Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 9

message: The second paragraph says that "[the murderer] committed suicide upon hearing the police during the second attack". Please, remove the "upon hearing the police" part, because we certainly don't know what prompted the murderer to kill himself. (Note the timelime in this article: "the shooter is dead before police arrive".) Our police "heroes" apparently had ZERO impact on the outcome of this event---so, attempting to give them half-assed credit for the shooter's suicide is certainly nothing more than apologist speculation. However, even if the police had arrived two hours earlier, we wouldn't know the killer's motivation.
: Not necessarily true.  I still think that sentence should be taken out, but the police arrived while shots were still being fired inside Norris, and it would make sense for him to have killed himself upon hearing the police, as there was apparently not very much time at all (I don't know if it's 1 or 2 minutes or more like 5) between his suicide and the police finding him. -  Ennuified  talk   20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd dare say we're in no position to describe Cho's reasons for killing himself when he did, nor whether or not that's related to the police's arrival on the scene.  We simply don't have that information, and would be irresponsible to pose imaginings as fact.  When the police opened the door, the shooter had committed suicide.  Let readers infer what they would.Liquid entropy 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "...upon hearing the police..."

message: This discussion is still in relative chaos. I'm combining some sections for ease of reading and clarity. If wrong, slap with fish. --Kizor 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a good move.  For anyone coming here to post about it: the 4chan post was confirmed as being a hoax and was NOT posted by Cho.  This one needs to be swept under the rug, though it might be worth mentioning later on in a section about online response like you said, along with the Facebook reactions and the fact that various forum discussions knew more than the news did for most of the day. -  Ennuified  talk   12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. With a video about the wrongly accused blogger (Wayne Chiang) at present the #2 most popular one on CNN.com, there definitely needs to be such a section. --Kizor 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take up the Wayne Chiang job if that's considered noteworthy. If anyone else wants to look into it his livejournal page is here and he has a good list of interviews that he has had the past few days. Alot of the focus in his interviews are on 2nd amendment rights and the possibilities that would have opened up for students to defend themselves if concealed weapons had been permitted. I don't know whether this controversy should really be included in the student response section. Maybe another bit about Chiang in the gun control debate section? Blakwyte 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read trough the talk page first before posting something. It has been stated that the post you mention was not posted by the perpetrator and it was posted around seven hours after the shootings. --Legion fi 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, while I agree that this shouldn't be in the page, I'd just like to point out that the Toronto Star is the main newspaper in Toronto and is emphatically _not_ a gossip newspaper.  142.151.160.64 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed further up this page - it's most definitely a hoax. Natalie 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 4chan is not a reliable source, and that posting has already been confirmed as a hoax, given that it was made after Cho killed himself. -  Ennuified  talk  01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is a new post, i think someone is going to attack vt again. plz report to authorities 24.27.18.25 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't be silly. tomasz. 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Star is a gossip paper, I'm not sure it qualifies under WP:RS.  And we've already gotten confirmation that it was a typical sicko /b/tard "joke" that was posted seven hours AFTER the shootings were over.  Rdfox 76 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it has. Anyway, this has caused buzz in major news sources. There's quite a lot of articles out there about the use of online media regarding the attacks, and if we're going to have a section that (which we will, I'm going to write it myself if nobody else does :P), this has enough notoriety and sources to be noted, especially together with other news stories about false accusations online. --Kizor 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't place it in the article until we have a reliable source that confirms it as fake. This sick joke has gone too far, and serves as a reminder that just because it appears in the paper it can not necessarily be cited - the other criteria of WP:RS must also be followed. --129.241.126.121 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, naturally. It won't get articles dedicated to it but might be mentioned in a general one. --Kizor 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be if there is verifiable proof that he was on the medicine at that it caused this to happen. THe Church of Scientology will have a bunch of damning info, though it won't be a good source in the eyes of most people. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We will never be able to show that the particular drug caused a particular violent episode but if someone dies in lung cancer, it is OK to point that they were a smoker (if they were.) Doctors have been told to try not to use certain antidepressants with younger people to avoid suicides and violent outbursts. Dont know which antidepressants seem to have this problem nor the age range where the meds are not recommended. The studies that raised the concern where by the drug companies themselves.   Dnklu 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18gunman.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fV%2fVirginia%20Polytechnic%20Institute%20and%20State%20University&pagewanted=all
we read: "Mr. Cho awoke before 5 a.m., then sat down to work on his computer and awakened Mr. Aust in the process. Mr. Grewal, who shares a room in the same suite, saw Mr. Cho in the bathroom shortly after 5 a.m.
As usual, Mr. Cho did not say anything to Mr. Grewal. No good morning, no hello, Mr. Grewal said. Mr. Cho stood in the bathroom, brushing his teeth, wetting his contact lenses and applying a moisturizer.
He also took a prescription medicine. Neither Mr. Aust nor Mr. Grewal knew what the medicine was for, but officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho’s effects." 201.19.170.38 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, a moisturizer???--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is many and better sources to know about the link between Prozac type drugs and violence than the Scientology Church. And that link is true for adults too. 201.19.170.38 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is more speculation-type information that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media.  So, it's not really up for inclusion in the article until that time.  That said, I have had experience with close friends on Prozac, and they have said that it works by taking away ALL your emotions, including both happy and unhappy ones, so that you don't care about other people as much.  There is also a very simple reason that antidepressants sometimes allow people to kill themselves-- they were so depressed before they couldn't take any actions or get enough energy to do anything.  Once they begin antidepressant treatment, they feel a bit better and can then take some action, and sometimes that results in suicide.  If the media (or the man's family) decides to take that angle, it will be covered in the article, I'm sure.--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of some friends on Prozac is not a reliable source about its possible effects. I sugest starting with this book http://www.prozacbacklash.com/prozacBacklash.html 201.19.170.38 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually misspoke in the previous comment.  It was Paxil I was referring to.  I would only look at scientific, double-blind studies if I was considering taking any of these types of drugs-- the kind you'd find on Pubmed. --Gloriamarie 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media. Paxil? Please read that http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/prozac 201.19.140.36 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There was one earlier....Remember it would have to be cited and comply with WP:BLP.],and be extremely relevant to the VT incident. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should pass, Jack is blaming it on video games when there has been no credible evidence that this guy even played a video game in his life. -Ravedave 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it matter whether he personally has played video games when taking his statements into account?  This guy is a well-known crusader against video games and I believe his son plays (or at least buys) video games.  Watching someone else play will reveal the same information as playing it yourself.  He's a well-known activist against video games.  Someone who is an activist against, for instance, premarital sex doesn't have to have actually had premarital sex to be a good advocate for that.  They would actually be a hypocrite in a way if they had.--Gloriamarie 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, bad grammar. By "this guy" I meant the killer. -Ravedave 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely not.  -  Ennuified  talk  01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Add it to Jack's article if you want. Nobody takes him seriously enough for it to really be worth a mention here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The old bastard's getting enough soundbite time from this as it is; frankly I find it disgusting. HalfShadow 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, given that he's dead, anyone would only be able to guess his motives anyway, and that would be original research. HalfShadow 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently it's been said by his high school friends that Cho liked playing Counter-Strike (it's sourced elsewhere on this talk page, look for it if you want to), but it's not relevant to Thompson's statements because it didn't come to light until after JT was on Fox; not to mention that it means absolutely nothing that he played violent video games.  I think adding this on Thompson's page is a good idea - I'll do it myself tomorrow if no-one does it tonight.  Just leave it off of this page, it certainly doesn't merit inclusion. -  Ennuified  talk   03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Thompson is an utter crackpot and his views are worthless. Christopher Connor 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite NPOV! :) --Gloriamarie 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been covered multiple times. Consensus is not to bother with that, but with the event itself. 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: see also here. tomasz. 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online suicide note hoax discussion 

message: Anyone have any information on how he posted his attack on 4chan's /b/ thread? (http://www.thestar.com/article/204030) has some information on it, but I was wondering if anyone could find other sources mentioning it and add it to the main article. -Stexe 71.225.125.176 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read trough the talk page first before posting something. It has been stated that the post you mention was not posted by the perpetrator and it was posted around seven hours after the shootings. --Legion fi 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan /b/ Message 

message: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204030
"Students at the university's online newspaper, planetblacksburg.com, today discovered a message on a website that seemed to announce the massacre.
Posted early yesterday morning on 4chan, a website that allows anonymous postings, the message warned: "hey /b/ I'm going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous.""
Should this be in there somewhere? 66.169.45.213 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, while I agree that this shouldn't be in the page, I'd just like to point out that the Toronto Star is the main newspaper in Toronto and is emphatically _not_ a gossip newspaper.  142.151.160.64 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed further up this page - it's most definitely a hoax. Natalie 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning of massacre 

message: Straight from a strong hideout of Asian deviants I found this quote "311  Name: Anonymous : 2007-04-17 21:22  ID:VCXrJzcr
    "hey /b/ I'm going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous.""  Is the FBI watching this??? WHY WON"T THEY DO ANYTHING!!!!
the do watch 4chan the fbi responded to a bomb treat for some football game that never would of existed and now some guy is serving a jail sentence. however with a hundred thousand or so annon posts these forums are unmanageable for the authority's  4chan is not a reliable source
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.27.18.25 (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4chan is not a reliable source, and that posting has already been confirmed as a hoax, given that it was made after Cho killed himself. -  Ennuified  talk  01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is a new post, i think someone is going to attack vt again. plz report to authorities 24.27.18.25 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't be silly. tomasz. 21:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Star is a gossip paper, I'm not sure it qualifies under WP:RS.  And we've already gotten confirmation that it was a typical sicko /b/tard "joke" that was posted seven hours AFTER the shootings were over.  Rdfox 76 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it has. Anyway, this has caused buzz in major news sources. There's quite a lot of articles out there about the use of online media regarding the attacks, and if we're going to have a section that (which we will, I'm going to write it myself if nobody else does :P), this has enough notoriety and sources to be noted, especially together with other news stories about false accusations online. --Kizor 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't place it in the article until we have a reliable source that confirms it as fake. This sick joke has gone too far, and serves as a reminder that just because it appears in the paper it can not necessarily be cited - the other criteria of WP:RS must also be followed. --129.241.126.121 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, naturally. It won't get articles dedicated to it but might be mentioned in a general one. --Kizor 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Wave 

message: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030372 talks about it somewhat. Do we know which drugs the shooter was on? Could this be part of the story? 69.117.70.35 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be if there is verifiable proof that he was on the medicine at that it caused this to happen. THe Church of Scientology will have a bunch of damning info, though it won't be a good source in the eyes of most people. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We will never be able to show that the particular drug caused a particular violent episode but if someone dies in lung cancer, it is OK to point that they were a smoker (if they were.) Doctors have been told to try not to use certain antidepressants with younger people to avoid suicides and violent outbursts. Dont know which antidepressants seem to have this problem nor the age range where the meds are not recommended. The studies that raised the concern where by the drug companies themselves.   Dnklu 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18gunman.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fV%2fVirginia%20Polytechnic%20Institute%20and%20State%20University&pagewanted=all
we read: "Mr. Cho awoke before 5 a.m., then sat down to work on his computer and awakened Mr. Aust in the process. Mr. Grewal, who shares a room in the same suite, saw Mr. Cho in the bathroom shortly after 5 a.m.
As usual, Mr. Cho did not say anything to Mr. Grewal. No good morning, no hello, Mr. Grewal said. Mr. Cho stood in the bathroom, brushing his teeth, wetting his contact lenses and applying a moisturizer.
He also took a prescription medicine. Neither Mr. Aust nor Mr. Grewal knew what the medicine was for, but officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho’s effects." 201.19.170.38 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, a moisturizer???--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is many and better sources to know about the link between Prozac type drugs and violence than the Scientology Church. And that link is true for adults too. 201.19.170.38 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is more speculation-type information that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media.  So, it's not really up for inclusion in the article until that time.  That said, I have had experience with close friends on Prozac, and they have said that it works by taking away ALL your emotions, including both happy and unhappy ones, so that you don't care about other people as much.  There is also a very simple reason that antidepressants sometimes allow people to kill themselves-- they were so depressed before they couldn't take any actions or get enough energy to do anything.  Once they begin antidepressant treatment, they feel a bit better and can then take some action, and sometimes that results in suicide.  If the media (or the man's family) decides to take that angle, it will be covered in the article, I'm sure.--Gloriamarie 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of some friends on Prozac is not a reliable source about its possible effects. I sugest starting with this book http://www.prozacbacklash.com/prozacBacklash.html 201.19.170.38 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually misspoke in the previous comment.  It was Paxil I was referring to.  I would only look at scientific, double-blind studies if I was considering taking any of these types of drugs-- the kind you'd find on Pubmed. --Gloriamarie 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, that could only be covered if it's brought up in the media. Paxil? Please read that http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/prozac 201.19.140.36 13:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  antidepressant-induced violence in young people is real 

message: Would it be worth having a section on Jack Thompson and his response? 71.127.199.199 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one earlier....Remember it would have to be cited and comply with WP:BLP.],and be extremely relevant to the VT incident. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should pass, Jack is blaming it on video games when there has been no credible evidence that this guy even played a video game in his life. -Ravedave 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it matter whether he personally has played video games when taking his statements into account?  This guy is a well-known crusader against video games and I believe his son plays (or at least buys) video games.  Watching someone else play will reveal the same information as playing it yourself.  He's a well-known activist against video games.  Someone who is an activist against, for instance, premarital sex doesn't have to have actually had premarital sex to be a good advocate for that.  They would actually be a hypocrite in a way if they had.--Gloriamarie 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, bad grammar. By "this guy" I meant the killer. -Ravedave 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely not.  -  Ennuified  talk  01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Add it to Jack's article if you want. Nobody takes him seriously enough for it to really be worth a mention here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The old bastard's getting enough soundbite time from this as it is; frankly I find it disgusting. HalfShadow 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, given that he's dead, anyone would only be able to guess his motives anyway, and that would be original research. HalfShadow 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently it's been said by his high school friends that Cho liked playing Counter-Strike (it's sourced elsewhere on this talk page, look for it if you want to), but it's not relevant to Thompson's statements because it didn't come to light until after JT was on Fox; not to mention that it means absolutely nothing that he played violent video games.  I think adding this on Thompson's page is a good idea - I'll do it myself tomorrow if no-one does it tonight.  Just leave it off of this page, it certainly doesn't merit inclusion. -  Ennuified  talk   03:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Thompson is an utter crackpot and his views are worthless. Christopher Connor 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite NPOV! :) --Gloriamarie 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Thompson 

message: the interviewer of the suite mate on msnbc mentioned counter strike several times, another instance of the media blaming video games...maybe some one wants to add this or address it in greater length
additionally if you want the Rutgers University response, I can get the email the president sent out.
: It's been covered multiple times. Consensus is not to bother with that, but with the event itself. 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see also here. tomasz. 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blame "Counterstrke" 

message: thumb|The Sydney Morning Herald front page April 18, 2007.
suggestion to remove the picture from the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, which seems to suggest a relationship either current or prior with the first victim, Emily, which was later stated to be not true. it appeared that Cho was obsessed with the girl and that they had no prior relationship
note: i deleted the picture which contains the misleading and contradictory headline YanShen 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference purposes, the image is on the right. --Kizor 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone could get ahold of a low-res image of the Roanoke Times or another local paper's front page, that might be appropriate to include somewhere in the article, as long as the readable text on it was reasonably accurate.  Maybe tomorrow morning's edition would be good to get a thumbnail of.  This is as much a media event now as it is a tragedy.  --Dynaflow 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion to remove picture of the front page of the sydney morning herald 

message: Is Emily's (the first victim) roomate's name relevant.  Because i think i might have it.  she is listed in the article as having talked to the police and having suggested the wrong person (eg: Emily's boyfriend)  - Joetheguy 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if her name appears in multiple reliable sources. We'd better not make the same mistake she made. --129.241.126.121 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found by cross-referencing the Virginia Tech Website yesterday, before they took Emily Hilscher's listing down.  Heather Haugh is listed as having the same address (listed in articles) and phone number (one phone per room) as Emily Hilscher's listing. - Joetheguy 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BLP please don't add information about her unless it's from multiple reliable sources. What you've done constitutes OR and is highly frowned upon in cases of LP Nil Einne 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only OR when he adds it to the article without a reliable source that raises the same issue.  All of us have to do research on this and any other article, to determine what is relevant and notable.Kevinp2 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily Hilscher's roomate 

message: It seems appropriate that there be a comparison between this section and the separate article Cho Seung-hui.  It appears that this section is much larger than normal for a teaser summary.  (This section also could offer improvements for the main article.)  Changes probably need to stablize first or the cross editing could be very difficult.  Any thoughts?  --Lmcelhiney 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move most of it to the gunman article. Christopher Connor 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho Seung-hui section 

message: Is the April 2nd bomb threat relevant as part of the timeline... especially since it then says the person who called it in is unknown --Elg26 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please see here. tomasz. 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline - Bomb Threat 

message: Police never reported that the motive was a domestic dispute between Cho and his ‘girlfriend’ Emily Hilscher.  This seems to be a miss-reported combination of facts -- that the police initially thought Hilscher’s boyfriend was the killer, and that the killer turned out to be Cho.
I suggest changing the line in ‘Possible Motive’ to the following:
 
Early reports suggested that the killing was the result of a domestic dispute, but this was based on the fact that the first victim, Emily Hilscher, had spent the weekend with boyfriend, Karl Thornhill, who was known to own guns.  As police located and questioned Thornhill, the second shooting began.  It was at that time investigators realized their initial theory was incorrect.   
At this time, Cho is not known to have a connection to Hilscher.
Source:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052279&page=1
I'm a new user, so I can't make this change myself.
:In fact, according to tonight's NBC newscast, the cops chasing down Thornhill is the reason so little action was taken to warn the campus. Wahkeenah 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of this great tragedy, that the police leaped to the conclusion (if understandable) that the boyfriend was to blame, and got sidetracked away from finding the real culprit.  Apparently, they were questioning him and realized he was not the culprit when the reports of the second wave of shootings came in.  The poor woman would have been alive if she had stayed late with her boyfriend :-( Kevinp2 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police never said Cho had a girlfriend 

message: should we put up pictures of the victims? Mercenary2k 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against it.  Maybe on the List of Victims page, but not here.Chunky Rice 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you do, it would be best put on the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre article. Also, since they would be fair use, fair use rationale would be required for each photo.↔NMajdan•talk 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, man.  They are notable, but I would agree that pictures don't belong in this article.  Possibly in the list article, but that is a separate discussion.  Tyro 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  maybe "not encyclopaedic" would be a more sensitive rephrasing. tomasz. 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, please do put up pictures if you can.  Knowledge is conveyed in many manners and visual illustrations are a great way of reinforcing text. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just blows my mind that someone would think a list of victims is inappropriate. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of the victims 

message: There should be more about the Facebook response in this article, considering this is a college event and almost every student uses it.
There's a group: "A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech Shooting " which has 230,000 members.  Including 1800 pictures that combine the VT black ribbon with their school logo and the words "Today, we are all Hokies" 
Someone should also mention the history of this black VT ribbon because it is now being used by almost every student at VT as their facebook picture.  --Bbabul01 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you might personally think CNN is irrelevant, but it's still a powerful news-gathering organisation that specialises in facts, as opposed to the digital equivalent of a scrapbook. tomasz. 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are most certainly reliable sources if they are indeed the topic of discussion.  If one states that "There are one billion people in a Facebook group formed only two days ago" and cites that group then that is prima facie evidence of its existence.  More detailed and subjective facts can likely not be sourced via those sources but to declare that those sources can never be cited is short sighted and wrong.  We must use them with great caution but they are certainly usable in certain limited circumstances.  --ElKevbo 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no rule that says we can't ever mention Facebook or MySpace. The problem yesterday was that people were providing MySpace pages as sources of information about news and victims of the massacre, which is definitely not within the reliable sources policy. We certainly can discuss their role in students' communication, coping, etc., provided our sources are news outlets like Forbes. Natalie 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook 

message: I don't really know how to do it, but currently the first two references in the "University response" section are in a different style than the rest.  I'm also not even sure if this is really important or not, but I figured I point it out.  Jauerback 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References fix 

message: In Australia and the UK, the vast majority of articles reporting on the topic include condemnations of the US gun culture (including one by John Howard, so it is not only media, but also the governments). The pro-gun people here will probably not want to include it, but by and large (in Australia and the UK at least) the international response has been the revival of anti-gun discussion. Sad mouse 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it makes it seem like the only response was condolence, while in Australia (for example) the strongest response by the Prime Minister was actually a condemnation of US gun culture. If no one comes up with a good reason to censor the international response (one would think it merits more than a mere list of countries) I will start to add them back in. Sad mouse 21:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that bit based on widespread consensus yesterday, and I dislike the implication that I "censored" anything. Something needed to be done, since the previous version was too long and unwieldy, and I tried to cut it down to a decent length - I don't have a problem with a paragraph on the condemnation of gun culture, but I think listing every response is quote-cruft and more than a couple of paragraphs in the section is overkill -Halo 22:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No "responses" should be included, it's a just a platform for some very stupid people to turn this tragedy into a political point. I'd propose deleting the entire section and may do so later.--Rotten 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's more appropriate for the Gun Control Debate section.--Gloriamarie 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International response 

message: 'On the other side of the issue, the Conservative Voice contrasted the Virginia Tech massacre with the Appalachian School of Law shooting, which occurred about 130 road miles (210 km) to the west in Grundy, Virginia in 2002, and declared, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun."'
This is a case where I feel wikipedia should be more critical. It is correct to report that the Conservative Voice did indeed make that quote. However any quick search brings up examples where school shootings have ended abruptly by police or non-violent means, so it is actually an incorrect statement. Rather than just uncritically repeating quotes, a little thought should go into them to make sure that they are not simply a vehicle for bias. Eg I would suggest '"... and (incorrectly) declared, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen—a potential victim—had a gun."' Sad mouse 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: however right or righteous you feel it might be, we can't be critical in that way – for one thing, it's original research, for another it produces unprofessional-sounding writing, starting to sound like blogging or something. we could, however, set quotes from reliable sources "against" each other to represent the spectrum of recorded opinion. just have to wait for a secondary source to argue the Conservative Voice article. for the record i feel it's incorrect too. Columbine arguably ended "abruptly" and that was because its perpetrators had guns, not the law-abiding citizens they were firing on. tomasz. 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree both with saying it is original research (it is not, it is simply showing facts that discredit the quote) and with saying it is not wikipedia policy (consider articles on global warming and evolution, there are many quotes saying that both are made up by a liberal conspiracy and the articles contain references which discredit their unscientific claims). An encyclopedia does not need to wait for the media to report something as false before saying it is false - it simply needs a verifiable source. In other words, if I bothered to find a single well verified example showing the Conservative Voice's opinion was incorrect we have enough to say it is incorrect without waiting for a media report. Sad mouse 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's here to be balanced. If you're trying to state the other side of an issue, it definitely defeats the purpose to cut down the quote as being inaccurate. If the quote is overly opinionated or incorrect, find another one that does the job. Criticizing the media is what blogging is for. Blakwyte 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. If the New York Times said that World War I occurred in 1811 and that quote was for some reason required, we could say it is incorrect with a simple link to the WWI article without waiting for another media outlet to say it is inaccurate. Encyclopedias do not require media soundbites to correct misstatements. Sad mouse 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a much more controversial statement than your example. The definition of "abruptly" in particular is extremely ambiguous. But the point of this section of the article isn't to present facts, it's to present opinions, and it doesn't seem that you can (or should) really judge whether the Conservative Voice has stated an opinion that is based in fact or not. If you have another article that more accurately states the flip-side of this argument, then by all means present it, but I think discrediting their opinion completely defeats the purpose of this section. Blakwyte 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of the Conservative Voice is of value only if it is based in fact, my preference (over saying it is incorrect) would be simply to delete it. Showing two sides of the argument is fine, but only show factual sides. Sad mouse 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It's a perfectly valid opinion, although poorly worded. If you want it changed or removed I suggest finding another quote that shows the pro-gun side of the argument, or getting consensus for deletion. Blakwyte 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: you wouldn't need a direct contradication of the NYT's source, but you would still need a verifiable source of the War's actual dates (which would clearly be easy to find). tomasz. 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my exact point, so if I go get a single example showing the Conservative Voice's opinion was not factual, we can site that without waiting for the media to contest it. Sad mouse 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i suspect you'd have an easier time finding a fact to support a date like the First World War than you would to disprove an opinion like this one which could easy lead to a nuanced and expansive debate that doesn't belong here. we're collecting the facts about this incident, not editorialising about whether such-and-such would be possible and supporting or disproving hacks' personal theories. tomasz. 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's actually quite a bit of evidence for the Conservative Voice's statement. From what I've read (in opinion pieces, haven't checked to see how much research they've done) it is government policy during an event like this to "seal the perimeter" and wait, which is exactly what happened in this case and the Columbine case, where the killers ultimately just decided to stop. I could probably look up some hard evidence on this if anyone is interested in reading it. Blakwyte 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not editorialising if a verifiable reference is included. We should not simply repeat every prominent opinion uncritically, and do not in the best wikipedia articles. Sad mouse 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like repeating prominent opinions uncritically, Wikipedia isn't for you I'm afraid - as anything else is original research and leads to all sorts of bias problems. I think it's fine as it is (even though, for the record, it's not my personal viewpoint) -Halo 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect and not the criteria wikipedia uses, see the examples I gave at global warming and evolution. Sad mouse 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, see WP:V and have stated my viewpoint. Also worth noting the articles you linked to aren't featured (and as such aren't held up as following Wikipedia policy), and Wikipedia is consensus rather than precedent-based. Either way, we have differing opinions, and I don't want to spend all day on a talk page arguing about it -Halo 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be good if both sides were subjected to some critical thinking. Sad mouse 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people do a lot of critical thinking on this issue.  Some other possible sources for the gun rights side of this section could be Reason Online. --Gloriamarie 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media response 

message: I'm currently watching non-live press conference on BBC World that states that the gunman is believed to have sent material to NBC between the first and the second shootings. It's in as much detail as possible at MSNBC. Get this looked at, NOW. (Sorry for not doing this myself, but I'm on break from the article right now, doing creative writing) --Kizor 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was sent to NBC, not CNN.  129.120.86.70 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: NBC just showed some of the video and the papers sent in the package. The reason they believe it took as long to show up as it did was because of the wrong zipcode. The feds have the originals, of course, NBC copied them first. Pictures of guns, a knife, hollow-point bullets lined up "artistically" and a bunch of text with no paragraph breaks and it goes on and on for pages, they say. Not sure what is written on those pages though. Jeeny 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho's correspondence with NBC 

message: Apparently Cho, when he went to reload and write the "disturbing note" recorded a video and prompted it be sent to NBC. It was sent to NBC, turned over to police, whom turned it over to FBI. It also came with multi-paged statements. Anyone have any more information?
:It was sent to NBC, not CNN.  129.120.86.70 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NBC just showed some of the video and the papers sent in the package. The reason they believe it took as long to show up as it did was because of the wrong zipcode. The feds have the originals, of course, NBC copied them first. Pictures of guns, a knife, hollow-point bullets lined up "artistically" and a bunch of text with no paragraph breaks and it goes on and on for pages, they say. Not sure what is written on those pages though. Jeeny 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video/Pages sent to NBC 

message: Can someone make the lead bigger? And archive this talk page. 129.120.86.70 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Would it be worth including some of the copycat threats? Darrik2 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You'd just be giving them attention. Think of them as the real-world equivalent of trolls. HalfShadow 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well put.Sierrarose23 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about now?  I added the reference to (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_108200741.html) noting that UC Hastings College of the Law has been evacuated due to a copycat threat.  Worth including? Qnonsense 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copycats 

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/  151.213.177.128 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Photo released on MSNBC 

message: rough transcript of Cho Seung-Hui's media manifesto, which was released by NBC Nightly news
package was sent from an "ishmael" (spelling unknown)
When the time came, I did it. I had to.
You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today.
But you decided to spill my blood.
You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option.
The decision was yours.
Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.
You just loved crucifying me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and raping my soul all this time.
I didnt have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no. I will no longer run. If not for me, for my children. For my brothers and sisters that you fucked. I did it for them.
Cho also referenced Dylan and Eric as "martyrs" in his media, but this was not shown on TV.
EDIT: more excerpts from NBC News
You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.
Do you know what it feels to be spit on your face and to have trash shoved down your throat? Do you know what it feels like to dig your own grave?
Do you know what it feels like to have throat slashed from ear to ear? Do you know what it feels like to be torched alive?
Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement? You have never felt a single ounce of pain your whole life. Did you want to inject as much misery in our lives as you can just because you can?
You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.
151.213.177.128 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcript 

message: Untruthful (from Webster's): 
   2.  Given to falsehood; mendacious.
"Untruthful Media Reports" seems to imply that the information was purposefully false. 
It would seem that "Inaccurate Media Reports" would be more, well, accurate - as I'm sure that the early media reports were not purposefully incorrect. 
Bobcooley 00:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm maintaining a rather loud silence about the amount of effort they likely spent to ensure the accuracy of this scoop, I have to agree with you. Changed. --Kizor 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untruthful Media Reports? 

message: 24.234.97.79 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It should be included in this or the killer's article, as appropriate. Titanium Dragon 00:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably both places, I would think. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should The NBC package be split into a seperate article 

message: This was not the deadliest non-military civilian massacre in US history. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was. Can someone change this, or at least get a source that proves the Virginia Tech shooting as the deadliest. (KingBurgermon 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in modern US history. tomasz. 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: twisting of words.  Most people wont catch the "modern", and who's to say what modern means?  last twenty years?  last hundred? last thousand?  far to subjective, and discounts history( mountain meadows, wounded knee).  If another qualifier were added, say "deadliest single perpetrator massacre" or such it would be ok.  I'd change it, but I'm new enough to be locked out of editing this article.  Sierrarose23 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not so much twisting of words as reporting what the verifiable sources are saying. tomasz. 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was extensive discussion on this earlier in the day - look in the archive. Several news sources have used 'worst mass shooting/killing in modern US history'. It's attributable so that's what we went with. BTW - the Fort Pillow massacre was worse than Mountain Meadows. Ronnotel 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change it to recent history? Then you have you cake and can eat it, too.HalfShadow 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs to be attributable or it borders on WP:OR. Find a statement that says 'recent history' and you're good. Ronnotel 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably word-twisting, but couldn't 'modern' be 'recent' by default? I'm just trying to find a way to make both sides happy. HalfShadow 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because the news is sensationalist doesnt mean wikipedia needs to be.  I like the idea of changing the word to recent from modern.  And I would dissagree with it being original research.  It is just a single word change and technically both "modern" and "recent" mean the same thing in this context, though they have different implications.  Also, the occurence of larger massacres in the past is common knowledge. Ignoring them, regardless of what the headlines are saying, seems to discount a significant amount of US history.. Sierrarose23 05:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. Mountain Meadows was an act of war, specifically the Utah War. szyslak (t, c) 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOT the deadliest

message: How are the ethnicities of the victims relevant? AFAIK no one is claiming this to be a racially motivated attack, so it seems like adding the races/ethnicities of the victims is unecessary. Natalie 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been removing it when I see it. I do believe that an attributable statement describing the attacks as non-racist might be appropriate - but only in the Motives section, not where it keeps being put. Ronnotel 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info - I just couldn't stand looking through 500 diffs to see why it was there. Natalie 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicities of the victims 

message: Hey You all... We don't have much info on Wayne Chiang... The dude who collected weapons and was accused at first... I started a little blurb about him int he "inaccurate media reports" section, prevoisly named "untruthful media reports"... I changed the name and added that section...
I felt that it was too sloppy the parts i added, can you guys help he fix it up? This is the first major edit ive made to a significant event's article...
-- OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayne Chiang 

message: On April 18, NBC News received a package from Cho timestamped between the first two murders and the rest of the massacre two hours later. It contained a 1,800-word manifesto[50], pictures, and 23 videos.[51] In the videos, sent in  QuickTime format , Cho discussed his religion and his hatred of the wealthy.
Radikaos 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least so people understand that he didn't send them 23 video tapes, but I imagine no information would be lost if we said "digital video files" or similar. Natalie 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ahh I see now, OK. Radikaos 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distractions 

message: It is not known what, if any, previous firearm experience or training Cho had completed before the massacre. It is not known where or how Cho obtained  the chain  with which he locked the doors at the stairway in the engineering classroom building.
Maybe the idea of the chain should be introduced before this, would make for a better flow in the article (personal opinion)
Radikaos 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Introduction 

message: I think the main picture needs to change. All it shows a bunch of students standing around. The iconic picture of this massacre is 4 cops carrying a bloodied student....Thats what is needs to go in the main boxMercenary2k 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's iconic doesn't really matter. Sure it's nice to have such an image up, but there's no hurry...-Phoenix 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that "what's iconic doesn't matter"? I'm sorry, but having a picture of a group of students AFTER the incident is not relevant to the main theme of this article. As long as it's free, a non-disturbing, acceptable image from the actual event should be included. WiiAlbanyGirl 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: Topeka, KS based hate-fueled Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, plan to "preach" their hate filled message at the funeral's of the VA Tech Massacre victims. These pickets usually consist of signs containing defamatory slogans, such as God Hates F*gs, [subject] are in Hell! (in this case, they would claim the victims are in hell), and others I don't feel are neccessary to repeat here. 
The WBC Sites:
http://www.godhatesamerica.com
http://www.godhatesfags.com
News sites on the picketing plans:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/national/main2699800.shtml
http://themoderatevoice.com/religion/12273/virginia-tech-protection-needed-as-with-columbine-funerals-and-memorial-services-pastor-fred-is-coming-to-spread-his-screed-at-vt/
Forgive me if I have added this entry wrong. Kennethv 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, those people are still around? Isn't that guy like, 90? Natalie 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, yes. Kennethv 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And not to be upstaged, you can assume that Vince McMahon, Jerry Springer, and Bozo the Clown will be there, too. Wahkeenah 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. What became of the time when the worst disruptions at public events were from streakers or Rockin' Rollen? Wahkeenah 04:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry about it. Other churches thing they're subhuman monsters. HalfShadow 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind churches - biker gangs are morally outraged. Natalie 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KS based "hate" church planning to picket the funerals of the VA Tech Massacre victims. 

message: Some people are blaming immigration and the cross cultural transition as the reason for the killings.
http://vdare.com/pb/070418_vt.htm
just wondering whether you guys want to include this in the article
Mercenary2k 05:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  irrelevent.  If everyone who can possibly tie this shooting into their own personal political agenda is featured on wikipedia we'd be swamped.  Later, after things have calmed down a bit we can determine which of the political debates lasted longer than one editorial, whether that be gun control, free speech, immigration, mental health services, or whatever else.  In the mean time I dont think it belongs. Sierrarose23 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All kinds of attention whores and morons will, of course, blame anything. Just see: this cartoon --Svetovid 11:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration as reason for killings 

message: I removed the paragraph quoting an Australian psychologist's viewpoint -- I think this kind of distance diagnosis is inappropriate, as it is obvious the commenter never directly assessed the shooter.  It has been reinstated by its original contributor.  Other viewpoints? Sfmammamia 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives: Psychologizing 

message: This section needs to be renamed and encylopedized. Its pretty bad right now. It should probably be integrated inline into the narrative of the attack; it shouldn't be singled out and DEFINITELY shouldn't be called something as POV as "heroic", which is completely inappropriate for an encylopedia. Titanium Dragon 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? John Reaves (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know how to feel about it. The name is indeed anti encyclopedical. But also... relevance?... maybe it could fit in a narration on the facts, but sounds like trivia in an encyclopedia article. Another suggestion could be to move the info to the a personal page of those who did the so called "heroic acts". I don't do the edit myself as i feel it needs consensus --Legion fi 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there is definitely some room for (sourced) vignettes that illustrate key actions of the victims as they dealt with this shooter. I agree that "heroic acts" is a totally inappropriate title and invites wikipedia to list people as "heroes" when that is not our judgement to make. Perhaps we would frame these vignettes as "well substantiated events during the shootings that have no time stamped record" ... clearly things happened that aren't on the timeline because we don't know when exactly they happened. This section will give us room to list them even if we can't fit them into the timeline (yet) MPS 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet there are many Reliable Sources, very reputable newspapers, that designate these people as such. I would think that most people would consider barricading a door with ones body while allowing everyone else to escape is heroic and we have many citations to back it up. --Valley2city₪‽ 07:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are quotations of multiple sources (even reliables ones) saying they are heroes. But we cannot add it to the article because they violate the NPOV Wiki standar. Sorry. --Legion fi 08:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole section should be cleaned from Not-Neutral POV and integrated into the section Norris Hall shootings. --Abe Lincoln 08:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another proposal: Move the section (or at least the parts that are not describtion of events but media reaction to it) to "Responses to the incidents" (may be after "University response") and rename it "Tribute to self-sacrificing behavior" (or something like that, I am not a native English speaker). --Abe Lincoln 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I restructured it. You might adjust the wording, remove redundant parts and make continuous text out the lists. --Abe Lincoln 08:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroic Acts 

message: I am not too familiar with wikipedia's stance regarding these, so I'm posting them here first since they're in .pdf format:
*Warrant used to search Cho's room Please note on the fifth page, Item #1, the chain investigators are arguing is similar to that found to chain inside Harris Hall and Item #1, a dremel tool, investigators are arguing was used to file the serial number off the guns
*Court order declaring Cho an imminent danger  Please note on the Doctor Certification on page 4, such declaration is marked "is not".
Hope this helps.  -Shirley Grace 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Documents related to case 

message: There was an image on here yesterday that showed the shooter and another person both wearing masks. The other person appeared to be Caucasian. This image was in the article last night. Does anyone know what happened to it, Where it came from, why it was removed?Wikidudeman (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older image on here yesturday...