Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 4

message: Please help us keep this article discussion manageable and readable.  Look at the header index and see if there is already a conversation going related to the topic you want to bring up.  If you have a question, it may already have been answered.  Please sign your posts.  Please use colons to put the appropriate number of tabs before your post so that we can avoid creating an indecipherable sea of text (suggest going from 0-5 and then starting over at 0).  If you start a new heading, please give it a clear title.  Titles like "?" say nothing. Thanks.  --Dynaflow 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Before posting''' (Or, look here first)

message: I am thinking that we make the main picture a picture of the actual event, whether it be students being carried out, or SWAT teams responding, I think it needs to be changed
Tyhart87 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I keep attempting to add in the following quote airing frustration with the controversy over VaTech officials' response to the early morning incident:
They could have prevented most of this...shooting at 730 in WAJ, classes don't start til 8, why couldn't they cancel classes for the day...SOMEONE WAS SHOT AND IT TURNS OUT THEY DIED...I THINK THATS GROUNDS TO CANCEL CLASS RATHER THAN SENDING OUT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS USE CAUTION AND REPORT ANYTHING TO POLICE. They could have save almost 20 lives and 20 injuries if they just decided to cancel class right away.
does anyone else agree with me?
:But because it was originally said on Facebook, it won't pass Reliable Source criteria. That's a load of crap, considering this is a pretty big deal and I'm trying to add it to the STUDENT RESPONSE section! Fifty7 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be allowed into the Student Response section if it is coming from a witness. If you can give us the link to that, and its a quote from someone who was there/a student, then it should be allowed in. If its a student's friend or a random person from somewhere else, it should not be allowed in.KSL 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had previously posted the link but that was deleted as well. Anyway, here it is:  As more posts are put up on the wall, it will be further back on the pages. It should be on page 3 as of right now (it was posted at 1:04 PM, April 16th, for future reference). Fifty7 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random posts on a Facebook wall fail WP:RS on multiple grounds. This quote is not going to be acceptable at any point. Natalie 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a facebook account, so at this point all I can say is that if it is a quote from a witness who is a student of Virginia Tech, I believe that it is credible as student response. But, since I dont have a facebook account and I can't go and look at this, I'll leave it to those who do to decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Lakhani (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs and other sorts of personal opinions/responses are not allowed on Wikipedia.  Facebook posts will not be allowed on those same grounds.Gloriamarie 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Also, I do have a Facebook account, so I can tell you that the VT page now has 85 condolence posts, at least. The problem is that anyone can get a Facebook account now, claim they're a student, and write up a little rant. It's absolutely un-verifiable (ala MySpace), and thus fails RS. Natalie 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe Facebook requires that anyone that is attempting to join a college network must supply the college email that is associated with that institution. You could argue that that is simple to achieve, yet it's still a Facebook criteria, if I recall correctly. The same regulation applies to company networks, alumni, and staff networks. High school Facebook access requires only being verified by a friend that goes to the same school. Quixotic Rick 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be - I got an account when it was still colleges-only, so I don't really know what they require now that it's open to everyone. But there's verification that the person didn't drop out, transfer, graduate, etc., or even just use a friends email address. Anyway, even if the ID could be confirmed blog and message board posts are generally a no-no. Natalie 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ben Hair]] quote (Or, does it come from a reliable source?)

message: Who went back and put "suicide" back in the infobox? It has not been determined if the gunman killed himself. I'm removing the tag. - --Bdj95 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can put it bacl the New York Times mentions it was self-inflicted. -- Vince 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the most recent press conference, the Virginia Tech police chief confirmed that the gunman committed suicide.Fickman 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. "Apparent suicide" sounds fine to me, since an official autopsy hasn't been completed yet. --Bdj95 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The news reports are saying that the gunman shot himself in the head (which, btw, is why they are havign trouble identifying him). As this is a current event, the current news should be used. As long as its cited by a reputable source (like a news website) it should be allowed up unless new information surfaces. KSL 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with "Apparent Suicide". Until an official post-mortam has been carried out, i think it is better to use this. The same with gunman should be replaced with "aledged gunman". 62.254.237.150 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "alleged" gunman?? presumably all those people are "allegedly" dead too? i don't think there's any question of allegation where the presence of a gunman is concerned. tomasz. 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying that allegedly a gunman was there. But that the man who they think is the gunman "allegedly" killed these people until it is proven in law that he did. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Innocence until proven guilty is alive and well in the UK. As is free press and non-sensationalist coverage. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide tag (Or, can we put it in the Infobox?)

message: Kaine was supposedly heading for India. Where specifically? -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions nothing of Kaine going to India. Please explain. Effer 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Governor Tim Kaine was in Japan.  He is now on his way back so that he can attend the service tomorrow. --BigDT 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where in India (Or, where is the Governor?)

message: 27 lead, 15 infobox, 28 timeline. Suggest we give a range in all places.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent injuries (Infobox statistics)

message: Yah, you forgot a redirct. Put one on or I'll revert bot this. 165.95.24.12 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give a redirect! 

message: http://asherheimermann.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-shooting/
Is this any good? LABand 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Therefore, the website should not be used as a source in this article. Nishkid64 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement to Use? (Or, what is considered a good source for definitive pronouncements?)

message: http://www.wrdw.com/news/headlines/7050467.html
Local Student Among Dead at Va Tech
4:30 PM Apr 16, 2007
Ryan Clark of Martinez is one of the 31 victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, according to Columbia County Coroner Vernon Collins.
Clark is believed to have been shot in the first string of shootings that occurred in a dormitory.
Clark is the son of Stan and Lettie Clark of Old Petersburg Road. He has a twin brother.
An autopsy will be performed, but because of the high number of victims, it may take days to complete.
--Jake7457 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first victim name released 

message: I don't think any good can come from merging it.  Any objections to just removing the tag? --BigDT 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include a short summary in the VT article, but there's no way that the two should be merged. It doesn't make sense. --Bdj95 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (Or, should we put all this on the VA Tech main page?) 

