Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 12

message: Shouldn't it be "South Korean reaction"? --Abe Lincoln 07:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, since the section only addresses reaction of South Korea. I`m not aware of any reaction from North Korea, and being more specific is good.--24.20.69.240 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *That's very true, although only the government of South Korea has made any sort of formal statement, AFAIK. Natalie 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **and it would be POV to use the reaction of some ethnic Koreans to represent the hypothetical reaction of all ethnic Koreans. -- Jreferee 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no reference to the shootings on the North Korean government news service at www.kcna.co.jp Kransky 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds fine. Natalie 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean reaction 

message: I have stumbled upon a Yahoo! News Article last night, and it says that Iraqi students in Baghdad yesterday were deeply saddened by the tragic events at Virginia Tech.  And to think that Saddam Hussein's regime and the post-Saddam era were bad enough.  You should put that in one of the subsections in Responses, because here's the link if you want to find out more about it, alright? --Angeldeb82 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's reaction 

message: Did Cho return to Norris 206 to finish the students in that class?
I know Cho succeeded in returning to Norris 211 and failed to return to Norris 207 (as the door was blocked).
Also, now that I found out that Jamie Bishop illustrated books for his father, if he is considered notable enough for an article, you will have to change the redirect that I will plant that will point to the victims article. WhisperToMe 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Norris 206 (Loganathan's class) 

message: Over the course of the VTECH disaster week, other people have sent bomb threats, or threats of violence, to schools nationwide. Last Friday a man in Denver, Colorado was arrested for attempting to detonate bomb. Today, Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon, WA was closed due to a threat and the campus was locked down by police after everyone evacuated. Shouldn't there be a section listing incidents following the VTECH massacre? These events would not have happened if this massacre didn't occur.209.91.61.251 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reports of the events may not have occured without the VTM spotlight however is there evidence that the number of incidents is atypical? 68.175.118.95 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They didn't mention it explicitly, but as you know humans in general will do anything for attention. That includes copying other people. It seems that people saw an opportunity after the VTM and wanted to express themselves through violence and threats.209.91.61.251 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced incidents this past week? 

message: my fruend showed me what he said was a wiretap of a girl in the bathroom on the campus during the shotting calling her mother. you can hear her being shot and dying in the recording. i thought it was fake but i was wondering if any of you have heard it or at least heard of it because i want to look into it more--Jesus was a pacifist 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiretap... 

message: His resistance story is the only one in the collection that doesn't have a news media citation.  I looked for one.  I googled his name and found him among the victims but did not see a story about resistance.  When his searched his name along with "tackle" link I still could find any corroboration.  Should we remove his story?
lots of issues  | leave me a message 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew Joseph La Porte 

message: I've deleted repetitive arguments but kept the references, except for the Swedish newspaper.  All of the others are editorials from newspapers of records, they might reflect the majority opinion of people who might not read them.  They are also all from the developed world as well - I did want to mention that.  If there's a less loaded word than developed then that's fine too I guess.
I've left Howard's comments because it was notable in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I've also rearranged so that the U.S. media response is clear, and bookends the article.  Having all of the pro-gun control arguments from outside of the U.S. is POV to me.
Regards,  --M a s 10:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Control and International Response 

message: I was under the impression that anyone who died while pursuing their degree would be awarded that degree posthumously. Is that impression incorrect? TerraFrost 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry - I don't quite understand your question.  Are you asking if it's a general practice to award degrees to deceased students?  if that is your question, then the answer is no.  It's fairly common but by no means is it a given, particularly if the students have not completed a majority of their studies.  --ElKevbo 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed what I was asking.  Thanks for the clarification TerraFrost 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  posthumous awarding of degrees 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/20070417_SHOOTING_GRAPHIC.html
Since I do not subscribe, I can't view this anymore.
What is the name of the survivor girl mentioned in the graphic from Norris 204 (Librescu)? I want to establish a redirect from her name to the "Virginia Tech massacre" article. WhisperToMe 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service. They might be able to help you find a copy of the article you're looking for. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You can use "wikipedia" as both the username and password to access it.--24.20.69.240 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help from a New York Times subscriber! 

message: Is it worth mentioning in the article that traditionally his name would be Seung-Hui Cho? That the current use is Americanized? --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was Americanized, and he himself wrote his name in the Western style. So, no, I don't think so. Titanium Dragon 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And actually, his name would traditionally be Cho Seung-Hui - Cho is the family name and Seung-Hui was his personal name. Natalie 00:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just checking. I know it was mentioned in the media, so I didn't know if it was worth including in here. And I didn't mean to put it Seung-Hui Cho... I had his name on my mind and didn't even realize I didn't swap it around. <-- That's what happens when you sacrifice sleep to edit pages! Ha. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how. :) Natalie 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in arrangement of name 

message: Archive 11 is now 225K.  Rooot 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bot appears to have instructions to start a new archive when it reaches 250K. WjBscribe 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive bot 

message: What definition are we using for 'tragedy', and how do we objectively determine that the VT massacre qualifies? The common meaning seems to be something like 'a very saddening event', but that's pretty subjective. I propose that a more neutral noun be used, like 'event', 'shooting' or 'massacre'.
Kravic 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we defining it as a tragedy somewhere? Natalie 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering my own question, I found "tragedy" four times in our words, and once in quotes, which we obviously can't change. I'm in support of changing the other "tragedy"'s to incident, shooting, etc. Natalie 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tragedy is a peacock word and shouldn't be used unless it's within a quote. "Shooting" or "Incident" is a much better choice. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've taken all the "tragedy"'s out except two that were in quotations and about a million in the refs. I changed on to incident, one to events, and two to shootings, I think, and removed 1 sentence that was really poorly worded and unsourced. Natalie 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "tragedy" 

message: I just had an edit reverted, regarding the change in like in the article summary, pointing to Shooting_spree.  Based on the definitions explained in the pages for Shooting_spree and mass_murder I believe that mass murder applies more accurately in this instance.  Can anybody comment on the appropriateness of one vs the other?  Please note this is entirely separate from the above discussion of "shooting" versus "massacre."  Whysyn 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that both are technically correct, however, I prefer "shooting spree"... if only because the incident had two distinct shooting locations on the campus. As I said before, both are correct but most people interpret "mass murder" as being a whole lot of murders in one place, while a "shooting spree" can travel. What does the media call it? Perhaps that should be the determining factor. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change prompted me to look at the two pages referenced. To be honest, I thought killing spree was more apt based on the definitions on each page - mostly because killing spree has a connotation of a an act by a single perpetrator over a short time period whereas mass murder seems like it encompasses a larger set of events. I'm not terribly fussed one way or the other, however. Ronnotel 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My take hinges heavily upon the following statement from the Spree_killer article: "mass murder and serial killings have connotations of being pre-planned."  It is quite clear from many media accounts that there was significant planning involved in this massacre.  In the same statement in the Spree Killings article, it is contrasted by stating "Spree killings tend to be spontaneous acts of violence."  Again, this incident has been widely reported to be anything but spontaneous.  Seeing as we are referring to this event as a "massacre" (see above discussion) further supports the usage of "mass murder" as defined on Wikipedia.  As well, the mass_murder article states "typically at the same time, or over a relatively short period of time."  Given, "short period of time" is subjective (and relative), both shooting occurred in the A.M. hours of the same day, which is arguable a "short period of time." Whysyn 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken - like I said, not fussed one way or the other. Ronnotel 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the Columbine article links the words "shooting rampage" to the page "mass murder." Given the similarities, the link change makes sense to me, so long as the words on the page remain "mass shooting."  I also note that both pages (shooting spree and mass murder) reference this event. I will make the change (since I was the one who reverted it). Sfmammamia 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that in this case the difference seems to hinge on planning, I am in favor of mass murderer. Natalie 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that within context, some variant on spree killing makes more sense than mass murder, given the apparent lack of discrimination in choosing the victims. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Hit bull. Ikilled007 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember that this was obviously premeditated. Do any of these terms include this? --Iriseyes 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mass Murder" vs "Shooting Spree" 

message: Sfmammamia, you removed my short mention of the weapon types under "Attack".  It is ridiculous not to mention what weapons were used in the killing very early in the narrative.  As a reader, I need to know what he was killing with as the attack unfolds.  Was it a fully automatic weapon?  Was it a B-B gun?  Did he only have a single weapon, and if so, how come he wasn't stopped by bystanders when he reloaded?  As I read the article I see a picture of Cho holding two pistols.  Hmm, so maybe he used two pistols in the attack?  Finally, 2/3 of the way down the article, I see this "The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19."  So he purchased two pistols.  Interesting, am I to assume that he actually killed people with these weapons?  Because the article doesn't say that.  We have 50 references saying he killed people with a 9mm Glock and a .22 caliber pistol, but the article doesn't state that fact once.  The weapons used in the killing is one of the most fundamental facts of the article, and must be stated extremely early on.  --Dan East 10:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree, I'm not sure why it would be removed although I haven't done much work on this article or studied up on the story. Aaron Bowen 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The weapons are mentioned right under attacks - is this what was removed, Dan, or was there an earlier mention? Natalie 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I added it back in, and as Sfmammamia (try typing that ten times fast) said, I think it's incorporated into the article better than my first attempt.  --Dan East 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your second try (in placement as well as sentence structure) is better, because it does not interrupt the narrative. I'm of a mind that what happened to the people is more important than the technical details, but I'm certainly no expert in how crime articles should be written. I changed the peacock word of "wielded" (my dictionary says "to handle..with skill and ease...to exercise authority or influence, for example effectively") to "used." I note that the attempt to insert the weapons into the infobox was unsuccessful. My only lingering concern is that those who are concerned about the weapons details will want it further clarified -- my understanding is that one weapon was used in the first shooting, both were used at Norris Hall. That level of detail is already in the timeline article and the Seung-Hui Cho article, so if we can live with the single sentence as now placed, I think we'll stay in agreement. Sfmammamia 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not either Sf should the Columbine High School massacre article serve as an example? It is an FA. Aaron Bowen 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: using the Columbine article as an example--perhaps at some future point, when the subject matter is stable enough, some intrepid editor will be able to fold the timeline and the main article into one. My sense is that, at that point, it would make sense to use the Columbine article as a model. In my opinion, it's still too soon after the event for that. The investigation is still unfolding, details will continue to come out as the investigations proceed, and I think it's only after those investigations are completed that anyone will have an encyclopedic perspective on which details are significant. Just my opinion. Sfmammamia 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon types 

message: Regarding this diff, has it been concluded that Cho in fact used both weapons? HokieRNB 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point--looking at the articles about the police report this week, the answer is yes, but the statement should be sourced. Here's what the Roanoke Times said: 'His Glock 9 mm weapon was used in both shootings. The other handgun, a Walther .22-caliber, was used only at Norris."  I will add the ref. Sfmammamia 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wielded vs. Used 

message: I've been hunting for a source for this statement in "victims" section:
:"During the two separate attacks the shooter's bullets hit 61 people, killing 27 students and 5 faculty members, and wounding 29."
I know there was earlier discussion about the number of injured and possible confusion over causes of injury, because some were injured jumping from the windows. A more recent NYT article says 24 were injured in total. How best to handle? Sfmammamia 18:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Virginia Tech web site includes a prominent memorial to those killed, listing their names, but specifically does not list the names of the wounded. Instead, it provides the statement: "The university also recognizes the injured survivors of these tragic events. However, we cannot release names of these survivors because of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations." Because of conflicting accounts, I suggest we use something like 'more than 20', and then footnote the number to reference the confidentially concerns that prevent an official number from being cited. Any one else? Ronnotel 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note that the injured number is in the infobox, with a CNN article cited as the source, and I don't see anything in that article about the number injured.  Remove altogether from infobox? Sfmammamia 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to make a bold edit and remove numerical references to how many were wounded and base on the above ref - we'll see if it stands. Ronnotel 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone be opposed to adding a sentence to the footnote giving a rough estimate of woundings? I'm thinking something like "News reports indicate that somewhere between 20 and 30 people were wounded" or something. Natalie 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had considered that, but couldn't figure out how far to go since all the number are unreliable. Give it a shot. Ronnotel 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, has anyone seen any source quote a number greater than 30 injured? That's at least a start, and it would make it clear that it wasn't, say, hundreds. Natalie 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: "A gunman shot dozens, killing 32. . ." That's easy to support and provides some sort of numerical estimate. Just a thought. Ronnotel 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine. Natalie 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  injured number: source? 

message: It is only fair to the Wikipedia community that we recognize this article having major flaws and is ongoing in our improvement. The amount of argument in the talk page is reason enough to see clearly that not everyone is satisfied with any section of this article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles
Also in a sense this article is an ongoing event as the investigation has not ended yet. Davumaya 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Large discussions do not automatically mean major flaws and NPOV; we could just have content disputes or large amounts of speculation. That this article is "ongoing in our improvement" is not unique; I'm fairly certain most articles are not FA status yet. I'm removing the tags pending any problems you see with the actual article itself. Phony Saint 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - NPOV tags should be in regards to specific issues that have on-going debates. The talk page actually seems fairly quiet now compared to a few days ago. Ronnotel 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, the NPOV warning tag is not necessary in this case.  Articles of this sort are rather unique because facts are being released continuously, requiring a dynamic article that is constantly changing.  It is also unique in the number of contributors, which is vastly greater than for the majority of normal articles.  Those two factors can lead to articles that sway back and forth, both in POV and in quality.  Things are settling down now, and are much quieter than in the days immediately proceeding the incident, so the article should increase in quality as editors can look at it holistically.  --Dan East 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm really not seeing a lot of disagreement here. There's certainly lots of discussion and every once and awhile new anons pop up with a completely off-topic comment, but that seems par for the course with this. And as was stated before, NPOV tags are really supposed to be for specific disputes. Natalie 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: I'm not sure why this irks so many people, but I do think that it needs to be reformatted.
Instead of the extant design, I think it needs to be a non-intrustive navbox at the bottom, such as:
The sidebar style is usually reserved for huge topics, like Quantum mechanics or Esperanto. I think a navbox that lies low, like the Beethoven one above, would attract fewer deletionist agendas. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to like this design.  I've never been overly sure the template needs a map included.  Something like this would take up about the least amount of vertical scroll space. --StuffOfInterest 11:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redesign

message: :As one with both a deletionist agenda and a horrifying, secret love for crufty navboxes, I can tell you exactly why the Virginia Tech massacre navbox irks people.  There is a feeling that, once the excitement of the chase wears thin and Wikipedians start treating this subject like encyclopediasts rather than scoop-hungry journalists, the "story" will collapse into two articles: one on the perpetrator, one on the act perpetrated (see Marc Lépine and the École Polytechnique massacre for a foreshadowing of the eventual intellectual fate of Seung-Hui Cho and the last, desperate act of his terminal frustration with his fellow human beings).
:Two articles, plus a link to the institution where the dastardly act occured (Lépine merits one whole sentence at the end of the article for the École Polytechnique de Montréal) would hardly justify a navigational template.  It would simply be seen as a self-indulgent and unjustifiable waste of space whose function could have been easily handled by in-article links, and that assessment would probably be right.
:The present form of the navbox is not really the problem.  A map plus categories of links is not necessarily inappropriate in all contexts if it's done right.  Here is a navbox I put together for University of California-related articles a week or two ago:
The University of CaliforniaRegents of the University of California	The University of CaliforniaRegents of the University of California	The University of CaliforniaRegents of the University of California
                                                                   	Campuses                                                           	
Berkeley
· Davis
· Hastings
· Irvine
· Los Angeles
· Merced
· Riverside
· San Diego
· San Francisco
· Santa Barbara
· Santa Cruz
                                                                   	Hospitals                                                          	
UC Davis Medical Center
· UC Irvine Medical Center
· UCLA Medical Center
· UCSD Medical Center
· UCSF Medical Center
                                                                   	Research                                                           	
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
· Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
· Los Alamos National Laboratory
W. M. Keck Observatory
· James Lick Observatory
                                                                   	                                                                   	
Virginia Tech massacre
Articles
Perpetrator • Victims
Timeline
:Note the use of a map and several categories of links.  However, all of the links have some sort of permanence as to their Wikipedian notability that one honestly can't say is possessed by a lot of the satellite articles that spin wildly about the Virginia Tech massacre.  Also, the map in the UC navbox is actually useful in figuring out where a lot of the links' widely-distributed subjects are physically located.  The VT-massacre template's map, on the other hand, points out one precise location (if you can really call a big, red dot covering 150 square miles or so of Virginian countryside "precise") that most news junkies already know by heart and which, if a reader is unfamiliar with Virginian geography, is just one click away in the Blacksburg, Virginia, article.
:If you truly want to put together a navbox with lasting significance and which won't be continually rubbished by self-righteous deletionists, I would not bother with one specifically dedicated to the VT massacre.  Instead, I would put together a box on school shootings, shooting sprees, or some other categorized topic that really does have enough stable articles to justify creating a navbox and can sustain demand for one.  My 2¢, plus a quarter or two. --Dynaflow 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sarcasm was meant; I am entirely serious on why I dislike the very idea of a VT-massacre template.  See my comment towards the bottom of  UCLA's Talk page for why I haven't redone that one yet.  --Dynaflow 04:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Poor design, ugly implementation. Sorry, but it's a mess and a distraction. Second the motion to nuke. Ronnotel 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a TfD nomination.  --ElKevbo 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already survived one this week.  Can we subject it to double jeopardy? I'd just like to see the thing ruthlessly hunted down and removed from all the pages.  --Dynaflow 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I dislike the navbox - a parable

message: Still don't like this section title. The historical context would be political, social, cultural or maybe economic background, not who shot how many people under which circumstances. Cho is not a historical person, though he may wish he's become one. We shouldn't pretend he is one, for reasons of morality but also for reasons of correctness. He is a criminal, "just" an extraordinary perpetrator in history of crime (just one special part of society). So maybe you review the title once more. --Abe Lincoln 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been considerable discussion regarding this event in relation to past events - see archived pages. In order to prevent instability in the lead section over the claim of this as the 'deadliest mass shooting in modern US history', this section was added to provide supporting details. If we remove it, I'm worried the lead paragraph will become unstable, again. Ronnotel 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but at least the title could be changed, into something like criminological classification or dimension in comparison - you surely find better ones, I am not a native English speaker. But historical context is just not quite correct. Don't you have suggestions?  --Abe Lincoln 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is, it sounds like we as Wikipedians are trying to make up for the media's inaccuracies, which somewhat follows the same vein as the rest of the "Inaccurate media reports" that were deleted. It shouldn't be that hard to find article sources that directly compare this incident to previous shootings, right? Phony Saint 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, what you are trying to say. --Abe Lincoln 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not our job to say whether Virginia Tech massacre was the worst or not; there are reliable sources that do that for us. The "Historical Context" as it stands now lacks any reliable sources. (No, other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources.) Phony Saint 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, "Historical context" could be renamed "Comparison to other mass shootings" or something similar. "Historical figures" or "historical context" are rather vague terms and not something I'd want to debate. Phony Saint 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Context 

message: I was thinking about adding a "Responses in Professional Sports" to the Response Section, because their are quite a few in the "Other Responses" section.  Plus there are many more examples.  Let me know your thoughts.Jwalte04 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 11#Sporting tributes. Nobody's particularly in favor of an extremely long list of tributes. Phony Saint 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses in Professional Sports 

message: I added Klein to List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre#Injured_students.2C_classroom_not_stated - But I put him in a "classroom not stated" category as I cannot tell what classroom had Klein. WhisperToMe 21:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What classroom had Justin Klein? 

message: Hi. I have watched the videos of this on tv, and in at least one of them, where there were police officers running, there was snow in the picture. I think I heard from at least one tv source that they mentioned it was cold. Snow in Virginia in April seems quite rare to me, and the source could be the tv. So, should it be included in the article, or is this mere coincidence so unimportant that it deserves absolutely no mention in the article? Also, has this been disscussed before, or even, is it already mentioned in the article? I read most of the article, and didn't see any mention of the snow, and the pictures made it quite unobvious it was even cold. I don't have time to read all the archives, or didn't. Could someone please answer, or is this too unimportant? Also, as a side note, CNN said that the perpetrator had mental ilness, paranoia, and was bullied in high school, so couldn't this be a possible motive, or is it too vaugue? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the motive, I think we need to avoid speculating as to a motive. Speculation is irresponsible and should be avoided at all costs. (I was in high school when the Columbine shootings happened, and the rampant speculation about those kids motives certainly affected other teenager's lives negatively.) I completely agree with you that the perpetrator's mental illness likely played a huge role, although I'm not sure if that's a technical motive, but that's neither here nor there. That said, I really don't think we should list a motive or possible motive unless one is definitively declared by law enforcement. Now, there's a pretty good chance that will never happen but there's nothing we can do about that. Natalie 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snow? 

message: I feel that, out of the respect for the people at Tech who live in the room where the victim was shot, the room number should be removed from this article.  I wouldn't want future residents to have gawkers coming to their hall to see where it all happened.
ThanksJaxter1987 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be callous, but it's not Wikipedia's purpose to be "respectful", and anyway such a determination will almost inevitably be one of non-NPOV if it is allowed to be made. If there are other valid reasons for removing that information, then by all means remove it. But the facts of the matter are what they are, and the whole world has to live with that. Matt Gies 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally find the room numbers unecessary (I removed class room numbers a few days ago for the same reason) but if other people feel they really add something I don't mind keeping them. What do we think - are the room numbers relevant or not? Natalie 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the classroom numbers are acceptable, because those are generally public spaces or at least spaces frequented by many people. They are less person than the room numbers in the dorm, which people live in, next to, or near. So, leave classroom numbers and get rid of dorm room numbers. --Daysleeper47 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning sounds, er, reasonable to me!  --ElKevbo 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Leave both. None of the above is grounds for removing content. 64.236.245.243 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone remember, users without account only count as half of those of us with accounts. 64.236.245.243, your thoughts are duly noted. --Daysleeper47 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sarcasm?  Anons are treated equally, although there are some rare exceptions (IPs can't vote at WP:RFA for instance). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I find your comment distasteful and inappropriate, Daysleeper47.  If there is a joke here that I'm missing?  --ElKevbo 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It was irresponsible of Time Magazine to include the dorm room number in their article, and it is irresponsible to include it on Wikipedia. I don't see how the specific room numbers in any way add to the article. That it is factual is not enough; it also needs to be relevant. Furthermore, I feel it is a violation of the privacy rights of anyone who will ever live in or near the room in AJ; Jaxter is right to be concerned about gawkers. As a VT student, I'm furious at the disregard the national media have shown for the Virginia Tech community's privacy and grieving, and I'm saddened to see Wikipedia brought down to that level. I'm removing the dorm room number; personally, I would prefer to see it removed from the edit history, too, although that's probably not possible. Geoff 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please take out room number 

message: I started accounting for injured individuals as described in media accounts - See Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded - I also included the injuries sustained by the wounded. I also included names of uninjured individuals, though in the end they will NOT be listed with the injured in the victims list. WhisperToMe 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only one question. Why? Who is interested in a list of the injured? Carcharoth 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The person who wrote List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre included the injured. The timeline at Columbine_High_School_massacre includes the injuries sustained by the victims. WhisperToMe 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whisper, I'm afraid this may stray into original research.  See this Associated Press article from today, which says, "Most of the 25 people hurt in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history are healing in private, declining or ignoring interview requests." Sfmammamia 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sfmammamia, the sources are right in front of you. WhisperToMe 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  My example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101219.html EDIT: Whaddya know? It's the same article. Either way, I can just pick another one from my list - they all describe names and injuries. WhisperToMe 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? The timeline on the article? WhisperToMe 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would also question the utility and tastefulness of the Columbine bloody-laundry list.  Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it doesn't mean it should be emulated.  At least the Columbine list's creators refrained from including the even more gratuitous "blow-by-blow" details of the victims' respective terminal brutalizations.  The Klebold-Harris snuff pic is also a nice touch; perhaps that will be emulated on the VT list as well?  One can only hope.  --Dynaflow 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does "Mark Taylor shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll." NOT look like blow by blow to you? Anyway, I hate it when WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to completely ignore precedent. No, one cannot ignore precedent. You just have to be very careful with precedent. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is okay when someone creates an obviously blatant error, and then creates another one and uses a previous one to justify it. WhisperToMe 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That line doesn't exist on the list of Columbine victims page, as far as I can see.  As for "precedent," the point of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS invocation is that there is not necessarily any precedent in Wikipedia.  We're not arguing a case in  common-law-system courtroom; we are discussing what, exactly, is a useful addition to an encyclopedia.  Also, this VT list does not simply emulate the Columbine list.  It goes beyond it towards a whole new level of grisly tragedy-voyeurism (except, of course, for the cool, totally encyclopedic, brain-chunks picture of Klebold and Harris -- the Columbine list is still ahead of y'all there).  --Dynaflow 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dynaflow: 1. If one set of editors (I.E. Columbine editors) believed that a detailed explanation of what the bullets hit is encyclopedic, then we will determine the same thing too. The injuries are encyclopedic as they accurately illustrate EXACTLY what happened in those classrooms in Norris Hall. Also, aside from the one entry that mentions what the bullet that hit Strollo and the bicep mention for the guy in 204, I cannot possibly see how the list for V-Tech is more detailed than the list for Columbine. See, that's two entries... two. And, even then, I would still keep them. Strollo's entry illustrates that the bullet severely wounded her and had the potential to kill her. A Wikipedia encyclopedia article can go into some detail, Dynaflow. Also, we are not sanitized. I believe I can find an entry about that. In fact, the only reason why pictures like Goatse aren't on Wikipedia is because those pics are copyrighted. I understand that the details of the shots may disturb you. That is to be expected: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored mentions that contents may be disturbing. WhisperToMe 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whispertome, "Not censored" is nothing at all like "not edited."  Questions of taste and propriety are absolutely within our standards.  That is, in fact, in large part what editing is.  Responsible editing, in fact, is more about deciding what to exclude than about deciding what to include. Nandesuka 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I stand on my point. I will exclude anything not verifiable and I will also avoid peacock terms. There. That should be enough to end that point. WhisperToMe 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The "grassy knoll" comes from the timeline listed in the main article. Dirtysocks 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? That article has lists of injuries. So, then, why can't V-Tech? By the way, the claims of original research are false; I have provided extensive press sources from various newspapers. WhisperToMe 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else made the call on original research, not me.  The Columbine list also strains the rubrics of good taste and encyclopedic merit.  See the talk page for a more-complete response.  I will have that page on my watchlist.  --Dynaflow 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the disclaimer does not say "Wikipedians will try to trigger your post-traumatic stress disorder whenever possible."  Anyway, that's not my objection (and note that it's not a "true" objection because I haven't suggested the article be taken to AfD).  All I'm saying is that the "annotated list" is tasteless and useless, on top of being voyeuristic and exploitationist,  and it doesn't merit the time and effort that's being poured into it.  --Dynaflow 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not read massacre articles if you do not like hearing details about... a massacre. Anyway, your proposal in fact will sanitize the article. That's something not desireable for an NPOV encyclopedia. WhisperToMe 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How would that be OR? (Oops, I jumped the gun) Yep. By not stating "This IS the amount injured" (I placed "This list is partial" in many of the ports), I have fulfilled my duty to not make it OR. WhisperToMe 04:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Just drop it. No need to list the injured if you can't find a single reliable source that claims to be a complete list, and compiling a list from different sources is original research. And listing the details of the injuries is not encyclopedic. It is something you would find in a voyeuristic ("an obsessive observer of sensational or sordid subjects") and sensationalist tabloid newspaper article. I might read those articles, but I wouldn't expect to read that sort of thing in an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making a list of injured individuals by name 

message: [BEGIN COPY-PASTE]
: Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? That article has lists of injuries. So, then, why can't V-Tech? By the way, the claims of original research are false; I have provided extensive press sources from various newspapers. WhisperToMe 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else made the call on original research, not me.  The Columbine list also strains the rubrics of good taste and encyclopedic merit.  See the talk page for a more-complete response.  I will have that page on my watchlist.  --Dynaflow 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the disclaimer does not say "Wikipedians will try to trigger your post-traumatic stress disorder whenever possible."  Anyway, that's not my objection (and note that it's not a "true" objection because I haven't suggested the article be taken to AfD).  All I'm saying is that the "annotated list" is tasteless and useless, on top of being voyeuristic and exploitationist,  and it doesn't merit the time and effort that's being poured into it.  --Dynaflow 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not read massacre articles if you do not like hearing details about... a massacre. Anyway, your proposal in fact will sanitize the article. That's something not desireable for an NPOV encyclopedia. WhisperToMe 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How would that be OR? (Oops, I jumped the gun) Yep. By not stating "This IS the amount injured" (I placed "This list is partial" in many of the ports), I have fulfilled my duty to not make it OR. WhisperToMe 04:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Just drop it. No need to list the injured if you can't find a single reliable source that claims to be a complete list, and compiling a list from different sources is original research. And listing the details of the injuries is not encyclopedic. It is something you would find in a voyeuristic ("an obsessive observer of sensational or sordid subjects") and sensationalist tabloid newspaper article. I might read those articles, but I wouldn't expect to read that sort of thing in an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From the side conversation going on at Dynaflow's talk page

message: I had removed the link by Conservative Voice simply because its not a reputed link. Can somebody put a link from another reputed source there?Hahahaha1 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you meant "reputable", as opposed to "reputed"? I tried, with Ted Nugent's commentary on CNN. Better??Sfmammamia 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link by Conservative Voice 

message: Is there a particular reason we have MSNBC's front page as our first external link? It seems like giving undue weight to one particular new outlet, especially since it's been here since before the news about the package broke. I would like to remove it, but if there is a reason it's here I will not, obviously. Natalie 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Natalie 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that.  207.127.128.2 was on some sort of rampage and incrementally blanking the article, section by section.  I undid one of the series of blankings, not realizing the extent of the damage, and while I was trying to find the last intact version to restore everything to how it was before the IPvandal showed up, one of you must have been editing the fragment I had just restored.  Such is the price we pay for working on the encyclopedia not just "anyone," but anyone, can edit.  --Dynaflow 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, these things happen. At least through the magic power of binary there is not end of things that can undone. Natalie 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSNBC as external link 

message: I notice the entry about inaccurate report by Michael Sneed from Sun-Times has been totally removed. Looks like there are quite a few Philistines on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).
I have added the related section back. This is an important incident related to the massacre. You shouldn't try to hide the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).
:The problem with the entire "inaccurate media reports" section is that it is original research: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts (...) without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Unless there are reputable sources that discuss those media inaccuracies, the section should go. Skarioffszky 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining first-hand news reports into a synthesis that has not been published by reputable sources is original research. If there are sources that discuss the Michael Sneed report, please cite them in the article. But the rest of the section remains original research. Skarioffszky 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, of course I would say that; it's official policy. Do we agree that the Ismail/Ishmael bit and the part about "railing against Christianity" should go? Skarioffszky 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: By "official policy" I mean official policy. Maybe you should read it some time. Skarioffszky 10:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine with me. This article by James Fallows of The Atlantic Monthly might be useful. Skarioffszky 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Sneed? 

message: I removed a large amount of material which was a complete duplication of most of the article. (It caused the size to jump from 65,699 bytes to 115,809 bytes.) I could not simply undo the change since there were conflicting intervening edits. It is possible that there may be some editorial changes lost. Bear475 11:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of duplicated material 

message: Do you think that teachers should say anything if sign in behavior change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if this is not in direct relation to the writing of this article, I would point out that this is not a forum for general discussion on the article's topic.  --Dynaflow 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachers

message: The massacre took place in West Ambler Johnston and Norris Hall. Why is one of the pictures shown on the page of a French class in Holden Hall? Holden Hall was not involved in the shootings.68.37.233.7 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holden Hall and Norris Hall are the same physical building.  Floor 2 of Holden is right down the hall from floor 2 of Norris. --BigDT 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No ... it is a different French class.  The VT timetable (accessible from ) has Elementary French with EB Dandridge from 9:05-9:55 MWF in Holden 212.  That is almost presumably the class this picture is from.  The French class that was shot was an intermediate French class taught by Jocelyne Couture-Nowak.  I'm guessing that the class that was shot was removed from the timetable. --BigDT 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VT Massacre Pictures 

message: Should "semi-protection" be applied to this article?  It's been vandalized fairly frequently.  Semi-protection prevents edits by anonymous users and people whose accounts are less than 4 days old.  It seems justified to me, but I'd prefer to have an admin make the call on it and insert the tag.
Here's a run down of vandalism in the last 16 hours:
edit vandalism undone at
* 14:07
* 11:31
* 10:32
* 10:27
* 10:21
* 9:08-9:09
* 6:40
* 1:05
move vandalism undone at
*11:52
Thanks --Pladuk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very good idea to have an admin make the call, as they are the only ones who can semi-protect articles. However, I think that enough people watch this that the damage being done by the vandlism is minimal, and it is more beneficial to allow anonymous editing. --Sopoforic 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's probably not worth worrying about given the number of editors still watching this article, but you're welcome to request semi-protection.  --ElKevbo 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replies, I'm glad to understand the process better. I'll hold off for now, but will do another vandalism audit sometime tomorrow to see how it's going.  Thanks --Pladuk 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect this page from vandalism?

message: I don't believe that the image of the shooter is representative.  The image is the one taken by the shooter himself, and therefore serves his message (or propaganda) to the community about himself, and does not represent the person that you would have seen during his day to day life.  Using this image lends weight to his reasoning in committing the crimes on that day, which is unjustifiable.  By using this image, emphasis is given to the extreme nature of this person which would not be visible normally.  The pose and display of weapons in the image may provide incitement or inspiration to others.  The image is likely to be offensive to victims of the crimes.  Victims need to reconcile in some way with the perpetrator of crimes committed against them, and this image does not serve this purpose.  The image serves the glorification of the shooter, and the popularization of horrific crime.   Merxa 04:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's particularly iconic about this incident, having been shown repeatedly in the news. Whether or not Cho's intent was to get that particular photo shown all over the world, who knows. As has been argued previously, if someone gets inspiration from this article, they have far greater problems than we can hope to rectify by censoring our articles. (If you want a "representative" picture of Cho, there's one in his article, though you probably won't like the other pictures. It's not like we have hundreds of pictures of Cho to choose from.) Phony Saint 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of Image of Shooter 

message: The Attacks section keeps getting edited to add the following:
:Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a small-bore .22 caliber Walther P22 semiautomatic handgun and a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 handgun.
This information is already covered in the Background section:
:The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19
What is the point of describing the same information two times?  This seems intended to keep bringing attention to the guns.  Is this to help out in the ongoing disputes about the Walther P-22 and the Glock 19 articles? Kevinp2 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you. Redundant and pointless. You should remove it. Ikilled007 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The archive bot is archiving too fast, argh.  Ok, how about this: "Cho used two handguns during the attack."  That seems like an appropriate level of detail at that introduction to the article.Kevinp2 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition of gun information 

message: I have created a concise section on media response, as first item in the Virginia Tech massacre#Responses to the incidents section and have ejected most of the relevant content to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Paragraphs have been excised from Virginia Tech massacre#Perpetrator, and Virginia Tech massacre#International_response. Article size has been brought back to 58k. Ohconfucius 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media response

message: So... just curious about other people's opinions on this. I personally feel that the word "massacre" might not belong in the title of this article. I know that the Columbine shooting's article includes it, but I guess I'm just asking about the use of the word in general. I feel that "massacre" is a very emotional word, the sort of thing you'd find in evening news reports. I feel like "shooting" would fit better, as well as fit in line with most other articles about mass shootings. Opinions? --UNHchabo 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the rapid archiving of these pages always cuts off such discussions. The reality is that yes, it might get moved, massacre isn't a very neutral name, and shooting is as common if not more so. I don't think it will be movable for another week or so though. Titanium Dragon 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that "massacre" is a very strong word, and I too think that it might be best to consider using a different word in the title. —Mears man 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Massacre"? 

message: Fact box says "number of injured withheld" but going to the links shows it is only the NAMES that are withheld , not the number. Wikinews says "15". GangofOne 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of a few days ago, at least, every news source was saying something different. I don't know where Wikinews got their number, but it's definitely wrong and woefully out of date. If an official count has been released, that's great, but we need a reliable source for it. Natalie 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - my logic for that text is that if Virginia Tech is specifically withholding the names, then no other reliable source can confirm the number since they would need the list of names to verify their count. If Virginia Tech released a number of wounded, then that would be reliable - but so far they haven't. Ronnotel 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number is no secret, I just had a peek at Roanoke Times, a local newspaper, they say that the number is "28"  --MoRsE 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. To say the number is "withheld" is just inaccurate. GangofOne 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When two sources provide different information, we should give preference to the most reliable. In this case, I suggest that the most reliable source is Virginia Tech. Given that other sources are presumably unable to confirm their estimates should call their reliablity into question. My preference would be to simply remove the line from the infobox. Ronnotel 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider a local newspaper to be a very reliable source. The should keep a very close eye on the events. --MoRsE 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, this story from yesterday says that Virginia Tech now says that 25 people were injured, based on police reports. They are careful to add that the total includes those injured by bullets and those injured jumping from windows to escape. Sfmammamia 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus, we have conflicting sources with the most reliable source failing to publish a number. Perhaps we can say dozens - I think most sources would be in line with that. Ronnotel 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron, I think you have said before that the most reliable source is Virginia Tech, and they are now saying 25, based on police reports, so I consider that a reliable number at this point. Anything wrong with that logic? Sfmammamia 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misread you. Yes, you're right, VTech is indeed quoted as saying 25 people injured. Let's go with that number. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Injured 	number of injured withheld[3]" 

message: Why are the subchapters of chapters 1 indented in the table of contents, but not those of the chapters 2 and 3? It looks weird. --Abe Lincoln 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It does look strange. It must be a technical issue. I will try to post to the right page.Monkeyblue 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Posted to WP:VPT. Monkeyblue 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indention in TOC 

message: I keep putting a merge template on this page and it keeps getting deleted within mere hours. Can anyone explain to me why they would be so devoted to making sure that I can't suggest something like that? I believe that this should be merged with Virginia Tech article and then seperated. If thats even possible. Whoever is doing it please stop.
Amaraiel 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not the one deleting it nor do I condone deleting it without discussion.  But I would not support such a merge and I am sure that such a suggestion would be rejected by the vast majority of editors.  That shouldn't stop you from making the suggestion, however - I could be wrong (it's rare but it happens :).  --ElKevbo 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for not seeing this thread when I removed the template.  It should probably still go on the talk page rather than the article... That said, I don't believe there is any way to cleanly merge the vast amount of relevant information from this article into the article on Virginia Tech.  Further, there is no reason to merge them... one is an article about an important American educational institution and the other is an article about a criminal act of historical and monumental significance.  The two are related only by geography and circumstance.  The latter will eventually be a mere footnote of the former. HokieRNB 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Amaraiel, you've tagged Virginia Tech massacre and Virginia Tech for merging three times over the past few days with no justification on their talk pages. You're the one responsible for starting discussion about the merge. After tagging something, you should put your reasons on the talk page afterward. Phony Saint 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Amaraiel's Talk Page
--Amaraiel 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  You're surprised -- shocked! -- that editors are editing from their own viewpoints.  Where else would they be editing from?  We are not, as your self-described rant would have us be, as pure of human foibles as the Word of God.  If that's what you're looking for, go out to the desert, find a nice cave, or buy some magic mushrooms from the guy down the street.  God may just drop by and give you some pure knowledge there and then, but you will find only fellow humans here.  --Dynaflow 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize for the tone of my knee-jerk response above; I was still in sockpuppet-fighting mode from another,  much more acrimonious dispute and I wasn't patient enough to go through the entire history of this one, and I especially didn't realize the relative inexperience of the editor involved.  I've discussed this with Amaraiel at my talk page, and we seem to have reached a mutual understanding.  Sorry for biting the newcomer.  --Dynaflow 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amaraiel's Response to Merge Rant

message: Cho and Emily Hilscher seemed to have both practiced on some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.182.171 (talk) 18:05, 3 May, 2007 (UTC)
:Could you please state where did you hear (or read) this from? It is indeed interesting, but useless if it is just speculation --Legion fi 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard if from TV news (maybe ABC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.182.171 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting Range 

message: I added a blurb, under the Korean response, about Korean Americans who are fasting for 32 days in response to the massacre.  Fsu23phd 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a blurb about Korean Americans fasting in response to the massacre 

message: I would just like to suggest that in addition to the school, media, and university response that info regarding the church or religious response be included.  There was much media regarding this - particulalry New Life Christian Fellowship and Blacksburg Christian Fellowship and Intervarsity and Campus Crusade's presence and response.  Just a note - I don't have time currently to do it myself. Gatorgalen 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this whole "response" section is likely to be scaled back as most of it isn't particularly meaningful, so I'm somewhat loath to add yet more stuff we're going to get rid of. Titanium Dragon 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Titanium. Aaron Bowen 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion-Religious Response

message: Maybe this one is worth of including somewhere in the article? ;]  Jan Winnicki * 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's very relevant to this article, as this incident really had nothing directly to do with Virginia Tech (Did I just use the name that way, like "Kent State?"  Argh.), and the severe paranoia about violence in schools long predates this "current" massacre.  --Dynaflow 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student creating FPS map of his school 

message: I believe that the international response section needs to be trimmed down. It seems like undue weight given that it's longer than the domestic response section. It also seems repetitive - similar criticisms again and again. Ronnotel 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree.  Rooot 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirdly.  --M a s 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I posted a similar comment a while back on the talk page.  The size of the section and repetition of information in it pushes POV with respect to the size and detail of other sections in the article.  It needs to be trimmed down at a minimum.Tyro 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've built on other efforts and continued to trim; it's now shorter than the domestic response section. Sfmammamia 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intl. Response - [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]?

message: Would it not be prudent to outline the procedures taken by the school from the time the first shootings occured in West Ambler from the time the shooter was found that morning?
--Amaraiel 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is being done in the  timeline article. --Sfmammamia 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contingency Plan