![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Please help us keep this article discussion manageable and readable. Look at the header index and see if there is already a conversation going related to the topic you want to bring up. If you have a question, it may already have been answered. Please sign your posts. Please use colons to put the appropriate number of tabs before your post so that we can avoid creating an indecipherable sea of text (suggest going from 0-5 and then starting over at 0). If you start a new heading, please give it a clear title. Titles like "?" say nothing. Thanks. -- Dynaflow 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking that we make the main picture a picture of the actual event, whether it be students being carried out, or SWAT teams responding, I think it needs to be changed Tyhart87 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I keep attempting to add in the following quote airing frustration with the controversy over VaTech officials' response to the early morning incident:
They could have prevented most of this...shooting at 730 in WAJ, classes don't start til 8, why couldn't they cancel classes for the day...SOMEONE WAS SHOT AND IT TURNS OUT THEY DIED...I THINK THATS GROUNDS TO CANCEL CLASS RATHER THAN SENDING OUT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS USE CAUTION AND REPORT ANYTHING TO POLICE. They could have save almost 20 lives and 20 injuries if they just decided to cancel class right away.
does anyone else agree with me?
to me, "student response" implies a kind of umbrella summary rather than long tracts from individual students. W guice 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Who went back and put "suicide" back in the infobox? It has not been determined if the gunman killed himself. I'm removing the tag. - -- Bdj95 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Kaine was supposedly heading for India. Where specifically? -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
After "two people were killed and up to four others wounded" they don't even close down campus stop all classes and send everyone away? Classes were still in progress when the 2nd shooting occured, can someone confirm?
Did they even stop classes, or classes went on as usual? Nothing too extreme happened only 2 dead 4 wounded. Did they send those who were on campus away/home? The article currently states classes were even in progress when the shooter found the students conveniently gathered in a class room.
Obviously we discuss this so as to determine if this should be mentioned in the article. The press conference was full of questions about the inaction and mistakes of campus police and leadership.
This was a huge screw-up. There's no other way to spin it. I see some resignations on the horizon, but by all means, wait and see. Nothing will protect them from the media frenzy that is sure to follow in the coming days. MoodyGroove 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Some interesting details:
Fickman 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Officers reached second floor, gunshots stopped. No interaction between police and shooter; shooter had killed himself prior to police arrival.
Preliminary ID not released, though police think they know the shooter's information. They will not even state if the shooter was a student or not.
27 lead, 15 infobox, 28 timeline. Suggest we give a range in all places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yah, you forgot a redirct. Put one on or I'll revert bot this. 165.95.24.12 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: thanks for the redirect
http://asherheimermann.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-shooting/
Is this any good? LABand 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/7050467.html
Local Student Among Dead at Va Tech 4:30 PM Apr 16, 2007
Ryan Clark of Martinez is one of the 31 victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, according to Columbia County Coroner Vernon Collins.
Clark is believed to have been shot in the first string of shootings that occurred in a dormitory.
Clark is the son of Stan and Lettie Clark of Old Petersburg Road. He has a twin brother.
An autopsy will be performed, but because of the high number of victims, it may take days to complete.
-- Jake7457 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any good can come from merging it. Any objections to just removing the tag? -- BigDT 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to this page? ( → Netscott) 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen, can you please explain why you just removed my edit and the entire discussion about why some of us feel the statement “deadliest civilian shooting in U.S. history” is hyperbolic and inaccurate?
There have definitely been worse "civilian" shootings before (arguably to the point of genocide) in this country--just think the Wounded Knee Massacre or the Sand Creek Massacre. No way is this the "deadliest civilian" shooting...I merely changed it to "deadliest school shooting rampage in U.S. history." I was sure someone would change it back again, but I don’t see a good explanation here about why we’re insisting on this subjective statement. Efrafra 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is "rampage" really necessary? Chunky Rice 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, both of those were carried about by the military, not civilians. Chunky Rice 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should note that this is a masserce by a civilian that is also against civilians. Military, civil strife events, like
Kent State or by police like
Haymarket would be a different context.--
Dudeman5685
23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Any ranking of the "worst shooting in American history" should include the Mountain Meadows massacre in 1857. While that mass murder was not limited to shootings, the death toll of 100 to 140 is higher than that of the Virginia Tech massacre. Quasar2112 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some excess claims are being made in the article. Bath was more people killed in a mass killing at a school (by a bomb) and Mountain Meadows was more civilians skhot by civilians. Perhaps qualify this as the "Largest U.S. school shooting. " Edison 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep this consistant. Just because the "news" is reporting it as the worst does not make it so. Be careful of wording. In the article it can be specified that it is the worst "school" massacre, or "shooting." But if it's a "massacre" than it is the Bath School event (refers to one killer and at a school), where he killed 48 people including himself and his wife the day before. Also it was at a "school" and goes on to mention other killings not school related. Make it clear either by one person, or by shooting, etc. Keep consistant such as massacre by shooting by a civilian, etc. Again, you cannot rely on news reports, trust me, they most often get something WRONG just about every time. Jeeny 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The news reports from the major outlets have generally added a qualifier that it's the worst domestic civilian shooting in "modern U.S. history," which I would take to exclude 19th century massacres of native peoples. Perhaps we could add language like that? Bjackrian 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been much debate on the use of "2007" and "Massacre" in the title, but what about at least using a capital "S" in the title. i.e. Virginia Tech Shootings as opposed to the current Virginia Tech shootings. Whether or not there was a prior shooting on the campus last year, this is clearly going to be known as the definitive Virginia Tech Shooting forever. I believe it is a large enough story to warrant the capital "S". Bluefield 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.97.117.154 ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Why is the comma (shown between the "<here>" notations) not showing as a comma in the article?:
"|caption=[[Virginia Tech campus|Norris Hall]] |location=[[Blacksburg, Virginia|Blacksburg]]<here>,</here> [[Virginia]], [[United States]]"
John Stattic 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to post something up, but it didn't work. First, I want to say that the weapons the gunman used should be removed. Wikipedia is not a site that is supposed to report suspicion, and until things are confirmed, we can not put things based on rumor. Therefore, the guns the shooter used should be removed. Secondly, I have found articles stating that after the first shooting, the University confirmed that police had arrested a suspect. Any other confirmation on this? Any news on this? Did anyone else find this odd in their research? I think this is article is going to be more like a news channel than an encyclopedia article until we get more news. I propose removing the weapons until we have confirmation. WiiAlbanyGirl 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading trough the Collegiate Times website I've also found a claim that there is one individual in custody. What I've also found weird, is that there are two entries that state that three persons were handcuffed in-situ by the police, and carried out of Norris Hall. Has anyone find some more information about this fact? -- Legion fi 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNrBd4kKMg unimatrix 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
How would they have claims to it? The student has full copyright who shot it.
Just saw the student that shot the CNN video. Jamal Albargouthi (I am not sure of the corect spelling of his last name), palestinian grad student captured the CNN video.
Dreammaker182
00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jamal Albarghouti, a Palastenian grad. student at VT, shot the cell phone video. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.witness/index.html Dreammaker182 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The video was submitted to CNN via their I-Report forum... here's a link to the upload page with user agreement. Under the agreement, CNN reserves the right to edit and telecast the submitted material under international license. I would guess that Albarghouti has some rights reserved but not all... upload page with agreement: http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/breaking.news.html#terms Dreammaker182 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of making the article better, shouldn't we rank this massacre/shooting (whichever the consensus goes with) not just against other incidents in the US, but also worldwide? Is this the deadliest school shooting/massacre worldwide or just in the US? Where does it rank worldwide? Ikilled007 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this page because anons and new users keep adding a name which may or may not be that of the shooter. Until an actual news source (no, not FARK) has confirmed this posting the name is libelous and the revisions that contain it will be deleted. Please revert any such addition as soon as you see it and let me or someone else listed at WP:OVERSIGHT#Users with Oversight permissions know at once. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to include that this was delayed? It doesn't really add anything to the article. Chunky Rice 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Until the article becomes a lot longer than it is, I see no non-political reason for removing a single sentence concerning how the event led to the postponement of a widely-anticipated political hearing in which the fate of a top Administration official hangs in the balance. However, if you are determined to delete that sentence on the basis of relevance, I am going to delete all the other politician responses as well. Ribonucleic 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, this article isn't exactly groaning under its own weight at the moment. If (when) it gets a lot longer, I'd say all the political responses would be reasonable things to jettison. But in the meantime, the delay of the Gonzales hearing is a lot more relevant than the White House "reportedly monitoring the story". Why, I thought keeping on top of the news was sort of, you know, their job. Ribonucleic 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems overtly political - lots of things were delayed today because of this. Why not talk about what TV shows were pre-empted. The sentence with the President's response to the massacre is shorter than the Gonzales "context"! James 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
CNN and other channels are speaking firstly about 29 injured and there was EVEN a hospital speaker said they brought 17 victims to their hospital and 12 people to other hospitals (2 of them seriously wounded). But than again, they are now speaking of 15 injured at the second scene and 4 injured in the first incident. It is also possible that some of the injured died during the reports. So how many injured are there now, does anyone know that?? ColdCase 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we do. The numbers for injuries seem to be all over the map. I've been removing statements that there are 29 confirmed injured, since that doesn't appear to be the case, as far as I can tell. I don't want to run into 3RR, though. Is this okay? Chunky Rice 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't removed it from the info box ;) But I think that's fine how it is... the info box statement has a source given for the numbers 15 and 29 and shows that there is still confusion about that! 15 are given for the northern building, 4 are given for the southern building, so it should be 19 anyway... but you see... confusing... it's somewhere between 15 and 29... just leave the info box as it is and I think we can live with the rest ;) ColdCase 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't contest that there have been reports that 29 people have been injured. That's certainly true. It's just that combining the number with the word "confirmed" or "at least" that I object to. Chunky Rice 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Found a myspace VT link with a list of many victims names. Can I assume it would be incredibly irresponsible to put the link, even though it seems very sincere? -- Elg26 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no "list" of shooting victims. As far as I know, already 3 victims have been confirmed by the media. -- Shivreddy 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was this section I just added deleted? I had a quote from a prominent Canadian MP?-- Rob NS 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But it is too soon to poll on this... let's have discussion first and then if necessary go the polling route. (
→
Netscott)
18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But I dont have an opinion (but am following the article, of course), SqueakBox 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ruhe1986 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I just think it sounds much more appropriate and respectful, so what do you guys think? Effer 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody finds it odd that the corresponding articles in Czech, Danish, Spanish, French, Finnish, Portuguese and Swedish all have the word "massacre" in their titles? Óðinn 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, CNN is now headlining the story as a massacre, its silly that its still being described as a shooting here.
CBS News tonight called it a "Massacre". Wahkeenah 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've put in a formal move request for this article, to Virginia Tech massacre. A section with this title is requested by the move template. Again, it is referred to as "massacre" on Wikipedia's Main Page as well as foreign language Wikipedias, not to mention available reliable sources. There is no merit to calling this "shootings" over "massacre" whatsoever. Italiavivi 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
if by the off chance there is another shoting at virginia tech. we can just redirect it then, but for now i don't think we need a date, the Columbine page doesn't have a date.- Three ways round 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the page (you've probably all noticed) - it seems there's pretty solid consensus here for a move and it's going to be the most likely phrase to be searched under going by the coverage in the media. Any problems, you all know where you can shout at me. -- Nick t 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mass shooting" or "Rampage" as a way of avoiding the news media's consensus "Massacre" as a euphemistic title is right up there with calling World War 2 "The Recent Unpleasantness." Edison 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this article really need an infobox? It seems to me that having one is sensationalist in nature, almost as if we are "keeping score". Does anyone share my sentiment? If so, I want to propose a keep/remove vote on the matter. -- Mrpaco 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in all of this the entirety of the page was copied over so it all appears twice, except for new comments. How to sort it all out? -- Yksin 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, with all due respect, this is Wiki"pedia". As Zeppelin462 said, the talk page is here for this kind of stuff. -- Wjmoore17 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this article is NOT documenting a current event but a past event! On the other hand, information is still changing quickly. I think the current template isn't correct. Any idea how we can change that? I suggested {{ currentevent | article is about a past incident that is still under investigation. That is why it}} but it was removed again a few minutes later by another user. That's ok with me as long as we find some solution. It simply isn't a current event! ColdCase 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a planned day of silence soon to honor those who died? ZombieSlayer54 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this talk page sprotected? Zyxwvutsrqp 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is the appropriate template for sprotect? It should appear at the top of this talk page. template:pp-semi-vandalism or template:sprotected? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
People who insist on stating a name which might not be the killer can find a blog somewhere. We must follow WP:BLP. There has been at least one other person who was named as the bad guy and got tens of thousands of death threats from people with questionable logic. When the police release a name will be an appropriate time to discuss it here. Edison 06:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone place some stats comparing this shooting to other shootings at universities? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I just heard on the radio that a progun group said that if one of the students had a handgun that he could have shot the gunman and saved lives. Armed college students. What an great idea. I bet others are calling for stricter gun laws. Should this be talked about here? Babalooo 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think its interesting to note that the gun man had only pistols. I beleive that the columbine shootings included submachine guns? I think it shows that its not the gun, its the shooter. I'm guessing an Asian man with an assualt rifle but no gun training might kill less than this shooter who seems to know how to use the guns. -- AGruntsJaggon 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this whole section should go. Not encyclopedic at all. Purely speculative, regardless of which side of the issue you come down on -- arming students or banning anything from shoe laces to bubble gum wrappers if they can be used as weapons on campus. Ikilled007 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems a little inflamatory to me, as in "shooting rampage." Wouldn't something like "incident" be better? I've already take it out a couple times, so I just want to see if there's any consensus on this. Chunky Rice 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Who erased it? Why? Should I post the whole email? Babalooo 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I say that the article should tell us enough as readers that we can make up our own minds about if it was. As facts become clear, we should put some focus on what was and was not done by university administration and police in the hours after the first 9-1-1 call was made. Dnklu 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is a neutral encyclopedia, and promoting a point of view of irresponsibility on behalf of the college administration would be against policy. Nishkid 64 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that there was an image request, so
check out this news webpage from the CBS station KDKA in Virginia, which has some good photos I believe.
Cliff smith
23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the school massacres list, it seems as though this is the largest massacre in the world (besides things happening in wars, and independence movements). Is that right? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In any circumstance, for shooting massacres, see Port Arthur in Tasmania. MojoTas 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Im suprised that this article keeps on stressing that the perpetraters identity is not yet known, but can anyone quote any reliable source saying it wasn't more thatn one shooter, because when refering to the perpetrators this article keeps using singular forms of words,implying one shooter. Rodrigue 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on how many fatalities should be listed. I'm supporting listing it as 32 (33 including the perpetrator) in the infobox. This is the same way Columbine High School massacre has the fatalities listed in their infobox, differentiating between fatalities of the attack and total people killed. I think we should differentiate between victims of the attack and the killer. The fatalities of the attack are listed by all the major outlets as 32, the killer isn't a victim of the attack as he was the cause. This tracks with what happened at Columbine as well. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to the silly warning in the article ("Anyone changing this without consensus on the talk page WILL be blocked."), I'm suggesting it here first: "32 (33 including the perpetrator)" should be simplified to "33 including the perpetrator".-- Eloquence * 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the warning. anthony 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I like college football to much, but should massacres be ranked in terms of influence on the surrounding culture? This may deserve a top 5 spot, but there are a lot of other competitors, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the Columbine Massacre, Jonestown Massacre, Luby's Massacre, and what I think deserves the top spot, the Boston Massacre, even if only 5 people died. Undoubtable the deaths of innocent people tend to spark a new mode of thought for the public and reflectively are seen as the peaks of conflict and turmoil, unrest and change in their respective societies. I also have questions about the policy on not putting any descriptions of the killer on this talk page or the article itself. Is there an actual policy against this sort of thing (if there is there should be a link) or if there isn't, this makeshift rule should be abolished. I actually don't understand why it's not appropriate to atleast say "many news sources have reported the killer to be and Asian fellow in his twenties, and more specific reports point to a 24 years old Chinese man" (or something of the source, as most sources unaminously report it in that manner). Not specifying any rules here will lead to confusion (I am certain, as it already has in me) of the restrictive and currently very unfree encyclopedia, Wikipedia. So if anyone can cite an actual rule, please do so.-- Porsche997SBS 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the 'naming convention' section of Wikiproject: Disaster management (link above) this artice should (when the time is right) have a 2007 before the rest. So the title would be "2007 Virginia Tech shooting/massacre" (whichever is decided).
Just though I'd mention that before it is moved to "Virginia Tech massacre" or whatever, in order to avoid successive moves, and to provide more clairity to those viewing the article. TheGoogle 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here is a link to the naming conventions page, however it does little to help. [25] it states that it is a "soft rule" and if there is another appropriate name it could be named that also. So in other words its your choice, but it would be good to follow precident. TheGoogle 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a picture of Norris Hall, I think would be useful but I lack the skill to place it in, and to not mess up this page in all of the chaos, could someone add it?
http://www.eng.vt.edu/cgep/images/norris_map.jpg
Thanks, GloomySunday 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
it's a good picture, but is it ok to use? the site doesn't say where it came from.- Three ways round 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are maps on several news websites. Can we claim fair use on any? -- Kizor 08:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe we should take out the part about the shooter looking for his girlfreind until we can source it. The part that says he quarreled with his girlfreind is fine (it is sourced), but since the shooter is dead his intentions may not ever be known.
peace out- Three ways round 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
well someone got ride of them ether way.- Three ways round 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, it's in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17virginia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us "Students said a gunman had gone room to room looking for his ex-girlfriend. He killed a woman and a male student at the residence hall, identified as Ryan Clark, a senior from Augusta, Ga." I still don't feel comfortable enough to put it in myself, but if someone else wants to there's a somewhat reliable source. anthony 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This statement: "An ATF source recently told NBC that the gunman was not a Virginia Tech student." needs a source. Natalie 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
i did a quick search of the ATF website and couldn't find anything. Not sure if that helps any.- Three ways round 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the most recent (7:30ish) press conference, the Campus Police Chief stated that they had NOT yet decided if the two incidents were related. ATF was looking at the ballistics. They had identified a "person of interest" based on witness accounts of the first incident, who they had questioned and released. It was *not* the same person as the dead shooter from the later incident. They said this person was still a "person of interest". The Wiki article is currently written as if the same shooter was in both locations. I think the article needs to be adjusted to be careful not to assume both locations were the work of the same shooter, odd as that may seem, though of course it may turn out that they are. -- Stargirl7 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the article stating that the two shootings are related, however, the article is written as though they are (referring to shooter in singular, etc.). From reading this talk page it seems that the police have in fact said that the two shootings are related (I guess they were able to match bullets?). This needs to be in the article if so. If not, there needs to be a lot of rewriting. anthony 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[Merged with heading "unrelated incidents?" below]
Both the Roanoke Times and National Public Radio have reported that the police are talking with a "person of interest" in the dorm shootings, & that it is not yet known with certainty (at least not in anything they're telling the press) whether the two shootings are related, or the relationship if any between the "person of interest" and the gunman at Norris Hall. In fact, NPR says the "person of interest" was being interviewed by police at the time the Norris Hall shootings began -- which is part of what apparently led Virginia Tech authorities to believe the situation was resolved. I have already integrated info from the Roanoke Times into the article, but haven't done the NPR addition yet. -- Yksin 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please create a section to direct people where to go for counseling and emotional support. I know the U has some resources available and I think it would be good to have them listed on the wikipedia page. Also, it might be nice to have a wiki page for people who want to say something, vent, ask for help, or communicate with each other to help in the healing process. If someone wants to make something like that, please also post the URL on this page to facilitate the dialog and the recovery process. Thanks Ethicalhacker 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that someone would create a wiki for them, not necessarily on wikipedia proper. Thanks SqueakBox for the info about the first ref. Perhaps a temporary banner at the top of the page directing people to the appropriate resources would be more appropriate.
The basic problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Virginia_Tech_massacre&oldid=123405056 contains speculation; this is not encouraged by WP standards. It also presents somewhat conflicting information with the section itself: the section starts with a basic 'we don't know whom it is at this time' but yet ends with a remarkably detailed speculation on the background of this person. See the problem?
WP is not here to speculate on things; it is here to document things. Yes, the Sun Times may be a reliable source and it may soon be verified. But right now, we have no independent way of confirming their report from better sources (e.g. official). It would perhaps be best to just wait a little longer -- as an encyclopedia, we do have the luxury of time to wait a little for fast-moving events to resolve themselves more fully. It helps the quality of the article that way. I'm not going to redo the removal as I'm not interested in edit warring. If someone else agrees, go for it. If not, I'll live with it. Cheers, Dsf 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of victims was removed here [27]. This should probably be discussed, because it seems like the kind of thing people are going to want to keep adding back.-- W.marsh 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There's precedent for including a list of victims, but I don't think it should be like a deathwatch, where names are added individually. I think it should stay off until a complete list is available, then it should be discussed here first. As a corrolary, IMO it's not our concern whether or not the 'shooter' is 'more famous' than the victims; we're not here to promote or suppress notoriety. Anchoress 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a sourced list of who was killed is kosher. Not for memorial purposes but for record. Piecemeal adding is ok as long as it is sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
What about a list of the wounded as well? I know of several people in many interviews that were shot and giving interviews from either the hospital or were released and giving interviews near or around the campus. -- Zib 08:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal with chains? were they on doors or not? The article says nothing about chains, but the news says doors were chained and padlocked. MPS 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding historical context for this article, I think you have to go back to the Indian Massacre of 1622 along the James River which occured almost 400 years ago to find a worse mass murder which has occurred in Virginia, outisde of War, and I think the 1622 incident it qualifies as a mass murder, since that was not during a period of official war.
I am too close to this to write NPOV at this time. While I don't think the Indian massacre of 1622 as an act of war, is was certainly part of an ongoing conflict, and is apparently not similar in that respect. Other writers can decide how or if to use that comparison. I am bowing out, and will read the work of others. Vaoverland 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Theres also Nat Turner's slave rebellion that was in Virginia which killed hundred, but I don't think its nesaccary to note in the article.-- Coasttocoast 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A reference for the Port Arthur Massacre is here: The Queen v. Martin Bryant, In the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, Held at Number 7 Court, Salamnaca Place, Hobart, On Tuesday the 19th Day of November, 1996 [29] 203.10.224.58 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reduced the importance rating within the Virginia WikiProject to high importance. As tragic and as shocking as this is, this does not warrant top importance (it can't be more important than History of Virginia, James Monroe, John Marshall...not to mention Virginia...). It's a shoo-in for high importance. I have also gone in and reduced Capital One's importance as well, as that should not be top importance either. -- Core desat 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone would like to add a ribbon to their user page, you can use {{ Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{ administrator}} icon) or you can add Image:Orange and maroon ribbon.svg anywhere you would like. -- BigDT 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no list of victims. The media has already confirmed 3.-- Shivreddy 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you -- Shivreddy 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It says the first victim was the shooter's girlfriend in the "First Shooting, West Ambler Johnston Hall Dormitory" section. It is not said in the article that supports it, I believe, nor has it been confirmed...I haven't heard any of that yet. Does anybody have a supporting article about the first victim actually being his girlfriend?
205.233.153.29
12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering what the point of having a link in the article Ryan Clark (victim) that simply redirects to the same article is, unless someone was going to create an article, and it doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Xcfrommars 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on an arbcom ban for pushing Brit spelling and even I recognise that we should stick to US spelling in this article. But do make sure the grammar is understandable to we non-Americans, SqueakBox 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the addition of John McCain's gun control policies really relevant/necessary in this article? Plus, the place in which it was put makes it look like a political message is trying to be conveyed. Apolloae 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed it. -- BigDT 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So? I'm sure Rush Limbaugh probably talked about the tragedy too. I don't care what he said, either. -- BigDT 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure someone asked him the question and he answered it. I seriously doubt John McCain called up a reporter and said, "hey, let's talk about gun control"! But regardless of the context of the conversation, he is a senator from the other side of the country not in a leadership position. His opinion about gun control is completely and totally irrelevant to this topic. -- BigDT 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Government response" is not the same as "political candidates' response". -- FOo 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It would make sense that commentary by those directly involved in this incident and that of notable people - where notable is defined in the context of greater history rather than just notable today - is valid. In that context, I believe comments by the Queen of England and other heads of state around the world are appropriate for inclusion while McCain's comments may not be as appropriate. On the other hand, he is a Senator, so . . . at what point do we define what political or government representatives are appropriate for inclusion and which are not? Or would quotes from those other than the most notable be more appropriate for addition to the Wikiquotes project, instead? Cordell 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to a question on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said the tragedy at Virginia Tech did not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon. [1]
This is the removed text in case we want to put it back. futurebird 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is entirely inappropriate to semi-protect a talk page for so long. This is a quite draconian and exclusionary policy to enact due to the actions of only a few users. It represents the continuation of a frightening trend of closure on Wikipedia. Tfine80 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Only 5 or 10 minutes ago someone added the facebook profile of some kid, identifying it as the shooter. That account has been blocked, but everyone of those potentially libelous edits have to be oversited. I'm fine with keeping thing sprotected until the shooter and victims' names are released from an official source. Natalie 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Please help us keep this article discussion manageable and readable. Look at the header index and see if there is already a conversation going related to the topic you want to bring up. If you have a question, it may already have been answered. Please sign your posts. Please use colons to put the appropriate number of tabs before your post so that we can avoid creating an indecipherable sea of text (suggest going from 0-5 and then starting over at 0). If you start a new heading, please give it a clear title. Titles like "?" say nothing. Thanks. -- Dynaflow 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking that we make the main picture a picture of the actual event, whether it be students being carried out, or SWAT teams responding, I think it needs to be changed Tyhart87 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I keep attempting to add in the following quote airing frustration with the controversy over VaTech officials' response to the early morning incident:
They could have prevented most of this...shooting at 730 in WAJ, classes don't start til 8, why couldn't they cancel classes for the day...SOMEONE WAS SHOT AND IT TURNS OUT THEY DIED...I THINK THATS GROUNDS TO CANCEL CLASS RATHER THAN SENDING OUT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS USE CAUTION AND REPORT ANYTHING TO POLICE. They could have save almost 20 lives and 20 injuries if they just decided to cancel class right away.
does anyone else agree with me?
to me, "student response" implies a kind of umbrella summary rather than long tracts from individual students. W guice 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Who went back and put "suicide" back in the infobox? It has not been determined if the gunman killed himself. I'm removing the tag. - -- Bdj95 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Kaine was supposedly heading for India. Where specifically? -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
After "two people were killed and up to four others wounded" they don't even close down campus stop all classes and send everyone away? Classes were still in progress when the 2nd shooting occured, can someone confirm?
Did they even stop classes, or classes went on as usual? Nothing too extreme happened only 2 dead 4 wounded. Did they send those who were on campus away/home? The article currently states classes were even in progress when the shooter found the students conveniently gathered in a class room.
Obviously we discuss this so as to determine if this should be mentioned in the article. The press conference was full of questions about the inaction and mistakes of campus police and leadership.
This was a huge screw-up. There's no other way to spin it. I see some resignations on the horizon, but by all means, wait and see. Nothing will protect them from the media frenzy that is sure to follow in the coming days. MoodyGroove 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Some interesting details:
Fickman 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Officers reached second floor, gunshots stopped. No interaction between police and shooter; shooter had killed himself prior to police arrival.
Preliminary ID not released, though police think they know the shooter's information. They will not even state if the shooter was a student or not.
27 lead, 15 infobox, 28 timeline. Suggest we give a range in all places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yah, you forgot a redirct. Put one on or I'll revert bot this. 165.95.24.12 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: thanks for the redirect
http://asherheimermann.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-shooting/
Is this any good? LABand 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/7050467.html
Local Student Among Dead at Va Tech 4:30 PM Apr 16, 2007
Ryan Clark of Martinez is one of the 31 victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, according to Columbia County Coroner Vernon Collins.
Clark is believed to have been shot in the first string of shootings that occurred in a dormitory.
Clark is the son of Stan and Lettie Clark of Old Petersburg Road. He has a twin brother.
An autopsy will be performed, but because of the high number of victims, it may take days to complete.
-- Jake7457 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any good can come from merging it. Any objections to just removing the tag? -- BigDT 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What happened to this page? ( → Netscott) 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen, can you please explain why you just removed my edit and the entire discussion about why some of us feel the statement “deadliest civilian shooting in U.S. history” is hyperbolic and inaccurate?
There have definitely been worse "civilian" shootings before (arguably to the point of genocide) in this country--just think the Wounded Knee Massacre or the Sand Creek Massacre. No way is this the "deadliest civilian" shooting...I merely changed it to "deadliest school shooting rampage in U.S. history." I was sure someone would change it back again, but I don’t see a good explanation here about why we’re insisting on this subjective statement. Efrafra 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is "rampage" really necessary? Chunky Rice 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, both of those were carried about by the military, not civilians. Chunky Rice 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should note that this is a masserce by a civilian that is also against civilians. Military, civil strife events, like
Kent State or by police like
Haymarket would be a different context.--
Dudeman5685
23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Any ranking of the "worst shooting in American history" should include the Mountain Meadows massacre in 1857. While that mass murder was not limited to shootings, the death toll of 100 to 140 is higher than that of the Virginia Tech massacre. Quasar2112 01:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some excess claims are being made in the article. Bath was more people killed in a mass killing at a school (by a bomb) and Mountain Meadows was more civilians skhot by civilians. Perhaps qualify this as the "Largest U.S. school shooting. " Edison 06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please keep this consistant. Just because the "news" is reporting it as the worst does not make it so. Be careful of wording. In the article it can be specified that it is the worst "school" massacre, or "shooting." But if it's a "massacre" than it is the Bath School event (refers to one killer and at a school), where he killed 48 people including himself and his wife the day before. Also it was at a "school" and goes on to mention other killings not school related. Make it clear either by one person, or by shooting, etc. Keep consistant such as massacre by shooting by a civilian, etc. Again, you cannot rely on news reports, trust me, they most often get something WRONG just about every time. Jeeny 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The news reports from the major outlets have generally added a qualifier that it's the worst domestic civilian shooting in "modern U.S. history," which I would take to exclude 19th century massacres of native peoples. Perhaps we could add language like that? Bjackrian 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been much debate on the use of "2007" and "Massacre" in the title, but what about at least using a capital "S" in the title. i.e. Virginia Tech Shootings as opposed to the current Virginia Tech shootings. Whether or not there was a prior shooting on the campus last year, this is clearly going to be known as the definitive Virginia Tech Shooting forever. I believe it is a large enough story to warrant the capital "S". Bluefield 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.97.117.154 ( talk) 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
Why is the comma (shown between the "<here>" notations) not showing as a comma in the article?:
"|caption=[[Virginia Tech campus|Norris Hall]] |location=[[Blacksburg, Virginia|Blacksburg]]<here>,</here> [[Virginia]], [[United States]]"
John Stattic 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to post something up, but it didn't work. First, I want to say that the weapons the gunman used should be removed. Wikipedia is not a site that is supposed to report suspicion, and until things are confirmed, we can not put things based on rumor. Therefore, the guns the shooter used should be removed. Secondly, I have found articles stating that after the first shooting, the University confirmed that police had arrested a suspect. Any other confirmation on this? Any news on this? Did anyone else find this odd in their research? I think this is article is going to be more like a news channel than an encyclopedia article until we get more news. I propose removing the weapons until we have confirmation. WiiAlbanyGirl 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading trough the Collegiate Times website I've also found a claim that there is one individual in custody. What I've also found weird, is that there are two entries that state that three persons were handcuffed in-situ by the police, and carried out of Norris Hall. Has anyone find some more information about this fact? -- Legion fi 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNrBd4kKMg unimatrix 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
How would they have claims to it? The student has full copyright who shot it.
Just saw the student that shot the CNN video. Jamal Albargouthi (I am not sure of the corect spelling of his last name), palestinian grad student captured the CNN video.
Dreammaker182
00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jamal Albarghouti, a Palastenian grad. student at VT, shot the cell phone video. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.witness/index.html Dreammaker182 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The video was submitted to CNN via their I-Report forum... here's a link to the upload page with user agreement. Under the agreement, CNN reserves the right to edit and telecast the submitted material under international license. I would guess that Albarghouti has some rights reserved but not all... upload page with agreement: http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/breaking.news.html#terms Dreammaker182 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of making the article better, shouldn't we rank this massacre/shooting (whichever the consensus goes with) not just against other incidents in the US, but also worldwide? Is this the deadliest school shooting/massacre worldwide or just in the US? Where does it rank worldwide? Ikilled007 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this page because anons and new users keep adding a name which may or may not be that of the shooter. Until an actual news source (no, not FARK) has confirmed this posting the name is libelous and the revisions that contain it will be deleted. Please revert any such addition as soon as you see it and let me or someone else listed at WP:OVERSIGHT#Users with Oversight permissions know at once. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to include that this was delayed? It doesn't really add anything to the article. Chunky Rice 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Until the article becomes a lot longer than it is, I see no non-political reason for removing a single sentence concerning how the event led to the postponement of a widely-anticipated political hearing in which the fate of a top Administration official hangs in the balance. However, if you are determined to delete that sentence on the basis of relevance, I am going to delete all the other politician responses as well. Ribonucleic 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, this article isn't exactly groaning under its own weight at the moment. If (when) it gets a lot longer, I'd say all the political responses would be reasonable things to jettison. But in the meantime, the delay of the Gonzales hearing is a lot more relevant than the White House "reportedly monitoring the story". Why, I thought keeping on top of the news was sort of, you know, their job. Ribonucleic 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems overtly political - lots of things were delayed today because of this. Why not talk about what TV shows were pre-empted. The sentence with the President's response to the massacre is shorter than the Gonzales "context"! James 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
CNN and other channels are speaking firstly about 29 injured and there was EVEN a hospital speaker said they brought 17 victims to their hospital and 12 people to other hospitals (2 of them seriously wounded). But than again, they are now speaking of 15 injured at the second scene and 4 injured in the first incident. It is also possible that some of the injured died during the reports. So how many injured are there now, does anyone know that?? ColdCase 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we do. The numbers for injuries seem to be all over the map. I've been removing statements that there are 29 confirmed injured, since that doesn't appear to be the case, as far as I can tell. I don't want to run into 3RR, though. Is this okay? Chunky Rice 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't removed it from the info box ;) But I think that's fine how it is... the info box statement has a source given for the numbers 15 and 29 and shows that there is still confusion about that! 15 are given for the northern building, 4 are given for the southern building, so it should be 19 anyway... but you see... confusing... it's somewhere between 15 and 29... just leave the info box as it is and I think we can live with the rest ;) ColdCase 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't contest that there have been reports that 29 people have been injured. That's certainly true. It's just that combining the number with the word "confirmed" or "at least" that I object to. Chunky Rice 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Found a myspace VT link with a list of many victims names. Can I assume it would be incredibly irresponsible to put the link, even though it seems very sincere? -- Elg26 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no "list" of shooting victims. As far as I know, already 3 victims have been confirmed by the media. -- Shivreddy 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was this section I just added deleted? I had a quote from a prominent Canadian MP?-- Rob NS 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But it is too soon to poll on this... let's have discussion first and then if necessary go the polling route. (
→
Netscott)
18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But I dont have an opinion (but am following the article, of course), SqueakBox 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ruhe1986 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I just think it sounds much more appropriate and respectful, so what do you guys think? Effer 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody finds it odd that the corresponding articles in Czech, Danish, Spanish, French, Finnish, Portuguese and Swedish all have the word "massacre" in their titles? Óðinn 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, CNN is now headlining the story as a massacre, its silly that its still being described as a shooting here.
CBS News tonight called it a "Massacre". Wahkeenah 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've put in a formal move request for this article, to Virginia Tech massacre. A section with this title is requested by the move template. Again, it is referred to as "massacre" on Wikipedia's Main Page as well as foreign language Wikipedias, not to mention available reliable sources. There is no merit to calling this "shootings" over "massacre" whatsoever. Italiavivi 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
if by the off chance there is another shoting at virginia tech. we can just redirect it then, but for now i don't think we need a date, the Columbine page doesn't have a date.- Three ways round 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the page (you've probably all noticed) - it seems there's pretty solid consensus here for a move and it's going to be the most likely phrase to be searched under going by the coverage in the media. Any problems, you all know where you can shout at me. -- Nick t 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mass shooting" or "Rampage" as a way of avoiding the news media's consensus "Massacre" as a euphemistic title is right up there with calling World War 2 "The Recent Unpleasantness." Edison 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this article really need an infobox? It seems to me that having one is sensationalist in nature, almost as if we are "keeping score". Does anyone share my sentiment? If so, I want to propose a keep/remove vote on the matter. -- Mrpaco 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in all of this the entirety of the page was copied over so it all appears twice, except for new comments. How to sort it all out? -- Yksin 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, with all due respect, this is Wiki"pedia". As Zeppelin462 said, the talk page is here for this kind of stuff. -- Wjmoore17 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this article is NOT documenting a current event but a past event! On the other hand, information is still changing quickly. I think the current template isn't correct. Any idea how we can change that? I suggested {{ currentevent | article is about a past incident that is still under investigation. That is why it}} but it was removed again a few minutes later by another user. That's ok with me as long as we find some solution. It simply isn't a current event! ColdCase 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a planned day of silence soon to honor those who died? ZombieSlayer54 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this talk page sprotected? Zyxwvutsrqp 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is the appropriate template for sprotect? It should appear at the top of this talk page. template:pp-semi-vandalism or template:sprotected? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
People who insist on stating a name which might not be the killer can find a blog somewhere. We must follow WP:BLP. There has been at least one other person who was named as the bad guy and got tens of thousands of death threats from people with questionable logic. When the police release a name will be an appropriate time to discuss it here. Edison 06:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone place some stats comparing this shooting to other shootings at universities? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I just heard on the radio that a progun group said that if one of the students had a handgun that he could have shot the gunman and saved lives. Armed college students. What an great idea. I bet others are calling for stricter gun laws. Should this be talked about here? Babalooo 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think its interesting to note that the gun man had only pistols. I beleive that the columbine shootings included submachine guns? I think it shows that its not the gun, its the shooter. I'm guessing an Asian man with an assualt rifle but no gun training might kill less than this shooter who seems to know how to use the guns. -- AGruntsJaggon 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this whole section should go. Not encyclopedic at all. Purely speculative, regardless of which side of the issue you come down on -- arming students or banning anything from shoe laces to bubble gum wrappers if they can be used as weapons on campus. Ikilled007 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems a little inflamatory to me, as in "shooting rampage." Wouldn't something like "incident" be better? I've already take it out a couple times, so I just want to see if there's any consensus on this. Chunky Rice 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Who erased it? Why? Should I post the whole email? Babalooo 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I say that the article should tell us enough as readers that we can make up our own minds about if it was. As facts become clear, we should put some focus on what was and was not done by university administration and police in the hours after the first 9-1-1 call was made. Dnklu 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is a neutral encyclopedia, and promoting a point of view of irresponsibility on behalf of the college administration would be against policy. Nishkid 64 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that there was an image request, so
check out this news webpage from the CBS station KDKA in Virginia, which has some good photos I believe.
Cliff smith
23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In looking at the school massacres list, it seems as though this is the largest massacre in the world (besides things happening in wars, and independence movements). Is that right? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In any circumstance, for shooting massacres, see Port Arthur in Tasmania. MojoTas 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Im suprised that this article keeps on stressing that the perpetraters identity is not yet known, but can anyone quote any reliable source saying it wasn't more thatn one shooter, because when refering to the perpetrators this article keeps using singular forms of words,implying one shooter. Rodrigue 23:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on how many fatalities should be listed. I'm supporting listing it as 32 (33 including the perpetrator) in the infobox. This is the same way Columbine High School massacre has the fatalities listed in their infobox, differentiating between fatalities of the attack and total people killed. I think we should differentiate between victims of the attack and the killer. The fatalities of the attack are listed by all the major outlets as 32, the killer isn't a victim of the attack as he was the cause. This tracks with what happened at Columbine as well. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to the silly warning in the article ("Anyone changing this without consensus on the talk page WILL be blocked."), I'm suggesting it here first: "32 (33 including the perpetrator)" should be simplified to "33 including the perpetrator".-- Eloquence * 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the warning. anthony 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I like college football to much, but should massacres be ranked in terms of influence on the surrounding culture? This may deserve a top 5 spot, but there are a lot of other competitors, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the Columbine Massacre, Jonestown Massacre, Luby's Massacre, and what I think deserves the top spot, the Boston Massacre, even if only 5 people died. Undoubtable the deaths of innocent people tend to spark a new mode of thought for the public and reflectively are seen as the peaks of conflict and turmoil, unrest and change in their respective societies. I also have questions about the policy on not putting any descriptions of the killer on this talk page or the article itself. Is there an actual policy against this sort of thing (if there is there should be a link) or if there isn't, this makeshift rule should be abolished. I actually don't understand why it's not appropriate to atleast say "many news sources have reported the killer to be and Asian fellow in his twenties, and more specific reports point to a 24 years old Chinese man" (or something of the source, as most sources unaminously report it in that manner). Not specifying any rules here will lead to confusion (I am certain, as it already has in me) of the restrictive and currently very unfree encyclopedia, Wikipedia. So if anyone can cite an actual rule, please do so.-- Porsche997SBS 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the 'naming convention' section of Wikiproject: Disaster management (link above) this artice should (when the time is right) have a 2007 before the rest. So the title would be "2007 Virginia Tech shooting/massacre" (whichever is decided).
Just though I'd mention that before it is moved to "Virginia Tech massacre" or whatever, in order to avoid successive moves, and to provide more clairity to those viewing the article. TheGoogle 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here is a link to the naming conventions page, however it does little to help. [25] it states that it is a "soft rule" and if there is another appropriate name it could be named that also. So in other words its your choice, but it would be good to follow precident. TheGoogle 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a picture of Norris Hall, I think would be useful but I lack the skill to place it in, and to not mess up this page in all of the chaos, could someone add it?
http://www.eng.vt.edu/cgep/images/norris_map.jpg
Thanks, GloomySunday 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
it's a good picture, but is it ok to use? the site doesn't say where it came from.- Three ways round 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are maps on several news websites. Can we claim fair use on any? -- Kizor 08:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe we should take out the part about the shooter looking for his girlfreind until we can source it. The part that says he quarreled with his girlfreind is fine (it is sourced), but since the shooter is dead his intentions may not ever be known.
peace out- Three ways round 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
well someone got ride of them ether way.- Three ways round 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, it's in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17virginia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us "Students said a gunman had gone room to room looking for his ex-girlfriend. He killed a woman and a male student at the residence hall, identified as Ryan Clark, a senior from Augusta, Ga." I still don't feel comfortable enough to put it in myself, but if someone else wants to there's a somewhat reliable source. anthony 03:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This statement: "An ATF source recently told NBC that the gunman was not a Virginia Tech student." needs a source. Natalie 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
i did a quick search of the ATF website and couldn't find anything. Not sure if that helps any.- Three ways round 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the most recent (7:30ish) press conference, the Campus Police Chief stated that they had NOT yet decided if the two incidents were related. ATF was looking at the ballistics. They had identified a "person of interest" based on witness accounts of the first incident, who they had questioned and released. It was *not* the same person as the dead shooter from the later incident. They said this person was still a "person of interest". The Wiki article is currently written as if the same shooter was in both locations. I think the article needs to be adjusted to be careful not to assume both locations were the work of the same shooter, odd as that may seem, though of course it may turn out that they are. -- Stargirl7 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the article stating that the two shootings are related, however, the article is written as though they are (referring to shooter in singular, etc.). From reading this talk page it seems that the police have in fact said that the two shootings are related (I guess they were able to match bullets?). This needs to be in the article if so. If not, there needs to be a lot of rewriting. anthony 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[Merged with heading "unrelated incidents?" below]
Both the Roanoke Times and National Public Radio have reported that the police are talking with a "person of interest" in the dorm shootings, & that it is not yet known with certainty (at least not in anything they're telling the press) whether the two shootings are related, or the relationship if any between the "person of interest" and the gunman at Norris Hall. In fact, NPR says the "person of interest" was being interviewed by police at the time the Norris Hall shootings began -- which is part of what apparently led Virginia Tech authorities to believe the situation was resolved. I have already integrated info from the Roanoke Times into the article, but haven't done the NPR addition yet. -- Yksin 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please create a section to direct people where to go for counseling and emotional support. I know the U has some resources available and I think it would be good to have them listed on the wikipedia page. Also, it might be nice to have a wiki page for people who want to say something, vent, ask for help, or communicate with each other to help in the healing process. If someone wants to make something like that, please also post the URL on this page to facilitate the dialog and the recovery process. Thanks Ethicalhacker 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that someone would create a wiki for them, not necessarily on wikipedia proper. Thanks SqueakBox for the info about the first ref. Perhaps a temporary banner at the top of the page directing people to the appropriate resources would be more appropriate.
The basic problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Virginia_Tech_massacre&oldid=123405056 contains speculation; this is not encouraged by WP standards. It also presents somewhat conflicting information with the section itself: the section starts with a basic 'we don't know whom it is at this time' but yet ends with a remarkably detailed speculation on the background of this person. See the problem?
WP is not here to speculate on things; it is here to document things. Yes, the Sun Times may be a reliable source and it may soon be verified. But right now, we have no independent way of confirming their report from better sources (e.g. official). It would perhaps be best to just wait a little longer -- as an encyclopedia, we do have the luxury of time to wait a little for fast-moving events to resolve themselves more fully. It helps the quality of the article that way. I'm not going to redo the removal as I'm not interested in edit warring. If someone else agrees, go for it. If not, I'll live with it. Cheers, Dsf 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The list of victims was removed here [27]. This should probably be discussed, because it seems like the kind of thing people are going to want to keep adding back.-- W.marsh 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There's precedent for including a list of victims, but I don't think it should be like a deathwatch, where names are added individually. I think it should stay off until a complete list is available, then it should be discussed here first. As a corrolary, IMO it's not our concern whether or not the 'shooter' is 'more famous' than the victims; we're not here to promote or suppress notoriety. Anchoress 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a sourced list of who was killed is kosher. Not for memorial purposes but for record. Piecemeal adding is ok as long as it is sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPS ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
What about a list of the wounded as well? I know of several people in many interviews that were shot and giving interviews from either the hospital or were released and giving interviews near or around the campus. -- Zib 08:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the deal with chains? were they on doors or not? The article says nothing about chains, but the news says doors were chained and padlocked. MPS 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding historical context for this article, I think you have to go back to the Indian Massacre of 1622 along the James River which occured almost 400 years ago to find a worse mass murder which has occurred in Virginia, outisde of War, and I think the 1622 incident it qualifies as a mass murder, since that was not during a period of official war.
I am too close to this to write NPOV at this time. While I don't think the Indian massacre of 1622 as an act of war, is was certainly part of an ongoing conflict, and is apparently not similar in that respect. Other writers can decide how or if to use that comparison. I am bowing out, and will read the work of others. Vaoverland 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Theres also Nat Turner's slave rebellion that was in Virginia which killed hundred, but I don't think its nesaccary to note in the article.-- Coasttocoast 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A reference for the Port Arthur Massacre is here: The Queen v. Martin Bryant, In the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, Held at Number 7 Court, Salamnaca Place, Hobart, On Tuesday the 19th Day of November, 1996 [29] 203.10.224.58 05:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reduced the importance rating within the Virginia WikiProject to high importance. As tragic and as shocking as this is, this does not warrant top importance (it can't be more important than History of Virginia, James Monroe, John Marshall...not to mention Virginia...). It's a shoo-in for high importance. I have also gone in and reduced Capital One's importance as well, as that should not be top importance either. -- Core desat 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, if anyone would like to add a ribbon to their user page, you can use {{ Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{ administrator}} icon) or you can add Image:Orange and maroon ribbon.svg anywhere you would like. -- BigDT 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no list of victims. The media has already confirmed 3.-- Shivreddy 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you -- Shivreddy 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It says the first victim was the shooter's girlfriend in the "First Shooting, West Ambler Johnston Hall Dormitory" section. It is not said in the article that supports it, I believe, nor has it been confirmed...I haven't heard any of that yet. Does anybody have a supporting article about the first victim actually being his girlfriend?
205.233.153.29
12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering what the point of having a link in the article Ryan Clark (victim) that simply redirects to the same article is, unless someone was going to create an article, and it doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Xcfrommars 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm on an arbcom ban for pushing Brit spelling and even I recognise that we should stick to US spelling in this article. But do make sure the grammar is understandable to we non-Americans, SqueakBox 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the addition of John McCain's gun control policies really relevant/necessary in this article? Plus, the place in which it was put makes it look like a political message is trying to be conveyed. Apolloae 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed it. -- BigDT 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So? I'm sure Rush Limbaugh probably talked about the tragedy too. I don't care what he said, either. -- BigDT 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure someone asked him the question and he answered it. I seriously doubt John McCain called up a reporter and said, "hey, let's talk about gun control"! But regardless of the context of the conversation, he is a senator from the other side of the country not in a leadership position. His opinion about gun control is completely and totally irrelevant to this topic. -- BigDT 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Government response" is not the same as "political candidates' response". -- FOo 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It would make sense that commentary by those directly involved in this incident and that of notable people - where notable is defined in the context of greater history rather than just notable today - is valid. In that context, I believe comments by the Queen of England and other heads of state around the world are appropriate for inclusion while McCain's comments may not be as appropriate. On the other hand, he is a Senator, so . . . at what point do we define what political or government representatives are appropriate for inclusion and which are not? Or would quotes from those other than the most notable be more appropriate for addition to the Wikiquotes project, instead? Cordell 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to a question on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said the tragedy at Virginia Tech did not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon. [1]
This is the removed text in case we want to put it back. futurebird 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is entirely inappropriate to semi-protect a talk page for so long. This is a quite draconian and exclusionary policy to enact due to the actions of only a few users. It represents the continuation of a frightening trend of closure on Wikipedia. Tfine80 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Only 5 or 10 minutes ago someone added the facebook profile of some kid, identifying it as the shooter. That account has been blocked, but everyone of those potentially libelous edits have to be oversited. I'm fine with keeping thing sprotected until the shooter and victims' names are released from an official source. Natalie 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)