Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Virginia Tech shooting. 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 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Someone just moved this article to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre. I moved it back. That's a good redirect to have but a very bad name for this article. Put simply, no one refers to this event by that name. And common usage is one of our guiding principles in naming articles.

Any other thoughts or discussion? --ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, strongly agree. Almost no support in the reliable sources for the alternate name. Ronnotel (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No move is necessary, this is where the article should be, redirects are sufficient. The move was extremely pedantic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added move protection. As silly as the alternate name was, that's not why - this page has previously been a move vandalism target but unfortunately, when it gets s-protected and the s-protection expires, the move protection goes with it. I've restored the previous move protection to prevent Grawp vandalism. --B (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Ronnotel (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No one calls Tech VPI these days. and the user who did the move has taken to constantly blanking their talk page. Bad form all around. DarkAudit (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't a Korean VT student shoot himself in his car in the Target parking lot in Christiansburg, VA, after being bullied by other students because he was Korean? This incident occured after the shootings and I recall he mentioned something about how people said he looked like Cho. Redjoker01 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)redjoker01: 10/17/08

I just saw a Korean TV show which claimed that Cho didn't do it, and was merely a scapegoat for the real killer, who presumably remains at large. Do we have any citable Korean sources that make the conspiracy claim? 121.162.51.143 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question to ask is, are there any credible sources that make this claim? This sounds so fringey and prima facie silly that, even if one could find someone to quote on it, the claim that Cho was somehow framed probably wouldn't merit any more weight in the article than the "costume incident" -- e.g., none at all. --Dynaflow babble 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH01_20090201-003926/194507/ More sites locked before Tech alert

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH02_20090201-222813/195587/No Tech follow-up on Cho incidents

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH03_20090202-221910/196413/ Part 3: Va. Tech’s warning was too late

http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/images/20090202/vatechdocuments.html Two Versions of Events at Virginia Tech

http://static.mgnetwork.com/rtd/pdfs/VTContents.pdf Va. Tech documents

http://www.prevailarchive.org/archive/ The Prevail Archive is a volunteer Virginia Tech student effort to make internal documents relating to the events of April 16 at Virginia Tech publicly accessible

Springmorning (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says that there is/was a settlement, yet it fails to say who or what is paying the money to the families?--Demertius840 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article could include a reference to Lucinda Roy's book, "No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech"

Between references 3 & 4, there is a sentence referring to people who identified the need for intervention - Roy appears to be one of those individuals.

Mahetrick (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading this article, I'm left wondering what "Hokie" means.Unfree (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I corrected the problem by making "Virginia Tech Hokies" link to a Wikipedia article of that title.Unfree (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what went wrong, but I seemed to have discovered that the brackets I inserted were within what already was a link, and thus didn't work, but now I can't find the link, and must leave someone cleverer to fix the problem I discovered initially.Unfree (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Dynaflow babble 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article claims to be listing deaths in chronological order. However, Librescu is third on the list, while the text of the article states, that Cho first went to Room 206 and 207 and killed people there, before going to Room 204, and killing Librescu.Aquila89 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox photo show the actual massacre, not a separate (but related) event? The mourning of students isn't the massacre, the shooting that took place prior is. Wikipedia should be as direct as possible in describing things. 76.167.53.67 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo is an iconic image that was taken during the events immediately following the massacre, which are included in this article. It would seem to me that there are no available images of the massacre per se, but rather of police response to the massacre, or emergency workers responding to the casualties, both of which are related in much the same way as the memorial service was. Additionally, there are limitations about what can be used in Wikipedia, and many images taken during the immediate aftermath would be copyrighted by the press agency that captured them. If you can find a free image that you think better represents this event, please by all means suggest it on this talk page, and I'm sure it will be given proper consideration. Hokie RNB 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this article is about much more than just the shootings themselves. It also (rightfully) encompasses the events preceding and following the shootings, including the aftermath and reaction on- and off-campus. In that context, I think the current image is entirely appropriate. Moreover, aesthetically it's a really good image and that, too, should count for something. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are likely not any photos of the massacre or the aftermath that are going to be compatible with Wikipedia's licensing as they'll likely be copied from some news service.--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A song on the Exodus' new Album "Exhibit B: The Human Condition" called "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)," is a reference to Cho and the massacre. Is it appropriate to use this song in popular culture segment of the page. Here is a link to the VT massacre view http://www.noisecreep.com/2010/04/23/exodus-class-dismissed-a-hate-primer-new-song/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.241.139 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also that kid who made that controversial NES-style game on Newgrounds, which isn't mentioned here.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this section is too detailed and focused on too many little incidents. In particular, I question whether the article should include the paragraph on the marching bands, and whether we need quite so much detail on the South Korean response. I hesitate to make this kind of broad change unilaterally, though. What do others think? Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought a lot of that material could have been one sentence, but was reluctant to do it myself. The marching band bit was obviously added after the article had reached FA. I think go ahead and reduce the response sections (I moved them together, they were scattered thither and yon.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but i just replaced the misnomer "Vermont" Tech, with Virginia Tech, twice in this section. I assume someone did some typos and mistakenly used the name of another "V" state when writing the text.Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "gun rights activist" concerns me because groups with opposing points of view (the Brady group) are not labelled as "anti-gun rights activists." To be fair, shouldn't both sides be labelled or neither? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)mike

