Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 8

Announcement of his crimes on VT's online forum?
... and more http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shooter18apr18,0,2210161.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines 134.79.216.76 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Serge
 * See above.. 'Second Wave'... I'm pretty sure it's 4chan nonsense again. I can't believe this stuff is getting picked up by the media. 72.66.204.188 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A 4chan post decried the way LA Times was blaming the school's online forum for what they pulled off. Not that you should trust anything on 4chan, but... --Kizor 08:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

4chan /b/ did V-Tech
ive seen some things from various news papers, and the new york times that the guy posted (around 4 or 5 AM) that he was going to shoot the school up on 4chan.
 * It was mentioned either on this talk or cho seung-hui's that it's not real.Darrik2 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * it was a hoax. see archives passim. or even here. tomasz.  21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy to get weapon ?
gtg I am suprised to see how easy it was to legaly buy a weapon and ammo required do this mass murder. I am also surprised by media not discussing this point but only Cho's psychology. By the way, how strong is the NRA on the VT campus ? Anybody else thinking that buying weapons should be way more difficult than opening an account at the bank next door ?


 * Your bank requires a criminal background check? And he did NOT legally obtain the weapons, as he was committed to a mental health facility in 2005, which made him legally unable to purchase a firearm.  However, this information is probably not available to the FBI, which means it would not have shown up in the federally required background check.  scot 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm page 1, question f. scot 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this is not a forum. Also, please sign your posts in the future (just type four tildes after your comment).  Thanks! -  Ennuified   talk   12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you not even bother to read? Not only has pretty much every media source on the planet commented on the gun control angle (mostly for some against) but the wiki article even has a whole section about the 'Gun control debate' --Reyals 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the media have discussed it. The perp followed the letter of the law in buying his weapons. Having said that, as O'Reilly pointed out, Virginia's laws are probably too lenient. But the guy had no criminal record and did not act suspicious. As has been pointed out, the ones who want guns controlled will find themselves defenseless if the government breaks down and/or turns tyrannical, which is the whole point of the Second Amendment. Wahkeenah 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting point to note (one that was clearer in the main article yesterday than today) is that another shooting in Virginia was stopped when two law school students went to their cars and got their guns during the Appalachian School of Law shooting. The gunman in that case was able to be stopped at three murders rather than seven or eight (he only had a limited amount of bullets beyond that).  It will always be easy for criminals to buy guns because they'll do it illegally.  When you make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, it becomes more difficult to defend yourself from people wielding guns to hurt you.  Guns weren't allowed on campus and that didn't stop this murderer.  It only stopped law-abiding students with concealed-carry permits from being able to defend themselves.-Gloriamarie 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the point made in the media is that the perp was a law-abiding citizen, apparently, clear up to the point where he opened fire. But allowing students to carry weapons is not appropriate. It will only encourage more shootings. Wahkeenah 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a study can be conducted and then we would know that for sure.--Gloriamarie 08:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum, please don't discuss this here. I've tried to ensure a balance in the "Gun control debate" section which covers both point of view (despite my biases) and hope people agree -Halo 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point about whether this guy was violating any law by possessing these guns (which he apparently wasn't) is relevant to the article. Wahkeenah 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? Nobody said or implied he was violating any law possessing guns, but you're getting into a forum-style discussion over the legitimacy of gun control, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. -Halo 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should delete this section. Wahkeenah 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the laws that are the problem - it's the attitude in the US toward guns.  Just look at Wahkeenah above.. "the ones who want guns controlled will find themselves defenseless if the government breaks down and/or turns tyrannical, which is the whole point of the Second Amendment".   What?  Turns tyrannical?  When are you living?  The Wild West?  Or maybe the Middle Ages?  I also like how the international reaction bit was trimmed down - fair enough to cut all the condolences bulking out the article - but what about other reactions... like John Howard citing the 'negative gun culture'? Lets just remove that because it depicts an anti-US view. 203.97.51.149 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Democracy is all about discussion. Point is that if holding a weapon make you more secure at a point of time it will also raise more threat too. Simply because any realy crazy guy will over-weapon as a response. You got a knife, he will got a gun. You got a gun, he will got a machine gun. You got a machine gun, he will got hand-grenade, etc. The point stating that guns are here to prevent tyrany is non-sense. In a democracy like US, a tyrany can only happen thru the election process (Hitlter is a very good example in this way). I don't see how "gun available at shop-next-door" will change people mind not to vote for a potential dictator in this context. --TM

Why does the article say that he purchased both guns ILLEGALLY? The police dept. and the source clearly indicate that he bought it LEGALLY.