message: What happened to this page?  21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friendly neighborhood oversight here. Somebody posted a real name and phone number claiming that said person was the shooter. It then stayed unremoved for 60 revisions. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just coming to that conclusion... thanks for the explanation Mackensen.  21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <big>'''?'''</big> (Or, where did the original talk page go?)

message: There has been much debate on the use of "2007" and "Massacre" in the title, but what about at least using a capital "S" in the title.  i.e. Virginia Tech Shootings as opposed to the current Virginia Tech shootings.  Whether or not there was a prior shooting on the campus last year, this is clearly going to be known as the definitive Virginia Tech Shooting forever.  I believe it is a large enough story to warrant the capital "S".  Bluefield 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "shootings" instead of "Shootings" based on the Manual of Style for Wikipedia editing. That is Wikipedia policy and must be adhered to. Nishkid64 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Consistency

message: Why is the comma (shown between the "<here>" notations) not showing as a comma in the article?:
"|caption=Norris Hall
|location=Blacksburg<here>,</here> Virginia, United States"
John Stattic 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very weird formatting error 

message: I tried to post something up, but it didn't work. First, I want to say that the weapons the gunman used should be removed. Wikipedia is not a site that is supposed to report suspicion, and until things are confirmed, we can not put things based on rumor. Therefore, the guns the shooter used should be removed. Secondly, I have found articles stating that after the first shooting, the University confirmed that police had arrested a suspect. Any other confirmation on this? Any news on this? Did anyone else find this odd in their research? I think this is article is going to be more like a news channel than an encyclopedia article until we get more news. I propose removing the weapons until we have confirmation. WiiAlbanyGirl 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TWO SHOOTINGS, holy hell... I didn't hear that Zarathrustra 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've also found claims of a person in custody at CBS news website. They have a section that displays the different e-mails send to students, and in the final one, it says that police has one shooter in custody, and that they are looking for a second one. --Legion fi 07:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting Reports (Before 2nd Shooting)

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNrBd4kKMg
unimatrix 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also on CNN.com. I would refrain from posting it on the actual article because I am not sure if CNN has claims to this video. WiiAlbanyGirl 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the person who took the video has given all rights of the video to CNN to release into public demand, but I may be wrong. Effer 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe YouTube links are forbidden in articles. If there's a CNN link to the video, you could add it to "External Links". Nishkid64 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: we need to have a source though-Threewaysround 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting caught on cellphone 

message: In the interest of making the article better, shouldn't we rank this massacre/shooting (whichever the consensus goes with) not just against other incidents in the US, but also worldwide? Is this the deadliest school shooting/massacre worldwide or just in the US? Where does it rank worldwide? Ikilled007 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not the deadliest school massacre worldwide (Bath school bombing and Beslan were worse). I don't know of its rank internationally, but it's probably pretty high up. If someone can find sources, then a section tying this shooting to other international school shootings would be appropriate. Nishkid64 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, Beslan was a terrorist group, this, we think, is a "civilian crimenal" --Dudeman5685 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliest School Massacres/Shootings Worldwide 

message: I have semi-protected this page because anons and new users keep adding a name which may or may not be that of the shooter. Until an actual news source (no, not FARK) has confirmed this posting the name is libelous and the revisions that contain it will be deleted. Please revert any such addition as soon as you see it and let me or someone else listed at WP:OVERSIGHT#Users with Oversight permissions know at once. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Do we really need to include that this was delayed?  It doesn't really add anything to the article.Chunky Rice 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be removed. It has no real relevance to the subject. Nishkid64 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. If we listed everything that was delayed when this story broke, this article would go on forever. Ikilled007 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respectfully disagree. If it's relevant that the legislators observed a moment of silence, it is certainly relevant that they postponed the widely-anticipated testimony of the Attorney General regarding potential perjury under oath in a hearing after which he may be forced to resign in disgrace. But if that's not relevant, neither is the White House "reportedly monitoring the story".Ribonucleic 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. That seems like a valid point to me. I didn't take the other reference to the political aspect into account before. Duly noted. Ikilled007 23:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be appropriate to put a mention of the shootings on the page talking about his testimony (if such exists), but not the other way around, at least not yet.  Chadlupkes 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the politicians' responses, including the postponement, were extremely relevant for putting the attack in context. I'd be disappointed to see them go.RMSzero 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that if political aspects are going to added, it should be "all or nothing". Might as well have them in. Ribonucleic has a valid point. Ikilled007 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree... Gonzales is simply not relevant to this event, nor is White House and Senate response thus far particularly notable... Certainly not encylopedic content. Now, if a federal concealed handgun bill passes as a response (think Luby's), or if the killer was ranting about the DOJ (think Luby's and Bell County), that'll would be worth noting. Rahga 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still say Gonzales is irrelevant in this, but I did add a bit to at least tie him in a little better. Also added a bit of Bush's response to hopefully dilute any charges of "politics" James 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberto Gonzales testimony 

message: CNN and other channels are speaking firstly about 29 injured and there was EVEN a hospital speaker said they brought 17 victims to their hospital and 12 people to other hospitals (2 of them seriously wounded). But than again, they are now speaking of 15 injured at the second scene and 4 injured in the first incident. It is also possible that some of the injured died during the reports. So how many injured are there now, does anyone know that?? ColdCase 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many injured?? 

message: Found a myspace VT link with a list of many victims names.  Can I assume it would be incredibly irresponsible to put the link, even though it seems very sincere?  --Elg26 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can assume that. Moncrief 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fails our external link and soruceing guidelines so yes.Geni 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea to put myspace on Wikipedia. The list shouldn't be copy-pasted either, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. // Sean William (PTO) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I thought.  Just checking since new.  Thanks --Elg26 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The policy is that "Wikipedia is not a memorial." But when a tragedy like this occurs well-meaning editors sometimes start adding the names of the victims, then some nice words about each, and when the funeral will be, etc. These additions usually get removed, but for some reason we have usually kept victims names for massacres, but not for plane crashes. A rationale I have for why this happens is that in a school shooting, the people are not always just helpless victims like in a plane crash. Some students held the door shut to keep the killer from returning to the room to finish the job. Others survived by jumping out the window. At Columbine, some talked to the killers. The dead may have influneced the course of the events, which unfolded over a span of time, unlike victims of a bombing or plane crash. Some of the deceased may have through their actions, saved the lives of others. Additional survivor accounts may emerge to allow a narrative account of the interactions of victims with the shooter over the course of the rampage. Edison 06:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't keep the names of, say, Beslan or 9/11 for obvious reasons, but it is feasible to keep the names of school shooting victims or those killed in catastrophes in the same scope, and it's my impression that we do. Penn State, Columbine, the 1991 Russian attack on Lithuania, etc. I wouldn't be averse to one-line descriptions such as giving their ages and jobs/subjects, but more than that might be too much. --Kizor 06:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of shooting victims (Or, is MySpace a reliable source?) 

message: *I agree that it should be known as a "massacre" because of the sheer number of deaths. esposimi 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support change to "massacre"

message: * Golbez 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't forget that Wikipedia is not a government either.  23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is Evil

message: But it is too soon to poll on this... let's have discussion first and then if necessary go the polling route.  18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propagandistic slogans are Evil

message: But I dont have an opinion (but am following the article, of course), SqueakBox 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is Good

message: *If you're going to put 2007, why not add the date as well in the title. There is no need for it, it's senseless and a waste of space. People will understand what it is, being this is on the Wiki front page.
Ruhe1986 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly do you know that "massacre is only being used as an attention getter," Quanticles? Italiavivi 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider killings of over 100 people massacres... 30, not so much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quanticles (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hmmm, the word "shooting" seems so not - final... like, "people were shot, but after a few weeks at the hospital they were ok". With the word "massacre" there is a definite finality to what happened to those who were shot. Others have proposed the title "Virginia Tech shooting massacre"... that might be better as the title would explain how the massacre occurred.  03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Nobody finds it odd that the corresponding articles in Czech, Danish, Spanish, French, Finnish, Portuguese and Swedish all have the word "massacre" in their titles? Óðinn 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that's what it is...  21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may have been following our lead, and even if they weren't, just because they're calling it that doesn't mean that's the proper name. This is an American event, and this is the English article... I assume we're leading the WP pack on this one. Ennuified 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can some administrator please hurry up and make this move?  The redirect page prevents "regular" editors from doing it. Italiavivi 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is being discussed above. Effer 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny English Wikipedia usually isn't the "follower" see: :cs:Masakr na Virginia Tech, :da:Massakren på Virginia Tech, :es:Masacre de Virginia Tech, :fr:Tuerie à l'université de Virginia Tech (Tuerie = Massacre), :pt:Massacre de Virginia Tech.  21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Discussed above" nothing, reliable sources and Wikipedia's Main Page both refer to this as a massacre.  This is a massacre, correct the title. Italiavivi 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still advise against doing this at the current time. Let things settle out in the next few days before making any final name changes. Nishkid64 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well duh, the main page is calling it a massacre? I love when the right hand doesn't talk to the left hand. :-)  21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not something that needs moved at this time, could confuse new editors and such, also not all news sources are describing it as a massacre (BBC at the moment still calling this a shooting). -- Nick t 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely something that needs to be moved at this time, per Wikipedia's Main Page and available reliable sources. Italiavivi 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC now uses “massacre” to describe events. That accurately distinguishes it from the genera “shooting”, in which nobody may have died. JohnLam 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As per Wikipedia custom, British language norms apply to British topics and American norms apply to American topics.  22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why we can't move the page as Wikipedia's own main page states it as a massacre? 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I love that the Main page now says "A series of shootings" instead of "massacre", now that someone has gone and moved the page.  Can we please change it back now? --  timc  talk   01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed to keep it at 'shootings' until common use of 'massacre' is confirmed by at least a few days of media reports. Names of events take a bit of time to settle. Until then, we should have a descriptive and non-loaded title (it is not our place to call this a massacre - let common usage dictate that to us). That said, this is really a horrible day and my thoughts are with the family of the slain. --mav 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with mav Zarathrustra 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Realize that the Main Page headline was changed to reflect "massacre" by another Wikipedia admin. When I originally added the entry, I left it as "shooting". I am now changing it back to "shooting". Nishkid64 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to recuse yourself from editing the "In the News" template immediately, Nishkid64.  Your involvement in this article's naming dispute, in addition to your POV that "massacre" is inappropriate even on Columbine's article, completely warrants a cessation of editing it on your part. Italiavivi 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ABC News also called it a massacre. Effer 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Media uses words to attract the emotions of viewers. That is simply what they are doing. What news organizations are calling it has nothing to do what a NPOV encyclopedia calls it. Nishkid64 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fallacious argument. Wikipedia doesn't go by what it determines to call a thing, it goes by what its sources call it.  23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nishkid64, your speculation as to the media's intent has no place in determining article content. Italiavivi 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, we go by NPOV. Newspaper sources make their own titles up. If we were to go by our sources, then why do we choose to go by titles like 2004 Madrid train bombings, 7 July 2005 London bombings or 11 July 2006 Mumbai Train Bombings instead of replacing "bombings" with "massacre"? Nishkid64 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are exploiting WP:NPOV to support your skepticism of the media.  WP:ATTRIBUTION (WP:RS) is paramount where Wikipedia policy is concerned. Italiavivi 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it is speculation on my part but when something surrounds a bombing it is expected that there will be many casualties... but when it is a lone shooter there isn't such an expectation. You can be sure that if every source was describing those events as "massacres" though (as what is essentially occuring now with this event), we'd be doing so as well.  23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italiavivi, "shooting" is NPOV. That is agreed upon by everyone. Some people feel "massacre" isn't. For that reason, the ITN headline was changed. I'm saying just wait a few days before making a final decision. That's all I'm asking. If we open the floodgates now, we're just going to have a move war. Netscott, even if all the newspapers use the word "massacre", I don't think using that title should be used on a Wikipedia article since it would appear we are promoting a common interpretation of the word "massacre" -- an atrocious and devastating act committed against innocent people. I personally feel that a reader can judge for himself if the situation appropriately fits in the scheme of a "massacre". Nishkid64 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again state your belief that "massacre" should not be used in Wikipedia articles.  You have a clear stance in this dispute, a stance you seem to hold above taking the naming from the mainstream of reliable sources. Italiavivi 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take the name from mainstream sources, then we'd have to change the titles of a good number of articles. That's what I'm saying. "Massacre" is a subjective term, and when the newspapers use it, it doesn't imply that we should. Nishkid64 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It occurs to me that "shooting" doesn't convey death. Shooting is ambiguous in that sense. You can have shootings without having fatalities. Shouldn't the headline reflect fatalities? Ikilled007 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Ikilled.  This is exactly why "massacre" is more accurate. Italiavivi 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shooting may not be the appropriate title, but if that's the case, I do not think that massacre is either.  We can name it based on our sources, but surely everyone realizes that most likely it will be known as something else over time.  Basing this huge argument on a sensationalized headline is a bit silly... they didn't call the September 11th attacks 9/11 until after the events themselves had transpired and the media storm had settled.  This argument is premature and unless the name massacre sticks I think it's stupid to waste time bothering with it and just call it "shooting" because that's the simplest thing.  Ennuified 11:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre 

