Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

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)

I find the addition of the mention of the 2002 U.S. Military incident to be not very relevant. If Cho were a member of a 35,000 South Korean military force in the U.S., and were the source of considerable friction with the local population, I'm sure the American response would have been very different. The fact is, although Cho was of SK citizenship, he was much more American than Korean. Contrasting the Korean response to the American military accident and the American reaction to this incident is a low blow. I removed it, and someone put it back. If someone insists that it be put back, then I want it mentioned that the two cases are very different. Hyok lee 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Hyok_lee

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

This article is not about cultural differences but about the tragedy, so on this point you could also argue its relevance. However I would say the fact that the Korean interpretation of the tragedy was relevant. And don't quote from websites called www.usacrime.or.kr. That isn't really going to help prove your point.Kransky 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mentioning the incident in Korea has any purpose here other than to sneakily imply things that are not relevant to the shootings. Some ethnic Korean students were fearful of retaliatory discrimination; no such incidents have been reported. That's all that needs to be said. If this incident had been racially fueled, then perhaps it would be worth making the stretch to discuss US-Korea relations or cultural differences, but it wasn't. Judging by the names and descriptions of victims, it seems that Cho was pretty indiscriminate in shooting his victims, and if the rumors are true, well, he liked the white meat, right? IMO there's just not enough of a parallel between the two incidents. In Korea, you have a longstanding military occupation by a foreign army that many of the local populace dislike fervently, due to a history of tension from incidents like rape, with the accidental killing of two children as a "last straw" kind of incident. In Virginia, you have a mentally disturbed individual, who was for all intents raised as an American citizen, deliberately shooting and killing 32 of his peers in an apparent fit of psychotic rage, and he belongs to an ethnic group that is, until now, generally regarded (that is, stereotyped) as being docile. So there was national outrage in Korea over the death of two girls. How exactly is that relevant to the lack of retaliatory violence after the deaths of 32 people at an American university? Ham Pastrami 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

International Response

This section is basically a long, POV, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment screed and it needs to present some balance or be removed; unless, of course, I should add the non-gun-related violent crime rates of each of the cited international locales. So people need to stop trying to turn Wikipedia into their agenda forums. I'll give it a couple of days and then I'll make some sweeping changes to the section unless it's cleared up by then. Ikilled007 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't issue ultimatums. If you check in the archives of this Talk page, you'll see that this issue has been extensively discussed. Please familiarize yourself with the recent discussions about this topic. --ElKevbo 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that ultimatums are not needed, but I think there should be some consideration as to whether the length can be trimmed a little. Ronnotel 21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This section has been extensively debated. It was originally 10 references from 10 world news outlets, and many argued for keeping all of it, but due to concerns about length it was condensed and cut to the current 6. Your concern about POV is understandable as a fresh reader of the section, but if you look at the previous discussion and the cited sources, and do some web searching, you'll see that what's there is only a small sample of the reports published around the world in response to the incident, and that it's representative of the larger body of opinions reported - in other words it is reporting of world opinion rather than POV reporting. I removed the POV tag since the issues you raised were thoroughly covered in the previous discussion. Pladuk 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading the discussion from the beginning. I still believe the section is highly repetitive - why do we need six quotes that all say the same thing? Ronnotel 01:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been here since the first day, friend, and I've watched the debate, and this section is obviously an anti-gun screed, which if that's your agenda, so be it, but it shouldn't overshadow the domestic response, and it should contain balance, which it absolutely does not. Remember to check your biases at the door on Wikipedia. Ikilled007 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The whole gun control debate belongs in another article. Reporting of opinions belongs in an article dedicated to opinions. This is an article devoted to facts. Just because there is the fact that someone has an opinion does not make it noteworthy for an article dedicated to facts. Opinions belong in articles for opinions, not in articles describing incidents. These opinions are all pure speculation anyway, whether they be for gun-control or against it. None of them belong in this article. I do suggest looking in the archives for the discussion on this topic. You will find that it has been there since the beginning. Archive 11 has much of the debate: section 4 "gun control"; section 22 "gun control"; section 26 "international media response was copyvio"; section 46 "off-topicness of gun control debate section." Rooot 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We have other articles that focus on the topic. The bottom line is that many different international leaders commented on how they thought this event was related to American laws and attitudes about guns. Those comments are notable and interwoven with the aftermath of the incident. JoshuaZ 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There was never a concensus on this issue at all. It was discused and debated, a straw poll was held with a split between "keep as is" and "keep but radically reduce." The cases for trimming to my eyes were compelling, the cases for keeping in my eyes basically led to "it's notable and helps frame debate." Someone made the argument that it was international b.c. the victims were international, including a victim from Puerto Rico (?) I made the change so that it became clear that the internation response is 1.5x more than the domestic response. One or two line items from respected interanational newspapers-of-record, noting that they are editorials, and additionally from developed countries, are all that's needed, at best. --M a s 06:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "straw poll" is in archive 12. Be aware that there are some editors out there that are claiming that a consensus or conclusion was reached by the straw poll. If you read it, you will realize that there was no such agreement. However, I believe, that if you take the entire discussion on this topic into account (going back through all the archives), then the arguments for shortening the section are based on better reasoning than the arguments for keeping it. As someone said in the "straw poll," those in favor of keeping it do not contest that it is POV. While I find this compelling, the content of the section does not bother me as much as the way it is presented. Because no other causes for the incident receive any similar treatment, and because this section relies so heavily on irrelevant international opinions on gun control, I think it should go. Rooot 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree on several things here: 1) Nobody in this section said consensus was reached - it clearly wasn't. What did happen is that those in favor of removing it succeeded in shortening it, while those in favor of keeping it made their case. After a long discussion the debate died down and the subject rested (though it's clear now that it still bothers people to have it there at all). 2) re: relevance: It's not just wikipedians who believe international opinion is relevant to this US event. The Associated Press decided that international opinions re: US gun law were relevant enough to be covered in aggregate in this 4 page article (not to mention the dozens (at least) of international news outlets that devoted coverage to this).
I didn't mean to suggest earlier that this discussion was over, and was actually about to suggest trimming the BBC quote, but I see that user Ohconfucius already did it as well as some other changes that I don't agree with.
BTW, the section's first sentence, which now has a "citation needed" tag, was covered by the first reference (the AP story above), but now has been altered substantially from its original form without additional references. I'm tempted to restore it to its original, citeable form, do folks support that?
To user Ikilled007 who accused me of bias, my personal opinion on gun control is fairly long and complicated and it would be a mistake to think that you can infer my opinion based on my defense of this section. If I have a bias at work here it's that I think international opinion is relevant on Wikipedia. The earlier discussion contains a number of strong points about the reasons for relevance in this particular article.
I think the recent edits by Ohconfucius actually make this section simultaneously weaker and more POV (in addition to removing the meat from some of the statements of concern about US gun control, they also removed the two mentions of the position that had some of the victims been armed, they might have been able to stop the shooter sooner). Pladuk 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well why not have an international response to the massacre with respect to mental health issues or humanties majors or people who use internet messaging or any of the other aspects that may have had something to do with Cho's actions? The fact that you choose to drill down solely on the gun issue is bias in framing. Surely people around the world have opinions about the incident not related to guns -- maybe someone in Burkina Faso thinks that people born under Cho's star-sign are more prone to violence. The truth of the matter is, you're framing the issue in a POV manner, whether you intend to or not. Ikilled007 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If a large number of major international news outlets had published stories about mental health issues in response to this incident then yes, absolutely, that would be worth including here, especially if there was either notable debate or notable consensus around some aspect of mental health care, screening, treatment, etc. If we missed the boat on that, please do point it out, find some sources, and let's give it appropriate representation. As far as I know that didn't happen. The difference is simply this: concerns about U.S. gun laws were widely covered among international news media in response to this incident, while the other things you mentioned were not. Pladuk 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "were widely covered"? Do you mean they were widely editorialized about in opinion sections of international newspapers? Again, I have to ask, what makes some British newspaper editor's opinion about the "American gun culture" more pertinent to this wikipedia article than some Kenyan 12-year-old goat milker's opinion that bureaucratic incompetence kept Cho out of the insane asylum? Because one of them runs a newspaper? Ikilled007 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
See end of thread - responding to both this and your last comment there Pladuk 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • de-indented Comment: Although I initially had a slight problem understanding the POV tag as a purely length issue. Looking further, I generally agreed with the comments above about repetitiveness of the quotes before I attacked it (again). My first attempt was summary quotes in bullet form, I then ejected the quotes to the Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre article, but the section been restored, and had since re-evolved into a long rambling bunch of quotes where some other editors attempted to instaure a "balanced view" of international response where in fact there was none: I went through the articles and quotes one by one, and saw in fact that the condemnation of US gun laws was universal. Now the quotes have been slimmed down to simple phrases, as is customary. I nevertheless summarised it by putting "nearly universal" condemnation just in case someone found a quote from an international source in favour of American gun control (sic) ;-) Ohconfucius 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


This section seems rather meaningless and redundant. It also has less to do with international response and more to do with foreign media coverage. Therefore this section should either be eliminated or merged into the section on media coverage. Additionally, the entire second paragraph has nothing to do with response to this incident at all, but rather statements made in response to a 1996 incident in Australia, and I am therefore removing it. 70.240.132.251 23:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the characterization of the international response section as "meaningless and redundant," I did agree with the notion that the significant international responses discussed there were largely editorial, so I took the suggestion to consolidate them in the media response section. That done, it also made sense to me to move media responses lower in the overall order of responses--starting from the most immediate (university and students) and moving "outward." I have made both of these changes, we'll see if they stick. Sfmammamia 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring this section on the grounds that the international response is not "editorial." Griot 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it then, factual? International opinions about the so-called "American gun culture" constitute metaphysical truth? Ikilled007 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(responding to above comment and earlier comment by user: Ikilled007, who asked, in short, what makes the opinions expressed in editorials more important than those expressed by a 12-year-old Kenyan goat milker)
What is an editorial?: An editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher. Editorials in major publications are rarely lone opinions. They are often the results of in-house discussions, they are frequently co-authored, and I think it's safe to say that they are always reviewed before publication. Newspapers do also employ individual opinion columnists who write their own opinion, but the lack of a byline in the many of the editorials in question indicates that they are the product of the editorial board rather than an individual. Many of the players in each of those steps are on the newspaper's editorial staff and are professionals who make their living understanding their audience and writing opinions that they and their colleagues agree will resonate with their audiences. They are not necessarily a reflection of the majority opinion within their country and should not be taken as such, but they are usually (on major papers at least) the product of professionals who are monitored, accountable to their peers, employers, and readers, and subject to performance reviews etc., and the opinions they express are, on the whole, better considered and more fully formed than that of any random citizen - whether goat milker, business owner or physicist.
Why are they notable? What's notable here, is not just that there were a couple of editorials expressing concern about gun control, but that there were dozens of editorials, from all over Europe, Japan, Mexico, Canada, China, Australia, and that they showed a remarkably consistent viewpoint. That alignment was noteworthy enough that a number of papers reported on it not as editorial, but as news. The primary example (but not the only one) is the AP story mentioned above, which was picked up by ABC, The San Francisco Chronicle, The UK's Guardian Unlimited, The China Daily, and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, as well as Yahoo News and a number of smaller papers domestically and internationally.
The news here is that (A) papers all over the world thought this U.S. event worthy of editorializing about (B) that so many of these editorial responses included some consideration of America's relationship with guns (C) that those viewpoints were almost unanimous in their assessment of U.S. gun laws.
Have I finally answered your question? Pladuk 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And I believe what you have described above is well-reflected in the Media Response section as written by sfmammamia. I don't think anyone is arguing with the assertion that most of the world views the gun control debate differently than in the US. All that's been done is to rewrite the material for NPOV. I believe that the current description is more effective in getting that idea across because of its brevity and clarity. Ronnotel 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for what we can cut from responses section

Media response: Too lazy to look at the article at the moment.

University Response: I don't know if the vigil is necessary inline as it isn't particularly notable; indeed, I'm not sure how notabble cancelling classes was. Maybe just leave two lines about the cancellations and the counseling services being left available, and axe the rest; vigil might be worth keeping for a total of three sentences.

Student response: criticism of speed of lockdown good, and perhaps the thing about contacting people; the facebook pages and the Hokies united should be totally axed. Not sure if the Korean students being worried about descrimination is notable enough, but its marginally interesting.

Government response: Condolances could be removed. State of emergency should stay. Moment of silence can go (and more condolences can also go). Postponement of testamony should stay. George Bush's prayers can go. Honestly, I think the whole paragraph about Bush can go, save perhaps him attending the memorial service. Half staff flag is fine. New guidelines can stay, as can the entire last paragraph about the IRS and the gun politics and psychological profiling stuff.

Responses from other educational institutions: Housing of police officers may be okay, but is marginal. Nicholas Winset's dismissal should stay. The entire remainder of this section should be nuked, and I don't think that picture is needed either.

South Korean Response: This section is fine.

Cho Family Response: Fine.

Other responses: Sympathy can go Show being pulled can stay Falcons can go Browns can go Major league soccer can go AOL can go NASCAR can go Buckeyes can go Titanium Dragon 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about how much notice this means it deserves, but classes at Virginia Tech are almost never cancelled. A quick web search might detail it better, but when they closed for the armed fugitive at the beginning of the year, I seem to recall hearing a specific number of times classes had been cancelled. I think it is worth noting, but the attention given it is up to debate. I'm far too involved to be objective.76.160.173.242 20:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Change the name?

I know I haven't had a good track record with this article thus far, but I intend to change that. I have wanted to ask for this for a few days now but because of the recent incident regarding the merger proposals, i decided to try and let things cool off first. I would like to propose that the article be renamed to something along the lines of Virginia Tech Tragedy or the Tragedy of Virginia Tech. Using the word massacre in this context sounds like a buzzword. Not to mention, now that the media frenzy of the shooting has somewhat calmed down, I believe it is time for a more (shall I say,) professional view of the subject. Please let me know what you think. --Amaraiel 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy is if anything more POV than massacre. I wouldn't object that strongly to "Virginia Tech Incident" or "Virginia Tech Murders"(although that sounds like the title of a bad slasher fic). However, google shows that this title is more common than either which makes me uneager to change the title. JoshuaZ 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here are the results on Google news:

  • 9,870 for Virginia-Tech-massacre
  • 3,021 for Virginia-Tech-tragedy
  • 355 for Virginia-Tech-murders
  • 509 for Virginia-Tech-incident
  • 832 for Virginia-Tech-killings

Personally I think it's best to just try to go with the most common name, that also gets around all these ethical opinion-based arguments about what name we should use because of what POV we think it reflects. Ultimately article names should represent what something is most commonly called, not what random Wikipedia editors deem it should be called. Massacre seems to be more commonly used by a large (3:1) ratio, so I'd say that's what we should stick with. --W.marsh 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually search for the actually proposed (and originally used) name for this article: Virginia Tech shootings. Please do a search for the actual alternative before you say massacre is the most common, as it is really not appreciably more common than the actual alternative.
    • 9,519 for Virginia-Tech-shootings
    • 5,491 for Virginia-Tech-shooting
Thus, I propose we move the article to the far more neutral "Virginia Tech shooting" on the basis of it being very common and a much more neutral name, for the same reason the Haditha massacre is labelled the Haditha killings on Wikipedia.
The reason it is on massacre right now is because it got stuck there during the initial mess after someone changed it without waiting for consensus. Titanium Dragon 08:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to be like that about it... Virginia Tech Shooting wasn't mentioned as an alternative in this thread until you mentioned it, so I didn't think to search for it. --W.marsh 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one reason not to compare the two titles is that the facts in the VT case match the dictionary definition of massacre - it is an indescrimiate killing of a large number of people, especially of noncombatant civilians. In the case of the Haditha killings, to use the word massacre would insert a POV since there are still a number of allegations and unknown facts surrounding that case. The title Virginia Tech massacre is not only more accurate, it is also well-attributed. HokieRNB 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ditto - massacre is a perfectly good word that happens to be abused on occasion for POV purposes. That's not the case here. Haditha is not an apt analogy, a point of view for which there was already consensus (see the archive). Ronnotel 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There was -not- consensus. Sorry! The "consensus" was someone proposing it over the course of 8 hours, then moving it long before any "consensus" could form. Moreover, a bunch of people who weren't particularly detached from the situation voted. The reality is that there is no difference between this and the Haditha killings. Claiming that this would insert POV into that article is farcical - it is abundantly clear exactly what happened and no one disputes what happened. We all know that it was a massacre. We call them the killings because massacre isn't a neutral word. Because they are called shootings/shooting as often and that is obviously a far more neutral word, I think it should be moved. There's absolutely no reason to draw a distinction, unless you're racist/nationalist. Titanium Dragon 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion I linked to? I asserted that there was a consensus only on the fact that Haditha was not an apt analogy. I did this because three independent editors, Wrad, TimVickers and Hit bull, win steak all supported my argument and you didn't respond. See [1], [2] and [3]. I apologize if I mistakenly assumed a consensus was reached but you can hardly fault me for doing so. If you think there's another example that demonstrates why we should reject massacre as a POV term I'm all ears - I just don't think you should keep citing Haditha. Ronnotel 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Its not an inappropriate comparision, given the traditional usage of massacre specifically refers to military forces slaughtering civilians. The reality is that the sole reason to use the word massacre is to invoke emotion; shooting is much more precise and neutral, yet some small number of people refuse to. Also, his argument is that lone gunmen and spree killers are not a group we "need" to be neutral in regards to. This is of course horribly, horribly flawed. The NPOV policy doesn't say "we're neutral about everything but spree killings and mass murder." We're supposed to take a neutral voice about everything. If you say otherwise, then you are rejecting the core of Wikipedia. Wrad's argument is completely useless; beyond the obvious fact that we redirect it anyway (as we do currently from shootings -> massacre) that argues that it got fixed by something someone did without waiting for consensus then we locked the page because there was a moving back and forth and that motion was disruptive to editing the article. Everyone knows massacre is a loaded word, which is why the Haditha killings article DOESN'T use the word as its title. Shooting is far more neutral, and it is precise. Titanium Dragon 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going against wikipedia, why, then is the Columbine High School massacre, a featured article, called a massacre? Seems to me that we are on the side of wikipedia consensus here. Columbine is not a military killing spree, and no one argues. No one complains that it is POV for the simple reason that that is what everyone calls it. Most people call the Virginia Tech Massacre just that: Virginia Tech Massacre. I don't see the problem with this. Wrad 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, is it fair to say that you are asserting the term massacre is itself inherently biased can never be an NPOV term? If so, I disagree with that assertion. Massacre is a perfectly acceptable word provided it is not used for propaganda purposes. However, massacre more accurately describes this event than the term shooting. By striving for so-called neutrality, the term shooting leaves out crucial information, such as:
  • the fact that many people actually died in the attack,
  • that it was an attack on helpless, innocent civilians,
  • the victims had limited or no ability to fight back,
  • the murderer methodically killed his victims, with no apparent remorse or mercy
all of which the term massacre accurately captures. You will likely argue that these facts are somehow emotional, and therefore POV. However, they are indeed facts - undisputed by anything I've read on the page or elsewhere. Facts are not any less true because they may or may not invoke emotion. Therefore, why not use the term that most accurately describes what happened? Ronnotel 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that massacre is an appropriate term here. The Haditha article lead already refers to it as a massacre in second reference. Massacre may well eventually become the first reference term for Haditha, but I think the much-discussed consensus there, and on not including it yet on Wikipedia's list of massacres is to hold off until all evidentiary proceedings are completed, because there's still coverup, conflicting stories and the fog of war to contend with. Even the lead in the Haditha article indicates the difference between these two instances: "...refers to the incident where up to 24 Iraqi allegedly non-combatant local residents were allegedly massacred"...The difference between them is clarity. Virginia tech is listed on Wikipedia's list of massacres, so clearly it's internally consistent based on Wikipedia's own definition of the term to use it here. Sfmammamia 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is threefold:
      • Every single claim that it is only known as massacre is completely, totally, and utterly untrue. It is known by many names, and it is roughly evenly split between Virginia Tech massacre and Virginia Tech shooting.
      • I am claiming that it is inherently a loaded word, so we should only use it if that is its only primary name. It is not; Virginia Tech shooting is used as often. As such, like with Haditha killing, we should default to the more neutral name. Massacre is a sensationalistic word.
      • Claims that shooting doesn’t cover it is simply silly. A shooting implies people were shot. Massacre is completely subjective; there is no agreed-upon definition of massacre, and it gets applied to things solely for emotional impact value. It is used for sensationalistic purposes; people call Waco a massacre to imply the government is evil; people call Haditha a massacre to vilify the West/American military; ect. It is done solely to vilify others; it isn’t used to be descriptive, it is used to elicit emotional response. That is why it doesn’t have a definition; because it is applied to be sensationalist and to condemn an action. Wikipedia is in the business of neither.
      • Look at list of massacres. There is a MAJOR dichotomy there. You can see “massacres” with as few as three deaths in them. Which deaths are lowest? Look at categories where someone wants to vilify someone. Labor disputes, school shootings, ect. The Boston Massacre is a pretty clear example of this; 5 people is not what I’d call a massacre, or what most people would call a massacre. Why is it called that then? To elicit emotional response, and it is a well-documented fact that it was used to propagate anti-British propaganda. There is enormous variance in the numbers, with no consistency to them whatsoever. This lends credence to it being a purely propagandistic term.
      • You managed to list “defenseless” several times in your “objections”. That shows that you have too much emotional investment in this. Its not a big deal. People died, so what? Happens every day, and much worse events occur on a daily basis in Africa and don’t get their own wikipedia articles! This is not to suggest this shouldn’t get an article, but it is obviously an example of bias, and the fact that something directed at white Americans is labeled a massacre whereas something which is targeted at Arabs is not is what is often referred to as ‘’’racism’’’. Shooting implies most of the same things anyway; if there’s a shooting it is generally assumed that it is someone killing other people, rather than an actual firefight.
      • Methodically killing victims without signs of remorse is NOT a part of the definition of massacre! Again, emotional investment is bad, and knowing what the word means is important. It also highlights that the term is propagandistic.
      • The reason Haditha isn’t on the list of massacres, if you paid attention to that article, is that POV pushing right wingers oppose it strongly, and this has been complained about by the writers of that article. Allegedly? The only reason we don’t use “allegedly” in this article is that the shooter is dead. That’s a farcical splitting of hairs.
It isn’t neutral and is being used to push a POV, and therefore is bad. If it was almost uniformly known as the Virginia Tech massacre, then I –would- support this article name. However, it is clear that Virginia Tech shooting is just as common, and the only reason to oppose that title is emotional investment. Apparently the propagandistic value of the word massacre has had an impact on you as well. Titanium Dragon 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium - your accusations of emotional investment might carry more weight with me if they weren't immediately followed by casually thrown off words such as racism (second time), POV pushing right wingers and (from the Haditha killings talk page) bleeding hearts. Ronnotel 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, I was disagreeing with this pair of assertions in your earlier post: "Everyone knows massacre is a loaded word, which is why the Haditha killings article DOESN'T use the word as its title." May I suggest that there are only a very few assertions that can rightfully begin with "Everyone knows"? I think the debate boils down to a lack of consensus on whether the word massacre is an unacceptably "loaded word". Would you agree with that characterization of the debate at this point? --Sfmammamia 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titanium, I have a hard time believing that you're still attempting to argue for the renaming of this article. How many times does one need to raise the same issue and receive the same negative response before one tires of such futility? Scientz 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How many times must it be brought up by different people? The fact of the matter is that a NUMBER of people have objected to the title of this article, and time and again those who push for the massacre title claim it has already been settled. It hasn't been; you just WANT it to be. It is quite evident that there are significant numbers of people dissatisfied by the current title, and I don't see any reason to supress discussion of it. Titanium Dragon 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I question whether your definition of "a NUMBER of people" can reconcile itself with the fact that a greater number have argued for the status quo. This is why it has been "settled" and also why later attempts to revisit the same argument reek of asymmetrical interest. Scientz 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to add to what many of you consider a "settled" topic, but I agree with Titanium Dragon, as a matter of principle. "Massacre" is a loaded word, one of which we should be wary. Can we agree to that much? The complaint about whether or not "shooting" entails actual deaths seems like a weak argument, especially when compared to this question question about the validity of using a term like "massacre" that contributes little substantive, other than apparent (at least to me and Titanium Dragon) emotional connotations. "Shootings," "killings": is there really a strong argument *against* using one of these terms here, as long as it is fairly clear we're recognizing the fact people have died? This is, despite claims to the contrary, something that deserves to be discussed. How are we going to define an important event, and for what reasons will we use this label? To me, "massacre" seems to make certain unwarranted assumptions: it seems to posit that there are good, defenseless victims and evil, perhaps calculating and mentally stable actors in a given situation. And I don't feel that this moralistic assumption underlying the use of "massacre" is really called for. If this is a question of POV and bias, which I feel it is, then we don't need to worry about whether the issue of original research in using one term when the other might be slightly more common in the news media at a given time.^ We, as a community, have the responsibility to decide what terms represent our perspective of objectivity. As others have pointed out, the media do not always share this objective of our encyclopedia, anyway.

^On this note, remember that these terms might fall in and out of favor, even in your standard-bearer of the news media. Here are my results for *recent* hits through a Google News search (as of 4:00p.m. CST, 14-JUN-2007):

• "Virginia Tech" shootings: 3,641

• "Virginia Tech" massacre: 2,198

• "Virginia Tech shootings": 1,128

• "Virginia Tech massacre": 892

Also, for what it's worth, the archive of University Relations articles at http://www.vt.edu/remember/archive/ (all articles published in April) uses "shootings" 8 times, "massacre" none. Why? Might it have anything to do with a certain sensationalism understood in using the latter? Maxisdetermined 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I also agree that the name should be changed. "Massacre" is not only an emotionally charged word but it is subjective and sensationalist, it has a ring about it reminiscent of the overblown media coverage. "Shootings" is much more descriptive and precise, as a "massacre" could be conducted with a sword, or a flamethrower etc. As a tech student myself I cringe everytime I hear the word "massacre" on the television, and while this may be irrelevant to the discussion, I know many many people who feel the same way. It may have been, by definition, a massacre, but i feel that the word carries a certain connotation not fitting to the randomness and unprovoked nature of the incident. I plan on waiting a month or so for responses, and then changing the title of the article if no one can give any *good* reasons not to. "It is the status quo" and "the issue has been settled" are NOT good reasons. ~dan

Dan, (please sign your posts with four ~ characters, see WP:SIG) Rather than issue ultimatums, I'd like to suggest that you will be more successful if you can cite examples of precedents that will help us to normalize the article. For instance, Columbine High School massacre is a highly relevant page and uses the term massacre. If you can cite similar pages that use the term shooting, I think more folks would be willing to follow your lead. Ronnotel 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There certainly are some similar pages with alternative notation, 101 California Street Shootings and Standard Gravure shooting included. A cursory glance at some relevant categories does show, yes, that "massacre" seems more common when there are few perpetrators and more than, say, five deaths, at least in the case of school shootings. However, as powerful as this precedent might seem (and it's been invoked before, at least once in discussion of the Columbine shootings page), I don't think its history makes it *right*. Like it or not, the term "massacre" does carry unnecessary "dramatic implications" (see SmthManly's comment), and I think it is here that we have to confront these implications. Maxisdetermined 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we accomplish nothing by being slaves to precedent. Hell, wikipedia itself would not exist if this were the case. 65.196.175.100 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Dan

See, this is why I said down below there that I didn't want to reopen this whole can of worms. While it's not likely to be nearly as bad as it was in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, the headaches caused by the heated discussion it'll get are far, far worse than any headaches from leaving it as is. It's generally referred to by the public and media as "the Virginia Tech massacre" now, and while I personally think that "2007 Virginia Tech shootings" would be a more encyclopedic title (and something similar for all recent mass shootings would be appropriate), the fact is, the current title is the one that people will be looking for it under. So long as we avoid sensationalist language in the article text, I grudgingly admit that we should leave the title as-is; there's no benefit in hashing this out for the seventeenth time when we'll get the exact same result as before--no consensus on what to do, resulting in our retaining the status quo. Rdfox 76 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's important to underscore even the lack of public consensus on a term, or at least a consensus in favor of "massacre." Recent Google news searches (about 8:52-8:59 a.m. CST), in fact, may indicate something approaching the opposite:
    • "Virginia Tech massacre": 151 hits
    • "Virginia Tech shootings": 380 hits
    • "Virginia Tech shooting": 94
    • "Virginia Tech" massacre: 363
    • "Virginia Tech" shootings: 1,033
    • "Virginia Tech" shooting: 840
Google web search results (about 9:00-9:03 a.m.):
    • "Virginia Tech massacre": 616,000
    • "Virginia Tech shootings": 511,000
    • "Virginia Tech shooting": 502,000
    • "Virginia Tech" massacre: 1,260,000
    • "Virginia Tech" shootings: 1,860,000
    • "Virginia Tech" shooting: 1,680,000
These web results are admittedly more equivalent, but I have to wonder how much our own labelling might influence these particular hits. This is an unanswerable question, of course, and not really part of my case. Rather, I'm just trying to illustrate that there is no one thing that it is "generally referred to by the public and media." Does this affect where anyone stands? Maxisdetermined 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to take it upon myself to rename the "See also" link "List of school massacres" to "List of school-related attacks." I trust no one will have a problem with this, since the latter is, um ... what the article is actually called. In this light, the former alternative naming seems very POV. Maxisdetermined 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of renaming the article to Virginia Tech shootings. While I have several reasons, I recognize that all but one are based on opinions. Virtually every reason here is an opinion - results on Google news are based on the opinions of people who wrote articles about the event. The definition of massacre is, in its specifics, opinion based. What is not an opinion, however, is that calling the event a shooting is indisputably accurate. Was it a massacre? Reading the responses to the question of whether the name should be changed, it seems that there are differing opinions on this, but something no one can deny is that it was a shooting. Wikipedia exists to present facts, and one fact is that it was a shooting, and one opinion is that it was a massacre. It could very well be a massacre in both fact and opinion, but shooting is more specific as to the details of the event. John R S 02:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Policy

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

Updated suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 mm, use 9 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 mm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, didn't, wasn't.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rooot 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added controversies to the lead section; these two paragraphs still require further sources. Summary/topic sentences for sections further down in the article may require changes as a result. I will continue to work on this. Hopefully, moving the controversies up will help to resolve some of the debate about the responses sections. Sfmammamia 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the new lead. Natalie 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Hop responses?

Seriously? Why not pediatrician responses or bartender responses? This section is, for lack of a better term, response-cruft, so I'm removing it. Natalie 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>really? ya' think?</sarcasm> Ronnotel 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think its a useful topic to have somewhere linked off this page, if not on the main page. I've heard from a New York school teacher that many high school students in his building are praising Cho and see him as a hero. Though disturbing, if true it deserves a section particularly if leaders of hip-hop feel the need to counter some of the negative aspects of the hip-hop youth culture by condemning the act. I only mention it in case others come across an article on it and can cite a reference; perhaps the section should return as is in the meantime. 68.175.118.95 05:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. We've severely cut down on junk, and this is the very definition of recentist junk. It just doesn't matter much. Titanium Dragon 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed again today as a bullet added to other responses section. Please discuss here before re-adding? -- Sfmammamia 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it? at least under the other respsonses section. I know rappers, Jin lil Flip and heard that R. Kelly did a tribute song. I mean why is it okay to mention the show bones, but not rappers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.47.76 (talk) 11:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

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

The International Response section is redundant

The section on Media Response now references the relevant issues from the section titled International Response. Plus, there's a link to a dedicated article on the topic. Is there some reason why we need to keep the section as is? We're definitely in overkill mode here. All of the response sections have been cut back to focus on the most relevant issues - Sfmammamia and others have done a fantastic job. Leaving International Response as is seems awkward in this light. Ronnotel 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just re-removed the section, because it's redundant, and the consensus here seemed to be that it needed to be trimmed down even if it hadn't been condensed into the Media Response section. Rdfox 76 21:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the most important information from the International Response section has been merged into the Media Response and Political Response sections, and that the remainder is largely redundant of the separate dedicated article, and only serves to unnecessarily lengthen this one. PubliusFL 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Waiting until the majority of editors leave the article and then pushing your POV is not constructive editing. The points that were all raised in the previous straw poll all still stand. Sad mouse 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
What POV pushing? A variety of editors have been revising and cutting down the entire article, not just the section that was titled International Response. I think this is just part of the normal editing process here. I think the article reads much better now, don't you? Kudos to the folks who are staying on top of this. Ronnotel 00:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sad mouse, you are mistaken about POV pushing. I am as staunchly pro-gun-control as they come, but I have been working like others here to 1) put the length of the article and its various sections into balance, and 2) work toward compromise by grouping content into more logical sections rather than deleting the content altogether. If those of you who disagree with the current choice of international perspectives embedded in the media response and political response sections have specific ideas for improving those sections (rather than restoring a section in its entirety that creates redundancies elsewhere, which seems to me to be an unconstructive process), then please go to it. Sfmammamia 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of POV pushing, but I most certainly do a number of others here - look at their own comments in the discussion archives where they say straight out "international opinion has zero value and should not be mentioned at all". An excellent section was created when the article was heavily used, the POV users then essentially gutted it quote by quote. I won't work on it because it is a waste of my time while the POV users lurk on this article, but I will periodically reinstate the previously agreed upon version on the logic that POV lurkers tend to get bored once they find a new article to vandalise. As for length - that is simply an excuse, the article is not overly long considering the magnitude of the event (and does not get a "too long" label by wikipedia), and if it was overly long then culling down responses by NASCAR or reducing the 10-fold greater domestic response would be more appropriate. Sad mouse 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sad Mouse, is there something you think isn't being adequately addressed in the current article? No one is trying to shut out constructive edits. Repetitive, overly wordy and one-sided content is going to get trimmed no matter where it shows up, but there's always room for well-thought out contributions. Ronnotel 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Ron, WP:DNFT - Rooot 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Rooot, trolling is a strong word to use, I see nothing like that here. If you want to see what a troll does, look at The Question Mark's contributions. Let's everyone one of us assume good faith. Ronnotel 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better to me now. Has almost all of the previous content but much more NPOV-formatted and framed. --M a s 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photo

It may just be my machine, but the aerial photo of the campus is covering up text. Rooot 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm running at 1440x900 Rooot 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, seems OK to me, I'm running Firefox on Windows XP, screen resolution = 1280 x 1024. Ronnotel 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Archival Bot?

I think this page needs to be archived again. The talk page is very long. Maybe we should put the bot back and set it to archive every two weeks, instead of every two days, like it was before. Wrad 05:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to archive selective topics at this point? Given the structure of the archives, I'm uncertain how to proceed with this idea, but I think that would be more useful than bot archiving, as some of the topics seem to come up repeatedly and appear less settled than others. Sfmammamia 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested earlier that someone who has been editing this for awhile step in and organize the archives, but no one responded. I haven't really been participating enough to be able to do it. I don't know what the big debates have been. The page is getting big though, and needs to be archived one way or another. Wrad 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Number injured

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

GA review

I was a little apprehensive to review this article, due to its high-traffic nature. I've been watching it regularly since the incident, and it has been something special watching it evolve. The images look fine and for those necessary there are fair use rationales. I'm prepared to list it, but I'd love a second opinion since I'm bound to have missed things. The main question still probably concerns stability.

Preliminarily:
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: --Phoenix 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The article falls flat on the stability criterion. I recommend not listing it at this point. Noclip 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Concur - however it does seem to be stablizing rapidly, particularly in the last week or so. Let's let it settle another week and see where we are. Ronnotel 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point is it considered stable? Do we count edits? (This page was edited 26 times total on May 13.) Wrad 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not solely based on the number of edits, but if the article's content changes signficantly from day to day. Phoenix2 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
On hold until May 21. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I find it stable enough for GA, especially as news coverage and "new developments" start to fade. Just because the subject is recent & controversial does not necessarily mean this quality can't be maintained and improved on. It does not recieve anymore bad material or vandalism than any other high importance article. And only some questionable stability does negate all the article's good qualities. (points 1-4 & 6-7) After the hold expires, let's categorize this as GA.--Wikiphilia 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts also lean towards making it a GA. Sure it has changed a lot since the incident, but it has remained GA quality, I think, for at least several weeks. I think that that should qualify for stability, if nothing else. Wrad 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Virginia Tech online game

It was reported throughout many news outlets that there was an online video game on NewGrounds, which is a flash game site where people can submit new flash games. A 21-year old male, whose alias is PigPen, made a Virginia Tech shooting game and submitted it to NewGrounds. It is still currently on the site. The game is officially called "V-TECH RAMPAGE." 67.162.108.111 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page isn't a place to publish salacious details that wouldn't normally be reported on the main page. Do you have a question or a suggestion regarding this incident? Ronnotel 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not jump on the guy, here, if news outlets are reporting it, it may be worth at least a mention in the article. After all, the FA Columbine Massacre article talks about similar games. Wrad 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I can understand your hesitation. Wrad 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it can be verified does not mean we must include it in the article. For example, we don't note every incident (school threats, etc.) that was inspired by the Virginia Tech massacre, although most of them could be attributed to reliable sources. I wouldn't think a game published on Newgrounds would be significantly more notable than any of those. Phony Saint 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Where has this been reported so far? If the mainstream (non-gaming) press have picked up on it, it could well warrant a sentence or two; if not, then it's probably not notable enough. Trebor 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
He lives in Australia and a paper there has written on it Daily Telegraph, and also this quote has surfaced about the flash authors thoughts on Cho from Pine Magazine "No one listens to you unless you've got something sensational to do. And that's why I feel sympathy for Cho Seung-hui. He had to go that far." 68.175.118.95 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This game has received coverage on several major networks, ABC and NBC among them. The full name has been identified. The game isn't really all that noteworthy, nor is its creator, but the media has certainly taken ahold of it. (Community editor 22:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Justin Klein's classroom

Do you feel if it would be verifiable if we state that Klein was in the German class?

Now, this source: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07107/778657-84.stm does not explicitly state this, but, we have the process of elimination.

The names of all of the people in Rooms 206 and 211 (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-042507-na-french-g,1,3604642.graphic?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=2&cset=true) are known, so we know that Klein could not have been in either of the rooms.

  • 206 had four survivors and two students who did not attend ([5]): We know that Park and Colman were injured, and the other two were named Lee Nixon and Nathaniel Krause

Now, this source states that a friend stated that Klein saw the teacher being shot as the gunman burst into the room. Since this data matches the events happening in Room 207, that would have to be Klein's classroom (204 had Librescu, who blocked the door and allowed for students to escape). WhisperToMe 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional Response

I don't remember the specifics, but I read days after the incident that a Christian hate group lauded the event, calling it retaliation from God via the perpetrator for several causes--all of which were largely abstract and unfounded--and that America on a whole should right these (poorly elaborated upon) wrongs.

To reiterate, I don't know enough specifics to properly be bold myself, but I remember the daughter of the pastor in charge of the hate group is the one responsible for the information given to the media. I know there was also internet coverage on this, and that at least one of the sites was reputable enough to source here.

As it is directly related to the content of the article, I believe it warrants being added...preferably to the Responses subheading. .Absolution. 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre - Authorities Section

Provided for educational convenience is the EQUITAS Legal GateWay [6] that has a new section related to the VATECH Massacre [7] which emphasizes on domestic terrorism as a probable cause and displays - amongst other things - timelines of select topic-related issues including authoritative Legal content derived from external links and podcasts supplying comparative analysis of: Emergency and Preparedness Plans; School and Campus Security; Liability Issues and past as of recent amendments to the Virginia Code. The vatech page also includes the Wikipedia Virginia Tech Massacre Timeline. I suggest to review this expanding site and include its link in a legal category available within the WikiPedia Virginia Tech Massacre page. --just 01:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

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

Yes we should. Funpika 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It's going to fail an FAC, based on the grounds of stability. We'd all love to see it go through, but I doubt it. Just ask any of the guys that frequent FAC. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been a couple months and no new information is coming out. I think that if that is mentioned it is veiwed as stable The Placebo Effect 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But it's still the subject of anon vandalism, and is floating in and out of semi-protection. A lot of refining will still take place over the next few months. I see no reason for it be featured; even if it attained such status it surely wouldn't be on the main page for quite some time so I see no hurry. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
VNandalism and protection don't affect stability. Wii is semi-proc, but it was still promoted. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nominate this and see what happens. As a matter of fact, the Cho article is at FAC now, and will likely fail. If not pefected, this will probably see the same fate. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can understand why, it looks like a joke nomination The Placebo Effect 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're the second one to mention that, but I don't see where it's coming from. That article is actually pretty close, just needs to settle down and get a better lead. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the nomminator has less then 50 edits when he did it and the discription of CHo doesn't describe him at all. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Lots of "drive-by" nominations show up on FAC, that being nominations for article which the nominator never edited. Some of them succeed because the article was pretty close anyway, that's just not the case here. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Even though this may not quite be FAC material just yet, a peer review can never hurt. I'd strongly suggest one. Cliff smith 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Expect a response nearly a month after putting 'er up for review. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The reference need a lot of tedious cleanup. All the references should use {{cite news}} instead it the current haphazard approach. Jon513 12:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How many shot?

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

POV language in intro?

Rdfox, out of curiosity, to which side of the gun control debate did my altered language skew - pro or anti? I think you were a little quick to hit the POV button. My intent was to better paraphrase the referenced press release. In it, I saw neither the word 'unconscionable', nor any reference to Cho; hence my choice of wording. I don't really much care but I think the wording was better my way. Ronnotel 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro, I felt--specifically, it was the use of the word "tragedy" that feels pretty POV to me. While I agree that it was a tragedy, it's not a very neutral term to describe it. Rdfox 76 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks (FWIW, my feelings on the matter probably lean slightly the other way). Here's my reasoning - my intent was to paraphrase the press release in order to fairly present the argument it puts forth. Yes, 'tragedy' is a loaded term, but I believe absolute neutrality is difficult when you are deliberately trying to describe someone else's POV argument. The press release specifically included the phrases easier to access powerful weapons and tragedies, which I thought would make the paraphrasing more accurate. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me, but I do think my wording more accurately captures the argument put forth in the press release. If there's a better source to reference for the pro-gun control position, that would be cool, too. Ronnotel 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who inserted the original summation of the pro-gun-control argument in the lead section (the wording there currently, i.e., "Cho's easy access to handguns was unconscionable"), I have changed the reference to one that more broadly frames the issue than the Brady Campaign's new release. I think the current wording more accurately reflects the broader spectrum of pro-gun-control response to the issue, a point of view with enough weight and consensus that it has since played out in the moves to tighten up the gun control loopholes spotlighted by the incident. -- Sfmammamia 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This "massacre" was a Tradgedy

It is a shame that the mediator of this Article demands that those editing the article continuously refer to this event in a sensationalist manner. While Research would finely contend that the Media has labeled this event as the "Virginia Tech Massacre", it is inappropriate to repeat this language continuously throughout the course of the article. We can historically remember this event without being offensive to those involved. It is just as scientific to refer to this event as a tradgedy, acknowledging the emotional impact it had on the university and the country.

David Virginia Tech '08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.191.36 (talk • contribs)

Huh? --T-rex 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no moderators here; just an amorphous mass of people attempting to cooperatively build an article. You can join in the fray if you'd like, so long as your contributions can be backed up with reliable sources and are in keeping with Wikipedia's core content tenets (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR). You should be aware, however, that the encyclopedia has no moral obligation to shape readers' perceptions in an "acceptable" way. We are simply a mirror of our sources. --Dynaflow babble 03:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Tragedy" (note correct spelling... is this what passes for a tech school sophomore's literacy level these days?) is a very POV-loaded word. Indeed, there was a heated debate over whether the term "massacre" or "killings" should be used, because "massacre" itself is a POV-loaded word, but the media ended up making that decision for us. However, referring to it as a tragedy would thoroughly violate WP:NPOV, and thus is unacceptable under Wiki policy. Rdfox 76 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Rdfox, do you really feel that the naming was a decision the "media ended up making [...] for us," even when we take into consideration a certain bias and sensationalism within the MSM, particularly immediately after such topical, emotional events? There must be times when we break from the language more or less common in the MSM in order to maintain our different aims (maintaining a neutral encyclopedia, rather than selling news, etc.). I think we need to reopen serious discussion about changing the name to something that you and others might feel is more NPOV, such as "killings" or "shootings" (see the above topic). Maxisdetermined 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I do think that, to some degree, the news media ended up making the decision for us by deeming it a massacre, but dear god, I do NOT want to open up that can of worms again... Rdfox 76 21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tragedies are unavoidable. This massacre could have been avoided if CCW permit holders were allowed to exercise their state sanctioned privileges or if Cho had been properly dealt with by the medical and legal community. (I'm simply providing these examples for contextual purposes.) --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) "Misfortune" is also a key component of the definition of a "tragedy." It would be difficult to say that the victims of the event simply suffered from unavoidable bad luck. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the rules for editing comments:[8]. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

after effects

Isn't there more that can be said about the after effects of this event? Has VT changed any policies in response to this event? Has fall enrollment at VT dropped? ike9898 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that enrollment hasn't dropped (this year, some freshmen are allowed to live off campus to deal with the lack of housing space). However, access to dorms was restricted so that students can only open the doors to their dorm. There might have been other changes that I'm unaware of John R S 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

geographical coordinates

It just struck me as bing a bit strange.... The VT massacre is an event which took place in several buildings in Virginia Tech. It is not a place. So it makes little sense to me to have displayed the coordinates as if this were a place (There are already coordinates in the VT article). Ohconfucius 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates shown are the location of VT, as is common for many articles about events, the location of the events is listed. Rdfox 76 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Post FA review task list?

I've been reading through the featured article review discussion and thought it would be helpful to distill comments made there into a list of ideas for future improvements, or at least further discussion.

  • Reduce use of footnotes in lead.
  • "Paragraph-ize" the embedded list in the section "Resistance"
  • Condense "Response" section, especially short items.
  • Move footnotes that interrupt sentences to end, where possible.
  • Check the accuracy of and fix the wording in the last sentence in the "Media response" section, on the Spanish book.

Also mentioned but seems already resolved: one or more "cite needed" tags.

I made a start at reducing footnotes in the lead section, will look to do more of this. -- Sfmammamia 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Heroes of the VT massacre

I know this is a little bit late, but i think we should post an article on the heroes that put and/or gived up their lives to protect their students, or classmates. Teachers like Liviu Librescu and students like Derek O'Dell and Zach Petkewicz. Its people like this show that they have/had the courage to do something as bravery like this. Liviu Librescu gaved up his own life to save his students by blocking the door to his classroom while his students jump out of the windows. And just when his last student made it out the window, Seung-Hui Cho succeeded in opening the door and shot him to death. Derek O'Dell got shot in the right arm and quickly thinking right when Cho left the room, O'Dell and his classmate, not identified, slammed the door and held it shut with their feet. Cho tried to get in but did not succeed. Zach Petkewicz and his ten classmates was aware when they heard a shot fired. At first a coward by hiding behind a podium, he looked up and saw the door. He saw that there was nothing blocking the door and Cho could have easily walk in and killed them. Petkewicz and two other classmates barricade the door with tables
and physically hold it there. Cho, like the O'Dell case, tried to get in but was unsuccessful.Jaimie64 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)jaimie64

no need for another article; everything you mentioned is already covered in this article! -- Sfmammamia 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
+1, already covered. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Shooting

The page should be renamed to "Virginia Tech Shooting", not "Virginia Tech Massacre". Virginia Tech shooting has come to be the most common name for it, and it is a far more neutral name. This was brought up ages ago, but we didn't move it because we were afraid it would start move wars and disrupt the article. Now that it has stabilized, I suggest we should move the whole page to Virginia Tech shooting where it belongs. Titanium Dragon 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Google count -
"virginia tech massacre" about 608,000
"virginia tech shooting" about 494,000
Google news count -
"virginia tech massacre" about 223
"virginia tech shooting" about 87
Sorry, massacre is still more popular, and still more accurate than shooting. (see Wikipedia's definition) HokieRNB 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, beyond not excluding Wikipedia from those results (which chops over 100k off of "massacre"), the reality is that Google results aren't an RS and while they are AN indicator, they aren't the only indicator of what a page should be entitled.
Moreover, if you choose to search for "Virginia Tech" massacre vs "Virginia Tech" shooting, you find completely the opposite result; shooting has three times as many hits on news (massacre 646, shooting 1,753) and in general shooting leads by about a third (massacre 988,00 vs shooting 1,260,000). Why would this be?
Simple. People don't JUST refer to it as the Virginia Tech massacre or the Virginia Tech shooting; they also refer to it as the massacre at Virginia Tech and the shooting at Virginia Tech. They also refer to it in various other ways, and when referencing it, they are FAR more likely to reference it as a shooting rather than as a massacre.
Additionally, Wikipedia does not HAVE a definition of massacre. We have an article on massacres, and it was only RECENTLY edited to have a single perpetrator action listed. We do NOT define massacre in that article, we state what massacre is often used to refer to. And, it is SELDOM applied to situations such as this.
No, massacre is a propagandistic term, and that is its primary purpose - to vilify someone. Shooting is far more neutral, far more accurate (he did shoot them, after all), and far more in line with what we refer to the action AS (we refer to them, by and large, as school shootings, NOT school massacres). We have a NPOV policy, and labelling this page as a massacre is irresponsible in the light of that policy. This was a shooting, and it appears that Google agrees with me that it is more often called a shooting than a massacre.
I dislike propaganda, and Wikipedia is no place for it. Even according to Google, you're wrong, and people refer to it more often as a shooting than a massacre. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that you are pushing a POV that views the word massacre as propagandistic, while others of us view the word massacre as a neutral term that more accurately describes the events than shooting? Bear in mind that by moving the quotes around in your Google query, you skew your results to include any references to shooting that also have the word "Virginia Tech", not just the campus shooting deaths that occurred in April. I don't think the primary purpose of the word massacre is to vilify someone. HokieRNB 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out, HokieRNB, that if you refer to the above section on changing the name, I already did a more thorough Google search quite recently. And I agree with Titanium Dragon, and if true (I haven't checked yet), I think his comment about the recent edit to the "massacre" entry is something we should note. Here's one way of looking at this, albeit simple: if nothing else, "massacre" seems to be much closer to, say, "carnage" and "slaughter" -- two Random House Dictionary synonyms, along with "genocide," and I think the | Dictionary.com usage note at "slaughter" might be helpful -- than it is to "killings," and I would wager that those first two words set off POV alarms for most of you. Perhaps this is a weak argument. But considering that we're talking about something agreeably subjective -- the precise, current meanings of a word -- I think this could be a constructive way of reframing the issue. I'm not personally going to push this extremely far if it doesn't start picking up support.... In other words, I respect Rdfox's position. However, I believe we can at least start this phase of the dialogue in a civil way. First, I have a question, and if it's already been answered thoroughly elsewhere, please point that out to me: What's *wrong* with changing the name to "... shooting"? If a sizeable contingent of editors take issue with the current name, then would this alternative make the article any *less* neutral? Would we really lose vital description? I believe it's clear that user search preference isn't really much of a factor in favor of "massacre." Maxisdetermined 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have posted on this point before, the Wikipedia article on the school shooting incident at Columbine has used the term "massacre" for four years. That article is a former featured article. If "massacre" applies there, the even greater loss of life that occurred at Virginia Tech certainly meets the definition of a massacre as well. -- Sfmammamia 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NOW do you guys see why I didn't want to reopen this can of worms? Oy. We're gonna be having 2k arguments shot back and forth over this for a month and end up exactly where we started, with no consensus, no agreement, and people cranky at each other again... Rdfox 76 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The question has been asked - What's *wrong* with changing the name to "... shooting"? - and I would answer that it isn't as precise as "... massacre" since shooting doesn't necessarily entail the "killing of many people", which is how wordnet defines massacre. What makes this event notable is not the number of rounds of ammunition expended, but the number of lives lost. I would also like to point out that a "more thorough Google search" is pointless. We are not discussing changing the name to "shootings at Virginia Tech", so the only two search phrases that are meaningful are the two titles in question. Massacre is still accurate, and is still supported by popular usage, both on the web and in the news. HokieRNB 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
But have you considered that not everyone has a solidified expression for the event, such as "Virginia Tech massacre" or "Virginia Tech shooting"? People will think "Virginia Tech," and then they'll think "school shootings," or "the shooting," they might even think "that horrible massacre," but they may not have one definitive term. And the argument about what searches (i.e., not "[x] at Virginia Tech") we'll redirect to the article doesn't have any bearing on the debate about whether "massacre" and/or "shooting" is commonly used, in general. And yes, my more thorough search is very relevant, and I'll give you a reason why: not only did I do searches for the terms in question when they weren't necessarily the third word in a phrase, but I also searched for Virginia-Tech-shootings. At the risk of redundancy, here's what I just got on Google:
News: Virginia-Tech-shootings: 579; Virginia-Tech-shooting: 96; Virginia-Tech-massacre: 219
Web: ...-shootings: 560,000; ...-shooting: 538,000; ...-massacre: 645,000
Yes, the web results are a little higher for "-massacre," but for every news search I've done with "-shootings" -- and this is my third recorded here -- I get results that are proportionally quite a bit higher than they are for "-massacre". Also, I really hate to get in a dictionary fight here, but in response to your WordNet result, and maybe this was accidental, but if I understand the database correctly, you left something out: it seems to define "slaughter," "massacre," "mass murder," "carnage," and "butchery" all as "the savage and excessive killing of many people." I'm new to the database, so correct me if I'm wrong, but according to our article, it seems to be an authority on word relationships more than definitions per se, as opposed to the Oxford English Dictionary, which had these and only these relevant definitions:
1. a. The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this.
c. fig. A great destruction or downfall; an act of wholesale or ruthless destruction. Both of these employ terms I would find unnecessarily POV. Maxisdetermined 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I still struggle to see how the events of that day do not meet the definition of massacre - are we trying to imply that the killings were not savage, excessive, indiscriminate, brutal, and ruthless, that they did not amount to carnage and slaughter? If you can show me evidence that the attacks were carried out in a civilized way (not savage), that loss of life was minimal (not excessive), that the attacker intended specific targets (not indiscriminate), that the pain inflicted was minimal (not brutal), that the killer demonstrated mercy (not ruthless), then I will consider supporting a change. HokieRNB 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Note, you appear to have misunderstood the dictionary. To fit definition a, the event needs to fulfill both conditions. If it's a discriminate slaughter it doesn't matter if it's brutal or not. If it's not a brutal slaughter then it doesn't matter whether it's indiscriminate or not. Nil Einne 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

a later (albeit redundant) response: Since Max seemed to have missed the fact that I've already answered this question, I will post again and make sure the point is as clear as possible. It is my unwavering belief that every word you have found to bring fuller meaning to "massacre" (with the exception of the reference to slaughtering animals) is attributable to this event. Let me give you some examples:

  • Ruthless - Using the chains he had purchased at Home Depot, Cho chained the building's entry doors shut from the inside in order to stop anyone from escaping.
  • Brutal - An assistant state medical examiner said autopsies of Cho's 32 victims revealed that he fired "more than 100" bullets into them. "Some were hit once; some were hit several times, more than once. We had two, three, four, maybe even as high as six."
  • Indiscriminate - A witness said, "He stepped in and assumed the shooting position and took aim..." and, "His face was a completely blank stare. It seemed very mechanical. There was no emotion whatsoever." Though most of the victims were shot by Cho in Norris Hall classrooms, evidence shows that he targeted everyone whom he encountered, even those in the second floor hallways.
  • Excessive - 32 dead, 25 injured; more than any other single-perpetrator shooting in modern history (even non-school-related attacks).

All this aside, please let it be known that I support the renaming of this article to Virginia Tech shootings if and when it can be demonstrated that there is support for (or minimally, lack of strong dissent to) the renaming of other articles on school-related attacks with fewer fatalities using the word "massacre". HokieRNB 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to respond to this is to say, of course the loss of life was "excessive," in the sense that any loss of life would be excessive, and by that token the pain was not "minimal," per se. But in the WordNet definition, a "massacre" necessitates savagery as well as excess, and I'm not sure these qualifications are as distinct as the binaries you've implied. "Savage," "brutal" (which describes more than the inflicting of non-minimal pain [9]), and "ruthless": these all seem to suggest things, perhaps to connote some things that I can't really verbalize (but that I think many people sense), that I don't feel we should say here. Are we in a position to say, or to imply, that Cho and/or his actions were "brutal" or "savage," with the latter's history of connotations ("ignorant" comes to mind, as in European accounts of "native savages"), or that he was and/or acted in a "ruthless" manner, a word that, at least to me, indicates some understanding of his actions akin to our own, i.e. that he was "calculating" and fully "aware"? Never mind, connotations aside, that he was entirely and continually "without pity or compassion" [10], that he never felt remorse (an unprovable claim) or that he never felt sympathy for his victims? Considering that he claims he "did it for the future generations of the weak and defenseless" [11], and "[f]or my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [fucked], I did it for them" [12], I'm not sure he felt he lacked compassion.
Also, John R S posted above. Maxisdetermined 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Titanium - I would like to respond to your comment that the word massacre "is SELDOM applied to situations such as this". Please refer to the articles for California State University, Fullerton library massacre, Cologne school massacre, Columbine High School massacre, Dunblane massacre, École Polytechnique massacre, Jonesboro massacre, Osaka school massacre, Red Lake High School massacre. All had significantly fewer fatalities (7, 11, 15, 18, 15, 5, 8, and 10, respectively). In US history, only the Bath School disaster was deadlier - note that its title is not Bath School bombings. HokieRNB 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of school shootings. Additionally, I have to say that in real life, I have never heard someone in real life call Columbine a "massacre"; they ALWAYS call it a shooting, 100% of the time. Likewise, Ecole Polytechnique is french, and as such, massacre would be used because that is the name of it in France, and I'm sure the US media just picked up massacre rather than translating it (as massacre means murder in French). Meanwhile, the most common term for the "Dunblane massacre" is actually "Dunblane shooting" according to google (and I've never heard IT called a massacre either IRL, though I may have heard the sensationalist media (or some of it, rather) call it such). Jonesboro massacre is close if you go for the phrase, and if you just go for shooting vs massacre, shooting vastly outnumbers it. Why? Because we refer to such events as school shootings, and people will refer to it as such much more often because massacre is sensationalist and not very useful.
Frankly, I think you're too close to this to get it, being a Hokie. Massacre is a sensationalist term used to vilify an event, and while it gets stuck to some events, school shootings are called school shootings far, far more often than school massacres, and it is those who attempt to sensationalize and memorialize who call them massacres. No one out here calls it a massacre. Titanium Dragon 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Dragon, but frankly you're um, wrong. By saying that the 8 incidents I mentioned are "a drop in the bucket", are you implying that there have been a large number of other school shootings with mass casualties that have not been referred to as massacres? Massacre may be used by some in a sensationalist way (to describe, for instance a large margin in a sports victory), but by itself it is a perfectly apt descriptor of what happens when large numbers of innocent people are killed. Many others who have spent a lot more time and effort than yourself have weighed these matters. Consider, for instance, the Historical Clarification Commission of Guatemala, which agreed that defining the term "was an issue of ongoing concern". For them, massacre was generally understood to be "the killing of a 'significant' number of people..." and later clarified to be "...the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." (from MAKING THE CASE, Investigating Large Scale Human Rights Violations Using Information Systems and Data Analysis[13])
Massacre has been used many times over the years to describe by the public, the media, the government, and others, exactly the sorts of events that transpired in Blacksburg in April. It seems pretty consistent on wikipedia that when it comes to school shootings, 5 or 6 fatalities is the threshold for the title "Massacre". This clearly meets that. So please don't argue on the basis that "Shootings" is more accurate, more clear, or more neutral. And please refrain from making assumptions my relationship with my alma mater. The only thing that I can concede is that the media is using "Virginia Tech Shootings" about twice as often as "Virginia Tech Massacre". If wikipedia is honor-bound to bow to the whim of the media, then I suppose it must be changed. I thought it was more important to get the facts right. HokieRNB 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait just a moment. Before you start accusing anyone of wishing to "bow to the whim of the media," keep in mind that others and I produced our Google searches, etc. in response to claims that massacre was more "popular" (or "well-attributed"), and recently in response to your own search, which you seem to concede was not as thorough. At no point have I said we should kowtow to the media; in fact, if you read my posts in the two relevant discussions on this page, you would get just the opposite impression. Nor does it look like Titanium is making that argument, though others (on the "massacre" side) have:
"It's not really up to WP to decide, we're obligated to use the most common usage in the media." -- Ronnotel 11:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Given that nearly everybody else has gone with 'massacre' in their coverage of the event, I don't think we should buck the trend." -- Hit bull, win steak 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are three things to consider, in varying degrees of importance: 1) our own sense of NPOV, based on our own experiences with the words in question; 2) the definitions offered by dictionaries and institutions; and 3) the common usage of the terms among publications and the public. As John R S has said, Wikipedia editors have different positions on the POV of "massacre." That's clear by now. But what I haven't seen is the assertion that "shooting[s]" would be POV; instead, people feel that "shootings," even while it indicates both mode and number of attack, just isn't descriptive enough. Perhaps there's something to be said about capturing the horror of the event in a term like "massacre," but in attempting to do so, I feel we jeopardize our NPOV. It is my belief that "shootings" is both a) appropriately descriptive; and b) agreeably neutral, while a number of editors have reservations about the neutrality of "massacre." I feel that the relative consensus around the former word's neutrality should be a primary concern right now, if we wish to maintain NPOV.
I've already begun to deconstruct the dictionary definitions (Oxford, WordNet) of "massacre" and their defining terms above. While the Guatemalan truth and reconciliation commission's definition may be helpful, so should be these definitions, and if anyone thinks words like "savage," "brutal," and "ruthless" should define this entry, or that you would like, say, "ruthless" to appear in the body of this article (our implication: "these ruthless attacks, committed by a savage individual..."), then please say so.
You've conceded that "massacre" is not currently the more popular term. I would like those who felt our terminology should be dependent on the media's and on popular usage to please express their thoughts on the matter now. Maxisdetermined 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked the word massacre up in my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Here's what it says:
massacre 1 : the act of an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty 2 : a cruel or wanton murder 3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals 4 : an act of complete destruction
Was the killing of a large number of fairly helpless (as they had no guns) human beings by Cho under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty? We come down to the same questions of what's neutral v. what's POV language with atrocity and cruelty as we already have with massacre itself. I know personally that I am really sick and tired of the tendency in the American media (I can't speak about the media of other countries) to use breathless, emotionally charged language to describe events: every person who does the human thing by working to save others lives is a hero, every mass shooting is a massacre, etc. I'd hate to see Wikipedia sounding like Geraldo Rivera. So, I personally prefer the name Virginia Tech shootings for this event, which is as accurate a descriptor as Virginia Tech massacre but without the added drama. But in the end... well, I've not been around this article for awhile, & I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way. --Yksin 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of making determinations of the POV-ness of a name, considering that in certain circles, the name American Civil War is unacceptably POV. While I don't agree with this myself, I think one could argue that "shootings" is POV because it minimizes the horror or badness or whatever of the event. Given this, I think we should follow the general Wikipedia rule of using the most common name. I'm not sure of another way to determine what the most common name is, other than google search results, simply because less than a year has passed and the dust hasn't really settled. So without another compelling reason to use "massacre" I'm okay with switching to shootings. Natalie 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was just a ton of debate over this when the article was first written. I've always been under the opinion that "massacre" is a propaganda term used when people want to mint political currency from an event (like the Boston Massacre, etc) and is, as such, POV. I think shootings is a more neutral term. If I recall correctly, the more restrained news publications at the time (i.e. not American TV news and not the tabloids) preferred "shootings" to "massacre"; it's in the archives if anyone wants to look.
So in summation, I support moving the article to "Virginia Tech shootings". A Traintalk 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I, too, could go either way. Yes, it appears that shooting is now somewhat more prevalent than massacre in current reportage (although it wasn't when the article was first created). But, I'm not sure the difference is profound enough, yet, to be the basis for changing the article's name. Should the case become overwhelming in the future, then I would support a change. We're not at that point. However, I do object to being driven by allegations of loadedness of a word, as some here suggest. I support the term massacre because I believe it is the most accurate term to describe the event. As I have stated above, shootings is a blander term, but also misses out much of the detail that massacre correctly captures. E.g.:
  • people actually died
  • victims had limited or no ability to resist
  • the violence was particularly cruel and vicious
  • the act itself was utterly immoral
Clearly, massacre captures all of these elements, while shootings captures none. Can someone please explain (without employing the terms 'emotion' or 'sensationalism'), what makes shootings a more accurate term? Ronnotel 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your desire to have the most descriptive term possible, but I feel that in this case, we sacrifice more than we gain by clarifying that people actually died. As I started to detail above, I think we make certain (loaded) claims about the perpetrator's "savagery," "brutality," and "ruthlessness," claims I'm not sure we're in a position to make or that we would be able to back up. And my personal thoughts about the killing of people aside, I don't think procuring a title that reflects a moral position should be our priority, as encyclopedia editors. You say "utterly immoral," which I take to mean that this act was immoral in an absolute sense; as sensible as that may be to many editors individually, I don't think we really further our common agenda of neutrally collecting and integrating information by projecting our moral beliefs, no matter how universal we assume they are. And I'm not actually sure what makes something "particularly cruel and vicious."
"Shootings" does actually describe the mode of the attack; that's one thing "massacre" lacks. And what's important is that it's a pretty neutral bit of information, just a factoid. That's the kind of information I think our article title should include (not that there's much we should expect a title to express anyway). Much of the rest just seems like controversial baggage that muddies the waters. Not to mix metaphors or anything. Maxisdetermined 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about shootings describing the act, however, on the balance I believe that massacre is objectively more descriptive of the event as a whole. I would also assert that reading beyond the dictionary definition of a word and attempting to determine which words are 'loaded' is an opportunity for our own biases to reveal themselves. Whether or not a word is 'loaded' (as determined by whom?) should not be a reason to disqualify it's use, provided we are not using that word in a loaded way. Massacre is a perfectly good word, and in this case, the most accurate. We should not reject it because of personal bias. Ronnotel 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about "using [a] word in a loaded way": if "massacre" were loaded with undesired implications and insinuations, then wouldn't "Virginia Tech Massacre" likewise be so? And I wouldn't say that I'm "reading beyond the [...] definitions," but rather attempting to break down why I have reservations about certian certain words that must hold true for "massacre" to be accurate, at least according to these definitions. I feel that's actually something we all must do; if we're going to give the "dictionary definitions" any value, then we have to look at the component words, because these words reflect what the word is actually taken to mean. If this reveals my own "bias" about the word "savage" in the process, then that's okay; frankly, I find this pretty honest, considering all Wikipedia's NPOV is in the first place is a composite of different biases about neutrality. I think it's when those biases are recognized that we can proceed to a better collective neutrality, and that's what I'm trying to do. Who determines if a word is "loaded," or if it will give the reader the impression that we support one particular interpretation of the (neutral) facts? Well, I guess we all do. In all fairness, I don't think my stated opinions about "savage" reflect any more personal bias than the opinion that article titles should reflect the "utter [immorality]" of the act described. Perhaps some of these things are pertinent to the article, perhaps some are not. But I think we should consider all our individual biases (with other sources as partial guides, yes), and then attempt to approach neutrality. Maxisdetermined 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
People actually died? So? Shooting captures that fine. Victims had no ability to resist? That, again, is included; you don't call a battle or gunfight a shooting, they're seperate things. The violence itself was NOT particularly cruel or vicious; this is just untrue. He shot them, but shooting is not particularly cruel OR vicious. The act itself was utterly immoral is POV, and therefore, DISQUALIFIES massacre, which is exactly why massacre is unaccaptable - it DOES imply that, and is purely negative connotations, therefore it should not be used. It is precisely these connotations, that it was a wonton act of cruelty, evil, ect. which are BAD and which mean that massacre should not be used. Titanium Dragon 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I believe is unfortunate about this discussion. This article recently went through a featured article review. It failed, but there were numerous suggestions for its improvement, which I summarized here. At no point in that discussion was changing the title raised as an important improvement. So while much energy and time has been expended on this debate, very little energy and time has been put into making the suggested improvements that would, in my opinion and in the eyes of the editors who participated in the featured article review, truly improve the article. Dismissing the relevance of precedents is also singularly unconvincing to me, as one can assume that consensus was established through equally careful discussion on other articles. Both actions (ignoring the prioritized list of suggested improvements and dismissing as irrelevant the consensus for use of the term "massacre" on other articles) seem counter to the consensus process so valued on Wikipedia. I'm with HokieRNB on this one; I think the title should stand. -- Sfmammamia 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, for now: A very easy search seems to indicate that, of the school shootings HokieRNB lists, only Columbine and École Polytechnique have received any serious discussion of the article title, and in neither case is it nearly as extensive as it has been here. Any consensus, then, has been one of silence, not reasoned discussion; perhaps there haven't been any editors who have given the matter -- or rather, respective matters -- much thought. So, no, I don't see any evidence of "equally careful discussion," and I think a number of editors find the process through which this article adopted its current title (as the result of an ill-timed 6-hour vote, it seems) not particularly "careful," regardless of the more extensive discussion after. I don't really see why this debate would be taking away from editing that you feel would elevate this to featured article status, but to be honest, perhaps my priorities are off, but I think addressing the strongly-felt neutrality concerns of multiple editors is a completely different concern from earning a certain (admittedly, commendable) title for the article. So I'm not really "ignoring" anything; I'm focusing on what I, and many others, think is right, fair, and neutral. And what I said was, "I don't believe that precedence alone has any weight." I stand by that, especially when it seems any consensus we reach here will be far more reasoned than on other articles. We can't rely on precedence to direct our decisions; this only curtails our progress, especially as new information -- and here, newly shared opinions -- shape the facts on the ground. Maxisdetermined 01:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This is dishonest. We waited for the article to stabilize so that we wouldn't be moving it and causing a bunch of problems with moving it while it was being edited, but now that it has stabilized we SHOULD discuss this, because discussion of this was postponed at the time. This IS the correct time to discuss this. I'm sure that once it became a FA, you'd claim that it shouldn't be changed because it was a FA. That's farcical. It should be changed, and it should be changed now, and this is an entirely appropriate time for the discussion. Titanium Dragon 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "Virginia Tech Shootings" adequately describes the event. However, I also see how "massacre" could be considered POV. What about either "Virginia Tech Murders" or "Virginia Tech Rampage?" ...or "slaughter" or "killings" or "shootings that led to deaths" or maybe this whole argument is a waste of time. 70.248.199.38 10:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Wikipedia has pretty clear guidelines for resolving naming conflicts. Following the specific guidelines there for the Google test, "Virginia Tech massacre" is still the most common name. Here is the current Google test result, as of today:

  • Phrase "Virginia Tech massacre": 567,000 pages
  • Phrase "Virginia Tech shootings": 427,000 pages

--Sfmammamia 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Right Hand side 'stats' box

I'm not sure if this is done on all pages of a similar nature, but to me it reads and looks like a top trumps card, why is what gun used of such particular importance? Its way above my head to change it, just wonering waht others think.

The guns used are a detail of the event that can be used to classify the event; e.g., shootings committed with [gun type]. The box isn't cluttered with other data, so I don't think there's any pressing need to prune out any data already in it. John R S 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

VT gun ban

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

A new proposal

I think this is a good way to reach some consensus on the title of the article... let's make a simultaneous proposal to change the names of all the following school-related attacks:

Alternatively, we could just drop the issue and admit that on wikipedia and in the eyes of the general public even neutral words have the ability to evoke emotion (e.g. disaster). HokieRNB 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

HokieRNB, I think that's a very bad idea. While I'll assume you're suggesting it with good intentions, it really does sound like an attempt to overturn all the arguments that we've been making here, without really addressing them, just by citing precedent. Yes, massacre is used in other cases. But I'm not talking about any of those other cases right now. Obviously, an attempt to change the titles of over a dozen articles couldn't yield any easy results. It's arduous enough to get any kind of agreement over the name of one article (cf. the debate logged over previous months on this one). Many people will have just as strong feelings, if not stronger, about these individual articles as others do about this one.
Maybe you disagree, but I don't believe that precedence alone has any weight; if anything, it can only be used to back up one claim or another. In this case, I feel it would be much more constructive to discuss the actual issues and claims others and I have raised, especially here at a point when people seem to be doing so in an open and considerate manner (see the recent posts above). We -- or others who care more about those particular articles -- could talk about Jonesboro or Columbine some other day (or about the neutrality of "disaster," for instance, which is not something I've given much thought to, and not something I accept immediately). What we're talking about right here is the set of conditions pertinent to this article, and to Virginia Tech. And I would like us to continue talking about that set of conditions, right where A Train and Ronnotel left off. Maxisdetermined 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree. What is at stake here is the ability of the word massacre to maintain neutrality. If the term introduces POV for an article on an incident that claimed the lives of 33 individuals in 2007, then it is necessarily introduces POV for all the other similarly-titled school-related attacks with fewer fatalities as well. That's why I suggest that we either talk about all of them, or we refrain from discussing POV at all. If we agree to that, then we are left with only two questions - (1) does this event meet the criteria to define it as a "massacre"?, OR (2) does the media or public in general refer to this event as a "massacre"? If the answer to (1) is "NO", then I would submit that a move is in order for the 16 articles listed above. If the answer to (1) is "YES", then I would submit that it matters precious little what people call it, but if wikipedia policy dictates that the article title must reflect popular or media opinion, then by all means let's change it. (As much as this might seem like I'm joking, I sincerely agree to this move given the conditions I outlined). HokieRNB 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And the simple fact of the matter is that we can't make this proposed move without upsetting a lot of people. Right now, if this article moves to Virginia Tech Shootings, then yes, that might seem to make things a little incongruous, at least compared to the articles you list here. But I don't think that jeopardizes Wikipedia in the long-run. I think we have to resolve each dispute one at a time. No one should go into these articles and move them without discussing it with the respective editors, and each round of discussion would take time -- varying lengths of time -- to be resolved, one way or another. There may always be inconsistences, but I'd hazard a guess that similar things happen here all the time. Besides, each of these events involves a different set of circumstances and conditions, as I've already said, and these sets of circumstances must be addressed individually. How can anyone expect to be able to move all these different articles easily if this discussion is so controversial here? What's wrong with improving the neutrality of one article, then getting around to others later, when they can be given due and proper consideration? I might have my own inclinations about the POV of these different titles, but I still don't think this is the proper forum for those views, nor is this the proper time for it for me, while I'm trying to help make a change here. Maxisdetermined 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I could challenge you to change the name of several hundred articles which use the title shooting rather than massacre. This is farcical; I know as someone who went to Virginia Tech you have a strong POV on the issue, but you're being unreasonable. Second, some of these have legitimate names.

  • The bath school disaster is pretty much exclusively called that, I suspect because it happened a long time ago.
  • The Avivim School bus massacre should be called the avivim school bus attack as the former name appears to be a propaganda tool, and while Google shows plenty of results for it, a lot are pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian sites whereas the latter seems to show up in more neutral sources.
  • The Fullerton Library shooting should be called such, as that seems to be its primary name.
  • The Colongne School killing should be called such, as that seems to be its primary name as well.
  • The Dunblane massacre should probably be the Dunblane shooting or Dunblane killings.

Ect.

The reality is that a lot of these are very arguably in the wrong place, but I do not pay much attention to these pages in general; I only read them incidentally, and am only involved to keep propaganda and junk off Wikipedia. Maybe after this article is changed I'll go through and examine their names and see if they should be moved and talk about it, but each is a different article. For instance, the Boston massacre is the primary name of that event by far, precisely because it was a propaganda tool; this is nowhere near as well established and it seems that the propagandaists are losing in general. I think that this article should go with the neutral name, and THIS is the article we need to deal with now. I think that articles should be named appropriately and neutrally. Titanium Dragon 04:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How interesting that you didn't mention Columbine. I'm keeping to this point because you can't get away with dismissing the position in support of the usage of "massacre" as only belonging to people who went to (or currently attend) Virginia Tech. -- Sfmammamia 13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, Titanium, I disagree. I think if you are truly arguing about the word massacre, then the articles you need to deal first are the ones that are most inappropriately and un-neutrally named. Pick the low-hanging fruit first, and see how you fare. I've taken the lead on the first one from the list above. HokieRNB 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, but HokieRNB, we've already had pages after pages of apparently quite necessary discussion here. You can't tell anyone to abandon that halfway; that's simply not logical, especially not when people like Ronnotel are a little more open to the use of "shootings." This isn't an issue of "low-hanging fruit"; this is where this discussion is taking place -- note that I didn't say starting, because while I'd personally be interested in changing the names of one or more of those articles, this article isn't a launching pad, it's the completely separate goal. And the fact that you went ahead and changed that article title without a mention of it on the article talk page, especially while still remaining apparently opposed to change here, is rather frustrating. With all due respect, you are taking it completely upon yourself to bring this debate elsewhere, just when the side you oppose is making slight progress -- through something as reasonable as talking, no less.
Sfmammamia, I'm not saying I agree with Titanium on this, but it seems clear to me that he didn't say that support for the "usage of 'massacre'" "only [belongs] to [Hokies]." What he actually said that was that an alum editor will have "a strong POV" (on a potentially emotional matter), though not just an alum editor, and not just in favor of "massacre" here. Again, I'm not saying that's an allegation I want to throw around; it's Titanium's view. I will say, however, that beginning to single-handedly move articles, without really taking the time to address (as Ronnotel, etc. have done) the concerns already raised about, as Hokie puts it, whether "this event meet[s] the criteria to define it as a "'massacre'" -- or rather, whether there are problems incumbent with applying the word "massacre" to the event/article itself -- is a bit "unreasonable." Maxisdetermined 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Maxis, what you need to understand is that Titanium has shown a pattern of generalizing in this discussion in a way that I find unconstructive and dismissive of the diversity of opinion that undoubtedly exists on such issues. Examples: "Everyone knows massacre is a loaded word" and "No one out here calls it a massacre". -- Sfmammamia 02:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Loaded words are okay in article titles under certain circumstances. The Boston Massacre has its name PURELY for propaganda purposes, but it has become so well established that it is called such. There was a discussion about the 9/11 conspiracy theories page title. We ultimately dismissed changing the title of the page because, while conspiracy theory is a bit loaded, conversely it is highly descriptive and is the primary name for the phenomenon among the culture at large. If, on the other hand, something like "Alternative theories of 9/11" was slightly less popular, but still highly popular, then I'd say that the page should be called that. I think the same sort of situation applies here.
And as for the latter, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that both of those assertions are correct. Are you going to argue that massacre isn't a loaded term? I don't think anyone can do that with a straight face. Likewise, "no one out here calls it a massacre" is true to my knowledge - everyone I have spoken to out here refers to it as a shooting (shooting at Virginia Tech, Virginia Tech shooting) rather than a massacre. Though, admittedly, no one really talks about it out here because it isn't really all that important; I had to ask people I know to find out what they called it (with the question "What do you call the incident that occurred at Virginia Tech?"). Titanium Dragon 11:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, Titanium, people have spent pages arguing with a straight face "that massacre isn't a loaded term". That's exactly the argument. We've shown through the definition itself that the events at Virginia Tech are precisely what the word massacre means. We've shown through more than a dozen similar articles that when similar things happen at other schools, it is often referred to as a massacre. As of this morning, there are still more than 150 current news references to the term "Virginia Tech massacre". What you have just described is "Original Research". I really can't believe that you are suggesting we all go out and ask our friends "What do you call the incident that occurred at Virginia Tech?" Why don't we just set up a Facebook poll? I stand by my former recommendation. Begin changing some of the less controversial and less frequently edited articles about incidents with fewer casualties and less press coverage, and see what the result is. If over time these articles stand without the "massacre" title, then I think you'll have a better case to make for renaming this one. HokieRNB 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hokie, you've gone about this in a very bad way. You'll notice than neither Titanium nor I, nor any one else here, at least recently, has proposed going through any article and changing the title without discussing it with other people. No one except you. I do not consider what Titanium describes as "original research," if you're to take that term in any practical sense: all of us, our understanding of words such as "massacre" come from our own experiences, and that includes the occasional anecdotal, nonscientific discussion with acquaintances. I think his attempt at understanding what others around him think is, albeit not scientific, at least a very non-insular way to inform one's own opinion. I'll admit that saying, "No one out here ..." sounds a bit all-inclusive, and I'm not here to defend those who agree with me on one issue, but at least now he's clarified that he's actually describing the people he knows, those "out here" -- that, at least, puts an honest description of real people behind his words.
And actually, I don't think we have "shown through the definition itself" anything, because that discussion is still ongoing above. With all due respect, you're the one who's started a second initiative that seems to have temporarily derailed the more realistic conversation above. Please, respond directly to the concerns addressed about definitions, popularity, and the editors respective beliefs about neutrality above. Maxisdetermined 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What you call "a very bad way" I see as being BOLD. The discussion will have only been derailed if we witness lack of support for the change that was made. You'll notice that there has been no reversion and no discussion of the change I made yesterday, so I think it's high time to tackle a second one... I'm thinking California State University, Fullerton library massacre. HokieRNB 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I know about the boldness directive. Neither that, nor the lack of discussion on a stub article after one day, support your change to begin moving articles without giving the editors proper notification first, especially when it's not clear that you're actually moving these articles out of any regard for the neutrality of the articles themselves, rather than to frustrate people who support change on a completely separate article. If you actually believe these articles should be moved, then fine, post on the talk pages your legitimate concerns about neutrality, wait at least four or five days (especially for the rarely edited ones), then make the individual moves. I think that's much more reasonable. What would also be reasonable is if you actually responded to discussion on the article in question, instead of making threats about moving other articles unannounced when you know that frustrates people here who have real concerns about this article's title, as well as about treating with maximal fairness the editors of other pages for something as significant as the article's title. And by the way, you haven't explicitly stated whether successful moves for these articles would change your own position on this article, which I presume remains in favor of "massacre" since you haven't stated otherwise. Until you do, I'm left to question what you're trying to accomplish.
If Hokie won't, I encourage other editors to discuss the actual article for which this is the talk page, within the above "Virginia Tech Shooting" category (I think that should be plural, btw). Maxisdetermined 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Max - I'm finding it difficult to believe that you honestly feel I haven't "actually responded to discussion on the article in question". I think I've been crystal clear about my own position:
  1. I believe that the word massacre is a perfectly apt term for describing the subject of this article.
  2. I believe that the word shootings is much less apt based on the fact that there is nothing about the word to indicate that there were mass fatalities.
  3. I believe that as long as there are still more than a dozen articles on school shootings with fewer fatalities using massacre in the title, then there is still not wide enough consensus that massacre is a "loaded" word and inappropriate for wikipedia articles.
  4. I believe that if there is no flurry of dissent after boldly making the desired change to several of the aforementioned articles, then yourself, Titanium, and others who support the change here have some better ground to stand on.

HokieRNB 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been 13 posts in the "Virginia Tech Shooting" category since your last post, from 8 different editors. You haven't responded to any of these. You have not expressed why you think "massacre is a perfectly apt term," vis-à-vis the recent discussion about words that must necessarily be true for "massacre" to be true, as defined by several dictionaries and word association databases, including the one you cited incompletely. You also have not responded to an additional comment by Nil Einne, directed to you.
Part of the first "BOLD" in the BRD article you linked is the following:

Explain upfront: Many people will first make an edit, and then explain it on the talk page. Somehow there will always be some fast-off-the-hip reverter who manages to revert you right in the middle. To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit. People respond more slowly on talk pages.

Thus, even within the context of your BOLD policy is a brief word of respectful caution. I think this likely rings especially true with regards to article titles. Now, if you're honestly doing this in order to make a better case (including for yourself, which you haven't said) to make a better case for "shootings," then fine, but I would still encourage you to at least mention to the respective editors that you're changing the very titles of their articles. I didn't say you had to get a response, necessarily. But I do think it would be better to wait a while. Maxisdetermined 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Attack rehearsal

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

Overlooked Real-World Response

There are nationwide and campus specific movements to permit concealed carry permit holding students to carry on campus as they would be able to off campus. This movement, which has been covered by all the major news networks, is being wholly overlooked here on Wikipedia to the point where I'm tempted to question the Neutrality of this article. [14] [15] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very briefly mentioned, but just because some nuts want people to carry around concealed weapons so that more people get shot on campus doesn't mean that we should devote all that much space to it. We've been trimming the response section for a while, and the gun-related stuff is the longest section (as it should be). TBH I think we should get rid of more, as as far as I can tell this incident has been completely forgotten by everyone (exactly as I said it would be). Titanium Dragon 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Your logic falls flat on its face. Well over 100,000 people in Virginia have concealed carry permits and the crime rate of those people is less than that of VA police. Currently, anyone can carry openly or concealed on VA college campuses - just as long as they aren't students. It's not illegal for a student to carry on campus, but they'll be expelled (which has questionable legality). To allow motor vehicles and irresponsible drinking on campus at the same time, then appeal to "safety" when the issue of campus carry is brought up is plainly fraudulent. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I just looked on Lexis Nexis, and he's right, major news networks such as the associated press are reporting this. While I wouldn't use references to concealedcarry.org, I do think that more neutral and respected references would need to be mentioned in this article's gun section. This really doesn't seem to be isolate to a few nuts. It seems to be nationwide. I would probably limit it to one sentence, stating that the incident has sparked concealed carry movements or something. Of course, there are also strong movements against concealed carry on campus... These need to be considered too. The sentence would need to be neutral. Wrad 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's not fantasize that a college campus is some sort of sensitive incubator - it isn't. It's just more state property with imaginary boundaries, and the laws should be applied to everyone equally throughout. That's why this issue has the momentum that it does. Normal citizens of a state are all of a sudden stripped of their right to carry openly (VA law) and permit to carry concealed simply because college policy (not state law) disallows it. If colleges legitimately want to act in the interest of student safety, they would strip a student's right to drink on state property (21 years and older) and not recognize state issued drivers licenses - alcohol and driving being top killers of college students. Public safety right? Right? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The impact this has on politics, including gun politics, is certainly relevant in my opinion. And obviously, we need to present relevant info regardless of whether it ends up on the "more guns might help" side or the "more guns are the problem" side. Statements like "some nuts want people to carry around concealed weapons so that more people get shot" are unhelpful in the extreme and do not belong on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a chat board. Friday (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Regardless of my personal position this this a battleground issue. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well here's some refs, both national, outlining movements for and against concealed carry on campus:

For:

  • Virginia Tech killings underscore guns-on-campus campaign Associated Press Worldstream, August 12, 2007 Sunday 7:54 PM GMT, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 678 words, By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press Writer
  • Student Advocates Guns on Campus National Public Radio (NPR), August 20, 2007 Monday, 802 words

Against:

  • Bill allowing concealed weapons on campuses fails this year The Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 6, 2007 Wednesday 8:40 PM GMT, STATE AND REGIONAL, 326 words, By SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press Writer
  • University creates task force related to guns on campus The Associated Press State & Local Wire, June 5, 2007 Tuesday 7:46 PM GMT, STATE AND REGIONAL, 471 words, By DEBBIE HUMMEL, Associated Press Writer

These are just a few. There are several more describing movements on both sides. Wrad 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a Washington Times cover story: [16] How much more notable does it need to be? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some editorial assistance needed

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

Undue Weight = POV

It's very clear that this could have, and should have been prevented within the scope of the mental health system yet this Wikipedia article places undue weight on the gun control debate simply because it is a lightning rod issue and guns are easier to attack than health care. Today's (Aug 27, 2007) front page Washington Post article is the smoking gun (no pun intended):

Fairfax County school officials determined that Seung Hui Cho suffered from an anxiety disorder so severe that they put him in special education and devised a plan to help, according to sources familiar with his history, but Virginia Tech was never told of the problem. [17]

I would like to avoid tagging this article. Please reassess the opening paragraphs. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation #10 references Ted Nugent. You couldn't ask for a better pro-gun strawman. For that, I'm tagging the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think tagging the entire article is overkill. Since it appears that you have issues with how the gun-control debate has been handled, I'd like to suggest that you just tag that one section so your concerns will be easier to address. Ronnotel 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have used a section tag, but it's an introduction. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Haizum, I don't quite understand the 7 minutes between your suggestion/request that the lead section be reassessed and your conclusion that the entire article had to be tagged as disputed. I changed the gun advocate reference in the lead section to a more neutral source (Christian Science Monitor) and added a sentence in the gun politics section regarding the concealed carry movement. If these do not address your overall POV concerns, perhaps you could be a little more specific about them here? Any attempt to cut down the gun politics section would have to be even-handed, but I certainly would support it -- it seems to me that there have been editors on both sides of that issue who have insisted on its significance and degree of detail. The under-emphasis on the mental health issues is only because that part of the story is only now coming to light, not because of any attempt to skew the article, at least as far as I'm aware. -- Sfmammamia 23:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There is very clearly undue weight given to the gun politics debate in the introduction, and because of the nature of what an introduction is supposed to do, the article has been steered in that direction. Also, the brevity of the intro summary is advantageous to the gun control side of the debate; it's much easier to stomach "no guns on campus" than "guns on campus." I would also like to note, with respect, that an article is not neutral simply because no one has gotten around to including balancing information. As it stands, there isn't nearly enough emphasis on the mental health issues. The sources are out there, it isn't in the article - the article is POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the lead section was expanded well after the major content in the article was already written. As the editor who began the process of adding several paragraphs to the lead in mid-May following suggestions you can read further up on this page, my attempt was to treat the controversies sparked by the incident in a balanced way. The article was not steered by the lead, it was the other way around. The gun politics controversy consumes a fairly large section in the article, so it made sense that some space be devoted to that controversy in the lead. I've expanded slightly the portion of the lead that deals with mental health; if it still seems unbalanced, I'll hope you'll continue contributing constructive and specific suggestions to keep improving the article. -- Sfmammamia 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sfmammamia - I can kind of see what Haizum is getting at regarding the intro. The last para in the intro seems to introduce quite of bit of detail that can be read later on. The third para already references the gun debate, what would you think about just cutting the fifth para in it's entirety? Ronnotel 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
By all means, mention that there is a gun politics debate in the intro, but pursuing that debate in abridged form is inherently advantageous to one side. This, and the lack of mental health info in the body of the article are my main concerns. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My only objection to deleting the 5th paragraph from the lead in its entirety is that the incident actually lead to a law being changed in Virginia, and, with the NRA's assistance, looks like it will lead to passage of a federal law as well. It wasn't just a debate, it was an incident of historic proportion that led to laws being changed. Doesn't that belong in the lead? The only reason the current paragraph is "advantageous to one side" is that the immediate actions taken have been to close gaps in gun control law that even the NRA and people as far on the right as Bill O'Reilly have supported. If concealed carry efforts energized by this incident lead to laws being changed, that would be equally significant. If the incident leads to mental health laws being changed, that would be equally significant. -- Sfmammamia 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. Wrad 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Can the aspect of changes to federal law be captured without quite so much detail as is now provided? Ronnotel 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made an attempt. I would also support deleting the now second sentence in that paragraph that expands on the debate positions, but will leave that to other editors to evaluate. -- Sfmammamia 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks good. I am going to try removing the second sentence - it has always seemed like a bit too much detail for an intro. If it gets added back in I won't squawk. Ronnotel 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro highlights only anti-gun policies. The intro should at least highlight something pro-gun that came out of this via concealed carry movements, or am I missing something. Wrad 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Criticism of University Response section

I recently removed nearly identical text to what has been added here because it references the results of Gov. Kaine's panel, which is already covered elsewhere. There was a similiarly titled section long ago that was removed, I believe, because it was considered unencyclopedic and possibly POV. Is this topic of sufficient import to merit it's own section? I would say no but think it deserves some more feedback. Ronnotel 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


New panel reports have been released that specifically cite Inaction by Virginia Tech administration in regards to deaths at virginia tech. Panel findings have confirmed that had Virginia Tech officials had done SOMETHING after the first shootings at the school, fewer people would have died in the massacre. This proves that Virginia Tech administration was partially to blame for the deaths involved at Norris Hall and that light should be shed upon this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 (talk) 18:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I agree that new information is available that needs to be included in the article. However, I question whether we need to reintroduce a section title that was long ago removed due to POV concerns. I also agree with Sfmammamia's concerns about the quality of the text. For example, sentences that being Many say. . . usually violate WP:WEASEL. In my experience, Sfmammamia is unusually good at copy editing. Can I suggest that we allow her to finish what she has proposed in the next section and see what she comes up with? Ronnotel 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Many people ARE putting blame onto virginia tech's administration for sitting on the sidelines and being indecisive about how to secure a college campuses when a murderer is on the loose. Campus beuracracy caused the unneccesary death of several people on the campus. There is an entire section in this article based upon how gun control may have been an issue in the massacre that is very POV related, yet I don't see anyone deleting the section on gun control.

The issue of virginia tech's inaction to the death's on it's campus has been a hot topic since day one. So far this article mentions nothing about it besides minor references hidden within articles relating to governmental bueracracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 (talk) 18:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

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

No one has made any attempt to address anything other than point out a few pseudo-pov errors that I have already corrected. Rather than simply deleting a section with relevant and current information, someone should make an attempt at article improvement rather than incessant nit-picking over minor details.

And as far as being unencyclopaedic, this is an article based upon a current and ongoing event, which in itself strays from normal unencyclopaedic content. And as far as logging reverts, I have began logging your reverts as well as your actions are also in violation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.244.119 (talk) 19:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)