 * Right, but they may be wrong; Cho had been committed by court order to a mental institution for psychiatric evaluation; commission to a mental institution is grounds for denial of purchase. Based on those two facts, it seems that he may have lied on the affidavit for purchase, thus obtaining the guns illegally.  The question remains as to what the ATF defines as "commited to a mental institution" and whether Cho's psych evaluation fits the definition.  With luck some reliable source will pick up on this and provide some clarification.  scot 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Might the phrasing POSSIBLY ILLEGALLY be more accurate, at least until more definitive information regarding this issue is released. I'm not convinced that a definitive statement about the legality of the gun purchases can be supported at the present NotThatKat 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's still original research. Until the legality is questioned by reliable sources, we can't put it in the article.Chunky Rice 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but at the moment, the article says ILLEGALLY, and I've not seen a reliable source question the legality of the gun purchases. 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly shouldn't say that. I can't find it though, so it may have already been reverted.Chunky Rice 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question 11f of ATF Form 4473 asks the question: Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? So it is likely that Cho lied about this on the form when he bought his guns from the two firearms dealers. However, we can't use this info in the article, until a reliable source mentions it, as discussed above. I am leaving this info in here so it is available for use when that happens.Kevinp2 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * see also here. tomasz.  00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * C'm'on, the 9-11 terrorists also lied : they all signed the immigration form stating they are not terrorist at all and do not plan to do "bad things" and will be "nice boyz". We are not in kindergarden, crazy people will lie even with an hand over whatever "book of trust". This is the reality of human-kind. Be pragmatic ! As long the only mental checking you have to get weapons is to sign a dump form and have a quick'n'dirty "instant background checking", then be sure there will be other VT/Colobine massacre ... whatever security mesure you put on the schools. Cho was clealy having mental problem, and IMHO a "neighbour analysis" procedure (say police, asking to friend/neighbors how they feel the guy, plus deep psychiatric background checks) should be done long before granting a gun to somebody. In this case, it would have show the guy is not clean and can have mental disorders (see psychiatric sections for the points on his known background & behaviour). --TM

