While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
there has been more attention and editing towards this article. Please make sure you cite your sources that you are working with to edit on here.
Also, could we monitor this page...some previous edits I have seen on here are not factually accurate. Chrisfortier 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I read your edits and that information is disputed by eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime. I'll find more from work. chrisfortier 65.195.225.138 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll look through the sources later. I've changed the article to reflect that several other unarmed students subdued the shooter after he was confronted by the armed students. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor would not be consider a reliable source for information b/c facts in letters are not usually verified through an editorial process (aside from making sure that the person who sent it in actually wrote the letter). Best, -- Alabamaboy 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, I have heard it the other way around, the unarmed students came before the armed students...and this letter to the editor is from an eyewitness at the scene. If any alum is around to correct me on this point, please let me know. chrisfortier
Since there is increased attention on this article given recent tragic events, I think it important to provide consistency - anybody versed in firearms knows there is a difference between a .38 (the first mention in the article) and a .380, as mentioned later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.67.88 ( talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
I understand that this event has differing opinions on what happened and I believe the article must state this. However, statements like "However, skeptics suggest that, rather than indicating any bias in the media, this was simply the result of most witnesses to the apprehension of Odighizuwa having described the event without mentioning any gun" MUST have reliable sources to back them up. All of the previous info in the article, including opinions on what the shooting meant, are backed up with newspaper and book sources. Please use reliable sources to back up new info. Recent edits to this article (see [1]) appear to be original research using citations to certain aspects of the case. What are needed are citations to the POVs expressed (and if these reliable citations can be provided, there's no reason that POV can't be added in under the Analysis section). Best, -- Alabamaboy 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, articles here must have reliable sources of information. First-hand information of evidents is specifically not allowed in articles. If you can provide a reliable referenced source stating that the shooter was tackled before Mike and Tracy arrived, we will add that in as a counter view. Otherwise, it can't go in the article.-- Alabamaboy 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Have added NPOV tagline since cited information stating 3 rounds remained in gun has been removed with statement that it is only "a rumour." Yaf
I have reverted User:TimLambert's edits, specifically his removal of referenced information which presented both views of the situation (i.e., whether the gun was empty or not). The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference. However, since there are other reliable accounts stating that the gun was empty, that has also been mentioned. Removing either of these referenced statements would be POV and should not occur. As for whether the shooter saw the guns held by the two shooters, a number of reliable references have been given to support that he did. We can put in a statement saying something like "However, one columnist has quoted unnamed other witnesses as saing that Odighizuwa did not see Bridges and Gross's guns before he was tackled." However, if a columnist is the only person saying that, I'm a little uncomfortable. I would prefer that multiple references to this be given, considering that multiple references have been given to support the other account. Are there other references for this info?
I should also state that User:TimLambert appears to have a conflict of interest in editing this article, since through his writings and website at http://timlambert.org he has been heavily involved in debating this issue. According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in situations like this the way to deal with a COI is for User:TimLambert to propose changes to the article on this talk page. If consensus is to make those edits, we will then make them. Best,-- Alabamaboy 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it."
"Mike Stater, a Virginia State Police spokesman, later said the eight-shot Jennings .380-caliber semiautomatic was empty, but Ross had no way of knowing that."
"When one of the students yelled for him to put down his gun, Odighizuwa placed it, along with an extra magazine, on a lamp post, Gross said. Both were empty, he said."
"A nagging wrinkle figures into the law-school shootings: Whose version is true?
The Star recently interviewed two students involved—Bridges and Besen. They gave differing accounts.
Bridges repeated that he pointed his weapon at Odighizuwa and ordered the suspect to put his own down, which he did.
According to Besen, the first student to tackle the suspect, nothing of the sort happened. He said Odighizuwa set down the gun and raised his arms—“like he was mocking everyone: ha, ha, what are you going to do now?”—before the students confronted him.
The two armed students had not yet arrived at the scene, Besen said: “Peter had no knowledge anyone had a gun.”
Virginia State Police confirmed Odighizuwa’s weapon was empty by then."
