This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Shouldn't it be "South Korean reaction"? -- Abe Lincoln 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed it. -- Abe Lincoln 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this news has even reached the public of North Korea? 66.45.152.134 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just added the South only where the state or the society is referenced, not where the ethnicity is referenced. These are different states and different societies, and the North Koreans don't care at all (they surely have other problems, and they do not allow emigration). -- Abe Lincoln 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon a Yahoo! News Article last night, and it says that Iraqi students in Baghdad yesterday were deeply saddened by the tragic events at Virginia Tech. And to think that Saddam Hussein's regime and the post-Saddam era were bad enough. You should put that in one of the subsections in Responses, because here's the link if you want to find out more about it, alright? -- Angeldeb82 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait if someone's giving information about people offering their condolences and sympathies to victims and thier familes of this Massacare i don't THINK you should hesitate to put it up-- Missionimpossible 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Cho return to Norris 206 to finish the students in that class?
I know Cho succeeded in returning to Norris 211 and failed to return to Norris 207 (as the door was blocked).
Also, now that I found out that Jamie Bishop illustrated books for his father, if he is considered notable enough for an article, you will have to change the redirect that I will plant that will point to the victims article. WhisperToMe 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Over the course of the VTECH disaster week, other people have sent bomb threats, or threats of violence, to schools nationwide. Last Friday a man in Denver, Colorado was arrested for attempting to detonate bomb. Today, Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon, WA was closed due to a threat and the campus was locked down by police after everyone evacuated. Shouldn't there be a section listing incidents following the VTECH massacre? These events would not have happened if this massacre didn't occur. 209.91.61.251 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Were there any events in which the criminal stated that he was motivated by VTM, or where victims and people involved reacted a certain way because of the massacre? Those may be worth mentioning. Wrad 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
my fruend showed me what he said was a wiretap of a girl in the bathroom on the campus during the shotting calling her mother. you can hear her being shot and dying in the recording. i thought it was fake but i was wondering if any of you have heard it or at least heard of it because i want to look into it more-- Jesus was a pacifist 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
His resistance story is the only one in the collection that doesn't have a news media citation. I looked for one. I googled his name and found him among the victims but did not see a story about resistance. When his searched his name along with "tackle" link I still could find any corroboration. Should we remove his story?
lots of issues | leave me a message 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted repetitive arguments but kept the references, except for the Swedish newspaper. All of the others are editorials from newspapers of records, they might reflect the majority opinion of people who might not read them. They are also all from the developed world as well - I did want to mention that. If there's a less loaded word than developed then that's fine too I guess.
I've left Howard's comments because it was notable in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I've also rearranged so that the U.S. media response is clear, and bookends the article. Having all of the pro-gun control arguments from outside of the U.S. is POV to me.
Regards, -- M a s 10:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey I wanna strive for a better article too. It seems to me like there wasn't a concensus. Wadda ya think? To me the refs are Ok and they're coming from newspapers of records but they all say the same thing; additionally having the international response as a bookend is ugly and seems POV pushing.
Thanks! -- M a s 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | After the incident, Virginia Tech announced that the students killed during the massacre would be posthumously awarded their degrees during commencement ceremonies. | ” |
I was under the impression that anyone who died while pursuing their degree would be awarded that degree posthumously. Is that impression incorrect? TerraFrost 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
These sections are repeatedly being removed by a small number of users. Can we reach consensus on this issue first?
I say strong keep. Reason? Consider the article for 9/11 - more than half the article is about responses to it, because the way it effects society contributes to its importance and notability. The anti-gun debate here should be treated like the anti-terrorism debate there - as an integral part of the event. The importance of this event is because of how it effected us, and a large part of that effect is our response to the issue of violence in our society and gun control. There may be room to improve these sections, but that should not involve gutting out the majority of the information they contain. Sad mouse 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I also favour Keep. The media reaction is an important part of the debate. If it gets too big then a break out section is the way forward. TerriersFan 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Note - section deleted once again by IP 66 45 152 134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.45.152.134 Section replaced until consensus is reached.
[International Reaction on Gun Control] should go. Columbine doesn't have anything that I can see, nor does the Port Arthur massacre. An opportunity for anti-American flamebating. The Times and the Economist are fine newspapers but their opinions on this matter and on what should go in Wikipedia are irrelevant. -- M a s 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (I moved this section up to the straw poll so the opinion of M a s would be included Sad mouse 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
Summery of arguments The point of contention appears to be the international reaction section, with little argument to delete the other sections. I have tried to be neutral and summarise the arguments to keep or delete/reduce this section below. Sad mouse 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep
Delete/Reduce
Analysis Keep point 2 and delete point 5 cancel each other out – both strategies have been used in featured class articles. Keep point 3 negates delete point 2 since it shows the event was not purely domestic. Delete point 4 seems to be an opinion, unless there is specific evidence that the international response section contains reasoning that is verifiably incorrect (which seems unlikely considering several domestic news sources reach the same conclusions). The broad keep argument is therefore – 1) the event was an international event, and 2) response to the event is considered valuable and the international reaction broadens the spectrum of response given. The delete/reduce argument is therefore 1) domestic response if valuable but the international response is irrelevant to Americans and has no influence in America.
COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
COUNT V
Many other articles include international reactions. Search for "international reactions". The argument may be one-sided - but you are welcome to include any international reactions praising the gun culture of the US if you can find any. There may not be a similar section for Columbine - but that could be because this is a case of 'once bitten, twice bitten'. The international community is expressing concern that lessons weren't learnt after Columbine. It is highly relevant to this article as it has sparked a lot of interest. Just because 'some' people want to ignore the international reaction is no reason to leave it out. And Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs? Don't make me laugh. 203.97.51.149 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully this will still get read. The background section is informative and should stay. However, the media response sections are disproportionally huge and push POV through sheer size and repetition. Paragraphs of quotes from international papers should not be included in this article when, for example, the controversy about more aggressive mental health policy is not even covered at all. Instead, the international and US media sections should be combined and dramatically shortened into a “Media Response” section which is more broad in summarizing the views. General policy comments/quotes/references should go into the general gun control debate article, if applicable. Tyro 09:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html
Since I do not subscribe, I can't view this anymore.
What is the name of the survivor girl mentioned in the graphic from Norris 204 (Librescu)? I want to establish a redirect from her name to the "Virginia Tech massacre" article. WhisperToMe 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be blunt: "massacre" is a loaded word and so the page's title is at odds with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there is precedence for using "massacre," that should be fixed, too. I propose then that we change this to "Virginia Tech shootings" which does not dramatize the incident. All related articles would also change their name. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the article on the Columbine High School incident is called a massacre on Wikipedia. Wrad 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
When googling the web, 'virginia tech massacre' and 'virginia tech shooting' both return about 3.5M hits. However, when googling news articles, massacre gets 8k to shooting's 4k. I would argue that news articles are more likely to be attributable than the web at large. Ronnotel 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did a search on lexis/nexis news among major newspapers for both terms. "Massacre" was used more often, but the margin was close. Until further notice, I don't think a title change/page move is justified unless it really swings the other way. Maybe just a note that they are sometimes called the VT shootings, if anyone feels that's needed. Wrad 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I would also like to point out that the Columbine massacre article is a featured article on wikipedia. Basically, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change the page name, all the things linking to it within wikipedia, and threaten to misdirect all the pages linking to it outside of wikipedia. Wrad 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to come off as incivil, but I don't see why we should do what all the sources say — granted they all say "massacre" but they also believe in dramatizing news because drama = high ratings. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. I also am not a big fan of the naming of the other articles on "massacres" as those should be renamed, too. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article that traditionally his name would be Seung-Hui Cho? That the current use is Americanized? -- LaraLove Talk/ Contribs 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive 11 is now 225K. Rooot 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What definition are we using for 'tragedy', and how do we objectively determine that the VT massacre qualifies? The common meaning seems to be something like 'a very saddening event', but that's pretty subjective. I propose that a more neutral noun be used, like 'event', 'shooting' or 'massacre'. Kravic 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I just had an edit reverted, regarding the change in like in the article summary, pointing to Shooting_spree. Based on the definitions explained in the pages for Shooting_spree and mass_murder I believe that mass murder applies more accurately in this instance. Can anybody comment on the appropriateness of one vs the other? Please note this is entirely separate from the above discussion of "shooting" versus "massacre." Whysyn 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sfmammamia, you removed my short mention of the weapon types under "Attack". It is ridiculous not to mention what weapons were used in the killing very early in the narrative. As a reader, I need to know what he was killing with as the attack unfolds. Was it a fully automatic weapon? Was it a B-B gun? Did he only have a single weapon, and if so, how come he wasn't stopped by bystanders when he reloaded? As I read the article I see a picture of Cho holding two pistols. Hmm, so maybe he used two pistols in the attack? Finally, 2/3 of the way down the article, I see this "The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19." So he purchased two pistols. Interesting, am I to assume that he actually killed people with these weapons? Because the article doesn't say that. We have 50 references saying he killed people with a 9mm Glock and a .22 caliber pistol, but the article doesn't state that fact once. The weapons used in the killing is one of the most fundamental facts of the article, and must be stated extremely early on. -- Dan East 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, has it been concluded that Cho in fact used both weapons? HokieRNB 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been hunting for a source for this statement in "victims" section:
I know there was earlier discussion about the number of injured and possible confusion over causes of injury, because some were injured jumping from the windows. A more recent NYT article says 24 were injured in total. How best to handle? Sfmammamia 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is only fair to the Wikipedia community that we recognize this article having major flaws and is ongoing in our improvement. The amount of argument in the talk page is reason enough to see clearly that not everyone is satisfied with any section of this article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles Also in a sense this article is an ongoing event as the investigation has not ended yet. Davumaya 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(The following conversation occurred on Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre last night, California time:)
I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.
Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:
The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre |
---|
Articles |
Perpetrator • Victims |
Timeline |
I hope none of those comments were made with any cutting sarcasm. I certainly meant no offense on your behalf, and I apologize if you received my comment in that manner. Furthermore, I am neither endorsing nor expunging this template (see struck comment). But as it were, there is no consensus either way, and it will most likely stay. If it survives, I think it would serve a great function for this event only because it is a hot event that many readers looking for centralized content would want to know about. I, personally, don't consider this a critical issue, but you definitely should reiterate that argument on a more visible page.
On a brief digression, I solicit your excellent template skills for determining whether {{ UCLA}} should be redone. It seems to me slightly larger and less picturesque than the others, which are solely your creations. ALTON .ıl 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the massacre template be nuked. Any takers? --Dynaflow 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Still don't like this section title. The historical context would be political, social, cultural or maybe economic background, not who shot how many people under which circumstances. Cho is not a historical person, though he may wish he's become one. We shouldn't pretend he is one, for reasons of morality but also for reasons of correctness. He is a criminal, "just" an extraordinary perpetrator in history of crime (just one special part of society). So maybe you review the title once more. -- Abe Lincoln 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: This section sounds to me like a Guiness Book of Records entry anyway, but as it seems to disturb noone...
I understand, that Phony Saint agrees, that the section should be removed at all, and that Ronnotel is only afraid, that the lead paragraph could be enlarged as a consequence (what in my opinion is not a reason to keep it).
I again strongly suggest removing this section. WP is not a tabloid or the Guiness Book of Records. If someone is interesseted in a comparison (from a criminological perspective), he or she may find it in the according articles as School shooting. Anyone who opposes? -- Abe Lincoln 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding a "Responses in Professional Sports" to the Response Section, because their are quite a few in the "Other Responses" section. Plus there are many more examples. Let me know your thoughts. Jwalte04 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
understood. Jwalte04 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted sports tributes that don't involve fundraising--the ones deleted seem like gestures that won't be terribly significant in the long run--they will probably be repeated by just about every major sports team. If you disagree, please read the earlier discussion and discuss here before re-adding? Sfmammamia 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I added Klein to List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#Injured_students.2C_classroom_not_stated - But I put him in a "classroom not stated" category as I cannot tell what classroom had Klein. WhisperToMe 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have watched the videos of this on tv, and in at least one of them, where there were police officers running, there was snow in the picture. I think I heard from at least one tv source that they mentioned it was cold. Snow in Virginia in April seems quite rare to me, and the source could be the tv. So, should it be included in the article, or is this mere coincidence so unimportant that it deserves absolutely no mention in the article? Also, has this been disscussed before, or even, is it already mentioned in the article? I read most of the article, and didn't see any mention of the snow, and the pictures made it quite unobvious it was even cold. I don't have time to read all the archives, or didn't. Could someone please answer, or is this too unimportant? Also, as a side note, CNN said that the perpetrator had mental ilness, paranoia, and was bullied in high school, so couldn't this be a possible motive, or is it too vaugue? Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not enough to say either way right now, so I'm not adding it to the article, but just saw this http://www.nbc13.com/gulfcoastwest/vtm/news.apx.-content-articles-VTM-2007-04-24-0008.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.176.142 ( talk) 20:57, 24 April, 2007 (UTC)
Is this country really that uneducated and ignorant? Or is it just that white people are what count? I was under the impression that the worst mass shooting in U.S. History was the massacre ate Wounded Knee or Sand Creek!!
"I can't take one more of these headlines," said Joan Redfern, a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe who lives in Hollister. "Haven't any of these people ever heard of the Massacre at Sand Creek in Colorado, where Methodist minister Col. Chivington massacred between 200 and 400 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, most of them women, children, and elderly men?"
And:
"At Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota, the U.S. 7th Cavalry attacked 350 unarmed Lakota Sioux on December 29, 1890. While engaged in a spiritual practice known as the "Ghost Dance," approximately 90 warriors and 200 women and children were killed. Although the attack was officially reported as an "unjustifiable massacre" by Field Commander General Nelson A. Miles, 23 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for the slaughter. The unarmed Lakota men fought back with bare hands. The elderly men and women stood and sang their death songs while falling under the hail of bullets. Soldiers stripped the bodies of the dead Lakota, keeping their ceremonial religious clothing as souvenirs.
"To say the Virginia shooting is the worst in all of U.S. history is to pour salt on old wounds-it means erasing and forgetting all of our ancestors who were killed in the past," Redfern said." -- 207.81.87.20 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should just get rid of the reference entirely. Its not the worst school-related killing, its not the worst mass shooting... its just sensationalism. We should just nix the whole "worst ever" because if you have to qualify it not once but -twice- that's far from the worst. Titanium Dragon 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A few hours later, no takers, so I made an attempt. Externally referenced, at least. Not perfect, but I believe the summary needs a statement of significance of some kind, similar to the Columbine article. Sfmammamia 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the claim is pure sensationalism. If the statement has to be qualified so many times, is it really worth making? Also, can somebody qualify what counts as modern U.S. history and what doesn't? Are we talking 10, 20, 50, 100, or years here? Possibly more? I think it might be beneficial to the article and its readers if we added something about it being the deadliest shooting since Sand Creek or whichever the last massacre was that was mentioned above. — Mears man 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) The qualifiers are hinting at WP:SYN; that is, no third-party sources have directly compared Virginia Tech with others, nor qualified what they mean by modern U.S. history. The problem is that you're attempting to connect A and B when a third-party source should have already done so.
To give another example, early reports indicated the shooter was Chinese, and that is attributable; do we include it just because somebody did state it? Do we include qualifiers that the shooter was not, in fact, Chinese? Are the qualifiers attributable in relationship with this event? Phony Saint 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) You do realize that I'm attempting to drop the issue, and that all I'm wondering about is where the qualifiers stated to be further down the article are? It seems you and Ronnotel don't agree on what "modern" means (he says 1890's, you say post-WWII), and I just really want to read the sources. Phony Saint 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel that, out of the respect for the people at Tech who live in the room where the victim was shot, the room number should be removed from this article. I wouldn't want future residents to have gawkers coming to their hall to see where it all happened.
Thanks Jaxter1987 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of including room numbers? Does it add anything to the article? Is anyone going to care in a year? We need a good reason to include things, not just no reasons to keep them out. Natalie 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Remove trivial information. We don't need to record everything (that job belongs to other people, and later researchers will go to those sources, and won't come here - they shouldn't anyway). Wikipedia should provide general, in-depth coverage of the event, allowing people to understand the event and read background information. Wikipedia shouldn't be providing a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened and where. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Not all 'true' information needs to be included in an article. Carcharoth 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I started accounting for injured individuals as described in media accounts - See Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded - I also included the injuries sustained by the wounded. I also included names of uninjured individuals, though in the end they will NOT be listed with the injured in the victims list. WhisperToMe 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries may also be straying into areas of questionable taste and utility. --Dynaflow 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[BEGIN COPY-PASTE]
You mean this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
If the bullet hits were not relevant - if what I posted there was posted to an article about sunflowers and kittens, you would have every right to remove it. For instance, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has "Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."—Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe ( talk • contribs)
[END COPY-PASTE]
Anyway, one last thing: The details will not stay on that page forever - Once, and I mean once a timeline is established, I will move the details of the injuries to the timeline. Until then, the details should stay with the injured list. WhisperToMe 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood your phrase, "accounting for injured individuals," in your opening message. If your ultimate intent is only to create a partial, incomplete list of the injured from media accounts, without drawing any conclusions as to how many people were ultimately injured, either by Cho in the attacks, or in their efforts to escape, THAT would not be original research. Any attempt to draw conclusions or total it up (what I thought you meant by "accounting") WOULD be original research (synthesis serving to advance a position). Sfmammamia 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I.E. I stated (I just added it to Norris 211's injured list, though)... "Injured students in Norris 211
(This list is partial)
I also added: "Injured students, classroom not stated" to account for people who I know are injured, but I do not know where they were at the time.
I have no sources that describe where Justin Klein was, so I cannot say where he Justin Klein was.
WhisperToMe 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The only place to get an authoritative list of injured would be from Virginia Tech itself. However, they have declined to release the list (correctly in my view) citing confidentiality concerns and in fact, the HIPAA law. See footnote 3. Best to drop it, I think. Ronnotel 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This section was removed by Ronnotel because "there were hundreds of stories on this incident - dressing one up and calling it a 'documentary' does not make it notable". However, au contraire, Ron, the documentary does have notability because it was produced by NBC News, the very organization that Cho allegedly mailed his "media package" to. And I'm pretty sure NBC News has enough credibility and reliability (despite what some conspiracy theorists may believe). I think it should be restored. Ron didn't show any evidence of other hour-long "stories" that aired on primetime cable TV produced by a major worldwide TV network for a documentary channel like The History Channel.
- Eep² 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That reference does not state how the documentary was notable. You're going to have to tell us why it is notable according to Wikipedia notability guidelines, not your own definition of "notable." Phony Saint 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I had removed the link by Conservative Voice simply because its not a reputed link. Can somebody put a link from another reputed source there? Hahahaha1 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much. Personally speaking I dont agree with the whole Ted Nugent view because its like saying ' All countries should be allowed to develop nuclear warheads to protect themselves from nuclear attacks'. But that said, as long as the source is 'reputable', its fine. Hahahaha1 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason we have MSNBC's front page as our first external link? It seems like giving undue weight to one particular new outlet, especially since it's been here since before the news about the package broke. I would like to remove it, but if there is a reason it's here I will not, obviously. Natalie 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Looks like it was added back in inadvertently with a large revert by Dynaflow. I removed it once again. If a single news outlet is chosen, it should probably be http://www.CollegiateTimes.com/, the VT newspaper. Sean
I notice the entry about inaccurate report by Michael Sneed from Sun-Times has been totally removed. Looks like there are quite a few Philistines on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs).
I have added the related section back. This is an important incident related to the massacre. You shouldn't try to hide the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs).
You are talking funny. More than one news source reported this inaccurate report. For example: http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2007/04/18/ill-informed-chicago-columnist-scares-the-hell-out-of-china/ What's more, the whole incident was a self-evident fact need no original research. By your logic all first-hand news report is original research! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I knew you would say it. Here is one from Huffington Report, what do you have to say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/virginia-tech-shooting-o_b_46159.html
What official policy? Are you saying you are some officer on Wikipeida? By my understanding this is a free encyclopedia everyone can edit. You asked for "reputable sources" and I gave you one. Your claim that the section being original research has been proven untrue. Isn't it obvious? Anyway I will keep reverting it back in the future if you keep deleting it without a valid justification. You can delete the Ismail part if you want to . But I will add Michael Sneed's name on the section since she is reported in some respected media.
Ok, I appologize for the misunderstanding. How about this: we keep and expand the first part about inaccurate report of killer being Chinese since it's verifiable and is not original research and delete the remaining?
I removed a large amount of material which was a complete duplication of most of the article. (It caused the size to jump from 65,699 bytes to 115,809 bytes.) I could not simply undo the change since there were conflicting intervening edits. It is possible that there may be some editorial changes lost. Bear475 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that teachers should say anything if sign in behavior change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
As of 2007 May 2nd the intro text includes these sentences: ``In 2005, he had been accused of stalking two young women[8] and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[9] At least one professor had asked him to get counseling., after describing Cho as an English major at University. The article would be better served for now by replacing the above quoted text with a summary that an independent investigation is ongoing. 68.175.118.95 05:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The massacre took place in West Ambler Johnston and Norris Hall. Why is one of the pictures shown on the page of a French class in Holden Hall? Holden Hall was not involved in the shootings. 68.37.233.7 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite
So, is this picture from the French class where the 11 people were shot? 68.37.233.7 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite
Should " semi-protection" be applied to this article? It's been vandalized fairly frequently. Semi-protection prevents edits by anonymous users and people whose accounts are less than 4 days old. It seems justified to me, but I'd prefer to have an admin make the call on it and insert the tag.
Here's a run down of vandalism in the last 16 hours:
edit vandalism undone at
move vandalism undone at
Thanks -- Pladuk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the image of the shooter is representative. The image is the one taken by the shooter himself, and therefore serves his message (or propaganda) to the community about himself, and does not represent the person that you would have seen during his day to day life. Using this image lends weight to his reasoning in committing the crimes on that day, which is unjustifiable. By using this image, emphasis is given to the extreme nature of this person which would not be visible normally. The pose and display of weapons in the image may provide incitement or inspiration to others. The image is likely to be offensive to victims of the crimes. Victims need to reconcile in some way with the perpetrator of crimes committed against them, and this image does not serve this purpose. The image serves the glorification of the shooter, and the popularization of horrific crime. Merxa 04:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The photo was deleted again today without comment. I have restored it. This has been discussed previously; check the archives if you are interested. I don't have strong feelings about this particular image, but feel there needs to be an image there. Sfmammamia 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Attacks section keeps getting edited to add the following:
This information is already covered in the Background section:
What is the point of describing the same information two times? This seems intended to keep bringing attention to the guns. Is this to help out in the ongoing disputes about the Walther P-22 and the Glock 19 articles? Kevinp2 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier. Please read the earlier discussion before removing again. Sfmammamia 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the bot set at 250k? I think it's archiving a lot more quickly than it should be. Given human nature, I doubt seriously that most editors are going to peruse that many pages before re-arguing the same points. To date we've had important discussions on wording, relevant information, and NPOV -- discussion now relegated far too deep into the archives to be noticed. It's my humble opinion that the the talk page should not be archived more than twice per week to give users a reasonable amount of time to see what this page is all about. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, Ikilled007 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
With the bot gone and things slowed down, it may be time for someone familiar with previous discussions to sort them out, in order to avoid repetition of old arguments, as mentioned above. Wrad 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a concise section on media response, as first item in the Virginia Tech massacre#Responses to the incidents section and have ejected most of the relevant content to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Paragraphs have been excised from Virginia Tech massacre#Perpetrator, and Virginia Tech massacre#International_response. Article size has been brought back to 58k. Ohconfucius 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So... just curious about other people's opinions on this. I personally feel that the word "massacre" might not belong in the title of this article. I know that the Columbine shooting's article includes it, but I guess I'm just asking about the use of the word in general. I feel that "massacre" is a very emotional word, the sort of thing you'd find in evening news reports. I feel like "shooting" would fit better, as well as fit in line with most other articles about mass shootings. Opinions? -- UNHchabo 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed recently. Look at this archive here Wrad 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As indicated earlier, this has been heavily discussed previously. The frequency with which this event is named in the media as "Virginia Tech massacre" has a strong bearing on what we call it here. I removed the addition of "Virginia Tech murders" as a second name because "Virginia Tech massacre" is still the most common name, by a factor of 8 to 1, in a quick search on Google News. Sfmammamia 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Fact box says "number of injured withheld" but going to the links shows it is only the NAMES that are withheld , not the number. Wikinews says "15". GangofOne 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the subchapters of chapters 1 indented in the table of contents, but not those of the chapters 2 and 3? It looks weird. -- Abe Lincoln 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I keep putting a merge template on this page and it keeps getting deleted within mere hours. Can anyone explain to me why they would be so devoted to making sure that I can't suggest something like that? I believe that this should be merged with Virginia Tech article and then seperated. If thats even possible. Whoever is doing it please stop. Amaraiel 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the sentiment is pretty clear, I'm going to remove the tag. Ronnotel 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Amaraiel's Talk Page -- Amaraiel 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say let's just be kinder to new wikipedians in the future. Obviously he was unfamiliar with merge tags and the rules connected with them. If someone had posted something on his talk page, this may have been avoided, rather than shooting him down again and again in public. Wrad 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Cho and Emily Hilscher seemed to have both practiced on some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.182.171 ( talk) 18:05, 3 May, 2007 (UTC)
I added a blurb, under the Korean response, about Korean Americans who are fasting for 32 days in response to the massacre. Fsu23phd 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to suggest that in addition to the school, media, and university response that info regarding the church or religious response be included. There was much media regarding this - particulalry New Life Christian Fellowship and Blacksburg Christian Fellowship and Intervarsity and Campus Crusade's presence and response. Just a note - I don't have time currently to do it myself. Gatorgalen 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this one is worth of including somewhere in the article? ;] [11] Jan Winnicki * 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the international response section needs to be trimmed down. It seems like undue weight given that it's longer than the domestic response section. It also seems repetitive - similar criticisms again and again. Ronnotel 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be prudent to outline the procedures taken by the school from the time the first shootings occured in West Ambler from the time the shooter was found that morning? -- Amaraiel 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Shouldn't it be "South Korean reaction"? -- Abe Lincoln 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed it. -- Abe Lincoln 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this news has even reached the public of North Korea? 66.45.152.134 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just added the South only where the state or the society is referenced, not where the ethnicity is referenced. These are different states and different societies, and the North Koreans don't care at all (they surely have other problems, and they do not allow emigration). -- Abe Lincoln 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon a Yahoo! News Article last night, and it says that Iraqi students in Baghdad yesterday were deeply saddened by the tragic events at Virginia Tech. And to think that Saddam Hussein's regime and the post-Saddam era were bad enough. You should put that in one of the subsections in Responses, because here's the link if you want to find out more about it, alright? -- Angeldeb82 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait if someone's giving information about people offering their condolences and sympathies to victims and thier familes of this Massacare i don't THINK you should hesitate to put it up-- Missionimpossible 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Cho return to Norris 206 to finish the students in that class?
I know Cho succeeded in returning to Norris 211 and failed to return to Norris 207 (as the door was blocked).
Also, now that I found out that Jamie Bishop illustrated books for his father, if he is considered notable enough for an article, you will have to change the redirect that I will plant that will point to the victims article. WhisperToMe 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Over the course of the VTECH disaster week, other people have sent bomb threats, or threats of violence, to schools nationwide. Last Friday a man in Denver, Colorado was arrested for attempting to detonate bomb. Today, Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon, WA was closed due to a threat and the campus was locked down by police after everyone evacuated. Shouldn't there be a section listing incidents following the VTECH massacre? These events would not have happened if this massacre didn't occur. 209.91.61.251 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Were there any events in which the criminal stated that he was motivated by VTM, or where victims and people involved reacted a certain way because of the massacre? Those may be worth mentioning. Wrad 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
my fruend showed me what he said was a wiretap of a girl in the bathroom on the campus during the shotting calling her mother. you can hear her being shot and dying in the recording. i thought it was fake but i was wondering if any of you have heard it or at least heard of it because i want to look into it more-- Jesus was a pacifist 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
His resistance story is the only one in the collection that doesn't have a news media citation. I looked for one. I googled his name and found him among the victims but did not see a story about resistance. When his searched his name along with "tackle" link I still could find any corroboration. Should we remove his story?
lots of issues | leave me a message 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted repetitive arguments but kept the references, except for the Swedish newspaper. All of the others are editorials from newspapers of records, they might reflect the majority opinion of people who might not read them. They are also all from the developed world as well - I did want to mention that. If there's a less loaded word than developed then that's fine too I guess.
I've left Howard's comments because it was notable in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I've also rearranged so that the U.S. media response is clear, and bookends the article. Having all of the pro-gun control arguments from outside of the U.S. is POV to me.
Regards, -- M a s 10:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey I wanna strive for a better article too. It seems to me like there wasn't a concensus. Wadda ya think? To me the refs are Ok and they're coming from newspapers of records but they all say the same thing; additionally having the international response as a bookend is ugly and seems POV pushing.
Thanks! -- M a s 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | After the incident, Virginia Tech announced that the students killed during the massacre would be posthumously awarded their degrees during commencement ceremonies. | ” |
I was under the impression that anyone who died while pursuing their degree would be awarded that degree posthumously. Is that impression incorrect? TerraFrost 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
These sections are repeatedly being removed by a small number of users. Can we reach consensus on this issue first?
I say strong keep. Reason? Consider the article for 9/11 - more than half the article is about responses to it, because the way it effects society contributes to its importance and notability. The anti-gun debate here should be treated like the anti-terrorism debate there - as an integral part of the event. The importance of this event is because of how it effected us, and a large part of that effect is our response to the issue of violence in our society and gun control. There may be room to improve these sections, but that should not involve gutting out the majority of the information they contain. Sad mouse 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I also favour Keep. The media reaction is an important part of the debate. If it gets too big then a break out section is the way forward. TerriersFan 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Note - section deleted once again by IP 66 45 152 134 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.45.152.134 Section replaced until consensus is reached.
[International Reaction on Gun Control] should go. Columbine doesn't have anything that I can see, nor does the Port Arthur massacre. An opportunity for anti-American flamebating. The Times and the Economist are fine newspapers but their opinions on this matter and on what should go in Wikipedia are irrelevant. -- M a s 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (I moved this section up to the straw poll so the opinion of M a s would be included Sad mouse 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
Summery of arguments The point of contention appears to be the international reaction section, with little argument to delete the other sections. I have tried to be neutral and summarise the arguments to keep or delete/reduce this section below. Sad mouse 22:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep
Delete/Reduce
Analysis Keep point 2 and delete point 5 cancel each other out – both strategies have been used in featured class articles. Keep point 3 negates delete point 2 since it shows the event was not purely domestic. Delete point 4 seems to be an opinion, unless there is specific evidence that the international response section contains reasoning that is verifiably incorrect (which seems unlikely considering several domestic news sources reach the same conclusions). The broad keep argument is therefore – 1) the event was an international event, and 2) response to the event is considered valuable and the international reaction broadens the spectrum of response given. The delete/reduce argument is therefore 1) domestic response if valuable but the international response is irrelevant to Americans and has no influence in America.
COUNT I
COUNT II
COUNT III
COUNT IV
COUNT V
Many other articles include international reactions. Search for "international reactions". The argument may be one-sided - but you are welcome to include any international reactions praising the gun culture of the US if you can find any. There may not be a similar section for Columbine - but that could be because this is a case of 'once bitten, twice bitten'. The international community is expressing concern that lessons weren't learnt after Columbine. It is highly relevant to this article as it has sparked a lot of interest. Just because 'some' people want to ignore the international reaction is no reason to leave it out. And Americans wanting other countries to butt out of their affairs? Don't make me laugh. 203.97.51.149 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully this will still get read. The background section is informative and should stay. However, the media response sections are disproportionally huge and push POV through sheer size and repetition. Paragraphs of quotes from international papers should not be included in this article when, for example, the controversy about more aggressive mental health policy is not even covered at all. Instead, the international and US media sections should be combined and dramatically shortened into a “Media Response” section which is more broad in summarizing the views. General policy comments/quotes/references should go into the general gun control debate article, if applicable. Tyro 09:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html
Since I do not subscribe, I can't view this anymore.
What is the name of the survivor girl mentioned in the graphic from Norris 204 (Librescu)? I want to establish a redirect from her name to the "Virginia Tech massacre" article. WhisperToMe 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll be blunt: "massacre" is a loaded word and so the page's title is at odds with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there is precedence for using "massacre," that should be fixed, too. I propose then that we change this to "Virginia Tech shootings" which does not dramatize the incident. All related articles would also change their name. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the article on the Columbine High School incident is called a massacre on Wikipedia. Wrad 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
When googling the web, 'virginia tech massacre' and 'virginia tech shooting' both return about 3.5M hits. However, when googling news articles, massacre gets 8k to shooting's 4k. I would argue that news articles are more likely to be attributable than the web at large. Ronnotel 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I just did a search on lexis/nexis news among major newspapers for both terms. "Massacre" was used more often, but the margin was close. Until further notice, I don't think a title change/page move is justified unless it really swings the other way. Maybe just a note that they are sometimes called the VT shootings, if anyone feels that's needed. Wrad 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I would also like to point out that the Columbine massacre article is a featured article on wikipedia. Basically, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change the page name, all the things linking to it within wikipedia, and threaten to misdirect all the pages linking to it outside of wikipedia. Wrad 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to come off as incivil, but I don't see why we should do what all the sources say — granted they all say "massacre" but they also believe in dramatizing news because drama = high ratings. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. I also am not a big fan of the naming of the other articles on "massacres" as those should be renamed, too. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning in the article that traditionally his name would be Seung-Hui Cho? That the current use is Americanized? -- LaraLove Talk/ Contribs 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive 11 is now 225K. Rooot 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What definition are we using for 'tragedy', and how do we objectively determine that the VT massacre qualifies? The common meaning seems to be something like 'a very saddening event', but that's pretty subjective. I propose that a more neutral noun be used, like 'event', 'shooting' or 'massacre'. Kravic 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I just had an edit reverted, regarding the change in like in the article summary, pointing to Shooting_spree. Based on the definitions explained in the pages for Shooting_spree and mass_murder I believe that mass murder applies more accurately in this instance. Can anybody comment on the appropriateness of one vs the other? Please note this is entirely separate from the above discussion of "shooting" versus "massacre." Whysyn 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sfmammamia, you removed my short mention of the weapon types under "Attack". It is ridiculous not to mention what weapons were used in the killing very early in the narrative. As a reader, I need to know what he was killing with as the attack unfolds. Was it a fully automatic weapon? Was it a B-B gun? Did he only have a single weapon, and if so, how come he wasn't stopped by bystanders when he reloaded? As I read the article I see a picture of Cho holding two pistols. Hmm, so maybe he used two pistols in the attack? Finally, 2/3 of the way down the article, I see this "The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19." So he purchased two pistols. Interesting, am I to assume that he actually killed people with these weapons? Because the article doesn't say that. We have 50 references saying he killed people with a 9mm Glock and a .22 caliber pistol, but the article doesn't state that fact once. The weapons used in the killing is one of the most fundamental facts of the article, and must be stated extremely early on. -- Dan East 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, has it been concluded that Cho in fact used both weapons? HokieRNB 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been hunting for a source for this statement in "victims" section:
I know there was earlier discussion about the number of injured and possible confusion over causes of injury, because some were injured jumping from the windows. A more recent NYT article says 24 were injured in total. How best to handle? Sfmammamia 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is only fair to the Wikipedia community that we recognize this article having major flaws and is ongoing in our improvement. The amount of argument in the talk page is reason enough to see clearly that not everyone is satisfied with any section of this article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles Also in a sense this article is an ongoing event as the investigation has not ended yet. Davumaya 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(The following conversation occurred on Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre last night, California time:)
I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.
Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:
The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre |
---|
Articles |
Perpetrator • Victims |
Timeline |
I hope none of those comments were made with any cutting sarcasm. I certainly meant no offense on your behalf, and I apologize if you received my comment in that manner. Furthermore, I am neither endorsing nor expunging this template (see struck comment). But as it were, there is no consensus either way, and it will most likely stay. If it survives, I think it would serve a great function for this event only because it is a hot event that many readers looking for centralized content would want to know about. I, personally, don't consider this a critical issue, but you definitely should reiterate that argument on a more visible page.
On a brief digression, I solicit your excellent template skills for determining whether {{ UCLA}} should be redone. It seems to me slightly larger and less picturesque than the others, which are solely your creations. ALTON .ıl 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the massacre template be nuked. Any takers? --Dynaflow 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Still don't like this section title. The historical context would be political, social, cultural or maybe economic background, not who shot how many people under which circumstances. Cho is not a historical person, though he may wish he's become one. We shouldn't pretend he is one, for reasons of morality but also for reasons of correctness. He is a criminal, "just" an extraordinary perpetrator in history of crime (just one special part of society). So maybe you review the title once more. -- Abe Lincoln 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: This section sounds to me like a Guiness Book of Records entry anyway, but as it seems to disturb noone...
I understand, that Phony Saint agrees, that the section should be removed at all, and that Ronnotel is only afraid, that the lead paragraph could be enlarged as a consequence (what in my opinion is not a reason to keep it).
I again strongly suggest removing this section. WP is not a tabloid or the Guiness Book of Records. If someone is interesseted in a comparison (from a criminological perspective), he or she may find it in the according articles as School shooting. Anyone who opposes? -- Abe Lincoln 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding a "Responses in Professional Sports" to the Response Section, because their are quite a few in the "Other Responses" section. Plus there are many more examples. Let me know your thoughts. Jwalte04 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
understood. Jwalte04 20:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted sports tributes that don't involve fundraising--the ones deleted seem like gestures that won't be terribly significant in the long run--they will probably be repeated by just about every major sports team. If you disagree, please read the earlier discussion and discuss here before re-adding? Sfmammamia 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I added Klein to List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#Injured_students.2C_classroom_not_stated - But I put him in a "classroom not stated" category as I cannot tell what classroom had Klein. WhisperToMe 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have watched the videos of this on tv, and in at least one of them, where there were police officers running, there was snow in the picture. I think I heard from at least one tv source that they mentioned it was cold. Snow in Virginia in April seems quite rare to me, and the source could be the tv. So, should it be included in the article, or is this mere coincidence so unimportant that it deserves absolutely no mention in the article? Also, has this been disscussed before, or even, is it already mentioned in the article? I read most of the article, and didn't see any mention of the snow, and the pictures made it quite unobvious it was even cold. I don't have time to read all the archives, or didn't. Could someone please answer, or is this too unimportant? Also, as a side note, CNN said that the perpetrator had mental ilness, paranoia, and was bullied in high school, so couldn't this be a possible motive, or is it too vaugue? Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not enough to say either way right now, so I'm not adding it to the article, but just saw this http://www.nbc13.com/gulfcoastwest/vtm/news.apx.-content-articles-VTM-2007-04-24-0008.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.176.142 ( talk) 20:57, 24 April, 2007 (UTC)
Is this country really that uneducated and ignorant? Or is it just that white people are what count? I was under the impression that the worst mass shooting in U.S. History was the massacre ate Wounded Knee or Sand Creek!!
"I can't take one more of these headlines," said Joan Redfern, a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe who lives in Hollister. "Haven't any of these people ever heard of the Massacre at Sand Creek in Colorado, where Methodist minister Col. Chivington massacred between 200 and 400 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, most of them women, children, and elderly men?"
And:
"At Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota, the U.S. 7th Cavalry attacked 350 unarmed Lakota Sioux on December 29, 1890. While engaged in a spiritual practice known as the "Ghost Dance," approximately 90 warriors and 200 women and children were killed. Although the attack was officially reported as an "unjustifiable massacre" by Field Commander General Nelson A. Miles, 23 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for the slaughter. The unarmed Lakota men fought back with bare hands. The elderly men and women stood and sang their death songs while falling under the hail of bullets. Soldiers stripped the bodies of the dead Lakota, keeping their ceremonial religious clothing as souvenirs.
"To say the Virginia shooting is the worst in all of U.S. history is to pour salt on old wounds-it means erasing and forgetting all of our ancestors who were killed in the past," Redfern said." -- 207.81.87.20 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should just get rid of the reference entirely. Its not the worst school-related killing, its not the worst mass shooting... its just sensationalism. We should just nix the whole "worst ever" because if you have to qualify it not once but -twice- that's far from the worst. Titanium Dragon 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A few hours later, no takers, so I made an attempt. Externally referenced, at least. Not perfect, but I believe the summary needs a statement of significance of some kind, similar to the Columbine article. Sfmammamia 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the claim is pure sensationalism. If the statement has to be qualified so many times, is it really worth making? Also, can somebody qualify what counts as modern U.S. history and what doesn't? Are we talking 10, 20, 50, 100, or years here? Possibly more? I think it might be beneficial to the article and its readers if we added something about it being the deadliest shooting since Sand Creek or whichever the last massacre was that was mentioned above. — Mears man 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) The qualifiers are hinting at WP:SYN; that is, no third-party sources have directly compared Virginia Tech with others, nor qualified what they mean by modern U.S. history. The problem is that you're attempting to connect A and B when a third-party source should have already done so.
To give another example, early reports indicated the shooter was Chinese, and that is attributable; do we include it just because somebody did state it? Do we include qualifiers that the shooter was not, in fact, Chinese? Are the qualifiers attributable in relationship with this event? Phony Saint 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) You do realize that I'm attempting to drop the issue, and that all I'm wondering about is where the qualifiers stated to be further down the article are? It seems you and Ronnotel don't agree on what "modern" means (he says 1890's, you say post-WWII), and I just really want to read the sources. Phony Saint 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel that, out of the respect for the people at Tech who live in the room where the victim was shot, the room number should be removed from this article. I wouldn't want future residents to have gawkers coming to their hall to see where it all happened.
Thanks Jaxter1987 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of including room numbers? Does it add anything to the article? Is anyone going to care in a year? We need a good reason to include things, not just no reasons to keep them out. Natalie 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Remove trivial information. We don't need to record everything (that job belongs to other people, and later researchers will go to those sources, and won't come here - they shouldn't anyway). Wikipedia should provide general, in-depth coverage of the event, allowing people to understand the event and read background information. Wikipedia shouldn't be providing a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened and where. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Not all 'true' information needs to be included in an article. Carcharoth 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I started accounting for injured individuals as described in media accounts - See Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded - I also included the injuries sustained by the wounded. I also included names of uninjured individuals, though in the end they will NOT be listed with the injured in the victims list. WhisperToMe 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries may also be straying into areas of questionable taste and utility. --Dynaflow 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[BEGIN COPY-PASTE]
You mean this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
If the bullet hits were not relevant - if what I posted there was posted to an article about sunflowers and kittens, you would have every right to remove it. For instance, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer has "Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."—Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe ( talk • contribs)
[END COPY-PASTE]
Anyway, one last thing: The details will not stay on that page forever - Once, and I mean once a timeline is established, I will move the details of the injuries to the timeline. Until then, the details should stay with the injured list. WhisperToMe 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood your phrase, "accounting for injured individuals," in your opening message. If your ultimate intent is only to create a partial, incomplete list of the injured from media accounts, without drawing any conclusions as to how many people were ultimately injured, either by Cho in the attacks, or in their efforts to escape, THAT would not be original research. Any attempt to draw conclusions or total it up (what I thought you meant by "accounting") WOULD be original research (synthesis serving to advance a position). Sfmammamia 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I.E. I stated (I just added it to Norris 211's injured list, though)... "Injured students in Norris 211
(This list is partial)
I also added: "Injured students, classroom not stated" to account for people who I know are injured, but I do not know where they were at the time.
I have no sources that describe where Justin Klein was, so I cannot say where he Justin Klein was.
WhisperToMe 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The only place to get an authoritative list of injured would be from Virginia Tech itself. However, they have declined to release the list (correctly in my view) citing confidentiality concerns and in fact, the HIPAA law. See footnote 3. Best to drop it, I think. Ronnotel 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This section was removed by Ronnotel because "there were hundreds of stories on this incident - dressing one up and calling it a 'documentary' does not make it notable". However, au contraire, Ron, the documentary does have notability because it was produced by NBC News, the very organization that Cho allegedly mailed his "media package" to. And I'm pretty sure NBC News has enough credibility and reliability (despite what some conspiracy theorists may believe). I think it should be restored. Ron didn't show any evidence of other hour-long "stories" that aired on primetime cable TV produced by a major worldwide TV network for a documentary channel like The History Channel.
- Eep² 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That reference does not state how the documentary was notable. You're going to have to tell us why it is notable according to Wikipedia notability guidelines, not your own definition of "notable." Phony Saint 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I had removed the link by Conservative Voice simply because its not a reputed link. Can somebody put a link from another reputed source there? Hahahaha1 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you very much. Personally speaking I dont agree with the whole Ted Nugent view because its like saying ' All countries should be allowed to develop nuclear warheads to protect themselves from nuclear attacks'. But that said, as long as the source is 'reputable', its fine. Hahahaha1 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason we have MSNBC's front page as our first external link? It seems like giving undue weight to one particular new outlet, especially since it's been here since before the news about the package broke. I would like to remove it, but if there is a reason it's here I will not, obviously. Natalie 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Looks like it was added back in inadvertently with a large revert by Dynaflow. I removed it once again. If a single news outlet is chosen, it should probably be http://www.CollegiateTimes.com/, the VT newspaper. Sean
I notice the entry about inaccurate report by Michael Sneed from Sun-Times has been totally removed. Looks like there are quite a few Philistines on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs).
I have added the related section back. This is an important incident related to the massacre. You shouldn't try to hide the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs).
