Jump to content

Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

This article is NOT the place for gun debate

I think it's okay to have references to the fact that the shooter had to endure a waiting period, and talk about the recent law and school policy events directly related... However, and I'm looking at you Alabamaboy, just because it's presented NPOV does not mean that the opinions of talking heads and activists groups are worth including in this article. I'm not against meaningful gun control debate, but Wikipedia should be a encyclopedic source of information, and no other enyclopedia would ever contain the mess of just-off-topic junk that was re-added to that section. Anybody else want to excise it? Rahga 23:35, 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. Nishkid64 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 Hitlerum 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)
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)

No, it doesn't under "any reasonably accepted version of the word", because many have disagreed. I don't think of it as a massacre; I think of it as a shooting. Massacres are bigger than this, and different in other ways as well. When I think of massacres, I think of groups on groups, not clocktower snipers. In any event, it is unclear what its name will be. Titanium Dragon 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not accepting this event as a "massacre" would be refusing to apply dictionary definitions of the word. Inventing your own definition is not reasonable. Rooot 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Further, using "many have disagreed" as support for your position is fallacious. Neither popularity, nor mob mentality qualify as "reasonable." Rooot 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Aren’t you the ones with the mob mentality? You guys are swept up in the heat of the moment and not looking to the future. There is no simple definition of the word massacre, and it gets applied to evoke emotion, not to be descriptive. If I say “American soldiers killed 20 Iraqi civilians” versus “American soldiers massacred 20 Iraqi civilians”… well, you get the picture. The latter would never fly on Wikipedia, I assure you. This is the exact same thing. Sorry. Titanium Dragon 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
massacre - killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. American soldiers would arguably be killing with discrimination, as they would be primarily targeting armed Iraqi insurgents. Thus, to call this event a "massacre" would be incorrect because it fails to meet the definition of the word. However, entering an academic building where no one is armed, with the intention of killing everyone in your path does qualify, if multiple deaths result from this action. This was the case here, and thus the term "massacre" is appropriate. The debate on this topic should cease for a few weeks. Rooot 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe you won't give it up, seriously. Apparently this is YOUR point of view and not that of a majority of people. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 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)

  • 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)
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
Check the discussion page's archives. There is quite a lot of opposition to the name 'massacre'. Ennuified 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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
Many news sources are also NOT calling it that, and as I've said before, shootings is a more appropriate term as it is clearer and less loaded than massacre. Ennuified 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

A shooting is when someone is shot with a gun. Put it in plural and this event fits that definition. Thus, they are equally appropriate, and 'shootings' more so when semantics are taken into consideration, as it is less loaded and not as inherently sensationalized. Ennuified 22:39, 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)
I have always seen it referred to as the "Columbine massacre," and never seen anyone write out the phrase "Columbine High Shooting." Isn't anecdote a funny thing? Italiavivi 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the traditionaly definition of a Massacre that five or more people die? The Boston Massacre is refered to as a Massacre in Wiki and every encyclopedia/history book I have ever read.British Rover 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a substantial amount of debate over this naming issue yesterday (check the archives) and the consensus was to move the article to "massacre". I disagree with this decision; "massacre" is a propaganda term and is inherently sensationalist, something that Wikipedia shouldn't be. British Rover's assertion that a massacre is 5 or more victims is wrong. The colonists spread news of the incident in Boston calling it "The Boston Massacre" because they wanted to incite outrage in the colonies. We call the Boston Massacre that today because the name stuck (over the years) and historians continue to refer to the event as such. It's entirely too early to say whether or not history will refer to this event as a "massacre". A Traintalk 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV that the term massacre is "inherently sensationalist" isn't supported by its English definition or consensus. Many editors have clearly expressed the inadequacies of using the word "shooting," reliable sources' use of "massacre" aside. Italiavivi 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You desribe my argument as my POV, which it most certainly is, but it is the POV of most historians. Franklin H. Hodder's "Propaganda In American History", is typical: "For a full century the history of the American Revolution was based upon propaganda. A striking example of this is the popular conception of the Boston massacre, a street brawl between common soldiers and town roughs, an event of such slight importance that it was followed by two years of peace..". [1] A Traintalk 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification tends to agree with my definition of Massacre. [2] CTRL+F Massacre second word appearance.British Rover 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So you would define the killings as 'executions', as that article does? Ennuified 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with A Train. It's also interesting to point out that the event is at once a massacre, a shooting, a series of murders, killings, a school shooting, and any number of other things. You have to consider beyond what it fits... saying that "massacre" is appropriate because it was in fact a massacre is not sufficient, as it was a shooting as well. Ennuified 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be called any number of things, however it's been called what it is already, and it's not incorrect to call it that; so deal with it. If it were called something completely inappropriate then I would totally support you, however this is NOT the case and it needs to be dropped. There are more pressing matters in the world than to debate the correct English word to describe this situation, that as you pointed out has numerous possibilities. In the end, only one word can go there and it appears it's been decided -- move on. Your POV is that the word is sensational, even if correct and my POV is that it is not. Oh well. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's very appropriate. If you do not feel like this discussion is worth your time, I have no problem with you ceasing participation. It was originally called the Virginia Tech shootings and was prematurely changed before a proper vote and discussion could take place. Your same argument of it being decided already could have been made then, as well, but discussion still took place. Feel free to either participate in the discussion or not, but these sorts of comments are not necessary. Ennuified 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ennuified. We should not "drop it"; the whole point of a collaboratively edited encyclopedia is that discussion takes place and the encyclopedia is continuously improved. Of course there are more pressing matters in the world; if Wikipedia is more than a hobby to you, then I certainly hope you are getting paid to edit here. A Traintalk 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for just butting in here but this is my two cents. I don't see the big deal in the naming, so can someone explain the big deal over one word? Richardkselby 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, some editors think that it is important to call the article by the same name that the event is being referred to in the media; others think that it is premature or unprofessional to use a word as fraught with emotion as "massacre". A Traintalk 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, others contest A Train's POV-loaded portrayal of the word massacre as "unprofessional, "fraught with emotion," and "sensationalist." Italiavivi 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Revote

