Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 10

message: At one time the article contained a timeline.  Then the timeline was removed to a separate page.  Now I cannot find the timeline at all.  Does it still exist? Cherylyoung 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Was this NBC thing sent by courier or from a post office or something? I presume the answer is yes because if it was just dropped in a mail box, the timestamp seems irrelevant as it would just be the time it was processed, not the time it was sent Nil Einne 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I saw on the news, Cho went to the post office at 9:01 and gave the package to a clerk who dated it and sent it off, but with the wrong zip code, so it got to NBC a couple days late. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding whether the mail was delayed or delivered on time: Fox News interviewed a Virginia postal worker on April 19th, 2007 that said one of the workers remembers dealing with Cho because there was a 6 digit zipcode, instead of five. Having spotted the extra digit, it was corrected on the spot and then processed for mailing to NBC in New York. 68.175.118.95 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC 

message: Should digits be used instelled of spelling out numbers?  I mean, thirty-two dead should be 32 instead.  I always learned that numbers nine or less were spelled out, or something like that.
Nospamtodd 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I think spelling them out looks more formal, but it really is a minor detail. As long as it's consistent throughout. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, it's pure laziness not to spell numbers out less than one hundred.  It looks tacky to not have them spelled out. Jauerback 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree strongly. Wiki style for numbers is that < 10 are to be written, anything over that *may* be written if it is less than two words and it is consistent with context. This is consistent with the technical writing standards I've ever been taught. I believe the bias should be towards legibility - hence the 33 and 29 rather than thirty-three and twenty-nine. Ronnotel 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a hard time reading "thirty-three"? Jauerback 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why yes, in fact I do find 33 easier to read. What does thirty-three have going for it? Ronnotel 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bart Jason, you can find Wiki's style for dates and numbers here - it's in line with what AP uses. BTW, as a new user, you might want to take a peak at talk page guidelines. For example, you can sign your comments by using four (~) characters so they are easier to read. Welcome! Ronnotel 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: It is being reported that the killer enacted scenes from the Korean revenge movie "Oldboy" 89.155.102.1 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Oldboy 

