Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 5

message: 23 year old Asian male (student)  from South Korea. Name is Cho Seung-Hui. 9mm and 22 cal. guns. Tests confirm one of the guns was used in both shootings. Though they can't really go forth and say he was involved with both series of shootings; They can assume and are positive; but they need evidence. --66.16.38.129 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox News Channel just reported on the live broadcast that Cho's fingerprints have been identified on both weapons.  If someone can get text sources for that, then we can probably confirm the connection between the two sets of shootings.  Rdfox 76 14:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cho's picture can be found here -  http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108   I don't know how to embed images.  Maybe someone can help? ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the picture from ABC be copyrighted? Is there another source like the Student paper that is "free"? Pthorson 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that ABC images are copyrighted. I've seen 'em taken and used on another site. LonelyPker 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do not post images unless you are 100% sure about the source and copyright status.Rahga 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of Gunman 

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

message: can someone fix the reference section. Mercenary2k 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure it out--there might be an open ref tag somewhere but it is difficult to find. -Nicktalk 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be fixed. -Nicktalk 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two main tags with the same name ("Washington Post"). Further, the second wasn't closed. It was tricky, all right. For future reference, those causing such incidents seem to be the last properly formatted ones in the references section when it breaks. --Kizor 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section is screwered 

message: Is a British tabloid considered to be a reliable source?  I dont think that the tabloid info should be included in the article until there is an official release.  Also, the chains should be mentioned. --AGruntsJaggon 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, British tabloids can be notoriously unreliable.  --Buyoof 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid reference 

message: Apparently, the first victim, Ryan Clark is identified.
I think the police, several hours from now will host a press conference and identify more victims.
I think we should create a section for the victims, where they can be identified.
What do you guys think?
Mercenary2k 07:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. Mercenary2k 09:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So far, none of the victims have been identified as East Asian.  Could this be a racial attack by Cho against non-asians?  Has anyone found out what the contents of that note were?  ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.92.42 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It could have been, but it's not Wikipedia's place to state that unless external sources confirm it. Rahga 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section for List of Victims 

message: There is currently no map so I uploaded this one to commons. -- (TheFEARgod) 161.53.48.211 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort, but wow, could the FBI have made an uglier map? That's just god-awful bad. According to this map, Maryland is bulkier than West Virginia. --Golbez 09:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are way better maps out there from various news sources. --Zib 09:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, but as has repeatedly been mentioned, we need someone who knows our labyrinthine image use policy to confirm that those fall under fair use. --Kizor 09:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A map would very rarely be usabled under fair use in wikipedia. The only case might be if it is of iconic historical interest but still under copyright. In a case like this, there would definitely be no justification for using a map under fair use Nil Einne 12:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Just thought I'd note here that there is an article already on one victim (Ryan C. Clark), which should probably be merged into this article. Wikipedia is not a memorial and all that. Evil Monkey - Hello 09:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it does seem rather superfluous. i suspect that in a few days it will prbly be realised that it's never really going to expand any more than it is, and either be merged or deleted. tomasz. 10:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Three things: 1) I don't see merging it with this article; this article is already pretty long and bound to get longer; 2) I think ultimately a 'victims' page (as ghoulish as it sounds) will be developed, similar to the 'main characters' pages of major works; and 3) If a merge discussion continues, it should probably be on that page (Ryan's). But personally I think leave it for now. Forcing an early merge, if not well-supported, is only going to add ill-will to an already hot topic, and in a week or two or maybe less, the next step should be very clear. Anchoress 10:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that now is not the time to merge or create a page similar to List of Charles Whitman's victims. Emotions are running high as can be seen from some of the comment on the Ryan C. Clark talk page. Evil Monkey - Hello 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there are legitimate concerns by some that it may be agreed that the article on Ryan Clark should be merged in the future, the majority of comments here and on the Talk page for that article so far have been to leave it alone as a separate article for now. Nevertheless, several individuals seem bent not going with that consensus, but rather, are taking unilateral action and have even tried to convert it to a redirect to this article now. We could be heading for an edit war and/or a need to semi-protect if we are not even going to follow WP policy about merger proposals. What gives, folks? My initial thinking is that this seems to be a manifestation of some combination of "my way" and just plain being mean for whatever reason. If I am the only one seeing this, will someone (at a less emotional distance) look over my shoulder and tell me on my Talk page (or tell all of us here). I am here in Virginia and am willing to concede that some of us are not at our best at such a sad time here. I need to step back and grieve a bit, OK? Vaoverland 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see this consensus you speak of. Quite a number of editors including me have suggested a merger is appropriate until it's established Ryan is notable Nil Einne 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Please add the Iranian government condemnation of the event under International Reaction. Thanks 199.172.169.7 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see that the talk page is unprotected. That was done when I went to do it, thanks. --Kizor 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Please refer also The top goverment spokesman of Japan condoles. Thanks Desuzo 14:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done--MoRsE 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: There are citations listed for all people on the victims list, except this one:
"Mary Read, a freshman, killed while attending her French class." --24.20.69.240 10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I`ve found  a cite:. Could someone please link to this from her listing in the article?--24.20.69.240 10:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've added her to the list (she apparently was removed for being uncited) and the link as a ref. --Kizor 11:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation for victim Mary Read 