Is it possible to revote on the title, as the last one was obviously changed preemptively and unfairly (the vote was not open nearly long enough)? I am not sure of how to request such a thing, but it seems like I am not alone in feeling that shootings is a more appropriate title, so it seems fair. Ennuified 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The change was neither "preemptive" nor unfair. The naming was supported by consensus (Wikipedia is not a democracy), reliable sources, and the word's basic English definition. Italiavivi 22:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The vote was not open long enough, and a consensus was not reached. At the time it was changed, there was a majority opinion that it should be done, but the vote was not more than a few hours long and thus a number of people missed out on being able to weigh in. From the page you linked: "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it." There are numerous people not being silent on this issue. I will drop it when I feel it has been fairly decided regardless of the outcome, but at the moment that does not appear to be the case. Ennuified 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It was already fairly decided. "When you feel it has been fairly decided" isn't the arbiter of consensus on Wikipedia. Italiavivi 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this has nothing to do with the proper use of the English language, but that someone's feelings were injured when they were not consulted. This is quite asinine. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep a level of respect here. I am arguing from this standpoint only because it's the one that makes most sense in asking for a revote. My concerns dealing the use of the word massacre rather than shootings are enumerated in the above sections and in the archives of this talk page. Ennuified 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose for all the reasons I listed above. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The title will be resolved later First of all, there was no "vote," and there will be no "vote," as we don't vote here. Secondly, there was no "consensus," whether or not someone concluded there was, as there has been no time to build consensus, or for many to participate in discussion. This is a hot topic, very current, and in time many voices will be heard. Thirdly, we will not decide whether or not this even will be termed a "massacre" or "shooting" in the future. Society at large, and the public media will ultimately determine that, and we will follow them. Personally, I don't favor the title "massacre," but I'm not going to squabble over it or try to change it, as any edits that take place now are highly temporary. Chill out, let time decide. The story is still taking shape. Maybe this will all come together into a better article in a few weeks. This all points to the fact, though, that current news items don't fit so well in an encyclopedia. Anyone who reads this article should understand (or be made to understand) that this is a story in progress, and because our reporting is being constantly revised in the heat of mass media investigations into the events, we're bound to include a lot of inaccurate or entirely false information on the page, though with good faith we should probably get the story (mostly) right. zadignose 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I'll back off for now until it's a clearer issue - I was only supporting the revert to "shootings" until a name was settled on for it in any case. However, Italiavivi, your opinion is not the defining factor here either - the consensus page supports what I'm saying as well as you. Ennuified 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Support the title to refer as shootings. Even though it's a massacre. It has not been officially named that. Not yet. It is being called all different sorts of names. Day of Sorrow. The Tragedy. The Massacre. The shootings. Shootings is more encyclopedic right NOW. Until it is it's official name. Even though it most LIKELY will be its name. This is speculation right now. We cannot name events! Come on. I OPPOSE the current title. Jeeny 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, not following the logic of this argument... where's the Intenational and national events naming organization to officialize here? (→Netscott) 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The only theory to deserve its own catergory

