Talk:Virginia Tech shooting

South Korean Response

What is this jumbled "South Korean Response" section that appears after the references? I'm not sure if it's part of the article that somehow got messed up or misplaced or if it's pure vandalism, so could somebody who is more familiar with this article please address the problem. Thanks. —Mears man 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the addition of the mention of the 2002 U.S. Military incident to be not very relevant. If Cho were a member of a 35,000 South Korean military force in the U.S., and were the source of considerable friction with the local population, I'm sure the American response would have been very different. The fact is, although Cho was of SK citizenship, he was much more American than Korean. Contrasting the Korean response to the American military accident and the American reaction to this incident is a low blow. I removed it, and someone put it back. If someone insists that it be put back, then I want it mentioned that the two cases are very different. Hyok lee 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Hyok_lee

I was not the editor who re-inserted the contrast, but I did try to clarify the description of the incident. I deleted sentences you added because they were original research. I tried to remove POV wording such as "virulent." Now I see you have re-deleted the section. Other viewpoints on this? Sfmammamia 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to include all the stuff about how the government of South Korea and other representatives of the Korean people were worried about a backlash (which I think is unnecessary), then I think that that including the contrast of the response from the other event is a worthy attempt at keeping a neutral point of view. I frankly don't think that the South Korean response section should even be given more than passing treatment because Cho was basically an American, had no important international ties, and this was all done in the United States at an American university. So, I move to delete most of the section, and move a sentence to the "other responses" section stating that the South Korean government was worried about a backlash, and issued warnings. That's it. Rooot 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rooot. By including reference to the Korean reaction to the 2002 incident implies equivalence between Cho, a kid lived in the State since he was 8, and the American servicemen who were serving a tour of duty in a foreign county. Also, it attempts to draw a contrast between Koreans and Americans, as if Americans are so much more forgiving, which may or may not be true. This example has too many muddling political elements that serve as a poor example to support a view either for or against. Besides, the main article should be related to the killings, not Korea-U.S. relations.Hyok lee 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of sentences that add a little perspective to the comparison between reactions to the 2002 accident and this massacre. I still believe that ANY mention of the 2002 accident is not relevant, but since some people insist that it be there, I believe some context should be added that explains why the contrast exists.Hyok lee 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reference to the 2002 accident is relevant. In the Korean media there was comparison between the national outrage over the deaths of the two girls, and the lack of a anti-Korean backlash in the US. However the point made was NOT that Koreans are more vindictive or Americans are more forgiving. The issue was a cultural difference over communal responsibility. Americans did not expect (but were nonetheless touched by) the feelings of sympathy coming from Koreans after the tragedy. Conversely, they felt no obligation to apologise for the actions of their individuals.

This article is not about cultural differences but about the tragedy, so on this point you could also argue its relevance. However I would say the fact that the Korean interpretation of the tragedy was relevant. And don't quote from websites called www.usacrime.or.kr. That isn't really going to help prove your point.Kransky 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

