Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 6

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is NOT the place for gun debate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm, not following the logic of this argument... where's the Intenational and national events naming organization to officialize here?  23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revote

message: 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)
thread_title:  The only theory to deserve its own catergory 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm fine with it. --Starks 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Appropriate Warnings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Logical Meaning of "Deadliest" 

message: *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)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Psychology and Motives

message: 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)
thread_title:  shouldn't this man be on the article? 

message: 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)
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Slow Response Issue 

message: What is the actual name of the pistol. There is an edit-war going on as I can see.
*The marketing name is GLOCK, in all-caps. Themanwithoutapast 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A discussion about it can be read here: Talk:Glock#GLOCK_vs._Glock_debate. Natalie 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. Thanks!--Scheibenzahl 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GLOCK or Glock?

message: "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)
replies: text: I already removed it for that very reason.  Rdfox 76 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Please keep it out of the main article.  It calls for too much speculation. MCalamari 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  insane clown posse paragraph in gunman background section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  That's because people keep posting speculative or agenda-driven junk that deserves to get pulled. Rahga 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the more obnoxious ones, IMHO. Natalie 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this article should be locked. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: CNN says the students are using Facebook... 132.205.44.134 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Victim Myspace links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  4chan posting 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's not really relevant to this discussion Spencewah 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want to get in touch with the school itself about that. This is an encyclopedia. Natalie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  VA Tech charity? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: why is it then that i still see Mr. Seung-hui, when that's his personal name? Jettd42291 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Rdfox 76 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Korean cultural taboo? 

message: 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 
* School shooting or 
* List of school massacres
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Historical context" 

message: Cited source doesn't discuss this play - this needs to be cited. 204.154.43.244 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My bad, I saw a different reference before - probably just clicked wrong -_- 204.154.43.244 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Richard McBeef" play 

message: 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)
replies: text: IT says "cell phone", i dont' read anywhere that it's from a security camera. Violask81976 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cell phone or security camera

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Profiles of the Victims 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  international reaction 

message: 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. 
* Seoul Shinmun
"The excellence of the firearm technology of USA was proven by this again." 
* Hankook Ilbo
"Freedom of arms carrying" 
* The Chosun Ilbo　"Here is Iraq. "　 
--KoreanShoriSenyou 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ROK president did not mention anything about "gun society caused murder" in his speech. - Chulk90 23:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction of South Korea