I find the media violence catergory offensive. Its the only theory to get its own catergory, does have any counter-argument, and doesnt even cover all parts of the media (not even another commonly beleived factor, the news channels). This was obviously written by someone who just wanted to do a "See! Told you so!" for their anti-movies/video games beleifs. The only thing in this section that actually has anything to do with the case is that he -might- of used 4chan.

Indeed... I pulled it not because of the offensive nature, but because there is nothing new or notable, and speculation of the Dr Phil & Jack Thompson sort is still just speculation. If something solid, like note left by the killer saying video games made him do this, emerges, then I could see this getting posted. Rahga 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Warnings

Since the semi-protect has been lifted off of this page, I have been delivering 4im warnings to any vandals. Just wanted to check and see if the community thinks this is too harsh or the right move. Kntrabssi 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. --Starks 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
(For context, 4im is the only warning given in blatant cases, and subsequent vandalism is grounds for immediate block. It's not for ordinary use.) It's cool. If anything, I'd be harsher. --Kizor 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was doing last night, before the shooter's identity was released, and I'd keep at it. This page is too high profile to let people screw around with it while we give them a series of warnings. Natalie 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Logical Meaning of "Deadliest"

In this entry---as in much of the media---the shooting has been called the deadliest of its particular kind. This perpetuates what I see as a common misuse of the comparative and superlative forms of deadly. Deadly means lethal or likely to cause death. By extension, deadlier means more lethal or more likely to cause death and deadliest means most lethal and most likely to cause death. While this incident has a death toll twice that of the two it compared to (the Columbine High School and University of Texas shootings), it is not necessarily deadlier. This claim is unverified. A better phrasing would involve pointing out the larger quantity of deaths. In case my point isn't clear, here's a simple example that should help clarify: More people are killed each year by Toyotas than by angry rattlesnakes; however, the likelihood of one's death is higher when he is within five feet of an angry rattlesnake than when he is within five feet of a Toyota. Therefore, the angry rattlesnake is deadlier than the Toyota. Furthermore, in the set containing both and only angry rattlesnakes and Toyotas, the angry rattlesnake is deadliest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.202.124.18 (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Ah, I did wonder. Thank you; that makes perfect sense. Do you have a particular suggestion for a better phrasing? --Kizor 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the deadliest appellation should even be applied anyway; that's sensationalism. It isn't like it holds the record for civilian on civilian deaths; apart from Jonestown, there's also the 1927 bombings which killed 45 people in a school - that's more than this caused. Titanium Dragon 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


How about "the deadliest in 80 years," then? And how about a link to this 1927 bombing? (I am unfamiliar with it, even though I have taught history) Dr.Bastedo 22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Dr.Bastedo)

It's NOT the deadliest in 80years. See : Bath school disaster The most deaths by one person at a school, even. All but 8 were under 13 years old. 38 children! That's the link. That's the problem. That's what people of that town are complaining about, well some of them. It's not well known, because people wanted it to "go away"...Those where the days...forgetaboutit. Jeeny 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

  • 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 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

Correct. Also, the modern tendency in English writing is to avoid excessive capitalization. Dr.Bastedo 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychology and Motives

This section is almost entirely devoid of citations. It needs to be referenced or removed completely, I think. Ronnotel 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree and feel that most of the details of the criminal should be placed on his own page. The event article should focus on material that we know. We don't know why he may have listened to music, we certainly will never know what he really thought about it ... leave that sort of speculation outside of the event-based article. In contrast, we know where he was from and what his major was, those facts are fine to leave in the main article. MCalamari 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section is cited - [3] I also added a citation to this page, after eerie writings: [4]

Have you guys read the two plays "Mr. McBeef" and "Mr. Brownstone"? Anybody but me find it interesting that both plays: (1) feature a protagonist named "John"; (2) John was or claims to be a victim of aggressive pedophelia; (3) John is very, very angry throughout the dialogue; and (4) John expresses the desire to murder the alleged pedophile? Curious, no?

shouldn't this man be on the article?

