Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dynaflow (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 7 May 2007 (→Amaraiel's Response to Merge Rant: I'm getting my locations all confused. Lost in Wikispace!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Tech shooting is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-04-29 Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically. This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

	Virginia Tech shooting is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

On 23 April 2007, Virginia Tech shooting was linked from The New York Times, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Misplaced Pages serves as Internet news source on the Virginia Tech shootings". International Herald Tribune. April 23, 2007.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Backlash?

Not enough to say either way right now, so I'm not adding it to the article, but just saw this http://www.nbc13.com/gulfcoastwest/vtm/news.apx.-content-articles-VTM-2007-04-24-0008.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.176.142 (talk) 20:57, 24 April, 2007 (UTC)

Worst shooting in US history?!

Is this country really that uneducated and ignorant? Or is it just that white people are what count? I was under the impression that the worst mass shooting in U.S. History was the massacre ate Wounded Knee or Sand Creek!!

"I can't take one more of these headlines," said Joan Redfern, a member of the Lakota Sioux tribe who lives in Hollister. "Haven't any of these people ever heard of the Massacre at Sand Creek in Colorado, where Methodist minister Col. Chivington massacred between 200 and 400 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, most of them women, children, and elderly men?"

And:

"At Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota, the U.S. 7th Cavalry attacked 350 unarmed Lakota Sioux on December 29, 1890. While engaged in a spiritual practice known as the "Ghost Dance," approximately 90 warriors and 200 women and children were killed. Although the attack was officially reported as an "unjustifiable massacre" by Field Commander General Nelson A. Miles, 23 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for the slaughter. The unarmed Lakota men fought back with bare hands. The elderly men and women stood and sang their death songs while falling under the hail of bullets. Soldiers stripped the bodies of the dead Lakota, keeping their ceremonial religious clothing as souvenirs.

"To say the Virginia shooting is the worst in all of U.S. history is to pour salt on old wounds-it means erasing and forgetting all of our ancestors who were killed in the past," Redfern said." --207.81.87.20 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the worst school shooting in modern U.S. history. Phony Saint 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly read the footnotes associated with the text - it spells out in some detail the qualifiers that apply to the description in the lead. In particular, see footnote 103 which specifically references the Wounded Knee Massacre. The term 'modern' distinguishes this event from those prior incidents. Ronnotel 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction to my previous statement: the lead doesn't indicate that it's the deadliest school shooting or done by a single perpetrator, and neither do some news reports. Someone else should fix that as I can't find appropriate wording.

In addition, references 102 and 103 don't link to reliable sources, so most of the Historical Context section isn't reliably sourced. I'm fairly certain that can be corrected with current sources. Phony Saint 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but the pages pointed at by notes 102 & 103 do have reliable sources - presumably all one would need to do is bring those sources forward and link to them rather than the wiki pages. Ronnotel 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of the reference entirely. Its not the worst school-related killing, its not the worst mass shooting... its just sensationalism. We should just nix the whole "worst ever" because if you have to qualify it not once but -twice- that's far from the worst. Titanium Dragon 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that the article on Columbine has this sentence in the summary: "It is the third-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and the 1966 University of Texas massacre." For internal consistency, it seems entirely appropriate to have a similar sentence in the summary for this article. Sfmammamia 22:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rank ordering them is silly; I don't think its particularly notable unless its the worst. Titanium Dragon 04:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, now it is even MORE incorrect, as the Bath School Disaster was modern and about 50% deadlier. Titanium Dragon 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

80 years ago isn't terribly modern... HalfShadow 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bath School Disaster was not a school shooting, so the Columbine sentence is technically correct. Whether it belongs in that article should be discussed on that article's talk page. All I'm saying is that a statement of significance would be internally consistent. Sfmammamia 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A few hours later, no takers, so I made an attempt. Externally referenced, at least. Not perfect, but I believe the summary needs a statement of significance of some kind, similar to the Columbine article. Sfmammamia 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Also, as a side note, from this, the toll was 38, higher than 33. That was still far less notable than this, though. – AstroHurricane001 00:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, Heaven's Gate was at least as notable as this. It was a very big deal when it happened. However, like all such things, it has faded from memory as this will in 10 years. Titanium Dragon 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Heaven's Gate is not comparable at all, in that it was a totally different type of incident. Sfmammamia 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was very much comparable in scale and sensationalist coverage, much like this incident. Its death toll was also similar. Claiming otherwise is recentism at work, which is the fundamental problem with this article. Well, that and memorializing. Titanium Dragon 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparing a cult mass suicide to a school shooting? Sorry, I maintain they are very different TYPES of incidents. Sfmammamia 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is pure sensationalism. If the statement has to be qualified so many times, is it really worth making? Also, can somebody qualify what counts as modern U.S. history and what doesn't? Are we talking 10, 20, 50, 100, or years here? Possibly more? I think it might be beneficial to the article and its readers if we added something about it being the deadliest shooting since Sand Creek or whichever the last massacre was that was mentioned above. —Mears man 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that Cho killed American citizens in the United States of America, whereas the killings of native American tribes during the Westward Expansion--however tragic--hardly qualifies as the killings of US citizens, or on soil that was yet incorporated into the republic as "America"? I don't want to minimize the tragedy, but the natives weren't even citizens of the republic. Scientz 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning a historical event such as Sand Creek in the lead would be out of context and most likely confuse the reader. Also, the phrase modern US history is generally interpreted to start in late industrialization - mid-1890's - see here for a course syllabus. Googling for the phrase deadliest shooting in modern US history picks up about 1800 hits in the news space, here is but one. However, the current phrase, deadliest school shooting in modern US history, picks only seven. As per WP:ATT, I believe we should be using the most commonly used term for this event. Ronnotel 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is WRONG. It isn't notable either. All it is is sensationalism. If you have to qualify it three times because it wasn't the deadliest school related killing and it wasn't the deadliest shooting in all of US history then it isn't worth mentioning at all. It is pure recentism. I'm tired of people coming on and trying to make more of this incident than it was. This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial, not a "aw, we feel sorry for you", not a sensationalist press. Titanium Dragon 08:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, what's 'wrong' about the phrase as it stands - deadliest shooting in modern US history. You need to cite a reference before claiming it's wrong. I also disagree with your charges of recentism or sensationalism. The phrase as it stands is highly attributable - which is the relevant benchmark for us to use. Ronnotel 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that, without additional qualifiers, it's blatantly false. Is it the deadliest shooting by one person or by any number of people? What qualifies as recent U.S. history? That multiple news sources stated it is not enough; it's a trivial fact, one the news sources didn't go over in detail. We don't have to include every tidbit of information, especially when it's false. Phony Saint 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reference above about the qualification of the term modern. Rather than make a blanket assertion about what's true or false, please cite references to support your assertions. If you can find attributable evidence that the statement is false, then fine. Ronnotel 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron: I guess some people just don't give up. Titanium: Please give it a rest, your assymetrical interest in the wording of this issue is getting rather tired. The Misplaced Pages community has gone over this time and time again, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. The qualifiers have been added to increase the accuracy, and the archives of this discussion are filled with evidence of the community's decision. Scientz 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The qualifiers are hinting at WP:SYN; that is, no third-party sources have directly compared Virginia Tech with others, nor qualified what they mean by modern U.S. history. The problem is that you're attempting to connect A and B when a third-party source should have already done so.

To give another example, early reports indicated the shooter was Chinese, and that is attributable; do we include it just because somebody did state it? Do we include qualifiers that the shooter was not, in fact, Chinese? Are the qualifiers attributable in relationship with this event? Phony Saint 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Many, many sources (1800+?) have used the phrase as it stands. That's overwhelming evidence of attribution and we're simply following WP policy by including the phrase here. Let's not get caught up in semantic games and focus on sources. Please cite sources to support your assertions and you'll have a better chance of convincing others of your point of view. Ronnotel 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ron. Semantics is the game being played here. Also, please refer to my comment that "Has it occurred to you that Cho killed American citizens in the United States of America, whereas the killings of native American tribes during the Westward Expansion--however tragic--hardly qualifies as the killings of US citizens, or on soil that was yet incorporated into the republic as "America"?"Scientz 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Most news reports do not clarify that it is the worst killing of United States citizens in an incorporated state. If they do, I'd like to see them. You and Ronnotel can only qualify the statement based on your own interpretations. At best, we can say that news sources call it "the worst shooting in modern U.S. history." Phony Saint 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Our intepretations of the English language are based on denotation, not connotation. "The worst shooting in modern U.S. history." Exactly. Which also makes this a perfect illustration of how you're playing semantics with this issue. "Modern" is a matter of historical study, which (as qualified later in the article) means something akin to "since World War II." Again, your semantics are doing nothing to add to the article, not to mention the fact that issue was already decided by consensus at least two weeks ago. Scientz 11:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It is not, in fact, qualified later in the article, unless I'm missing a section. Previous consensus did not scrutinize sources, and no source states anything other than "the worst shooting in U.S. history" or "the worst shooting in modern U.S. history," which is all we should put in there, attributing that phrase to news reports. (I would question why consensus at least two weeks ago - the day of the shooting - would matter, but that's irrelevant.) Phony Saint 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but this type of assymetrical semantic nonsense is why I don't edit more often. However, I do credit you for not waging an edit-war. Scientz 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you at least point me to where the qualifiers are, instead of repeatedly dismissing my statements as semantics? Phony Saint 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It IS semantics because using "modern" to be historically accurate without including reference to Sand Creek or Wounded Knee does not violate WP:OR policy on connecting A to B. Read the example in the policy. That example and this situation are hardly similar. Your attempt to draw comparison between the two is what qualifies this as semantics. Your insistence on revisiting an issue that has already been decided goes against Wiki policy on consensus. Not to mention that Wounded Knee and Sand Creek don't belong in this article for other reasons, but the ones cited are the easiest to understand with clear references in the policy. Scientz 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You do realize that I'm attempting to drop the issue, and that all I'm wondering about is where the qualifiers stated to be further down the article are? It seems you and Ronnotel don't agree on what "modern" means (he says 1890's, you say post-WWII), and I just really want to read the sources. Phony Saint 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be removed entirely because it adds nothing to the article. All it seems to be is sensationalism. The Bath School disaster was deadlier. Lots of massacres of Native Americans were worse. It is simply not meaningful. If it was the worst, bar none, in US history, then sure, include it. If you have to use ambigous words like modern, then it probably isn't worth including. Just because the news sensationalizes doesn't mean we have to. Should most of Clinton's article be about the Lewinsky affair because the news media is stupid? No. We're an encyclopedia, and deadliest isn't all that meaningful when you qualify it twice. Titanium Dragon 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon here. News sources are actually pretty unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing, so it is best to not propagate inaccuracies. Either leave the sensationalism (any sentence beginning "worst ever") out altogether and wait for a reliable source to get the historical context correct, or limit the historical context to relevant material (other US school shootings and other 'modern' mass shootings). The Bath School disaster, as a set of homicides, is probably the only other relevant historical event. The 19th century Indian massacres are of a qualitatively different type, as are the much worse school disasters involving fires (I pointed some out in the talk archive, see Category:School fires) so mentioning them here without a reliable source making the comparison for us, is too much like original research/synthesis. Carcharoth 12:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that a statement of scope and context adds "nothing" to the article is clearly not a consensus view here. One of the first questions anyone asks of such incidents, for better or worse, is, how bad was it? How did it compare in scope to other similar events? It's not sensationalism to label the incident as it has been labeled by thousands to date. On another point -- the continued use of other unrelated examples thrown into the discussion here (now school fires added to the list!) -- This was a shooting incident, by one man with two handguns. It should be compared ONLY with other shooting incidents. To do otherwise fogs the context, and in my view, appears a deliberate attempt to downplay the significance and divert attention from the specifics of this event. The guy used handguns. Sfmammamia 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the worst shooting of its kind in US history. The school shooting is bad enough, but what that guy did at the Bath Massacre in the 1920's was an isolated incident of insanity. However, 220 school shootings in 12 years is not isolated, and speaks to a modern American sociological phenomenon. Sand Creek and Wounded Knee were military campaigns against non-citizens; as tragic as they were, they are not the same type of incident as the modern phenomenon. "Deadliest shooting in modern US history" is a perfect wording to reflect exactly what this was, and the description is in no way sensational. Titanium, I don't disagree that the news media is sensational, however I disagree that the current phrasing is unencyclopedic. Scientz 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take out room number

I feel that, out of the respect for the people at Tech who live in the room where the victim was shot, the room number should be removed from this article. I wouldn't want future residents to have gawkers coming to their hall to see where it all happened.

ThanksJaxter1987 03:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be callous, but it's not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be "respectful", and anyway such a determination will almost inevitably be one of non-NPOV if it is allowed to be made. If there are other valid reasons for removing that information, then by all means remove it. But the facts of the matter are what they are, and the whole world has to live with that. Matt Gies 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally find the room numbers unecessary (I removed class room numbers a few days ago for the same reason) but if other people feel they really add something I don't mind keeping them. What do we think - are the room numbers relevant or not? Natalie 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the classroom numbers are acceptable, because those are generally public spaces or at least spaces frequented by many people. They are less person than the room numbers in the dorm, which people live in, next to, or near. So, leave classroom numbers and get rid of dorm room numbers. --Daysleeper47 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning sounds, er, reasonable to me! --ElKevbo 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave both. None of the above is grounds for removing content. 64.236.245.243 19:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone remember, users without account only count as half of those of us with accounts. 64.236.245.243, your thoughts are duly noted. --Daysleeper47 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Anons are treated equally, although there are some rare exceptions (IPs can't vote at WP:RFA for instance). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

What is the point of including room numbers? Does it add anything to the article? Is anyone going to care in a year? We need a good reason to include things, not just no reasons to keep them out. Natalie 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Remove trivial information. We don't need to record everything (that job belongs to other people, and later researchers will go to those sources, and won't come here - they shouldn't anyway). Misplaced Pages should provide general, in-depth coverage of the event, allowing people to understand the event and read background information. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be providing a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened and where. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Not all 'true' information needs to be included in an article. Carcharoth 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Making a list of injured individuals by name

I started accounting for injured individuals as described in media accounts - See Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors.2Fwounded - I also included the injuries sustained by the wounded. I also included names of uninjured individuals, though in the end they will NOT be listed with the injured in the victims list. WhisperToMe 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only one question. Why? Who is interested in a list of the injured? Carcharoth 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The person who wrote List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre included the injured. The timeline at Columbine_High_School_massacre includes the injuries sustained by the victims. WhisperToMe 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Sfmammamia, the sources are right in front of you. WhisperToMe 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Exhaustive lists of surviving victims and their injuries may also be straying into areas of questionable taste and utility. --Dynaflow 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? The timeline on the article? WhisperToMe 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would also question the utility and tastefulness of the Columbine bloody-laundry list. Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it doesn't mean it should be emulated. At least the Columbine list's creators refrained from including the even more gratuitous "blow-by-blow" details of the victims' respective terminal brutalizations. The Klebold-Harris snuff pic is also a nice touch; perhaps that will be emulated on the VT list as well? One can only hope. --Dynaflow 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does "Mark Taylor shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll." NOT look like blow by blow to you? Anyway, I hate it when WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to completely ignore precedent. No, one cannot ignore precedent. You just have to be very careful with precedent. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is okay when someone creates an obviously blatant error, and then creates another one and uses a previous one to justify it. WhisperToMe 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That line doesn't exist on the list of Columbine victims page, as far as I can see. As for "precedent," the point of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS invocation is that there is not necessarily any precedent in Misplaced Pages. We're not arguing a case in common-law-system courtroom; we are discussing what, exactly, is a useful addition to an encyclopedia. Also, this VT list does not simply emulate the Columbine list. It goes beyond it towards a whole new level of grisly tragedy-voyeurism (except, of course, for the cool, totally encyclopedic, brain-chunks picture of Klebold and Harris -- the Columbine list is still ahead of y'all there). --Dynaflow 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow: 1. If one set of editors (I.E. Columbine editors) believed that a detailed explanation of what the bullets hit is encyclopedic, then we will determine the same thing too. The injuries are encyclopedic as they accurately illustrate EXACTLY what happened in those classrooms in Norris Hall. Also, aside from the one entry that mentions what the bullet that hit Strollo and the bicep mention for the guy in 204, I cannot possibly see how the list for V-Tech is more detailed than the list for Columbine. See, that's two entries... two. And, even then, I would still keep them. Strollo's entry illustrates that the bullet severely wounded her and had the potential to kill her. A Misplaced Pages encyclopedia article can go into some detail, Dynaflow. Also, we are not sanitized. I believe I can find an entry about that. In fact, the only reason why pictures like Goatse aren't on Misplaced Pages is because those pics are copyrighted. I understand that the details of the shots may disturb you. That is to be expected: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored mentions that contents may be disturbing. WhisperToMe 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Whispertome, "Not censored" is nothing at all like "not edited." Questions of taste and propriety are absolutely within our standards. That is, in fact, in large part what editing is. Responsible editing, in fact, is more about deciding what to exclude than about deciding what to include. Nandesuka 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I stand on my point. I will exclude anything not verifiable and I will also avoid peacock terms. There. That should be enough to end that point. WhisperToMe 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

From the side conversation going on at Dynaflow's talk page

Questionable taste? You mean Columbine_High_School_massacre? That article has lists of injuries. So, then, why can't V-Tech? By the way, the claims of original research are false; I have provided extensive press sources from various newspapers. WhisperToMe 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else made the call on original research, not me. The Columbine list also strains the rubrics of good taste and encyclopedic merit. See the talk page for a more-complete response. I will have that page on my watchlist. --Dynaflow 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean this: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

If the bullet hits were not relevant - if what I posted there was posted to an article about sunflowers and kittens, you would have every right to remove it. For instance, Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer has "Misplaced Pages may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs)

Note that the disclaimer does not say "Wikipedians will try to trigger your post-traumatic stress disorder whenever possible." Anyway, that's not my objection (and note that it's not a "true" objection because I haven't suggested the article be taken to AfD). All I'm saying is that the "annotated list" is tasteless and useless, on top of being voyeuristic and exploitationist, and it doesn't merit the time and effort that's being poured into it. --Dynaflow 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You should not read massacre articles if you do not like hearing details about... a massacre. Anyway, your proposal in fact will sanitize the article. That's something not desireable for an NPOV encyclopedia. WhisperToMe 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, one last thing: The details will not stay on that page forever - Once, and I mean once a timeline is established, I will move the details of the injuries to the timeline. Until then, the details should stay with the injured list. WhisperToMe 03:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your phrase, "accounting for injured individuals," in your opening message. If your ultimate intent is only to create a partial, incomplete list of the injured from media accounts, without drawing any conclusions as to how many people were ultimately injured, either by Cho in the attacks, or in their efforts to escape, THAT would not be original research. Any attempt to draw conclusions or total it up (what I thought you meant by "accounting") WOULD be original research (synthesis serving to advance a position). Sfmammamia 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I.E. I stated (I just added it to Norris 211's injured list, though)... "Injured students in Norris 211

(This list is partial)

• Allison Claire Cook"

I also added: "Injured students, classroom not stated" to account for people who I know are injured, but I do not know where they were at the time.

I have no sources that describe where Justin Klein was, so I cannot say where he Justin Klein was.

WhisperToMe 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The only place to get an authoritative list of injured would be from Virginia Tech itself. However, they have declined to release the list (correctly in my view) citing confidentiality concerns and in fact, the HIPAA law. See footnote 3. Best to drop it, I think. Ronnotel 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

NBC News documentary

This section was removed by Ronnotel because "there were hundreds of stories on this incident - dressing one up and calling it a 'documentary' does not make it notable". However, au contraire, Ron, the documentary does have notability because it was produced by NBC News, the very organization that Cho allegedly mailed his "media package" to. And I'm pretty sure NBC News has enough credibility and reliability (despite what some conspiracy theorists may believe). I think it should be restored. Ron didn't show any evidence of other hour-long "stories" that aired on primetime cable TV produced by a major worldwide TV network for a documentary channel like The History Channel.

The History Channel aired a documentary film produced by NBC News, Virginia Tech: Eyewitness to Tragedy, on April 26, 2007 about the massacre. This may very well be the fastest-produced documentary of an event so soon after it occurred.

-Eep² 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that there are many, many stories on this event. What makes the documentary notable? If you can distill that down into an encyclopedic description and attribute it to reliable sources, then fine. For instance, it might be notable if there was an independent review of the documentary that can be cited. However, the text simply stated that a documentary had been rushed out in 'record' time, or some such - which simply doesn't add anything beyond the hundreds of cited references already here. Ronnotel 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a documentary, not a "story". Name one televised "story" that has been an hour long and has been an extensive timeline of events about this massacre that aired in primetime on a cable TV channel--go ahead; I'll wait here... The notibility is in the elapsed time it took for such a documentary to be created after such an event. -Eep² 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is fine so long as you can attribute it to a reliable source - i.e. a published article that describes how quickly after the event the documentary was produced. Ronnotel 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to visit the source link I originally provided with the claim, Ron? "In a case of instant history, The History Channel will be airing a one-hour special on the Virginia Tech shootings Thursday at 10 p.m." implies how fast the documentary was produced after the event, to me... -Eep² 21:06, 28 April

An independent source, not a self-serving reference, please. Ronnotel 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, TelevisionWeek (not this TV Week) isn't affiliated with NBC News... -Eep² 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That reference does not state how the documentary was notable. You're going to have to tell us why it is notable according to Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, not your own definition of "notable." Phony Saint 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link by Conservative Voice

I had removed the link by Conservative Voice simply because its not a reputed link. Can somebody put a link from another reputed source there?Hahahaha1 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "reputable", as opposed to "reputed"? I tried, with Ted Nugent's commentary on CNN. Better??Sfmammamia 22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Personally speaking I dont agree with the whole Ted Nugent view because its like saying ' All countries should be allowed to develop nuclear warheads to protect themselves from nuclear attacks'. But that said, as long as the source is 'reputable', its fine.Hahahaha1 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC as external link

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

All right, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Natalie 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like it was added back in inadvertently with a large revert by Dynaflow. I removed it once again. If a single news outlet is chosen, it should probably be http://www.CollegiateTimes.com/, the VT newspaper. Sean

Sorry about that. 207.127.128.2 was on some sort of rampage and incrementally blanking the article, section by section. I undid one of the series of blankings, not realizing the extent of the damage, and while I was trying to find the last intact version to restore everything to how it was before the IPvandal showed up, one of you must have been editing the fragment I had just restored. Such is the price we pay for working on the encyclopedia not just "anyone," but anyone, can edit. --Dynaflow 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, these things happen. At least through the magic power of binary there is not end of things that can undone. Natalie 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sneed?

I notice the entry about inaccurate report by Michael Sneed from Sun-Times has been totally removed. Looks like there are quite a few Philistines on Misplaced Pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).

I have added the related section back. This is an important incident related to the massacre. You shouldn't try to hide the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs).

The problem with the entire "inaccurate media reports" section is that it is original research: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts (...) without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Unless there are reputable sources that discuss those media inaccuracies, the section should go. Skarioffszky 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are talking funny. More than one news source reported this inaccurate report. For example: http://www.beijingnewspeak.com/2007/04/18/ill-informed-chicago-columnist-scares-the-hell-out-of-china/ What's more, the whole incident was a self-evident fact need no original research. By your logic all first-hand news report is original research! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yiyu Shen (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Combining first-hand news reports into a synthesis that has not been published by reputable sources is original research. If there are sources that discuss the Michael Sneed report, please cite them in the article. But the rest of the section remains original research. Skarioffszky 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I knew you would say it. Here is one from Huffington Report, what do you have to say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/virginia-tech-shooting-o_b_46159.html

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

What official policy? Are you saying you are some officer on Wikipeida? By my understanding this is a 💕 everyone can edit. You asked for "reputable sources" and I gave you one. Your claim that the section being original research has been proven untrue. Isn't it obvious? Anyway I will keep reverting it back in the future if you keep deleting it without a valid justification. You can delete the Ismail part if you want to . But I will add Michael Sneed's name on the section since she is reported in some respected media.

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

Ok, I appologize for the misunderstanding. How about this: we keep and expand the first part about inaccurate report of killer being Chinese since it's verifiable and is not original research and delete the remaining?

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

Removal of duplicated material

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

South Korean Response

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)

Teachers

Do you think that teachers should say anything if sign in behavior change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris apodaca (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if this is not in direct relation to the writing of this article, I would point out that this is not a forum for general discussion on the article's topic. --Dynaflow 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007 May 2nd the intro text includes these sentences: ``In 2005, he had been accused of stalking two young women and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. At least one professor had asked him to get counseling., after describing Cho as an English major at University. The article would be better served for now by replacing the above quoted text with a summary that an independent investigation is ongoing. 68.175.118.95 05:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

VT Massacre Pictures

The massacre took place in West Ambler Johnston and Norris Hall. Why is one of the pictures shown on the page of a French class in Holden Hall? Holden Hall was not involved in the shootings.68.37.233.7 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite

Holden Hall and Norris Hall are the same physical building. Floor 2 of Holden is right down the hall from floor 2 of Norris. --BigDT 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, is this picture from the French class where the 11 people were shot?68.37.233.7 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Razinfinite

No ... it is a different French class. The VT timetable (accessible from ) has Elementary French with EB Dandridge from 9:05-9:55 MWF in Holden 212. That is almost presumably the class this picture is from. The French class that was shot was an intermediate French class taught by Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. I'm guessing that the class that was shot was removed from the timetable. --BigDT 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page from vandalism?

Should "semi-protection" be applied to this article? It's been vandalized fairly frequently. Semi-protection prevents edits by anonymous users and people whose accounts are less than 4 days old. It seems justified to me, but I'd prefer to have an admin make the call on it and insert the tag.

Here's a run down of vandalism in the last 16 hours:

edit vandalism undone at

• 14:07
• 11:31
• 10:32
• 10:27
• 10:21
• 9:08-9:09

• 6:40
• 1:05

move vandalism undone at

• 11:52

Thanks --Pladuk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good idea to have an admin make the call, as they are the only ones who can semi-protect articles. However, I think that enough people watch this that the damage being done by the vandlism is minimal, and it is more beneficial to allow anonymous editing. --Sopoforic 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not worth worrying about given the number of editors still watching this article, but you're welcome to request semi-protection. --ElKevbo 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I'm glad to understand the process better. I'll hold off for now, but will do another vandalism audit sometime tomorrow to see how it's going. Thanks --Pladuk 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Selection of Image of Shooter

I don't believe that the image of the shooter is representative. The image is the one taken by the shooter himself, and therefore serves his message (or propaganda) to the community about himself, and does not represent the person that you would have seen during his day to day life. Using this image lends weight to his reasoning in committing the crimes on that day, which is unjustifiable. By using this image, emphasis is given to the extreme nature of this person which would not be visible normally. The pose and display of weapons in the image may provide incitement or inspiration to others. The image is likely to be offensive to victims of the crimes. Victims need to reconcile in some way with the perpetrator of crimes committed against them, and this image does not serve this purpose. The image serves the glorification of the shooter, and the popularization of horrific crime. Merxa 04:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's particularly iconic about this incident, having been shown repeatedly in the news. Whether or not Cho's intent was to get that particular photo shown all over the world, who knows. As has been argued previously, if someone gets inspiration from this article, they have far greater problems than we can hope to rectify by censoring our articles. (If you want a "representative" picture of Cho, there's one in his article, though you probably won't like the other pictures. It's not like we have hundreds of pictures of Cho to choose from.) Phony Saint 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo was deleted again today without comment. I have restored it. This has been discussed previously; check the archives if you are interested. I don't have strong feelings about this particular image, but feel there needs to be an image there. Sfmammamia 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of gun information

The Attacks section keeps getting edited to add the following:

Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a small-bore .22 caliber Walther P22 semiautomatic handgun and a 9mm semiautomatic Glock 19 handgun.

This information is already covered in the Background section:

The shooter had apparently waited one month after buying his Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol before he bought his second pistol, a Glock 19

What is the point of describing the same information two times? This seems intended to keep bringing attention to the guns. Is this to help out in the ongoing disputes about the Walther P-22 and the Glock 19 articles? Kevinp2 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. Redundant and pointless. You should remove it. Ikilled007 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier. Please read the earlier discussion before removing again. Sfmammamia 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Thoughts on Archiving

Is the bot set at 250k? I think it's archiving a lot more quickly than it should be. Given human nature, I doubt seriously that most editors are going to peruse that many pages before re-arguing the same points. To date we've had important discussions on wording, relevent information, and NPOV -- discussion now relegated far too deep into the archives to be noticed. It's my humble opinion that the the talk page should not be archived more than twice per week to give users a reasonable amount of time to see what this page is all about. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, Ikilled007 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On other pages with important previous discussions, like Talk:Abortion, linking to important discussions in the archives from a summary list has been helpful. This may be helpful here for easy referral. I haven't followed this enough to do this myself however. Though I'd agree the turnover of archives here is probably too fast, it's very difficult to follow. |→ Spaully† 16:58, 1 May 2007 (GMT)

Funpika already removed the bot archiving instructions. I agree that this has slowed down enough to either remove the bot or scale it back considerably. --ElKevbo 17:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With the bot gone and things slowed down, it may be time for someone familiar with previous discussions to sort them out, in order to avoid repetition of old arguments, as mentioned above. Wrad 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Media response

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

"Massacre"?

So... just curious about other people's opinions on this. I personally feel that the word "massacre" might not belong in the title of this article. I know that the Columbine shooting's article includes it, but I guess I'm just asking about the use of the word in general. I feel that "massacre" is a very emotional word, the sort of thing you'd find in evening news reports. I feel like "shooting" would fit better, as well as fit in line with most other articles about mass shootings. Opinions? --UNHchabo 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed recently. Look at this archive here Wrad 05:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rapid archiving of these pages always cuts off such discussions. The reality is that yes, it might get moved, massacre isn't a very neutral name, and shooting is as common if not more so. I don't think it will be movable for another week or so though. Titanium Dragon 09:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

"Injured number of injured withheld"

Fact box says "number of injured withheld" but going to the links shows it is only the NAMES that are withheld , not the number. Wikinews says "15". GangofOne 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As of a few days ago, at least, every news source was saying something different. I don't know where Wikinews got their number, but it's definitely wrong and woefully out of date. If an official count has been released, that's great, but we need a reliable source for it. Natalie 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - my logic for that text is that if Virginia Tech is specifically withholding the names, then no other reliable source can confirm the number since they would need the list of names to verify their count. If Virginia Tech released a number of wounded, then that would be reliable - but so far they haven't. Ronnotel 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is no secret, I just had a peek at Roanoke Times, a local newspaper, they say that the number is "28" --MoRsE 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. To say the number is "withheld" is just inaccurate. GangofOne 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indention in TOC

Why are the subchapters of chapters 1 indented in the table of contents, but not those of the chapters 2 and 3? It looks weird. --Abe Lincoln 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It does look strange. It must be a technical issue. I will try to post to the right page.Monkeyblue 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Posted to WP:VPT. Monkeyblue 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I keep putting a merge template on this page and it keeps getting deleted within mere hours. Can anyone explain to me why they would be so devoted to making sure that I can't suggest something like that? I believe that this should be merged with Virginia Tech article and then seperated. If thats even possible. Whoever is doing it please stop. Amaraiel 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the one deleting it nor do I condone deleting it without discussion. But I would not support such a merge and I am sure that such a suggestion would be rejected by the vast majority of editors. That shouldn't stop you from making the suggestion, however - I could be wrong (it's rare but it happens :). --ElKevbo 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing this thread when I removed the template. It should probably still go on the talk page rather than the article... That said, I don't believe there is any way to cleanly merge the vast amount of relevant information from this article into the article on Virginia Tech. Further, there is no reason to merge them... one is an article about an important American educational institution and the other is an article about a criminal act of historical and monumental significance. The two are related only by geography and circumstance. The latter will eventually be a mere footnote of the former. HokieRNB 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Strongly Oppose. Article documents notable event - merging into Virginia Tech would result in a too large page. Can't see any strong reason why such a merge would benefit the topic. Ronnotel 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Most strenuous objection possible. See my argument above. HokieRNB 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. The only connection between VT and the massacre was that Cho was a student there when he went on his rampage. If he'd been studying at some other school, he would have killed people there instead. There's no real reason to merge the two in the first place. The suggestion to "merge the articles, then separate them" is unnecessary, since it results in the exact same situation we have now, two separate articles for two separate notable items. If you're gonna suggest a merge, don't just suggest it, tell us WHY we should do it. Rdfox 76 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is an article about an institution. Virginia Tech massacre is about an event which happened to involve that institution. The proposal to merge the two is like saying that the article series on the American Civil War/War Between the States should be merged with the article United States Army. Also, read WP:RECENT (which, of course, is not official policy and thus need not even be acknowledged, even if it makes a lot of sense) before you decide that the bulk of the article on Virginia Tech should be dedicated to what is, in the end, an unfortunate event that happened one day in a very, very old place. --Dynaflow 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Absolutely not. Suggesting that this should be merged with VA Tech would be like suggesting the Columbine massacre with Columbine High School. Additionally, this is a historical event - though it's not significant enough to have a huge passage in a history book about early 21st century American history, to date, this is the largest/deadliest mass shooting in the history of the country (1776-2007). --myselfalso 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentiment is pretty clear, I'm going to remove the tag. Ronnotel 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amaraiel's Response to Merge Rant

Amaraiel's Talk Page --Amaraiel 04:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I just want to say let's just be kinder to new wikipedians in the future. Obviously he was unfamiliar with merge tags and the rules connected with them. If someone had posted something on his talk page, this may have been avoided, rather than shooting him down again and again in public. Wrad 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Shooting Range

Cho and Emily Hilscher seemed to have both practiced on some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.182.171 (talk) 18:05, 3 May, 2007 (UTC)

Could you please state where did you hear (or read) this from? It is indeed interesting, but useless if it is just speculation --Legion fi 06:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a blurb about Korean Americans fasting in response to the massacre

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

Suggestion-Religious Response

I would just like to suggest that in addition to the school, media, and university response that info regarding the church or religious response be included. There was much media regarding this - particulalry New Life Christian Fellowship and Blacksburg Christian Fellowship and Intervarsity and Campus Crusade's presence and response. Just a note - I don't have time currently to do it myself. Gatorgalen 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• High-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• GAN error
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Good article nominees without a subtopic
• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press