This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
... and more http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shooter18apr18,0,2210161.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines 134.79.216.76 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Serge
ive seen some things from various news papers, and the new york times that the guy posted (around 4 or 5 AM) that he was going to shoot the school up on 4chan.
gtg I am suprised to see how easy it was to legaly buy a weapon and ammo required do this mass murder. I am also surprised by media not discussing this point but only Cho's psychology. By the way, how strong is the NRA on the VT campus ? Anybody else thinking that buying weapons should be way more difficult than opening an account at the bank next door ?
Why does the article say that he purchased both guns ILLEGALLY? The police dept. and the source clearly indicate that he bought it LEGALLY.
Question 11f of ATF Form 4473 asks the question: Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? So it is likely that Cho lied about this on the form when he bought his guns from the two firearms dealers. However, we can't use this info in the article, until a reliable source mentions it, as discussed above. I am leaving this info in here so it is available for use when that happens. Kevinp2 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm combining a few sections for clarity and ease of discussion, which should make things far less painful for future archive-readers as well. If wrong, slap with fish. -- Kizor 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fairly clear at this point that people have no idea what they're talking about at this point. Until it is well established, it would be irresponsible to include this. Titanium Dragon 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the shootings were caused by violent media. However, two prominent figures have so far gone on televison and claimed violent media to be the source. Therefore it is an issue surrounding the shootings and there is no reason to remove it. It does need editing but removing it all together takes away responses. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a talking point and is an 'issue' of discussion. Why this section is continually being removed as 'nonsense' and so forth by Flavourdan is beyond me. - William Desby 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just zapped the Violent Media blurbs. It is an issue surrounding the shootings, yes. However, there certainly is no concrete link between media of any sort and this killers actions yet. Wikipedia does not do original research nor does rampant speculation by Dr. Phil and others need to be relayed. Simply put, a real world encyclopedia would never include such a section, because there is no direct connection as of yet. Rahga 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Washington Post reports Cho was a fan of Counterstrike. [1] -- HertzaHaeon 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you wait long enough, a secondary source in the game industry should refute the allegation of a connection and that can be used to counter Jack Thompson's usual spiel. The entry could then read, "Some pundits, such as Jack Thompson, claimed that violent media contributed to the attack. However, other sources have pointed out the lack of any evidence of such a link and the large numbers of people who play violent games without consequence." Attach appropriate sources and you're done. GarryKosmos 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. We already voted on this [2], and the result was unanimous to leave speculation out of the article, regardless of how famous the source may be. Celebrities will push their agendas in crisis such as this - we needn't encourage them. -- Dan East 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, these days everything has to be about blame the media, blame the video games, blame the parents, blame the teachers, blame cultural determinism. Isn't it ironic that the media is reporting that violence on the media leads to violence, while they are covering violence? Niubrad 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Virginia Tech page should not mention any "influence of media" on the the shooter but I feel that there should be a space on the school shootings page that mentions such ideas. One source can be from an interview by Anderson Cooper on AC 360 CNN with a former school shooter who is now serving a 230 year sentence. In the interview he makes the claim that he thought shooting someone in real life was like shooting someone in the game doom. He claims that he believed the shots would not kill the students. Poodle76 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, he must have thought that the plasma ray gun he was brandishing was going to only temporarily freeze them and if he left the screen they would re-morph back into their old selves. I wonder if Fox will run a piece about how violence on media causes phychological distortion of the physical laws of the universe. Niubrad 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The line 'It is currently unknown what role violence in the media played in influencing the shootings' should probably be edited to say 'It is currently unknown what role, if any, violence in the media played in influencing the shootings'. At this point even the suggestion that there is a connection between the two is premature and unprofessional. 204.69.40.13 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Any news yet on blaming video games? They usually get around to blaming them at some point. The Behnam 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. [3] Leave them out unless facts are presented to support the assertion. -- Dan East 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
At some point, discussion of the supposed role of movies, music, and video games will have to be included. Wikipedia will need to include it not because it's valid criticism, but because it becomes part of the national dialog. Marilyn Manson will probably get blamed. Expect congressional hearings. Gregohio 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[4] Should this be mentioned in the article, it's a play the gunman wrote based on the Guns N' Roses song Mr. Brownstone, in it he writes about a character wanting to kill a teacher on a Monday, which may contain motives as to why he did this. Bucketheader 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That is almost like hearsay. Can it be proven? Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's crap anyway: blaming a song/movie/videogame for your or someone else's actions is the ultimate cop-out. HalfShadow 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that when music is blamed for this stuff it's crap, and mostly incorrect, but this song and the play based upon it is very similar to the real events; the first lyrics to the song is "I get up around 7:00,get outta bed around 9:00 i don't worry about nothin' no, 'cause worryins' a waste of my time", and when you consider what Cho Seung-hui did at 7:00 and 9:00 speaks for itself, it may just be coincidence but it could certainly be relevent. Bucketheader 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are enough forums around to speculate all that and more... I don't understand why Wikipedia's talk pages have to serve as one of them. Ephraim6888 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the chance is 20%, assuming equal probability for the event to occur on any of the five school days. If you consider that he probably waited until first day of class, which is usually a Monday it is actually probable. If the song was "kill a teacher on the 16th of April 2007", then that would be worthy of note and either intentional or one big coincidence, but seriously... "Monday" is not a huge coincidence. Sad mouse 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
IT is strange. If this song was an influence, it would have had to have been grossly mis interpreted. Mr Brownstone is a song that follows the course of one of the band members heroin use, nothing more. Agonsw 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to include that you might as well include, 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats as well. And 'Manic Monday'... Spugmeister 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think better support needs to be provided for the statement that the media was split between the positions that gun control could have prevented this tragedy and that gun control in fact caused it. The Conservative Voice isn't exactly a major media outlet comparable to the NY Times. I don't have a citation at hand but surely something could be found on Fox or another News Corp property to replace the conservative voice reference?
Otherwise I think that statement should just be removed and let the facts speak for themselves.
Exactly. Wikipedia is not a conservative mouthpiece. That article on media response was as biased as it can get, especially the part about how the university's ban on students carrying concealed weapons contributed to the massacre. such arguments are soo stupid.
I mean, yes wikipedia needs to show both sides of the argument when presenting any case - so that the website comes across as neutral. But to put up ridiculous reasons, that too from really biased sources ('Conservative voice')makes the article biased with a right-wing flavour. please do take note of that article.
Personally speaking, I find it disrespectful to the people that died that somebody on wikipedia had the audacity to make a political statement in the event of such a tragedy. Hahahaha1 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Part 7 aka Criminal Classification is really mangled, especially the first paragraph. I'm going to try to clean up the language without distorting the content. Feel free to improve on any edits I make. Ikilled007 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
a
Maybe add a section more about the aftermath - news 12 long island reported this morning there are 10 copycat threats made across america for shootings in schools across america after this tradgedy.
okay cool. ill check it out later, im at school right now and the news12 website doesn't work (you have to be a cablevision subscriber. weird huh?) but im off right now on a free period so ill do a lil research.
If someone would be kind to add a section on coppy cats, my school, Walled Lake Western High School, Walled Lake, MI had one today. There are no news reports, but the school homepage has a letter from the principal http://www.walledlake.k12.mi.us/wlwhs It's not a shooting, but as close as you can get.
Thanks
Igafooj
21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is another copycat, unfortunately, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=195361
And another one.. Took place at MY high school. http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=49a3b859-5aef-4395-9b93-d26f0a606a27
the numbers of death? isnt it 31 only in virginia tech alone and 2 outside the virgina tech area?
The passive voice in the first paragraph is very weak. The gunman wasn't "killed". He killed himself. The others were certainly "killed" or "injured", but active voice is always considered stronger. The passive voice makes it sound as if some freak event occurred and the victims 'somehow' ended up dead or injured. The first paragraph should indicate that the attacker shot 61 people, killing 32 and injuring 29 others. However, I don't want to get into an editing war. Somebody please explain what's wrong with indicating (1) that the gunman actually caused the harm and (2) that he was the guilty perpetrator while the others were innocent victims. Logophile 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You do honor to your name, Logophile. Good language skills are as valuable on Wikipedia as they are rare. Ikilled007 changed the phrasing to an active one and it should stick this time. -- Kizor 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The BBC article has it wrong; Nikolas Macko was in a computer science class, not a math class. Maybe in Britain CS is considered a subset of mathematics? Anyhow, I would have made the change, but I don't know how to cite an email from the CS department here at Virginia Tech, and it also contains other names besides Nikolas's so I can't simply post the text verbatim. It's a minor point, but I'm all about accuracy. VTBassMatt 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The references to Collegiate Times concerning the victims names is an HTTP404 now. Look for another or remove the names. -- 213.155.224.232 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have an idea of what's going on right now? -- Starks 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What? Is something happening at the moment? Got any source or anything to explain what you're asking about? - Ennuified talk 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I know someone that was just about to drive in front of Burruss hall about 10 minutes ago, and was stopped by policemen - apparently a bomb threat was made on Burruss Hall, possibly President Steger's office. 204.154.43.244 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the article currently compares this massacre with previous spree killings and mass killings in the US and abroad, but there is nothing yet to explain the "civilian" qualifier used in the lead section. I suspect that this 'civilian' qualifier is designed to exclude militia and military massacres, such as Wounded Knee Massacre and Mountain Meadows massacre. Should this be clarified somewhere in the article? Maybe the emphasis should be on this being a lone killer, as the examples I give are militia/military units. Carcharoth 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The first line claims that the massacre was a huge hoax, I hope you guys don't mind, I'm changing it. Thanks.
a media response section would be relevant, such as Dr. phil's imediate blaming of vidio games or john stewarts decision to respectfully not speculate about the incedent at this time. Boatman666 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to edit and clean this up several times but it keeps getting reverted by someone who's obviously proud of his/her work which reads:
"Cho Seung-hui was a spree killer. Spree killers kill in two or more different locations but within only a few hours or often just minutes, in contrast to serial killers who have cooling off periods of several days. The case is similar to the University of Texas shooting of 1966, in which the perpetrator Charles Whitman firstly killed two persons - his mother and his wife - and ran amok after a significant pause."
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but aside from the fact that this is very poorly written, it also smacks of original research, provides no citations for such distinctions (serial killers take several days off to cool down between killings?? They never take months or years? They "cool down" as opposed to just do something else, etc.?
I'd really like to see this section made tolerable. Ikilled007 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then shouldn't the obvious parallel to the University of Texas shooting by Charles Whitman be mentioned? I.e. that the shooting was neither planned nor spontanous but a reaction to a spontanous (double) murder (in affect, "in the heat of the moment")? I think that this is obvious enough not to call it OR. Please excuse my poor English. -- Abe Lincoln 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
He had in mind to do it, but had no special date in mind. When he shot the first two, he decided that he had nothing to loose anyway and started to run amok. But that is partly speculation. I just would make hint on the very obvious facts, that there was a pause between the murder of people he obviously knew and the later mass murder. What do you think? -- Abe Lincoln 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It says in the info box 29 were injured but it says in the summary 17 were injured. Can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 ( talk) 18 April 2007
The "Timeline" section is making the TOC too long, in my opinion. I don't think every date needs its own subheading. Would anybody object if I converted all instances of == Date == to ;Date?↔ NMajdan• talk 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency-- The timeline has his purchase of the Glock as coming first, whereas in the Gun Control section, it states the .22 came first.
I have been trying to prune the 'timeline' for things that are obviously not notable including a list of gatherings and get togethers and vigils. If you look at my contributions, I've been removing some pretty silly things that look more like they belong in Facebook, or some kind of events calendar. I keep getting reverted. In the end a lot of these things just will not matter and aren't informative. I'm giving up on removing it for now, and will come back when all the hubbub has died down. This article should have stayed in protective mode for a bit longer. ( Bjorn Tipling 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
Under the "Preparation" section under "Cho Seung-hui" it looks like big chunk from the top of the article has somehow ended up there. I'm not sure what belongs and what doesn't. Can someone who does please take a look at it? Thanks. Lovelace 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The "International Reaction" section says that government officials have expressed their sympathy to the American people and the families of the victims because of this incident, however looking at the links in that section a variety of governmental officials (e.g. from Germany) also mention that this incident shows the problematic low level of gun control in the US. The international reaction section was more complete yesterday with separate quotes for different countries, now it omits material information in my opinion. Themanwithoutapast 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it noteworthy that many, many international sources, both government and media are questioning the role US gun laws may have played in this incident? To mention just a few, Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, and France's Le Monde are treating the gun law angle as the primary story. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." I'm not saying every international response, especially perfunctory ones, should be included, but Howard's is significant considering he's a conservative ally of President Bush. GregOhio 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't we come up with more NPOV terms for the "gun control debate" section that avoid the slanted "anti-gun" and "gun rights" labels? Does anyone object to "gun control advocates" and "gun ownership advocates" instead? Anyone have suggestions for even more neutral terms? -- OtisTDog 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say that in all instances I've seen of the distributed cellphone video that there are not "twenty-seven shots heard". Five shots in the distance are clearly heard while other high-pitched, rapid "pops" seem to be wind noise or audio originating from the person shifting position of the cellphone in their hand. Kitsu3 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The killer obviously thought that filing the numbers off the guns would eliminate the numbers altogether. Actually, the old numbers can be revealed with acid.
This has been known for 50 years or more. I first heard of it in the 1950's.
A relative was in an armed Police force at the time.
A list of the 24 wounded could be provided along with the list of those killed by gunman.
I don't know what happened in the past few hours as changes are very hard to track due to the immense amount of edits on this article. Stating this, I am wondering what happened to the original picture on the infobox that had the caption:
Injured students being evacuated from Norris Hall, where 31 of the 33 killings occurred.
I think this particular image gave the article a great sense of identity as does the image in the infobox on the Columbine massacre page. It is also the image that appeared on most newspapers that were distributed on the 17th of April. Views? Opinions? -- Ddahlberg 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Could the content of the letter vfound in Cho's dorm room be elaborated on. I would want to know more about what his letter said, and what he said his reasons were for the shooting. 68.125.51.151 15:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dwb1133 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)The April 2, 2007 entry in the timeline regarding an anonymnous bomb threat to Torgersen Hall is seamingly unrealated to Cho and should not be placed in this article.
The Wikipedia timeline says the Walther P22 was purchased on April 13th, yet the article on MSNBC used as a referance clearly says Feb 9. -- 12.109.16.131 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This page has so many people watching it, including myself that there's no real reason to Semi-Protect it and it would let others contribute and show the openness of the Wikipedia to new users who've come from the main page. WillSWC 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the the good participation we've seen from IPs on the talk page, I think unprotecting the article would be worthwhile. We should always be striving to minimize protection as much as possible. A Train talk 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I just had to re semiprotect. The article was receiving several IP vandalisms per minute. No objection to removing as the school kiddies calm down, but as well, it should be applied and removed as necessary. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The map image (Image:Norris WestAJ Map.jpg) has a scale in metric only, would it be possible to add an imperial/US customary scale alongside? The Manual of Style reads Conversions should generally be included and not be removed ( see here). Thanks CR7 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
In the article under "Cho Seung-Hui". A citation has been needed for this sentence: "Blacksburg police confirm Cho was investigated in late 2005 in connection with stalking complaints, but no prosecution resulted". Can someone please edit this so that a citation number can be placed since I cannot put it in as I am new? Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/ Anilove 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been talked about before, but I think that it should be the WORST not the deadliest mass murder. Deadliest means that something is more likely to kill you, such as the deadliest toxin. WORST conveys both the gravity of the incident and the fact that its a negative thing. For example, if one says its the largest, its sort of implies something to be proud of, such as the largest port... I changed it but in this article but it should be changed through out... And I hope they dont revert back to what the media is using..
Normdonovan 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
TUCHMAN: Were you ever afraid for your own safety at any time with this kid?
JOHN: He was a little weird. You know, after you know he'd been stalking girls and looking at their Facebooks and learning everything about them, and sometimes at night when I go to sleep, I'd be a little nervous. But I could always tell -- he would go into a pretty deep sleep because he would lay in bed and he would always moan and he's always -- would be a really restless sleeper and moving around. So I always went to bed after he did, and he woke up about two hours before I did and was always gone.
this page, http://www.roanoke.com/vtshootingaccounts/wb/113495, is a transcript of an interview with Cho's roomates and should be looked over for whoever is editing this article.
