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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
A proposal -- the release of the Virginia Tech review panel's results may call for some refactoring in the response section. In my view, the student response, university response, and government response sections have some overlap that now needs to be dealt with. It seems to me that the university's initial response, or lack thereof, belongs in the university response section. That the students questioned the university response (now in student response section), in my mind minimizes and misplaces this criticism now that the report has said the same thing. While it makes sense that the panel's results appear in the government response section, perhaps there's a logical way to split what is said there with what is said under university response? Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There was and still is criticism to the way the administration at Virginia Tech improperly handled the incident. I fail to see how a section highlighting how a government institution made mistakes that caused people to be killed could be considered "overkill." I have revised said section to eliminate any POV concerns, as newfound facts originating from government reports generated from initial speculation have proven themselves to be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk) 19:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the point in addressing the University's response if we keep deleting out the fact that Va Tech's own actions prior to the event contributed to allowing Cho to rampage unmolested. Not only is Va Tech VP Hincker criticized in the Panel report for having a cumbersome and unwieldy response system, but prior to the Cho attack he also led VA Tech lobbying efforts with the Virginia General Assembly which resulted in defeat of a proposal to allow concealed carry. I must respectfully disagree with Sfmammamia's continued censorship of Hincker's comments ( "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.") about the defeat of the law that would have allowed concealed carry on campus because it fails to highlight one of the most important lessons to be learned from this tragedy.
It is exactly these attitudes from the university leadership which lead to a false and naive sense of security on the part of the Va Tech administration and which lead to the poor responsiveness to the crisis which is criticized by the panel report. Hincker's comments, as the official position of the university, need representation in this article, either in the "background" section of the political section of the article, in the discussion of the panel report, or elsewhere. Deleting Hincker's comments using brevity as a justification omits important information that is crucial to a full understanding of this story. I ask for further editorial input on this. NDM 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree with your interpretation of the above. Pointing out failures on the part of government or quasi-governmental officials, or governmental policy, although it may be in "hindsight" is never "spiteful", merely democracy in action. I read the panel report, too, and it seems that they, too, fail to see that proposing more paper bans on firearms on campus offer no more protection than existed at the time of the Cho attack. I guess we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past
You are giving government officials a free ride for their past and current mistakes by consigning irrational statements such as Hincker's straight to the Memory Hole. We owe our readers a fuller understanding of such an important issue. Reinstate the quote! NDM 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Other quotes from government officials and others in the article as of today:
"He was well-prepared to continue on," Flaherty testified "Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health" "prematurely concluding that their initial lead in the double homicide was a good one," Governor Kaine rejected the notion, saying that the school officials had "suffered enough" "did not take sufficient action to deal with what might happen if the initial lead proved false" "stir up racial prejudice or confrontation" gun fatalities were "disturbingly common in the United States" "America's deep-rooted and sometimes lethal commitment to its own freedoms" "the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors" And finally: In August 2007, the Virginia Tech review panel report recommended that the state's General Assembly adopt legislation "establishing the right of every institution of higher education to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires"
There is plenty of precedent for using the quote to describe the official position (and the reason therefor) of Virginia Tech University on allowing firearms on its campus. I fail to understand how the quote in question is different from all those listed above. Kevinp2 ( talk) 05:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sfmammamia - I added the quote, unaware if its long history of being added by many different people, and repeatedly removed by you.
The reason that I added the quote is because it shows us that sometimes people make mistakes. In this case, it was a huge mistake.
In my opinion, your repeated removing of the quote is inappropriate. It is clear that there are many people here who believe the quote is an important part of the article.
I aslo think that your removing the quote is exactly like the kind of stuff that was done in George Orwell's book 1984. "Oh, he never said that. It never happened."
I want the quote to be included, and so do many other people. Please stop erasing it.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_gunman
Now quit making this all about gun control. Rooot 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Upon reviewing this particular article's edit history, it's become obvious that a small group of people have become hell bent on turning this open-source column into their own personal project. In the course of doing this they are repeatedly deleting contributions submitted by people outside of the clique in a vain attempt to exhibit mastery and ownership of what was intended to be a widespread collaboration.
Never before in my years of online collaboration have I seen such covetous actions committed in a web2 environment.
Upon the release of the Virginia Tech Panel report to the Governor I saw it fitting to include findings of the study as there had yet to be any mention of it in the article. However, my efforts were swiftly marginalized by individuals seeking to maintain their own delusions of grandeur and ownership of the project.
My additions would find themselves only to be swiftly deleted in such a manner that it was obvious that those undoing my contributions would not have even had time to read what I had written. Those deleting my messages gave me no reasons for doing so other than the report than it being “un-encyclopedic” and “potentially POV.”
Upon revisal of the original text to correct ANY possible POV orientation, I had resubmitted my revised contribution. To my surprise, the improved work lasted less than two minutes on the front page. Clearly this had to be some form of editing error caused by multiple persons working on the document simultaneously. Logically, I would resubmit my addition into the article to circumvent what must have obviously been a mistake.
However, on the resubmit I found that it had not been a simple error but another author deleting my addition under the pretenses of the submitted work not being of a “group consensus.” To this I replied that rather than just deleting new findings posted on the Virginia Tech massacre because of conflicts in how it was written, they should collaborate on what I had already started and get the new information published.
Upon returning the next day, I’ve found that the findings from the new Virginia Tech report have yet to be published onto Wikipedia when I had already done all the background work for the “collaborative editors”…Go Figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, September 1, 2007
So in essence what I have found here is an article about an ongoing event that is impossible to update because a small minority of people feel that their additions are the only ones that matter in a web2 environment…
Seeing that the text that I introduced into the article was straight out of GOVERNOR'S REPORT, I cannot understand how the text could have been seen as an unfair judgment, as it is completely true. Should we in effect remove references to political scandals in the biographies of American presidents because they appear to be "obviously biased?" If this is the case, then Wikipedia should erase all mention of Marilyn Monroe, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinski and the Iraq Invasion from its presidential profiles of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush.
Last time I checked, as long as information is truthful and proven then it doesn't matter if it's "obviously biased." There is a lot of "obviously biased" information published in Encyclopedias as we speak today.
And as far as being "invited to discuss" the matter, If you mean I was invited to discuss the matter with myself as no one gave any coherent responses to my questions in the posts, then I guess you may possibly be technically correct.
As far as being judged by "multiple reviews" I cannot see how this was possible as my postings in the article never lasted longer than five minutes before they were deleted. So I fail to see how it could have been properly evaluated to be of WP standards when the addition was deleted in less time that it would have taken for a significant group of people to properly analyze and review it.
So when you mention "strict editing", you are completely correct as you have proven yourself capable of swiftly deleting all work added into the article that is not your own.
Now I again bring up the issue of WP standards here. One of the primary advantages of WEB2 data is that it is capable of staying more up to date than a traditionally maintained website. The governor's report was released days ago and yet there is still no mention of its results in the article.
The general conclusion of the administrative analysis of the Governor's report on the Virginia Tech massacre was that if the faculty would have reacted better to the initial murders then they would have likely lessened the death toll in the final massacre.
Now what about this finding is so terribly controversial? Two people were murdered on a school campus, the administration elected to keep the campus open for the rest of the day, then the gunman came back and murdered over ten times as many people.
Everyone knows that the administration screwed up, but why are you so afraid to print the details of a government panel that officially confirms it.
I apologize if my wording appeared as if it could have theoretically been remotely biased. However, I do not see how this has any bearing three days after the fact. You acknowledge that you engage in "strict editing" but all you have yet to accomplish is "strict deleting." If you research the simple definition of an Editor, you will find that it is in the job description not to simply remove content that is less than perfect, but to collaborate with the original work and make it so.
So my question to you is how you can call yourself an editor, when you’re only willing to do half of the required job? I've submitted the material to you with all the proper references and citations, but your beef is with the way in which it is worded. A REAL editor would actually fix the wording, not just cover up the facts.
Either you’re trying to cover something up, or you’re just unhappy with the contribution because you didn't draft it up yourself. Which is it?
Personally, I just think it's amusing that my most recent addition to the article was deleted on a Friday night. The idea of a person so absorbed in being an unpaid Wikipedia watchdog as to volunteer for the entire duration of a Friday night leaves me hanging somewhere in the balance between pity and admiration. For the sake of all that is good in this world, I can only hope that you at least allow yourself the luxury of bathroom breaks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.13.244.119 (
talk •
contribs) 19:57, September 2, 2007
The intro includes a sentence beginning with ``Telivision news organization.. which could be replaced with something like ``The VT Review Panel confirmed initial concerns of inaction by the VT administration in failing to adequatly prevent additional deaths by a swift response. 68.175.118.95 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.67.21 ( talk) 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in the second paragraph, citing the VaTech massacre as the "worst" in "modern" history is imprecise and unhelpful. There are several cited sources, mostly news specials that were produced around the time of the massacre, but this superlative is not unchallenged. See, for exmaple: http://www.counterpunch.org/blank05022007.html "Modern" is simply not a helpful adjective here. There was a more deadly shooting in 1921 – does that simply not count?
I submit that a small qualifying statement, something along the lines of "although this is disputed" should be added citing that article (or a similar document) as its source. 208.178.18.134 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I think there's an element of social responsibility here as well. Glorification of the killer's deeds by specifying--highlighting even--the fact that this slaughter was a record killing will certainly inspire others to outdo him. After all, the perpetrators of these crimes tend to be of the web2-savvy age, right? Media hype (wikipedia not excluded) leads to more of these problems, and I wonder if this concern is enough to override the responsibility to faithfully report the truth. In light of Omaha, and seeing what outright fame and notoriety these killers are getting, I think it's only responsible to temper it SLIGHTLY by de-emphasizing the "achievement". Phenylphenol ( talk) 08:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this article is now up for FA again, here is an update from this script:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot ( talk) 05:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a bout of vandalism to this page on September 20th, around 0:35 GMT. The page was blanked several times, and also filled with gibberish. The blanks were reverted by bots, who unfortunately only reverted to the gibberish. I was able to track back to the original article. DevOhm Talk 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There was some more today (april 16), probably because its linked to on the front page. Bongwarrior fixed it very quickly it seems, well done matey. Maybe this page needs to be protected? Its good enough to be feautred, after all, maybe editing of it could be limited to the collaborating people who built it. Captain Crush ( talk) 09:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Columbine High School massacre has very precise details of the shooting, closely following the shooters' actions. Would it be possible for this article to have the same level of detail in the future? Since Wikipedia has a policy against original research, I personally guess that this will depend on how much information is released by the media. -- Ixfd64 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this attempt at a return to sanity for the list of victims related to this article. Please respond on the other article's talk page. HokieRNB 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WOW, the results from the Virginia Tech Commission's Governor's Report have finally been posted in the article, and it only took over a month for it to be added in. HOW AMAZING! Especially seeing that what was posted was an incredibly difficult cut&paste from a Reuters news article.
I guess that after placing the first addition mentioning of it in late August, to only see it deleted within five minutes by people that think they own the article, I finally get to see someone else take the initiative to submit what I had already accomplished over a month ago.
Good job Wikipedia Police.
I'm glad to know that your intent on keeping this article so up to date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, October 12, 2007
Umm, no it wasn't as the panel results that I had added were found no where in the article. My additions from the panel's results were the panel's concensus of the University's response to the initial shooting.
No where in the article did it cite Virginia Tech's inaction to the initial shootings as a factor involved in the student deaths that occurred at the second shooting.
Show me a single line in the August 30th version of the article that stated that if Virginia Tech would have better responded to the incident, lives could have been saved. There was no mention of it.
That is my argument.
Although common sense would suggest that when there is a shooting at a state university the governing body should do something to remain en garde untill a perpetrator is identified or more information is found. Instead, it was just business as usual and a couple dozen people wound up dying as a result.
The second shooting only occurred about 3 hours after the first one. It makes me curious what Virginia Tech's policies are toward shooting on campus. How many people have to be shot in order to justify cancelling classes for the day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 October 2007
You make it sound like my addition to the article was VERBATIM to my expressed viewpoint posted in the discussion forumn. Although there was a little room for interpretation to the ORIGINAL version I posted, I had rewritten the text later that day in a way that eliminated potential bias, I find it rediculous that it took a month and a half to insert the same material that I had already completed.
Now, a month and a half after the fact, there is finally information in the article stating the reports findings; that had the Virginia Tech administration responded better to the initial shootings they could have saved lives. That was the finding of the report, theres nothing op-ed about it.
As far as being the only one to complain about the situation, I'm sure the recent bout of lengthy vandalism in this article had nothing to with the voluntarily imposed bureaucracy created by an an annoying few that have nothing better to do with their lives than police Wikipedia on a friday night, lest someone have something to contribute.
Besides, if you really wanted to curb op-ed problems in the article it would be wise to address the ones that are already in the article. The second paragraph of the Politic Response portion of the Gun Politics section is based almost wholly on the opinions of politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk) 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Where in this article do we still need cleanup or factual verification. The bad tags should be removed.-- Wikiphilia 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Over the course of development of this article, there has been consensus to keep only the most significant of responses in the article and to keep those summaries highly condensed. In keeping with this direction, I have removed the names of the Penn State students involved in the Halloween costume controversy. The incident seems to me to be a case of recentism, and even two sentences on it in the overall context of this article seems like a lot. Other comments? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
strong keep. This information is appropriate for inclusion here. It's in a section covering responses (both supportive and now non-supportive) from other universities and it does qualify as a response. It's inclusion provides balance and fuller coverage. Not everyone lit a candle and said a prayer, some people did things like this and these two got some notoriety for it. The people in question are adults not minors, there is no need for concern about their identity. It's received verifiable, referenceable national media coverage (Google news shows 100+ articles on the topic including an AP story which carried even further). I'd like to see more solid reasons for not including this information before it gets removed. The focus here needs to be on whether this content is notable and verifiable. We need not be concerned about how this event will affect these two students, keeping it out of Wikipedia wont protect their identity, it's already out there in the mainstream media and is well archived for anyone to see. -- Rtphokie ( talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your comments. The item has been removed, reflecting what appears to be the consensus at this point that its inclusion was not warranted, for all the reasons stated above. I'm leaving this comment for others who may arrive at the article later and be tempted to add it back in. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
While I applaud Rooot's recent effort to trim the response section, it has left the section with an awkward layout (at least at 1024X768) and too many images. My candidates for deletion would be the East Carolina University picture and the interior memorial image. Even two images of the campus memorials may be too much -- per WP:LAYOUT, placing images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen is considered poor layout practice. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, these edits are done. I made further moves for flow and to get rid of the bulleted list in the "Other responses" section. Looks better now, I think. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it important to state what South Koreas action was? Just because the person happened to be South Korean? He was provoked by the racist americans, and so they should be apologising for turning a South Korean into a monster instead. I don't see why nationality pays a big deal in this scenario anyway (apart from the fact that it is ALWAYS and ONLY americans that do these shootings) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The South Korea section used to have a part contrasting the lack of reprisals against Koreans in the US to the reprisals against US military personnel by South Koreans after the US military personnel had committed a violent crime. If the reference to warnings about reprisals is included, then so should the statement that no such reprisals happened. User:Ryanluck
I have requested that this article be front paged on April 16th, the one year anniversary of the tragic event. There's no guaranty, of course, but it would seem a fitting tribute. Ronnotel ( talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the article makes no mention of the permanent memorial to the victims of the shooting nor does the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre although the latter does have a photo of the temporary memorial created in the immediate wake of the shooting. As the report of the Commission that was established after the shooting is mentioned it makes sense that the establishment of the permanent memorial to the victims should be mentioned. I didn't just add it since I do think it would mandate creation of a new section that would include all the "long-term results" of the shooting: the report of the Governor's Commission, the memorial, and Virginia Tech's closing for commemoration on the 1st anniversary of the shooting. Wiikiwiiki ( talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
At one time this was a fairly accurate account of 4-16-2007. I was surprised to see how it has been changed. I am not going to correct what has been written. This article certainly should not be referenced.
Springmorning ( talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html Virginia Tech Review Panel Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech April 16, 2007 Report of the Review Panel Presented to Governor Kaine Commonwealth of Virginia August 2007
pages 90-92 from the report and compare to what has been written below in Wikipedia
"Norris Hall shootings About two hours after the initial shootings, Cho entered Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program among others, and chained the three main entrance doors shut. He placed a note on at least one of the chained doors, claiming that attempts to open the door would cause a bomb to explode. Shortly before the shooting began, a faculty member found the note and took it to the building's third floor, so as to notify the school's administration. Concurrently, however, Cho had gone to the second floor and began shooting students and faculty; the bomb threat was never called in.[2][13]
Aerial photo showing location of Norris and West Ambler Johnston HallsCho's first attack after entering Norris occurred at an elementary German class, in room 207, taught by instructor Jamie Bishop. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor of Norris 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".[14] Shortly thereafter, Cho entered the class, shooting Bishop without warning, and then commenced shooting students. Sheehan said that only four students in the German class were able to leave the room on their own, two of them injured. The rest were more severely wounded or dead. Following the Norris 207 shooting, Cho moved on to other classrooms, reloading and shooting students and professors in Norris 204, 206, and 211, as well as in the hallway."
Since the Report is public domain and this article is being given featured article status, it should be more at a higher level of accuracy. I just point out the above as one instance. Read the report that I above referenced at the web site I posted. Springmorning ( talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
edit: "West Ambler Johnston shootings" was a resident advisor in West Ambler Johnston Hall. from http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/ryan_christopher_clark.html "and a male resident assistant, Ryan C. Clark" from Wikipedia Springmorning ( talk) 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
edit- "Hokie Spirit monies distributed In October, the university moved to the next stage of a long and difficult healing process by distributing the monies from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to those most profoundly affected by the tragedy of April 16. Spontaneous donations to the university began almost immediately after the shootings on April 16, and by late summer, nearly 21,000 groups, companies, or individuals had contributed. "People sent this money to Virginia Tech and have entrusted to us to do what is right and appropriate," noted Tech President Charles W. Steger.
Checks totaling more than $8.5 million were distributed according to the protocols developed in conjunction with Kenneth Feinberg, administrator of the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. There were 79 eligible claimants; all applied and will be receiving funds or the equivalent educational tuition. Those disbursements are as follows: $208,000 to each of 32 families; $104,000 to each of 5 individuals; $46,000 to each of 8 individuals; and $11,500 to each of 34 individuals. Some will receive the disbursements over time in the form of free tuition. About $860,000 remains in designated funds created in the early days of the tragedy by the Virginia Tech Foundation, which established memorial funds in the names of the 32 victims. Contributions so designated were deposited in those funds and undesignated monies were deposited in the memorial fund and ultimately included in the distributions." from http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/winter08/news.html Also some families established scholarships or fellowships at VT with money from the HSMF.
from Wikipedia- This is inaccurate. Shortly following the events of April 16, the Virginia Tech Foundation, in conjunction with Hokies United, formed the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund (HSMF) to help remember and honor the victims. The fund is used to cover expenses including, but not limited to: assistance to victims and their families, grief counseling, memorials, communications expenses, and comfort expenses.[61] In early June 2007, the Virginia Tech Foundation announced that US$3.2 million was moved from the HSMF into 32 separate named endowment funds, each created in honor of a victim lost in the shooting. This transfer brought each fund to the level of full endowment, allowing them to operate in perpetuity. The naming and determination of how each fund will be directed is being developed with the victims' families. By early June, donations to the HSMF had reached approximately $7 million.[62] In July 2007, Kenneth R. Feinberg, who served as 'Special Master of the federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, was named to administer the fund's distributions.[63] Springmorning ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
On November 17, 2007 there was a pretty cool event on the VT campus where something like 6000 people lined up on the drillfield to spell out the message "VT Thanks You." The event was coordinated by a faculty member in Geography (Peter Sforza) who organized getting everyone lined up on the drillfield, and arranged to have aerial photography collected, and timing the message with an image acquisition by the Ikonos satellite. Maybe it would be worth adding to the VT massacre article (see Event web page and VT recap of the event). Pradtke ( talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving the proposed front page blurb from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests to here so it can get more attention. Aciel has proposed that the blurb strike all mention of Cho by name. Does that fit stylistically? While I'm sensitive to Aciel's motivation, I'm concerned about the text failing under as per WP:POINT. Ronnotel ( talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I also feel strongly that naming the shooter would be incredibly harmful. That is exactly the kind of impact he wanted, and it sends a terrible message to other would-be shooters that their names will not be left out either. Murder should not be rewarded. I would MUCH rather see the names of the victims included in this blurb. State the facts, by all means, but YOU decide what is relevant, and Cho's name is not. The lives he took definitely ARE worth noting. Kira speaks ( talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI to those who were advocating it, the article on Liviu Librescu has failed its first feature article review. I've put in some time on the suggested improvements to the article that came out of that review process, but other comments are beyond my expertise. Those of you who would like to see it featured can still work to improve it and try again. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be full of stuff which isn't particularly notable, and it makes up a good portion of the article; obviously the discussion on gun law, ect. needs to stay but a lot of the responses (candlelight vigil, ect.) seems extraneous, non-notable, and just to take up space. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Footnote 89 is broken. I will start checking others. Rooot ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well,
What do you people think?
88.105.6.0 ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
For those in the BST timezone like in the U.K. who wish to hold a silence at the same time as the fellow Americans; (24-hour style)
I am re-syncing my all of my atomic clocks for these moments.
88.105.10.162 ( talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There were two bomb threats on nearby Torgersen Hall prior to the shootings. One of them was on the Friday 4/13 before the shooting, which was on Monday 4/16. As someone who was evacuated from that building on Friday, I have always been dumbfounded by the complete failure of the media to tie these two events together. The person who made the bomb threat was never discovered. Rumors circulated that writings in Cho's room indicated he had made the threats as a way to test police reactions. A week or two later it was reported parenthetically in some of the papers that the bomb threats weren't related to Cho, but no reasons were ever given for why this was supposed to be the case.
After the Friday bomb threat we were evacuated to Burress Hall to be debriefed by law enforcement. They showed us the bomb threat note and asked us if we noticed anything on it that might be helpful for law enforcement. A Chinese women who worked in the building said she thought the hand-writing looked like something an Asian person would write. Someone asked the obvious question of whether the investigators had checked to see if any exams were being held in the building on the day of the bomb threats, as that would be a good place to start looking for suspects. Their response seemed to suggest that they had not pursued this line of inquiry, and perhaps even thought it irrelevant. Cho had a class in Torgersen.
The issues brought up about problems in the university's handling of Cho before the event seem irrelevant to me. It is a difficult line to walk knowing how best to respect the rights of the mentally ill and protect the safety of the student body. For me, the real issue is what would have happened had the police and administration reacted more effectively in investigating the bomb threats. Hind sight is 20/20, but what if the investigators had checked if anyone who was taking classes in Torgersen had had disciplinary action taken against them for threatening behavior, questioned these students, and checked the handwriting of the Asian student named Cho?
It has been difficult for me to deal with this issue (though nothing remotely like what some folks have had to endure). I think the police behaved heroically during the shootings. Raising the issue of their possible mistakes or oversights, or those of the administration is taboo here, so I've learned to keep quiet about my concerns. Still, I can't help wondering, "What if?" and am frustrated by the fact that the press and state review panel haven't explored these events sufficiently or, if they have, that they haven't shared what they learned effectively with the public. I wish someone could answer my questions!
24.127.47.61 ( talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)A Concerned Hokie
Hokie United, a group composed mostly of VT student, planned and executed the vigil, including getting candles and cups donated, preparing said candles and cups and coordinating all the equipment. This belongs under the student response section, not the university response section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogdahlt ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Article will be on the front page in a few short hours. Now would be a good time for any last minute nits to be picked. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that was fun. Thanks everyone who pitched in on vandal patrol. Ronnotel ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article not included on the Virginia Tech Template? That seems like a pretty important omission.
Neelix ( talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else brought up the idea that MAYBE it might be a bad idea to list this as a featured article? I wonder how many other mentally disturbed people like that man might think "Wow, I might even get a featured article out of doing something like this!"
Isn't NOT reporting massively in depth (or many week reporting) what the media generally has decided to do in MOST school shootings since Columbine? The uber massive media saturation of Columbine potentially caused copycats (hell.. columbine is practically a VERB in many threatening letters and diaries of unbalanced kids). I remember seeing a Time magazine or something like that with several pages dedicated to floor plans and timelines in the weeks after that event..
Just a thought.
Cs302b (
talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cs302b - the ancient greeks tried what you propose over 2000 years ago. It doesn't work. Raul654 ( talk) 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be this underlying assumption that the media and merely 'mentioning' this sort of thing would CAUSE these incidents to happen. Research at most shows a correlation of aggressive media and aggressive people, but no definite answers on if it actually CAUSES it. Did the aggressive person like watching aggressive shows (thus choose to watch them more often) or did watching these shows make the person aggressive? Could it be these disturbed individuals were actively searching for these articles or they come across this article and that helped them decide to do it? No one can tell. Correlation is not causation. Objectively, there is no definite answer. Just my two cents. Do you know? ( talk) 06:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Virginia Tech has indeed been a focal point for discussing journalism ethics. While there are some instances where journalists self-censor, this isn't one of them. (if we instead drew the line at "normal article okay, but featured bad", under that sort of thinking, suddenly a large number of small details would have to be considered for culling) -- Underpants ( talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should add a couple of sentences somewhere regarding the various activities today designed to mourn the one-year anniversary of the event? There are various news articles covering these events today. Remember ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This may be a small point to some, but as a member of the Virginia Tech community it makes a big difference to me. I'd like to have the article renamed Virginia Tech Tragedy and have the word 'massacre' replaced by 'tragedy' throughout the majority of the article. It is a matter of semantics, i'll admit, however it changes the emphasis significantly. Massacre places remembrance and emphasis on the act and the attacker. Tragedy places it on the victims and the promises they held before the event occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wings06j ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The New York Yankees played a spring training exhibition game at Virginia Tech in March 2008 to support the university's recovery from the massacre. This game should be mentioned in passing in the article. Source: Newsday article. 71.174.111.205 ( talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This was a very kind act by the New York Yankees baseball club, so I think this should get a section to itself, and include all of the player stats to the game. ( 142.162.88.132 ( talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
That title sounds way too much like this was some kind of surgical miliatary strike in which a group of ragtag people formed a band of rebels in response. This was a school shooting, not a miliatary strike, surely we can think of a less biased word, can't we? Resistance just doesn't sound right. DarthKiley ( talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"The Virginia Tech Review Panel, a state-appointed body assigned to review the incident, criticized Virginia Tech administrators for failing to take action that might have reduced the number of casualties. The panel's report also reviewed gun laws and pointed out gaps in mental health care as well as misinterpretations of privacy laws that left Cho's deteriorating condition in college untreated."
Is it just a coincidence that the article was featured on the anniversary of the shootings, or was it planned to be like this? -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph concludes with mention of a stalking incident and the third paragraph begins with "The incident received...". I suggest starting the third paragraph with "The shooting incident received..." so that the third and fourth paragraphs don't imply that international criticism over a stalking incident led Virginia to relax some law, thereby enabling Cho to buy guns. Or start it with "The stalking incident received..." if that's the way it really happened. "The incident received..." is ambiguous here, given that you were just discussing a different incident.
As a matter of style, I wouldn't start the fourth paragraph with the exact same words as the previous paragraph. Indeed, I'd start the third and fourth paragraphs with "The massacre received..." and the "The shooting prompted..." (respectively); using "incident" tends to reduce this terrible tragedy to something minor and sterile. Not trying to promote any gun agenda here but I know I'd hate to see my son's or daughter's death referred to as an "incident".
Pbyhistorian ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been in the past, with minor fixes to other articles, but this one appeared to have been a battleground; hence the suggestion rather than action. Thanks to the bold one who acted for me!
Pbyhistorian ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to the wikipedists Wiki-en in editions of the same article to inter-wikis, because of course it would be a excellent idea. Some wikipedist agree? Bruno Leonard ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This could do with page numbers for easy verifiability, maybe? And the note in the ref needs to be removed, as it only applies to one cite. Putting "and wounded seventeen" in the lead seems preferable to "many more", leaving the "caused injury to six others as they tried to flee" as an addendum to that, or as a note.
I'd like it if this article were never featured again. It too tempting a target for vandals as it is, featuring it makes it worse. The backwards policy that forbids protecting featured articles made a lot of work for a lot of people yesterday keeping trash out of this article.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I just wanted to publicly thank Sfmammamia, Ronnotel, AlexiusHoratius, Onorem, Dynaflow, Dysepsion, Fvasconcellos, NawlinWiki, and Paul Erik for your efforts yesterday to keep this article free of vandalism. HokieRNB ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
I have changed this to 'episode' to rid this article of the patent POV. Does this really need to be constantly reverted to 'massacre' without any justification. Wikipedia is not here to offer judgement, but to give details and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Static sprinter ( talk • contribs)
There you go. I'll let people decide; I don't want to edit contrary to the general consensus. -- Static sprinter ( talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the deletion discussion for the list of victims, and while merge with the main article was proposed and discussed there, I did not see it closed with consensus to merge the list here. I see that this has been done as a bold edit. I propose we reformat this as sidebars, as was done in the Columbine High School massacre article. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why the list is important in the first place; the entire point is that it is nothing but a memorial, and is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial, being killed by a terrorist doesn't MAKE you notable, and a list of the names of the dead is meaningless to the general populace, adds NO value to the article, and the only possible purpose is a memorial. If someone notable died, then it should be noted inline in the article; otherwise, there is no reason to mention them by name at all, generally. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the overturn discussion was closed with the decision to uphold deletion of the separate article listing the victims. Hence, I've reformatted the lists within this article to mimic the sidebox format used for similar content on the Columbine High School massacre article. I also deleted the Virginia Tech massacre infobox, because it was difficult to find a place in the flow where it would not create a gap at 1024 X 768. Admittedly, the layout isn't perfect, as the Norris Hall list is longer than the flow of text next to it, but perhaps others can improve on this. I think it's an improvement not to have the lists of victims in the main body of the article. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to get community consensus on the inappropriateness of victim lists on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This newly posted news item might need inclusion ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/25/vatech.guns/index.html). If someone who is more familiar with the article could review and consider... 76.24.44.173 ( talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk about unrelated. Want to also talk about the South Korean ambassador speaking at graduation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.54.119 ( talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit by Gregchance324, does this warrant any mention in the article? The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 the Waco siege culminated on April 19, 1993, and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995. Were there any reliable sources that drew any connection between these dates and that of the Virginia Tech massacre? HokieRNB ( talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I like how the list has been integrated into this article and I think it merits inclusion here. However, there are entire articles for some of the specific victims that I do not believe merit inclusion in the encyclopedia as their notability is based entirely on the fact that they were victims of this event. Now that over a year has passed since the event, I would like these articles to be revisited in reference to the notability guidelines by objective eyes. Rooot ( talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
These are the articles that I am talking about:
- Rooot ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why people don't understand that Cho Illegally purchased his guns. He LIED on his ATF form 4473s. The NCIS did not have the information from Virginia to catch his lie. Virginia only changed the law to improve reporting to the NCIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.190.108 ( talk) 04:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
On June 17, 2008, PA Circuit Court Judge Theodore J. Markow approved the $ 11 million amicable settlement with the 24 (of the 32) victims' families to avoid legal battle. However, of the other 8 victims, 2 families chose not to file claims, while 2 remain unresolved. The settlement also covered 18 people injured, who will receive health care needs covered for life The compromise permitted families to be updated on campus security improvements. edition.cnn.com, Virginia Tech families win $11 million settlement from state Families and surviving victims received payments on October, 2007 ($11,500 to $208,000 from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund). ap.google.com, Judge OKs $11M settlement in Va Tech shootings-- Florentino floro ( talk) 10:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on the Virginia Tech page that there isn't any mention at all to the massacre. Did someone remove it as vandalism, or was there some discussion I missed?
L337* P4wn 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks!
L337* P4wn 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention of Prof. Kenneth Westhues study of the shooting and his criticism of the Massengill Report was added to the opening section a few weeks back -- and promptly removed without comment. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Heinrich66
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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
A proposal -- the release of the Virginia Tech review panel's results may call for some refactoring in the response section. In my view, the student response, university response, and government response sections have some overlap that now needs to be dealt with. It seems to me that the university's initial response, or lack thereof, belongs in the university response section. That the students questioned the university response (now in student response section), in my mind minimizes and misplaces this criticism now that the report has said the same thing. While it makes sense that the panel's results appear in the government response section, perhaps there's a logical way to split what is said there with what is said under university response? Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
There was and still is criticism to the way the administration at Virginia Tech improperly handled the incident. I fail to see how a section highlighting how a government institution made mistakes that caused people to be killed could be considered "overkill." I have revised said section to eliminate any POV concerns, as newfound facts originating from government reports generated from initial speculation have proven themselves to be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk) 19:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the point in addressing the University's response if we keep deleting out the fact that Va Tech's own actions prior to the event contributed to allowing Cho to rampage unmolested. Not only is Va Tech VP Hincker criticized in the Panel report for having a cumbersome and unwieldy response system, but prior to the Cho attack he also led VA Tech lobbying efforts with the Virginia General Assembly which resulted in defeat of a proposal to allow concealed carry. I must respectfully disagree with Sfmammamia's continued censorship of Hincker's comments ( "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.") about the defeat of the law that would have allowed concealed carry on campus because it fails to highlight one of the most important lessons to be learned from this tragedy.
It is exactly these attitudes from the university leadership which lead to a false and naive sense of security on the part of the Va Tech administration and which lead to the poor responsiveness to the crisis which is criticized by the panel report. Hincker's comments, as the official position of the university, need representation in this article, either in the "background" section of the political section of the article, in the discussion of the panel report, or elsewhere. Deleting Hincker's comments using brevity as a justification omits important information that is crucial to a full understanding of this story. I ask for further editorial input on this. NDM 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree with your interpretation of the above. Pointing out failures on the part of government or quasi-governmental officials, or governmental policy, although it may be in "hindsight" is never "spiteful", merely democracy in action. I read the panel report, too, and it seems that they, too, fail to see that proposing more paper bans on firearms on campus offer no more protection than existed at the time of the Cho attack. I guess we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past
You are giving government officials a free ride for their past and current mistakes by consigning irrational statements such as Hincker's straight to the Memory Hole. We owe our readers a fuller understanding of such an important issue. Reinstate the quote! NDM 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Other quotes from government officials and others in the article as of today:
"He was well-prepared to continue on," Flaherty testified "Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health" "prematurely concluding that their initial lead in the double homicide was a good one," Governor Kaine rejected the notion, saying that the school officials had "suffered enough" "did not take sufficient action to deal with what might happen if the initial lead proved false" "stir up racial prejudice or confrontation" gun fatalities were "disturbingly common in the United States" "America's deep-rooted and sometimes lethal commitment to its own freedoms" "the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors" And finally: In August 2007, the Virginia Tech review panel report recommended that the state's General Assembly adopt legislation "establishing the right of every institution of higher education to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires"
There is plenty of precedent for using the quote to describe the official position (and the reason therefor) of Virginia Tech University on allowing firearms on its campus. I fail to understand how the quote in question is different from all those listed above. Kevinp2 ( talk) 05:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sfmammamia - I added the quote, unaware if its long history of being added by many different people, and repeatedly removed by you.
The reason that I added the quote is because it shows us that sometimes people make mistakes. In this case, it was a huge mistake.
In my opinion, your repeated removing of the quote is inappropriate. It is clear that there are many people here who believe the quote is an important part of the article.
I aslo think that your removing the quote is exactly like the kind of stuff that was done in George Orwell's book 1984. "Oh, he never said that. It never happened."
I want the quote to be included, and so do many other people. Please stop erasing it.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070830/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_gunman
Now quit making this all about gun control. Rooot 21:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Upon reviewing this particular article's edit history, it's become obvious that a small group of people have become hell bent on turning this open-source column into their own personal project. In the course of doing this they are repeatedly deleting contributions submitted by people outside of the clique in a vain attempt to exhibit mastery and ownership of what was intended to be a widespread collaboration.
Never before in my years of online collaboration have I seen such covetous actions committed in a web2 environment.
Upon the release of the Virginia Tech Panel report to the Governor I saw it fitting to include findings of the study as there had yet to be any mention of it in the article. However, my efforts were swiftly marginalized by individuals seeking to maintain their own delusions of grandeur and ownership of the project.
My additions would find themselves only to be swiftly deleted in such a manner that it was obvious that those undoing my contributions would not have even had time to read what I had written. Those deleting my messages gave me no reasons for doing so other than the report than it being “un-encyclopedic” and “potentially POV.”
Upon revisal of the original text to correct ANY possible POV orientation, I had resubmitted my revised contribution. To my surprise, the improved work lasted less than two minutes on the front page. Clearly this had to be some form of editing error caused by multiple persons working on the document simultaneously. Logically, I would resubmit my addition into the article to circumvent what must have obviously been a mistake.
However, on the resubmit I found that it had not been a simple error but another author deleting my addition under the pretenses of the submitted work not being of a “group consensus.” To this I replied that rather than just deleting new findings posted on the Virginia Tech massacre because of conflicts in how it was written, they should collaborate on what I had already started and get the new information published.
Upon returning the next day, I’ve found that the findings from the new Virginia Tech report have yet to be published onto Wikipedia when I had already done all the background work for the “collaborative editors”…Go Figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, September 1, 2007
So in essence what I have found here is an article about an ongoing event that is impossible to update because a small minority of people feel that their additions are the only ones that matter in a web2 environment…
Seeing that the text that I introduced into the article was straight out of GOVERNOR'S REPORT, I cannot understand how the text could have been seen as an unfair judgment, as it is completely true. Should we in effect remove references to political scandals in the biographies of American presidents because they appear to be "obviously biased?" If this is the case, then Wikipedia should erase all mention of Marilyn Monroe, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinski and the Iraq Invasion from its presidential profiles of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush.
Last time I checked, as long as information is truthful and proven then it doesn't matter if it's "obviously biased." There is a lot of "obviously biased" information published in Encyclopedias as we speak today.
And as far as being "invited to discuss" the matter, If you mean I was invited to discuss the matter with myself as no one gave any coherent responses to my questions in the posts, then I guess you may possibly be technically correct.
As far as being judged by "multiple reviews" I cannot see how this was possible as my postings in the article never lasted longer than five minutes before they were deleted. So I fail to see how it could have been properly evaluated to be of WP standards when the addition was deleted in less time that it would have taken for a significant group of people to properly analyze and review it.
So when you mention "strict editing", you are completely correct as you have proven yourself capable of swiftly deleting all work added into the article that is not your own.
Now I again bring up the issue of WP standards here. One of the primary advantages of WEB2 data is that it is capable of staying more up to date than a traditionally maintained website. The governor's report was released days ago and yet there is still no mention of its results in the article.
The general conclusion of the administrative analysis of the Governor's report on the Virginia Tech massacre was that if the faculty would have reacted better to the initial murders then they would have likely lessened the death toll in the final massacre.
Now what about this finding is so terribly controversial? Two people were murdered on a school campus, the administration elected to keep the campus open for the rest of the day, then the gunman came back and murdered over ten times as many people.
Everyone knows that the administration screwed up, but why are you so afraid to print the details of a government panel that officially confirms it.
I apologize if my wording appeared as if it could have theoretically been remotely biased. However, I do not see how this has any bearing three days after the fact. You acknowledge that you engage in "strict editing" but all you have yet to accomplish is "strict deleting." If you research the simple definition of an Editor, you will find that it is in the job description not to simply remove content that is less than perfect, but to collaborate with the original work and make it so.
So my question to you is how you can call yourself an editor, when you’re only willing to do half of the required job? I've submitted the material to you with all the proper references and citations, but your beef is with the way in which it is worded. A REAL editor would actually fix the wording, not just cover up the facts.
Either you’re trying to cover something up, or you’re just unhappy with the contribution because you didn't draft it up yourself. Which is it?
Personally, I just think it's amusing that my most recent addition to the article was deleted on a Friday night. The idea of a person so absorbed in being an unpaid Wikipedia watchdog as to volunteer for the entire duration of a Friday night leaves me hanging somewhere in the balance between pity and admiration. For the sake of all that is good in this world, I can only hope that you at least allow yourself the luxury of bathroom breaks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.13.244.119 (
talk •
contribs) 19:57, September 2, 2007
The intro includes a sentence beginning with ``Telivision news organization.. which could be replaced with something like ``The VT Review Panel confirmed initial concerns of inaction by the VT administration in failing to adequatly prevent additional deaths by a swift response. 68.175.118.95 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.67.21 ( talk) 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in the second paragraph, citing the VaTech massacre as the "worst" in "modern" history is imprecise and unhelpful. There are several cited sources, mostly news specials that were produced around the time of the massacre, but this superlative is not unchallenged. See, for exmaple: http://www.counterpunch.org/blank05022007.html "Modern" is simply not a helpful adjective here. There was a more deadly shooting in 1921 – does that simply not count?
I submit that a small qualifying statement, something along the lines of "although this is disputed" should be added citing that article (or a similar document) as its source. 208.178.18.134 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I think there's an element of social responsibility here as well. Glorification of the killer's deeds by specifying--highlighting even--the fact that this slaughter was a record killing will certainly inspire others to outdo him. After all, the perpetrators of these crimes tend to be of the web2-savvy age, right? Media hype (wikipedia not excluded) leads to more of these problems, and I wonder if this concern is enough to override the responsibility to faithfully report the truth. In light of Omaha, and seeing what outright fame and notoriety these killers are getting, I think it's only responsible to temper it SLIGHTLY by de-emphasizing the "achievement". Phenylphenol ( talk) 08:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this article is now up for FA again, here is an update from this script:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot ( talk) 05:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a bout of vandalism to this page on September 20th, around 0:35 GMT. The page was blanked several times, and also filled with gibberish. The blanks were reverted by bots, who unfortunately only reverted to the gibberish. I was able to track back to the original article. DevOhm Talk 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There was some more today (april 16), probably because its linked to on the front page. Bongwarrior fixed it very quickly it seems, well done matey. Maybe this page needs to be protected? Its good enough to be feautred, after all, maybe editing of it could be limited to the collaborating people who built it. Captain Crush ( talk) 09:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Columbine High School massacre has very precise details of the shooting, closely following the shooters' actions. Would it be possible for this article to have the same level of detail in the future? Since Wikipedia has a policy against original research, I personally guess that this will depend on how much information is released by the media. -- Ixfd64 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see this attempt at a return to sanity for the list of victims related to this article. Please respond on the other article's talk page. HokieRNB 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
WOW, the results from the Virginia Tech Commission's Governor's Report have finally been posted in the article, and it only took over a month for it to be added in. HOW AMAZING! Especially seeing that what was posted was an incredibly difficult cut&paste from a Reuters news article.
I guess that after placing the first addition mentioning of it in late August, to only see it deleted within five minutes by people that think they own the article, I finally get to see someone else take the initiative to submit what I had already accomplished over a month ago.
Good job Wikipedia Police.
I'm glad to know that your intent on keeping this article so up to date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, October 12, 2007
Umm, no it wasn't as the panel results that I had added were found no where in the article. My additions from the panel's results were the panel's concensus of the University's response to the initial shooting.
No where in the article did it cite Virginia Tech's inaction to the initial shootings as a factor involved in the student deaths that occurred at the second shooting.
Show me a single line in the August 30th version of the article that stated that if Virginia Tech would have better responded to the incident, lives could have been saved. There was no mention of it.
That is my argument.
Although common sense would suggest that when there is a shooting at a state university the governing body should do something to remain en garde untill a perpetrator is identified or more information is found. Instead, it was just business as usual and a couple dozen people wound up dying as a result.
The second shooting only occurred about 3 hours after the first one. It makes me curious what Virginia Tech's policies are toward shooting on campus. How many people have to be shot in order to justify cancelling classes for the day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 October 2007
You make it sound like my addition to the article was VERBATIM to my expressed viewpoint posted in the discussion forumn. Although there was a little room for interpretation to the ORIGINAL version I posted, I had rewritten the text later that day in a way that eliminated potential bias, I find it rediculous that it took a month and a half to insert the same material that I had already completed.
Now, a month and a half after the fact, there is finally information in the article stating the reports findings; that had the Virginia Tech administration responded better to the initial shootings they could have saved lives. That was the finding of the report, theres nothing op-ed about it.
As far as being the only one to complain about the situation, I'm sure the recent bout of lengthy vandalism in this article had nothing to with the voluntarily imposed bureaucracy created by an an annoying few that have nothing better to do with their lives than police Wikipedia on a friday night, lest someone have something to contribute.
Besides, if you really wanted to curb op-ed problems in the article it would be wise to address the ones that are already in the article. The second paragraph of the Politic Response portion of the Gun Politics section is based almost wholly on the opinions of politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 ( talk) 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Where in this article do we still need cleanup or factual verification. The bad tags should be removed.-- Wikiphilia 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Over the course of development of this article, there has been consensus to keep only the most significant of responses in the article and to keep those summaries highly condensed. In keeping with this direction, I have removed the names of the Penn State students involved in the Halloween costume controversy. The incident seems to me to be a case of recentism, and even two sentences on it in the overall context of this article seems like a lot. Other comments? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
strong keep. This information is appropriate for inclusion here. It's in a section covering responses (both supportive and now non-supportive) from other universities and it does qualify as a response. It's inclusion provides balance and fuller coverage. Not everyone lit a candle and said a prayer, some people did things like this and these two got some notoriety for it. The people in question are adults not minors, there is no need for concern about their identity. It's received verifiable, referenceable national media coverage (Google news shows 100+ articles on the topic including an AP story which carried even further). I'd like to see more solid reasons for not including this information before it gets removed. The focus here needs to be on whether this content is notable and verifiable. We need not be concerned about how this event will affect these two students, keeping it out of Wikipedia wont protect their identity, it's already out there in the mainstream media and is well archived for anyone to see. -- Rtphokie ( talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your comments. The item has been removed, reflecting what appears to be the consensus at this point that its inclusion was not warranted, for all the reasons stated above. I'm leaving this comment for others who may arrive at the article later and be tempted to add it back in. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
While I applaud Rooot's recent effort to trim the response section, it has left the section with an awkward layout (at least at 1024X768) and too many images. My candidates for deletion would be the East Carolina University picture and the interior memorial image. Even two images of the campus memorials may be too much -- per WP:LAYOUT, placing images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen is considered poor layout practice. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, these edits are done. I made further moves for flow and to get rid of the bulleted list in the "Other responses" section. Looks better now, I think. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it important to state what South Koreas action was? Just because the person happened to be South Korean? He was provoked by the racist americans, and so they should be apologising for turning a South Korean into a monster instead. I don't see why nationality pays a big deal in this scenario anyway (apart from the fact that it is ALWAYS and ONLY americans that do these shootings) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The South Korea section used to have a part contrasting the lack of reprisals against Koreans in the US to the reprisals against US military personnel by South Koreans after the US military personnel had committed a violent crime. If the reference to warnings about reprisals is included, then so should the statement that no such reprisals happened. User:Ryanluck
I have requested that this article be front paged on April 16th, the one year anniversary of the tragic event. There's no guaranty, of course, but it would seem a fitting tribute. Ronnotel ( talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the article makes no mention of the permanent memorial to the victims of the shooting nor does the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre although the latter does have a photo of the temporary memorial created in the immediate wake of the shooting. As the report of the Commission that was established after the shooting is mentioned it makes sense that the establishment of the permanent memorial to the victims should be mentioned. I didn't just add it since I do think it would mandate creation of a new section that would include all the "long-term results" of the shooting: the report of the Governor's Commission, the memorial, and Virginia Tech's closing for commemoration on the 1st anniversary of the shooting. Wiikiwiiki ( talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
At one time this was a fairly accurate account of 4-16-2007. I was surprised to see how it has been changed. I am not going to correct what has been written. This article certainly should not be referenced.
Springmorning ( talk) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html Virginia Tech Review Panel Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech April 16, 2007 Report of the Review Panel Presented to Governor Kaine Commonwealth of Virginia August 2007
pages 90-92 from the report and compare to what has been written below in Wikipedia
"Norris Hall shootings About two hours after the initial shootings, Cho entered Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program among others, and chained the three main entrance doors shut. He placed a note on at least one of the chained doors, claiming that attempts to open the door would cause a bomb to explode. Shortly before the shooting began, a faculty member found the note and took it to the building's third floor, so as to notify the school's administration. Concurrently, however, Cho had gone to the second floor and began shooting students and faculty; the bomb threat was never called in.[2][13]
Aerial photo showing location of Norris and West Ambler Johnston HallsCho's first attack after entering Norris occurred at an elementary German class, in room 207, taught by instructor Jamie Bishop. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor of Norris 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".[14] Shortly thereafter, Cho entered the class, shooting Bishop without warning, and then commenced shooting students. Sheehan said that only four students in the German class were able to leave the room on their own, two of them injured. The rest were more severely wounded or dead. Following the Norris 207 shooting, Cho moved on to other classrooms, reloading and shooting students and professors in Norris 204, 206, and 211, as well as in the hallway."
Since the Report is public domain and this article is being given featured article status, it should be more at a higher level of accuracy. I just point out the above as one instance. Read the report that I above referenced at the web site I posted. Springmorning ( talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
edit: "West Ambler Johnston shootings" was a resident advisor in West Ambler Johnston Hall. from http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/ryan_christopher_clark.html "and a male resident assistant, Ryan C. Clark" from Wikipedia Springmorning ( talk) 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
edit- "Hokie Spirit monies distributed In October, the university moved to the next stage of a long and difficult healing process by distributing the monies from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to those most profoundly affected by the tragedy of April 16. Spontaneous donations to the university began almost immediately after the shootings on April 16, and by late summer, nearly 21,000 groups, companies, or individuals had contributed. "People sent this money to Virginia Tech and have entrusted to us to do what is right and appropriate," noted Tech President Charles W. Steger.
Checks totaling more than $8.5 million were distributed according to the protocols developed in conjunction with Kenneth Feinberg, administrator of the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund. There were 79 eligible claimants; all applied and will be receiving funds or the equivalent educational tuition. Those disbursements are as follows: $208,000 to each of 32 families; $104,000 to each of 5 individuals; $46,000 to each of 8 individuals; and $11,500 to each of 34 individuals. Some will receive the disbursements over time in the form of free tuition. About $860,000 remains in designated funds created in the early days of the tragedy by the Virginia Tech Foundation, which established memorial funds in the names of the 32 victims. Contributions so designated were deposited in those funds and undesignated monies were deposited in the memorial fund and ultimately included in the distributions." from http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/winter08/news.html Also some families established scholarships or fellowships at VT with money from the HSMF.
from Wikipedia- This is inaccurate. Shortly following the events of April 16, the Virginia Tech Foundation, in conjunction with Hokies United, formed the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund (HSMF) to help remember and honor the victims. The fund is used to cover expenses including, but not limited to: assistance to victims and their families, grief counseling, memorials, communications expenses, and comfort expenses.[61] In early June 2007, the Virginia Tech Foundation announced that US$3.2 million was moved from the HSMF into 32 separate named endowment funds, each created in honor of a victim lost in the shooting. This transfer brought each fund to the level of full endowment, allowing them to operate in perpetuity. The naming and determination of how each fund will be directed is being developed with the victims' families. By early June, donations to the HSMF had reached approximately $7 million.[62] In July 2007, Kenneth R. Feinberg, who served as 'Special Master of the federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, was named to administer the fund's distributions.[63] Springmorning ( talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
On November 17, 2007 there was a pretty cool event on the VT campus where something like 6000 people lined up on the drillfield to spell out the message "VT Thanks You." The event was coordinated by a faculty member in Geography (Peter Sforza) who organized getting everyone lined up on the drillfield, and arranged to have aerial photography collected, and timing the message with an image acquisition by the Ikonos satellite. Maybe it would be worth adding to the VT massacre article (see Event web page and VT recap of the event). Pradtke ( talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving the proposed front page blurb from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests to here so it can get more attention. Aciel has proposed that the blurb strike all mention of Cho by name. Does that fit stylistically? While I'm sensitive to Aciel's motivation, I'm concerned about the text failing under as per WP:POINT. Ronnotel ( talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I also feel strongly that naming the shooter would be incredibly harmful. That is exactly the kind of impact he wanted, and it sends a terrible message to other would-be shooters that their names will not be left out either. Murder should not be rewarded. I would MUCH rather see the names of the victims included in this blurb. State the facts, by all means, but YOU decide what is relevant, and Cho's name is not. The lives he took definitely ARE worth noting. Kira speaks ( talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI to those who were advocating it, the article on Liviu Librescu has failed its first feature article review. I've put in some time on the suggested improvements to the article that came out of that review process, but other comments are beyond my expertise. Those of you who would like to see it featured can still work to improve it and try again. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to be full of stuff which isn't particularly notable, and it makes up a good portion of the article; obviously the discussion on gun law, ect. needs to stay but a lot of the responses (candlelight vigil, ect.) seems extraneous, non-notable, and just to take up space. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Footnote 89 is broken. I will start checking others. Rooot ( talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well,
What do you people think?
88.105.6.0 ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
For those in the BST timezone like in the U.K. who wish to hold a silence at the same time as the fellow Americans; (24-hour style)
I am re-syncing my all of my atomic clocks for these moments.
88.105.10.162 ( talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There were two bomb threats on nearby Torgersen Hall prior to the shootings. One of them was on the Friday 4/13 before the shooting, which was on Monday 4/16. As someone who was evacuated from that building on Friday, I have always been dumbfounded by the complete failure of the media to tie these two events together. The person who made the bomb threat was never discovered. Rumors circulated that writings in Cho's room indicated he had made the threats as a way to test police reactions. A week or two later it was reported parenthetically in some of the papers that the bomb threats weren't related to Cho, but no reasons were ever given for why this was supposed to be the case.
After the Friday bomb threat we were evacuated to Burress Hall to be debriefed by law enforcement. They showed us the bomb threat note and asked us if we noticed anything on it that might be helpful for law enforcement. A Chinese women who worked in the building said she thought the hand-writing looked like something an Asian person would write. Someone asked the obvious question of whether the investigators had checked to see if any exams were being held in the building on the day of the bomb threats, as that would be a good place to start looking for suspects. Their response seemed to suggest that they had not pursued this line of inquiry, and perhaps even thought it irrelevant. Cho had a class in Torgersen.
The issues brought up about problems in the university's handling of Cho before the event seem irrelevant to me. It is a difficult line to walk knowing how best to respect the rights of the mentally ill and protect the safety of the student body. For me, the real issue is what would have happened had the police and administration reacted more effectively in investigating the bomb threats. Hind sight is 20/20, but what if the investigators had checked if anyone who was taking classes in Torgersen had had disciplinary action taken against them for threatening behavior, questioned these students, and checked the handwriting of the Asian student named Cho?
It has been difficult for me to deal with this issue (though nothing remotely like what some folks have had to endure). I think the police behaved heroically during the shootings. Raising the issue of their possible mistakes or oversights, or those of the administration is taboo here, so I've learned to keep quiet about my concerns. Still, I can't help wondering, "What if?" and am frustrated by the fact that the press and state review panel haven't explored these events sufficiently or, if they have, that they haven't shared what they learned effectively with the public. I wish someone could answer my questions!
24.127.47.61 ( talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)A Concerned Hokie
Hokie United, a group composed mostly of VT student, planned and executed the vigil, including getting candles and cups donated, preparing said candles and cups and coordinating all the equipment. This belongs under the student response section, not the university response section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogdahlt ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Article will be on the front page in a few short hours. Now would be a good time for any last minute nits to be picked. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that was fun. Thanks everyone who pitched in on vandal patrol. Ronnotel ( talk) 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article not included on the Virginia Tech Template? That seems like a pretty important omission.
Neelix ( talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else brought up the idea that MAYBE it might be a bad idea to list this as a featured article? I wonder how many other mentally disturbed people like that man might think "Wow, I might even get a featured article out of doing something like this!"
Isn't NOT reporting massively in depth (or many week reporting) what the media generally has decided to do in MOST school shootings since Columbine? The uber massive media saturation of Columbine potentially caused copycats (hell.. columbine is practically a VERB in many threatening letters and diaries of unbalanced kids). I remember seeing a Time magazine or something like that with several pages dedicated to floor plans and timelines in the weeks after that event..
Just a thought.
Cs302b (
talk) 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cs302b - the ancient greeks tried what you propose over 2000 years ago. It doesn't work. Raul654 ( talk) 04:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be this underlying assumption that the media and merely 'mentioning' this sort of thing would CAUSE these incidents to happen. Research at most shows a correlation of aggressive media and aggressive people, but no definite answers on if it actually CAUSES it. Did the aggressive person like watching aggressive shows (thus choose to watch them more often) or did watching these shows make the person aggressive? Could it be these disturbed individuals were actively searching for these articles or they come across this article and that helped them decide to do it? No one can tell. Correlation is not causation. Objectively, there is no definite answer. Just my two cents. Do you know? ( talk) 06:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Virginia Tech has indeed been a focal point for discussing journalism ethics. While there are some instances where journalists self-censor, this isn't one of them. (if we instead drew the line at "normal article okay, but featured bad", under that sort of thinking, suddenly a large number of small details would have to be considered for culling) -- Underpants ( talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should add a couple of sentences somewhere regarding the various activities today designed to mourn the one-year anniversary of the event? There are various news articles covering these events today. Remember ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This may be a small point to some, but as a member of the Virginia Tech community it makes a big difference to me. I'd like to have the article renamed Virginia Tech Tragedy and have the word 'massacre' replaced by 'tragedy' throughout the majority of the article. It is a matter of semantics, i'll admit, however it changes the emphasis significantly. Massacre places remembrance and emphasis on the act and the attacker. Tragedy places it on the victims and the promises they held before the event occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wings06j ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The New York Yankees played a spring training exhibition game at Virginia Tech in March 2008 to support the university's recovery from the massacre. This game should be mentioned in passing in the article. Source: Newsday article. 71.174.111.205 ( talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This was a very kind act by the New York Yankees baseball club, so I think this should get a section to itself, and include all of the player stats to the game. ( 142.162.88.132 ( talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
That title sounds way too much like this was some kind of surgical miliatary strike in which a group of ragtag people formed a band of rebels in response. This was a school shooting, not a miliatary strike, surely we can think of a less biased word, can't we? Resistance just doesn't sound right. DarthKiley ( talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"The Virginia Tech Review Panel, a state-appointed body assigned to review the incident, criticized Virginia Tech administrators for failing to take action that might have reduced the number of casualties. The panel's report also reviewed gun laws and pointed out gaps in mental health care as well as misinterpretations of privacy laws that left Cho's deteriorating condition in college untreated."
Is it just a coincidence that the article was featured on the anniversary of the shootings, or was it planned to be like this? -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph concludes with mention of a stalking incident and the third paragraph begins with "The incident received...". I suggest starting the third paragraph with "The shooting incident received..." so that the third and fourth paragraphs don't imply that international criticism over a stalking incident led Virginia to relax some law, thereby enabling Cho to buy guns. Or start it with "The stalking incident received..." if that's the way it really happened. "The incident received..." is ambiguous here, given that you were just discussing a different incident.
As a matter of style, I wouldn't start the fourth paragraph with the exact same words as the previous paragraph. Indeed, I'd start the third and fourth paragraphs with "The massacre received..." and the "The shooting prompted..." (respectively); using "incident" tends to reduce this terrible tragedy to something minor and sterile. Not trying to promote any gun agenda here but I know I'd hate to see my son's or daughter's death referred to as an "incident".
Pbyhistorian ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been in the past, with minor fixes to other articles, but this one appeared to have been a battleground; hence the suggestion rather than action. Thanks to the bold one who acted for me!
Pbyhistorian ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to the wikipedists Wiki-en in editions of the same article to inter-wikis, because of course it would be a excellent idea. Some wikipedist agree? Bruno Leonard ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This could do with page numbers for easy verifiability, maybe? And the note in the ref needs to be removed, as it only applies to one cite. Putting "and wounded seventeen" in the lead seems preferable to "many more", leaving the "caused injury to six others as they tried to flee" as an addendum to that, or as a note.
I'd like it if this article were never featured again. It too tempting a target for vandals as it is, featuring it makes it worse. The backwards policy that forbids protecting featured articles made a lot of work for a lot of people yesterday keeping trash out of this article.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I just wanted to publicly thank Sfmammamia, Ronnotel, AlexiusHoratius, Onorem, Dynaflow, Dysepsion, Fvasconcellos, NawlinWiki, and Paul Erik for your efforts yesterday to keep this article free of vandalism. HokieRNB ( talk) 13:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
I have changed this to 'episode' to rid this article of the patent POV. Does this really need to be constantly reverted to 'massacre' without any justification. Wikipedia is not here to offer judgement, but to give details and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Static sprinter ( talk • contribs)
There you go. I'll let people decide; I don't want to edit contrary to the general consensus. -- Static sprinter ( talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read the deletion discussion for the list of victims, and while merge with the main article was proposed and discussed there, I did not see it closed with consensus to merge the list here. I see that this has been done as a bold edit. I propose we reformat this as sidebars, as was done in the Columbine High School massacre article. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why the list is important in the first place; the entire point is that it is nothing but a memorial, and is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial, being killed by a terrorist doesn't MAKE you notable, and a list of the names of the dead is meaningless to the general populace, adds NO value to the article, and the only possible purpose is a memorial. If someone notable died, then it should be noted inline in the article; otherwise, there is no reason to mention them by name at all, generally. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the overturn discussion was closed with the decision to uphold deletion of the separate article listing the victims. Hence, I've reformatted the lists within this article to mimic the sidebox format used for similar content on the Columbine High School massacre article. I also deleted the Virginia Tech massacre infobox, because it was difficult to find a place in the flow where it would not create a gap at 1024 X 768. Admittedly, the layout isn't perfect, as the Norris Hall list is longer than the flow of text next to it, but perhaps others can improve on this. I think it's an improvement not to have the lists of victims in the main body of the article. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to get community consensus on the inappropriateness of victim lists on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This newly posted news item might need inclusion ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/25/vatech.guns/index.html). If someone who is more familiar with the article could review and consider... 76.24.44.173 ( talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk about unrelated. Want to also talk about the South Korean ambassador speaking at graduation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.54.119 ( talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit by Gregchance324, does this warrant any mention in the article? The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 the Waco siege culminated on April 19, 1993, and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995. Were there any reliable sources that drew any connection between these dates and that of the Virginia Tech massacre? HokieRNB ( talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I like how the list has been integrated into this article and I think it merits inclusion here. However, there are entire articles for some of the specific victims that I do not believe merit inclusion in the encyclopedia as their notability is based entirely on the fact that they were victims of this event. Now that over a year has passed since the event, I would like these articles to be revisited in reference to the notability guidelines by objective eyes. Rooot ( talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
These are the articles that I am talking about:
- Rooot ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why people don't understand that Cho Illegally purchased his guns. He LIED on his ATF form 4473s. The NCIS did not have the information from Virginia to catch his lie. Virginia only changed the law to improve reporting to the NCIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.190.108 ( talk) 04:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link 216.153.214.89 ( talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
On June 17, 2008, PA Circuit Court Judge Theodore J. Markow approved the $ 11 million amicable settlement with the 24 (of the 32) victims' families to avoid legal battle. However, of the other 8 victims, 2 families chose not to file claims, while 2 remain unresolved. The settlement also covered 18 people injured, who will receive health care needs covered for life The compromise permitted families to be updated on campus security improvements. edition.cnn.com, Virginia Tech families win $11 million settlement from state Families and surviving victims received payments on October, 2007 ($11,500 to $208,000 from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund). ap.google.com, Judge OKs $11M settlement in Va Tech shootings-- Florentino floro ( talk) 10:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed on the Virginia Tech page that there isn't any mention at all to the massacre. Did someone remove it as vandalism, or was there some discussion I missed?
L337* P4wn 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks!
L337* P4wn 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention of Prof. Kenneth Westhues study of the shooting and his criticism of the Massengill Report was added to the opening section a few weeks back -- and promptly removed without comment. Heinrich66 ( talk) 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Heinrich66