International Response

This section is basically a long, POV, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment screed and it needs to present some balance or be removed; unless, of course, I should add the non-gun-related violent crime rates of each of the cited international locales. So people need to stop trying to turn Wikipedia into their agenda forums. I'll give it a couple of days and then I'll make some sweeping changes to the section unless it's cleared up by then. Ikilled007 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't issue ultimatums. If you check in the archives of this Talk page, you'll see that this issue has been extensively discussed. Please familiarize yourself with the recent discussions about this topic. --ElKevbo 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that ultimatums are not needed, but I think there should be some consideration as to whether the length can be trimmed a little. Ronnotel 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This section has been extensively debated. It was originally 10 references from 10 world news outlets, and many argued for keeping all of it, but due to concerns about length it was condensed and cut to the current 6. Your concern about POV is understandable as a fresh reader of the section, but if you look at the previous discussion and the cited sources, and do some web searching, you'll see that what's there is only a small sample of the reports published around the world in response to the incident, and that it's representative of the larger body of opinions reported - in other words it is reporting of world opinion rather than POV reporting. I removed the POV tag since the issues you raised were thoroughly covered in the previous discussion. Pladuk 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion from the beginning. I still believe the section is highly repetitive - why do we need six quotes that all say the same thing? Ronnotel 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been here since the first day, friend, and I've watched the debate, and this section is obviously an anti-gun screed, which if that's your agenda, so be it, but it shouldn't overshadow the domestic response, and it should contain balance, which it absolutely does not. Remember to check your biases at the door on Wikipedia. Ikilled007 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The whole gun control debate belongs in another article. Reporting of opinions belongs in an article dedicated to opinions. This is an article devoted to facts. Just because there is the fact that someone has an opinion does not make it noteworthy for an article dedicated to facts. Opinions belong in articles for opinions, not in articles describing incidents. These opinions are all pure speculation anyway, whether they be for gun-control or against it. None of them belong in this article. I do suggest looking in the archives for the discussion on this topic. You will find that it has been there since the beginning. Archive 11 has much of the debate: section 4 "gun control"; section 22 "gun control"; section 26 "international media response was copyvio"; section 46 "off-topicness of gun control debate section." Rooot 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We have other articles that focus on the topic. The bottom line is that many different international leaders commented on how they thought this event was related to American laws and attitudes about guns. Those comments are notable and interwoven with the aftermath of the incident. JoshuaZ 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never a concensus on this issue at all. It was discused and debated, a straw poll was held with a split between "keep as is" and "keep but radically reduce." The cases for trimming to my eyes were compelling, the cases for keeping in my eyes basically led to "it's notable and helps frame debate." Someone made the argument that it was international b.c. the victims were international, including a victim from Puerto Rico (?) I made the change so that it became clear that the internation response is 1.5x more than the domestic response. One or two line items from respected interanational newspapers-of-record, noting that they are editorials, and additionally from developed countries, are all that's needed, at best. --M a s 06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "straw poll" is in archive 12. Be aware that there are some editors out there that are claiming that a consensus or conclusion was reached by the straw poll. If you read it, you will realize that there was no such agreement. However, I believe, that if you take the entire discussion on this topic into account (going back through all the archives), then the arguments for shortening the section are based on better reasoning than the arguments for keeping it. As someone said in the "straw poll," those in favor of keeping it do not contest that it is POV. While I find this compelling, the content of the section does not bother me as much as the way it is presented. Because no other causes for the incident receive any similar treatment, and because this section relies so heavily on irrelevant international opinions on gun control, I think it should go. Rooot 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree on several things here: 1) Nobody in this section said consensus was reached - it clearly wasn't. What did happen is that those in favor of removing it succeeded in shortening it, while those in favor of keeping it made their case. After a long discussion the debate died down and the subject rested (though it's clear now that it still bothers people to have it there at all). 2) re: relevance: It's not just wikipedians who believe international opinion is relevant to this US event. The Associated Press decided that international opinions re: US gun law were relevant enough to be covered in aggregate in this 4 page article (not to mention the dozens (at least) of international news outlets that devoted coverage to this).
I didn't mean to suggest earlier that this discussion was over, and was actually about to suggest trimming the BBC quote, but I see that user Ohconfucius already did it as well as some other changes that I don't agree with.
BTW, the section's first sentence, which now has a "citation needed" tag, was covered by the first reference (the AP story above), but now has been altered substantially from its original form without additional references. I'm tempted to restore it to its original, citeable form, do folks support that?
To user Ikilled007 who accused me of bias, my personal opinion on gun control is fairly long and complicated and it would be a mistake to think that you can infer my opinion based on my defense of this section. If I have a bias at work here it's that I think international opinion is relevant on Wikipedia. The earlier discussion contains a number of strong points about the reasons for relevance in this particular article.
I think the recent edits by Ohconfucius actually make this section simultaneously weaker and more POV (in addition to removing the meat from some of the statements of concern about US gun control, they also removed the two mentions of the position that had some of the victims been armed, they might have been able to stop the shooter sooner). Pladuk 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well why not have an international response to the massacre with respect to mental health issues or humanties majors or people who use internet messaging or any of the other aspects that may have had something to do with Cho's actions? The fact that you choose to drill down solely on the gun issue is bias in framing. Surely people around the world have opinions about the incident not related to guns -- maybe someone in Burkina Faso thinks that people born under Cho's star-sign are more prone to violence. The truth of the matter is, you're framing the issue in a POV manner, whether you intend to or not. Ikilled007 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If a large number of major international news outlets had published stories about mental health issues in response to this incident then yes, absolutely, that would be worth including here, especially if there was either notable debate or notable consensus around some aspect of mental health care, screening, treatment, etc. If we missed the boat on that, please do point it out, find some sources, and let's give it appropriate representation. As far as I know that didn't happen. The difference is simply this: concerns about U.S. gun laws were widely covered among international news media in response to this incident, while the other things you mentioned were not. Pladuk 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "were widely covered"? Do you mean they were widely editorialized about in opinion sections of international newspapers? Again, I have to ask, what makes some British newspaper editor's opinion about the "American gun culture" more pertinent to this wikipedia article than some Kenyan 12-year-old goat milker's opinion that bureaucratic incompetence kept Cho out of the insane asylum? Because one of them runs a newspaper? Ikilled007 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See end of thread - responding to both this and your last comment there Pladuk 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• de-indented Comment: Although I initially had a slight problem understanding the POV tag as a purely length issue. Looking further, I generally agreed with the comments above about repetitiveness of the quotes before I attacked it (again). My first attempt was summary quotes in bullet form, I then ejected the quotes to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article, but the section been restored, and had since re-evolved into a long rambling bunch of quotes where some other editors attempted to instaure a "balanced view" of international response where in fact there was none: I went through the articles and quotes one by one, and saw in fact that the condemnation of US gun laws was universal. Now the quotes have been slimmed down to simple phrases, as is customary. I nevertheless summarised it by putting "nearly universal" condemnation just in case someone found a quote from an international source in favour of American gun control (sic) ;-) Ohconfucius 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This section seems rather meaningless and redundant. It also has less to do with international response and more to do with foreign media coverage. Therefore this section should either be eliminated or merged into the section on media coverage. Additionally, the entire second paragraph has nothing to do with response to this incident at all, but rather statements made in response to a 1996 incident in Australia, and I am therefore removing it. 70.240.132.251 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the characterization of the international response section as "meaningless and redundant," I did agree with the notion that the significant international responses discussed there were largely editorial, so I took the suggestion to consolidate them in the media response section. That done, it also made sense to me to move media responses lower in the overall order of responses--starting from the most immediate (university and students) and moving "outward." I have made both of these changes, we'll see if they stick. Sfmammamia 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring this section on the grounds that the international response is not "editorial." Griot 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it then, factual? International opinions about the so-called "American gun culture" constitute metaphysical truth? Ikilled007 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(responding to above comment and earlier comment by user: Ikilled007, who asked, in short, what makes the opinions expressed in editorials more important than those expressed by a 12-year-old Kenyan goat milker)

What is an editorial?: An editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher. Editorials in major publications are rarely lone opinions. They are often the results of in-house discussions, they are frequently co-authored, and I think it's safe to say that they are always reviewed before publication. Newspapers do also employ individual opinion columnists who write their own opinion, but the lack of a byline in the many of the editorials in question indicates that they are the product of the editorial board rather than an individual. Many of the players in each of those steps are on the newspaper's editorial staff and are professionals who make their living understanding their audience and writing opinions that they and their colleagues agree will resonate with their audiences. They are not necessarily a reflection of the majority opinion within their country and should not be taken as such, but they are usually (on major papers at least) the product of professionals who are monitored, accountable to their peers, employers, and readers, and subject to performance reviews etc., and the opinions they express are, on the whole, better considered and more fully formed than that of any random citizen - whether goat milker, business owner or physicist.

Why are they notable? What's notable here, is not just that there were a couple of editorials expressing concern about gun control, but that there were dozens of editorials, from all over Europe, Japan, Mexico, Canada, China, Australia, and that they showed a remarkably consistent viewpoint. That alignment was noteworthy enough that a number of papers reported on it not as editorial, but as news. The primary example (but not the only one) is the AP story mentioned above, which was picked up by ABC, The San Francisco Chronicle, The UK's Guardian Unlimited, The China Daily, and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, as well as Yahoo News and a number of smaller papers domestically and internationally.

The news here is that (A) papers all over the world thought this U.S. event worthy of editorializing about (B) that so many of these editorial responses included some consideration of America's relationship with guns (C) that those viewpoints were almost unanimous in their assessment of U.S. gun laws.

Have I finally answered your question? Pladuk 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I believe what you have described above is well-reflected in the Media Response section as written by sfmammamia. I don't think anyone is arguing with the assertion that most of the world views the gun control debate differently than in the US. All that's been done is to rewrite the material for NPOV. I believe that the current description is more effective in getting that idea across because of its brevity and clarity. Ronnotel 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for what we can cut from responses section

Media response: Too lazy to look at the article at the moment.

University Response: I don't know if the vigil is necessary inline as it isn't particularly notable; indeed, I'm not sure how notabble cancelling classes was. Maybe just leave two lines about the cancellations and the counseling services being left available, and axe the rest; vigil might be worth keeping for a total of three sentences.

Student response: criticism of speed of lockdown good, and perhaps the thing about contacting people; the facebook pages and the Hokies united should be totally axed. Not sure if the Korean students being worried about descrimination is notable enough, but its marginally interesting.

Government response: Condolances could be removed. State of emergency should stay. Moment of silence can go (and more condolences can also go). Postponement of testamony should stay. George Bush's prayers can go. Honestly, I think the whole paragraph about Bush can go, save perhaps him attending the memorial service. Half staff flag is fine. New guidelines can stay, as can the entire last paragraph about the IRS and the gun politics and psychological profiling stuff.

Responses from other educational institutions: Housing of police officers may be okay, but is marginal. Nicholas Winset's dismissal should stay. The entire remainder of this section should be nuked, and I don't think that picture is needed either.

South Korean Response: This section is fine.

Cho Family Response: Fine.

Other responses: Sympathy can go Show being pulled can stay Falcons can go Browns can go Major league soccer can go AOL can go NASCAR can go Buckeyes can go Titanium Dragon 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about how much notice this means it deserves, but classes at Virginia Tech are almost never cancelled. A quick web search might detail it better, but when they closed for the armed fugitive at the beginning of the year, I seem to recall hearing a specific number of times classes had been cancelled. I think it is worth noting, but the attention given it is up to debate. I'm far too involved to be objective.76.160.173.242 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Change the name?

I know I haven't had a good track record with this article thus far, but I intend to change that. I have wanted to ask for this for a few days now but because of the recent incident regarding the merger proposals, i decided to try and let things cool off first. I would like to propose that the article be renamed to something along the lines of Virginia Tech Tragedy or the Tragedy of Virginia Tech. Using the word massacre in this context sounds like a buzzword. Not to mention, now that the media frenzy of the shooting has somewhat calmed down, I believe it is time for a more (shall I say,) professional view of the subject. Please let me know what you think. --Amaraiel 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy is if anything more POV than massacre. I wouldn't object that strongly to "Virginia Tech Incident" or "Virginia Tech Murders"(although that sounds like the title of a bad slasher fic). However, google shows that this title is more common than either which makes me uneager to change the title. JoshuaZ 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are the results on Google news:

• 9,870 for Virginia-Tech-massacre
• 3,021 for Virginia-Tech-tragedy
• 355 for Virginia-Tech-murders
• 509 for Virginia-Tech-incident
• 832 for Virginia-Tech-killings

Personally I think it's best to just try to go with the most common name, that also gets around all these ethical opinion-based arguments about what name we should use because of what POV we think it reflects. Ultimately article names should represent what something is most commonly called, not what random Wikipedia editors deem it should be called. Massacre seems to be more commonly used by a large (3:1) ratio, so I'd say that's what we should stick with. --W.marsh 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually search for the actually proposed (and originally used) name for this article: Virginia Tech shootings. Please do a search for the actual alternative before you say massacre is the most common, as it is really not appreciably more common than the actual alternative.

• • 9,519 for Virginia-Tech-shootings
  • 5,491 for Virginia-Tech-shooting

Thus, I propose we move the article to the far more neutral "Virginia Tech shooting" on the basis of it being very common and a much more neutral name, for the same reason the Haditha massacre is labelled the Haditha killings on Wikipedia.

The reason it is on massacre right now is because it got stuck there during the initial mess after someone changed it without waiting for consensus. Titanium Dragon 08:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be like that about it... Virginia Tech Shooting wasn't mentioned as an alternative in this thread until you mentioned it, so I didn't think to search for it. --W.marsh 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason not to compare the two titles is that the facts in the VT case match the dictionary definition of massacre - it is an indescrimiate killing of a large number of people, especially of noncombatant civilians. In the case of the Haditha killings, to use the word massacre would insert a POV since there are still a number of allegations and unknown facts surrounding that case. The title Virginia Tech massacre is not only more accurate, it is also well-attributed. HokieRNB 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - massacre is a perfectly good word that happens to be abused on occasion for POV purposes. That's not the case here. Haditha is not an apt analogy, a point of view for which there was already consensus (see the archive). Ronnotel 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There was -not- consensus. Sorry! The "consensus" was someone proposing it over the course of 8 hours, then moving it long before any "consensus" could form. Moreover, a bunch of people who weren't particularly detached from the situation voted. The reality is that there is no difference between this and the Haditha killings. Claiming that this would insert POV into that article is farcical - it is abundantly clear exactly what happened and no one disputes what happened. We all know that it was a massacre. We call them the killings because massacre isn't a neutral word. Because they are called shootings/shooting as often and that is obviously a far more neutral word, I think it should be moved. There's absolutely no reason to draw a distinction, unless you're racist/nationalist. Titanium Dragon 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion I linked to? I asserted that there was a consensus only on the fact that Haditha was not an apt analogy. I did this because three independent editors, Wrad, TimVickers and Hit bull, win steak all supported my argument and you didn't respond. See [1], [2] and [3]. I apologize if I mistakenly assumed a consensus was reached but you can hardly fault me for doing so. If you think there's another example that demonstrates why we should reject massacre as a POV term I'm all ears - I just don't think you should keep citing Haditha. Ronnotel 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not an inappropriate comparision, given the traditional usage of massacre specifically refers to military forces slaughtering civilians. The reality is that the sole reason to use the word massacre is to invoke emotion; shooting is much more precise and neutral, yet some small number of people refuse to. Also, his argument is that lone gunmen and spree killers are not a group we "need" to be neutral in regards to. This is of course horribly, horribly flawed. The NPOV policy doesn't say "we're neutral about everything but spree killings and mass murder." We're supposed to take a neutral voice about everything. If you say otherwise, then you are rejecting the core of Wikipedia. Wrad's argument is completely useless; beyond the obvious fact that we redirect it anyway (as we do currently from shootings -> massacre) that argues that it got fixed by something someone did without waiting for consensus then we locked the page because there was a moving back and forth and that motion was disruptive to editing the article. Everyone knows massacre is a loaded word, which is why the Haditha killings article DOESN'T use the word as its title. Shooting is far more neutral, and it is precise. Titanium Dragon 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going against wikipedia, why, then is the Columbine High School massacre, a featured article, called a massacre? Seems to me that we are on the side of wikipedia consensus here. Columbine is not a military killing spree, and no one argues. No one complains that it is POV for the simple reason that that is what everyone calls it. Most people call the Virginia Tech Massacre just that: Virginia Tech Massacre. I don't see the problem with this. Wrad 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, is it fair to say that you are asserting the term massacre is itself inherently biased can never be an NPOV term? If so, I disagree with that assertion. Massacre is a perfectly acceptable word provided it is not used for propaganda purposes. However, massacre more accurately describes this event than the term shooting. By striving for so-called neutrality, the term shooting leaves out crucial information, such as:

• the fact that many people actually died in the attack,
• that it was an attack on helpless, innocent civilians,
• the victims had limited or no ability to fight back,
• the murderer methodically killed his victims, with no apparent remorse or mercy

all of which the term massacre accurately captures. You will likely argue that these facts are somehow emotional, and therefore POV. However, they are indeed facts - undisputed by anything I've read on the page or elsewhere. Facts are not any less true because they may or may not invoke emotion. Therefore, why not use the term that most accurately describes what happened? Ronnotel 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that massacre is an appropriate term here. The Haditha article lead already refers to it as a massacre in second reference. Massacre may well eventually become the first reference term for Haditha, but I think the much-discussed consensus there, and on not including it yet on Wikipedia's list of massacres is to hold off until all evidentiary proceedings are completed, because there's still coverup, conflicting stories and the fog of war to contend with. Even the lead in the Haditha article indicates the difference between these two instances: "...refers to the incident where up to 24 Iraqi allegedly non-combatant local residents were allegedly massacred"...The difference between them is clarity. Virginia tech is listed on Wikipedia's list of massacres, so clearly it's internally consistent based on Wikipedia's own definition of the term to use it here. Sfmammamia 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is threefold:

• • • Every single claim that it is only known as massacre is completely, totally, and utterly untrue. It is known by many names, and it is roughly evenly split between Virginia Tech massacre and Virginia Tech shooting.
    • I am claiming that it is inherently a loaded word, so we should only use it if that is its only primary name. It is not; Virginia Tech shooting is used as often. As such, like with Haditha killing, we should default to the more neutral name. Massacre is a sensationalistic word.
    • Claims that shooting doesn’t cover it is simply silly. A shooting implies people were shot. Massacre is completely subjective; there is no agreed-upon definition of massacre, and it gets applied to things solely for emotional impact value. It is used for sensationalistic purposes; people call Waco a massacre to imply the government is evil; people call Haditha a massacre to vilify the West/American military; ect. It is done solely to vilify others; it isn’t used to be descriptive, it is used to elicit emotional response. That is why it doesn’t have a definition; because it is applied to be sensationalist and to condemn an action. Wikipedia is in the business of neither.
    • Look at list of massacres. There is a MAJOR dichotomy there. You can see “massacres” with as few as three deaths in them. Which deaths are lowest? Look at categories where someone wants to vilify someone. Labor disputes, school shootings, ect. The Boston Massacre is a pretty clear example of this; 5 people is not what I’d call a massacre, or what most people would call a massacre. Why is it called that then? To elicit emotional response, and it is a well-documented fact that it was used to propagate anti-British propaganda. There is enormous variance in the numbers, with no consistency to them whatsoever. This lends credence to it being a purely propagandistic term.
    • You managed to list “defenseless” several times in your “objections”. That shows that you have too much emotional investment in this. Its not a big deal. People died, so what? Happens every day, and much worse events occur on a daily basis in Africa and don’t get their own wikipedia articles! This is not to suggest this shouldn’t get an article, but it is obviously an example of bias, and the fact that something directed at white Americans is labeled a massacre whereas something which is targeted at Arabs is not is what is often referred to as ‘’’racism’’’. Shooting implies most of the same things anyway; if there’s a shooting it is generally assumed that it is someone killing other people, rather than an actual firefight.
    • Methodically killing victims without signs of remorse is NOT a part of the definition of massacre! Again, emotional investment is bad, and knowing what the word means is important. It also highlights that the term is propagandistic.
    • The reason Haditha isn’t on the list of massacres, if you paid attention to that article, is that POV pushing right wingers oppose it strongly, and this has been complained about by the writers of that article. Allegedly? The only reason we don’t use “allegedly” in this article is that the shooter is dead. That’s a farcical splitting of hairs.

It isn’t neutral and is being used to push a POV, and therefore is bad. If it was almost uniformly known as the Virginia Tech massacre, then I –would- support this article name. However, it is clear that Virginia Tech shooting is just as common, and the only reason to oppose that title is emotional investment. Apparently the propagandistic value of the word massacre has had an impact on you as well. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium - your accusations of emotional investment might carry more weight with me if they weren't immediately followed by casually thrown off words such as racism (second time), POV pushing right wingers and (from the Haditha killings talk page) bleeding hearts. Ronnotel 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, I was disagreeing with this pair of assertions in your earlier post: "Everyone knows massacre is a loaded word, which is why the Haditha killings article DOESN'T use the word as its title." May I suggest that there are only a very few assertions that can rightfully begin with "Everyone knows"? I think the debate boils down to a lack of consensus on whether the word massacre is an unacceptably "loaded word". Would you agree with that characterization of the debate at this point? --Sfmammamia 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, I have a hard time believing that you're still attempting to argue for the renaming of this article. How many times does one need to raise the same issue and receive the same negative response before one tires of such futility? Scientz 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times must it be brought up by different people? The fact of the matter is that a NUMBER of people have objected to the title of this article, and time and again those who push for the massacre title claim it has already been settled. It hasn't been; you just WANT it to be. It is quite evident that there are significant numbers of people dissatisfied by the current title, and I don't see any reason to supress discussion of it. Titanium Dragon 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I question whether your definition of "a NUMBER of people" can reconcile itself with the fact that a greater number have argued for the status quo. This is why it has been "settled" and also why later attempts to revisit the same argument reek of asymmetrical interest. Scientz 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to add to what many of you consider a "settled" topic, but I agree with Titanium Dragon, as a matter of principle. "Massacre" is a loaded word, one of which we should be wary. Can we agree to that much? The complaint about whether or not "shooting" entails actual deaths seems like a weak argument, especially when compared to this question question about the validity of using a term like "massacre" that contributes little substantive, other than apparent (at least to me and Titanium Dragon) emotional connotations. "Shootings," "killings": is there really a strong argument *against* using one of these terms here, as long as it is fairly clear we're recognizing the fact people have died? This is, despite claims to the contrary, something that deserves to be discussed. How are we going to define an important event, and for what reasons will we use this label? To me, "massacre" seems to make certain unwarranted assumptions: it seems to posit that there are good, defenseless victims and evil, perhaps calculating and mentally stable actors in a given situation. And I don't feel that this moralistic assumption underlying the use of "massacre" is really called for. If this is a question of POV and bias, which I feel it is, then we don't need to worry about whether the issue of original research in using one term when the other might be slightly more common in the news media at a given time.^ We, as a community, have the responsibility to decide what terms represent our perspective of objectivity. As others have pointed out, the media do not always share this objective of our encyclopedia, anyway.

^On this note, remember that these terms might fall in and out of favor, even in your standard-bearer of the news media. Here are my results for *recent* hits through a Google News search (as of 4:00p.m. CST, 14-JUN-2007):

• "Virginia Tech" shootings: 3,641

• "Virginia Tech" massacre: 2,198

• "Virginia Tech shootings": 1,128

• "Virginia Tech massacre": 892

Also, for what it's worth, the archive of University Relations articles at http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/ (all articles published in April) uses "shootings" 8 times, "massacre" none. Why? Might it have anything to do with a certain sensationalism understood in using the latter? Maxisdetermined 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the name should be changed. "Massacre" is not only an emotionally charged word but it is subjective and sensationalist, it has a ring about it reminiscent of the overblown media coverage. "Shootings" is much more descriptive and precise, as a "massacre" could be conducted with a sword, or a flamethrower etc. As a tech student myself I cringe everytime I hear the word "massacre" on the television, and while this may be irrelevant to the discussion, I know many many people who feel the same way. It may have been, by definition, a massacre, but i feel that the word carries a certain connotation not fitting to the randomness and unprovoked nature of the incident. I plan on waiting a month or so for responses, and then changing the title of the article if no one can give any *good* reasons not to. "It is the status quo" and "the issue has been settled" are NOT good reasons. ~dan