Those seem like good references and I have no problem changing the article to say "Most sources state that when he dropped the gun the magazine was empty (with references here)." if I'm not mistaken, that's what the article originally said and it was only changed b/c that other reference came to light. I also agree that the article should mention Ted Besen and Todd Ross. Finally, the way to address the differing view of witnesses is to give both accounts. I'll make these changes; please check them out and let me know what you think. I also hope others involved in editing will check them out and give their views.
As for the conflict of interest, I believe it does exist in this case. As said, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to the article. But it does mean that we should follow the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.-- Alabamaboy 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For convenience in discussion, point by point response regarding my edits removed en bloc as lacking sufficiently reliable references, as in "newspaper and book sources" (I am using "you" in a rather loose, plural sense):
Regarding Lambert's edits:
Other POV issues:
Given the above, without making any personal attacks, and assuming good faith, it's clear that you have a strong POV which, consciously or unconsciously, is biasing your editing of this article, and I ask you to please be more skeptical of your own work and less dismissive of the work of others.
In addition:
This is erroneous. Where I had corrected it, you have reversed the corrections; however, I assume/hope that this is not a deliberate policy of adopting this practice.
This is also erroneous, and I once again assume/hope that it is not a deliberate policy. Gzuckier 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Responses: 1) Blogs are not reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The only time they can be used is if there are no reliable sources of info, which is not the case here. 2) The problem wasn't with the references you provided; it was with how you used them. You drew your own conclusions from a number of referenced facts. That is not permitted here. What you need are references to the facts AND to the conclusions. 3) Lambert does have a COI with this article. 4) There is nothing wrong with giving a newspaper citation AND giving a link to a mirror site (like Feed or a blog) which reprints the source. This is done so people w/o access to the original source can at least see a copy of the source. That is still a reliable source b/c the source is the original newspaper article, not the mirror. 5) There is nothing wrong with citing the same source multiple times, nor with collapsing multiple sources into one citation when they all support a specific fact. 6) The "Students subdued the shooter" is referenced from Lott's book; I merely gave the website summary so people w/o the book would be able to also see the info.
Since there is such a disagreement over this article, perhaps we should all try to create a consensus version we can agree on. I'm game if others are.-- Alabamaboy 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Alabamaboy, I don't think that your responses to Gzuckier are adequate. If I have a COI because I've discussed this extensively, then so do you -- there is plenty of discussion involving you on this talk page. You also do not understand the guidelines on reliable sources. You take as a reliable source a newpaper that says that Mitchell heard that Peter O still had three bullets. That's not a reliable source that he really did have three bullets, since we don't know who told this to Mitchell. It is a reliable source as to what Mitchell said, but so would a blog post that we knew to be from Mitchell. Similarly, if you want to source a statement from Lott, a book by Lott, a newspaper story that quotes him or Lott's blog are all appropriate. In fact his blog is probably a better source than a news story since it's less likely to misquote him. A blog by someone other that Lott would not be a reliable source for Lott's statement, and that is what the guidelines for reliable sources are trying to tell you. --
TimLambert 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So I take it you're not interested in working toward a consensus version?-- Alabamaboy 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"... The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference...." This may be the funniest sentence in all of Wikipedia. Most newspapers, at least in my experience, are notoriously unreliable references in regards to anything involving firearms. htom 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to Newt Gingrich's account of the story... http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--virginiatech-gin0424apr24,0,3795608.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia from Ted Besen himself. He was one of the unarmed students who restrained Peter O. I knew something like this would come out. Chrisfortier 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The article explained what happened from Besen's point of view on how the events ended. He was responding to Newt Gingrich's statement on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" which basically was two students pointed their guns at Peter O. and he immediately surrendered. Besen explained his account of the story, which was entered into the Wikipedia article. Chrisfortier 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This event had more to it than what is indicated on the article (who did the restraining, what the gun was). There was a major mental health element to the story. Here is a source of analysis: http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawrev/abstracts/PDF/32-1Epstein.pdf Chrisfortier 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Appalachian School of Law shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
there has been more attention and editing towards this article. Please make sure you cite your sources that you are working with to edit on here.