message: I see that articles have been created for at least three of the victims now.  This needs to be reversed.  Past events have shown that vitims of notable crimes are not in themselves notable.  Unless notability can be established beyond their victim status then any important content should be merged back to the parent article and the vitim article deleted.  Otherwise, Wikipedia will look more like a collection of obituaries than an encylopedia.  Just take a look at the article for Ryan C. Clark to see an example. --StuffOfInterest 11:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for removing the articles for student victims, but professors have some claim to separate articles by their position and their works, quite aside from their deaths. While Clark's article is just a memorial, the professors' focus on their achievements and merits, instead of just this tragedy. They should be kept. --Kizor 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the professor's notability can be established as per WP:PROF, then I would agree.  Currently, the articles only exist because of the shooting. --StuffOfInterest 12:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, that. Give them some time. --Kizor 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now we seem to be getting articles for survivors too. Please someone make it stop tomasz. 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I persoanlly felt the articles on the two professors should have been left for a day or two. While the articles were clearly created because of the shooting and I would have advised people to wait a week at least, once the articles had been created IMHO there was nothing wrong with giving them a bit of time to see if they can establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The article on the alleged hero should have been removed since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Now that they have been 'merged', I would suggest editors work on them in their user pages and see if they can get them up to scratch. If they can establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) then there is nothing that wrong IMHO that they were created because of the shooting. Nil Einne 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merges were reverted, so the discussion is still ongoing.  Someone jumped the gun rather than being part of the discussion. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in the party that doesn't mind the mention of the students' names on the main article, but I definitely don't think they should have their own articles.  As for the professors:  notes that Professor Librescu was internationally known for his work in aeronautics, while Professor Granata was one of the "one of the top five biomechanics researchers in the country" in his field.  They seem to deserve articles, but because they're renowned professors, not because they died.  Nyttend 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make the professors notable, but the articles for them should concentrate much more on their notability in that case.  How they died should be mentioned, but should not be the primary focus of their articles. --StuffOfInterest 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those professors were notable enough for their own articles. In addition, the articles should mention all aspects of their life, professional career, and how they died. Nyttend is correct that they don't deserve article b/c they died. Where Nyttend is wrong is implying that the manner of their death is irrelevant. They deserve articles because of their notable lives AND the fact that they died in a heroic manner, which is itself notable.--Alabamaboy 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: People outside USA have no idea what the terms senior, freshman and sophomore mean.
In addition the USA post secondary education system itself is a bit of a mystery.
Could the entry be amended to include definitions of these terms and a comparison of the USA post secondary education system to other systems.
Tim O'Leary 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the first use of the terms is wikilinked to an appropriate article, this should satisfy the requirement. --StuffOfInterest 13:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just link the terms you think might be confusing to their relevant articles.  That's how Wikipedia works.  --Dynaflow 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: beat me to it, i was about to say that Tim O'Leary, i think you might be surprised how many people outside the US actually do know what they mean, but nonetheless i also just linked up the first occurrence of each term in the list of student deaths too. tomasz. 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What he said ^ Dynaflow 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA terminology 