message: Does this article really need an infobox?  It seems to me that having one is sensationalist in nature, almost as if we are "keeping score".  Does anyone share my sentiment?  If so, I want to propose a keep/remove vote on the matter.  -- Mrpaco 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: share the sentiment? not in any way, infoboxes aren't "sensationalist" and the "score" isn't even changing. it's just a way of building a better article and providing the facts at a glance. infobox is just fine tomasz. 09:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this really need an Infobox?

message: Why is this talk page sprotected? Zyxwvutsrqp 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anons have been chronically adding the name of someone who is supposedly the shooter while there's no reliable reports about such a thing.  23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is the talk page sprotected? Atleast there should be a subpage where anons and recent accounts can write something. Zyxwvutsrqp 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's where they've been adding the info. WP:BLP is explicit about not doing that... thus the sprotection in accord with BLP.  23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sprotecting the talk page without providing another place for new-account and anon suggestions (especially since this is a current news event) would seem to preclude any contributions from lurkers and people who are not wikipedians already. Zyxwvutsrqp 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I disagree with the semiprotect or the uselessness of idle speculation on the shooter's identity from anons, but I'm not entirely clear on how Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons applies in a case where virtually the only thing we know about a person is that they are no longer living? --ByeByeBaby 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason BLP applies is that is a person speculates to the identity of the shooter and they get it wrong, there is a good chance that person is alive. Natalie 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:Pp-semi-protected looks like the likely candidate.. there should be a BLP one though for sure.  23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this talk page protected? 

message: Can someone place some stats comparing this shooting to other shootings at universities? Zyxwvutsrqp 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Univeristy shootings (Or, statistics, who's got 'em?) 

message: I just heard on the radio that a progun group said that if one of the students had a handgun that he could have shot the gunman and saved lives. Armed college students. What an great idea. I bet others are calling for stricter gun laws. Should this be talked about here? Babalooo 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue against it. Readers can ponder issues of gun control/gun rights on their own. Ikilled007 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely doesn't belong, but if there's a NPOV section related to it here's a possible source for some quotes from school officials regarding a recent (January 07) bill realted to guns at school. — xaosflux Talk 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Texas at the Luby Cafeteria the killer went around shooting people and reloading like this guy. Supposedly Texas allowed concealed carrying of firearms after that on the rationale that someone with a gun could have shot the killer. If editorial writers or Virginia legislators revive the move to allow concealed carry by the students, then that could have a place in the article. If it is just gun fans on blogs, then it does not belong in the article. Edison 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from gun-control and pro-gun groups? (Or, does it merit inclusion?)

message: It seems a little inflamatory to me, as in "shooting rampage."  Wouldn't something like "incident" be better?  I've already take it out a couple times, so I just want to see if there's any consensus on this.Chunky Rice 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. What's the standard English usage for the word? Ikilled007 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Chunky Rice 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I just don't know. Could go either way. I have no opinion. Ikilled007 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Here is the definition, I don't think it violates NPOV:  rampage:  1. violent or excited behavior that is reckless, uncontrolled, or destructive.  Certainly parts of that definition could be npov, such as uncontrolled, but since the different descriptions are seperated by or's instead of and's, and if you look at the bolded text I think that accurately describes what this was.  Gopher backer 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The media seems to be using "rampage" as often as "massacre", so I'd say it's fine.  Krushia 01:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm no English professor, but would 32 murders really be considered an "incident"? That's taking political correctness to an absurd level. The word "incident" really doesn't fit the magnitude of the whole thing. --Wjmoore17 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a matter of 'political correctness' so much as trying not to be sensationalistic.  The term rampage is subject to opinions and different connotations - much like 'massacre' as opposed to shooting.John R S 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "rampage" npov? 

message: Who erased it? Why? Should I post the whole email? Babalooo 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was just a post about not posting rumors, now thats gone too. Babalooo 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that warning. Sorry. Babalooo 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd my post go? (Or, where do rumors go when they die?) 

message: I say that the article should tell us enough as readers that we can make up our own minds about if it was. As facts become clear, we should put some focus on what was and was not done by university administration and police in the hours after the first 9-1-1 call was made. Dnklu 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, original research, or anything else of that sort.  We are an encyclopedia, not an instrument for social justice.  At any rate, even the most lunatic media types aren't claiming criminal negligence and I suggest that this topic should be removed. --BigDT 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dnklu didn't suggest original research. Re-read what he said. Malamockq 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not calling for speculation. I am calling for attention to the facts that allow the reader to answer this question for him/herself. It sure looks like a bunch of lives could have been saved had officials acted at 7:15 or soon thereafter. Why should the time line not talk about when the building was locked down, areas cordoned off, when the campus was locked down, when the police were first notified, etc. Officials assumed that the killer had left campus. Was that reasonable? This is the most interesting question for many readers, I would think. Let's make sure those facts get into the main page. This is important. And an accurate encyclopedia is an social justice. Especially one that is free. Dnklu 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the timeline should include those facts, if we have reliable sources for them. But whether their assumption was reasonable is not a question which Wikipedia can ask. Once we have reliable sources asking those questions, we can include those questions, citing those reliable sources - i.e. "John Doe, a professor of criminal justice at Anywhere State University, questioned whether campus officials had reacted appropriately to the shooting. But Ann Droid, executive director of the Campus Security Association, said it was unfair to criticize reactions which unfolded in a crisis situation." We can't ask questions, but we can report that others have asked questions. FCYTravis 00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: including in the timeline when they locked down the school and such would be fine, but whether their actions/speed was resonable is OR, and whether they are criminally neglegent or not is OR-Threewaysround 00:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: IT DOES MATTER! 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Was the University or Police Response Criminally Negligent? (And does it matter to Wikipedia?)

message: I saw that there was an image request, so check out this news webpage from the CBS station KDKA in Virginia, which has some good photos I believe.Cliff smith 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We do not use news media photos under almost any circumstance.  We need freely licensed images - ones that someone took and is willing to release under the GFDL.  News media photos are usually deleted on sight.  Please see the image use policy and :Commons:Commons:licensing for more information. --BigDT 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, KDKA is a CBS station in Pittsburgh, PA. Not Virginia. Just letting you know. --Wjmoore17 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAGES (Or, can we use pictures from the media we just scooped off teh Web?)

message: ===Fatalities (Or, do we include the perp?)===
There seems to be some disagreement on how many fatalities should be listed. I'm supporting listing it as 32 (33 including the perpetrator) in the infobox. This is the same way Columbine High School massacre has the fatalities listed in their infobox, differentiating between fatalities of the attack and total people killed. I think we should differentiate between victims of the attack and the killer. The fatalities of the attack are listed by all the major outlets as 32, the killer isn't a victim of the attack as he was the cause. This tracks with what happened at Columbine as well. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur-Threewaysround 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the perp counts as a fatality, but should be quoted outside the group of the victims. --Iriseyes 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Moved from separate heading] Why is there a distinction made between the shooter and his victims in the "Fatalities" section of the infobox? Such a distinction would have been technically accurate for the number of victims, but I see no reason why it shouldn't simply be 33 if the count is of fatalities. Noclip 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see why not. Gee, who put that warning there? // Sean William (PTO) 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who put it up, but I this I know why - in the few hours after the story broke a lot of people confused "police confirmed" with "news outlets reported" and kept changing the numbers randomly and somewhat widely. I'm guessing that the warning was put in so people would stop and think for a second before randomly changing the numbers. That said, it seems to have calmed down and 33 has been a steadily accepted number for at least 5 hours, so the warning can probably go. Natalie 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but blocking for changing against consensus, even with a newer, cited source, is leagues away from actual Wikipedia policy, and any blocks for doing so wouldn't last very long.  dcandeto 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily justifying the warning, just explaining it for anyone who wasn't paying attention to this article in the few hours immediately after the news broke. It was ridiculous - an average of about 5 edits per minute. The number of victims changed every time your refreshed the page. I think removing it was a good idea. Natalie 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 32/33

message: There seems to be some disagreement on how many fatalities should be listed. I'm supporting listing it as 32 (33 including the perpetrator) in the infobox. This is the same way Columbine High School massacre has the fatalities listed in their infobox, differentiating between fatalities of the attack and total people killed. I think we should differentiate between victims of the attack and the killer. The fatalities of the attack are listed by all the major outlets as 32, the killer isn't a victim of the attack as he was the cause. This tracks with what happened at Columbine as well. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur-Threewaysround 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the perp counts as a fatality, but should be quoted outside the group of the victims. --Iriseyes 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Moved from separate heading] Why is there a distinction made between the shooter and his victims in the "Fatalities" section of the infobox? Such a distinction would have been technically accurate for the number of victims, but I see no reason why it shouldn't simply be 33 if the count is of fatalities. Noclip 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatalities (Or, do we include the perp?)

message: Due to the silly warning in the article ("Anyone changing this without consensus on the talk page WILL be blocked."), I'm suggesting it here first: "32 (33 including the perpetrator)" should be simplified to "33 including the perpetrator".--Eloquence* 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Gee, who put that warning there? // Sean William (PTO) 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who put it up, but I this I know why - in the few hours after the story broke a lot of people confused "police confirmed" with "news outlets reported" and kept changing the numbers randomly and somewhat widely. I'm guessing that the warning was put in so people would stop and think for a second before randomly changing the numbers. That said, it seems to have calmed down and 33 has been a steadily accepted number for at least 5 hours, so the warning can probably go. Natalie 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but blocking for changing against consensus, even with a newer, cited source, is leagues away from actual Wikipedia policy, and any blocks for doing so wouldn't last very long.  dcandeto 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not necessarily justifying the warning, just explaining it for anyone who wasn't paying attention to this article in the few hours immediately after the news broke. It was ridiculous - an average of about 5 edits per minute. The number of victims changed every time your refreshed the page. I think removing it was a good idea. Natalie 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities (Or why the draconian punishment for non-consensus number changers?) 

message: Maybe I like college football to much, but should massacres be ranked in terms of influence on the surrounding culture? This may deserve a top 5 spot, but there are a lot of other competitors, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, the Columbine Massacre, Jonestown Massacre, Luby's Massacre, and what I think deserves the top spot, the Boston Massacre, even if only 5 people died. Undoubtable the deaths of innocent people tend to spark a new mode of thought for the public and reflectively are seen as the peaks of conflict and turmoil, unrest and change in their respective societies. I also have questions about the policy on not putting any descriptions of the killer on this talk page or the article itself. Is there an actual policy against this sort of thing (if there is there should be a link) or if there isn't, this makeshift rule should be abolished. I actually don't understand why it's not appropriate to atleast say "many news sources have reported the killer to be and Asian fellow in his twenties, and more specific reports point to a 24 years old Chinese man" (or something of the source, as most sources unaminously report it in that manner). Not specifying any rules here will lead to confusion (I am certain, as it already has in me) of the restrictive and currently very unfree encyclopedia, Wikipedia. So if anyone can cite an actual rule, please do so.--Porsche997SBS 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friendofwashoe 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure we need to rank them; saying that this is the largest, Columbine was the largest school shooting up to now, and Luby's was the largest in general up to now, should be enough.  dcandeto 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings? (Or, how bad was it comparison to similar incidents, and do we want to memorialize that?)

message: In the 'naming convention' section of Wikiproject: Disaster management (link above) this artice should (when the time is right) have a 2007 before the rest. So the title would be "2007 Virginia Tech shooting/massacre" (whichever is decided).
Just though I'd mention that before it is moved to "Virginia Tech massacre" or whatever, in order to avoid successive moves, and to provide more clairity to those viewing the article.  
TheGoogle 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because most natural disasters can happen multiple times in the same place. For example an Indonesian tsunami can happen multiple times to the same place. That is why that wikiproject does that. From what I can see, that wikiproject does not cover mass shootings only bombings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdo01 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes however there may a future event that might draw confusion, and besides, it is already ESTABLISHED POLICY for articles in said category. If you look, this article falls under the realm of Wikiproject: Disaster management (it is is the category), so therefore this applies. TheGoogle 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Columbine High School massacre and Bath School disaster don't have the year in their title. I don't think it's necessary.  --Temporarily Insane (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Necessary? Probably not. Policy? Yes. Just because those other ones don't currently adhere to it doesn't mean this one shouldn't. TheGoogle 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have always considered the years to be absolutely ridiculous. What if Wikipedia had been around to "name" other significant historical events? The 1912 Titanic disaster? The 1941 Pearl Harbor attack? The 1963 JFK Assasination? Hurricane Katrina of 2005? These names are ridiculous. The years policy is misguided and harmful to the encyclopedia. Noclip 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sorry then for trying to FOLLOW THE RULES. Next time I won't try and do such a horrible thing. :-P . I agree, it sounds wierd, but the policy is there, and unfortunately we as the users (the "writers") have to follow the guidelines set forth before us. I didn't write the rules. I just think that if we are going to move the page we should obey the rules that it falls in the jurisdiction of. If that means it looks "absolutely ridiculous" then so be it. Take it up with somebody who has the authority to change such a thing. Until then we should call it this (it can always be MOVED AGAIN later if need be). TheGoogle 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name (Or, what do we call this thing?)

message: I found a picture of Norris Hall, I think would be useful but I lack the skill to place it in, and to not mess up this page in all of the chaos, could someone add it?
http://www.eng.vt.edu/cgep/images/norris_map.jpg
Thanks, GloomySunday 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an image modified from one of the maps VT hands out to visitors - maybe that'll help you find the original picture location? 70.161.204.119 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing from a VT website meets Wikipedia's image use requirements. Please see WP:IUP for more information. --BigDT 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norris Hall Picture 

message: maybe we should take out the part about the shooter looking for his girlfreind until we can source it.  The part that says he quarreled with his girlfreind is fine (it is sourced), but since the shooter is dead his intentions may not ever be known.
peace out-Threewaysround 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  looking for girlfriend 

message: In the most recent (7:30ish) press conference, the Campus Police Chief stated that they had NOT yet decided if the two incidents were related.  ATF was looking at the ballistics.  They had identified a "person of interest" based on witness accounts of the first incident, who they had questioned and released. It was *not* the same person as the dead shooter from the later incident.  They said this person was still a "person of interest".  The Wiki article is currently written as if the same shooter was in both locations.  I think the article needs to be adjusted to be careful not to assume both locations were the work of the same shooter, odd as that may seem, though of course it may turn out that they are. --Stargirl7 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are saying everywhere on the news that it is only one, as of 11:22 EST. TheGoogle 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that I crossposted with Stargirl7. -- In case these are unrelated incidents, I've reordered the description of events to put events at the dorm before events at Norris Hall, which previously were pretty mixed up. Chronological accounts do seem to work better. --Yksin 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two shooters? Two incidents?

message: Can someone please create a section to direct people where to go for counseling and emotional support.  I know the U has some resources available and I think it would be good to have them listed on the wikipedia page.  Also, it might be nice to have a wiki page for people who want to say something, vent, ask for help, or communicate with each other to help in the healing process.  If someone wants to make something like that, please also post the URL on this page to facilitate the dialog and the recovery process.  Thanks Ethicalhacker 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to sound heartless, but that's not what an encyclopedia article is for, as per Wikipedia guidelines.  --Dynaflow 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, not to be an ass but if I were somehow involved with this why would the first place I go to seek help be a Wikipedia article? Gdo01 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a memorial. // Sean William (PTO) 01:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you look at the first ref it gives the info you are looking for, SqueakBox 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotional Support (Or, can we add links directed at the victims?) 

message: The basic problem is that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_Tech_massacre&oldid=123405056 contains speculation; this is not encouraged by WP standards. It also presents somewhat conflicting information with the section itself: the section starts with a basic 'we don't know whom it is at this time' but yet ends with a remarkably detailed speculation on the background of this person. See the problem? 
WP is not here to speculate on things; it is here to document things. Yes, the Sun Times may be a reliable source and it may soon be verified. But right now, we have no independent way of confirming their report from better sources (e.g. official). It would perhaps be best to just wait a little longer -- as an encyclopedia, we do have the luxury of time to wait a little for fast-moving events to resolve themselves more fully. It helps the quality of the article that way. I'm not going to redo the removal as I'm not interested in edit warring. If someone else agrees, go for it. If not, I'll live with it. Cheers, Dsf 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this assessment. Azileretsis 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The Sun Times is an official source. If a student was interviewed by the Sun Times and they said that the killer was an Asian in a leather jacket and stocking cap, then that is bracketable. ... "Bob, a VT student interviewed by the Sun times said [bracketed statement]." If there are conflicting reports then we can cite sources saying that there are conflicting reports.: "According to Greta van Susteren, there are conflicting reports about [facts Greta reports about]" MPS 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for removal explained (Or, where did my references to others' unverifiable speculation go?)

