Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

Cho's family response

I'm looking for the source on the family response quoted to see who specificly said these things and it seems that the source is itself. Could someone please find the real source or elliminate the false circular source and put a 'citation needed' thing there? -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 06:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with Tim and the creator of this section. The above quotes from Cho and more are important quotes that are worth taking from the video to expand upon. The least we should do is post his quotes separately from the article so that people who want to can reference them. -youngidealist68.231.200.13 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that those quotes, or at least some similar to them, should be included. The guy wasn't born nuts, rightly or wrongly he had big issues with people from better off backgrounds whom he felt were mocking and abusing him. This is how he justified what he did to himself.

"This would bring more unwanted attention to this sad human being which would have only helped get his point across"

Which is exactly what must be done. How can we deal with madmen if we don't know what's going on in their heads. Lunatics generally show warning signs or fixate on certain things, it's how we identify them early, and what better way to spot a lunatic than by being aware of their lunacy so that we know it when we see it.

The foreign media is making something of the fact that he felt (rightly or wrongly) that he was outside of the American Dream, and that people inside it were mocking him, so they think that it's important.

perfectblue 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Incidentally, it turned out that this was a non-issue: the hallway photo's license requires mentioning its photographer in the caption. The article's now back to having the mourning one on top. --Kizor 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Train^talk 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Titanium Dragon 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with that, would add only place of origin. --Yksin 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not trying to make a point about non-American mass killings; I'm trying to show that it isn't notable. I don't think victim lists SHOULD be on any of these things; they're meaningless. Their names mean nothing. It isn't about "leaving out their names"; names being mentioned inline is FINE. What I object to is articles like "lists of X killing" or the sections in these articles which consist of lists of names which mean absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to erase their names inline, but rather to get rid of the pointless list section which sits around in the middle of the article and accomplishes nothing at all useful.

Saying I'm trying to remove their names inline is WRONG. Read what this section is titled. The point was to get rid of the list, not to remove their names inline. Titanium Dragon 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that the names mean nothing. The name of a person who died serves to identify the person who died. Ergo, it has meaning. This seems like it should be obvious, and I don't understand why you're disputing it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was a vote, I would've voted remove section. It's too much. --Jambalaya 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Strongly Agree. I can't find a single notable event. I tried deleting yesterday but was reverted. Ronnotel 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your edits are more generous than I would have been but it's better. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Good edits. I think we're in pretty good shape right now. Like much of the article, this section will need to be watched to ensure it doesn't grow out of control. It's rather nice to be spending my time on good-faith and well-intentioned edits than blatand vandalism. :) --ElKevbo 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Agree Delete the section. Rooot 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree it is fine how it is. It is relevant, notable, and cited. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think you're missing the point, Swatjester. The issue is not that the handful of schools listed did what they did and that what they did was relevant, notable and cited. The point is that thousands of other schools in the US and around the world did the same. But if we mention just these few, it strongly implies that they were the only ones. The |good reference provided to the the Virignia Tech website that talks about the support and response from other schools provides a good summary. I imagine, in time, we will have more similar references that provide such summaries. --Crunch 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point. Thousands of other schools are not sending medical experts to VT. Thousands of other schools are not giving free boarding to the virginia state police. Those are notable, relevant, and sourced statements that are highly important reactions. We're not talking about schools saying "We stand with virginia tech". We're talking about schools saying "We stand with virginia tech, and we're sending 15 trauma counselors to treat the students there". There are only a handful of schools doing that, and this is highly notable. Especially, when said psychologists are nationally reknowned experts in traumatology, such as FSU's response. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then if that's the specific type of support you are addressing, and only that kind of support, you have to be a whole lot more clear that that's what you're talking about. Right now having a sentence like, "Wake Forest University and Clemson University have offered grief counselors and other assistance" is ridiculous because almost every college in America is doing that. --Crunch 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexist?

How is it sexist to use gunman instead of shooter? Cho was a male and therefore a gunman. If we were talking about an unsolved crime where we didn't know who the shooter was, I could see the argument. I'm not really bothered by seeing "shooter," I just question the justification for the change. Lord Bodak 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The recent change seems silly in this context, and the word 'shooter' all the time is somewhat cumbersome. 'The shooter shot . . .' Move it back to gunman.--Fizbin 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is not saying shooter a bit shootist :-), gunman it is, gunman it should stay. Unless you have authoritative prove that he was transgender, Or what about 'Gunner' not very sexist a term, a load of nonsense. User: Hyades

Don't use Gunner, you'll have a pack of raging Arsenal yobbos howling at your door. ;) Ronnotel 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean from your part of the world, anyway starting to go off topic, was meant as a part of this load of 'nonsense' in reference to terms User:Hyades :-)

Gunman it is once again.--Fizbin 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We say "actor" and "chairperson", regardless of whether the person is a man or a woman. Why is "gunman" appropriate as gender-specific when "shooter" communicates the exact same thing just as effectively? If Wikipedia is going to be gender neutral by policy (as it often is), why should this be an exception? 64.229.236.178 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would use "actress" and "chairman/chairwoman" in those situations. I don't know that it's fair to say "we"... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why is "gunman" appropriate as gender-specific when "shooter" communicates the exact same thing just as effectively?"

Well, last I checked, Cho-Seung Hui was a man. We might as well refer to him as "Xe" or "Thon" instead of "he". Talk about a non-issue. K. Lásztocska 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

why not use "gunperson"? oh, because that'd be stupid. tomasz. 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the Perpetrator section

The way the first line of the section says "Resident Alien of North Korea" right before his name just doesn't sit well with me. That is why I tried removing it twice, but each time I was undid by the same anon. Is it consensus for that to be there? --LuigiManiac 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was South Korean. North Korea is a separate country and has been for over 50 years. He has lived in the US for 2/3 of his life. Gregohio 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed -Halo 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. --LuigiManiac 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. I'm surprised so many people don't know the difference between North and South Korea. Natalie 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do know the difference...I just couldn't remember which one he was from, and I didn't want to get an edit conflict, so I just picked one and saved the page without double-checking. --LuigiManiac 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the various anons who keep making edits to the article that confuse South and North Korea. The edit you were talking about was just one in a long list of edits that were from people who apparently don't pay too close attention. Natalie 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scenes of Resistance

"Kevin Granata left his third-floor office of Norris Hall and went down to the second floor as the second round of shootings took place. Reportedly he heard a commotion and went into the hallway to see if he could help anyone. He was killed there by Cho."

How is this a "scene of resistance"? It just says he walked into the hallway. It doesn't fit with the other's actions of barracading the doors... SGT 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is out of a now deleted section called "Heroic Acts". It was renamed since it is not NPOV. --Abe Lincoln 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He left his office and 'tried to help people' and ended up getting killed. See http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/LOCAL/704180522/1196/LOCAL Over time more details will emerge.- Markm62 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It just seems strange to have 5 bullet points, with 4 of them describing people trying to block or barracade doors and one saying he "walked into the hallway to see if he could help anyone". I don't have a problem with it, but reading though the article it didn't seem to fit with the others. SGT 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a word "help" there to avoid confusion.--Svetovid 03:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested: Automatic archiving

Ladies and gentlemen, this talk page is moving at a fairly prodigious rate and, although it's not as fast as it was earlier in the week, it's becoming cumbersome to archive well. I made one effort to selectively go throw and archive only threads that weren't active anymore, but it was trying enough that I didn't attempt it again and I don't believe that anyone else has, either. By engaging the services of MiszaBot, we won't have to do the archiving ourselves and the bot will take care not to archive discussions that are currently active. Do we have a consensus to do this? A Train^talk 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only if we can define what MiszaBot considers "inactive". If MiszaBot comes with a set definition that's too long (i.e. 1 week) then it will be less than useless, as we have accumulated close to 10 archives in 4 days. Natalie 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's doable - although I'm far from a bot expert, so maybe I'm offbase. I'll drop a note to Misza13. A Train^talk 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be fairly simple to set up and define the timespan to whatever we need to be. --ElKevbo 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I think we should go for it, and probably give it a time frame of 24 to 48 hours, for now. By next week or so we can probably lengthen the time it lets discussion threads sit. Natalie 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to try and set it up. Cross fingers, etc etc. :) A Train^talk 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added the script to the page as per the instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. The template is visible at the very top of the page if you try to edit it. By all means, any users with more bot-savvy than me double-check my doings and make sure that I haven't just ruined Wikipedia or Western civilization or anything. A Train^talk 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

off-topicness of gun control debate section

Can we discuss what should be pruned from this section? I'm not entirely sure which parts people think strays off-topic, so I don't want to just go in and make cuts. Natalie 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virginia_Tech_massacre#Gun_Control_Debate and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virginia_Tech_massacre#.22International_media_response.22_section_was_copyvio. Rooot 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a stab as what I think is on topic:

• The particulars of how Cho acquired the guns, ammo, clips and whether he did so legally or otherwise.
• The specific Federal and Virginia laws that restrict and/or permit gun ownership, in general and on-campus
• The potential impact of more restrictive/less restrictive laws and how they might have affected the outcome
• non-repetitive arguments made in the media and elsewhere on each of these issues.

Ronnotel 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to support point #3 as it seems to be too speculative. Rooot 19:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of it should be removed. The event is important only because of the impact it has on people - to those intimately involved, it is the murder of people they care for, for those of us a step removed it is the issue of violence in our society - you should not remove the impact the event has from the actual event (consider the article on 9/11 where more than half the article talks about the non-immediate impacts). If the sole reason is the length of the article, there is far more irrelevant information that is included (such as the section on Fox not airing some episode of some TV show, or the individual responses of multiple universities all saying the same thing). Sad mouse 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To make sure I'm clear: you're saying you don't think any of the section is off topic? Natalie 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the background could be reduced, since much is in the article above, but no, I don't think the gun control debate section is off topic, in fact I can say that easily 95% of all the discussion I have heard about the shooting has been on gun control. Sad mouse 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the general idea of a section on the gun control debate is relevant. I originally misread the tag and thought it said that parts of the section were straying off-topic. Having taken a second look I see it says that the entire section is straying off topic, which seems wrong. So I have no objections to just removing the tag entirely. Natalie 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag says that the section "may stray." That does not mean that the whole section strays, but rather that parts of the section stray. By definition, it has to start at the right place in order to "stray." But, I digress. There seem to be two people who think that the section is still good: Sad mouse and Halo. Look at the "Gun Control Debate" discussion section above and the ""International media response" section was copyvio." section above and you will see that they are clearly in the minority on this issue. I believe that the information may be important, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to include it in this article. It should be either moved to gun control or to a stand alone article which details the debate on gun control relating to the Virginia Tech incident itself. Either way, most of the section should be removed from this article. Rooot 21:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should look through the history page for the article and you will see that multiple users added to and improved the international media response (I actually have not added to the section except to replace removed references). It is only a few people who want to remove the entire gun control and international response sections for POV reasons. I note that you have already been formally warned (twice) for your actions on this article, so I hope you do not take unilateral action and delete the sections. Sad mouse 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial part, however, IS unsourced, and if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, the first two sentences before Gun Control may end up being deleted if they are not sourceable. --AEMoreira042281 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's designed to be an introduction, and is supposed to be proven by the following paragraphs, ala a Wikipedia:Lead Section. -Halo 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Railing Against Christianity