Gunman's influence claims discussion
I'm combining a few sections for clarity and ease of discussion, which should make things far less painful for future archive-readers as well. If wrong, slap with fish. --Kizor 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear at this point that people have no idea what they're talking about at this point. Until it is well established, it would be irresponsible to include this. Titanium Dragon 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Violent Media
I'm not saying that the shootings were caused by violent media. However, two prominent figures have so far gone on televison and claimed violent media to be the source. Therefore it is an issue surrounding the shootings and there is no reason to remove it. It does need editing but removing it all together takes away responses. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a talking point and is an 'issue' of discussion. Why this section is continually being removed as 'nonsense' and so forth by Flavourdan is beyond me. -William Desby 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * THen I get told off for "taking it out" when i'm the one putting it back in. Violask81976 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Jack Thompson is a (characterization that would probably constitute eight or nine violations of WP:BLP in a mere five words deleted) and hardly a recognized expert in the field? Rdfox 76 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox News sure thinks he's an expert, watch the source and they call him an expert on school shootings for some reason. It doesn't matter that it is Jack Thompson, the fact that it is currently considered as a reasoning is enough to put it as a current issue surrounding the shooting. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite his perceived lack of expertise, he was recognized as such on national television (Fox news) and has a very loud an powerful platform. Despite his rather unprofessional nature, he makes big waves - waves that get him air time on top rating television news networks. I'll let Dr. Phil stand on his own. This is a social issue, not all of which are covered by experts, and many of which are not purported by experts. His influence on violence and so forth in the media, however, is undeniable after the 'hot coffee' episode. -William Desby 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Baseless speculation has no place in Wikipedia articles. The section itself admitted they have no idea if the perp ever played a video game, they are just speculating without any basis. Do not keep reinserting nonsense. Flavourdan 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We know it has not basis. We know that they can't prove the connection. However, before a motive has been made and before any actual connection is made the blame is being placed on Violent Media. It is an issue raised on National Television and as such has a purpose in the section of the article labled as Issues. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just zapped the Violent Media blurbs. It is an issue surrounding the shootings, yes. However, there certainly is no concrete link between media of any sort and this killers actions yet. Wikipedia does not do original research nor does rampant speculation by Dr. Phil and others need to be relayed. Simply put, a real world encyclopedia would never include such a section, because there is no direct connection as of yet. Rahga 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post reports Cho was a fan of Counterstrike. --HertzaHaeon 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are almost 69,000 people playing Counter-Strike [| right now]... the fact that he was a fan of it is meaningless. Reactionary responses from the likes of Jack Thompson are as well - he made those claims before any information about Cho liking violent games even came to light because that's what Thompson does.  I'm a gamer, I've seen a hundred other instances where he's done this... this is no different.  It should not be included. -  Ennuified   talk   01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wait long enough, a secondary source in the game industry should refute the allegation of a connection and that can be used to counter Jack Thompson's usual spiel. The entry could then read, "Some pundits, such as Jack Thompson, claimed that violent media contributed to the attack. However, other sources have pointed out the lack of any evidence of such a link and the large numbers of people who play violent games without consequence." Attach appropriate sources and you're done. GarryKosmos 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think he should be left out altogether. He's simply using this to forward his own agenda, and I find that deeply offensive. HalfShadow 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. We already voted on this, and the result was unanimous to leave speculation out of the article, regardless of how famous the source may be. Celebrities will push their agendas in crisis such as this - we needn't encourage them. --Dan East 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, these days everything has to be about blame the media, blame the video games, blame the parents, blame the teachers, blame cultural determinism. Isn't it ironic that the media is reporting that violence on the media leads to violence, while they are covering violence?Niubrad 05:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Virginia Tech page should not mention any "influence of media" on the the shooter but I feel that there should be a space on the school shootings page that mentions such ideas. One source can be from an interview by Anderson Cooper on AC 360 CNN with a former school shooter who is now serving a 230 year sentence. In the interview he makes the claim that he thought shooting someone in real life was like shooting someone in the game doom. He claims that he believed the shots would not kill the students.Poodle76 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's hardly factual, even including that would essentially be NPOV, given that he's obviously either mentally ill or pretending to be in order to save face / not appear to be a monster. Furthermore, if someone is stupid enough to believe that killing someone in real life is as inconsequential and harmless as in a video game, the problem is definitely with them, not video games.  Not to get too discussive here, this isn't a forum, but there's no way that merits inclusion here - or anywhere, unless it's an article about the feebleminded ways shooters have attempted to justify their heinous acts. -  Ennuified   talk   12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he must have thought that the plasma ray gun he was brandishing was going to only temporarily freeze them and if he left the screen they would re-morph back into their old selves. I wonder if Fox will run a piece about how violence on media causes phychological distortion of the physical laws of the universe.Niubrad 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we get sources that Cho Seung-hui was utilizing air? Oxygen is the #1 cause of violence! Every violent human is a hopeless oxygen addict. STOP BREATHING NOW BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE! 198.6.46.11 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I blame the nitrogen. Gregohio 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More on media influence
The line 'It is currently unknown what role violence in the media played in influencing the shootings' should probably be edited to say 'It is currently unknown what role, if any, violence in the media played in influencing the shootings'. At this point even the suggestion that there is a connection between the two is premature and unprofessional. 204.69.40.13 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but a couple of editors keep reinserting these bogus claims, because they were said on TV I guess they must be in the article. Everything that was said on TV should be in wikipedia apparently. Flavourdan 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure that is most likely referring to video games. I will edit that. Fun  pika  20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be addressed at all unless facts are presented to support the assertion. --Dan East 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Video games?
Any news yet on blaming video games? They usually get around to blaming them at some point. The Behnam 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the article, its happened already. Gdo01 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind its been deleted. Gdo01 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Jack Thompson has already got the bandwagon moving on this, as he got on Fox News the night of the attack blaming it on video games, despite there being no information known about the killer at the time. Freecorbinj 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the love of god, lets leave Thompson out of this article. He was claiming that the killer used video games like Counterstrike to train before the shooter had even been identified.  The man's a bonafide nutjob and no-one who knows anything about his history of accusations takes him seriously - except Fox News, apparently, who called him a 'School Shootings Expert' or something like that. -  Ennuified   talk  01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thompson was on Fox News with in HOURS (before lunch) of the attack blaming it on "evil videogames" I agree with Ennuified, unless we have verifiable proof that video games have any connection to this, let's leave them out. Currently it's knee jerk reactions of people pressing agendas.Kinglink 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Leave them out unless facts are presented to support the assertion. --Dan East 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At some point, discussion of the supposed role of movies, music, and video games will have to be included. Wikipedia will need to include it not because it's valid criticism, but because it becomes part of the national dialog. Marilyn Manson will probably get blamed. Expect congressional hearings. Gregohio 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence of Guns N' Roses song
Should this be mentioned in the article, it's a play the gunman wrote based on the Guns N' Roses song Mr. Brownstone, in it he writes about a character wanting to kill a teacher on a Monday, which may contain motives as to why he did this. Bucketheader 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is almost like hearsay. Can it be proven?Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's crap anyway: blaming a song/movie/videogame for your or someone else's actions is the ultimate cop-out. HalfShadow 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that when music is blamed for this stuff it's crap, and mostly incorrect, but this song and the play based upon it is very similar to the real events; the first lyrics to the song is "I get up around 7:00,get outta bed around 9:00 i don't worry about nothin' no, 'cause worryins' a waste of my time", and when you consider what Cho Seung-hui did at 7:00 and 9:00 speaks for itself, it may just be coincidence but it could certainly be relevent. Bucketheader 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are enough forums around to speculate all that and more... I don't understand why Wikipedia's talk pages have to serve as one of them. Ephraim6888 01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could? How is a possibility relevant? Plus we do not have a reliable source from this. Anything else violates WP:OR. Gdo01 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should include it, but I would say that it is relevant given that the play is violent in nature, is about killing a teacher on a Monday, and the song's lyrics coincide with the times of the killings. If that's not intentional, it's one heck of a coincidence. -  Ennuified   talk  01:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the chance is 20%, assuming equal probability for the event to occur on any of the five school days. If you consider that he probably waited until first day of class, which is usually a Monday it is actually probable. If the song was "kill a teacher on the 16th of April 2007", then that would be worthy of note and either intentional or one big coincidence, but seriously... "Monday" is not a huge coincidence. Sad mouse 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not alone, but in conjunction with the song's lyrics ("I get up around 7:00,get outta bed around 9:00") which are eerily close to the times of the two shooting incidents, as well as the play being violent... more than 20%. I'm merely backing up what I said, I don't particularly hold any stock in it... seems too conspiracy theorist-esque to me right now, but we should keep tabs on it and see if anything comes up.  I doubt it'll ever leave the realm of urban legend founded in rumor, though. -  Ennuified   talk   03:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IT is strange. If this song was an influence, it would have had to have been grossly mis interpreted. Mr Brownstone is a song that follows the course of one of the band members heroin use, nothing more.Agonsw 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to include that you might as well include, 'I don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats as well. And 'Manic Monday'... Spugmeister 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The killer didn't write plays with references to either of those songs, so I don't see your point. - Ennuified   talk   12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that writing a disturbing play based on a song does not equal an influence to massacre. Just like finding 'I don't like Mondays' (A song based on a real event where a girl flipped and started shooting kids on their way to school, with her only reason being, 'I don't like Mondays') in his music collection would not make that song an influence, being a fan of a song about Heroin abuse and writing a play referencing it does not make that an influence either. Spugmeister 13:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, having read the play, I can't see any specific mention of murdering the teacher on a Monday. Spugmeister 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Response
I think better support needs to be provided for the statement that the media was split between the positions that gun control could have prevented this tragedy and that gun control in fact caused it. The Conservative Voice isn't exactly a major media outlet comparable to the NY Times. I don't have a citation at hand but surely something could be found on Fox or another News Corp property to replace the conservative voice reference?

Otherwise I think that statement should just be removed and let the facts speak for themselves.

Exactly. Wikipedia is not a conservative mouthpiece. That article on media response was as biased as it can get, especially the part about how the university's ban on students carrying concealed weapons contributed to the massacre. such arguments are soo stupid.

I mean, yes wikipedia needs to show both sides of the argument when presenting any case - so that the website comes across as neutral. But to put up ridiculous reasons, that too from really biased sources ('Conservative voice')makes the article biased with a right-wing flavour. please do take note of that article.

Personally speaking, I find it disrespectful to the people that died that somebody on wikipedia had the audacity to make a political statement in the event of such a tragedy. Hahahaha1 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Criminal Classification
Part 7 aka Criminal Classification is really mangled, especially the first paragraph. I'm going to try to clean up the language without distorting the content. Feel free to improve on any edits I make. Ikilled007 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Screw it, I spent 20 minutes cleaning it up to something passable and got an edit conflict for my troubles, losing the entire edit in the process. Someone else can play with it. Ikilled007 10:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

a

Copy cat?
Maybe add a section more about the aftermath - news 12 long island reported this morning there are 10 copycat threats made across america for shootings in schools across america after this tradgedy.


 * If it's cited properly and not speculative, I think it would certainly be relevent. Ikilled007 11:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

okay cool. ill check it out later, im at school right now and the news12 website doesn't work (you have to be a cablevision subscriber. weird huh?) but im off right now on a free period so ill do a lil research.
 * God love America, huh? Good thing I'm Canadian, then... HalfShadow 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My sincerest apologies for my un-thinking compatriot above... God knows we have our share of problems in Canada, too.  CanadianMist 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? No immediate instances of 'Hey, someone shot up a school, let's threaten to do the same and watch the cops jump' comes to mind. HalfShadow 21:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was in today's Montreal newspapers. A couple of kids who attend St-Lawrence College showed up there with paintguns to scare people. 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone would be kind to add a section on coppy cats, my school, Walled Lake Western High School, Walled Lake, MI had one today. There are no news reports, but the school homepage has a letter from the principal http://www.walledlake.k12.mi.us/wlwhs It's not a shooting, but as close as you can get.

Thanks Igafooj 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another copycat, unfortunately, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=195361

And another one.. Took place at MY high school. http://www.fox30online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=49a3b859-5aef-4395-9b93-d26f0a606a27

the numbers of death? isnt it 31 only in virginia tect
the numbers of death? isnt it 31 only in virginia tech alone and 2 outside the virgina tech area?
 * It's 31 (including the gunman) in Norris, the academic building, and an additional 2 in West AJ, a dorm. VTBassMatt 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy in summarizing the event
The passive voice in the first paragraph is very weak. The gunman wasn't "killed". He killed himself. The others were certainly "killed" or "injured", but active voice is always considered stronger. The passive voice makes it sound as if some freak event occurred and the victims 'somehow' ended up dead or injured. The first paragraph should indicate that the attacker shot 61 people, killing 32 and injuring 29 others. However, I don't want to get into an editing war. Somebody please explain what's wrong with indicating (1) that the gunman actually caused the harm and (2) that he was the guilty perpetrator while the others were innocent victims. Logophile 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I think you're exactly right. Why not edit it? Ikilled007 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already edited it twice and had my edits changed back. Somebody is bent on saying that 33 people "were killed".  Logophile 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You do honor to your name, Logophile. Good language skills are as valuable on Wikipedia as they are rare. Ikilled007 changed the phrasing to an active one and it should stick this time. --Kizor 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although there's a citation for the statement issued in the initial paragraph that "A gunman killed 32 people", and there are ballistics reports which claim that one of the weapons used in the first attack in the morning was the same one used in the second, the local police are not confident to rule out the possibility that the early morning shooting was a second shooter. To say that "A gunman killed 32 people" implies that there was only one gunman.