message: I heard an NPR report this morning in which a student in Norris Hall reported hearing laughing during the shooting (presumably from the shooter, although the witness did not say specifically).  I don't really know how to reference this since there were several NPR stories on the subject ( and actually I don't know if a radio story is considered a verifyable reference).  Anyway, someone please find a way to include this in the article. ike9898 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can't be documented, it shouldn't go in.  Wait a few days for transcripts to come out. --Dynaflow 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  witness reports hearing laughing during shooting 

message: "Law enforcement reported that he killed himself inside Norris Hall by a shot to the head and used a 9 mm handgun and a .22 caliber handgun." 
did he shoot himself with both weapons ? if not, its incorrect. please revise as its 'locked' Matthew Yeager 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i am unsure who to contact on this matter to edit this page ? i am a newer user and can not. anyone appose to this edit ? Matthew Yeager 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, taken care of. Ronnotel 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect English, Misleading Sentence 

message: Will someone please remove that unless they have proper citation... --Starks 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both NYTimes and ABC have said that he is the perpetrator. Also, isn't the proper spelling "Seung-hui"? Do we have any Koreans here? --MoRsE 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The press conference and VT website identify him as Cho Seung-Hui (note correct name order, family name first).  Rdfox 76 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Name is 'Cho Seung-Hui', and not 'Seung-Hui Cho', and there is no official spelling of the name, as it is translated from Korean. It's the same as how the UK & US spell Osama/Usama. There is no official spelling. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 13:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so sure. As he studied in the US, it seems rather likely that he would have adopted an anglicisation as his preferred anglicisation. Nil Einne 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that all the sources, ABC, CNN, etc state that there is a possibility of a second shooter. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the statements in the press conference, it's a slim possibility at best--they confirmed that one of the guns used in Norris Hall was used in the first shooting; they just haven't fingerprinted it yet to confirm that nobody else used it.  However, it's almost certain that he was working alone; they're just working on confirming that now.  Also, the person running the press conference just confirmed the spelling as "Cho Seung-Hui." Rdfox 76 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On a semi-related note, people have already created the following pages:
* Seung Hui Cho
* Cho seung hui
* Cho Seung-Hui
People need to keep an eye out to make sure there are no unnecessary dupes or confusion. Some of these pages need to deleted. Switchercat talkcont 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking care of it, making all of the extraneous pages redirect to the page Cho Seung-hui, as it seems to be the "official" spelling of the name, Korean customs and whatnot. Macraw83 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cho Seung-hui is the correct way to spell it as it is with all other Korean names in Wikipedia. Good friend100 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During the 9AM press conference, the university representative spelled out Cho's name as "Capital C, H, O, space, capital S, E, U, N, G, hyphen, capital H, U, I."  Considering that the name presumably comes from his university records, which would include items written by Cho himself, I would go with his spelling for now as the authoritative one.  Rdfox 76 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have our own style here, though, and at present that seems to favor a lower-case H. --Golbez 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: ... should be more appropriate. What say you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong year, and why do we need a year again? How many other massacres have there been at VPI? --Golbez 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for the year.  13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of the article: 2006 Virginia Tech massacre

message: *Agree: The articles to be merged into this do not appear significant enough, on their own, to merit an article separate from this one. AEMoreira042281 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please hold off for now, see discussion on other pages Pthorson 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the articles 

message: You people who focus on the Ten Commandments of Wikipedia are all a bunch of wankers.  "Oh my God, someone created an article about someone how might not be notable!"  Better shut that down or Armageddon will come.  Quick too, before more information comes to light.  A classic example of why wikipedia is doomed to be forever outside the margins of legitimacy. 70.53.128.184 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? How, pray tell, would allowing people to create articles on whatever they want - themselves, or their band has never been heard of, or that game they made up one day - make Wikipedia MORE "legitimate"? Remember no personal attacks, too.--AgentCDE / Talk / 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments split from Merge vote 

message: President Bush has ordered all flags to be lowered to half-staff until Sunday  Dwilliams617 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Link found !  Matthew Yeager 14:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-Staff 

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

message: Is the list of victims only dead ones?  Or are they injured and dead.  If both, then they need to be specified. Joh777nny 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a List of the Virginia Tech massacre victims article created where that would be analyzed. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've unprotected this. Articles on the mainpage of the encyclopedia everyone can edit don't get protected (not even semi-protected). There are enough eyes on this to revert vandalism quickly.--Docg 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What should be added as to the reaction of students, that the University didn't do enough to stop the attacks?  I have two sources from MSN.  Do you'll think I should add them? Bearian 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

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

message: Erin Peterson, 18, reported dead by CNN. No online source yet so I don't want to add it. --Golbez 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report of the death has been sourced and added. AEMoreira042281 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I may have misunderstood; it's possible she died yesterday, and CNN merely just learned her name. --Golbez 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No such luck. That would be Erin Peterson, died on Tuesday. --Kizor 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  34th death 

message: This article could really benefit from a map of the campus, something like used here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601810.html.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Copied to top of page for better visibility. --Kizor 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of campus needed 

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

message: This article was mentioned on today (4/17) NPR's Morning Edition and is linked to on reddit. (Bjorn Tipling 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a direct link so we don't have to search? --Temporarily Insane (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: NPR Morning Edition piece in question --Spencewah (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2007 (EST)
*Or try: "Va. Tech Students Go to Web for Info" by Renee Montagne, Morning Edition, National Public Radio, April 17, 2007.
*:I think the audio mentioned this article by name. -MrFizyx 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My mistake, the above article is the correct one, not the one I posted Spencewah 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioned on NPR and linked to from reddit.com 

message: http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/
The author of this live jounral was accused by various media outlets as being the shooter before any identities were released. I think this bit of info should be added to the article in the interest of capturing, for posterity, the modern-day 24-hour media frenzy (just as we saw with the false reports of mayhem during Katrina). Thoughts? Ryratt 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds pretty good to me. Here's larger media coverage. But while we're at it, we should cover this story, which has appeared in several newspapers and has a lead-in about a person who this article briefly accused of being the shooter. Whoops. --Kizor 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Suspect Media Leak. 

message: This isn't an article, this is chaos. An SysOP should close this for some days - and then shoul be somone write an correct Article. Actually there only patches. It's a shame for Wikipedia. Everybody puts in what he want - but nobody looks for structure and for importance. Marcus Cyron 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any specific criticisms to offer? --Golbez 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: here's a great guideline for the dissatisfied. tomasz. 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, but let's be practical for a moment - large-scale changes by one person are unfeasible or at least extremely difficult during this torrent. That said, while the process is horribly inefficient I for one am impressed by the results. --Kizor 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos 