[5] felisberto 19:15 ,17 April 2007(UTC)

  • No, I don't think so. The article identifies the shooter correctly. Anyone coming here to see if Mr. Cheng was the shooter will quickly learn that he wasn't. NawlinWiki 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Slow Response Issue

For many readers, the reason they may be coming to the wikipedia is to find out why the response was so slow and if there is something that realistically could have/should have been done to protect the bulk of the victims.

Some example key questions: (1) When did the Virginia Tech Police inform the other police for the county that they need help? Or did they never ask for help? (2) Are they a real police force, sworn, with guns and training for dealing with shootings and their own SWAT team and everything? (3) What were the policies of university security? Where they followed? (4) Where the assumptions that the gunmen had left campus based on something convincing? What? Was that really the assumption at all that caused the seemingly very slow reaction? (5) Who made the relevant decisions? Readers need to be able to judge if the people in charge behaved in a reasonable way, not very reasonable, criminally unreasonable or what? If being objective means we can't look for those facts and expert opinions that help the reader hold officials accountable, than we need to re-define objectivity/neutrality to make it useful. As long as we are looking for facts on all sides of this question and reporting reality, we can be totally objective/neutral, and still talk about the important questions: Was this a failure of policy and administration or was this a totally unavoidable or somewhere in between. Again, it isn't our opinion on the question that should be in the article, it is the facts and expert knowledge that allow the reader to have an informed opinion that should be. I for one don't feel like I am moving yet toward an informed opinion on if the bulk of the death was foreseeable and preventable. The desire to be objective/neutral should not be an excuse for being uninformative, uninsightful and insipid. We can totally look for the same facts that a judge and jury would want to know and, when we find them, add them to the article. An agenda of uncovering relevant reality can drive our search for facts as long as we report those facts accurately and neutrally. People where heading into the kill zone for more than an hour, right? If people did die needlessly, we owe those people that our objectivity should not whitewash the reality that might have caused them to lose their lives needlessly. Likewise, expert opinions on what reasonable care would be can be quoted on both sides without our losing objectivity (although I think this is more complex, i.e., do we need one-for-one, pro/con quotes?) Not focusing on these questions almost implies that everyone did there best and that may not be true. Dnklu 07:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know for certain about Virginia Tech, I can tell you that typically, college police officers are fully-sworn peace officers with full law enforcement powers on campus and the same armament as any other American police officer--which certainly jibes nicely with the footage I've seen of the VTPD officers initially responding on television. In any event, however, I don't think that having any information on this dispute would constitute NPOV at this point; there's simply not enough information available, and that having a section for it would just invite wild speculation and original research that's simply out of policy. Give it a few days, let some more information come out and figure out what the hell's true and what isn't, THEN we can see about having a section on the controversy, all right? Rdfox 76 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at my Columbia Univ. - they dont even carry guns and depend on the NYC police force for anything heavy. I am not sure that this controversy needs to be in its own section. I just think we need to be looking out for anything that helps the reader understand the delay. Dnklu 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that's the thing. From what I'm reading there wasn't much of a delay. After the first shooting they shut that building down, cordoned off the area and surrounded it with police. There was no indication at the time that it was a mass murderer on the loose, but rather it looked like a murder suicide. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what more you want. We have a time-line. We have a mention that some students have complained about the delay in notification. We have the school's response. At this point, I think that's all that's called for.Chunky Rice 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This was a huge screw-up. There's no other way to spin it. Bottom line, the gunman wasn't in custody, and the other students weren't warned. But by all means, let's wait and see what the fallout will be. The media isn't about to stop asking questions. MoodyGroove 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The facts behind the screw up are the MOST INTERESTING FACTS, at least to me. Let's keep track of them. Why would they think that they had the situation contained? What was there reasoning? Is there anyway to justify specifically not going into lock down right away? The media is not giving the detailed analysis, not in what I have read/seen so far. 69.117.70.35 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "But he was also faced with difficult questions about the university's handling of the emergency and whether it did enough to warn students and protect them after the first burst of gunfire. Some students bitterly complained they got no warning from the university until an e-mail that arrived more than two hours after the first shots rang out."Virginia Tech massacre raises questions

GLOCK or Glock?

What is the actual name of the pistol. There is an edit-war going on as I can see.

Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't use the marketing name, which is obvious from our own article on the company. We don't cap the whole thing. Natalie 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A discussion about it can be read here: Talk:Glock#GLOCK_vs._Glock_debate. Natalie 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks!--Scheibenzahl 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

insane clown posse paragraph in gunman background section

"A note found on him is beleived to contain the lyrics of the shock horror group "INSANE CLOWN POSSE", also know as "ICP", and was believed to be inspired by a recently released CD titled "The TEMPEST", in which a particular track "The Tower" features a graphic lyrical story of an ex-marine, badly wounded during war and disassociated with society, who climbs a fictional university clock tower and begins to snipe civilians, school students, and law enforcement from below. It is assumed that Sheng-hui may have been a fan of the group with attracts a "cult"-like following.[23]"

I think this should be removed. It does not appear to be from any source, as the article cited does not include any of this information 68.32.236.85 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I already removed it for that very reason. Rdfox 76 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Please keep it out of the main article. It calls for too much speculation. MCalamari 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be locked.

There are morons editing this article constantly adding crap like 'pool closed' and other stuff. I think this should be locked like it was.

What do you guys think? Because if the mods don't lock this article then we are going to have tons of unconfirmed news such as names of victims, the 'confirmed' motives and anything else we don't know the answer to.Lyokofreak101 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree: i think the article is suffice for those viewing it for its basic information. i suggest locking it as well so that we are able to clearly sort out confirmed facts about the more specific issues after a period of time (2-3 days). Matthew Yeager 17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is 4chan raiding Wikipedia or something? At the moment this article is on the front page, and as a matter of policy (I don't know which policy, mind - perhaps something along the lines of 'my head is bloody, but unbowed') such articles are not protected. If we're clearly and definitely losing, perhaps, but the amount of watchers should head off even coordinated attacks. --Kizor 17:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of returning it to semi-protected status. While it's not nearly as fast-and-furious as it was earlier, as long as it's still on the main page, this article's gonna be a magnet for every /b/tard and other fuckwit would-be vandal looking to insert idiotic memes into a page. Rdfox 76 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree: The amount of false information in the article is already high, it does not help anyone if it gets even higher. Example: the link to a blogger citing an entry on 4chan that allegedly contained a statement by the assassin from 5am in the morning announcing his intentions. Themanwithoutapast 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Seriously. We have more than enough editors present to deal. If it is a problem, just protect it from anonymous editors and newly registered users, but I don't think so - this is a good way to draw in new editors, so I'd keep it unprotected. Titanium Dragon 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect. Enough going on to have to deal with petty vandalism from all the anon and new editors. PubliusFL 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protect. I keep seeing stuff posted that's removed shortly thereafter. I plan to be more active in the editting later today, but as it stands, I think it would be far less of an undertaking if the article was semi-protected.J 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's because people keep posting speculative or agenda-driven junk that deserves to get pulled. Rahga 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pool's Closed Due to Aids is a trolling meme.

One of the more obnoxious ones, IMHO. Natalie 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd actually be in favor of a semi-protect. It's a barrage right now and there's a good chance that anyone coming to see the page is going to pull up a vandalized version, even with a bunch of good editors being vigilant (which we do have).Chunky Rice 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect is definietly a good idea for the next few days. I've reverted a bunch of anon vandalism just in the past couple hours. Coemgenus 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • About half of the anon edits are good edits or at least well-meaning, but a lot of those good edits are reverting vandalism done by other anons. So I would support semi protect, at least for the day. Natalie 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- Any article that gets a lot of traffic will get it's share of idiot-vandals, just like a main-page featured article. But there's also enough diligent bonafide editors to keep it's integrity. If there is a semi-protect put on it, at least make it for a short duration. bobanny 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No chance. Whilst semi-protection for an hour or less might be permissible if there's a sustained attack from multiple IPs, we don't semi-protect high profile articles linked from the mainpage for any length of time. We are a wiki - we encourage new users to contribute. Besides which, vandalism here will be sighted within seconds and reverted in a click. Annoying yes, but that's all. And don't poll on this - we have a policy of being a wiki - the editors on a specific article don't get to lock it down because that concept is annoying them. Protect for an hour if there's a sustained attack from multiple IPs, other than that, forget it.--Docg 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone's annoyed by the concept of anonymous users. The problem is that, currently, at least half of the anonymous edits are bullshit. And that's about 100 edits over the last 2 hours. Natalie 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree -- If there are over 100 edits in 2 hours, then Wikipedia needs to put a semi-protect on this article. I was reading down the list of victims, and Anna Nicole Smith's name showed up. These anonymous users are beginning to piss me off a lot. I'm removing Anna Nicole Smith's name. Sigmund1989 12:48, 17 April 2007 (PDT)
  • Agree -- I'm a new user and I have tons of other articles where I can edit. The semi-protect will not allow me to edit the article, but I'm still able to contribute via this talk page --132.248.59.66 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary or appropriate to post links to the MySpace pages of some of the victims? MySpace will likely take them down soon, anyway, and it feels like an attempt at a memorial to me. Rdfox 76 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, links to MySpace generally fail the external links policy. The one that was just added has been removed, and any future MySpace links should be removed as well. Natalie 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. As to my knowledge MySpace will only remove pages of deceased members per requests by family members. These pages offer further information about the victims than is available elsewhere at this point in time. 71.244.157.89 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. The problem isn't whether the pages will stay up or not, the problem is that MySpace is not a reliable source. Anyone can make a MySpace page about anything, with no verification at all. MySpace links are not allowed as per our policy on external links. Natalie 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
CNN says the students are using Facebook... 132.205.44.134 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine to mention that people are communicating through Facebook and MySpace. What is not acceptable is using Facebook or MySpace as a source for other information. Natalie 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

