Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 13

message: What is this jumbled "South Korean Response" section that appears after the references?  I'm not sure if it's part of the article that somehow got messed up or misplaced or if it's pure vandalism, so could somebody who is more familiar with this article please address the problem.  Thanks.  —Mears man 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the editor who re-inserted the contrast, but I did try to clarify the description of the incident. I deleted sentences you added because they were original research. I tried to remove POV wording such as "virulent." Now I see you have re-deleted the section. Other viewpoints on this? Sfmammamia 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to include all the stuff about how the government of South Korea and other representatives of the Korean people were worried about a backlash (which I think is unnecessary), then I think that that including the contrast of the response from the other event is a worthy attempt at keeping a neutral point of view.  I frankly don't think that the South Korean response section should even be given more than passing treatment because Cho was basically an American, had no important international ties, and this was all done in the United States at an American university.  So, I move to delete most of the section, and move a sentence to the "other responses" section stating that the South Korean government was worried about a backlash, and issued warnings.  That's it.  Rooot 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rooot.  By including reference to the Korean reaction to the 2002 incident implies equivalence between Cho, a kid lived in the State since he was 8, and the American servicemen who were serving a tour of duty in a foreign county.  Also, it attempts to draw a contrast between Koreans and Americans, as if Americans are so much more forgiving, which may or may not be true.  This example has too many muddling political elements that serve as a poor example to support a view either for or against.  Besides, the main article should be related to the killings, not Korea-U.S. relations.Hyok lee 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a couple of sentences that add a little perspective to the comparison between reactions to the 2002 accident and this massacre.  I still believe that ANY mention of the 2002 accident is not relevant, but since some people insist that it be there, I believe some context should be added that explains why the contrast exists.Hyok lee 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but the reference to the 2002 accident is relevant.  In the Korean media there was comparison between the national outrage over the deaths of the two girls, and the lack of a anti-Korean backlash in the US.  However the point made was NOT that Koreans are more vindictive or Americans are more forgiving.  The issue was a cultural difference over communal responsibility.  Americans did not expect (but were nonetheless touched by) the feelings of sympathy coming from Koreans after the tragedy.  Conversely, they felt no obligation to apologise for the actions of their individuals.
This article is not about cultural differences but about the tragedy, so on this point you could also argue its relevance.  However I would say the fact that the Korean interpretation of the tragedy was relevant.
And don't quote from websites called www.usacrime.or.kr.  That isn't really going to help prove your point.Kransky 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree.  I've deleted the sentence, but left the reference that goes into this comparison, because it supports the previous sentence.  Users can get the comparison from the ref. -- Sfmammamia 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Korean Response

message: Media response: Too lazy to look at the article at the moment.
University Response: I don't know if the vigil is necessary inline as it isn't particularly notable; indeed, I'm not sure how notabble cancelling classes was. Maybe just leave two lines about the cancellations and the counseling services being left available, and axe the rest; vigil might be worth keeping for a total of three sentences.
Student response: criticism of speed of lockdown good, and perhaps the thing about contacting people; the facebook pages and the Hokies united should be totally axed. Not sure if the Korean students being worried about descrimination is notable enough, but its marginally interesting.
Government response: Condolances could be removed. State of emergency should stay. Moment of silence can go (and more condolences can also go). Postponement of testamony should stay. George Bush's prayers can go. Honestly, I think the whole paragraph about Bush can go, save perhaps him attending the memorial service. Half staff flag is fine. New guidelines can stay, as can the entire last paragraph about the IRS and the gun politics and psychological profiling stuff.
Responses from other educational institutions: Housing of police officers may be okay, but is marginal. Nicholas Winset's dismissal should stay. The entire remainder of this section should be nuked, and I don't think that picture is needed either.
South Korean Response: This section is fine.
Cho Family Response: Fine.
Other responses:
Sympathy can go
Show being pulled can stay
Falcons can go
Browns can go
Major league soccer can go
AOL can go
NASCAR can go
Buckeyes can go
Titanium Dragon 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for what we can cut from responses section

message: Funny thing is, on the VT website where it shows the policies and everything for employees some actions are contrary to what was done and some aren't. First of all, the policies state a few obvious things1) Never try and disarm or restrain an angry or deranged invididual, which I believe was done by a teacher. Or maybe it was a student, I'm not quite sure.(2) At some point policy states that Cho should be red-flagged immediately. The reason I ask is I'm doing a paper for the school and I'm trying to gain a general consensus. Of course I can't ask here, cause only the article is supposed to be discussed here. Does anyone know if anyone was monitoring Cho at any point and/or in any way after he turned those scripts for those plays into teachers. --Amaraiel 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Tech Policy 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**are considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, didn't, wasn't.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added controversies to the lead section; these two paragraphs still require further sources. Summary/topic sentences for sections further down in the article may require changes as a result. I will continue to work on this. Hopefully, moving the controversies up will help to resolve some of the debate about the responses sections. Sfmammamia 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new lead. Natalie 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated suggestions 

message: Seriously? Why not pediatrician responses or bartender responses? This section is, for lack of a better term, response-cruft, so I'm removing it. Natalie 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>really? ya' think?</sarcasm> Ronnotel 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think its a useful topic to have somewhere linked off this page, if not on the main page. I've heard from a New York school teacher that many high school students in his building are praising Cho and see him as a hero. Though disturbing, if true it deserves a section particularly if leaders of hip-hop feel the need to counter some of the negative aspects of the hip-hop youth culture by condemning the act. I only mention it in case others come across an article on it and can cite a reference; perhaps the section should return as is in the meantime. 68.175.118.95 05:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. We've severely cut down on junk, and this is the very definition of recentist junk. It just doesn't matter much. Titanium Dragon 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed again today as a bullet added to other responses section. Please discuss here before re-adding? -- Sfmammamia 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My response is that there's a categorical difference between media responses made out of sensitivity to the victims and media responses created to line the pockets of the creators. If a rapper is donating all proceeds of record sales to a VT-related charity, and there's a source that states that, I would reconsider, because that would make such an effort somewhat equivalent to the single sentence (after much back and forth) allotted to all the sports-related fundraising tributes. But so far all I've seen is variations of "So and so wrote a song in tribute." So what? -- Sfmammamia 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hip-Hop responses? 

message: The section on Media Response now references the relevant issues from the section titled International Response. Plus, there's a link to a dedicated article on the topic. Is there some reason why we need to keep the section as is? We're definitely in overkill mode here. All of the response sections have been cut back to focus on the most relevant issues - Sfmammamia and others have done a fantastic job. Leaving International Response as is seems awkward in this light. Ronnotel 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-removed the section, because it's redundant, and the consensus here seemed to be that it needed to be trimmed down even if it hadn't been condensed into the Media Response section. Rdfox 76 21:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the most important information from the International Response section has been merged into the Media Response and Political Response sections, and that the remainder is largely redundant of the separate dedicated article, and only serves to unnecessarily lengthen this one. PubliusFL 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Waiting until the majority of editors leave the article and then pushing your POV is not constructive editing. The points that were all raised in the previous straw poll all still stand. Sad mouse 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV pushing? A variety of editors have been revising and cutting down the entire article, not just the section that was titled International Response. I think this is just part of the normal editing process here. I think the article reads much better now, don't you? Kudos to the folks who are staying on top of this. Ronnotel 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sad mouse, you are mistaken about POV pushing. I am as staunchly pro-gun-control as they come, but I have been working like others here to 1) put the length of the article and its various sections into balance, and 2) work toward compromise by grouping content into more logical sections rather than deleting the content altogether. If those of you who disagree with the current choice of international perspectives embedded in the media response and political response sections have specific ideas for improving those sections (rather than restoring a section in its entirety that creates redundancies elsewhere, which seems to me to be an unconstructive process), then please go to it. Sfmammamia 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't accuse you of POV pushing, but I most certainly do a number of others here - look at their own comments in the discussion archives where they say straight out "international opinion has zero value and should not be mentioned at all". An excellent section was created when the article was heavily used, the POV users then essentially gutted it quote by quote. I won't work on it because it is a waste of my time while the POV users lurk on this article, but I will periodically reinstate the previously agreed upon version on the logic that POV lurkers tend to get bored once they find a new article to vandalise. As for length - that is simply an excuse, the article is not overly long considering the magnitude of the event (and does not get a "too long" label by wikipedia), and if it was overly long then culling down responses by NASCAR or reducing the 10-fold greater domestic response would be more appropriate. Sad mouse 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad Mouse, is there something you think isn't being adequately addressed in the current article? No one is trying to shut out constructive edits. Repetitive, overly wordy and one-sided content is going to get trimmed no matter where it shows up, but there's always room for well-thought out contributions. Ronnotel 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, WP:DNFT - Rooot 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rooot, trolling is a strong word to use, I see nothing like that here. If you want to see what a troll does, look at The Question Mark's contributions. Let's everyone one of us assume good faith. Ronnotel 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The International Response section is redundant 

message: It may just be my machine, but the aerial photo of the campus is covering up text.  Rooot 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm running at 1440x900 Rooot 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, seems OK to me, I'm running Firefox on Windows XP, screen resolution = 1280 x 1024. Ronnotel 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial photo 

message: I think this page needs to be archived again.  The talk page is very long.  Maybe we should put the bot back and set it to archive every two weeks, instead of every two days, like it was before. Wrad 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to archive selective topics at this point? Given the structure of the archives, I'm uncertain how to proceed with this idea, but I think that would be more useful than bot archiving, as some of the topics seem to come up repeatedly and appear less settled than others. Sfmammamia 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and archived 27 topics that hadn't had responses in about a week. Looks much better now. Phony Saint 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival Bot? 

message: The referenced citation clearly specifies 25 injured, not 29. I reverted recent change back to cite. Ronnotel 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number injured 

message: I was a little apprehensive to review this article, due to its high-traffic nature. I've been watching it regularly since the incident, and it has been something special watching it evolve. The images look fine and for those necessary there are fair use rationales. I'm prepared to list it, but I'd love a second opinion since I'm bound to have missed things. The main question still probably concerns stability.
:Preliminarily:
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: --Phoenix 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article falls flat on the stability criterion. I recommend not listing it at this point. Noclip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur - however it does seem to be stablizing rapidly, particularly in the last week or so. Let's let it settle another week and see where we are. Ronnotel 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not solely based on the number of edits, but if the article's content changes signficantly from day to day. Phoenix2 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On hold until May 21. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I find it stable enough for GA, especially as news coverage and "new developments" start to fade. Just because the subject is recent & controversial does not necessarily mean this quality can't be maintained and improved on. It does not recieve anymore bad material or vandalism than any other high importance article. And only some questionable stability does negate all the article's good qualities. (points 1-4 & 6-7) After the hold expires, let's categorize this as GA.--Wikiphilia 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it's up to Phoenix, if he fails it it goes to WP:GA/R then if you disagree I guess. Aaron Bowen 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fun to see a graph of edits per day or reverts per day since the article was created. ike9898 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has some interesting stats, including a list of every editor that has contributed to the article, as well as how many  times. A small graph at the bottom shows edits per month, but not per day. Calculating the number of reversions per day would be very tedious, since it's hard logically calculate such a figure with an algorithm. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to promote the article at the conclusion of the hold; I was just giving it a little more time to become stable. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: It was reported throughout many news outlets that there was an online video game on NewGrounds, which is a flash game site where people can submit new flash games. A 21-year old male, whose alias is PigPen, made a Virginia Tech shooting game and submitted it to NewGrounds. It is still currently on the site. The game is officially called "V-TECH RAMPAGE." 67.162.108.111 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page isn't a place to publish salacious details that wouldn't normally be reported on the main page. Do you have a question or a suggestion regarding this incident? Ronnotel 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, was not my intention to jump - apologies for the tone. However, I'm hesitant to reward attention whores, as this case the game publisher seems to be. My vote would be to ignore. Ronnotel 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because it can be verified does not mean we must include it in the article. For example, we don't note every incident (school threats, etc.) that was inspired by the Virginia Tech massacre, although most of them could be attributed to reliable sources. I wouldn't think a game published on Newgrounds would be significantly more notable than any of those. Phony Saint 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where has this been reported so far? If the mainstream (non-gaming) press have picked up on it, it could well warrant a sentence or two; if not, then it's probably not notable enough. Trebor 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He lives in Australia and a paper there has written on it Daily Telegraph, and also this quote has surfaced about the flash authors thoughts on Cho from Pine Magazine "No one listens to you unless you've got something sensational to do. And that's why I feel sympathy for Cho Seung-hui. He had to go that far." 68.175.118.95 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Tech online game 

message: Do you feel if it would be verifiable if we state that Klein was in the German class?
Now, this source: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07107/778657-84.stm does not explicitly state this, but, we have the process of elimination.
The names of all of the people in Rooms 206 and 211 (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-042507-na-french-g,1,3604642.graphic?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=2&cset=true) are known, so we know that Klein could not have been in either of the rooms.
* 206 had four survivors and two students who did not attend (): We know that Park and Colman were injured, and the other two were named Lee Nixon and Nathaniel Krause
Now, this source states that a friend stated that Klein saw the teacher being shot as the gunman burst into the room. Since this data matches the events happening in Room 207, that would have to be Klein's classroom (204 had Librescu, who blocked the door and allowed for students to escape). WhisperToMe 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin Klein's classroom 

message: I don't remember the specifics, but I read days after the incident that a Christian hate group lauded the event, calling it retaliation from God via the perpetrator for several causes--all of which were largely abstract and unfounded--and that America on a whole should right these (poorly elaborated upon) wrongs.
To reiterate, I don't know enough specifics to properly be bold myself, but I remember the daughter of the pastor in charge of the hate group is the one responsible for the information given to the media.  I know there was also internet coverage on this, and that at least one of the sites was reputable enough to source here.
As it is directly related to the content of the article, I believe it warrants being added...preferably to the Responses subheading. .Absolution. 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Response 

message: Provided for educational convenience is the EQUITAS Legal GateWay  that has a new section related to the VATECH Massacre  which emphasizes on domestic terrorism as a probable cause and displays - amongst other things - timelines of select topic-related issues including authoritative Legal content derived from external links and podcasts supplying comparative analysis of: Emergency and Preparedness Plans; School and Campus Security; Liability Issues and past as of recent amendments to the Virginia Code. The vatech page also includes the Wikipedia Virginia Tech Massacre Timeline. I suggest to review this expanding site and include its link in a legal category available within the WikiPedia Virginia Tech Massacre page. --just 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Tech Massacre - Authorities Section 

message: I'm looking over the article as it stands right now, and I think it's very close to Featured Article status.  Of course, due dilligence should be used.  Shall we order a peer review, to point out any remaining deficiencies? --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should. Funpika 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's going to fail an FAC, based on the grounds of stability. We'd all love to see it go through, but I doubt it. Just ask any of the guys that frequent FAC. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a couple months and no new information is coming out. I think that if that is mentioned it is veiwed as stable The Placebo Effect 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's still the subject of anon vandalism, and is floating in and out of semi-protection. A lot of refining will still take place over the next few months. I see no reason for it be featured; even if it attained such status it surely wouldn't be on the main page for quite some time so I see no hurry. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VNandalism and protection don't affect stability. Wii is semi-proc, but it was still promoted. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate this and see what happens. As a matter of fact, the Cho article is at FAC now, and will likely fail. If not pefected, this will probably see the same fate. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand why, it looks like a joke nomination The Placebo Effect 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the second one to mention that, but I don't see where it's coming from. That article is actually pretty close, just needs to settle down and get a better lead. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the nomminator has less then 50 edits when he did it and the discription of CHo doesn't describe him at all. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of "drive-by" nominations show up on FAC, that being nominations for article which the nominator never edited. Some of them succeed because the article was pretty close anyway, that's just not the case here. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though this may not quite be FAC material just yet, a peer review can never hurt. I'd strongly suggest one. Cliff smith 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expect a response nearly a month after putting 'er up for review.  -- Phoenix2 (holla) 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reference need a lot of tedious cleanup.  All the references should use  instead it the current haphazard approach.  Jon513 12:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The first sentence now reads "...shot 61 people, killing 32 and wounding many more...". We know that the total number injured was 25 as per VTech. However, I believe that some of the injuries were indirect, i.e. jumping from a window. Is the 61 number reliably sourced anywhere? Unless we can source this I think we should revert to previous text. Ronnotel 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many shot?

message: Rdfox, out of curiosity, to which side of the gun control debate did my altered language skew - pro or anti? I think you were a little quick to hit the POV button. My intent was to better paraphrase the referenced press release. In it, I saw neither the word 'unconscionable', nor any reference to Cho; hence my choice of wording. I don't really much care but I think the wording was better my way. Ronnotel 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro, I felt--specifically, it was the use of the word "tragedy" that feels pretty POV to me.  While I agree that it was a tragedy, it's not a very neutral term to describe it.  Rdfox 76 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (FWIW, my feelings on the matter probably lean slightly the other way). Here's my reasoning - my intent was to paraphrase the press release in order to fairly present the argument it puts forth. Yes, 'tragedy' is a loaded term, but I believe absolute neutrality is difficult when you are deliberately trying to describe someone else's POV argument. The press release specifically included the phrases easier to access powerful weapons and tragedies, which I thought would make the paraphrasing more accurate. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me, but I do think my wording more accurately captures the argument put forth in the press release. If there's a better source to reference for the pro-gun control position, that would be cool, too. Ronnotel 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV language in intro?

message: It is a shame that the mediator of this Article demands that those editing the article continuously refer to this event in a sensationalist manner. While Research would finely contend that the Media has labeled this event as the "Virginia Tech Massacre", it is inappropriate to repeat this language continuously throughout the course of the article. We can historically  remember this event without being offensive to those involved. It is just as scientific to refer to this event as a tradgedy, acknowledging the emotional impact it had on the university and the country.
David
Virginia Tech '08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.191.36 (talk • contribs) 
:Huh? --T-rex 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no moderators here; just an amorphous mass of people attempting to cooperatively build an article.  You can join in the fray if you'd like, so long as your contributions can be backed up with reliable sources and are in keeping with Wikipedia's core content tenets (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR).  You should be aware, however, that the encyclopedia has no moral obligation to shape readers' perceptions in an "acceptable" way.  We are simply a mirror of our sources.  --Dynaflow babble 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Tragedy" (note correct spelling... is this what passes for a tech school sophomore's literacy level these days?) is a very POV-loaded word.  Indeed, there was a heated debate over whether the term "massacre" or "killings" should be used, because "massacre" itself is a POV-loaded word, but the media ended up making that decision for us.  However, referring to it as a tragedy would thoroughly violate WP:NPOV, and thus is unacceptable under Wiki policy.  Rdfox 76 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rdfox, do you really feel that the naming was a decision the "media ended up making [...] for us," even when we take into consideration a certain bias and sensationalism within the MSM, particularly immediately after such topical, emotional events?  There must be times when we break from the language more or less common in the MSM in order to maintain our different aims (maintaining a neutral encyclopedia, rather than selling news, etc.).  I think we need to reopen serious discussion about changing the name to something that you and others might feel is more NPOV, such as "killings" or "shootings" (see the above topic). Maxisdetermined 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that, to some degree, the news media ended up making the decision for us by deeming it a massacre, but dear god, I do NOT want to open up that can of worms again... Rdfox 76 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Note the rules for editing comments:. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "massacre" was a Tradgedy 

message: Isn't there more that can be said about the after effects of this event? Has VT changed any policies in response to this event? Has fall enrollment at VT dropped? ike9898 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that enrollment hasn't dropped (this year, some freshmen are allowed to live off campus to deal with the lack of housing space).  However, access to dorms was restricted so that students can only open the doors to their dorm.  There might have been other changes that I'm unaware of John R S 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  after effects 

message: It just struck me as bing a bit strange.... The VT massacre is an event which took place in several buildings in Virginia Tech. It is not a place. So it makes little sense to me to have displayed the coordinates as if this were a place (There are already coordinates in the VT article). Ohconfucius 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates shown are the location of VT, as is common for many articles about events, the location of the events is listed.  Rdfox 76 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: geographical coordinates

message: I've been reading through the  featured article review discussion and thought it would be helpful to distill comments made there into a list of ideas for future improvements, or at least further discussion.  
* Reduce use of footnotes in lead. 
* "Paragraph-ize" the embedded list in the section "Resistance"
* Condense "Response" section, especially short items.
* Move footnotes that interrupt sentences to end, where possible.
* Check the accuracy of and fix the wording in the last sentence in the "Media response" section, on the Spanish book.
Also mentioned but seems already resolved: one or more "cite needed" tags.
I made a start at reducing footnotes in the lead section, will look to do more of this. -- Sfmammamia 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post FA review task list? 

message: I know this is a little bit late, but i think we should post 
an article on the heroes that put and/or gived up their lives to protect their students, or classmates. Teachers like Liviu Librescu and students like Derek O'Dell and Zach Petkewicz. Its people like this show that they have/had the courage to do something as bravery like this. 
Liviu Librescu gaved up his own life to save his students by blocking the door to his classroom while his students jump out of the windows. And just when his last student made it out the window, Seung-Hui Cho succeeded in opening the door and shot him to death.
Derek O'Dell got shot in the right arm and quickly thinking right when Cho left the room, O'Dell and his classmate, not identified, slammed the door and held it shut with their feet. Cho tried to get in but did not succeed. 
Zach Petkewicz and his ten classmates was aware when they heard a shot fired. At first a coward by hiding behind a podium, he looked up and saw the door. He saw that there was nothing blocking the door and Cho could have easily walk in and killed them. Petkewicz and two other classmates barricade the door with tables and physically hold it there. Cho, like the O'Dell case, tried to get in but was unsuccessful.Jaimie64 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no need for another article; everything you mentioned is already covered in this article! -- Sfmammamia 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: +1, already covered. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes of the VT massacre 

message: I'm not sure if this is done on all pages of a similar nature, but to me it reads and looks like a top trumps card, why is what gun used of such particular importance? Its way above my head to change it, just wonering waht others think.
:The guns used are a detail of the event that can be used to classify the event; e.g., shootings committed with [gun type].  The box isn't cluttered with other data, so I don't think there's any pressing need to prune out any data already in it. John R S 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right Hand side 'stats' box

message: Since there has been some debate on the VT gun ban, particularly whether the presence of other people carrying guns would have reduced or even prevented the killings, has there been any debate about the gun ban in general? I mean rather then considering just this one incident, considering the ban in general. Like what effect, if any, the ban has had on violent crime in VT. (Since for example, even if the presence of students with guns had reduced the killings in this incident, if it also leads to an overall increase in violent crime or in killings in particular, it might not be worth it. Or vice versa.) Of course this probably doesn't belong here, perhaps Virginia Tech campus but I thought I'd mention it here since people who've been following the debate are far more likely to be checking out this talk page Nil Einne 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VT gun ban

message: Evidence suggests that he may have rehearsed for the attack Source 1, Source 2. Please incorporate this into the article, if possible. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack rehearsal

message: There are nationwide and campus specific movements to permit concealed carry permit holding students to carry on campus as they would be able to off campus. This movement, which has been covered by all the major news networks, is being wholly overlooked here on Wikipedia to the point where I'm tempted to question the Neutrality of this article.   --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very briefly mentioned, but just because some nuts want people to carry around concealed weapons so that more people get shot on campus doesn't mean that we should devote all that much space to it. We've been trimming the response section for a while, and the gun-related stuff is the longest section (as it should be). TBH I think we should get rid of more, as as far as I can tell this incident has been completely forgotten by everyone (exactly as I said it would be). Titanium Dragon 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic falls flat on its face. Well over 100,000 people in Virginia have concealed carry permits and the crime rate of those people is less than that of VA police. Currently, anyone can carry openly or concealed on VA college campuses - just as long as they aren't students. It's not illegal for a student to carry on campus, but they'll be expelled (which has questionable legality). To allow motor vehicles and irresponsible drinking on campus at the same time, then appeal to "safety" when the issue of campus carry is brought up is plainly fraudulent. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked on Lexis Nexis, and he's right, major news networks such as the associated press are reporting this. While I wouldn't use references to concealedcarry.org, I do think that more neutral and respected references would need to be mentioned in this article's gun section. This really doesn't seem to be isolate to a few nuts. It seems to be nationwide. I would probably limit it to one sentence, stating that the incident has sparked concealed carry movements or something. Of course, there are also strong movements against concealed carry on campus... These need to be considered too. The sentence would need to be neutral. Wrad 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not fantasize that a college campus is some sort of sensitive incubator - it isn't. It's just more state property with imaginary boundaries, and the laws should be applied to everyone equally throughout. That's why this issue has the momentum that it does. Normal citizens of a state are all of a sudden stripped of their right to carry openly (VA law) and permit to carry concealed simply because college policy (not state law) disallows it. If colleges legitimately want to act in the interest of student safety, they would strip a student's right to drink on state property (21 years and older) and not recognize state issued drivers licenses - alcohol and driving being top killers of college students. Public safety right? Right? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The impact this has on politics, including gun politics, is certainly relevant in my opinion.  And obviously, we need to present relevant info regardless of whether it ends up on the "more guns might help" side or the "more guns are the problem" side.  Statements like "some nuts want people to carry around concealed weapons so that more people get shot" are unhelpful in the extreme and do not belong on the talk page.  Wikipedia is not a chat board.  Friday (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Regardless of my personal position this this a battleground issue. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This was a Washington Times cover story:  How much more notable does it need to be? --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlooked Real-World Response 

message: Hello, in light of the tremendous job that the editors of this article did on detailing the tragic events that happen here without becoming a memorial to the victims, I was wondering if we could get some editorial assistance on the Anna Svidersky article. On that talk page there is discussion about whether or not the article crosses the line into becoming a memorial. I pointed to the example on this page of Virginia_Tech_Massacre#Other_responses and how that was able to note the memorials and public reaction without crossing a line into becoming a tribute itself. Similarly I would say an excellent job was done in the "resistance section" and at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre in maintaining encyclopedic focus and not becoming a tribute. Any outside view would be appreciated. I see great potential in the Anna Svidersky article and I would like to see it reach the level of writing as this article. AgneCheese/Wine 04:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some editorial assistance needed