message: Now that the events of this incident are starting to die down a bit, I think it may be appropriate to turn our focus to consolidating this article, for obvious reasons (and if they're not so obvious, 68k is all I need to say). I don't think it should be halved in size or anything, but I think that some sections are unnecessary and some are repetitive, so a good look-over of the article is in order. Of course, there's still stuff out there that can be added, but be selective of what you add and where you add it. In particular, I'm suggesting a cut back in size of the whole responses section (and its subsections) and the Cho Seung-hui, who already has his own article. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I added the  template.  Jauerback 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see you took it down.  Never mind. Jauerback 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. If you think it should be up there, go ahead. I just don't want it to suggest to others that "Yeah, we should split this article into a million more articles." But maybe I'm just being paranoid! └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unecessary splitting is a real concern. But so is the article length. I'm sure we can find a happy medium. Natalie 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Having taken a second look, it seems like most of the information about Cho could be moved to the main article about him. With what we have now, there's basically no reason to have a separate article about him, so will people mind if I move about 90% of it over there? And what should we leave here - what's most important? Natalie 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the content works for me.  His article already has some of the material, so it should be possible to reduce redundancy.  All that really needs left in the main article is a short summary. --StuffOfInterest 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the you leave some of the background of Cho, and maybe some of the possible motives. Maybe even the motives section should be pulled out to its own section, but I don't know. The preparations thing seems unneeded, but maybe it can be integrated into the timeline article or something, but maybe just leave some parts about how he bought the guns. It should probably all be in one section, without subsections. Just basically, leave anything that has to do with the logistics of the massacre. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the article length thingy so I added the  template. Zehly 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a good bit of the Gun Control Debate section should be moved or summarised, as well as Sporting Tributes, and Tributes to Self-sacrificing behaviour.  That last part is about Librescu and can be covered on his own page.(sorry forgot to sign!)Snorgle 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that seems overkill (no pun intended). And the tributes (sporting, the hero thing) and the copy cat sections should be either removed or reintegrated. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it's looking better, but a lot seems to have been added to Cho's Possible Motives.  I think it's too in-depth, and most of it should go on his own page.Snorgle 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Scientz, I guess you shouldn't delete that large amount of text without overwhelming consensus or putting them elsewhere. --Abe Lincoln 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying, but at this point, I think people should be thinking about what will be relevant two weeks from now, even two years from now.  I can imagine (had Wikipedia existed then) that the Columbine article would've looked like this as well, but look at it now.  If we're to be an encyclopedia, we should be thinking of what a good article would like as something for posterity, not what it should look like as a newspaper article the day after it happened.  No? Scientz 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are absolutely right!! It's just that there must be a consensus and that the deletions must be transparent, since many people worked at it. Just make a proposal what to delete or to move to another article, maybe in a new section below. You have to give the other users a chance to react. --Abe Lincoln 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the section on Cho has actually gotten longer since I proposed shortening. I'm going to be bold and move a lot of it to the main article on him. Nothing will be deleted, just moved. Natalie 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly I was just worried because of the deletions in the section with no refering article. Abe Lincoln 16:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all the gun-control debate bit has been added back again, I liked the shortened version, myself.  And I agree wtih Natalie that a lot of the Cho section should be moved to Cho's article.Snorgle 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I cut a huge pile from the Cho section - nothing needed to be moved because it was all at his main article. I pasted it to User:Natalie Erin/sandbox in case anyone needs the sources or anything. So it's a little bit better. Natalie 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, I salute you. Ronnotel 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone shrink the head shot of Cho? It's freaking huge. Natalie 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm against the huge amount of chopping that is current being done to the article at this time. The "international reaction" section was utterly butchered, for example, losing much of the information that was there (for example, the response of the former Korean foreign minister) so I've reverted it to an earlier version. Many paragraphs are being cut short and don't flow as well just for the sake of cutting it down, something I strongly disagree with. There's nothing wrong with a long article /per se/, but there's much wrong with an article that's just cut down indiscriminately. -Halo 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to point out that any cutting down can be done when the article settles down and that there's no rush to do it right now, particularly as I doubt anyone could do a good job with the sheer amount of edits the article is still getting -Halo 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to mention a lot of the content was removed without it being removed to the appropriate section, so I'm readding it -Halo 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that too much is being chopped out. A lot of the article's physical size is due to the extensive footnotes (over 100).  As far as the actual readable text goes, it isn't overly long right now. - Itsfullofstars 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'd argue it's now too short compared to an article like Columbine Massacre. -Halo 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Restatement of focus. I think that really, we should not be taking whole slices out without making sure that the flow remains intact. I also think, though, that a good copyedit or two are in order for later, so that even if the flow isn't good now, it can be taken care of later. I just don't want for this article to become a huge indiscriminent mess of info, so that is why I suggested removing stuff. Maybe I was premature in suggesting that this article has died down a bit, but I still think managing the article as it goes along is key. └Jared┘┌talk┐  16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of article 

message: When we add new information to this article, let's mind we put it in past tense. I had to go and clean up a couple places written in present tense. Right now the counselors and the Red Cross might BE there, but two weeks from now they will have BEEN there, so we need to write our articles as such.
NEW INFO: (New user here so am not sure if I am contributing in the right way/place.)  There is more information on the French Canadian teacher and her apparent sacrifices in her classroom, which was apparently the hardest-hit with the fewest survivors.   The French class is also apparently where Cho returned for the last time before taking his own life.  She has said to have ordered her students to the back of the room in a "futile" attempt to barricade the door. Furthermore, although "at least 10" in the class were killed, not all 22 of the enrolled students have been accounted for, and only two are known to have survived. The significance of these events suggests that they be included under the "shootings" section and there surely will be much more detail in the coming days.
Please see this link to The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204866 for the full article published today.  The story seems worth following up, especially if you're going to include the info on other professors who sacrificed their lives for their students, no matter what section it's put in. (BTW, I have noticed above that someone is calling the TO Star a "gossip" paper.  Although this paper seems to have erred in an early detail from 4chan, it has won many awards for original investigative reporting and can generally be trusted for solid research.  It is the major 7-day weekly paper for Canada's largest city, and its credentials are normally trustworthy - certainly not to be dismissed.) wiki-stikler 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding new information 

message: I vote that we move the section "Responses to Virginia Tech Massacre" to its own page. Zehly 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you shouldn't delete that large amount of text without overwhelming consensus or putting them elsewhere. --Abe Lincoln 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I say we leave it there. The responses are what make up this page, so its important that they stay here. Maybe try to reorganize them better and they will look good. There is also already enough problems going on about extra pages, so leave it as it is for now, probably. └Jared┘┌talk┐  15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The section has become long in its own right. Break out a separate article and do a teaser in the main article. This will help cust down the length of the main article, which is now an issue. Realkyhick 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Responses to its own page 