4chan posting

The note that the Seung-hui posted on 4chan before the attack is a claim that was posted by one blogger, and has no reliable source. Doesn't that qualify it for being taken out? 209.190.211.3 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, was it posted AGAIN? Between this and the other vandalism, could we PLEASE get this article semi-protected again? Rdfox 76 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Most people are against the thought of semi-protecting this article, which I disagree with strongly. However, the ones in power have spoken. WiiAlbanyGirl 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

this has now been verified by the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204030
I have found a second copy of the posting at http://www.planetblacksburg.com/2007/04/sick_internet_joke_or_real_thing.php JensenDied 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC) The 4chan post is fake. The timestamp is wrong. 71.162.88.233 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC) agreed, the 4chan post was a photoshop!

The reference to the 4chan post should be deleted. The Toronto Star got it from the planet blacksburg site, and that picture is fake. No source == doesn't belong on wikipedia. 71.162.88.233 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is real, there is a real screenshot with correct leading 0 for the time.

Which was created in front of my eyes in a /b/ thread. Nice try, though. 71.162.88.233 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not real. 4chan always sticks their noses into stuff and craves attention. Just leave it be! --Siientx 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the real screenshot http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4500/vtechrscreensw0.jpg

Again. Fake. That was created in a thread that i was in. Planet Blacksburg has removed the post about the screen shoot. Without more proof than an imageshack link, it should be laid to bed. 71.162.88.233 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


The text below Random (/b/)'s header states:

"/b/ - Random The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Let's move on and forget the immature actions of 4chan. --Siientx 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

VA Tech charity?

does anyone know if a fund has been set up for the families of those affected and the school? Maybe donations could be taken to start a scholarship in the memory of those who died. (Mad_Gouki 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

That's not really relevant to this discussion Spencewah 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably want to get in touch with the school itself about that. This is an encyclopedia. Natalie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is relevant, since it falls under University's Response. VT sent an email to its alumni network that included where memorial funds could be sent. I have not found a site for the donations, all I have is an email describing how to make out the check and where to send it. If anyone can find a link, the name is "Virginia Tech Family Fund" and it is organized by Tom Tillar, Vice President for Alumni Relations. --Scottieb 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Seriously, we need to DISCUSS and determine how he will be named. Cho Seung-hui is formated to have last name then first name. yet its been mentioned that last names per MoS are to be given ? either way i've just refreshed the page and have seen this changed back and forth a couple times now! DISCUSS this matter before we change it back... and forth... Matthew Yeager 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for discussion. The MoS's meaning is that FAMILY names are to be used as short references, unless disambiguation is needed. Korean names, like most Asian names, are given with the family name first and the personal name second. While it's often reversed in translation (for example, "Saotome Ranma" becoming "Ranma Saotome" in translations), Wiki shouldn't do that when the correct order is known; we certainly shouldn't be using Cho's personal name in place of his family name. Rdfox 76 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
i completely agree, just needed to be stated so ppl would stop changing it back and forth. Matthew Yeager 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I put an invisible note about Asian names, so that should at least stop the more well-meaning people that just don't know how Asian names go. Natalie 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
why is it then that i still see Mr. Seung-hui, when that's his personal name? Jettd42291 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Rdfox 76 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean cultural taboo?

The article currently mentions "The words Ismail Ax, possibly an alias, were found written on his arm in red ink, which is a Korean cultural taboo. " Can someone expand on this or link to a relevant article? I find it interesting but confusing, not being familiar with Korean culture myself. ike9898 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that, I'm very intrigued at the implications, but for now (without a source) it seems baseless. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a source on tha page, it links to a page that says for computer programmers to never put Japanese of Korean names in red. Check it, it's number 26 i think. Violask81976 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that it is inauspicious and unlucky to write people's names in red ink in Korea. It means that they are marked for death or for exclusion from a given community. However, we do not know what 'Ismail Axe' means and so to connect the two is inappropriate for now. Mumun 無文 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not connecting them, it's stating that it war written in red ink. The act of writing a name in red ink is a taboo. THat's what it's saying. Violask81976 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's connecting them by assuming that the words are a name. Right now, we don't know if that's true. Natalie 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Evidence that Ismail was his nickname (but no evidence as to whether Ax was), as well as a Flickr photo of the killer. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eldarossell/203788467/ KeithWright 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, this may not be the same person. See http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2007/04/symbolic_retrib.html KeithWright 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Viola81976. We do not know that 'Ismail Axe' was someone's name or nickname. The taboo is writing someone's NAME in red ink. Mumun 無文 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

any more info on this? why is it considered taboo to write a name in red in korean culture?!?!?71.252.66.134 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)ahnicaricoohh 2:58pm ET

see above. Natalie 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would a Korean taboo apply to a 23y old legal US resident (since he was 8) majoring in English? User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural taboos are often passed on through immigrant families, even though they have moved from their country of origin. Taboos are no less a part of cultural heritage than music, fables, religious worship, rites of passage, clothing, and what have you. But really, we don't know if the words on his arm were an alias, someone else's name, words he liked, or whatever, so the bit about the taboos has been removed from the article. Natalie 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you should take it out. It's a fact that he has that written on his arm, in red ink, correct? -Violask81976UserTalk 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i see. Never mind then. Violask81976 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Korean (raised in Korea, immigrated just a few years ago) and I am surprised to see this "taboo" discussed here. It isn't taboo in my generation (early 20s). Maybe the whole red ink theory would make more sense if the killer was in his 50s. Korean culture has changed so much between these two generations. I bet he wasn't even aware of this when he picked red ink, because I wouldn't be.

That's certainly a possibility, which is all the more reason we shouldn't mention it until there is any proof that the red inked words and the taboo are connected. Natalie 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter in any case because the taboo applies only to writing on people, and the shooter was a lump of dog shit wrapped in human skin. By the way, I'm sure that murderous rampages are also taboo in Korean society; since the dogshit boy had no problem breaking that taboo, why should a little red ink bother anybody? 69.250.43.106 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Historical context"

I suggest this section to be removed. This is not the The Guinness Book of Records, a sentence in the first section (i.e. the introduction) should be enough. Those who are interested in statistics may look here

Furthermore this is no "Historical context", the historical context would be the events led to this tragedy (which shouldn't be described in WP). --Abe Lincoln 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is historical context and it can be described in Wikipedia, but it has to be first discussed in secondary sources. Natalie 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - how come? The death tolls and incidents are not in dispute. The section was first started because there were too many valuable comparisons to fit in the introduction at all. Surely we can find secondary sources for "deadliest school shooting" or the like, if that's what you mean. --Kizor 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

April 19th-21st has become an anniversary of sorts for school massacres, so yes it is relevant, pertinent information that should be included. In fact, I think these two days should become memorial days so everybody will know to be careful of copycat massacres in the future. In this case it's better to be safe than sorry. I'm sure a lot of people are not aware of the fact that columbine and other incidents occurred either on the same day or the next day. This is a fact and it's valuable and relevant information, it should not be discarded as unimportant, because it is important for people to know so they can raise their level of preparedness and be careful. Personally, if I was in college on April 19-20th, I would wear my bullet proof vest on that day and probably bring along something to defend myself with. Just imagine if one of the people in that classroom had some sort of weapon they could have used to stop this killer sooner.. how many lives could have been saved if people were more aware of what day it was and that it was a day people should have been more careful and on alert. Also, police presence should be stepped up greatly on these two days, just in case. Not only in colleges but also in high schools around the country.

Except that most shooters aren't likely to be that stupid. If they know this is going to happen, they will simply make a new day. This is the same reason September 11 is arguably one of the safer days of the year in the US Nil Einne 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Richard McBeef" play

Cited source doesn't discuss this play - this needs to be cited. 204.154.43.244 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes it does. Now, I'm not sure if Smoking Gun meets WP:RS, but there's nothing in the comment that's not in the reference. Rdfox 76 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My bad, I saw a different reference before - probably just clicked wrong -_- 204.154.43.244 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd wager that the Smoking Gun probably counts. They basically just host a variety of documents, all legally AFAIK. They do some analysis, which might not meet RS, but the documents themselves should. Natalie 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The question is IMHO whether we can trust them enough that the documents they host are really what they claim they are Nil Einne 20:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cell phone or security camera

Could someone please identify the true source of the image used of students hunkering down in Holden Hall? HokieRNB 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

IT says "cell phone", i dont' read anywhere that it's from a security camera. Violask81976 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no security cameras - it's definitely a cell phone and thus non-free. It probably qualifies for fair use, but it needs to be uploaded locally here as Commons will get rid of it as soon as someone notices it. --BigDT 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This link cites the source as "Security camera footage showing the pupils of a French class taking cover during the shooting at Virginia Tech". HokieRNB 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this was discussed below, found to be cell phone footage and reuploaded locally under fair use. --Kizor 20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Profiles of the Victims

BBC has a list of the Victims with a small biography with pictures

I suggest you guys check it out and incorporate that into this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm

Mercenary2k 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We appear to be using the Virginia Tech student newspaper (which updates more swiftly) to source the dead, but there may be some biographical information there. --Kizor 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

it is speculation that the first victim was Cho's girlfriend and that she was cheating on him plus the citation goes to Clark

Loner

it says the virginia tech. spokesman described the shooter as a loner. i just don't like the word, i don't really think the spokesman went up there and called him a loner spesifically and anything less would be OR. I'm not sure about that press realease, so that's why i came here first. Any thoughts?!?

-Threewaysround 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on the front pages of CNN.com and FOXnews.com... not much wiggle room. --Kizor 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC.com / Clicked

I have asked Will, the author of Clicked to put a small note near his link to the article here on Wiki or to take down his link. The note is to mention that the page has been vandalized a few times and to wait a few more days before linking to the page again so that a lot of the informational queries can be ironed out. Such as the note with Insane Clown Posse ( I was reading the article when that info was on the page, linked to the web page that it was supposedly from 325 i believe, came back and the mention of the note had been deleted thank-you)

international reaction

maybe since there is a section that is a list, we could devide it into subsections with subheadings (it would be a level 4 heading i beleive). This would make it not be a list, and some sections that are simalar in simalar parts could be grouped into slightly larger categories such as continents, instead of spesific countries. Any thoughts?!?!

peace out-Threewaysround 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea to have it in list form... But I suppose this is one Wiki rule we can't get around. newsong 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

should we implement my idea then.-Threewaysround 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the tag was taken off, if it is put back on, i will rearange the information myself, but lets see if it will keep like this.-Threewaysround 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to change it because I did think it needed a header. Anyone object to what I wrote or changed? newsong 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Three ways - I don't think it's necessary to have subheadings for this section, it's small enough. Other comments: I deleted one doubled item, but kept the second reference. I think perhaps if there are many more of these we should rearrange them. Are they currently just thrown together? Perhaps an organization method would be to put Canada and Mexico first, since they are on the same continent? Then the EU... Then others... That's just an idea.newsong 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ok i get what you mean. I say unless anybody really objects we leave it as is (perhaps the rearranging of the order would be fine). I'll see what i can do about the rearranging. peace-Threewaysround 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

nevermind it's already in paragraph form, guess we dont' have to worry bout it anymore.-Threewaysround 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Other wiki pages with int'l reactions are included in the current format. Just leave it as it is. Placing it in paragraphs makes it difficult to read as well. TSim 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction of South Korea

South Korea government insists that the gun society in the United States is a cause in this murder, and is requesting that it doesn't become South Korean's racial discrimination. [6]

"The excellence of the firearm technology of USA was proven by this again." [7][8]

"Freedom of arms carrying" [9][10]

--KoreanShoriSenyou 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The ROK president did not mention anything about "gun society caused murder" in his speech. - Chulk90 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virginia_Tech_shooting/Archive_6&oldid=1142782347"