message: It's very clear that this could have, and should have been prevented within the scope of the mental health system yet this Wikipedia article places undue weight on the gun control debate simply because it is a lightning rod issue and guns are easier to attack than health care. Today's (Aug 27, 2007) front page Washington Post article is the smoking gun (no pun intended): 
Fairfax County school officials determined that Seung Hui Cho suffered from an anxiety disorder so severe that they put him in special education and devised a plan to help, according to sources familiar with his history, but Virginia Tech was never told of the problem. 
I would like to avoid tagging this article. Please reassess the opening paragraphs. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think tagging the entire article is overkill. Since it appears that you have issues with how the gun-control debate has been handled, I'd like to suggest that you just tag that one section so your concerns will be easier to address. Ronnotel 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have used a section tag, but it's an introduction. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Haizum, I don't quite understand the 7 minutes between your suggestion/request that the lead section be reassessed and your conclusion that the entire article had to be tagged as disputed. I changed the gun advocate reference in the lead section to a more neutral source (Christian Science Monitor) and added a sentence in the gun politics section regarding the concealed carry movement. If these do not address your overall POV concerns, perhaps you could be a little more specific about them here?  Any attempt to cut down the gun politics section would have to be even-handed, but I certainly would support it -- it seems to me that there have been editors on both sides of that issue who have insisted on its significance and degree of detail.  The under-emphasis on the mental health issues is only because that part of the story is only now coming to light, not because of any attempt to skew the article, at least as far as I'm aware. -- Sfmammamia 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very clearly undue weight given to the gun politics debate in the introduction, and because of the nature of what an introduction is supposed to do, the article has been steered in that direction. Also, the brevity of the intro summary is advantageous to the gun control side of the debate; it's much easier to stomach "no guns on campus" than "guns on campus." I would also like to note, with respect, that an article is not neutral simply because no one has gotten around to including balancing information. As it stands, there isn't nearly enough emphasis on the mental health issues. The sources are out there, it isn't in the article - the article is POV. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the lead section was expanded well after the major content in the article was already written. As the editor who began the process of adding several paragraphs to the lead in mid-May following suggestions you can read further up on this page, my attempt was to treat the controversies sparked by the incident in a balanced way. The article was not steered by the lead, it was the other way around. The gun politics controversy consumes a fairly large section in the article, so it made sense that some space be devoted to that controversy in the lead. I've expanded slightly the portion of the lead that deals with mental health; if it still seems unbalanced, I'll hope you'll continue contributing constructive and specific suggestions to keep improving the article. -- Sfmammamia 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sfmammamia - I can kind of see what Haizum is getting at regarding the intro. The last para in the intro seems to introduce quite of bit of detail that can be read later on. The third para already references the gun debate, what would you think about just cutting the fifth para in it's entirety? Ronnotel 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, mention that there is a gun politics debate in the intro, but pursuing that debate in abridged form is inherently advantageous to one side. This, and the lack of mental health info in the body of the article are my main concerns. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only objection to deleting the 5th paragraph from the lead in its entirety is that the incident actually lead to a law being changed in Virginia, and, with the NRA's assistance, looks like it will lead to passage of a federal law as well. It wasn't just a debate, it was an incident of historic proportion that led to laws being changed. Doesn't that belong in the lead? The only reason the current paragraph is "advantageous to one side" is that the immediate actions taken have been to close gaps in gun control law that even the NRA and people as far on the right as Bill O'Reilly have supported. If concealed carry efforts energized by this incident lead to laws being changed, that would be equally significant.  If the incident leads to mental health laws being changed, that would be equally significant.  -- Sfmammamia 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense to me. Wrad 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the aspect of changes to federal law be captured without quite so much detail as is now provided? Ronnotel 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an attempt. I would also support deleting the now second sentence in that paragraph that expands on the debate positions, but will leave that to other editors to evaluate. -- Sfmammamia 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it looks good. I am going to try removing the second sentence - it has always seemed like a bit too much detail for an intro. If it gets added back in I won't squawk. Ronnotel 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree but couldn't think of any concrete actions that have occurred. Gov. Perry made some public statements about concealed carry, but AFAIK, nothing has evolved from that. Ronnotel 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can dig up anything... Wrad 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro shouldn't necessarily highlight both sides of a debate, unless that argument is the subject of the article, but instead should give the reader a highlight reel of sorts. If pro-gun advocates have actually used this event to help pass any legislation, then yes, that should be included in the intro if anti-gun legislation is also included in the intro. But if only one side has actually done anything, it isn't our job to find something to say about the other side. Natalie 12:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight = POV 

message: I recently removed nearly identical text to what has been added here because it references the results of Gov. Kaine's panel, which is already covered elsewhere. There was a similiarly titled section long ago that was removed, I believe, because it was considered unencyclopedic and possibly POV. Is this topic of sufficient import to merit it's own section? I would say no but think it deserves some more feedback. Ronnotel 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that new information is available that needs to be included in the article. However, I question whether we need to reintroduce a section title that was long ago removed due to POV concerns. I also agree with Sfmammamia's concerns about the quality of the text. For example, sentences that being Many say. . . usually violate WP:WEASEL. In my experience, Sfmammamia is unusually good at copy editing. Can I suggest that we allow her to finish what she has proposed in the next section and see what she comes up with? Ronnotel 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 24.13.244.119, the wording you are insisting on reverting is POV and unencyclopedic.  I am logging your reverts and will request that you be blocked if you violate WP:3RR.  We are working to gain consensus on the best way to address the panel's findings, but repeated reverting of the same flawed text is disrupting that process.  May I suggest that you take a break for a few hours and let other editors make good faith attempts to address these issues?  -- Sfmammamia 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Report has been logged at WP:AN3. Ronnotel 19:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of University Response section