 * I don't have a source for the report about this, which I heard on NPR, but I'm sure it's out there. --Jimbojw 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC wrong-student in computer science, not math, class
The BBC article has it wrong; Nikolas Macko was in a computer science class, not a math class. Maybe in Britain CS is considered a subset of mathematics? Anyhow, I would have made the change, but I don't know how to cite an email from the CS department here at Virginia Tech, and it also contains other names besides Nikolas's so I can't simply post the text verbatim. It's a minor point, but I'm all about accuracy. VTBassMatt 11:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how either, but please keep up with it to make sure it gets edited for accuracy. Ikilled007 11:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not considered a subset (it's a science), but people who do CS also do Mathematics classes (and often vice versa), so they both (in theory) could be right. -Halo 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also can't find any sources saying Computer Science either, but a few saying Mathematics. *shrug* -Halo 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Halo. Yes, we take a lot of mathematics courses as well, but this was definitely a CS class.  It was Dr. Adrian Sandu's CS4414 "Issues in Scientific Computing" class, and I have an email from our department listing the names of students in the class who are confirmed safe.
 * Ah-ha. I've found the reason it may be quoted as a math class; the course is cross-listed as MATH4414. However, Dr. Sandu is a CS professor, hence my desire to show it as a CS class. I'm guessing Nikolas Macko is a mathematics student, or signed up through the mathematics entry, so HE considers it a math class. I can live with BBC's reporting of the story, if that's what Nikolas told them. Thanks for the comments =) VTBassMatt 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's me again, the student that was in the math class. Yes, it is a math class, and is cross-listed with CS. If you wish to look it up, it is MATH 4414 or CS 4414 and you can look it up at https://banweb.banner.vt.edu/ssb/prod/HZSKVTSC.P_DispRequest And yes, that is what I told the BBC, that it is a math class24.127.53.202 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Link
The references to Collegiate Times concerning the victims names is an HTTP404 now. Look for another or remove the names. --213.155.224.232 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't remove the names, since they were all cite-able at the time. We'll find another, or go back to citing them from individual media sources like before. VTBassMatt 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assault vehicles surrounding Burris Hall
Anyone have an idea of what's going on right now? --Starks 12:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Is something happening at the moment? Got any source or anything to explain what you're asking about? - Ennuified   talk   12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Turn on the TV to the cable news networks. --Starks 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tech message board says they are letting people back in. I imagine we won't find out what is going on until a press conference.--BigDT 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * SPECULATION ALERT: Campus of 26,000. There's bound to be a few jackasses starting scares. --Elliskev 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ... that's true ... except that it's 8:42 in the morning Virginia Tech time so any college student that doesn't have to be awake is still asleep. ;) --BigDT 12:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.security.alert/index.html "we had reason to believe there was a need to secure the president's office" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.95.90.125 (talk)

I know someone that was just about to drive in front of Burruss hall about 10 minutes ago, and was stopped by policemen - apparently a bomb threat was made on Burruss Hall, possibly President Steger's office. 204.154.43.244 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilian versus military massacres
I notice that the article currently compares this massacre with previous spree killings and mass killings in the US and abroad, but there is nothing yet to explain the "civilian" qualifier used in the lead section. I suspect that this 'civilian' qualifier is designed to exclude militia and military massacres, such as Wounded Knee Massacre and Mountain Meadows massacre. Should this be clarified somewhere in the article? Maybe the emphasis should be on this being a lone killer, as the examples I give are militia/military units. Carcharoth 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically: "the deadliest mass shooting perpetrated by a civilian in the history of the United States" and the historical context that may need expanding is currently at Virginia Tech massacre. Carcharoth 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And to clarify further, I think the current sentence leads people to think "oh, so there was a military person who carried out a deadlier mass shooting in the United States"? I suspect the sentence is trying to imply something like "peacetime", rather than "civilian". Both the massacres I pointed out were during or in the run-up to wars - specifically the Sioux Wars and the Utah War. Carcharoth 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Was a huge hoax?
The first line claims that the massacre was a huge hoax, I hope you guys don't mind, I'm changing it. Thanks.

minor alphabetism

 * could someone put Lauren McCain in alphabetical order in the casualties list? as far as i can see this is the only misplaced entry. i'd do it myself but i'm afraid of breaking the 3-column thing. ta tomasz.  12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

media response
a media response section would be relevant, such as Dr. phil's imediate blaming of vidio games or john stewarts decision to respectfully not speculate about the incedent at this time.Boatman666 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, Perhaps that can wait until the Media even knows what the real reasons were. That and many the people on as guests are just making rumors and speculations. WillSWC 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Section 7 Criminalogical Classification
I've tried to edit and clean this up several times but it keeps getting reverted by someone who's obviously proud of his/her work which reads:

"Cho Seung-hui was a spree killer. Spree killers kill in two or more different locations but within only a few hours or often just minutes, in contrast to serial killers who have cooling off periods of several days. The case is similar to the University of Texas shooting of 1966, in which the perpetrator Charles Whitman firstly killed two persons - his mother and his wife - and ran amok after a significant pause."

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but aside from the fact that this is very poorly written, it also smacks of original research, provides no citations for such distinctions (serial killers take several days off to cool down between killings?? They never take months or years? They "cool down" as opposed to just do something else, etc.?

I'd really like to see this section made tolerable. Ikilled007 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I was about to say it would be suitable for the article just to link to the spree killer article, but looking at that article, it's pretty poor too. Complete lack of sources cited and also reeking of WP:OR.  How about someone tidies up the spree killer article and we just leave the link, no point expanding on what a spree killer is within the virgin tech article. --Oscarthecat 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote we delete that section, as the classification of the crime is debatable and there have been no (to my knowledge) authoritative classifications by recognized experts. The whole "spree killer/mass murderer" difference is vague, as well -- Charles Whitman is classified as a mass murderer, and he killed his mother and wife, then traveled to UT Austin to kill on campus, something that this event echoes.--Tthaas 13:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * word to Tthaas. tomasz.  16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't the obvious parallel to the University of Texas shooting by Charles Whitman be mentioned? I.e. that the shooting was neither planned nor spontanous but a reaction to a spontanous (double) murder (in affect, "in the heat of the moment")? I think that this is obvious enough not to call it OR. Please excuse my poor English. --Abe Lincoln 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This massacre wasn't planned? He just happened to have loads of ammo? I recall reading in a news posting that all the victims were hit 3 times.. with 62 victims that's 186 rounds of ammo if you assume he hit 100% of the time. And what about the chains? He just happened to have them? To me, this seems to have definitely been planned well in advance. --70.161.25.85 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He had in mind to do it, but had no special date in mind. When he shot the first two, he decided that he had nothing to loose anyway and started to run amok. But that is partly speculation. I just would make hint on the very obvious facts, that there was a pause between the murder of people he obviously knew and the later mass murder. What do you think? --Abe Lincoln 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * seems like a not-particularly-relevant comparison being taken too far. if people wanna read about Whitman they can do it in that article. tomasz.  16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Numbers Injured
It says in the info box 29 were injured but it says in the summary 17 were injured. Can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk) 18 April 2007

Timeline
The "Timeline" section is making the TOC too long, in my opinion. I don't think every date needs its own subheading. Would anybody object if I converted all instances of  == Date ==  to  ;Date ?↔NMajdan •talk 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Please do. --Kizor 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an inconsistency-- The timeline has his purchase of the Glock as coming first, whereas in the Gun Control section, it states the .22 came first.

Wikipedia as an Events Calendar
I have been trying to prune the 'timeline' for things that are obviously not notable including a list of gatherings and get togethers and vigils. If you look at my contributions, I've been removing some pretty silly things that look more like they belong in Facebook, or some kind of events calendar. I keep getting reverted. In the end a lot of these things just will not matter and aren't informative. I'm giving up on removing it for now, and will come back when all the hubbub has died down. This article should have stayed in protective mode for a bit longer. (Bjorn Tipling 14:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Those items were posted when the article WAS semi-protected and under constant Oversight. Give it a week, then maybe we can consider trimming stuff down.  At this point, though, they qualify.  And the official university memorial service/convocation ceremony would qualify as notable, IMO, if just for President Bush being in attendance. Rdfox 76 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced sections
Under the "Preparation" section under "Cho Seung-hui" it looks like big chunk from the top of the article has somehow ended up there. I'm not sure what belongs and what doesn't. Can someone who does please take a look at it? Thanks. Lovelace 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed; thanks for the heads-up.  A  Train ''talk 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

International Reaction and gun control debate
The "International Reaction" section says that government officials have expressed their sympathy to the American people and the families of the victims because of this incident, however looking at the links in that section a variety of governmental officials (e.g. from Germany) also mention that this incident shows the problematic low level of gun control in the US. The international reaction section was more complete yesterday with separate quotes for different countries, now it omits material information in my opinion. Themanwithoutapast 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that is part of the gun control debate, it is better placed in that section where an opposing view can be cited as well. To say that this illustrates the problematic low level of gun control in the US is problematic as well, because Virginia had its own laws separate from any other state, and those things are handled at the state level.  Many states and cities have strict gun control laws.--Gloriamarie 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lapsed assault-weapons ban was federal. GregOhio 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no assault-weapons were used in this attack, I don't see how this is relevant. 129.237.2.66 19:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that the gun control debate includes federal laws, in addition to state and local. Gloriamarie seems to imply that there's no federal role.  Beyond that, the response to 9/11 included chemical plants and ports, even though neither of them were targeted that day. GregOhio 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that most particularly relevant laws are made at the state level. Licensing, permits, right to carry-- that is all handled at the state level.  This is entirely different than centralized governments like the UK.  --Gloriamarie 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy that many, many international sources, both government and media are questioning the role US gun laws may have played in this incident? To mention just a few, Britain's Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, and France's Le Monde are treating the gun law angle as the primary story. Australian Prime Minister John Howard said "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." I'm not saying every international response, especially perfunctory ones, should be included, but Howard's is significant considering he's a conservative ally of President Bush. GregOhio 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But this shooting had nothing to do with President Bush. If this has a place anywhere it would be at gun politics, and a link could be created to that.  129.237.2.66 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that Bush is anti-gun control, yet his political ally Howard called us out on the issue. I'd venture that this belongs in an article discussing gun politics in response to this incident. GregOhio 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more appropriate for an article on either Howard or Bush or both. That has more to do with their relationship than with this particular incident.--Gloriamarie 02:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we come up with more NPOV terms for the "gun control debate" section that avoid the slanted "anti-gun" and "gun rights" labels? Does anyone object to "gun control advocates" and "gun ownership advocates" instead? Anyone have suggestions for even more neutral terms? --OtisTDog 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cellphone Video
I'd have to say that in all instances I've seen of the distributed cellphone video that there are not "twenty-seven shots heard". Five shots in the distance are clearly heard while other high-pitched, rapid "pops" seem to be wind noise or audio originating from the person shifting position of the cellphone in their hand. Kitsu3 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i would delete the figure of 27 as original research, it used to just say "gunshots can be heard on the video" without mentioning any figure. someone added that independently/. tomasz.  16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * and indeed i have. tomasz.  16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kudos. I would also argue that the exact number of shots is not even especially relevant. It's known that he reloaded several times, so the video would cover only a portion of it. It would be relevant, maybe, if it could be verified which part of his rampage it covered. But I'm thinking the guy turned on the phone in response to the shots, so even that wouldn't tell us much. Wahkeenah 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 27 shots does not violate WP:OR. Wolf Blitzer did a segment on it on Monday; a sidebar counted up to 27 while the video played. I say it should stay in. Replacing... (Also inserted the name of student who took the video as he has been interviewed many times in past 72 hours on CNN.)  Also, can anyone find a link with the *whole* cellphone video?  I think part of this problem is that the LiveLeak source only contains a truncated version of it.  The one CNN showed had Albarghouti changing location to get closer to Norris Hall as well.  -Scientz 05:38p, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * If a verifiable source says 27, then it could be valid info in the article. Wahkeenah 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

File
The killer obviously thought that filing the numbers off the guns would eliminate the numbers altogether. Actually, the old numbers can be revealed with acid.
 * Yeah, I saw that episode of CSI too. ;)

This has been known for 50 years or more. I first heard of it in the 1950's. A relative was in an armed Police force at the time.

Victims
A list of the 24 wounded could be provided along with the list of those killed by gunman.
 * it could, but there wouldn't be any point at all. tomasz.  16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Infobox Picture
I don't know what happened in the past few hours as changes are very hard to track due to the immense amount of edits on this article. Stating this, I am wondering what happened to the original picture on the infobox that had the caption: "Injured students being evacuated from Norris Hall, where 31 of the 33 killings occurred." I think this particular image gave the article a great sense of identity as does the image in the infobox on the Columbine massacre page. It is also the image that appeared on most newspapers that were distributed on the 17th of April. Views? Opinions? --Ddahlberg 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably replaceable fair use/copyvio - I believe it's owned by the Associated Press. Natalie 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a Roanoke Times photo distributed by AP. Use on wikipedia is copyvio. 74.140.227.121 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's letter
Could the content of the letter vfound in Cho's dorm room be elaborated on. I would want to know more about what his letter said, and what he said his reasons were for the shooting. 68.125.51.151 15:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point I don't think the letter's been Released to the public so there's no way we could do that. When it is released however I'll look into it being added. WillSWC 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So far it appears that the letter has not been released - no news outlets have reported anything other than the quotes we have here. Presumably, since it's part of an ongoing investigation, it won't be released until the investigation is complete, which could take a while. Natalie 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking speculatively, they're probably holding back some details from the letter so they can screen out any potential collaborators from the cranks who call in to confess to any prominent crime. It's fairly common practice to keep a few significant details back for this purpose in murder investigations. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right, I forgot they do that. I haven't watched Law and Order or CSI in awhile. Natalie 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Comment
Dwb1133 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)The April 2, 2007 entry in the timeline regarding an anonymnous bomb threat to Torgersen Hall is seamingly unrealated to Cho and should not be placed in this article.
 * I agree, and submit that all references to bomb threats be removed until a connection is proven in the media. This borders on false light (libel). 129.237.2.66 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it should remain, however it should be clearly stated that the perpetrator is still unknown -Halo 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * taken in context with the other bomb threat entry, it speculates that the threats were carried out by Cho to test campus security. This should stay if it can be referenced, otherwise it's pretty much original research. tomasz.  16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They should stay, insofar as they affected the police's response to the shooting, and provide context for the environment in which it occurred. I don't think we can allege a connection with Cho based on what's known yet, but the fact that the note in his room included a bomb threat does suggest a possible connection. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My big issue with the bomb threats being included is that they're wholly without context. It's speculation (as another user said above) to say that they were "used to test security."  When I was in college we had bomb threats probably...2-3 times a month.  Nobody ever shot up the school afterwards.  There was a fight during one....should we speculate that somebody called it in to get their target out of the dormitory?  The bomb threats that DAY may prove to be a source of interest, but from two weeks before?  There's nothing at this point to say that Cho didn't decide this past weekend to shoot up the school...yet by keeping these in THIS article and linking them with the timeline to the shooting...wikipedia users are making their own facts and implying that the shooter (Hui) likely called in the bomb threats, or that they're at all related to the shootings.  I believe the references to the threats should be removed until authorities can determine if Hui was responsible for them. Batman2005 21:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline correction
The Wikipedia timeline says the Walther P22 was purchased on April 13th, yet the article on MSNBC used as a referance clearly says Feb 9. --12.109.16.131 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell MSNBC May be mistaken since CNN, FOX and BBC All say its the 13th. I'll go see If i can find the articles where they say that. WillSWC 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glock and Walther P22 would have to be a month apart to comply with Virginia One Gun a month law because killer didn't fall under any exceptions to that law. Rabbit994 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove Semi-Protect
This page has so many people watching it, including myself that there's no real reason to Semi-Protect it and it would let others contribute and show the openness of the Wikipedia to new users who've come from the main page. WillSWC 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur; this is probably one of the busiest pages on the site. Anyone who tries anything won't last 30 seconds. HalfShadow 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Every time the protection comes off the IP and new account vandalism accelerates to the point that real editors get nothing but edit conflicts because they are actually taking time to compose material rather than just vandalizing.  If an anon or new user wants to contribute they can post it on the talk page and someone else will take it to the main article. --StuffOfInterest 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with this previous statement. It's normal now, but it will become unbearable when the protection is lifted. --Ddahlberg 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, how many new, registered users has the project gained because of this article alone? I would say at least a couple dozen.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and take it off. Things have calmed down a bit.  But there should be no prejudice to reapplying it if, once again, we are barraged with vandalism.Chunky Rice 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is school time in the United States and we get a lot of crap from schoolkids. This is also when a lot of our vandalism reverters are working or are also in school. I know there are tons of Wikipedians in other timezones, but since this was a US event it's attracted a lot of US attention. I'd keep the semi on at least until the school day is over. Natalie 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea too. School IPs are a total pain. Since one IP can be a dozen computers that means a dozen people could be doing it at once. They can be blocked, but we'd still have to clean it up. It's like getting hit by a wave.HalfShadow 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its calmed down because its sprotected. Most of the vandalism have been from IPs and the sprotect prevents IPs from editing.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that we should at least give unprotecting it a try. If it's a problem, slap it back on without hesitation, but we shoudln't leave it on indefinitely because of what might happen. Chunky Rice
 * You could try it and see how long it takes before it goes nuts. I think it would (re-)open the floodgates to all sorts of looney-tunes changes, some of them slipping in and missed by regular editors. I would give it a few more days before trying. That is, once enough facts are in. For example, the Texas guy in the 1960s was found to have had a brain tumor, as I recall. So once the story has tapered off a bit, it should be safer. Wahkeenah 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * School-IP edits are pretty schizophrenic; half of them are here legitimately and the other half are thinking 'Cool! Something I can break!' HalfShadow 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the the good participation we've seen from IPs on the talk page, I think unprotecting the article would be worthwhile. We should always be striving to minimize protection as much as possible.  A  Train ''talk 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The real problem is, both sides have a point... HalfShadow 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was sprotected at around 9 AM CDT. In the hour before that, I counted nine reverts. Thats not counting the reverts that reverted more than one edit.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 9 an hour is well within the community's ability to handle. It was only when we were getting a couple a minute that semi-protection was really necessary.  And maybe it will return to that level and it will be required again, but 9 an hour doesn't justify a main page article being protected, in my opinion.Chunky Rice 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just had to re semiprotect. The article was receiving several IP vandalisms per minute. No objection to removing as the school kiddies calm down, but as well, it should be applied and removed as necessary. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dual unit map
The map image (Image:Norris WestAJ Map.jpg) has a scale in metric only, would it be possible to add an imperial/US customary scale alongside? The Manual of Style reads Conversions should generally be included and not be removed (see here). Thanks CR7 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Might be a good request to make at WP:GL.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Killer's stalking accusation
In the article under "Cho Seung-Hui". A citation has been needed for this sentence: "Blacksburg police confirm Cho was investigated in late 2005 in connection with stalking complaints, but no prosecution resulted". Can someone please edit this so that a citation number can be placed since I cannot put it in as I am new? Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/ Anilove 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest?
This has been talked about before, but I think that it should be the WORST not the deadliest mass murder. Deadliest means that something is more likely to kill you, such as the deadliest toxin. WORST conveys both the gravity of the incident and the fact that its a negative thing. For example, if one says its the largest, its sort of implies something to be proud of, such as the largest port... I changed it but in this article but it should be changed through out... And I hope they dont revert back to what the media is using..
 * It isn't the worst. This whole "Worst" thing needs to be excised from the article. It isn't the school killing with the most casualties. All it is is the highest number of casualties caused by a single whaco with a gun in the US. Frankly, that isn't particularly meaningful. Titanium Dragon 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "deadliest" has more than one meaning: per OED:
 * deadly adjective (deadlier, deadliest) causing or able to cause death (emphasis mine)
 * so "deadliest" could mean either "that with the potential to cause most death" or (as here) "that which caused most death". also, "worst" would be POV: we're not trying to convey gravity or negativity as these things are in fact people's opinions, even they represent the opinion of the majority of people. tomasz.  19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * edit > well, gravity's more up to individual perception than opinion per se, but i digress, it's still not up to us to convey it. tomasz.  19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "worst" is POV. KyuzoGator 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * How can you chain the doors to school building - there are usually many doors in different areas?
 * How many people were killed or hurt jumping from the windows as opposed to being shot?
 * How could anyone chain the doors and have no one notice? - in the timeline there is a long time between when the doors are chained and when the shooting starts
 * A criticism in earlier shootings is that the police did not enter the building fast enough - any info on how long it took the police to arrive and what they did when they arrived?
 * Were the other injuries in the dorm shootings? I know 2 were killed, but was there anyone else shot during the 7:15 attack?

Normdonovan 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

roomates say he used facebook to "stalk" girls, more on self-reference "question-mark"
TUCHMAN: Were you ever afraid for your own safety at any time with this kid?

JOHN: He was a little weird. You know, after you know he'd been stalking girls and looking at their Facebooks and learning everything about them, and sometimes at night when I go to sleep, I'd be a little nervous. But I could always tell -- he would go into a pretty deep sleep because he would lay in bed and he would always moan and he's always -- would be a really restless sleeper and moving around. So I always went to bed after he did, and he woke up about two hours before I did and was always gone.

this page, http://www.roanoke.com/vtshootingaccounts/wb/113495, is a transcript of an interview with Cho's roomates and should be looked over for whoever is editing this article.

Why there's a "background" section in Gun Control Debate
It's seperated to make it clear which bits go in where, aid navigation, emphasise that it illustrates things that happened prior to the shooting and leading up to it in terms on gun control, and also to reduce the amount of edit conflicts. I think, at least for now, there's a very good reason to keep it in. -Halo 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Order
What about making the section "Cho Seung-hui" the first? Seems to me more consequential. --Abe Lincoln 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No objection for 1 hour. Did it. --Abe Lincoln 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i didn't notice it. Strongly support putting the "attack" section back at the top as it's what the article is about and as Cho has his own article which gets into all the details on him. tomasz.  20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then revert it. --Abe Lincoln 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ok tomasz.  20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)