message: Please semi-protect it again, it's been abused far to often of late.--RobNS 16:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I'm surprised that it would be unprotected at this point.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only see 5 instances of vandalism in the last several hours, and this probably one of the most-watched articles in the encyclopedia right now. Are you seeing more vandalism than that? Please point it out to me if so. A Traintalk 16:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so... I'm sure overt vandalism is quickly reverted, but I'm concerned that as long as the article is unprotected, more subtle vandalism and falsehoods could make their way into the article and not be noticed due to the high speed at which edits are occuring.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stay vigilant. I personally won't s-protect the article right now if only because I see a good deal of constructive edits coming in from IPs. I'm more than willing to hear new arguments as they come up, and I won't overrule another admin who chooses to protect. A Traintalk 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that semi-protection is not needed at present. The page is well watched and vandalism levels are low. WjBscribe 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Semi-Protect this page again 

message: If anyone wants to check out the stuff that was removed, there a diff here. None of it was merged with other pages, so should probably be readded to the article. -Halo 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, everything in our section on Cho is already in the article about him, which is why nothing was merged. There was nothing too merge. Natalie 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree. I thought Natalie's version was much stronger. Ronnotel 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. For example, I've just added basic information like his highschool, where he grew up and his Korean name to his article. I'm sure there's plenty of other information ready to be merged -Halo 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I stated above, I copied everything I had removed from the article into a sandbox of my user page: User:Natalie Erin/sandbox where it could be retrieved with the sources. So if I missed something, the solution was to add it to the main article about Cho, not just blanket revert me. Natalie 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natalie, just want to let you know that your version was beautifully done, & it should go back to that version after it's been ensured that all relevant info is in the Cho article. --Yksin 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed information 

message: I have concerns about this article. Don't get me wrong, I believe it deserves to be included as it is a very notable subject. My concerns relate to the issue of What Wikipedia is not. This is a developing news story. It is all over the world. Wikipedia has sister projects, especially Wiki news.
*From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
**News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. 
*Here is a copy from one of the five pillars:
**Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to sister projects, here, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.
Another concern is this article is becoming too large. This is because it is a breaking news story and new information is constantly coming in. Please don't jump on me. I'm just trying to learn about Wiki and really love the concept and would like to keep it, as I assume most of us do, credible and a valuable source of information and education. Thanks for any consideration, that do not to bash me. I am commenting in good faith. Jeeny 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the outcome of the FAC, whoever wrote the bulk of this deserves a well-deserved pat on the back for the text and references. It seems that someone can type faster than I can talk. andreasegde 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chunky Rice is entirely correct. If you glance at the debate over at FAC, you'll see that the article hasn't a chance of passing right now. The article's length and the amount of trivia in it is simply an artifact of recentism, and will eventually taper out. Your concerns are most appropriate, Jeeny, but don't worry too much about it right now. A Traintalk 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys for your comments. You've all made very good points. My concern was more of the featured article issue than any other, Chunky Rice. As for the reasons I stated, such as it is still a breaking news story, and lots of information and edits are constantly added. I also agree that this is a well-sourced article and the editors are to be commended for their dedication to updating this article, as Andreasegde said, she's right! I can't keep up! Good job. Thanks for being civil everyone. This tragic event is very sad and more information coming in, is very disturbing. (nothing really to do with Wiki though, just my opinion, this last sentence.) Jeeny 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about the featured article issue. It's way too large, and not stable enough. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy, concerns, and now considered as a feature article? News?

message: (Number may have changed) is to a google cache of an article. Can someone chenge it to a direct ref? Rich Farmbrough, 17:18 19  April 2007 (GMT).
:I looked at this (it's now #104) and the reason it's a google cache is that the original article was removed, because the reporting is gone. Has this false reporting been noted in any other media outlets? If so, we should be using them a reference, not the google cache. Natalie 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 140 

message: Someone has switched the name order to personal-family again, despite the fact that the article about Cho is currently using family-personal. I don't care which one is decided on eventually, but we need to be consistent in our usage. I'm going to change them back. Natalie 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientz had actually already done it - thanks! Natalie 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name order 

message: I semiprotected the article for 5 hours due to a recent spate of IP vandalism. It should unprotect automatically at approximately 18:50 EDT. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Semiprotection 2: the revenge! 

message: At some point earlier today, someone had done a beautiful job of shortening it with direction to the main article on Cho for further information. So who went & wrecked it again? What a mess. --Yksin 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are refering to Natalie, who had shortened it, and Halo who reverted. There is an on-going discussion here. Ronnotel 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff would be here. Funpika 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See above. The person who deleted it didn't merge it with Cho Seung-hui and just deleted half the information on the page, so I "wrecked" it to add the merge template to allow that to happen, since I'm strongly against removing relevant information. I've had a go at merging, but I've not had the chance to do a proper job. -Halo 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To save effort, may I suggest that we start from Natalie's exquisitely edited version and build up from there. Ronnotel 18:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah okay, thanks for explanations.  That makes sense to me -- merge the info to the Cho article, then go back to Natalie's excellent for this article. --Yksin 18:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Halo. Ronnotel 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at merging earlier with Cho Seung-hui, but I may have missed info. The "old" version suitable for merging can be found at User:Halo/Virginia Tech Perpetrator -Halo 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information is already there, except possibly a few details. The Cho article is organized a little differently than our section was, but I think the two versions hit all the key points. Natalie 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I dropped it down to 125 pixels, which seems like a more typical size. I'm not sure why the default thumbnail size it so big, but this seems better. Natalie 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho information should be merged to Cho article 

message: Please make the victims section longer than one sentence. One sentence is not propoer Summary Style. --GunnarRene 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victims section

message: Why does the lead paragraph say "Monday"? The day of the week is not usually mentioned.--Mantanmoreland 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. "Monday" in the infobox, so that is covered. I would just remove it from the lead, not the infobox or article.--Mantanmoreland 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's no need to have the day of the week in the lead, although it is appropriate somewhere else in the article. Natalie 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Day of the week 

message: Should this article be Peer Reviewed? If anyone else thinks so I will nominate this article for Peer Review. Funpika 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe we should wait until it's a little more stable. Natalie 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There's no need to rush.Chunky Rice 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, there is still information which is still developing (i.e. motives).  Real96 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: With the amount of attention this article is getting, how would a peer review change things? :) --Kizor 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review? 

message: This ref: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8690&_PRID= and currently number 34 is in Romanian, a language I cannot speak or read. Can someone who does read Romanian please add a title, publication title, and date to the reference? Currently it is only the hyperlink, which is generally frowned upon. It also needs the little language marker, but I can add that. Thanks. Natalie 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian speaker to read ref? 

message: Since the VT vigil picture is aligned to the left, the code for the picture should be entered before the title "Student Response". This is a Wikipedia guideline. This will make the page look more organized.66.76.60.154 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does that say it is a guideline. Funpika 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've read the image guidelines and they really don't say anything about placement. Natalie 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Student Response picture

message: Please don't call it the "Virginia Tech Massacre" 
I don't know how we should refer to it - but I - and many others can't stomach that choice of words.
:It's a word that describes this event, hope this helps. --Rypoll 20:25, 19 April 2007
*Wikipedia doesn't pick what to call things. Wikipedia titles things based on what reliable sources are calling something. If you want to change the title, talk to the media. ♠PMC♠ 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: This channel is discussing this matter RIGHT NOW. 205.240.146.156 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What matter? The shootings? Natalie 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat this is FOX news. They're the TV version of the National Enquirer. HalfShadow 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of nice to see them covering actual news for a change, instead of a breaking report about John Edwards's latest haircut. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for disclosing your POV. You may now refrain from editing any articles. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox news generally plays one side of the fence, not both like they should. It's not POV if I'm right. HalfShadow 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not policy that editor's can't have a point of view - just that they can't edit to promote their point of view. Natalie 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. Haizum may have nothing better to do with his(?) time than pick at other editors, but I do. Every second I waste refuting his(?) arguments is a second I could be getting something accomplished... HalfShadow 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FOX News

message: I think you should cut this line, it's clearly racist:
"Reprisal attacks against Koreans would make little sense considering how many African-Americans murder people on an hourly basis in the United States of America with no retaliatory actions against other innocent blacks."
:i'm pretty sure that was vandalism, and i think it might be gone now anyway-Threewaysround 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're referring to material that was moved to Cho's main article. If so, it was done for reasons of space, no need to duplicate material. Ronnotel 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism?