Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Virginia Tech shooting. 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 3

→

Great work on article. Any info: on girlfriend / motive?

First of all great work. I was looking for a way to get caught up and all the MSM media had were excessively wordy articles with few facts. Your article is thorough, organizzed and has everything one would need to know. except . . . any information on the motive. Supposedly Cho had a white girlfriend who was cheating on him? Any update on this? --Quicky12 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As of yet there does not appear to be any official or well-sourced information confirming this. The rumors about it seem to be mostly second-hand from EMS workers and the like, definitely not reputable enough to include in the article until we get some solid info. Ennuified 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... All sources say "apparent", and Wikipedia stays away from using biographical information that is not rock solid. Certainly there were no pictures of the woman in question with the shooter on her myspace page, so any attempts to link them romantically should be taken with a ton of skepticism. Rahga 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could use some of the pictures of the victims? --xfroggy http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392980-details/College%20massacre%20gunman%20left%20'disturbing%20note'%20before%20rampage/article.do

We have been mulling over the chance that maybe it was one of the girls he was stalking as refered too in another part of this article. Maybe she didn't know about his problems and arranged a meeting with an advisor and him to talk things out Excalibrax

Records of Cho

Here are some records concerning Cho. Don't know if they provide usefulness, though it's something.

http://208.210.219.132/vadistrict/select.jsp

Try criminal, traffic, etc. Apparently he has one for traffic and criminal. Type "cho, seung" in the search box.

Identity of Gunman

23 year old Asian male (student) from South Korea. Name is Cho Seung-Hui. 9mm and 22 cal. guns. Tests confirm one of the guns was used in both shootings. Though they can't really go forth and say he was involved with both series of shootings; They can assume and are positive; but they need evidence. --66.16.38.129 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel just reported on the live broadcast that Cho's fingerprints have been identified on both weapons. If someone can get text sources for that, then we can probably confirm the connection between the two sets of shootings. Rdfox 76 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's picture can be found here - http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108 I don't know how to embed images. Maybe someone can help? ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Would the picture from ABC be copyrighted? Is there another source like the Student paper that is "free"? Pthorson 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that ABC images are copyrighted. I've seen 'em taken and used on another site. LonelyPker 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not post images unless you are 100% sure about the source and copyright status.Rahga 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Injury count is down to 15 and has held steady since 8pm last night, multiple sources including CNN, Fox News, ABC News, Roanoke Times. Here's the CNN source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html Rglenn 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

toll reachs 33

The death toll has reached 33 according to [www.bbc.co.uk]User talk:Yousaf465

It's already in the article, thirty three is including the gunman. — MichaelLinnear 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking of the box.User talk:Yousaf465

The box says it now too. — MichaelLinnear 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the picture infobox says 31 of the "34" killings. Should it be 33 or even 32? Tpoore1 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes bit excluding the gunman its 32 and common usage is that people care about the 32 victims what's wrong with that? or do we want an aggressive wikipedia? SqueakBox 04:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if we are going to change the numbers, we have to make sure we state whether the gunman is included or not. Gdo01 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Murders explicitly excludes as he didnt murder himself, SqueakBox 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone's invoked an imaginary consensuys so we need the NPOV as this article appears biased towards the perpetrator, SqueakBox 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But when you edited you did not delete that line (about the suspect being included). You should check what you are editing. Gdo01 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is that better now? Gdo01 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes. We are in the eyes of the world and invoking policy to support the guy who committed this is not on, IMO as an experienced editor, SqueakBox 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but I fail to see how including the gunman in a count of deaths supports him or shows POV.Chunky Rice 04:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How does saying 30 of 32 murders instead of 31 of 33 deaths make us "support the guy who committed this"? The shooter is dead, and he did die in that building, so IMHO not mentioning that makes us look like idiots. Do we all need to be constantly reminded that these were murders to know that gunning down 32 people is wrong? Natalie 04:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Why not just say fatalities? Then we can include the gunman (who is obviously dead) and it seems reasonably NPOV to me.~~ It was done as I was typing. Natalie 04:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why you people are getting so angry on eah other.pl dicuss with cool head.User talk:Yousaf465

Suicide is murder. So the number of murders is portrayed inaccurately by the article/infobox. -204.42.20.151 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide is not murder in any jurisdiction in the U.S. It maybe illegal but it is not murder.

Following the general rule on this one would say "32 victims" or "the shootings left 33 dead".

I prefer the former, the "left 33 dead" one makes it sound like the gunman did not purposefully kill himself. Ennuified 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ennuified. 33 people are dead; how the gunman came to his end is not known for certain right now, and should not be speculated on. Mike Helms 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One solves the ambiguity by using the above in preference to the problematic term "33 killed," unless one qualifies it with the construction "33 killed including the gunman who apparently shot himself." Walker42 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

suicide is not murder in any sense but a sophistic one. tomasz. 10:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded; suicide is NOT the same thing as murder, from a social or legal standpoint. Ennuified 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Who changed it would be my question. Columbine set the precedent. Victims and killer are not listed the same or afforded the same treatment in that article. That should carry over here as well. A suicide is not the victim of himself not a fatality of his own attack. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This number could still grow, there ae a few people(last I heard 7) still, whose state is serious. 84.0.99.227 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

suspect

my local NBC news just said that police belive the shooter was a 20 year old student.Seventhofnine 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC) condolences

What there are are CONFLICTING leaks as to perp. Undenied consistencies are male, student age, asian. Those are suspect descriptions everyone heard over a scanner and leakable by any number of sources.

Other descriptions leaked could be those of the two men arrested: a) the asian American student photographer detained during the shootings near the scene of the second shooting (many news pictures of this), and most likely (99.9999%) totally uninvolved bystander; and b) the suspect detained as a "person of interest" following the first shooting and in police custody during the second mass shootings. Either of those persons could be generating the Chicago news story on specific nationality and immigration status, in which case those identifying facts (which is premature here) could be true as to those persons but completely wrong when it comes to the actual shooter.Walker42 09:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

VT president said the shooter is student http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting 131.215.7.198 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

possible error

Our article states that President Steger said classes begin at 9:00 AM. This is probably an error. I heard him say on TV that classes start at 8:00 AM, which is also what the timeline in our WP article says. Other sources also indicate that 8:00 am is correct. Since actions taken and not taken by the school after the initial shooting are apparently a hot issue, perhaps someone can verify this discrepancy in our article and correct. We are currently stating two different things. Vaoverland 06:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Class at Virginia Tech beings at 8:00 AM, you can search the Timetable of Classes to verify https://banweb.banner.vt.edu/ssb/prod/hzskvtsc.P_DispRequest Such a statement by Steger may have refered to the second period of classes starting, at 9:00, when more students would be arriving to campus. Pruddle 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Steger said 8 AM. I have watched his press conference tape twice now. I have edited the article, so we are not misquoting him. Vaoverland 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Semantics & emotions, and why is this even here now?

If Wikipedia is to be a credible online reference, it should contain nothing but facts. Reading through the discussion, it's clear that many comments are being offered by emotional people trying not to sound emotional. Debating whether it should be called a massacre or a rampage is a good example. No matter how many were killed, this was a shooting. To call it anything else is to inject emotion, if not opinion, into the text. And basing this decision on what CNN called it five minutes ago, as though they're the standard for objective reporting, is just ridiculous.

Beyond semantics, I question why this is even posted on Wiki yet. It's still an ongoing, current news story; if someone wants to know what's going on, they can turn on their television or radio. If this is to be a credible reference for future readers, most of what has been posted is going to have to be revised anyway - so why not just wait until the facts are known?

Mike 07:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Patriot_66062

You're wrong. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre was seven deaths. This is indeed a massacre, and there's nothing unencyclopedic about the title. Scientz

Shooting? So a person reading the headline will think what? A person was shot? Did he live? Did he die? Who knows from the word shooting? Shooting doesn't capture the nature of the incident. Yes, it was a shooting, but it was more than a shooting. It was a shooting resulting in deaths. 32 dead victims and 1 dead shooter. Now how does "shooting" accurately convey that to the reader? It doesn't. "Shooting Massacre" should be the title. It's NPOV, it's not emotional, it's accurate, and it's informative. Ikilled007 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the article currently read emotionally? I felt that it was quite good and definitely fact-based, despite the emotions of its editors. The articles are the face we're presenting to the world, talk pages are the stuff behind the scenes. As for the existence of this article, aside from the way it'd be nearly impossible to stop, Wikipedia has proven itself to be a viable source of information for catastrophes like this. I think there was media coverage about that when the Canada mall shooting happened. More work? Those doing it don't seem to mind. --Kizor 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the title, but not about the second point. Folks in Australia or South Africa or even Canada can't find out all about this topic by turning on our radios or TVs. It may be very big news in some parts of the world, but for the rest of us this WP article saves hunting down snippets of information from several different sources. Anchoress 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not wait until facts are known? Because most online sources for this event are transient media reports that don't get updated, and there are few good comprehensive and informative sources out there for the case as it stands. Rahga 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The FBI defines a massacre as any mass murder of five or more individuals. This is not an issue of POV. This is an accepted definition and applies in this case.Rockules318 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree... See List_of_massacres. Not the best reading article in the world, but the articles it links to that are similar, near the bottom of the page and often with far fewer victims, tend to use the word massacre. Rahga 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many other articles, of a much less serious nature, that have changing events weekly, STRONGLY encourage those who are anxious to write articles to HOLD until the majority of the reports are unified, and facts are accepted to be so. Honestly, there is barely enough information on ANY aspect of this shooting. This article is more of a "heresay" piece, than of any encyclopedic nature. Many people will be searching wikipedia for information on it, but why can't anyone understand that Wikipedia is NOT a news site??? It makes me cringe to even read or think about updating this article. It's such a mess. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference section is screwered

can someone fix the reference section. Mercenary2k 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure it out--there might be an open ref tag somewhere but it is difficult to find. -Nick^talk 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed. -Nick^talk 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two main tags with the same name ("Washington Post"). Further, the second wasn't closed. It was tricky, all right. For future reference, those causing such incidents seem to be the last properly formatted ones in the references section when it breaks. --Kizor 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid reference

Is a British tabloid considered to be a reliable source? I dont think that the tabloid info should be included in the article until there is an official release. Also, the chains should be mentioned. --AGruntsJaggon 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, British tabloids can be notoriously unreliable. --Buyoof 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

New Section for List of Victims

Apparently, the first victim, Ryan Clark is identified.