Dan, (please sign your posts with four ~ characters, see WP:SIG) Rather than issue ultimatums, I'd like to suggest that you will be more successful if you can cite examples of precedents that will help us to normalize the article. For instance, Columbine High School massacre is a highly relevant page and uses the term massacre. If you can cite similar pages that use the term shooting, I think more folks would be willing to follow your lead. Ronnotel 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are some similar pages with alternative notation, 101 California Street Shootings and Standard Gravure shooting included. A cursory glance at some relevant categories does show, yes, that "massacre" seems more common when there are few perpetrators and more than, say, five deaths, at least in the case of school shootings. However, as powerful as this precedent might seem (and it's been invoked before, at least once in discussion of the Columbine shootings page), I don't think its history makes it *right*. Like it or not, the term "massacre" does carry unnecessary "dramatic implications" (see SmthManly's comment), and I think it is here that we have to confront these implications. Maxisdetermined 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Policy

Funny thing is, on the VT website where it shows the policies and everything for employees some actions are contrary to what was done and some aren't. First of all, the policies state a few obvious things
1) Never try and disarm or restrain an angry or deranged invididual, which I believe was done by a teacher. Or maybe it was a student, I'm not quite sure.
(2) At some point policy states that Cho should be red-flagged immediately. The reason I ask is I'm doing a paper for the school and I'm trying to gain a general consensus. Of course I can't ask here, cause only the article is supposed to be discussed here. Does anyone know if anyone was monitoring Cho at any point and/or in any way after he turned those scripts for those plays into teachers. --Amaraiel 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, didn't, wasn't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added controversies to the lead section; these two paragraphs still require further sources. Summary/topic sentences for sections further down in the article may require changes as a result. I will continue to work on this. Hopefully, moving the controversies up will help to resolve some of the debate about the responses sections. Sfmammamia 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new lead. Natalie 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Hop responses?

Seriously? Why not pediatrician responses or bartender responses? This section is, for lack of a better term, response-cruft, so I'm removing it. Natalie 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>really? ya' think?</sarcasm> Ronnotel 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its a useful topic to have somewhere linked off this page, if not on the main page. I've heard from a New York school teacher that many high school students in his building are praising Cho and see him as a hero. Though disturbing, if true it deserves a section particularly if leaders of hip-hop feel the need to counter some of the negative aspects of the hip-hop youth culture by condemning the act. I only mention it in case others come across an article on it and can cite a reference; perhaps the section should return as is in the meantime. 68.175.118.95 05:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We've severely cut down on junk, and this is the very definition of recentist junk. It just doesn't matter much. Titanium Dragon 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed again today as a bullet added to other responses section. Please discuss here before re-adding? -- Sfmammamia 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The International Response section is redundant

The section on Media Response now references the relevant issues from the section titled International Response. Plus, there's a link to a dedicated article on the topic. Is there some reason why we need to keep the section as is? We're definitely in overkill mode here. All of the response sections have been cut back to focus on the most relevant issues - Sfmammamia and others have done a fantastic job. Leaving International Response as is seems awkward in this light. Ronnotel 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just re-removed the section, because it's redundant, and the consensus here seemed to be that it needed to be trimmed down even if it hadn't been condensed into the Media Response section. Rdfox 76 21:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the most important information from the International Response section has been merged into the Media Response and Political Response sections, and that the remainder is largely redundant of the separate dedicated article, and only serves to unnecessarily lengthen this one. PubliusFL 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Waiting until the majority of editors leave the article and then pushing your POV is not constructive editing. The points that were all raised in the previous straw poll all still stand. Sad mouse 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What POV pushing? A variety of editors have been revising and cutting down the entire article, not just the section that was titled International Response. I think this is just part of the normal editing process here. I think the article reads much better now, don't you? Kudos to the folks who are staying on top of this. Ronnotel 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sad mouse, you are mistaken about POV pushing. I am as staunchly pro-gun-control as they come, but I have been working like others here to 1) put the length of the article and its various sections into balance, and 2) work toward compromise by grouping content into more logical sections rather than deleting the content altogether. If those of you who disagree with the current choice of international perspectives embedded in the media response and political response sections have specific ideas for improving those sections (rather than restoring a section in its entirety that creates redundancies elsewhere, which seems to me to be an unconstructive process), then please go to it. Sfmammamia 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of POV pushing, but I most certainly do a number of others here - look at their own comments in the discussion archives where they say straight out "international opinion has zero value and should not be mentioned at all". An excellent section was created when the article was heavily used, the POV users then essentially gutted it quote by quote. I won't work on it because it is a waste of my time while the POV users lurk on this article, but I will periodically reinstate the previously agreed upon version on the logic that POV lurkers tend to get bored once they find a new article to vandalise. As for length - that is simply an excuse, the article is not overly long considering the magnitude of the event (and does not get a "too long" label by wikipedia), and if it was overly long then culling down responses by NASCAR or reducing the 10-fold greater domestic response would be more appropriate. Sad mouse 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sad Mouse, is there something you think isn't being adequately addressed in the current article? No one is trying to shut out constructive edits. Repetitive, overly wordy and one-sided content is going to get trimmed no matter where it shows up, but there's always room for well-thought out contributions. Ronnotel 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, WP:DNFT - Rooot 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rooot, trolling is a strong word to use, I see nothing like that here. If you want to see what a troll does, look at The Question Mark's contributions. Let's everyone one of us assume good faith. Ronnotel 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better to me now. Has almost all of the previous content but much more NPOV-formatted and framed. --M a s 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photo

It may just be my machine, but the aerial photo of the campus is covering up text. Rooot 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm running at 1440x900 Rooot 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems OK to me, I'm running Firefox on Windows XP, screen resolution = 1280 x 1024. Ronnotel 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival Bot?

I think this page needs to be archived again. The talk page is very long. Maybe we should put the bot back and set it to archive every two weeks, instead of every two days, like it was before. Wrad 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to archive selective topics at this point? Given the structure of the archives, I'm uncertain how to proceed with this idea, but I think that would be more useful than bot archiving, as some of the topics seem to come up repeatedly and appear less settled than others. Sfmammamia 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested earlier that someone who has been editing this for awhile step in and organize the archives, but no one responded. I haven't really been participating enough to be able to do it. I don't know what the big debates have been. The page is getting big though, and needs to be archived one way or another. Wrad 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived 27 topics that hadn't had responses in about a week. Looks much better now. Phony Saint 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Number injured

The referenced citation clearly specifies 25 injured, not 29. I reverted recent change back to cite. Ronnotel 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I was a little apprehensive to review this article, due to its high-traffic nature. I've been watching it regularly since the incident, and it has been something special watching it evolve. The images look fine and for those necessary there are fair use rationales. I'm prepared to list it, but I'd love a second opinion since I'm bound to have missed things. The main question still probably concerns stability.

Preliminarily:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}--Phoenix 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article falls flat on the stability criterion. I recommend not listing it at this point. Noclip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur - however it does seem to be stablizing rapidly, particularly in the last week or so. Let's let it settle another week and see where we are. Ronnotel 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point is it considered stable? Do we count edits? (This page was edited 26 times total on May 13.) Wrad 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not solely based on the number of edits, but if the article's content changes signficantly from day to day. Phoenix2 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On hold until May 21. -- Phoenix2 ^(talk, review) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it stable enough for GA, especially as news coverage and "new developments" start to fade. Just because the subject is recent & controversial does not necessarily mean this quality can't be maintained and improved on. It does not recieve anymore bad material or vandalism than any other high importance article. And only some questionable stability does negate all the article's good qualities. (points 1-4 & 6-7) After the hold expires, let's categorize this as GA.--Wikiphilia 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts also lean towards making it a GA. Sure it has changed a lot since the incident, but it has remained GA quality, I think, for at least several weeks. I think that that should qualify for stability, if nothing else. Wrad 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's up to Phoenix, if he fails it it goes to WP:GA/R then if you disagree I guess. Aaron Bowen 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be fun to see a graph of edits per day or reverts per day since the article was created. ike9898 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] Has some interesting stats, including a list of every editor that has contributed to the article, as well as how many times. A small graph at the bottom shows edits per month, but not per day. Calculating the number of reversions per day would be very tedious, since it's hard logically calculate such a figure with an algorithm. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to promote the article at the conclusion of the hold; I was just giving it a little more time to become stable. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech online game

It was reported throughout many news outlets that there was an online video game on NewGrounds, which is a flash game site where people can submit new flash games. A 21-year old male, whose alias is PigPen, made a Virginia Tech shooting game and submitted it to NewGrounds. It is still currently on the site. The game is officially called "V-TECH RAMPAGE." 67.162.108.111 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page isn't a place to publish salacious details that wouldn't normally be reported on the main page. Do you have a question or a suggestion regarding this incident? Ronnotel 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not jump on the guy, here, if news outlets are reporting it, it may be worth at least a mention in the article. After all, the FA Columbine Massacre article talks about similar games. Wrad 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, was not my intention to jump - apologies for the tone. However, I'm hesitant to reward attention whores, as this case the game publisher seems to be. My vote would be to ignore. Ronnotel 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your hesitation. Wrad 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it can be verified does not mean we must include it in the article. For example, we don't note every incident (school threats, etc.) that was inspired by the Virginia Tech massacre, although most of them could be attributed to reliable sources. I wouldn't think a game published on Newgrounds would be significantly more notable than any of those. Phony Saint 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Where has this been reported so far? If the mainstream (non-gaming) press have picked up on it, it could well warrant a sentence or two; if not, then it's probably not notable enough. Trebor 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

He lives in Australia and a paper there has written on it Daily Telegraph, and also this quote has surfaced about the flash authors thoughts on Cho from Pine Magazine "No one listens to you unless you've got something sensational to do. And that's why I feel sympathy for Cho Seung-hui. He had to go that far." 68.175.118.95 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This game has received coverage on several major networks, ABC and NBC among them. The full name has been identified. The game isn't really all that noteworthy, nor is its creator, but the media has certainly taken ahold of it. (Community editor 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Justin Klein's classroom

Do you feel if it would be verifiable if we state that Klein was in the German class?

Now, this source: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07107/778657-84.stm does not explicitly state this, but, we have the process of elimination.

The names of all of the people in Rooms 206 and 211 (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-042507-na-french-g,1,3604642.graphic?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=2&cset=true) are known, so we know that Klein could not have been in either of the rooms.

• 206 had four survivors and two students who did not attend ([5]): We know that Park and Colman were injured, and the other two were named Lee Nixon and Nathaniel Krause

Now, this source states that a friend stated that Klein saw the teacher being shot as the gunman burst into the room. Since this data matches the events happening in Room 207, that would have to be Klein's classroom (204 had Librescu, who blocked the door and allowed for students to escape). WhisperToMe 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional Response

I don't remember the specifics, but I read days after the incident that a Christian hate group lauded the event, calling it retaliation from God via the perpetrator for several causes--all of which were largely abstract and unfounded--and that America on a whole should right these (poorly elaborated upon) wrongs.

To reiterate, I don't know enough specifics to properly be bold myself, but I remember the daughter of the pastor in charge of the hate group is the one responsible for the information given to the media. I know there was also internet coverage on this, and that at least one of the sites was reputable enough to source here.

As it is directly related to the content of the article, I believe it warrants being added...preferably to the Responses subheading. .Absolution. 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre - Authorities Section

Provided for educational convenience is the EQUITAS Legal GateWay [6] that has a new section related to the VATECH Massacre [7] which emphasizes on domestic terrorism as a probable cause and displays - amongst other things - timelines of select topic-related issues including authoritative Legal content derived from external links and podcasts supplying comparative analysis of: Emergency and Preparedness Plans; School and Campus Security; Liability Issues and past as of recent amendments to the Virginia Code. The vatech page also includes the Wikipedia Virginia Tech Massacre Timeline. I suggest to review this expanding site and include its link in a legal category available within the WikiPedia Virginia Tech Massacre page. --just 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm looking over the article as it stands right now, and I think it's very close to Featured Article status. Of course, due dilligence should be used. Shall we order a peer review, to point out any remaining deficiencies? --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we should. Funpika 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's going to fail an FAC, based on the grounds of stability. We'd all love to see it go through, but I doubt it. Just ask any of the guys that frequent FAC. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple months and no new information is coming out. I think that if that is mentioned it is veiwed as stable The Placebo Effect 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's still the subject of anon vandalism, and is floating in and out of semi-protection. A lot of refining will still take place over the next few months. I see no reason for it be featured; even if it attained such status it surely wouldn't be on the main page for quite some time so I see no hurry. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

VNandalism and protection don't affect stability. Wii is semi-proc, but it was still promoted. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominate this and see what happens. As a matter of fact, the Cho article is at FAC now, and will likely fail. If not pefected, this will probably see the same fate. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why, it looks like a joke nomination The Placebo Effect 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the second one to mention that, but I don't see where it's coming from. That article is actually pretty close, just needs to settle down and get a better lead. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the nomminator has less then 50 edits when he did it and the discription of CHo doesn't describe him at all. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of "drive-by" nominations show up on FAC, that being nominations for article which the nominator never edited. Some of them succeed because the article was pretty close anyway, that's just not the case here. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though this may not quite be FAC material just yet, a peer review can never hurt. I'd strongly suggest one. Cliff smith 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Expect a response nearly a month after putting 'er up for review. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference need a lot of tedious cleanup. All the references should use {{cite news}} instead it the current haphazard approach. Jon513 12:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How many shot?

The first sentence now reads "...shot 61 people, killing 32 and wounding many more...". We know that the total number injured was 25 as per VTech. However, I believe that some of the injuries were indirect, i.e. jumping from a window. Is the 61 number reliably sourced anywhere? Unless we can source this I think we should revert to previous text. Ronnotel 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POV language in intro?

Rdfox, out of curiosity, to which side of the gun control debate did my altered language skew - pro or anti? I think you were a little quick to hit the POV button. My intent was to better paraphrase the referenced press release. In it, I saw neither the word 'unconscionable', nor any reference to Cho; hence my choice of wording. I don't really much care but I think the wording was better my way. Ronnotel 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I felt--specifically, it was the use of the word "tragedy" that feels pretty POV to me. While I agree that it was a tragedy, it's not a very neutral term to describe it. Rdfox 76 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (FWIW, my feelings on the matter probably lean slightly the other way). Here's my reasoning - my intent was to paraphrase the press release in order to fairly present the argument it puts forth. Yes, 'tragedy' is a loaded term, but I believe absolute neutrality is difficult when you are deliberately trying to describe someone else's POV argument. The press release specifically included the phrases easier to access powerful weapons and tragedies, which I thought would make the paraphrasing more accurate. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me, but I do think my wording more accurately captures the argument put forth in the press release. If there's a better source to reference for the pro-gun control position, that would be cool, too. Ronnotel 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the original summation of the pro-gun-control argument in the lead section (the wording there currently, i.e., "Cho's easy access to handguns was unconscionable"), I have changed the reference to one that more broadly frames the issue than the Brady Campaign's new release. I think the current wording more accurately reflects the broader spectrum of pro-gun-control response to the issue, a point of view with enough weight and consensus that it has since played out in the moves to tighten up the gun control loopholes spotlighted by the incident. -- Sfmammamia 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This "massacre" was a Tradgedy

It is a shame that the mediator of this Article demands that those editing the article continuously refer to this event in a sensationalist manner. While Research would finely contend that the Media has labeled this event as the "Virginia Tech Massacre", it is inappropriate to repeat this language continuously throughout the course of the article. We can historically remember this event without being offensive to those involved. It is just as scientific to refer to this event as a tradgedy, acknowledging the emotional impact it had on the university and the country.

David Virginia Tech '08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.191.36 (talk • contribs)

Huh? --T-rex 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no moderators here; just an amorphous mass of people attempting to cooperatively build an article. You can join in the fray if you'd like, so long as your contributions can be backed up with reliable sources and are in keeping with Wikipedia's core content tenets (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR). You should be aware, however, that the encyclopedia has no moral obligation to shape readers' perceptions in an "acceptable" way. We are simply a mirror of our sources. --Dynaflow babble 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Tragedy" (note correct spelling... is this what passes for a tech school sophomore's literacy level these days?) is a very POV-loaded word. Indeed, there was a heated debate over whether the term "massacre" or "killings" should be used, because "massacre" itself is a POV-loaded word, but the media ended up making that decision for us. However, referring to it as a tragedy would thoroughly violate WP:NPOV, and thus is unacceptable under Wiki policy. Rdfox 76 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)