I think this idiotic claim by NBC and ABC and a few other sources should be added to the innacurate media section. For whatever 'railing' should mean, the videos themselves have shown Cho to be someone who likens himself to Jesus, not one who hates Jesus and those who follow him. Religious propaganda like this is damaging and only furthers hate reactions to this incident. Even if Cho is condemning Christians on videos not yet released, his ramblings are either incoherant or only in the sense of the "not true Christians" typical argument. There are other huge propaganda methods being used by major media sources to identify him as a muslim well before that can be known. I haven't heard of a video where he mentions infidels or Muhammad either and Just as well I have never headr of Muslim evangelists being in South Korea. Maybe we should create a "false media page of the virginia tech massare" and add a link here to it, since so many people validly argue that this one page is getting long as it is. Whatever happens we should not sacrifice any valid information entirely. -youngidealist edited:209.129.85.4 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may belong on his article rather than here but anyway, yes I have seen no specific quote of his that supports that he hates Christianity or that he is Muslim. This probably stems from the Ismail thing. Gdo01 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video nor do I care too, but keep in mind that we don't go for novel syntheses of facts here. If the media is characterizing his rants as anti-Christian, it's not our place to call that claim inaccurate unless we can attribute that analysis to other secondary sources. That doesn't mean we should include something if we know/believe it to be false, but, rather, that we publish other attributable claims, not our own conclusions. --BigDT (416) 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand if this is already established in the wikipedia guidelines, but I gotta say, I think it's a dumb rule. If censorship of the internet ever increases, this will only serve as a harbor for what would eventually be just anothr conservapidia if you make it clear that no obvious or self-observable points can be made.-youngidealist 209.129.85.4 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikia, among plenty of other websites, offers free Wiki hosting where you are free to setup a website that holds any POV you want or draw whatever conclusions you want. But Wikipedia's goal isn't to make a political statement or any such thing. We can reconsider that policy if and when the internet becomes an Orwellian environment. --BigDT (416) 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is dumb, but it is not a rule, even though many people seem to think it is. Wikipedia is under no obligation to present as true information for which we have independent evidence saying it is false, and in fact we should actually actively search and remove such misinformation because it goes against the fundamental principles of an encyclopedia. If you see statements that do this, please don't believe the argument that it is the wikipedia policy. Sad mouse 22:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't go for novel synthesis of facts, however since we have the primary sources we can use them to verify secondary sources. Primary sources always take dominance over secondary sources, and if a primary source shows the secondary source to be incorrect we do not include the secondary source (unless it is noteworthy in itself, in which case it should be presented in the context of the correct primary source). Wikipedia is not a place to just repeat any claim made in the media. Sad mouse 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So if someone wants to take a primary source (NBC) and note that it contradicts itself between the video shown and the verbal statements made by the news casters, then that can be put in the article right? So, all someone needs to do is quote NBC's anchor that said it and quote Cho straight from the video to make this point, right? Would anyone mind doing this? I think it's really important to point out these false assumptions to the best of our ability in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.200.13 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

That seems valid and worthy, if you have the time that would be a good contribution. Sad mouse 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the "deadliest mass shooting in modern US history"

This event was not actually "the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history". I changed it to "one of the deadliest..." because there have been several other massacres with a higher death toll. The Colfax massacre of African-Americans by Ku Klux Klan members in 1873 resulted in 105 deaths. Also, the Sand Creek massacre of 1864 resulted in as many as 185 Cheyenne killed. And the Wounded Knee massacre of 1890 resulted in 300 Dakota Sioux dead. Of course, I don't mean to minimize this tragic event, but it was historically inaccurate the way it was originally worded. I suppose one could make the argument that these are not "modern" events, but I'm not sure what the consensus on that term is. Mycota 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I made this point more than once, but my edit kept getting deleted, as did the discussion on the Talk page. Hopefully this edit will stick now--it's unfortunate that this phrase keeps being used in a quite sensationalistic way. Efrafra 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The modifiers of "civilian" and "by an individual" keep gettting placed and then, for some reason removed. I don't really know why.Chunky Rice 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I put "deadliest school shooting" for now. Gdo01 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The current term of "single-perpetrator mass murder" should seem accurate. If it is to be modified, then peacetime could be added to the term. --AEMoreira042281 15:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any of those sound like accurate descriptors. I wonder why those terms were removed... Mycota 21:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comparative examples are arguable, in my opinion, so I deleted them from the media section. I agree that the comparative language by the media is overdone and inaccurate, but I doubt that comparing this incident to military massacres provides any better or more accurate perspective. Should be in the historical context section anyway.Sfmammamia 22:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although the first example was perpretrated by civilians, it was a different situation in that it was a mass attack, rather than done by an individual. I put this in the media criticism section since it was a response to media reports, rather than a general comment on historical relevance. Mycota 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before - see here for the latest. The consensus was mass shooting - not sure I see a reason to change it. Ronnotel 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If a consensus does develop that there's a need for a change, I recommend single-perpetrator mass shooting, as the Bath school disaster was a single-perpetrator mass murder that killed more people in the US. Rdfox 76 18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it amounts to attaching enough adjectives to it to make it "work" and to save face for the short-memory media who went a bit off the deep end with this characterization. Wahkeenah 18:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording was decided by consensus last week after several attempts to get it right. "Modern" is indeed the qualifier that rules out both the Bath school disaster and Native American killings during the westward expansion. Also, make sure the archives are checked to make sure you aren't changing something for which consensus has already been met. Scientz 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Motive - Feelings of Abandonment?

I think the source of Cho's anger was because of shunning. People stopped talking and associating with him out of fear and anger following his two stalking incidents some months earlier. Also, Cho talked about his "imaginary" friends Jelly (KY) and Spanky (Hand), a jocular figure of speech used by Cho to describe masturbation to his two room mates. This was misinterpreted by his roommates to indicate insanity, they ignored him out of fear and isolated him further.

Expulsion of Ishmael and His Mother. By Gustave Doré.

The attempt at reaching out to the two women, was perhaps the first time Cho attempted to break out of his autistic isolation and emotionally connect with another human being. The result was police knocking on his door and a two-day stay in a mental hospital. This pattern seen in some young adults with autism and Asperger's syndrome, its is called "gaining insight". As autism alleviates, the autistic feels lonely and makes their first failed attempts at forming friendships and relationships. Cho's social skills were very poor, his initial attempts at sociality was met with ridicule, fear and persecution.

Cho's mention of Ishmael (Ishmail Ax), who was abandoned to the desert to die, indicates that Cho's predominant emotion was abandonment. If you look at the picture you can see how Cho might of felt. Diamonddavej 22:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR. Gdo01 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! szyslak (t, c) 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice woodcut, though. --Kizor 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reports of the anguish of his own family, and how they could never get him to talk, tend to deflect the tendency to somehow blame others for his behavior (as he himself has done). However, it's reasonable to conclude that he was improperly diagnosed. He was, essentially, in a world of his own, and would not let anyone in. Wahkeenah 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's Picture

Somebody just deleted the picture of him holding up the two guns. I understand why this may have been done because the picture is offensive to victims families. I believe, however, that under the perpetrator section we should have a picture of Cho to the side. Why not put up his student ID photo instead (the first picture that shows up on Cho's article) ? I would but I don't know how to post pictures on Wikipedia. Tocino 5:42 P.M., 20 April 2007 (CST)

The headshot photo was replaced with the guns photo by an editor who gave the edit summary "less benign version". Then 25 edits later or so an anon removed the gun photo with no explanation. I just replaced the head photo, and have no opinion either way about the gun photo. Someone also just removed the photo of George W. Bush at the convocation because "the Virginia Tech massacre is not a political stage and the article already has multiple relevant photos", according to their edit summary. I think that is not clear cut enough for unilateral action, so I've restored the photo. If people think it's unecessary we should discuss it first. Natalie 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whethwer it is or it is not offensive to some people is irrelevant.--Svetovid 23:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is NOT too long

As suggested in Wikipedia:Article size, I ran a preview of this article with all references removed. Even though I didn't remove all that wasn't "readable prose" (for example, I didn't cut the table of contents, lists or tables), the version without references didn't trigger the longpages warning. Therefore, even though the full wiki text totals out at around 60K give or take a few, readable prose is less than half that, below 32K even. szyslak (t, c) 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo. I agree with you, I'm not sure what people are complaining about. Once the inital hype wears down the article will get cut to the "right" size, and relevant text will be moved their proper destinations. -Phoenix 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

Should we protect this page? It has been vandalized several times today. I'm a big believer in "we're a wiki", but this is an article that could be more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation if there was vandalism on it. Just a thought. --Trumpetband 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. Put up a proposal for semi-protection. Wrad 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

George Bush photo

User User:Natalie Erin wrote in a section above:

"Someone also just removed the photo of George W. Bush at the convocation because "the Virginia Tech massacre is not a political stage and the article already has multiple relevant photos", according to their edit summary. I think that is not clear cut enough for unilateral action, so I've restored the photo. If people think it's unecessary we should discuss it first. Natalie 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)"

The edit summary given for Natalie's change was:

(revert - it was a notable event)

My response is that, while the Virgina Tech convocation was notable, George Bush's use of the event as a political stage was not, at least in the context of an article about the Virginia Tech massacre. The article already has a photo of the convocation, and many more relevant photos related to the topic of the article have already been included. The reason given in my edit summary is a clear cut enough reason not to have a picture of George Bush in an article about the Virginia Tech massacre. 204.42.27.110 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the photo is political is what I was referring to when I said it wasn't super clear cut. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but I'm not going to be so crass as to say his presence at that memorial was a photo op. I really don't care enough to argue the point about that particular photo though - I think you should have replaced it with a different one. We have some pd photos of the convocation at Commons, so I think you should find another one and put it where the Bush photo was. Natalie 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun control and international reaction straw poll

These sections are repeatedly being removed by a small number of users. Can we reach consensus on this issue first?

I say strong keep. Reason? Consider the article for 9/11 - more than half the article is about responses to it, because the way it effects society contributes to its importance and notability. The anti-gun debate here should be treated like the anti-terrorism debate there - as an integral part of the event. The importance of this event is because of how it effected us, and a large part of that effect is our response to the issue of violence in our society and gun control. There may be room to improve these sections, but that should not involve gutting out the majority of the information they contain. Sad mouse 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also favour Keep. The media reaction is an important part of the debate. If it gets too big then a break out section is the way forward. TerriersFan 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - in its present form this section directly addresses the background and responses to this particular incident. It'll serve as a kook magnet, but that's hardly unique to this article. Rklawton 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't understand why some people try deleting it. --Pejman47 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep BUT reference:I support keeping it, but I might remove unsourceable statements.

Note - section deleted once again by IP 66 45 152 134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.45.152.134 Section replaced until consensus is reached.

• Delete for the "International Media Response" subsection in the "Gun Control Debate" section only. While factual, I fail to see how media opinions outside the US decrying American gun laws are any more relevant to this article than it would be to have a similar section of US media responses decrying Australian gun control laws would be to the article on the Port Arthur massacre. Maybe it'd be relevant to a subsection of the gun politics article, but in this article, I'd say that, at most, this section should be just the opening line, plus references; the quotes are unnecessary and could be construed as POV. Rdfox 76 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly relevant to the article. Perhaps in the long-run it's worth moving to a different article, but it's certainly a notable aspect -Halo 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other reactions

Here we go again. Now we have a bullet list of sporting and other tribute reactions -- this has the same problem with recentism as the sporting tributes section, which was deleted earlier per discussion. This will be going on for days, possibly weeks, could we please refrain?Sfmammamia 02:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

new subsection under "perpetrator"?

now that more information is coming out about Cho Seung-hui's earlier life and problems, the order of the perpetrator section is getting a little wacky. would a subsection under the first sentence or so the deals with the mental/behavorial problems he had through childhood and high school be too much expansion here?Sfmammamia 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

'Massacre'

'Massacre' is too one-sided a term for what took place. A more neutral term like 'killings' or 'shootings' is more appropriate, if indeed the NPOV policy is to be upheld. If you wish to pander to the emotional masses, you would do well to keep it as massacre. Vranak

But your opposition to this term is not backed by anything so...--Svetovid 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your support of massacre is not backed up by anything so... Vranak

The key with "massacre" is that its definition specifies the killing is indiscriminate, whereas your other suggested words do not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The location of the killings shows discrimination. Why not a parking lot, a shopping mall, a movie theatre? Vranak

Besides Spencewah's point, it was initially decided to not pre-empt the media and give the article whatever name the incident would come to have. 'Massacre' won out over 'shooting' after it turned out that the former had been adopted into wide use. --Kizor 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So consensus gentium is a good reason for doing things now? Ah, let's see if American Idol is on... Vranak

I guess I still don't see your evidence for massacre as an emotionally charged term. Spencewah 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough: but are you sure you mean 'evidence'? I think you mean, a compelling explanation or rationale, yes? Or would you like court-signed papers from expert witnesses stating that 'massacre' is not an appropriate term? Vranak

You know what I mean, don't get snarky =) Spencewah 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I have a bad habit of taking words at face value.

First off, and I said this earlier, a massacre really means a rout on a battlefield. The students who were killed were not expecting battle that day.

Second, I find massacre to be pejorative: it has connotations of badness, evilness.

Third, it's a poor descriptor: shootings gives more information: a gun was used.

Fourth: it just doesn't feel right. For some reason massacres and guns don't go together. Massacres and chainsaws, massacres and meat cleavers, massacres and katanas, sure. Vranak

To be honest, I'd be fine with "shooting". And by Kizor's consensus argument above, shooting beats out massacre in the Google news search. Put it up for a vote? Spencewah 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Virginia Tech massacre" actually beats "Virginia Tech shooting": 5,609 to 3,718. "Massacre" is in prevalent use in CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc. --Kizor 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, massacre sounds to emotional. It'd go with shooting. Soldiers massacre when they commit genocide, people shoot. perfectblue 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you would also need to change "Columbine massacre" to "Columbine shootings" and Boston Massacre to "Boston shootings". A compromise would be to have such articles rendered as "such-and-such shootings", and with "such-and-such massacre" redirected to "shootings". Another example of a "massacre" was handled this way: "The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre..." Wahkeenah 11:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A massacre need not be on a battlefield. Unless you consider the site of the Bostom Massacre to be a battlefield instead of a town square. And the Redcoats used guns, not chainsaws. Wahkeenah 11:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP policy, we must use the consensus term that has developed in the media. It's not our place to judge whether it is emotional or not. I think there's strong evidence cited above that the media is settling on Virginia Tech massacre, if it hasn't already. Ronnotel 16:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that "massacre" is overly lurid and sensationalist, and I wish I could say that English-language media and I saw eye-to-eye, but it's definitely more complex than. Let me pull some evidence together.

• Google search for "virginia tech" shootings yields 14,900,000 hits.
• Google search for "virginia tech" massacre yields 6,710,000 hits.

But: the New York Times has lumped their coverage under the heading, "Massacre in Virginia", as have the LA Times, CNN, and even the Beeb. The usually stolid Financial Times does not use the word prominently, but it does appear in their coverage. I it all rather tasteless, and I am frankly surprised by it, but consensus does seem to be forming behind "massacre". Pity, but the article should stay at this title unless that changes. A Train^talk 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "massacre" as deriving from Old French for "slaughter" and meaning "The killing of a number of human beings under circumstances of atrosity or cruelty." The definition fits this event just fine. Wahkeenah 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, the My Lai Massacre involved lining people up and shooting them. This distinguishes the term "massacre" from "normal" battlefield activity, in which presumably both sides are armed and are conducting "normal" warfare. Wahkeenah 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare with Battle of the Little Bighorn and Battle of the Alamo. Although in both cases the defenders were killed to the last man, and thus the term "massacre" is sometimes used (especially with Little Bighorn, as "massacre" was a term often used in connection with the Indian Wars), these were both military engagements, not the slaughter of unarmed civilians. Wahkeenah 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the article was originally the 'Virginia Tech Shooting', but near the begining it was moved here. I forget what the reasoning was but it was good enough for it to be moved here, go look at the first couple archives and see if that convinces you-Threewaysround 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychotic illness

I take Psychology course in high school we are on the chapter of psychotic illness so after this occured my teacher asked us to figure out what kind was the killer suffering from. i have reached the conclusion of Paranoid Scrizophrenia. But i am still surprised because what would aggrivate him so much that he would do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missionimpossible (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Look up ASPD Spencewah 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but warning signs don't mix beacuse i heard somewhere he gave warning signs and i am pretty sure after looking up in cnn i didn't find that he was a pyro a warning sign of ASPD thank you though for your help--Missionimpossible 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope your teacher has taught you that it's impossible for even a trained expert to come to a conclusion at this point about what mental illness this individual might have been suffering from based only on news reports we now have. --Crunch 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

blog postings as refs?

The Norris Hall shootings section now contains details found only in blog postings -- those are the refs cited. I've tried to remove them, but they've been reinstated. Other more experienced editors -- what say you?Sfmammamia 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs fail WP:RS. Using blogs to demonstrate a point about blogs violates WP:OR. If we want to communicate a fact about this event, we need reliable sources. If we want to communicate a fact about blogs, we still need reliable sources that make the point and not the source material. In either event, the blogs have to go. Rklawton 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who reinstated Saved by the Blood. Guillermo Colman Personal Blog. 21 April 2007 into Norris Hall shooting. At first i was hesitant to include blog, but this blog belongs to Guillermo Colman himself, which is the first hand account of the shooting in the Hydrology Classroom. Please note: It is a direct account from the victim, not an original research. Therefore I think it warrants an exception, and I'd like to flag this blog inclusion in the references as an exception, according to WP:REDFLAG within the clause of Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known and Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media. Indeed media coverage on Colman's account has been minimal because according to his blog, he has been trying to avoid contact with the media and let himself recover. Nevertheless, the WHSV News and USA Today have included Colman's story from an interview, with content close to the blog entry. However, I still think inclusion of Colman's personal blog in the references section is still necessary, based on the Redflag reason above, and also to provide means for Wikipedia reader to contact Colman directly for cross checking by virtue of emails or blog comments. Chaerani 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Chaerani here. To paraphrase someone smarter than me, the point of forums and blogs being given as non-credible is that their information usually comes from random guys on the Internet making stuff up. In this case the source personality is credible even if the medium itself isn't very. --Kizor 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Just saw http://www.virginiatechmassacre.com/ go up as an external link (some sort of charity/support group site). It doesn't really seem to fit the content of the other links, safe to remove? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Doh, always forget to sign Spencewah 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because words like heroes and angels in one statement tell me they are either lunatics or just highly biased.--Svetovid 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-Hui vs Seung Hui Cho vs Seung Cho

An article in Slate indicates the gunman went by Seung Cho and that his family used the Americanized form. 209.148.113.42 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A seeming consensus on this has been reached on this at Talk:Cho_Seung-hui#Naming_order_POLL_.28again.21.29 --Dynaflow 07:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Current anymore?

Should the current template remain on this page anymore? Not too much more will likely be added, barring a major development. --AEMoreira042281 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably stay for another couple of weeks - until traffic dies down. --BigDT (416) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Privacy

Cho may have been 23 but wasn't his parents still paying tuition? And he probably went back home during the summer! So why weren't they informed that their child was having so much problem at school?? If his parents would have known, they would have pulled him out and none of this killing would have happened. So for the sake of "privacy", 33 people were killed. How silly and stupid. I am quite surprised this issue has barely been raised, but I am quite positive Cho's family are wondering this. 66.171.76.138 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia does not include our own speculation or opinions in articles. This is outside our scope. --BigDT (416) 15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FERPA. --ElKevbo 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

'scuse me? tomasz. 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FERPA Dirtysocks 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

gotcha! thanks. tomasz. 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an adult is an adult, no matter who might be giving them money. I'm 23 and my grandparents help me with my college tuition, but that doesn't mean that school calls them when I miss a day of classes or anything. This has actually been in the news occasionally in the last few years because there have been some suicides at college campuses, and the students were receiving counseling through the school. Then when they committed suicide, the parents got angry because they hadn't been notified that their child was having problems. I think one college may have been sued over this, but can't remember. Natalie 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A few colleges and universities have been involved in lawsuits related to the perceived legal responsibility of institutions to provide mental health care or act on mental health issues in particular ways. It's a messy and evolving area of law but a very interesting one that seems to have few bright lines and clear-cut answers. --ElKevbo 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

References

The title of reference 86 is wrong - it's President Bush, not former President Clinton. The Link of reference 106 is wrong: should be a short hyphen between 2007 and 04. Seems to be a special character actually. Can someone correct this please? I'am not allowed to ... Daniel.zwink 15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bush/Clinton one is fixed. I can't find the problem with 106. Can you make sure that the number is still correct and if so, give more details on what should be changed. Thanks. --BigDT (416) 15:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime its reference 100 - the one with the text "U.S. gun culture costs lives!". It's the hyphen between 2007 and 04 in the URL, that is translated to "%E2%80%93" (at least in my firefox ;-). Daniel.zwink 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Go back to China"

In the portion of the article mentioning that Cho was bullied in high school, I think it might be relevant to note that his classmates said "Go back to China." The reference about the high school bulling does mention it. Why is this relevant? It just shows that certain segments of the population cannot tell the difference between a Chinese, Japanese, or a Korean. Recall for instance, that several news coporations at first claimed that the perpetuator is a Chinese national. I also remeber WWII posters produced by the US government that tried to let Americans to determine the difference between a Japanese and a Chinese. The main point is that there are racial stereotypes involved, but we don't need to promote this POV except to say that Cho's classmates told him "Go back to China" even though he was for all practical purposes a Korean-American. 61.229.182.23 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine connection?

The Columbine massacre occurred on a Tuesday of the third week of April, as did this. Have any sources in compliance with WP:RS seized on this yet? --AEMoreira042281 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC) This happened on a Monday, not a Tuesday, although the week in April is the same.

More notable of a connection is that Cho praised Harris and Klebold for being martyrs. Also notable is the student who attended Columbine in 1999, and also Virginia Tech during this ordeal. I believe both of these facts are noted in the article. -Phoenix 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical character of shooting should be in lead paragraph

As was correctly pointed out above, this was not the "deadliest shooting in American history" as has been reported in the media. However, it was the deadliest shooting by a single perpetrator in American history. The media refers to this, accurately I think, as the "most deadly shooting spree in American history." Shouldn't this language be in the first paragraph and not buried in the article?--Mantanmoreland 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Incidentially, I was looking into other school disasters and found the following, horrific, incidents: Collinwood School Fire, New London School explosion, Our Lady of the Angels School Fire, Aberfan, Schoolhouse Blizzard. I'm not sure whether to be reassured or not by the implication that weather, fires and explosions are still more deadly than human-perpetrated killings. Carcharoth 16:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add as follows to the lead paragraph: "It was the most deadly shooting spree by a solitary gunman in U.S. history."--Mantanmoreland 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some would define a shooting spree as solitary by nature, but let's not get into that, as there are two well known cases of pairs: 1 and 2 (huh? one of the killers there has been released from jail!). I would also avoid convoluted wording. Keep it simple, and split into two sentences if need be. Carcharoth 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed two or three times prior. I think the phrasing "deadliest mass shooting in modern US history", as it existed for about two or three days, is the most accurate, compact way to state this. Modern in the sense it doesn't compare to massacres during past times of war or insurrection, mass shooting in the sense of multiple shooting homicides. Spree has a possible connotation of serial murder to it, which can be avoided with mass shooting. Ronnotel 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fine. You do need some sentence in lead to indicate the historical significance.--Mantanmoreland 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

4Chan Troll

Somebody on /b/ made a post about killing people at vtech and changed the date to make it look like it was from before the incident. This shop then appeared as fact in a major Swedish (I think) newspaper. This is a pretty big piece of misinformation, maybe it could go in the "false reports" article or something? In b4 some wikifag says "it has something to do with 4chan and is therefor unworthy." -Anonymous

Congratulations. That last sentence completely undermined what was a fairly decent argument by revealing you to just be another /b/tard out to glorify his pathetic little den of nastiness by linking it to a tragedy. (And before anyone yells at me, in case you didn't know, "/b/tard" is the name used by readers of 4chan's "/b/" board, the one that produces such lovely things as stupid memes and this sort of hoax.) Rdfox 76 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but please try to keep yourself calm. There's no point in being uncivil. Anyhow, a section about the role of new media is in planning, and this might be worth mentioning there since it is, after all, a pretty big piece of misinformation. I'll get back on that in time. --Kizor 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

it's not unworthy cuz it has to do with 4chan, it's just not that much of a story. there's a good deal of discussion about it in the archives. tomasz. 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one said we couldn't discuss it because it was on 4chan - anons were claiming that it wasn't a hoax, and we were using the fact that it was on 4chan to keep it out of the article because it wasn't real. There's a big difference. Natalie 20:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooter's nation of birth in lead?