I think the police, several hours from now will host a press conference and identify more victims.

I think we should create a section for the victims, where they can be identified.

What do you guys think?

Mercenary2k 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do the same as in the Columbine article (link to a separate page with a list of victims). Ephraim6888 08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been official reports of the victims names, but I see no point in including a Victim section. Maybe a separate article as suggested is the way to go.--Legion fi 08:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Collegiate Times has a list on their website that theyve been updating pretty fast I suggest whoever is trying to edit the page check it out. --Zib 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Mercenary2k 09:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the victims list. It has allowed me to find out who has been affected. You might consider humanizing these folks by linking to thier faculty or student web pages... I have been deeply moved by re-reading the biography of Kevin Granata who was an associate of mine. He was not scheduled to teach MWF so he must have just been in his office. Thanks for considering.

So far, none of the victims have been identified as East Asian. Could this be a racial attack by Cho against non-asians? Has anyone found out what the contents of that note were? ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It could have been, but it's not Wikipedia's place to state that unless external sources confirm it. Rahga 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While all were tragically killed, there is no merit in the victims, either collectively or individually have their own pages. Their cultural significance stems directly from this horrible incident.

~~Evil Stu~~ ~~

Repercussions of US Gun Law

I feel there should be some reference to the fact that these massacres are a indirect consequence of US gun laws, i.e. right to bear arms. I'm not sure about news coverage in the states but in the UK there has been extensive discussion about America's archaic gun laws, and the argument that these types of massacres are repercussions of US gun law. I feel the article should mirror the Columbine High School Massacre in terms of addressing the debate about gun control laws. Jamie 08:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's very POV and any discussion of this sort would of course have to include the other side-- if guns had been allowed on campus and possibly if even one law-abiding student had had a concealed carry weapon, the perpetrator could have been stopped before killing so many people. It is illegal to murder. This person killed 32 people and tried to kill more. Laws don't stop criminals-- they don't care about laws.Gloriamarie 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a encyclopedia... or at least it tries to be... so no POV involved--Legion fi 08:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Whether this event is a consequence of any law is nothing more than a matter of opinion and a regurgitation of the popular media. Shootings happen in every country every day, including England with its modern gun control laws.--Mike 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Patriot_66062

In fact, not only is it POV, but this is also way too early to say anyway. According to some, the shooter may not have been legally allowed to own a gun due to his alien status which would prove 2nd amendment proponents correct: criminals will get guns regardless of the law. I feel your addition would perpetuate another political explotation of another tragedy. Ryratt 15:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So why is the Columbine article not flagged as point of view? Like I said before there should at least be a small reference that mirrors what the media is saying. A normal rule of thumb is that if the media are saying it - people are thinking it. Jamie 10:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your descriptions of "archaic gun laws" are your POINT OF VIEW, and hence not applicible. And from what I've heard, the shooter in this case was already legally unable to own a firearm, due to his status of not being an immigrant of citizen of the US. But of course, this information isn't extremely reliable. IUJHJSDHE 10:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another POV

I agree with that. the usage by the would be commenter of the term "archaic" is inherently point of view. Also we have no idea as to whether the perp had a legal license or not making fact based discussion at this time moot, except perhaps to state that: "the incident will likely affect gun control debate in the US."Walker42 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That he wasn't allowed to bear arms is completely beside the point. The fact that he was able to get hold of a gun isn't.
My own bit of POV: Why would this particular event change the insane American gun laws? It's by far not the first tragedy of this kind in the US, and it won't be the last.
Let people draw their own conclusions from this. The article should be NPOV as far as possible, but I think it should definitely show the reactions in the international society to this. Of course that will only be possible after a while when we see the actual reactions... --dllu 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The following Times article provides good basis for the gun law debate to be integrated into the article Jamie 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, a UK newspaper op-ed by a British Professor of Psychology is not any kind of valid basis for a debate on the gun laws in the US. The UK media is utterly ignorant about US gun ownership and gun laws, and the US media is not much better either, albeit that since they are closer, they get less things wrong. "Massacres are a consequence of US gun laws" is your Point of View, and perhaps the media's preferred Point of View, but it is still a Point of View nonetheless. Virginia Tech explicitly prohibited its faculty and staff from bringing their licensed and lawfully concealed firearms to the campus (a fact), thus providing the gunman a safe working environment of disarmed victims (another Point of View) where he was able to murder 32 people without effective resistance.Kevinp2 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created a section called Political Reaction that might accommodate reaction in that area. Please note that the media routinely get the most basic facts about gun ownership and gun laws wrong, so please double-check that media claims in this area are in fact correct before you reproduce them in that section. I will monitor and correct media claims as I find them Kevinp2 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, Kevin, did you read the article? The professor specifically says the following:

'There is no doubt that access to rapid-action shotguns makes these events even more destructive but as we have seen with suicide bombers, who are closer to spree killers than is often realised, if a person really wants to take their own life and kill others in doing so it is exceptionally difficult to prevent it.'

Since you are evidently a pro-gunner (read: gun nut), you should be happy to hear anyone from Britain making such a statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.73.127.49 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

To be honest, I would be happy if the British butted out of our business today. Be that as it may, the same professor who talks about a "rapid action shotgun" (whatever that is) also talks about the NRA defending the "rifle-wielding member of a weekend militia" (also whatever that is). This op-ed has no factual benefit whatsoever to a Wikipedia article Kevinp2 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is, read before you assume next time.

Yet Another POV: IF the University had a gun club (as many high schools and colleges formerly had) that trained students in shooting and concealed carry, it is entirely likely that some fine young citizen could have dropped the perp in his tracks before the body count got to 32. I too would prefer that the usual hyperventilating from the anti-gun crowd would cease, but it is not within my power to control that. Lowellt 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly do we want that? It's a safe bet that this Cho Seung-Hui used two guns that started out as legal weapons at a gun store and were either (A.) Purchased by him legally or (B.) Sold to him illegally by someone else who bought them legally. If guns were harder to obtain legally, or had to be licensed and registered so that they couldn't just be re-sold on the street, isn't it a safe bet that things of this nature wouldn't happen? This whole idea that we should have guns to protect ourselves, if you view guns as a necesity, is a necesity brought on by the fact that guns are so easy to obtain. Paradoxical, I'm afraid, and not a sound argument by me.

Whatever I or anybody else may think of your assumptions about the value of private gun ownership (and believe me, I'm champing at the bit to argue the point, too), please take the discussion to a forum or blog. The talk page is for discussion of the article, not for making your case against gun ownership. 216.52.69.217 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevinp2 you need to dry your eyes and calm down. Its not only UK based media sources highlighting the gun law debate with reference to the Virginia massacre. See the following:

CNN Salt Lake Tribune

These took me less than a minute to find and are American media sources. What I'm saying is that the gun law debate and this massacre are consistently going to be referenced together. With this in mind the article will benefit from showing this correlation. Jamie 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information resident aliens cannot purchase handguns. Apparently these handguns were purchased illegally. It is not the people who purchase handguns legally but the ones who are able to purchase them illegally. No more gun control. Just enforce the sale of illegal guns. (BrendaSueCook 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Actually, Brenda, in Virginia you can purchase guns if you have proof of residence (this has now been added to the separate Wikipedia article on the killer). The ATF has already found a purchase receipt for the Glock, so they know Cho himself was most likely the one who bought it (legally), and the Walther was probably bought by him as well. Bow down to me for being wrong.

Thank you all for your opinions. Now lets get back to editing the Encyclopedia article. Pthorson 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to describe how the incident influenced the political discussion related to the gun control. It can be done in a very neutral manner, by quoting some of the most vocal parties. But it would be spurious to suggest that the gun control laws (or their lack) served as a cause for the massacre. This would be a very controversial thesis requiring a lot of support and original research--completely out of place on this page. melikamp 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't just quote the most vocal parties........................................ But other than that, the effect of this massacre on gun license debate maybe should be posted somewhere. Is anyone else crying as they edit? Zantaggerung 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Hey! Michael! Yeah! You! You are just mouthing your opinions, the facts are this: if guns had been allowed on campus and possibly if even one law-abiding student had had a concealed carry weapon, the perpetrator could have been stopped before killing so many people. It is illegal to murder. This person killed 32 people and tried to kill more. Laws don't stop criminals-- they don't care about laws. Zantaggerung 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant references

I believe that the referencing for some parts are a little too much. The first paragraph alone has four sources for the statement "and most news sources have confirmed 33 dead, including the gunman". This would need only one reliable source in my opinion. Also, there are several references for instance on the statement that it happened in the engineering and science building and on the types of weaponry used. All this could be reduced to single. --MoRsE 08:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Last night I cut reference tags down from around 25 to 18 or so just by putting in name tags. Journalists generally use two references to justify each statement- for now I suggest we clean it to this level and once the initial flurry of editing has stopped we can cut them down to a standard of one and clean out all not relevant/reliable sources. At this time there is no point in too picky about references due to constant edits as we could sit all day cleaning the article!