Also, could we monitor this page...some previous edits I have seen on here are not factually accurate. Chrisfortier 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I read your edits and that information is disputed by eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime. I'll find more from work. chrisfortier 65.195.225.138 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll look through the sources later. I've changed the article to reflect that several other unarmed students subdued the shooter after he was confronted by the armed students. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor would not be consider a reliable source for information b/c facts in letters are not usually verified through an editorial process (aside from making sure that the person who sent it in actually wrote the letter). Best, -- Alabamaboy 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, I have heard it the other way around, the unarmed students came before the armed students...and this letter to the editor is from an eyewitness at the scene. If any alum is around to correct me on this point, please let me know. chrisfortier
Since there is increased attention on this article given recent tragic events, I think it important to provide consistency - anybody versed in firearms knows there is a difference between a .38 (the first mention in the article) and a .380, as mentioned later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.67.88 ( talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
I understand that this event has differing opinions on what happened and I believe the article must state this. However, statements like "However, skeptics suggest that, rather than indicating any bias in the media, this was simply the result of most witnesses to the apprehension of Odighizuwa having described the event without mentioning any gun" MUST have reliable sources to back them up. All of the previous info in the article, including opinions on what the shooting meant, are backed up with newspaper and book sources. Please use reliable sources to back up new info. Recent edits to this article (see [1]) appear to be original research using citations to certain aspects of the case. What are needed are citations to the POVs expressed (and if these reliable citations can be provided, there's no reason that POV can't be added in under the Analysis section). Best, -- Alabamaboy 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, articles here must have reliable sources of information. First-hand information of evidents is specifically not allowed in articles. If you can provide a reliable referenced source stating that the shooter was tackled before Mike and Tracy arrived, we will add that in as a counter view. Otherwise, it can't go in the article.-- Alabamaboy 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Have added NPOV tagline since cited information stating 3 rounds remained in gun has been removed with statement that it is only "a rumour." Yaf
I have reverted User:TimLambert's edits, specifically his removal of referenced information which presented both views of the situation (i.e., whether the gun was empty or not). The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference. However, since there are other reliable accounts stating that the gun was empty, that has also been mentioned. Removing either of these referenced statements would be POV and should not occur. As for whether the shooter saw the guns held by the two shooters, a number of reliable references have been given to support that he did. We can put in a statement saying something like "However, one columnist has quoted unnamed other witnesses as saing that Odighizuwa did not see Bridges and Gross's guns before he was tackled." However, if a columnist is the only person saying that, I'm a little uncomfortable. I would prefer that multiple references to this be given, considering that multiple references have been given to support the other account. Are there other references for this info?
I should also state that User:TimLambert appears to have a conflict of interest in editing this article, since through his writings and website at http://timlambert.org he has been heavily involved in debating this issue. According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in situations like this the way to deal with a COI is for User:TimLambert to propose changes to the article on this talk page. If consensus is to make those edits, we will then make them. Best,-- Alabamaboy 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it."
"Mike Stater, a Virginia State Police spokesman, later said the eight-shot Jennings .380-caliber semiautomatic was empty, but Ross had no way of knowing that."
"When one of the students yelled for him to put down his gun, Odighizuwa placed it, along with an extra magazine, on a lamp post, Gross said. Both were empty, he said."
"A nagging wrinkle figures into the law-school shootings: Whose version is true?
The Star recently interviewed two students involved—Bridges and Besen. They gave differing accounts.
Bridges repeated that he pointed his weapon at Odighizuwa and ordered the suspect to put his own down, which he did.
According to Besen, the first student to tackle the suspect, nothing of the sort happened. He said Odighizuwa set down the gun and raised his arms—“like he was mocking everyone: ha, ha, what are you going to do now?”—before the students confronted him.
The two armed students had not yet arrived at the scene, Besen said: “Peter had no knowledge anyone had a gun.”
Virginia State Police confirmed Odighizuwa’s weapon was empty by then."
Those seem like good references and I have no problem changing the article to say "Most sources state that when he dropped the gun the magazine was empty (with references here)." if I'm not mistaken, that's what the article originally said and it was only changed b/c that other reference came to light. I also agree that the article should mention Ted Besen and Todd Ross. Finally, the way to address the differing view of witnesses is to give both accounts. I'll make these changes; please check them out and let me know what you think. I also hope others involved in editing will check them out and give their views.
As for the conflict of interest, I believe it does exist in this case. As said, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to the article. But it does mean that we should follow the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.-- Alabamaboy 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For convenience in discussion, point by point response regarding my edits removed en bloc as lacking sufficiently reliable references, as in "newspaper and book sources" (I am using "you" in a rather loose, plural sense):
Regarding Lambert's edits:
Other POV issues:
Given the above, without making any personal attacks, and assuming good faith, it's clear that you have a strong POV which, consciously or unconsciously, is biasing your editing of this article, and I ask you to please be more skeptical of your own work and less dismissive of the work of others.
In addition:
This is erroneous. Where I had corrected it, you have reversed the corrections; however, I assume/hope that this is not a deliberate policy of adopting this practice.
This is also erroneous, and I once again assume/hope that it is not a deliberate policy. Gzuckier 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Responses: 1) Blogs are not reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The only time they can be used is if there are no reliable sources of info, which is not the case here. 2) The problem wasn't with the references you provided; it was with how you used them. You drew your own conclusions from a number of referenced facts. That is not permitted here. What you need are references to the facts AND to the conclusions. 3) Lambert does have a COI with this article. 4) There is nothing wrong with giving a newspaper citation AND giving a link to a mirror site (like Feed or a blog) which reprints the source. This is done so people w/o access to the original source can at least see a copy of the source. That is still a reliable source b/c the source is the original newspaper article, not the mirror. 5) There is nothing wrong with citing the same source multiple times, nor with collapsing multiple sources into one citation when they all support a specific fact. 6) The "Students subdued the shooter" is referenced from Lott's book; I merely gave the website summary so people w/o the book would be able to also see the info.
Since there is such a disagreement over this article, perhaps we should all try to create a consensus version we can agree on. I'm game if others are.-- Alabamaboy 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Alabamaboy, I don't think that your responses to Gzuckier are adequate. If I have a COI because I've discussed this extensively, then so do you -- there is plenty of discussion involving you on this talk page. You also do not understand the guidelines on reliable sources. You take as a reliable source a newpaper that says that Mitchell heard that Peter O still had three bullets. That's not a reliable source that he really did have three bullets, since we don't know who told this to Mitchell. It is a reliable source as to what Mitchell said, but so would a blog post that we knew to be from Mitchell. Similarly, if you want to source a statement from Lott, a book by Lott, a newspaper story that quotes him or Lott's blog are all appropriate. In fact his blog is probably a better source than a news story since it's less likely to misquote him. A blog by someone other that Lott would not be a reliable source for Lott's statement, and that is what the guidelines for reliable sources are trying to tell you. --
TimLambert 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So I take it you're not interested in working toward a consensus version?-- Alabamaboy 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"... The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference...." This may be the funniest sentence in all of Wikipedia. Most newspapers, at least in my experience, are notoriously unreliable references in regards to anything involving firearms. htom 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to Newt Gingrich's account of the story... http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--virginiatech-gin0424apr24,0,3795608.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia from Ted Besen himself. He was one of the unarmed students who restrained Peter O. I knew something like this would come out. Chrisfortier 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The article explained what happened from Besen's point of view on how the events ended. He was responding to Newt Gingrich's statement on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" which basically was two students pointed their guns at Peter O. and he immediately surrendered. Besen explained his account of the story, which was entered into the Wikipedia article. Chrisfortier 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This event had more to it than what is indicated on the article (who did the restraining, what the gun was). There was a major mental health element to the story. Here is a source of analysis: http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawrev/abstracts/PDF/32-1Epstein.pdf Chrisfortier 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Appalachian School of Law shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)