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

message: Why would you delete the section entirely? Óðinn 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't booth sides be mentioned? Óðinn 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, it can't be a debate if only one side is expressed. --Golbez 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, back it goes... Óðinn 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun control debate

message: I heard on the BBC reports (by means of video playback) that the South Korean gunman had INJURED 50 people and KILLED 32 people I think this is more accurate...!
:NYT said only 15 people were injured. Natalie 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I've seen also say 15.  But I think it depends on how you count injured.  The 15 number, I think, is the number of people that required medical attention.  There are probably a variety of scrapes and bruises that are injuries, but aren't going to be counted by most.Chunky Rice 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It could also be the result of a simple communication error, since fifteen and fifty are basically homophones if you're mumbling. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or indeed, listening via video playback. tomasz. 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They might have meant about 50 people were shot, considering that the total of deaths and injuries has remained relatively constant since the news broke - the first stories were reporting 22 dead and 25-30 injured, which is about 50 total. So it's possible that some people were originally reported as injured but were actually dead, or died in the hospital. Natalie 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Massacre 

message: I added this section to historical context which was quickly reverted on the basis of relevance.
:The incident also occurred within the same week as the anniversaries of three other mass murders in recent U.S. history: the end of the Waco Siege on April 19, 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, and the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999.
Within the specific discourse of historical context, I believe that it is relevant to describe other major mass murders that occurred within such a narrow span of time within recent U.S. history. I'm proposing no link between the other events, just as one cannot propose a link with other deadly shooting, merely providing information from the historical record. Madcoverboy 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i can't really see a point other than "omg! all these things happened near the same time!" especially with three such disparate events as Columbine, Oklahoma & Waco. it seems to just be highlighting a grisly coincidence to no end whatsoever. tomasz. 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the timing of Oklahoma City and Waco are not coincidental; McVeigh intentionally chose to do the bombing on the anniversary of Waco. There are NO links between this and Columbine, or Columbine and the other two, so I don't see how its relevant. Unless he specifically mentions he timed it so, its irrelevant. Titanium Dragon 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anniversaries of other mass murders

message: Over at Bath_school_disaster#The_day_of_the_disaster the victims of the explosion are listed in a tasteful box to the side of the prose. I'd like to suggest that we do something like that here - it provides information, avoids the temptation of becoming a memorial, and doesn't disrupt the prose (I suggested this last night but this talk page has been archived so fast that it disappeared). Natalie 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but I would wait until we have a full list. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I gather previous discussions about this came to this conclusion as well. --Kizor 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed any previous discussion about possible formatting. This page is getting such high traffic that the discussion page has aquired four archives in about 24 hours. Natalie 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think for now someone should at least add some "unknowns" to the list of those deceased, since there are only 20something victims listed, but the confirmed number is 32. anyone agree? RMThompson 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Is this really relevant to the article?  I can understand how other historical spree shootings give this act of violence context, but a massacre of civilian settlers in the 1800s by a group of protective Mormons doesn't seem to be related at all. Other opinions? Remember 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Titanium Dragon 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Massacres at engineering schools:
* Concordia University massacre
* Ecole Polytechnique massacre
 132.205.44.134 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're referring to about École Polytechnique. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: École Polytechnique massacre - there's a missing redirect from the unaccented form. 132.205.44.134 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect created. --Elliskev 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  massacres at engineering schools 

message: Can we please get rid of the articles of the two people who were the victims of the event , they were all created on the same day as the shooting and are very short and meaningless as a seperate article, I think tagging them would not be a sufficient form of action, I vote they should be immeadiatly deleted.Rodrigue 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been hashed out repeatedly on this talkpage and the article talkpages.  Both of the professors with their own pages qualify as notable under WP:PROF independently of their deaths.  Also, I deleted your duplicate posting of this section under another name. Rdfox 76 16:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability for Liviu Librescu was established but things still look pretty hazzy for Kevin Granata.  He has no references cited currently which document his notability. --StuffOfInterest 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at Kevin Granata now, notability has been established.  He has had 67 published papers, was a professor at three schools at the same time, and his work has been noted many times before his death.  It's clear his work was notable and merited its own article.  I have worked on it for awhile and I'm sure there's still more that can be added.Gloriamarie 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims 

message: Should we include this? --Starks 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inappropriate to add it at this time unless there is a verifiable citation that the killer had or used games. Nevertheless, I think there will end up being a debate section for video games, guns, religion, alien residents, etc. Madcoverboy 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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