For now I am going to try and stop references such as Facebook etc.. and name any duplicate references. Bobbacon 08:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

There is currently no map so I uploaded this one to commons. -- (TheFEARgod) 161.53.48.211 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but wow, could the FBI have made an uglier map? That's just god-awful bad. According to this map, Maryland is bulkier than West Virginia. --Golbez 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are way better maps out there from various news sources. --Zib 09:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but as has repeatedly been mentioned, we need someone who knows our labyrinthine image use policy to confirm that those fall under fair use. --Kizor 09:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A map would very rarely be usabled under fair use in wikipedia. The only case might be if it is of iconic historical interest but still under copyright. In a case like this, there would definitely be no justification for using a map under fair use Nil Einne 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a campus map, showing the multiple locations involved would be more useful, perhaps with an inset locator map of Virginia. The London and India terrorist attacks had maps of that sort. NoSeptember 12:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So... how about satellite pictures from Google Earth? --Kizor 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted and unuseable. --Golbez 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this one? --Elliskev 13:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we NEED a map, since the map links prominently to both VT and Blacksburg. I don't think Columbine, Luby's, et.al. have maps of the cities they took place in. --Golbez 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

True. However, if a map is included, the free Blacksburg one would be the best option, in my opinion. --Elliskev 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A map of the campus with locations of the shootings could be better than a map of the state, although I don't know if they are okay to use. --Zib 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How to put a "map needed" tag at the top of the talk page (I forgot it's name) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan C. Clark

Just thought I'd note here that there is an article already on one victim (Ryan C. Clark), which should probably be merged into this article. Wikipedia is not a memorial and all that. Evil Monkey - Hello 09:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, it does seem rather superfluous. i suspect that in a few days it will prbly be realised that it's never really going to expand any more than it is, and either be merged or deleted. tomasz. 10:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the consensus on that article's talk page was firmly against a merge. I suggest we give it a few days for the situation to shake out and then reconsider what to do with it and any other peripheral articles. Cheers.--Chaser - T 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Three things: 1) I don't see merging it with this article; this article is already pretty long and bound to get longer; 2) I think ultimately a 'victims' page (as ghoulish as it sounds) will be developed, similar to the 'main characters' pages of major works; and 3) If a merge discussion continues, it should probably be on that page (Ryan's). But personally I think leave it for now. Forcing an early merge, if not well-supported, is only going to add ill-will to an already hot topic, and in a week or two or maybe less, the next step should be very clear. Anchoress 10:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that now is not the time to merge or create a page similar to List of Charles Whitman's victims. Emotions are running high as can be seen from some of the comment on the Ryan C. Clark talk page. Evil Monkey - Hello 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although there are legitimate concerns by some that it may be agreed that the article on Ryan Clark should be merged in the future, the majority of comments here and on the Talk page for that article so far have been to leave it alone as a separate article for now. Nevertheless, several individuals seem bent not going with that consensus, but rather, are taking unilateral action and have even tried to convert it to a redirect to this article now. We could be heading for an edit war and/or a need to semi-protect if we are not even going to follow WP policy about merger proposals. What gives, folks? My initial thinking is that this seems to be a manifestation of some combination of "my way" and just plain being mean for whatever reason. If I am the only one seeing this, will someone (at a less emotional distance) look over my shoulder and tell me on my Talk page (or tell all of us here). I am here in Virginia and am willing to concede that some of us are not at our best at such a sad time here. I need to step back and grieve a bit, OK? Vaoverland 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see this consensus you speak of. Quite a number of editors including me have suggested a merger is appropriate until it's established Ryan is notable Nil Einne 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kent State Shootings article also have linked articles --Zib 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because only 4 died and their deaths had a huge longterm effect disproportionate to how many had died. I don't think we are on our way to 32 articles but even starting down that road is far enough. Now the professor who died is keeping his article because he was renowned as an educator and master of his field. Only those who have additional reasons for being remembered by the world other than being killed should have articles. Gdo01 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Firearms

Which exactly firearms use shooter?

9mm and .22 handguns? But too many victims for such type of weapons. Avryabov 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

those were the confirmed weapons, he also had a substantial number of clips in his vest as reported by numerous sources and the authorities. --Zib 09:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If there where no inherent means of escape, and the victims were unarmed it would be quite easy to kill this number of persons with handguns.Walker42 09:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapons used are now reported as 9mm Glock and a .22 Walther, both with serial numbers filed off. Although specific models haven't been identified, I'm guessing they were a Glock-17 and a Walther P22. The Glock, if it was a -17, could fire 17 shots. That's a lot of bullets.

Seems like a Glock-19 is most likely. Magazine size on the 9mm is now being bandied about as 15 rounds -- that matches the Glock-19 -- and the -19 is highly concealable. The 9mm weapon was definitely a Glock, though. That's confirmed by multiple sources. No source yet listed on the .22. Both weapons had their serial numbers filed off, though a receipt for a purchase of the Glock in March was found in his dorm room, again multiple sources, notably ABC and CNN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rglenn (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

"About 15 rounds" isn't necesarily EXACTLY 15, and it is possible that the journalists have made factual mistakes (not uncommon). You could still be right, of course...but the concealability of the -19 wasn't necesary for his purposes, I wouldn't think.

The killer carried many magazines and its not that hard killing 30 people who are unarmed. Good friend100 14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ABC News is confirming that a Glock 9mm was purchased on March 13, and a .22 pistol sometime "over the weekend." The Roanoke Times says the .22 was a Walther P22. Rglenn 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NPR this morning reported that the .22 (may have? can't remember the exact wording) used extended-capacity clips that would allow him to shoot 27-28 rounds in 11 seconds. tohubohu

International Reaction

Please add the Iranian government condemnation of the event under International Reaction. Thanks 199.172.169.7 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the talk page is unprotected. That was done when I went to do it, thanks. --Kizor 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More international reactions: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/17/globalreax.shooting.ap/index.html 58.106.30.7 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer also The top goverment spokesman of Japan condoles. Thanks Desuzo 14:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done--MoRsE 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The reaction section seems more like a news story than an encyclopedia entry. Is there any point in including references to the canned "shocked and saddened" speech that every public figure in history has made after every tragedy? It's so predictable a part of this kind of event that it's irrelevant.Ninquerinquar 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to Iran's reaction is coming up with an empty article now.

Thanks for the heads-up. I found an equivalent on the pages of the Iranian foreign ministry, updating the page now. --Kizor 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

East Asian descent

'Suspect' section currently incorrectly states: The identity of the gunman (or gunmen) was not immediately known. A witness has stated that he was of East Asian descent, "around 19," and had a "very serious but very calm look on his face."

I do not have rights to edit the main page, but this is false. No witness has used term "East Asian." Also less egregiously, "descent" is wrong because this implies the person is a US person it is also attributed.

My guess is an editor from outside the US has attempted to clarify the actual quote from Asian to east Asian because of the assumption of east Asian origin and the differences OUTSIDE of the US in the terminology. US persons generally would say Asian. someone in the UK would use East Asian to differentiate those of Indian or Pakistani origin or descent.

The problem is that as written it appears to be attributed to a witness with the term "stated", which is incorrect.

Can someone change this?The witness said Asian, not East Asian. The witness may have been generalizing, or totally wrong, but you cannot attribute to them something other than what they stated.

Also the witness did not state descent. They made a reference to appearance.Walker42 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the word "descent": I am not a native English speaker, but this should mean "origin". I have no idea about the current situation of the US political correct terms, but this should just mean of asian origin. Even an asian who has never set his or her foot in the US should be of Asian descent. Greswik 10:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that attribution is made to a witness who made a spcific statemnt attributed and sourced in the press. No more no less.

And descent does imply a distance from origin, especially in an immigrant based society. If anything this should be "appearance."Walker42 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Of X descent" in English tends to imply that the person's citizenship or identity is more complex than simply "X". The implication is that the person is, for example, "descended" from Asians, but is not necessarily an Asian himself. By way of comparison, I'm of Irish and German descent, but wouldn't necessarily identify as either Irish or German. This is the price we pay for speaking a language with so damned many synonyms. ;) 216.52.69.217 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No citation for victim Mary Read

There are citations listed for all people on the victims list, except this one: "Mary Read, a freshman, killed while attending her French class." --24.20.69.240 10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I`ve found a cite:[1]. Could someone please link to this from her listing in the article?--24.20.69.240 10:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added her to the list (she apparently was removed for being uncited) and the link as a ref. --Kizor 11:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for victims

I see that articles have been created for at least three of the victims now. This needs to be reversed. Past events have shown that vitims of notable crimes are not in themselves notable. Unless notability can be established beyond their victim status then any important content should be merged back to the parent article and the vitim article deleted. Otherwise, Wikipedia will look more like a collection of obituaries than an encylopedia. Just take a look at the article for Ryan C. Clark to see an example. --StuffOfInterest 11:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the articles for student victims, but professors have some claim to separate articles by their position and their works, quite aside from their deaths. While Clark's article is just a memorial, the professors' focus on their achievements and merits, instead of just this tragedy. They should be kept. --Kizor 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the professor's notability can be established as per WP:PROF, then I would agree. Currently, the articles only exist because of the shooting. --StuffOfInterest 12:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

True, that. Give them some time. --Kizor 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

now we seem to be getting articles for survivors too. Please someone make it stop tomasz. 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I persoanlly felt the articles on the two professors should have been left for a day or two. While the articles were clearly created because of the shooting and I would have advised people to wait a week at least, once the articles had been created IMHO there was nothing wrong with giving them a bit of time to see if they can establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article on the alleged hero should have been removed since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Now that they have been 'merged', I would suggest editors work on them in their user pages and see if they can get them up to scratch. If they can establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) then there is nothing that wrong IMHO that they were created because of the shooting. Nil Einne 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The merges were reverted, so the discussion is still ongoing. Someone jumped the gun rather than being part of the discussion. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the party that doesn't mind the mention of the students' names on the main article, but I definitely don't think they should have their own articles. As for the professors: [2] notes that Professor Librescu was internationally known for his work in aeronautics, while Professor Granata was one of the "one of the top five biomechanics researchers in the country" in his field. They seem to deserve articles, but because they're renowned professors, not because they died. Nyttend 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make the professors notable, but the articles for them should concentrate much more on their notability in that case. How they died should be mentioned, but should not be the primary focus of their articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of those professors were notable enough for their own articles. In addition, the articles should mention all aspects of their life, professional career, and how they died. Nyttend is correct that they don't deserve article b/c they died. Where Nyttend is wrong is implying that the manner of their death is irrelevant. They deserve articles because of their notable lives AND the fact that they died in a heroic manner, which is itself notable.--Alabamaboy 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave the victim articles for now. This article will become too long otherwise. Things are unfolding rapidly and this article will be a work in progress for months. I personally came to read about the event and would not have appreciated the extra info in the victim articles in the main articles. Also we don't know yet whether they were just victims (although that is likely the case). Let's just chill, things will follow wiki rules eventually, and it's not like wiki rules are the be all and end all anyway. 70.53.128.184 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspect is confirmed student

Straight from Steger's mouth. --Starks 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News just reported on TV that they don't have a positive ID yet, as he apparently was incompetent on the suicide shot and destroyed much of his face, and they've been having trouble running his fingerprints, and that thus far, they haven't managed to definitively connect the two shootings, much less the bomb threats earlier in the month, according to unspecified Federal law enforcement officials.

They also said that they haven't confirmed that he's a student, but they suspect that he's in the country on SOME sort of visa, though they're not sure whether it was a tourist visa or a student visa, or whether he was from China or Korea. Should we change the main article to reflect this? Rdfox 76 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is OT I guess, but why would destroying your face be considered incomptent. The primary goal of suicide of this sort would normally be to kill yourself as efficiently as possible (i.e. with minimal chance that you can be revived and with minimal chance that you will suffer) without caring whether your difficult to identify Nil Einne 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a properly-aimed suicide shot with a handgun won't do any damage to the face. The way he did it, apparently, he botched it badly, and had a very slow, painful death. (Warning! POV comment follows!) Which, IMO, is perfectly appropriate for him. (End POV comment.) Rdfox 76 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If he succeeded in killing himself, then I would not be too critical of the shot. Maybe he planned a painful death. Is sepuku an incompetent suicide? "The cutting of the abdomen released the samurai’s spirit in the most dramatic fashion, but it was an extremely painful and unpleasant way to die.." Edison 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First or Second deadliest in US history?

The deadliest in US history according to the top of the page and second according to the bottom.

Deadliest shooting spree, second-deadliest school attack (the Bath massacre in pre-Depression Michigan involved bombs, not guns.). --Dynaflow 12:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me refine that. In a sense, Antietam could be considered the worst shooting spree in American history too. We should really define our terms carefully here. This attack was the worst illegal, single-incident, single-shooter, gun-based murder spree in US history, at least in the modern era (the Wounded Knee Massacre and other forgettable 19th Century atrocities might also conceivably fit into someone's conception conception of what the "worst" massacre/shooting spree, etc., might have been.

It might actually be best to avoid the temptation towards superlatives entirely and just concentrate on the objective facts of this case: body count, timeline, personalities involved, etc. --Dynaflow 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

seconded, thirded and fourthed tomasz. 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Mountain Meadows massacre. 100-140 men, women and children killed my Morman gunman in 1857. Perhaps spree killing would be a better description of the Virgina Tech killings rather than mass shooting. Sixfootmonad 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the term "spree killing" is that it's a tightly grouped set of killings over a multi-day time period or wider geographic area; I suppose you could say that the two buildings count as distinct incidents? UltraNurd 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In US history, worse massacres include 9/11 and the Indian massacre of 1622, a worse mass shooting would include the Mountain Meadows massacre and possibly the No Gun Ri event, and a worse shooting by a single gunman would include the many instances in which a US artillery attack during time of war killed more than 34 people. Thus, this event was "the worst mass shooting by a single civilian in US history." If the article is going to use terms like "deadliest" or "the worst," it needs to convey the context of a shooting that was done by a single civilian. Quasar2112 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that this is the second-worst mass shooting perepetrated by a civilian in South Korean history, behind the 1982 spree killing of Woo Bum-Kon. We should not be US-centric in placing this article in its proper historical context. I'm not sure, but mentioning the No Gun Ri event, the Gwangju massacre, and the Coup d'état of December Twelfth, all of which were mass shootings in South Korean history, probably does not fit this article, because none of those involved a single shooter and all were political or military in nature. Quasar2112 18:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the qualifiers "civilian" "by and individual" or whatever keep getting taken out of the intro? Without them, it's factually incorrect.Chunky Rice 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

USA terminology

People outside USA have no idea what the terms senior, freshman and sophomore mean.

In addition the USA post secondary education system itself is a bit of a mystery.

Could the entry be amended to include definitions of these terms and a comparison of the USA post secondary education system to other systems.

Tim O'Leary 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the first use of the terms is wikilinked to an appropriate article, this should satisfy the requirement. --StuffOfInterest 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just link the terms you think might be confusing to their relevant articles. That's how Wikipedia works. --Dynaflow 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

beat me to it, i was about to say that Tim O'Leary, i think you might be surprised how many people outside the US actually do know what they mean, but nonetheless i also just linked up the first occurrence of each term in the list of student deaths too. tomasz. 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What he said ^ Dynaflow 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

witness reports hearing laughing during shooting

I heard an NPR report this morning in which a student in Norris Hall reported hearing laughing during the shooting (presumably from the shooter, although the witness did not say specifically). I don't really know how to reference this since there were several NPR stories on the subject ( and actually I don't know if a radio story is considered a verifyable reference). Anyway, someone please find a way to include this in the article. ike9898 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If it can't be documented, it shouldn't go in. Wait a few days for transcripts to come out. --Dynaflow 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect English, Misleading Sentence

"Law enforcement reported that he killed himself inside Norris Hall by a shot to the head and used a 9 mm handgun and a .22 caliber handgun."

did he shoot himself with both weapons ? if not, its incorrect. please revise as its 'locked' Matthew Yeager 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i am unsure who to contact on this matter to edit this page ? i am a newer user and can not. anyone appose to this edit ? Matthew Yeager 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, taken care of. Ronnotel 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho as suspect

Will someone please remove that unless they have proper citation... --Starks 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Even if they did, you've started this sectino with his name. Regardless, they just announced it at the news conference this morning. I'm sure internet sources will be available momentarily.Chunky Rice 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Both NYTimes and ABC have said that he is the perpetrator. Also, isn't the proper spelling "Seung-hui"? Do we have any Koreans here? --MoRsE 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The press conference and VT website identify him as Cho Seung-Hui (note correct name order, family name first). Rdfox 76 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Name is 'Cho Seung-Hui', and not 'Seung-Hui Cho', and there is no official spelling of the name, as it is translated from Korean. It's the same as how the UK & US spell Osama/Usama. There is no official spelling. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 13:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. As he studied in the US, it seems rather likely that he would have adopted an anglicisation as his preferred anglicisation. Nil Einne 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention that name is reported on Sky News & Fox news as Cho Seung-Hui Paul Norfolk Dumpling 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that all the sources, ABC, CNN, etc state that there is a possibility of a second shooter. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he have an Anglicised name? Foreign students from asia will often take an english name when studying here. easytiger 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the statements in the press conference, it's a slim possibility at best--they confirmed that one of the guns used in Norris Hall was used in the first shooting; they just haven't fingerprinted it yet to confirm that nobody else used it. However, it's almost certain that he was working alone; they're just working on confirming that now. Also, the person running the press conference just confirmed the spelling as "Cho Seung-Hui." Rdfox 76 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, people have already created the following pages:

People need to keep an eye out to make sure there are no unnecessary dupes or confusion. Some of these pages need to deleted. Switchercat ^talk_cont 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking care of it, making all of the extraneous pages redirect to the page Cho Seung-hui, as it seems to be the "official" spelling of the name, Korean customs and whatnot. Macraw83 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you'd put in the section about the shooter, but the developing story link on CNN has some interesting (horrifying!) bits of information - like, no victim had less than 3 bullet wounds. The injuries were described as 'amazing' and the shooter as 'brutal.'J 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui is the correct way to spell it as it is with all other Korean names in Wikipedia. Good friend100 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

During the 9AM press conference, the university representative spelled out Cho's name as "Capital C, H, O, space, capital S, E, U, N, G, hyphen, capital H, U, I." Considering that the name presumably comes from his university records, which would include items written by Cho himself, I would go with his spelling for now as the authoritative one. Rdfox 76 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have our own style here, though, and at present that seems to favor a lower-case H. --Golbez 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My alma mater at least still has my English name wrong in some (but not all) of its databases, so I don't know how accurate of a source that is. UltraNurd 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ABCnews.com has just released the photo of Cho Seung-Hui. Mocappa 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

9AM Tuesday press conference

Fox News's ticker just reported the same ID as the NY Times article, and the VT Police Chief just confirmed it in the latest press conference. He was from South Korea, but he did have a visa. They also found a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun on his body; ballistics comparison proves that the same gun was used in both shootings. The "person of interest" in the first shooting was an acquaintance of the female victim, held for questioning, and was being questioned when the second shooting started. They have yet to connect the shooting to the bomb threats. Rdfox 76 13:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article: 2006 Virginia Tech massacre

... should be more appropriate. What say you? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong year, and why do we need a year again? How many other massacres have there been at VPI? --Golbez 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for the year. (→Netscott) 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I say, no. 'cos it's the wrong year! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-Hui confirmed live as the spelling easytiger 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

John Howard

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has extended his sympathies to the victim's families while decrying what he described as a 'negative gun culture' in America.

While I appreciate the above is sourced to CNN, could we get a better source for the description of JH decrying the negative gun culture in the US, preferably an Australian one? I heard some key parts of the speech and from what I can tell, he wasn't so much decrying the negative gun culture in the US but rather saying that Australia had managed to avoid the negative gun culture by laws implemented after the Port Arthur massacare. As this event occured not long after he became PM, all the laws implemented can effectively be considered part of Howard government's record. As there is an election in Australia this year, it seems to me what he was trying to do was to say to Australians something like this won't happen in Australia thanks to what I've done, not decry the negative gun culture in the US Nil Einne 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Yea, that's exactly what he's saying. And yes he's decrying the gun control of the US. What he's saying, from what I read, is by having the very strict laws in Australia, events like this are less likely and he used the US as an example of what lax gun laws could do. There is no way to prove that his logic is correct or wrong, and it's obviously PR for him, and I don't think anyone else would see it any other way. Whether it's PR or not, the point is made whether it's a good one or not is up to you to decide.

However, considering the UK and the US, and London and New York for example, which have similar populations, the UK (which has similar laws to Australia in this respect) London had about 1.7 homicides per 100K, with 6.6% gun related, while NYC had 5.5 per 100K and 70% with guns. Does 6.6% versus 70% = a gun culture? I don't know, it's up to you to decide I suppose.[[3]]Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at. I have no wish to debate whether or not the US has a negative gun culture since this isn't the time or place. What I'm saying is I don't think the CNN charaterisation of his speech is accurate. He wasn't decrying the negative gun culture of the US. Rather he was referencing the negative gun culture in the US to make a point. Nil Einne 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, yes that's what he was doing and I don't think it has anything to do with CNN, but if you can find an actual transcript it'd be worth looking over to see if CNN spun it. However, what's the difference between 'decrying' the culture versus 'referencing' it when it all boils down to him simply making a point on his policy? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that as we currently phrase it (and as CNN phrased it) we're suggesting that one of his key points was that the US has a negative gun culture. But this IMHO is not true. The negative gun culture was simply mentioned in his speech as an example. The point of his speech had nothing to do with the negative gun culture of the US. For example, let's say I made a speech on how monopolies harm the economy. As an example, I mention Telecom NZ or perhaps Microsoft. Characterising my speech as one decrying Telecom NZ or Microsoft will be quite inaccurate in this instance Nil Einne 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging the articles

Agree: The articles to be merged into this do not appear significant enough, on their own, to merit an article separate from this one. AEMoreira042281 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Liviu Librescu, at least, appears to have been independently notable in his field of engineering. I wouldn't merge that one. NawlinWiki 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the one who put the merge flag on for him and have taken it off as enough information has been presented in my opinion to show independent notability. --StuffOfInterest 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with the first two. However, a consensus has been reached on the talkpage for Professor Librescu's article that he was already notable under WP:PROF, and his self-sacrifice to save his students' lives made him at least marginally notable in and of itself. So Disagree on Librescu, but Agree on the others. Rdfox 76 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree for the student, certainly. I don't know the WP:PROF guidelines that well, so I can't say for the other two.Chunky Rice 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree for all but Librescu, he does appear to have been at least on the cusp of notability per WP:PROF before the shootings; in the wake of his sacrifice now he's unquestionably notable (Google News has plenty of articles dedicated to him alone). Krimpet (talk/review) 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree for Ryan C Clarke. Disagree for the two professors for now. Suggest the articles be left for 3 days. In the event that either article fails to establish the people are notable per WP:PROF or otherwise notable by then they should be merged Nil Einne 14:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree for the professors at the moment, but agree for the others. G.V. Loganathan has some claim to notability, considering that he was an Associate Editor of a hydrology journal, I believe he merits some further investigation to see whether he was regarded a significant expert in his field before we make a decision on this. --Buyoof 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all the above (profs not merged, others should be). --Ali'i 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off for now, see discussion on other pages Pthorson 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree for merge of all except professors who were notable in their own right. Can't honestly see why the merge should wait three days. The articles can allways be recreated later if enough notable information about a particular person (victim) comes to light to justify it. Pedro | Chat 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
While I think it's emperitive editors establish notability before writing an article, IMHO the best thing to do when an article was written about someone who may or may not be notable is to give editors a few days while they try to improve the article. The key point here is we are talking about existing notability not future notability. In the Ryan C Clarke, it seems unlikely he is currently notable. He may or may not be notable in the future but that's not for us to decide so we shouldn't have an article on him until it's established. In the professors cases, for at least 2 of them the information seems to suggest they might be independently noteable. As such, now that we have articles it's better to wait and see if notability can be established rather then move editing back to user pages. Nil Einne 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's also an afd discussion [4] for the student that is overwhelmingly in favor of a merge. Unless someone can give a good reason not to, I think we should just change the page into a redirect.Chunky Rice 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. Only the Professors are relevant. We're writing an Encyclopedia! The Professors have to get there own articles, professors are relevant at all. But to be killed can't be a normal cause to get own articles or a part of an article. All others are not important in an encyclopedic way. To merge there biagraphies in the Main-article is giving them own articles through the backdoor. And it's not really important or interesting to know who they were. This is important for there Families. But not for normal Readers. If I were the father of one Victims, I wouldn't to see an article in the WP about my child - only because it was killed. Marcus Cyron 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merging all articles about victims or survivors who are notable only for being shot. It could have been anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time. If someone did something notable during the rampage, and there are multiple independent and reliable sources over a span of time with substantial coverage of their actions (fighting with the killer, defending others heroically, self sacrificing actions, etc) then individual articles could be justified. If the professors satisfy WP:PROF then they should have articles. We cannot claim to have evaluated all college professors for notability in general, and if one is in the news why noit create the article. Ditto for any students or staff who are notable independentlu of the shooting. Wikipedia is not a memorial for obituaries of people who died in a notorious event. (edit conflict).Edison 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments split from Merge vote

You people who focus on the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia are all a bunch of wankers. "Oh my God, someone created an article about someone how might not be notable!" Better shut that down or Armageddon will come. Quick too, before more information comes to light. A classic example of why wikipedia is doomed to be forever outside the margins of legitimacy. 70.53.128.184 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What? How, pray tell, would allowing people to create articles on whatever they want - themselves, or their band has never been heard of, or that game they made up one day - make Wikipedia MORE "legitimate"? Remember no personal attacks, too.--AgentCDE / Talk / 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Half-Staff

President Bush has ordered all flags to be lowered to half-staff until Sunday Dwilliams617 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? I can't find anything on Google news [5] --W.marsh 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Link found ! [6] Matthew Yeager 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually found that link too and just added it under "Government response". Tweaking is probably needed though. --W.marsh 14:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement response weasel words

"Bureau spokesman Richard Kolko stated there was no immediate evidence to suggest a terrorist incident, but that the agency is exploring all avenues.[38]" is a typical hidden suggestion and not neutral. The statement is a political statement to promote fear of a terrorist attack that uses the incident as a platform, but it is unrelated to the incident or the investigation of the incident. The article should deal with the investigations of the agency, but not with the political statement of its spokesman. Just state that the agency explores all possible avenues of investigation and cite mister Kolko as source for this statement or leave it alltogehter, as it contains basically no useful information about what the agency does right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.17.11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but this was one instance where ruling that statement means something... If there isn't evidence of a terrorist attack, then students didn't have to be as worried about additional coordinated attacks on that campus. Unfortunately, it also meant that officials assumed that the situation wouldn't escalate after the first two victims, and with all the attention being paid to the response in the first two hours, it's definitely relevant. Rahga 14:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is singled out. There was also no evidence of a plethora of other things that could affect the students situation. To make this a valid statement, it should be evidence *against* a terrorist attack, not lack of evidence for it.

It's singled out because it's one of the most likely causes to rule out. It's just like police stating that there no evidence of foul play whenever someone dies unexpectedly... They state that so the public can but the event into context without having to give details prematurely. 24.173.220.30 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious it wasn't a terrorist attack, unless terrorism now incorporates all mass murders.. -- Mithent 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline discrepancy

Under the April 2 bomb threat, it says that this incident is not believed to be related to the shootings. But under the April 13 bomb threat, it says that both bomb threats could have been made by the suspect in the shootings. The information about April 13 seems to contradict the information about April 2. --Ball&Chain 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At the latest press conference, from about an hour ago, it was stated that they had no evidence linking the bomb threats to the shooting. However when I added the bomb threats to the timeline I referenced an article stating that police thought they might be related. So it is obviously something they are considering, but they do not yet have evidence. Someone modified one of the entries to reflect the press conference but not the other - the two entries should indeed be more consistent. --Dan East 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidence has been discovered possibly linking the bomb threats to the shooting. I've merged the existing two bomb threat incidents, and updated the article with the evidence. --Dan East 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre vs Shooting

Someone apparently moved this AND the school shooting page to Virginia Tech Massacre and School massacre. People, knock it off. First off, quit being emo. Second, be more encyclopedic. And third, actually gather consent to move the page before you do so unilaterally. Titanium Dragon 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Quit being emo"? Well that helped your argument immeasurably, thanks for the tip. --Golbez 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what they're doing. Its unencylopedic. The media is calling it a shooting and referring to it as a shooting. Therefore, it should be called 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Beyond massacre not being an encyclopedic name, its not being used by our RSs. Ergo, it shouldn't be called a massacre. Titanium Dragon 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Emphatically disagree. The Valentine's Day Massacre (which didn't have near as many deaths) is encyclopedic, as are several other "massacres." And, your other point is patently false as well, virtually the entire gamut of the MSM is calling it the "Virginia Tech Massacre" --Scientz

I continue to be amused by people who say it should include "2007" without ever giving a reason why. Seriously. I've asked about a dozen times now and no one's even tried to justify it. --Golbez 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of the shooting that happened there last year. Titanium Dragon 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a Hurricane Katrina in 1981, should we renamed Hurricane Katrina? Or should we accept that 99.999% of people will be looking for the bigger one, and a simple disambig link will clear up the confusion? --Golbez 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This happened like, 30 hours ago, max. Betting on the future is a suckers' game. In any event, though, 2007 isn't my major concern. My concern is people moving it to massacre from shooting when the media I'm looking at isn't calling it that. Titanium Dragon 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I argued for the article to not take the title of "massacre". Apparently, someone decided to move it anyway. Nishkid 64 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some proper consensus needs to be developed here and then the page potentially move-locked again. Even the school itself calls it a 'tragedy', not a 'massacre'. It's rather unilateral for Wikipedia to decide it warrants that term. -- Mithent 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I too felt the move shouldn't have been carried out and was disappointed when I came back and found it had. While there were a large number of people who 'voted', a poll was always a mistake in this given that it it's currently very emotive. Nil Einne 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." ... It's not a weasel word if there's no misleading intent. Rahga 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the poll; it was open for only a very short period of time. I suspect the person either moved it because they wanted some justification for it, but honestly, that period of time is not nearly enough. A lot of people are asleep during that time period, or at work, or whatever. I don't think it was a real poll for a variety of reasons, but I'm too lazy to go through and look for duplicates, new people, ect. and see a big gripefest over it. I'm disappointed in the person who moved it though. The word massacre is unencyclopedic anyway; its intention is to draw emotion, not to be descriptive, and shooting is far more accurate.

There is no consensus in the media for what to call it at this point; as one might expect, the sensationalist Fox is calling it a massacre, as are some other sources; a number (including CNN and a number of college papers (though I haven't looked at VT's)) are calling it a shooting; some are calling it an attack or a tragedy. Moving it was very premature. I do agree it needed to be move locked though. Titanium Dragon 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what CNN or the school calls it, what would a normal person call it? You need to ask yourself how is it a massacre? Alternatively, how is it not a massacre? A tragedy is too subjective. Losing my ATM card could be a tragedy. However, massacre is quite speicifc when it usually means the mass killing of innocent and defenless persons, whether by a cilvilan or military person. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Wikipedia cares. And that's what is important, given, last I checked, this is wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a place for emo, sensationalism, or making up stuff. Titanium Dragon 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

define "a normal person" for me and i'll get back to you with an answer. tomasz. 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know exactly what has happened yet, and for encyclopedic instead of sensationalist style, I would go for "shooting".--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I said who cares what CNN or the school thinks. Please read before responding. In my opinion this was not a run of the mill 'shooting', however consensus should win.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not "consensus should win". That's farcical and not how wikipedia works. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Please read WP:NPOV, among other articles. It isn't our place to use charged language, and it is inappropriate to do so. This article was moved at 0:50 to this page, then move locked at some point. The media is not currently in agreement to use this name, nor are we. Titanium Dragon 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, man... Should they rename the holocaust article because the word can be used in a sensationalist manner? Sometimes it is what it is, and this was a massacre. Look at the List of massacres. Articles linked there but with far fewer victims use this word. It is standard practice. Rahga 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hilerum is not only a horrible argument, but if the Holocaust wasn't used commonly to refer to the Holocaust, we wouldn't use it. And in any event, the Holocaust is now a proper noun - it is the name of it, along with the Final Solution (to the Jewish Problem). This is not known as the massacre, and again, read my first post in this section. It isn't our job to sensationalize, and people need to understand that. Titanium Dragon 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's simply not sensationalization. Again, List of massacres. Rahga 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, I think you need to relax and clam down. Explain to me how this was not a massacre and maybe I'll see your point. I don't see how using the word that correctly describes the event is a violation of point of view guidelines on wikipedia. Further, someone using the term 'emo' (whatever that means), probably should not be leading the cause for the correct English word to use when describing an event. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this is a massacre yet the name of another article in which many many more civilians were killed is just called an attack "September 11, 2001 attacks?" I vote to change it to the Sept 11, 2001 Massacre.

That's ridiculous. A planned paramilitary attack by foriegn nationals was an "attack" on the entire country. This was a massacre of civilians by a lone gunman. Scientz

Because randomly killing 4 people is not a massacre. If you look on the list of massacres, there's a clear difference in scale between a number of them. The civilian massacre list is VERY long, but almost none of them are even significant; a half dozen here, a handful there. Of that whole long section, the Jonestown mass suicide is pretty significantly different from the rest; 900 versus the next most, 45 (which, I might add, was the deadliest school killings ever, NOT this one - people always forget about the Bath School disaster). How is it not a massacre? Massacre is a word which is used to charge things emotionally, and that is simply unaceptable in an encyclopedia; the only reason we'd use it to refer to something is because it is its name. 33 is a lot of people, and might meet my criteria for a massacre, but calling it that before it has been labelled such and agreed upon is unencylopedia. It is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. And moreover, its simply less accurate than shooting. Many people here seem not to understand what Wikipedia stands for, and it isn't sensationalism; its NPOV and giving good, verified information. Calling it a massacre doesn't help with any of that.

Not to mention, 9/11, as someone mentioned above. It is the 9/11 attacks, not the 9/11 massacre. Titanium Dragon 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Nja247... It was a massacre. However, it was also a shooting, and it's more about which name is the most appropriate. The main argument for calling it a massacre had to do with attribution and the fact that most media outlets were referring to it as such yesterday; this is no longer the case. At the time I'm posting this, CNN, ABC, FOX, and MSNBC are all referring to it by a number of names, and are most commonly referring to it as 'the shootings'. Massacre shows up once on those front pages; so does 'shooting rampage'. The word massacre has semantic implications that run beyond its dictionary definition that may not be appropriate here, given that we have the less-subjective alternative of 'shootings', which is more specific and less loaded/sensationalist. Ennuified 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which CNN you're watching, but I've been watching it with only a stop to sleep since the event happened. Since the death toll rose above 30, they've never wavered from "massacre." And again, I point to the encyclopedic St. Valentine's Day Massacre which was less than a quarter of the size of this slaughter. Scientz

I was referring to the website, although they have changed their headline again to "'Loner' Unleashed Massacre". However, most of the other news websites are not referring to it as such, and even that name appears to be merely a description and not what they're calling the event itself. Furthermore, there's no reason to argue against me about the massacre bit. I understand and agree that it can be defined as a massacre. My point is that it would be better described as a series of shootings, because that is a more accurate and objective name for it. Calling it "The Virginia Tech Massacre" is premature in any case, because we don't even have the slightest inkling of if it will indeed come to be known as that or not. In the meantime, while we wait for a name to settle into the public consciousness, we should change it to Virginia Tech Shootings. Whoever changed it in the first place did so too quickly in any case. Ennuified 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral? There was a very large amount of support for the current "massacre" title. (→Netscott) 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, no. They change their headlines regularly, and inline it is referred to as a shooting in pretty much every article. Moreover, there is no clear consensus from the media on the matter. Titanium Dragon 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you understand what the word you used, "unilateral" means? (→Netscott) 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest changing the title from "shooting" to "massacre," and I'm glad to see that's been done. That's what most of the media are calling it, and that's what it is, a massacre. That being said, somebody please change the title from "Virginia Tech massacre" to "Virginia Tech Massacre." "Virginia Tech massacre" is not grammatically correct. Thank you.

SwedishConqueror 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Agree. I'm really not sure what channel the "shooting" people are watching, nor what their definition of a massacre is. It is *not* better described as a shooting. The incident at VT last year was best described as a shooting. This is a massacre of the highest order, and there has been no "shooting" of this scope in US history. "We should wait until it settles in the public consciousness?" Nonsense. This will be the top news story for WEEKS, and it will continue to be called a massacre. People arguing that "massacre" is sensationalist should take the time to realize that 32 deaths is sensational in and of itself. --Scientz

The homicide rate in the United States is 5.9 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants per year. The United States has a population of 3,015 hundred thousand. That is to say, about 18000 murders are committed each year in the United States. Divide 18000 by 365 and you get on the order of 50 homicides per day in the United States. Every day, one and a half Virginia Tech “massacres” occur in the United States alone. Its not like we even write articles about events like this which occur in Africa on a daily basis.

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, as well as see the many other debates over such things. We aren't sensationalist, we're supposed to be NPOV. Unilaterally changing the name to massacre is the opposite of NPOV. Titanium Dragon 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One and a half? You're really reaching at straws here. It would only be relevant if those murders were committed by the same gunman as part of the same event. They're not, and you know it. All of this justification of your POV is very nice, but the event IS the Virginia Tech Massacre. --Scientz

This event qualifies as a "massacre" under any reasonably accepted definition of the word. Differentiating this event from the shooting in the fall by adding "2007" is completely unnecessary as the shooting in 2006 was not a "massacre." Therefore, titling the article as either "Virginia Tech Massacre" or "Massacre at Virginia Tech" would be entirely acceptable as both identify the event properly. "Shooting massacre" is either redundant or too verbose. The current title is good until things have settled down and there is a public consensus as to what the event should be called. Rooot 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Move the page

Please move the page back to Virginia Tech shootings. This article was not to be called Virginia Tech massacre. --Afed 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

how "was it not"? says who? and please check if there's already a discussion on a topic before you start one. tomasz. 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is pretty much over, and the page has already been moved, and protected so it cannot be moved back, hence the request for someone to do it. --Afed 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a very large amount of support for the current title. (→Netscott) 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

it's neither over, moved nor protected. it's further up this page. check the table of contents if you're not sure whether something's on a page or not. tomasz. 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus from the MSM, the Wikipedia community, and historical precedent (St. Valentine's Day Massacre, etc.) is that this will be known as the Virginia Tech Massacre. -Scientz

No, it isn't. The supposed "move" vote was open for like, six hours. That's not nearly enough time. I didn't get to vote in it, nor did many others. The rest is pointless. St. Valentine's Day Massacre is known as that for the same reason the Holocaust is known as the Holocaust - they are their names. This does NOT have a proper name yet, there is no consensus from RSs, ect. I'm going to move this up to the other section. Titanium Dragon 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Dragon, this was not enough time, and this event hasn't be defined in our culture enough for us to know what the title is going to be. Whether or not there was a consensus, I am positive that the title is still open to change. Wikipedia does not define the title of events in our culture. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming an assymetrical issue. There is consensus on the title of this event, and you (Titanium Dragon) seem one of the only ones fighting against it. --Scientz

Massacre or not massacre? Being Emo or not? Encyclopedia or uncyclopedia? I vote for Massacre. It is not emo (silly argument)– unless people in the American Revolution were Emo. It is not uncyclopedia unless we need to change the Boston Massacre article to the "1770 Boston Shooting." AND, it has also been refered to as a “massacre” in the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, and other news sources. 146.129.249.238 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)didn't sign myself in Mefanch 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Scientz

A massacre is the violent murder of five or more individuals. This event fits that definition, and, thus, this name is appropriate.Rockules318 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I still lean towards Virginia Tech Shooting, because when I was in high school, no one called Columbine a massacre. Whether or not encyclopedias did, we all called it the Columbine Shootings. And according to the above definition, it should be the Columbine massacre as well. 9/11 could be called a massacre as well, but no one calls the event by this either. I think once a week or two passes, the unified "title" of this event should be what the title of the article should be. That title will be a part of our culture, regardless of what the actual appropriate definition of the event should be. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you done your research? (→Netscott) 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. 9/11 was a paramilitary attack by foreign nationals on the entire country. Columbine was a massacre, but it seems to be known as simply "Columbine" (and, has been changed to Columbine High School massacre on Wikipedia). This, however, was quite clearly a massacre. --Scientz

I don't know that Columbine should even have the name it does, given I generally see it referred to as Columbine, and if someone bothers to write it out, they say Columbine High Shooting, not massacre. Why? Because people only use massacre to excite emotions; it isn't a word people tend to use in everyday language. Titanium Dragon 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims?

Is the list of victims only dead ones? Or are they injured and dead. If both, then they need to be specified. Joh777nny 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a List of the Virginia Tech massacre victims article created where that would be analyzed. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Article? Nah. Why just not expand the page and put it with the whole shooting incident? Besides, I forgot if the whole victim list has been released yet. Deletion Quality 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(moved comment to "Merging" section). Edison 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Victims aren't notable for being victims, so shouldn't have their own articles. Is listing all the dead encyclopedic? No. In fact, I don't think we should list them at all. We don't list people who died in 9/11. Only people who are independently notable and have their own article should be noted. If someone did something "heroic" in the attack, that belongs here, not in another article, because its simply a part of this attack. Titanium Dragon 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't list victims of 9/11 in very large part because there were three thousand of them. We list Kent State victims, Columbine Massacre victims, January Events victims, etc., etc. They're an important part of the tragedy.
And just as a pet peeve: Can somebody please point me to a good, working definition of 'encyclopedic'? --Kizor 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this. Articles on the mainpage of the encyclopedia everyone can edit don't get protected (not even semi-protected). There are enough eyes on this to revert vandalism quickly.--Doc^g 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What should be added as to the reaction of students, that the University didn't do enough to stop the attacks? I have two sources from MSN. Do you'll think I should add them? Bearian 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making articles on individual victims

Wikipedia is not an obituary. We should not encourage articles on individual victims. Let's gather all the info, and then maybe later we can split them out if deemed necessary. Individual victim articles run too much risk of turning into memorials. While this is a major news event, we're not going to have enough information to make proper biographies on a typical victim. Friday (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree Spencewah 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree not appropriate to create bios for everyone Scottydude _talk 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

34th death

Erin Peterson, 18, reported dead by CNN. No online source yet so I don't want to add it. --Golbez 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

CNN now reports a 34th death, but no word on the victim, or if she died at the hospital. AEMoreira042281 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The report of the death has been sourced and added. AEMoreira042281 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misunderstood; it's possible she died yesterday, and CNN merely just learned her name. --Golbez 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No such luck. That would be Erin Peterson, died on Tuesday. --Kizor 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there will be any 34th death, as the hospitals have reported that all victims are now in stable condition. Recommend immediate revert of any claim of a 34th death without substantial confirmation (multiple news sources or report from police/hospital). Rdfox 76 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Local news sources are specifically discrediting the CNN report:[7]

Although CNN reported another death among the victims of Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech, area hospitals say no one else has died today.
The official death toll from the shootings remains at 33 people.

--Dan East 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of campus needed

This article could really benefit from a map of the campus, something like used here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601810.html.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Copied to top of page for better visibility. --Kizor 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other arrests

I removed the part "Sources in University Relations told the student newspaper there may have been two arrests.^[1] The arrests have not been confirmed by authorities, nor have names of anyone arrested been released." since the source cited no longer says that. Sometimes online refs get changed during the day to reflect the present understanding, and the claim of other arrests does not correspond with news reports today. Doubtless the police detained and questioned several people then released them. Edison 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At the last press conference officials did state that an acquaintance of Emily Hilscher was arrested for a brief time in connection with the events, but that he is no longer a suspect. They do expect to obtain more information from him, presumably regarding the relationships involved that triggered this event. --Dan East 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Definitely I saw a photo of someone who looked east Asian being arrested. As his face was still fine and he was still alive, this was obviously not the shooter but may have for example been mistaken for the shooter Nil Einne 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So people know, standard SWAT team practice is to remove everyone in restraints as if arrested, and then sort them out at the stationhouse; the reason is to prevent perps from escaping the scene by pretending to be a victim or innocent bystander. By treating everyone as a potential perpetrator, restraining them, and removing them for later processing and release of those who weren't involved, they make sure they don't let a bad guy slip through their fingers, or ambush the SWAT officers when they continue on. The reports of other arrests may be a case of people and/or the media mistaking this practice for arrests of suspects. Rdfox 76 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rdfox, that may be, but I didn't see ANY photos of white people being detained, let alone thrown to the ground, and I saw lots of videos of white people running every which way. {Fsu23phd 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Mentioned on NPR and linked to from reddit.com

This article was mentioned on today (4/17) NPR's Morning Edition and is linked to on reddit. (Bjorn Tipling 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Could you provide a direct link so we don't have to search? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

~~NPR Morning Edition piece in question~~ --Spencewah (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2007 (EST)

Or try: "Va. Tech Students Go to Web for Info" by Renee Montagne, Morning Edition, National Public Radio, April 17, 2007.
I think the audio mentioned this article by name. -MrFizyx 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, the above article is the correct one, not the one I posted Spencewah 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

False Suspect Media Leak.

http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/ The author of this live jounral was accused by various media outlets as being the shooter before any identities were released. I think this bit of info should be added to the article in the interest of capturing, for posterity, the modern-day 24-hour media frenzy (just as we saw with the false reports of mayhem during Katrina). Thoughts? Ryratt 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. Here's larger media coverage. But while we're at it, we should cover this story, which has appeared in several newspapers and has a lead-in about a person who this article briefly accused of being the shooter. Whoops. --Kizor 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaos

This isn't an article, this is chaos. An SysOP should close this for some days - and then shoul be somone write an correct Article. Actually there only patches. It's a shame for Wikipedia. Everybody puts in what he want - but nobody looks for structure and for importance. Marcus Cyron 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Have any specific criticisms to offer? --Golbez 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty impressed at the way it's coming together. You, know if you have ideas for how it should be structured, you're free to make those changes yourself or discuss it here.Chunky Rice 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

here's a great guideline for the dissatisfied. tomasz. 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, but let's be practical for a moment - large-scale changes by one person are unfeasible or at least extremely difficult during this torrent. That said, while the process is horribly inefficient I for one am impressed by the results. --Kizor 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose we merge Cho Seung-hui stub article, with the main VA Tech massacre article. Seung-hue's notarity is soley based on his act of murder, which is covered in the main article. Mytwocents 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: Murderers in other circumstances, such as the Ecole Polytechnique massacre (Marc Lepine) have their own article. Other mass murderers have also had their own article. But based on what is known now, Cho Seung-hui doesn't YET deserve his own article. AEMoreira042281 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Very Improper Merger You *just* got shot down about a potential merger on the other page Talk:Cho_Seung-hui#Merge_discussion -- now your trying to have the discussion on this page for no apparent reason besides going around the consensus reached on the other page. MrMacMan^Talk 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think spree killers should be merged to the article on their incident, if it's the only reason they're notable. However, the articles in Category:Spree killers is pretty clear precident for keeping them as separate articles for now. --W.marsh 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per User:MrMacMan - one bite at the apple, please. Ronnotel 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, the article is already growing, and I guess that a lot of information on him will be revealed over the next few days --MoRsE 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait. Very little information is known about Cho Seung-hui yet. as we find out the boundaries of what information there is about him, we'll know what to do. tomasz. 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. The content should start out as part of the main article, probably in its own section. Once there is enough content to justify splitting out to a separate article then it should happen. Everyone wants to start an article, so we keep doing this backwards. --StuffOfInterest 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, give it a week, if there still isn't enough info to warrant its own article then I'd say go ahead with merge. Spencewah 15:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that he's noted only for his blaze of unglory, but there's a scenario where a subject that derives its value entirely from another can have its own page: if the subject's article can cover it better on its own than as a section of another page. (Did that make any sense?) For instance, Kimveer Gill is given an overview in the Dawson College shooting article and addressed in detail in his own. --Kizor 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, I suspect that the Cho Seung-hui article is going to grow to be a rather large size. As such it is going to be unwieldly to try to include such content in the main article. (→Netscott) 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose killers are notable, and unless you also merge Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, there's no reason to merge Cho. 132.205.44.134 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose While I agree that, at this point, there isn't enough material for him to merit his own article, I think it is plain that it will only be a matter of days, if not hours before there is. And I realize that this is WP:CRYSTAL, to some degree, I'm going to go ahead and invoke WP:IAR due to the inevitability of it.Chunky Rice 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Arguments already well presented. --Dan East 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As stated above, many arguments have been well presented. The more we will learn, the more we will see if another article is warranted. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun control debate

Why would you delete the section entirely? Óðinn 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think because it included a long anti-gun control opinion. But I have re-added the initial bit about the news/editorial coverage of the gun control response. --W.marsh 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't booth sides be mentioned? Óðinn 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it can't be a debate if only one side is expressed. --Golbez 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, back it goes... Óðinn 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it for now. Here is an interesting relevant local news article from a year ago. It discusses the death of a bill that would allow instructors and students to carry weapons on campus with proper permits and background checks. It includes a quote from the Virginia Tech spokesmen stating that everyone would feel safer.[8] --Dan East 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this section relevant? It seems kind of early; this comes up after pretty much every school shooting. Titanium Dragon 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't exactly like every other school shooting. As long as there are appropriate references, and a NPOV, I say leave it in place for the time being. If it grows into something else (too large, too POV, too lame) then it can be axed or split off. Many, many people are asking these sorts of gun control questions right now, so it is appropriate to at least recognize that in the article. --Dan East 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Massacre

I heard on the BBC reports (by means of video playback) that the South Korean gunman had INJURED 50 people and KILLED 32 people I think this is more accurate...!

NYT said only 15 people were injured. Natalie 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources I've seen also say 15. But I think it depends on how you count injured. The 15 number, I think, is the number of people that required medical attention. There are probably a variety of scrapes and bruises that are injuries, but aren't going to be counted by most.Chunky Rice 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It could also be the result of a simple communication error, since fifteen and fifty are basically homophones if you're mumbling. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

or indeed, listening via video playback. tomasz. 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They might have meant about 50 people were shot, considering that the total of deaths and injuries has remained relatively constant since the news broke - the first stories were reporting 22 dead and 25-30 injured, which is about 50 total. So it's possible that some people were originally reported as injured but were actually dead, or died in the hospital. Natalie 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anniversaries of other mass murders

I added this section to historical context which was quickly reverted on the basis of relevance.

The incident also occurred within the same week as the anniversaries of three other mass murders in recent U.S. history: the end of the Waco Siege on April 19, 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, and the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999.

Within the specific discourse of historical context, I believe that it is relevant to describe other major mass murders that occurred within such a narrow span of time within recent U.S. history. I'm proposing no link between the other events, just as one cannot propose a link with other deadly shooting, merely providing information from the historical record. Madcoverboy 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i can't really see a point other than "omg! all these things happened near the same time!" especially with three such disparate events as Columbine, Oklahoma & Waco. it seems to just be highlighting a grisly coincidence to no end whatsoever. tomasz. 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the timing of Oklahoma City and Waco are not coincidental; McVeigh intentionally chose to do the bombing on the anniversary of Waco. There are NO links between this and Columbine, or Columbine and the other two, so I don't see how its relevant. Unless he specifically mentions he timed it so, its irrelevant. Titanium Dragon 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sidebox for the list of vicitms?

Over at Bath_school_disaster#The_day_of_the_disaster the victims of the explosion are listed in a tasteful box to the side of the prose. I'd like to suggest that we do something like that here - it provides information, avoids the temptation of becoming a memorial, and doesn't disrupt the prose (I suggested this last night but this talk page has been archived so fast that it disappeared). Natalie 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but I would wait until we have a full list. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I gather previous discussions about this came to this conclusion as well. --Kizor 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed any previous discussion about possible formatting. This page is getting such high traffic that the discussion page has aquired four archives in about 24 hours. Natalie 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think for now someone should at least add some "unknowns" to the list of those deceased, since there are only 20something victims listed, but the confirmed number is 32. anyone agree? RMThompson 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bunch of lists; I don't think the Bath School Disaster should have a list of victims. A list of victims by name is just not relevant or notable. Only important victims (read: those who have Wikipedia pages) should be mentioned, or victims who specifically did something notable during the event but is not notable otherwise, and thus is only in the article. Titanium Dragon 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated before, and most articles about disasters, massacres, etc. in which large amounts of people died include a list of the dead. Personally, I find it unecessary but don't care to argue the point. The consensus on this page has been that a sourced list of the dead is acceptable (archive 4 I think, maybe archive 3). I think if we are going to have one it should not be dropped in the middle of the article, since it disrupts the prose. Natalie 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Is this really relevant to the article? I can understand how other historical spree shootings give this act of violence context, but a massacre of civilian settlers in the 1800s by a group of protective Mormons doesn't seem to be related at all. Other opinions? Remember 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Titanium Dragon 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant if the article states that the Virignia Tech massacre was the deadliest civilian shooting in US history, because civilians killed more people by gunshot in the Mountain Meadows massacre. If the article makes it clear that the Virginia Tech massacre was the deadliest shooting by a single civilian perpetrator, however, then the Mountain Meadows massacre is not relevant. Quasar2112 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

massacres at engineering schools

Massacres at engineering schools:

132.205.44.134 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to about École Polytechnique. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

École Polytechnique massacre - there's a missing redirect from the unaccented form. 132.205.44.134 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect created. --Elliskev 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Victims

Can we please get rid of the articles of the two people who were the victims of the event , they were all created on the same day as the shooting and are very short and meaningless as a seperate article, I think tagging them would not be a sufficient form of action, I vote they should be immeadiatly deleted.Rodrigue 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Which pages are you referring to? Consensus so far is that the professors pages may meet WP:PROF, but that students' pages should be redirects.Chunky Rice 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been hashed out repeatedly on this talkpage and the article talkpages. Both of the professors with their own pages qualify as notable under WP:PROF independently of their deaths. Also, I deleted your duplicate posting of this section under another name. Rdfox 76 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability for Liviu Librescu was established but things still look pretty hazzy for Kevin Granata. He has no references cited currently which document his notability. --StuffOfInterest 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at Kevin Granata now, notability has been established. He has had 67 published papers, was a professor at three schools at the same time, and his work has been noted many times before his death. It's clear his work was notable and merited its own article. I have worked on it for awhile and I'm sure there's still more that can be added.Gloriamarie 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Thompson and Dr. Phil blame video games for shooting

Should we include this? --Starks 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to add it at this time unless there is a verifiable citation that the killer had or used games. Nevertheless, I think there will end up being a debate section for video games, guns, religion, alien residents, etc. Madcoverboy 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First, let me be the first on Wikipedia to say...
...AIIIIIEEERGH!
Second, I'd wait until we have a proper section about motives, influences, factors and other such critters - and reliable links for all. Give it a day or two. --Kizor 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it, at this point, unless it gets more play in the media.Chunky Rice 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. Everyone with an agenda will be coming out of the woodwork with their speculative comments, so I strongly suggest we stick with facts actually related to the event. --Dan East 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Against, on the grounds of Dan East, plus Thomson and the Doctor are worthless anyway. You can assume they'll blame anything on video games. Titanium Dragon 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Against, I agree with Dan. If necessary, make mention of it on Jack and Doc's pages, but not on the massacre page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencewah (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

^ Cite error: The named reference williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[williams-1] Cite error: The named reference williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]