It's seperated to make it clear which bits go in where, aid navigation, emphasise that it illustrates things that happened prior to the shooting and leading up to it in terms on gun control, and also to reduce the amount of edit conflicts. I think, at least for now, there's a very good reason to keep it in. - Halo 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What about making the section "Cho Seung-hui" the first? Seems to me more consequential. -- Abe Lincoln 18:50, 18 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
... and more http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shooter18apr18,0,2210161.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines 134.79.216.76 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Serge
ive seen some things from various news papers, and the new york times that the guy posted (around 4 or 5 AM) that he was going to shoot the school up on 4chan.
gtg I am suprised to see how easy it was to legaly buy a weapon and ammo required do this mass murder. I am also surprised by media not discussing this point but only Cho's psychology. By the way, how strong is the NRA on the VT campus ? Anybody else thinking that buying weapons should be way more difficult than opening an account at the bank next door ?
Why does the article say that he purchased both guns ILLEGALLY? The police dept. and the source clearly indicate that he bought it LEGALLY.
Question 11f of ATF Form 4473 asks the question: Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? So it is likely that Cho lied about this on the form when he bought his guns from the two firearms dealers. However, we can't use this info in the article, until a reliable source mentions it, as discussed above. I am leaving this info in here so it is available for use when that happens. Kevinp2 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm combining a few sections for clarity and ease of discussion, which should make things far less painful for future archive-readers as well. If wrong, slap with fish. -- Kizor 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fairly clear at this point that people have no idea what they're talking about at this point. Until it is well established, it would be irresponsible to include this. Titanium Dragon 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the shootings were caused by violent media. However, two prominent figures have so far gone on televison and claimed violent media to be the source. Therefore it is an issue surrounding the shootings and there is no reason to remove it. It does need editing but removing it all together takes away responses. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a talking point and is an 'issue' of discussion. Why this section is continually being removed as 'nonsense' and so forth by Flavourdan is beyond me. - William Desby 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just zapped the Violent Media blurbs. It is an issue surrounding the shootings, yes. However, there certainly is no concrete link between media of any sort and this killers actions yet. Wikipedia does not do original research nor does rampant speculation by Dr. Phil and others need to be relayed. Simply put, a real world encyclopedia would never include such a section, because there is no direct connection as of yet. Rahga 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Washington Post reports Cho was a fan of Counterstrike. [1] -- HertzaHaeon 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you wait long enough, a secondary source in the game industry should refute the allegation of a connection and that can be used to counter Jack Thompson's usual spiel. The entry could then read, "Some pundits, such as Jack Thompson, claimed that violent media contributed to the attack. However, other sources have pointed out the lack of any evidence of such a link and the large numbers of people who play violent games without consequence." Attach appropriate sources and you're done. GarryKosmos 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. We already voted on this [2], and the result was unanimous to leave speculation out of the article, regardless of how famous the source may be. Celebrities will push their agendas in crisis such as this - we needn't encourage them. -- Dan East 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, these days everything has to be about blame the media, blame the video games, blame the parents, blame the teachers, blame cultural determinism. Isn't it ironic that the media is reporting that violence on the media leads to violence, while they are covering violence? Niubrad 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Virginia Tech page should not mention any "influence of media" on the the shooter but I feel that there should be a space on the school shootings page that mentions such ideas. One source can be from an interview by Anderson Cooper on AC 360 CNN with a former school shooter who is now serving a 230 year sentence. In the interview he makes the claim that he thought shooting someone in real life was like shooting someone in the game doom. He claims that he believed the shots would not kill the students. Poodle76 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, he must have thought that the plasma ray gun he was brandishing was going to only temporarily freeze them and if he left the screen they would re-morph back into their old selves. I wonder if Fox will run a piece about how violence on media causes phychological distortion of the physical laws of the universe. Niubrad 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The line 'It is currently unknown what role violence in the media played in influencing the shootings' should probably be edited to say 'It is currently unknown what role, if any, violence in the media played in influencing the shootings'. At this point even the suggestion that there is a connection between the two is premature and unprofessional. 204.69.40.13 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Any news yet on blaming video games? They usually get around to blaming them at some point. The Behnam 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. [3] Leave them out unless facts are presented to support the assertion. -- Dan East 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
At some point, discussion of the supposed role of movies, music, and video games will have to be included. Wikipedia will need to include it not because it's valid criticism, but because it becomes part of the national dialog. Marilyn Manson will probably get blamed. Expect congressional hearings. Gregohio 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[4] Should this be mentioned in the article, it's a play the gunman wrote based on the Guns N' Roses song Mr. Brownstone, in it he writes about a character wanting to kill a teacher on a Monday, which may contain motives as to why he did this. Bucketheader 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That is almost like hearsay. Can it be proven? Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's crap anyway: blaming a song/movie/videogame for your or someone else's actions is the ultimate cop-out. HalfShadow 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that when music is blamed for this stuff it's crap, and mostly incorrect, but this song and the play based upon it is very similar to the real events; the first lyrics to the song is "I get up around 7:00,get outta bed around 9:00 i don't worry about nothin' no, 'cause worryins' a waste of my time", and when you consider what Cho Seung-hui did at 7:00 and 9:00 speaks for itself, it may just be coincidence but it could certainly be relevent. Bucketheader 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are enough forums around to speculate all that and more... I don't understand why Wikipedia's talk pages have to serve as one of them. Ephraim6888 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the chance is 20%, assuming equal probability for the event to occur on any of the five school days. If you consider that he probably waited until first day of class, which is usually a Monday it is actually probable. If the song was "kill a teacher on the 16th of April 2007", then that would be worthy of note and either intentional or one big coincidence, but seriously... "Monday" is not a huge coincidence. Sad mouse 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
IT is strange. If this song was an influence, it would have had to have been grossly mis interpreted. Mr Brownstone is a song that follows the course of one of the band members heroin use, nothing more. Agonsw 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to include that you might as well include, 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats as well. And 'Manic Monday'... Spugmeister 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think better support needs to be provided for the statement that the media was split between the positions that gun control could have prevented this tragedy and that gun control in fact caused it. The Conservative Voice isn't exactly a major media outlet comparable to the NY Times. I don't have a citation at hand but surely something could be found on Fox or another News Corp property to replace the conservative voice reference?
Otherwise I think that statement should just be removed and let the facts speak for themselves.
Exactly. Wikipedia is not a conservative mouthpiece. That article on media response was as biased as it can get, especially the part about how the university's ban on students carrying concealed weapons contributed to the massacre. such arguments are soo stupid.
I mean, yes wikipedia needs to show both sides of the argument when presenting any case - so that the website comes across as neutral. But to put up ridiculous reasons, that too from really biased sources ('Conservative voice')makes the article biased with a right-wing flavour. please do take note of that article.
Personally speaking, I find it disrespectful to the people that died that somebody on wikipedia had the audacity to make a political statement in the event of such a tragedy. Hahahaha1 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Part 7 aka Criminal Classification is really mangled, especially the first paragraph. I'm going to try to clean up the language without distorting the content. Feel free to improve on any edits I make. Ikilled007 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
a
Maybe add a section more about the aftermath - news 12 long island reported this morning there are 10 copycat threats made across america for shootings in schools across america after this tradgedy.
okay cool. ill check it out later, im at school right now and the news12 website doesn't work (you have to be a cablevision subscriber. weird huh?) but im off right now on a free period so ill do a lil research.
If someone would be kind to add a section on coppy cats, my school, Walled Lake Western High School, Walled Lake, MI had one today. There are no news reports, but the school homepage has a letter from the principal http://www.walledlake.k12.mi.us/wlwhs It's not a shooting, but as close as you can get.
Thanks
Igafooj
21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is another copycat, unfortunately, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=195361
And another one.. Took place at MY high school. http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=49a3b859-5aef-4395-9b93-d26f0a606a27
the numbers of death? isnt it 31 only in virginia tech alone and 2 outside the virgina tech area?
The passive voice in the first paragraph is very weak. The gunman wasn't "killed". He killed himself. The others were certainly "killed" or "injured", but active voice is always considered stronger. The passive voice makes it sound as if some freak event occurred and the victims 'somehow' ended up dead or injured. The first paragraph should indicate that the attacker shot 61 people, killing 32 and injuring 29 others. However, I don't want to get into an editing war. Somebody please explain what's wrong with indicating (1) that the gunman actually caused the harm and (2) that he was the guilty perpetrator while the others were innocent victims. Logophile 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You do honor to your name, Logophile. Good language skills are as valuable on Wikipedia as they are rare. Ikilled007 changed the phrasing to an active one and it should stick this time. -- Kizor 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The BBC article has it wrong; Nikolas Macko was in a computer science class, not a math class. Maybe in Britain CS is considered a subset of mathematics? Anyhow, I would have made the change, but I don't know how to cite an email from the CS department here at Virginia Tech, and it also contains other names besides Nikolas's so I can't simply post the text verbatim. It's a minor point, but I'm all about accuracy. VTBassMatt 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The references to Collegiate Times concerning the victims names is an HTTP404 now. Look for another or remove the names. -- 213.155.224.232 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have an idea of what's going on right now? -- Starks 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What? Is something happening at the moment? Got any source or anything to explain what you're asking about? - Ennuified talk 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I know someone that was just about to drive in front of Burruss hall about 10 minutes ago, and was stopped by policemen - apparently a bomb threat was made on Burruss Hall, possibly President Steger's office. 204.154.43.244 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the article currently compares this massacre with previous spree killings and mass killings in the US and abroad, but there is nothing yet to explain the "civilian" qualifier used in the lead section. I suspect that this 'civilian' qualifier is designed to exclude militia and military massacres, such as Wounded Knee Massacre and Mountain Meadows massacre. Should this be clarified somewhere in the article? Maybe the emphasis should be on this being a lone killer, as the examples I give are militia/military units. Carcharoth 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The first line claims that the massacre was a huge hoax, I hope you guys don't mind, I'm changing it. Thanks.
a media response section would be relevant, such as Dr. phil's imediate blaming of vidio games or john stewarts decision to respectfully not speculate about the incedent at this time. Boatman666 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to edit and clean this up several times but it keeps getting reverted by someone who's obviously proud of his/her work which reads:
"Cho Seung-hui was a spree killer. Spree killers kill in two or more different locations but within only a few hours or often just minutes, in contrast to serial killers who have cooling off periods of several days. The case is similar to the University of Texas shooting of 1966, in which the perpetrator Charles Whitman firstly killed two persons - his mother and his wife - and ran amok after a significant pause."
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but aside from the fact that this is very poorly written, it also smacks of original research, provides no citations for such distinctions (serial killers take several days off to cool down between killings?? They never take months or years? They "cool down" as opposed to just do something else, etc.?
I'd really like to see this section made tolerable. Ikilled007 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then shouldn't the obvious parallel to the University of Texas shooting by Charles Whitman be mentioned? I.e. that the shooting was neither planned nor spontanous but a reaction to a spontanous (double) murder (in affect, "in the heat of the moment")? I think that this is obvious enough not to call it OR. Please excuse my poor English. -- Abe Lincoln 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
He had in mind to do it, but had no special date in mind. When he shot the first two, he decided that he had nothing to loose anyway and started to run amok. But that is partly speculation. I just would make hint on the very obvious facts, that there was a pause between the murder of people he obviously knew and the later mass murder. What do you think? -- Abe Lincoln 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It says in the info box 29 were injured but it says in the summary 17 were injured. Can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 ( talk) 18 April 2007
The "Timeline" section is making the TOC too long, in my opinion. I don't think every date needs its own subheading. Would anybody object if I converted all instances of == Date == to ;Date?↔ NMajdan• talk 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There's an inconsistency-- The timeline has his purchase of the Glock as coming first, whereas in the Gun Control section, it states the .22 came first.
I have been trying to prune the 'timeline' for things that are obviously not notable including a list of gatherings and get togethers and vigils. If you look at my contributions, I've been removing some pretty silly things that look more like they belong in Facebook, or some kind of events calendar. I keep getting reverted. In the end a lot of these things just will not matter and aren't informative. I'm giving up on removing it for now, and will come back when all the hubbub has died down. This article should have stayed in protective mode for a bit longer. ( Bjorn Tipling 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
Under the "Preparation" section under "Cho Seung-hui" it looks like big chunk from the top of the article has somehow ended up there. I'm not sure what belongs and what doesn't. Can someone who does please take a look at it? Thanks. Lovelace 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The "International Reaction" section says that government officials have expressed their sympathy to the American people and the families of the victims because of this incident, however looking at the links in that section a variety of governmental officials (e.g. from Germany) also mention that this incident shows the problematic low level of gun control in the US. The international reaction section was more complete yesterday with separate quotes for different countries, now it omits material information in my opinion. Themanwithoutapast 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it noteworthy that many, many international sources, both government and media are questioning the role US gun laws may have played in this incident? To mention just a few, Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, and France's Le Monde are treating the gun law angle as the primary story. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." I'm not saying every international response, especially perfunctory ones, should be included, but Howard's is significant considering he's a conservative ally of President Bush. GregOhio 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't we come up with more NPOV terms for the "gun control debate" section that avoid the slanted "anti-gun" and "gun rights" labels? Does anyone object to "gun control advocates" and "gun ownership advocates" instead? Anyone have suggestions for even more neutral terms? -- OtisTDog 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say that in all instances I've seen of the distributed cellphone video that there are not "twenty-seven shots heard". Five shots in the distance are clearly heard while other high-pitched, rapid "pops" seem to be wind noise or audio originating from the person shifting position of the cellphone in their hand. Kitsu3 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The killer obviously thought that filing the numbers off the guns would eliminate the numbers altogether. Actually, the old numbers can be revealed with acid.