Why is it necessary to mention the shooter's nation of birth in the lead of this article? It doesn't seem to be important enough for this article. --ElKevbo 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. His nationality (not birth) is important for two reasons. He is not an American citizen, but the shooting is characterized as an American shooting. Secondly, there were false media reports that the gunman was a Chinese national (as detailed later in the article). Cho was also teased to "Go back to China" as a high schooler. Thus the confusion over his nationality is very real and should be clarified at the first mention of his name. The fact that he is a permanent resident of the US means very little, Seung-Hui Cho has no voting rights in the US and could have faced deportation to South Korea had he committed a less atrocious felony and not killed himself. --Naus 19:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, until very recently, all school shootings in the US had been perpetrated by middle class white students, and the media regarded it as a suburban phenomenon. The Red Lake High School massacre was the first US school shooting where the gunman was white and poor. Granted, we can't point all of this out in the article, as it's original synthesis, but we can point out that the gunman was a South Korean national. Natalie 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? We can't state something but we can insinuate it? --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What insinuation? That this massacre was not committed by a middle class white American? It wasn't. --Naus 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Placing one solitary fact in the lead of this article to attempt to provide our own "balance" and "prove the media's theories wrong" is not what we do here. We don't engage in original research or opinion-making directly or subtly. --ElKevbo 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we say, "The Columbine massacre was committed by natural-born American citizens Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?" szyslak (t, c) 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

the lead is supposed to breifly summerise the entire article/event. it's made to basically answer all the basic questions, and give someone the just of what happened. i think that right now it's doing that. i think we hsould just leave it alone-Threewaysround 20:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree with Three Ways. tomasz. 20:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How much does a person remember up to age 8? (I personally don't remember much). By indicating this killer is a Korean immigrant without specifying "Up to age 8" or "immigrated to USA at age 8" is not alright. By not clarifying only 2 out of 17 of his schooling years occurred in Korea, a blank statement on his nationality mislead some into anti-immigrantation sentiment. --HtcWiki 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all about "remembering up to age 8," it's about fitting in as a young immigrant and being teased as a result of this ("Go back to China"). Seung-Hui Cho did not magically know how to speak English once he arrived in the US at age 8. That Seung-Hui Cho is a South Korean national is an important encyclopedic fact as discussed above. --Naus 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That all seems like speculation verging on OR. --ElKevbo 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you should tell HtcWiki that as I was addressing his speculation. My position is what I wrote in my first response to you above. You want to tell me what is OR about that? --Naus 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of the statements, yours and HtcWiki's, appear to be OR to me. One or both could be true as I haven't closely followed the media reports about the shooter in the past few days; apologies if my knowledge is out of date. --ElKevbo 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he should be counted in fatalities

I don't think the amount that where killed at the VT shooting should include him. I would state my reasoning, but I'd rather let you figure it out. To put it very, very, very nicely, he is a piece of crap. The template should be changed to Victims and Shooters or something else. Nwbeeman 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But he was killed in the shootings. It's an objective fact. --ElKevbo 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup; it's not something that's up for discussion, there have been plenty of worse incidents in the world of mass murder by one guy and they are always counted in the fatality total. -Phoenix 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're letting your feelings cloud your judgement. That decision is not for us to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.148.28.80 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

just say 33 dead including the killer/shooter. Makes everyone happy, and it provides the most informations in the smallest space.-Threewaysround 23:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatality = dead. Seung-hui Cho = dead. Seung-hui Cho = fatality. It's pretty simple math. --Dynaflow 23:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not worst

is this taken into account? --Striver - talk 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Bath School disaster is mentioned in the article. Thanks for the link. Carcharoth 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A blog of someone with a bone to pick isn't a great source. News reports generally refer to this as the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history, not the deadliest massacre or school incident. See Virginia Tech massacre#Historical context. Phony Saint 21:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Post office

According to the picture "Aerial photo showing location of Norris and West Ambler Johnston Halls." in the first part of the article, would it be possible to locate the post office where the packet to NBC was sent? Also, where was Cho's dormitory? It would give the picture about what distances he had to make between the first shooting and the masacre. (It would give a better insight to the situation, I mean how many more people could spot (and stop) him before he started the killing spree, maybe some police office on the way in between, ect.) Merewyn 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that would be a great addition to not only the article, but the picture. --wpktsfs 22:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"spot and stop him"? Don't be silly. He had guns on open display? I presume he had them hidden under a coat, or something. Carcharoth 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but highlighting the post office would be great. Carcharoth 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In his biography, at least, it is mentioned that his dormitory was "just west" of the dorm where he shot the first two people, and other sources have said it was Harper Hall. As to where the post office was, I have no idea. Natalie 23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

injured number conflicts again

Right now the lead says 17 were injured, and the infobox says 29. Which one is right? Natalie 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The discrepancies stems from the fact that people were injured jumping out of windows and what not. I suppose seventeen were actually shot. -Phoenix 23:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Would anyone mind if I changed it to "shot 49 people, killing 32 and injuring 17, before committing suicide"? Natalie 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)