message: The list of victims was removed here . This should probably be discussed, because it seems like the kind of thing people are going to want to keep adding back.--W.marsh 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wikipedia may not be a memorial, I do not see how adding a list of victims with listed reliable sources is memorializing. It is documenting information, not a full on extrapolation of the person's life story and how sorry person A and B are over htem. TW 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered by WP:NOT#MEMORIAL under #3. If they want to put something like that, they should link to a list of ALL the victims not the select few they personally want to remember. Gdo01 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bath School disaster has a list of victims. I don't see why this shouldn't, but only once all that information is published, and not individually. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Only once we have all the victims not just the ones you know firsthand. Gdo01 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pan Am Flight 103 mentions some victims. I think we need rock solid sources and that with them we should indeed name the victims. The perpetrator is going to be mentioned and shoudlnt be more famous than the victims, SqueakBox 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops, I probably should have discussed this before I did it. I am opposed to lists of victims because, simply, Wikipedia isn't here to honor the dead. I'm sorry that this happened, and my heart goes out to the friends and family of those killed, but I don't feel that this is the place for lists of victims. Maybe an external link could be added that lists the names of all of the killed students. // Sean William (PTO) 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between a list and a shrine, though. I don't think just listing people is memorializing them. But that said, we should probably wait per the above comments. I didn't start the discussion here to chastise you or anything, removing was probably a good call, I just figured discussion would be helpful. --W.marsh 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is too sonn and was expressing a personal view re notoriety, not suggesting we dont give the perpetrator the coverage he deserves, but I think that naming victims will happen and shouild do but give it time. Whiel these people arent covered by BLP we must be sensitive, wikipedia doesnt negate sensitivity at all, SqueakBox 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we decide to list the victims and injured (I personally think it's vanity unless any of those people becomes otherwise notable, but don't care too much to argue about it) we should definitely wait until a full list of names is released. That will also allow us the convenience of one ref tag, instead of 33. Natalie 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as you guys may hate it, the shooter will be covered under WP:Notability. Starks 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Every other shooting entry in wikipedia lists the victims, this isn't even worth debating... However, in this case there's only one with an airtight identity confirmation in the media .  I'd like to see the list get started, but a more expereinced user/admin probably needs to add a semi-standard notice that unconfirmed can't be added. Rahga 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See its happening. People are using facebook groups and what family have told them to cite victims. These are not reliable and they completely disregard all the other victims. We need to have a complete list rather than adding victim by victim as family members start realizing deaths. The worst part is if we put some person who is not dead and we say they are. We have to remember that we are a primary source for lots of people and sometimes distant family members. Gdo01 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, God forbid, someone who just happens to read this article and reads a name they recognize. This is another reason to refrain from listing victims until their names are officially released - I'd hate to find out my kid had been killed from Wikipedia. Natalie 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Clearly (per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) we cannot list live people who are notable only for surviving this rampage, ... but... I think if we use official sources (and not facebook) to list those 32 dead then we are publishing information that has already been released. The police don't release names of victims to the press until the families have been informed so listing shouldn't be a problem. Also... regarding people getting information from wikipedia... that's the whole point. With all due respect, if they get negative information or information they don't like, well they are readin an article about a massacre on a college campus... so what did they expect, happy news? MPS 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. That's why I don't think we should add a list until it's released by an official source. I'm not going to argue against a list, just an unsourced, unofficial list. When an official list is released, I think we should use a sidebox like the one used in the Bath article. (Bath school disaster#The_day_of_the_disaster) It seems to meet the requirements of being informative without being a memorial and also doesn't disrupt the prose of the article, as lists often do. Natalie 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  victims list removed (Or, where did it go, why, and what prominence should we give it here?)

message: What's the deal with chains? were they on doors or not? The article says nothing about chains, but the news says doors were chained and padlocked. MPS 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN said this several times on their newscast. I believe it is the main reason why so many died inside the building. Gdo01 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No perhaps I was being too laconic... THE CURRENT ARTICLE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT CHAINS. MPS 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both NYT and CNN reported chains. --Iriseyes 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So did either NBC or Global.  (I watched one right after the other, so I can't remember which one it was, and I don't have time right now to watch them again.)  dcandeto 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Va Tech President in a Press Conference televised stated that the entrance doors to Norris Hall were chained on inside when police first arrived in response ot reports of shots fired, etc. I believe he said that delayed them by a minute or less in gaining entry. Vaoverland 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if this is still an issue, it might be worthwhile to note the BBC was reporting the doors chained on Radio 4 this morning. tomasz. 09:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it goes to premeditation. As do possibly the bomb threats of days earlier. It is early to speculate on either but that the doors were chained by someone other than a university authority is important.Walker42 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: chains (Or, why does the article completely omit any and all mention of the fact that the doors were chained shut?)

message: Regarding historical context for this article, I think you have to go back to the Indian Massacre of 1622 along the James River which occured almost 400 years ago to find a worse mass murder which has occurred in Virginia, outisde of War, and I think the 1622 incident it qualifies as a mass murder, since that was not during a period of official war. 
I am too close to this to write NPOV at this time. While I don't think the Indian massacre of 1622 as an act of war, is was certainly part of an ongoing conflict, and is apparently not similar in that respect. Other writers can decide how or if to use that comparison. I am bowing out, and will read the work of others. Vaoverland 02:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a school shooting, so it's somewhat unrelated. --Iriseyes 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had time to reflect, and suggest that we not go back with those historical context possibilities for comparisons, as we will begin to slide down a slippery slope. The past incidents mentioned were really not reasonably comparable, and take us astray from a focus on the current incident. Vaoverland 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context

message: I have reduced the importance rating within the Virginia WikiProject to high importance. As tragic and as shocking as this is, this does not warrant top importance (it can't be more important than History of Virginia, James Monroe, John Marshall...not to mention Virginia...). It's a shoo-in for high importance. I have also gone in and reduced Capital One's importance as well, as that should not be top importance either. --Coredesat 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance rating

message: FYI, if anyone would like to add a ribbon to their user page, you can use  to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the  icon) or you can add :Image:Orange and maroon ribbon.svg anywhere you would like. --BigDT 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I put it on my userpage in honour of my friend.--JUDE talk 06:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User page content 

message: Why is there no list of victims. The media has already confirmed 3.--Shivreddy 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of victims 

message: Just wondering what the point of having a link in the article Ryan Clark (victim) that simply redirects to the same article is, unless someone was going to create an article, and it doesn't seem particularly notable to me. Xcfrommars 03:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was an article, and then someone redirected it back to this page, and then someone tried to remove it and was accidently reverted. Basically, it's a big mess because everyone's trying to stay on top of the news. Natalie 03:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should trust User:Friday on this one. I may not agree with him but he does know what he is doing, SqueakBox 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victim link 

message: I'm on an arbcom ban for pushing Brit spelling and even I recognise that we should stick to US spelling in this article. But do make sure the grammar is understandable to we non-Americans, SqueakBox 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which parts are not grammatically understandable? I'm reasonably familiar w/ British spelling but not w/ British grammar. Natalie 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is not "understandable" to you in this article?  What "non-British grammar"  is not understandable (putting full stops inside quotation marks? One quote mark dash instead of two? What?) I'm honestly curious what on earth you're referring to.  Moncrief 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edits were not non-American grammar oriented :), but cleaned up some sentences before i noticed this section in the Talk page. Do review, thanks. Sdsouza 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake to change an attributed description from US "Asian" To Brit "East Asian", especially since the grammar now incorrectly implies the witness used the latter term.Walker42 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brit spelling

message: Is the addition of John McCain's gun control policies really relevant/necessary in this article? Plus, the place in which it was put makes it look like a political message is trying to be conveyed. Apolloae 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably looks like he's trying to convey a political message because that's what he's doing. I'd say it's unecessary. Natalie 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mccain was the person who added a political message to it. As you can see, he is the one who framed this tragedy as a Second Amendment thing. Gdo01 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The heading is government response. Its pretty important for a potential presidential candidate states something about this topic especially when they frame a tragedy to score political points. Gdo01 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well there's always the option of ignoring or not commenting on a question. Anyway, I doubt its going to survive on the article unless someone blows this out, so I'm alright with removing it. Gdo01 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Would we really include a statement from any of the other presidential candidates? They're just candidates. Natalie 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, he's a Senator as well as a candidate. He's in office and got asked a question relating to this matter, to which he responded. I'm not too fussed whether it's in the article or not, but he is a serving member of the current government. Jekteir 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John McCain 

message: It is entirely inappropriate to semi-protect a talk page for so long. This is a quite draconian and exclusionary policy to enact due to the actions of only a few users. It represents the continuation of a frightening trend of closure on Wikipedia. Tfine80 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're still getting better than a post a minute on the talk page.  That's about the most unbelievable thing ever, though I suppose if we had been here for 9/11 or Columbine, the same thing would have happened then, too.  At any rate, I fully, 100% the decision to protect it until the names of the shooter and victim's are officially released.  People were adding those names and we absolutely 100% cannot allow that. --BigDT 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are unregistered users, who may have lots of interesting things to add and questions about the creation of this article, more likely to do this than anyone else. It is enough that we now have an automatic reflex toward protection of current event articles; why does the talk space need to be protected as well? Tfine80 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These "interesting things" include adding unconfirmed death reports. The last thing we need is for some family member to believe their cousin is dead because Wikipedia said it. Gdo01 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If a registered user adds such a thing, they can only do it once.  If their account is blocked, they can't do it again.  But if the article is unprotected, then they can register 10 more accounts and add the info 10 more times.  The reason both pages are s-protected is that this problem actually was occurring earlier today.  The revisions aren't there any more so I assume they were oversighted, but people were adding unconfirmed names. --BigDT 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how many hundreds of eager and honest contributors have been turned away, seeing that their contributions and thoughts are unwanted? Now you even shut off commentary about the article and the provision of advice. This is incredibly draconian and unwarranted. Tfine80 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief.  I removed the s-protection earlier today.  Another admin had to readd it EIGHT MINUTES LATER because vandalism was coming in so fast that it couldn't be reverted. This is a simple and equitable solution - once the names are out there, the s-protection can come off.  We cannot have vandalism pouring in so fast tht it can't be reverted and we cannot have people publishing names of the dead. --BigDT 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that there's no reason to keep the talkpage semi-protected. This article is high-profile enough that off-topic additions can be removed from the talkpage, and I agree that editors who are prevented from contributing to the article should at least be able to suggestion additions on the talkpage. Anchoress 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the "oh my god, Wikipedia says you killed my son/daughter/friend, I'm going to kill you *lynch*" situation much scarier than a dead relative. // Sean William (PTO) 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I've heard this argument on forums and all I have to say is why would you lynch someone that is already dead by suicide? Gdo01 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the conspiracy theorists begin their "multiple shooter" theory. // Sean William 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone checked the grassy knoll? --BigDT 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the template at the top is misleading. It says editing by anonymous and newly registered editors is prohibited, and that anonymous editors should request unprotection or register to contribute; but how can they do either of those things? Anchoress 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can register and contribute in a few days or ask for unprotection on WP:RFP. Gdo01 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the template should say that. Anchoress 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be unwieldy as a template. Gdo01 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've unprotected the talk page.  There is already a "block on site" notice so it's pretty ridiculous to have it protected.  Where are the anons/newbies supposed to contribute if they can't edit either page? John Reaves (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  The marketplace of ideas should triumph over the unwarranted fears of the few. Rooot 04:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this has nothing to do with a "marketplace" of competing ideas, it has to do with ensuring facts are printed, speculation is kept out, libel is avoided and inane vandalism doesn't happen once per minute. tomasz. 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's still early, but the tally so far is about 6 edits by anons since the semi was taken off, and they've all been at worst harmless and at best on-topic and constructive. So far the feared rush of contributions that would need to be oversighted has failed to materialise. Thankfully. Anchoress 10:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection