US Marines" tag that was visible in the earlier version.
User:Uifz is welcome to provide further infor.; but at this point, the images are suspected hoaxes. I urge admins to delete them immediately. --Vsion 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article image

Ok, I think it needs to be decided exactly what image will be used on the top of the page, because the previous image of the campus seemed to be just a randob image that didn't really illustrate the event, but the current cell phone video image of students in the building cowering also doesnt seem right.Rodrigue 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first image was there only because no usable free images were yet available, and it's difficult to prove that "no free images are availabe illustrating the same thing", in terms of fair use. The cell phone is at least a live image from within the incident. The article is young, an acceptable image will come along soon enough. -Phoenix 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the previous photo. I strongly dislike the current photo as it's just poorly taken (is that the right word?) - grainy, out of focus, and not a very good photograph. I certainly don't fault the photographer as that was a difficult time to concentrate on one's photographic skills but it's not a very high quality photo to use as the topmost and therefore most important or representative photo. If that's the look one wants to go for (similar to a producer's choice of handheld cameras to convey a sense of realism), then I respect that stylistic choice - but I disagree with it in this case. --ElKevbo 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this. While the hallway image is perhaps more relevant, the memorial image is still quite relevant enough and far better on its merits as an image, which is important for the infobox image given its high-profile status. --Kizor 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not post a picture of Cho? I'm serious, anytime we see that face we'll think "Virginia Tech", nothing relates to the shooting more than him. --jmrepetto

Victims section, its existence and contents

The victims of the massacre currently have their own page, which lists them in relative detail, and a small section in this article, which gives their names in a compact form. The victims page is currently undergoing an AfD and there's been a fair bit of seesawing over how they should be covered. I and Yksin figured that talking things out would be much more productive than undoing each other's work, and that a significant change like this should be discussed in peace.

To reiterate myself from user talk, the names of the victims are quite useful to have in the main article. They provide single-click access to those victims with articles - legit ones, I know student victims' articles are getting zapped as we speak, but several faculty members have passed WP:PROF. (The fairly ugly template with these links is losing its TfD and was removed from the article.)

More importantly, it needs to be mentioned that five faculty members were killed, and the victims section accomplishes that efficiently and elegantly, giving the reader more information at a glance than what could be given in the text without greatly disrupting the text flow. Repeated mentions in the text were clumsy and I saw no real way to improve them. And when at least some of the faculty members have proven independently notable, there's no real point in saying that five were killed and not saying who they were, forcing the reader to hunt for that information. --Kizor 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I really think that we can lose the list in the main article. One sentence underneath the link to the list page, giving a basic breakdown of the numbers would be at least as easy to read as an entire list, when determining the number of professors vs. students, if that's something that is important. Further, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a person looking for information on specific victims would go to the list of victims. It just makes sense.Chunky Rice 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I also must admit that the way it's currently formatted strikes me as unaesthetic, though I'm willing to give a try at figuring out a better formatting if it turns out the list has to come to the main article. I'm hoping that won't occur, as the article is lengthy as it is & the list looks very good as it is on the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page -- but we don't yet know how that AfD is going to come out (looks pretty even at the moment.) I hope that someone's got a copy of that article in their sandbox in case it does fail AfD, for the data on it. I already had to revert it once when one of those opposed to a victim list unilaterally blanked the page & turned it into a redirect back to this article. --Yksin 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC) -- P.S. I'm not so sure the template is losing its TfD... but I sure hope that if it's kept it's at least removed from the articles of those victims who have their own articles, because it looks truly tasteless & insensitive on those pages, in my opinion. --Yksin 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before, but I'll just reiterate here for the sake of argument. I personally feel that having a separate list for the victims strains the bounds of notability. Being that the size of the list is going to be limited (I doubt it will top 33, and if it does it certainly won't go over 40), there's no chance of it taking over the article. But I find that dropping the list in it's own section in the middle of the article really disrupts the prose and looks rather tacky. Thus, I think we should use a sidebox, ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster articles. This will also dis-encourage people from adding crufty, memorial-type information to the list, which can be a concern, and provide a place to link to the professors' articles (4, if I'm not mistaken). As for information in the box, I think it should stick to name, age, faculty position/year in college, and maybe where they were killed. Natalie 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the tackiness of the list, I wholeheartedly support the previously discussed idea of a sidebox, which would be an unobtrusive and very functional solution. The size of the article is no argument: The section is small and compact, a sidebox would be much the same, and the victims are a very important part of the massacre. If you want to trim, try trimming the monstrous and at points ridiculous response section. (I leave the article alone for one day and it grows to ten times its size... sheesh. :P) --Kizor 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sidebox is an excellent idea, and I'm also in favor of trimming the response section. Most of that stuff is recentism and won't be notable in two months. A line or two of text explaining that other schools held vigils and what not should suffice for the purposes of an encyclopedic article. A Traintalk 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of the reaction was identical, and the specifics really have no bearing on an encyclopedia. If we cut that down to a general reaction with a few speciifcs for contents sake then the article will probably be of a readable length. --Jimmi Hugh 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Titanium Dragon 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of notability
Re: "notability," what I've found through the course of the many AfDs emerging from this & related articles is that a whole lotta people don't seem to understand what notability in a WP context even is.
Per WP:NOTE, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So the issue in terms of notability is, "is the subject of the article notable or not" -- not "is every person/place/thing mentioned in the article notable or not", which is covered by the WP:TRIV policy. Now all of us seem to be able to agree that the Virginia Tech shootings is notable enough to warrant an article; most of us agree that a list of victims is non-trivial enough to include in the Virginia Tech article (though there is a vocal group who seems to believe that even this amounts to being "a memorial") -- but the major disagreement seems to be whether the victims list should be contained within the main article, or is large enough to require it to be split off into a subsidiary article, where it is at the moment (& undergoing AfD, its fate at the moment uncertain).
I would suggest that people decide that if they believe a victim list belongs with this article, whether within the main article or on a subsidiary page, that they also come to some consensus as to how much information is needed for each person, & what can be deemed "trivia" or "memorial." For the record, WP:NOT on memorials reads, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." My stand is that while each of the victims was coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family, that does not detract from their notability as a group for being included as a list in this article or as a subsidiary of this article. Although the "lets delete them all" faction will disagree, I continue to believe that WP:NOTE and WP:NOT are both being used incorrectly and spuriously as arguments against retaining a list of victims and basic identifying info about them.
Now I'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks, & while I'll have my laptop, I don't expect to be doing much more than checking in during that time. Good luck. --Yksin 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have an excellent point, Yksin, and I'll start the dicussion off: I think any victims list should be limited to the following: name, age, position at university or year in school, where killed. Nothing more. Natalie 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, would add only place of origin. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However you look at it a list of dead people cannot stand in its own right! It is not encyclopedia content, it would be an obituary. Of course leaving it on this page is fine as it simply adds points the the main subject. Basic information related to the University will be needed to ensure some level of notability within the article. --Jimmi Hugh 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about it "standing in its own right"? Its importance here is because these of its pertinence to a major historical event. --Yksin 02:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually you did. You mentioned editiing the list for notability whether it was in the main article or a subarticle. I agree it needs editing, but it is a single set of non-notable facts that cannot stand in an article of their own. --Jimmi Hugh 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, but I don't regard a subarticle as "an article of [its] own." Its an article that is created because the main (parent) article has grown so large that there are size considerations, per WP:SIZE. It is a standard practice in Wikipedia for large articles to be broken up into smaller subsidiary articles to they don't mess up the ability to read for individuals who are still on 56K modems, or otherwise have slow connections. And if you were to go back & read my comments in the AfD debates for the Virginia Tech victims list, & the Charles Whitman victims list, you'll see that size of main article is consistently a criteria I use in stating my own opinion on whether such a list should be a subsidiary article or merged into the main article. --Yksin 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted by more than one person, N is not additive; lumping together a large number of non-notable things is not notable itself. I am one of those who agree that the list of victims is not notable, but that is irrelevant. I don't think their names are necessary; it is obviously important to note that people were killed, and their names could be used inline if some narrative of the events comes to be, but a list is just gratuitious. A list of names is entirely meaningless and unremarkable unless the names in that list are remarkable unto themselves, and in this event, it seems there were two people max who died who were important enough to merit articles. Titanium Dragon 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of these people's names is not even really from their notability, but because the basic facts about them add pertinent information about a significant event. As is the case for the Columbine massacre & the victims of Charles Whitman the UTexas clocktower sniper, who the "delete 'em all" faction have also been trying to get rid of these last couple of days. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been trying to get rid of them because they aren't notable. These lists are nothing but effective memorials. Their names, their ages, their majors - none of this really matters at all. If you said X students and X faculty members were killed, it'd get across all the same information in far fewer lines. The rest is simply inconsequential, the same way we don't note minutate in every article. Its also very biased, as those who died in similar events don't have lists of victims for the sole and simple reason they weren't Americans. Obviously it isn't notable, as if it was notable, we'd have it for every such event; that it is only for Americans means it isn't notable, and is simply a way of eulogizing the dead. Titanium Dragon 05:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be trying to make some kind of WP:POINT about coverage of mass killings that didn't occur in America. If you're unhappy that those articles (whichever they are) don't include lists of victims, {{sofixit}} rather than trying to make that point here. The names and basic details of the victims here are important factual information about the event; indeed, the fact that these people were killed is the only reason we have an article on the killings in the first place. To leave the information out would create unnecessary imprecision; if we have the ability to be precise rather than vague, why would we elect not to do so? The names of the victims aren't in and of themselves any more notable than the names of the buildings where the shootings occurred, or the names of the plays written by Cho, or the name of the student who shot the cell phone video, and yet all of these facts are small but vital supports of the body of the article, and without them it would collapse into a heap of "there was this guy and he shot some people, the end". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute to self-sacrificing behavior

Ugh. I complained about "heroic actions" yeseterday, and this is the same thing. This is simply not an acceptable name for a section. Remember, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I'm tempted to just delete the entire section. This needs to go. Titanium Dragon 01:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the future my friend.. without the cold war to kick reality into people, chances are this is the kind of contnet the masses will want --Jimmi Hugh 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the masses also want 9 pages of Simpsons trivia and "PENIS!!!!!!" in half the articles. Sometimes the masses are wrong. Natalie 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do try and say that policy comes first when most people argue what the masses want, but unfortunately in this case, given it is a wording issue, policy has no case. --Jimmi Hugh 02:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Titanium Dragon 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, TFD, and AFD templates

This page and all of its subpages are extremely high visibility right right now. In the interest of putting our best foot forward, what would everyone think about confining xFD and merge tags to talk pages with a central list of discussions being considered kept here? Most articles that are up for deletion aren't exactly high-visibility ones. But these are. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to keep the templates out of articles? There are enough people looking at this talk page that getting a consensus shouldn't be a problem ... on anything. --BigDT (416) 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What reason do you have for pretending to people that our processes don't exist? I think that the fact that people can see our merger and deletion discussions underway, and see that experienced Wikipedians treat them calmly and civilly and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, aim for neutrality, verifiability, and elimination of original research, are careful about biographies of living people, and act to eliminate mis-uses of Wikipedia for attacks and soapboxing, is putting our best foot forward. Uncle G 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial theories sections

I've just nuked a completely unsourced, speculative, bullshit section stating that "some have claimed" that this incident was staged to provide a justification for the US to attack Korea. Those "some"... they're always claiming crazy things... Natalie 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently left out an important sentence: on the off chance that someone legitimate has actually been making this ridiculous claim, please reinsert with sources. Natalie 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Curious if anyone can verify the picture inside the classroom is from this specific event. I have not seen it on any other websites or CNN. As stated elsewhere, wonderful work editing. Neutralitybias 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.collegemedia.com/ and scroll down to the "Monday, April 16th 2007 8:19PM" update. This is the same photo - the photographer released it under the GFDL. Holden Hall and Norris hall are actually both the same building so even though this class was in Holden Hall, they were near where the shootings were going on. --BigDT (416) 03:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this particular photo need to be the first one seen, in the template at the top? Jmlk17 03:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion in that matter. I'm just answering the question.  ;) I kinda like Image:Norris hall.jpg for the infobox as it's more eye-catching, but I'm not picky. --BigDT (416) 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Victims? More Victims?

There are reports on CTV today that the number of students killed in Couture-Nowak's French class - where the gunman took his life - may be incomplete. Out off 22 students enrolled, apparently only 12 are accounted for: 10 killed, in addition to their teacher, and 2 survivors, now in hospital. The foreign language department head, Richard Shryock, has expressed frustration with his inability to get information about the remaining students and the final moments in that classroom, and fears they may have perished also. Are there any other reports about unaccounted for students? Here is the link for the CTV (Canadian Television Network)report "Gunman committed suicide in Canadian prof's class" http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070419/cho_suicide_070419/20070419?hub=Canada wiki-stikler 03:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail's Ax

Why no mention of this name that he took on? It was tatood to his arm and was used in the return address for his package to NBC. Someone should write this up.

Read the gunman's article. So far it has no importance in this article. Gdo01 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drake University helps

I noticed you have some Universitys that are helping on here, so here's another one http://www.drake.edu/news/db/official/archive.php?article=1580 heres exactly what it says "Drake Students Rally Together for Hokies 04/18/2007


CONTACT: Lauren Smith, Student Body President, 515-271-4555, lauren.smith@drake.edu; Katie Knorovsky, 515-271-1834, katie.knorovsky@drake.edu

Drake University students are joining a multi-university outreach project, Paper Cranes for Virginia Tech, and will gather to craft origami paper cranes from 4 to 6 p.m. Thursday, April 19, on Pomerantz Stage in Olmsted Center, 29th Street and University Avenue.

The cranes will be sent in care packages to the Virginia Tech community along with letters of support from Drake organizations, students, faculty and staff. Drake’s Student Senate is sponsoring the Drake effort.

Origami paper cranes are an international symbol of peace that originated with a Japanese legend that says anyone folding 1,000 paper cranes is granted a wish.

In addition, Drake’s Residence Hall Association (RHA) is collaborating with other universities to support the 300 people who work in Residence Life at Virginia Tech, as one of the first casualties in Monday’s tragedy was a resident assistant. RHA is gathering cash donations to create care packages that will be sent Monday, April 23. Monetary donations are being accepted by all Drake resident assistants until 4:30 p.m. Friday, April 20. Checks can be made payable to Lorissa Lieurance. For more information, contact Tiffany Mauch at tsm003@drake.edu."

You don't have to add it, it's just a suggestion.

Protected for the 57th time

No, it hasn't really been that many but it seems like it. Looking at the article, there has been nothing but vandalism for the last two hours and thus I have s-protected the article. I really hate having to protect it, but there has been nothing but vandalism and reverts for a while now. --BigDT (416) 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the semi-protection of this article. Vandalism levels are more than high enough to warrant it. WjBscribe 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to give high-traffic articles, as this obviously is, the chance to be unprotected. It is not to be done indefinitely for such articles, hence the constant reprotection. -Phoenix 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words?

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the term “futile attempt” with regards to victim Jocelyne Couture-Nowak efforts to save students, constitute a weasely attempt to slight her inability to prevent the gunman from entering and killing her and students? None of the other victims in the article reference their “futile efforts” as a cause for their deaths. It just seems a little underhanded and snide, but maybe that was the author’s intentions(?).202.128.1.120 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "futile attempt" constitutes the use of weasel words. Futile simply means ineffective. I don't think that there's a snide connotation there. -Tess
Saying that a murder victim was ineffective in preventing not only her murder but the murders of others in the room kind of puts the onus and responsibility for the deaths on her and not the perpetrator. None of the other victims have their actions as being described as "futile.” Every victims’ efforts at survival were futile but only Ms. Couture-Nowak's actions have been singled out for some reason to highlight her failure, and it's because of that, that it seems a little weasel like.202.128.1.120 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't weasel-like at all. It is descriptive. She failed to barricade the door, thus it was a futile attempt. It is very clean and concise wording. The rest don't have futile because there's no need for it. The first person succeeded in evacuating their classroom; the person went to see if they could help and got shot. Et cetera. I don't see why you're complaining. There's nothing weaselly or putting the blame on the victim about using the word futile. Titanium Dragon 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm "complaining" in fact I started the whole thing by very respectfully asking, "Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the term "futile attempt"..." and I went on to explain my reasoning for thinking so. If that's your definition of complaining, I guess we don't need the talk forum since you can decide everything for us complainers with your declarations and pronouncements of "No, it isn't weasel-like at all." You're the boss dragon, sorry if my complaint wasn't in line with your decree. 202.128.1.120 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was a bit harsh. I'm tired. Anyway, yeah, as is obvious from my prior paragraph, I don't think its a problem. Titanium Dragon 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also attribute the word futile to failure or weekness, this is a trick of wording. It is often useful to avoid using negative words to describe yourself or another persons actions in life. EG. "I failed at a task" sounds much worse than "I was unsuccessful at a task" or "My attempt at the task was unsuccessful". This is because the word success gives the sentence a positive feel to it. (This also works for other words) It is just a trick of words that is useful to know. So if you were to change it, then you would change: "before making a futile attempt to barricade the door" to something like "before making an unsuccessful attempt to barricade the door". Thats my 2c anyway. AaronBoogle 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think "before making an unsuccessful attempt to barricade the door" reads much better and doesn't make the woman sound like she was a failure in her last moments, especially considering that from the sounds of it, her actions in staring Cho down while hustling the kids to the back of the classroom sounds pretty heroic in my book. 202.128.1.120 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, synonyms of “futile” include “pointless” and “worthless” which are hardly fitting to describe the actions of a brave woman attempting to save the lives of her students. Mingus19 07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to TV networks all messed up

I've noticed that some of the references no longer link to a relevant article. The TV networks seem to have a bad habit of using the same URL to post different content. --Uthbrian (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, don't trust a URL of medium length. Like a blog, the permanent sites of articles have longer URLs. This doesn't always help--sometimes the article is actually moved to a daily/weekly/monthly archive train, with URL shifts along the way (no way to run a media outlet, for sure). If the URL contains obvious date information, good. If it is indecipherable AND LONG, better. Haakondahl 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk sub-page for tributes?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online chat forum. As such, it's usually accepted that tributes are not appropriate for talk pages, as seen on talk:Steve Irwin. However, as this article gets an increasing number of search engine hits, users might start posting tributes anyways. The thing is, if we keep removing tributes, people will think that we're pretty insincere. Therefore, I'm thinking about adding the following to the talk page header for now:

Please note that this talk page is only intended for discussion of changes to the Virginia Tech massacre article. Off-topic discussions, including tributes, are not appropriate and will be removed from this page. If you would like to post tributes, please use this page instead. Thank you for your cooperation!

Any thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we were likely to see any problem with this, we would have seen it already. Good thought, Ix, but unnecessary in my opinion. A Traintalk 11:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese media/internet partial censorship as response to inaccurate US columnist claim shooter was Chinese

This should probably be mentioned here and in the relevant daughter article:

http://jamesfallows.com/test/2007/04/17/virginia-tech-shooting-one-american-woman-terrifies-china/

(James Fallows is a leading and renowned US journalist and author)

Delete or severely edit Other schools' responses section

The Other schools' responses can be pared down to a few sentences. Almost every college and university in the United States and many around the world had some kind of response -- a message from the president, a vigil, counseling offered to students, info on how they are prepared to respond to similar attacks, etc. By singling out a few in detail, it implies that these were the only ones. This entire topic can be summed up in a few sentences. Crunch 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree. I can't find a single notable event. I tried deleting yesterday but was reverted. Ronnotel 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just trimmed the section. There is currently one sentence noting the responses by many other institution referenced by VT's very large collection of links to those responses. I left in those institutions that are actually offering physical assistance to VT or responders (counseling services, housing, etc.). There should probably be a sentence added about the reaction of colleges and universities who are reexamining their emergency response and communication tools, options, and processes but that could be a short sentence. --ElKevbo 13:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are more generous than I would have been but it's better. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at filtering out some of the press release fluff while keeping the salient elements.Ronnotel 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i concur with Crunch & Ronnotel. it's sort of obvious that a large amount of sympathy would be directed at the students and survivors without having to enumerate individual organisations that sent that sympathy. tomasz. 14:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copycat threats

12 references for one sentence is overkill. The most prominent threats should be briefly described individually to better organize the section. Noclip 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:Notability, unlikely we will care about copycat threats three days from now. Do we care even now? I propose that the section be removed. Ronnotel 13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church??

Why is the information about picketing one of the student's funeral on the page? Is this really necessary? Zehly 13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed it. Ronnotel 13:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the headline from "Virginia Tech massacre." It sounds like a horror movie--more fodder for a copycat. Virginia Tech shootings would be sufficient. 72.73.29.201 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a frequent topic - for now, the title reflects popular consensus among attributable sources. If a different term for this incident emerges in these sources, WP will change the title. Ronnotel 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Tech_shooting&oldid=124359990"