You are talking funny. More than one news source reported this inaccurate report. For example: http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2007/04/18/ill-informed-chicago-columnist-scares-the-hell-out-of-china/ What's more, the whole incident was a self-evident fact need no original research. By your logic all first-hand news report is original research! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I knew you would say it. Here is one from Huffington Report, what do you have to say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/virginia-tech-shooting-o_b_46159.html
What official policy? Are you saying you are some officer on Wikipeida? By my understanding this is a free encyclopedia everyone can edit. You asked for "reputable sources" and I gave you one. Your claim that the section being original research has been proven untrue. Isn't it obvious? Anyway I will keep reverting it back in the future if you keep deleting it without a valid justification. You can delete the Ismail part if you want to . But I will add Michael Sneed's name on the section since she is reported in some respected media.
Ok, I appologize for the misunderstanding. How about this: we keep and expand the first part about inaccurate report of killer being Chinese since it's verifiable and is not original research and delete the remaining?
I removed a large amount of material which was a complete duplication of most of the article. (It caused the size to jump from 65,699 bytes to 115,809 bytes.) I could not simply undo the change since there were conflicting intervening edits. It is possible that there may be some editorial changes lost. Bear475 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that teachers should say anything if sign in behavior change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
As of 2007 May 2nd the intro text includes these sentences: ``In 2005, he had been accused of stalking two young women[8] and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.[9] At least one professor had asked him to get counseling., after describing Cho as an English major at University. The article would be better served for now by replacing the above quoted text with a summary that an independent investigation is ongoing. 68.175.118.95 05:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The massacre took place in West Ambler Johnston and Norris Hall. Why is one of the pictures shown on the page of a French class in Holden Hall? Holden Hall was not involved in the shootings. 68.37.233.7 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite
So, is this picture from the French class where the 11 people were shot? 68.37.233.7 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite
Should " semi-protection" be applied to this article? It's been vandalized fairly frequently. Semi-protection prevents edits by anonymous users and people whose accounts are less than 4 days old. It seems justified to me, but I'd prefer to have an admin make the call on it and insert the tag.
Here's a run down of vandalism in the last 16 hours:
edit vandalism undone at
move vandalism undone at
Thanks -- Pladuk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the image of the shooter is representative. The image is the one taken by the shooter himself, and therefore serves his message (or propaganda) to the community about himself, and does not represent the person that you would have seen during his day to day life. Using this image lends weight to his reasoning in committing the crimes on that day, which is unjustifiable. By using this image, emphasis is given to the extreme nature of this person which would not be visible normally. The pose and display of weapons in the image may provide incitement or inspiration to others. The image is likely to be offensive to victims of the crimes. Victims need to reconcile in some way with the perpetrator of crimes committed against them, and this image does not serve this purpose. The image serves the glorification of the shooter, and the popularization of horrific crime. Merxa 04:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The photo was deleted again today without comment. I have restored it. This has been discussed previously; check the archives if you are interested. I don't have strong feelings about this particular image, but feel there needs to be an image there. Sfmammamia 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Attacks section keeps getting edited to add the following:
This information is already covered in the Background section:
What is the point of describing the same information two times? This seems intended to keep bringing attention to the guns. Is this to help out in the ongoing disputes about the Walther P-22 and the Glock 19 articles? Kevinp2 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier. Please read the earlier discussion before removing again. Sfmammamia 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the bot set at 250k? I think it's archiving a lot more quickly than it should be. Given human nature, I doubt seriously that most editors are going to peruse that many pages before re-arguing the same points. To date we've had important discussions on wording, relevant information, and NPOV -- discussion now relegated far too deep into the archives to be noticed. It's my humble opinion that the the talk page should not be archived more than twice per week to give users a reasonable amount of time to see what this page is all about. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, Ikilled007 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
With the bot gone and things slowed down, it may be time for someone familiar with previous discussions to sort them out, in order to avoid repetition of old arguments, as mentioned above. Wrad 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have created a concise section on media response, as first item in the Virginia Tech massacre#Responses to the incidents section and have ejected most of the relevant content to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Paragraphs have been excised from Virginia Tech massacre#Perpetrator, and Virginia Tech massacre#International_response. Article size has been brought back to 58k. Ohconfucius 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So... just curious about other people's opinions on this. I personally feel that the word "massacre" might not belong in the title of this article. I know that the Columbine shooting's article includes it, but I guess I'm just asking about the use of the word in general. I feel that "massacre" is a very emotional word, the sort of thing you'd find in evening news reports. I feel like "shooting" would fit better, as well as fit in line with most other articles about mass shootings. Opinions? -- UNHchabo 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed recently. Look at this archive here Wrad 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As indicated earlier, this has been heavily discussed previously. The frequency with which this event is named in the media as "Virginia Tech massacre" has a strong bearing on what we call it here. I removed the addition of "Virginia Tech murders" as a second name because "Virginia Tech massacre" is still the most common name, by a factor of 8 to 1, in a quick search on Google News. Sfmammamia 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Fact box says "number of injured withheld" but going to the links shows it is only the NAMES that are withheld , not the number. Wikinews says "15". GangofOne 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are the subchapters of chapters 1 indented in the table of contents, but not those of the chapters 2 and 3? It looks weird. -- Abe Lincoln 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I keep putting a merge template on this page and it keeps getting deleted within mere hours. Can anyone explain to me why they would be so devoted to making sure that I can't suggest something like that? I believe that this should be merged with Virginia Tech article and then seperated. If thats even possible. Whoever is doing it please stop. Amaraiel 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the sentiment is pretty clear, I'm going to remove the tag. Ronnotel 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Amaraiel's Talk Page -- Amaraiel 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say let's just be kinder to new wikipedians in the future. Obviously he was unfamiliar with merge tags and the rules connected with them. If someone had posted something on his talk page, this may have been avoided, rather than shooting him down again and again in public. Wrad 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Cho and Emily Hilscher seemed to have both practiced on some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.182.171 ( talk) 18:05, 3 May, 2007 (UTC)
I added a blurb, under the Korean response, about Korean Americans who are fasting for 32 days in response to the massacre. Fsu23phd 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to suggest that in addition to the school, media, and university response that info regarding the church or religious response be included. There was much media regarding this - particulalry New Life Christian Fellowship and Blacksburg Christian Fellowship and Intervarsity and Campus Crusade's presence and response. Just a note - I don't have time currently to do it myself. Gatorgalen 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this one is worth of including somewhere in the article? ;] [11] Jan Winnicki * 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the international response section needs to be trimmed down. It seems like undue weight given that it's longer than the domestic response section. It also seems repetitive - similar criticisms again and again. Ronnotel 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it not be prudent to outline the procedures taken by the school from the time the first shootings occured in West Ambler from the time the shooter was found that morning? -- Amaraiel 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)