This has been known for 50 years or more. I first heard of it in the 1950's.
A relative was in an armed Police force at the time.
A list of the 24 wounded could be provided along with the list of those killed by gunman.
I don't know what happened in the past few hours as changes are very hard to track due to the immense amount of edits on this article. Stating this, I am wondering what happened to the original picture on the infobox that had the caption:
Injured students being evacuated from Norris Hall, where 31 of the 33 killings occurred.
I think this particular image gave the article a great sense of identity as does the image in the infobox on the Columbine massacre page. It is also the image that appeared on most newspapers that were distributed on the 17th of April. Views? Opinions? -- Ddahlberg 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Could the content of the letter vfound in Cho's dorm room be elaborated on. I would want to know more about what his letter said, and what he said his reasons were for the shooting. 68.125.51.151 15:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Dwb1133 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)The April 2, 2007 entry in the timeline regarding an anonymnous bomb threat to Torgersen Hall is seamingly unrealated to Cho and should not be placed in this article.
The Wikipedia timeline says the Walther P22 was purchased on April 13th, yet the article on MSNBC used as a referance clearly says Feb 9. -- 12.109.16.131 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This page has so many people watching it, including myself that there's no real reason to Semi-Protect it and it would let others contribute and show the openness of the Wikipedia to new users who've come from the main page. WillSWC 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the the good participation we've seen from IPs on the talk page, I think unprotecting the article would be worthwhile. We should always be striving to minimize protection as much as possible. A Train talk 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I just had to re semiprotect. The article was receiving several IP vandalisms per minute. No objection to removing as the school kiddies calm down, but as well, it should be applied and removed as necessary. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The map image (Image:Norris WestAJ Map.jpg) has a scale in metric only, would it be possible to add an imperial/US customary scale alongside? The Manual of Style reads Conversions should generally be included and not be removed ( see here). Thanks CR7 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
In the article under "Cho Seung-Hui". A citation has been needed for this sentence: "Blacksburg police confirm Cho was investigated in late 2005 in connection with stalking complaints, but no prosecution resulted". Can someone please edit this so that a citation number can be placed since I cannot put it in as I am new? Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/ Anilove 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been talked about before, but I think that it should be the WORST not the deadliest mass murder. Deadliest means that something is more likely to kill you, such as the deadliest toxin. WORST conveys both the gravity of the incident and the fact that its a negative thing. For example, if one says its the largest, its sort of implies something to be proud of, such as the largest port... I changed it but in this article but it should be changed through out... And I hope they dont revert back to what the media is using..
Normdonovan 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
TUCHMAN: Were you ever afraid for your own safety at any time with this kid?
JOHN: He was a little weird. You know, after you know he'd been stalking girls and looking at their Facebooks and learning everything about them, and sometimes at night when I go to sleep, I'd be a little nervous. But I could always tell -- he would go into a pretty deep sleep because he would lay in bed and he would always moan and he's always -- would be a really restless sleeper and moving around. So I always went to bed after he did, and he woke up about two hours before I did and was always gone.
this page, http://www.roanoke.com/vtshootingaccounts/wb/113495, is a transcript of an interview with Cho's roomates and should be looked over for whoever is editing this article.
It's seperated to make it clear which bits go in where, aid navigation, emphasise that it illustrates things that happened prior to the shooting and leading up to it in terms on gun control, and also to reduce the amount of edit conflicts. I think, at least for now, there's a very good reason to keep it in. - Halo 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What about making the section "Cho Seung-hui" the first? Seems to me more consequential. -- Abe Lincoln 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)