I believe you are correct, it is a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors Gekritzl and ElKevbo have been adding content (the latter just one time) about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help trough an exorcism for Cho. Arkon and I have reverted most of this edits (I also once rephrased the content to conform to the source, and Arkon once reverted the use of the term "exorcism" as it does not exist in the sources). I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. I would ask all parties interested in this matter to discuss it in the mentioned thread in order to concentrate the opinions, and reach a consensus. Thank you all. --Legion fi (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense but... let's see how many man-hours we can WASTE over nothing more than a matter of semantics, a synonym, as MithrasPriest pointed out. Anybody? I already went back to my life. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Non taken, I'm majoring in linguistic engineering so I never waste time over semantics.--Legion fi (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

From the WP page on "No Original Research" -- Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. Seeking spiritual help to rid Cho of "demons" is the very definition of exorcism, and WP No OR encourages "your own words." User Legion fi seems to believe that using a synonym constitutes Original Research and that simply is not true. MithrasPriest (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a scintilla of a point here but I think the objections are stronger. When I think "exorcism," for example, I think of the specific Catholic ritual which is clearly the wrong conclusion to draw or encourage here.

Further, I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to exclude this one word that isn't used by any of the reliable sources cited thus far. The message is conveyed even without that specific word. ElKevbo (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevbo -- you said When I think "exorcism," for example, I think of the specific Catholic ritual... you surprise me. You know well your opinion of the defition of exorcism is irrelevant. Go to the dictionary; and, even the 1987 Catholic Encylopedia calls it a "rite whereby devils are expelled from possessed persons..." -- clearly what Cho's mom had in mind. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"When Cho was home for the Summer from Virginia Tech, some local Christians thought he needed an exorcism and convinced his mother to take him to another church and seek help from the pastor. That pastor, however, was unable to establish communication with Cho and there was no exorcism." -- from Bible News -- http://www.biblenews1.com/astrology/acharts/cho_seung-hui.html -- MithrasPriest (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A source that heavily relies on Wikipedia as source material can not be considered a reliable source for our purposes. ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a very, very weak consensus (me and the only other editor to respond) at the OR notice board that the bulk of this material is ok or at least non-controversial but the specific mention of "exorcism" isn't ok unless a source specifically mentions it in connection to Cho. Personally, I'm not even terribly offended or worried by the use of the word but I can see how others can differ so I'm fine with a consensus to exclude it pending better sourcing.

However, I completely agree with Legion fi that the sources being cited to try to include "exorcism" do not belong in this article and their use is clear synthesis which is not permitted in Wikipedia. They don't mention Cho and they're not related to Cho and they don't belong in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"You know, the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. The mother of the shooter recognized that there was something wrong with her son. You know, he was suffering from some kind of mental problem. In the context of her rather doctrinary Christianity, she did not take him to a psychiatrist. She took him from church to church in search of exorcism. She actually found a church that performed an exorcism." -- Sam Harris, "On Interpreting Scripture," http://bigthink.com/ideas/3123 -- MithrasPriest (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well done MithrasPriest, I am sure it was Harris who I first read, saying Cho's mom was in search of exorcism. I couldn't find the ref. Thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to review our policy on reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who Sam Harris is? MithrasPriest (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but it doesn't really matter because we don't cite blog posts as reliable sources except in extraordinary circumstances and even then they're limited to being expressions of the author's point of view. ElKevbo (talk)

So, it doesn't matter who said or wrote it, but where it exists on the web? How about if I find that same Sam Harris interview on YouTube, is that a better source? Thanks... MithrasPriest (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In many ways, yes, it is often more about the venue than the author. Really, it would be good to review WP:RS if you haven't already done so. Our use of "reliable" is different from common usage of the word. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read WP:RS many times, and it has changed drastically over the years. No matter. Oh, here's Sam Harris on YouTube making the same statement about the VA Tech shooter's mother seeking exorcism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27pDmWOO73c -- just because Sam says it doesn't make it true, but it's yet another source to support the original edit by Mr or Ms Gekritzl. And Dr. Harris is a very reliable source. MithrasPriest (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"A person" can not be reliable in the sense that we use that word here in Wikipedia. YouTube is not reliable and probably not even a source in the way in which we use those terms here. Find a source that has been vetted, has editorial guidelines, and possesses a reputation for fact-checking and integrity and that is probably a reliable source for our purposes. (And because Sam - or anyone else - can post the same message in multiple places doesn't really mean much unless one of those places is itself a reliable source.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris IS the source. YouTube is merely the medium. Clearly this video interview with him has not been altered, and surely is reliable as the word of the author, Dr. Harris. Just because someone posted it on YouTube doesn't take away from its original reliability! MithrasPriest (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Cross posted from the No Original Research Noticeboard.) Using the bulk of those sources is original research. They do not discuss the topic at hand. Adding more sources is just creating a bigger case of original synthesis. At best, you can report that Sam Harris (author) claims that Cho's mother took him church to church seeking out an exorcism. Making broader assertions and including unrelated sources is certainly original research. Also, unless a large number of other experts and prominent authors agree with Dr. Harris, it should be a single sentence passing mention in the body of the article and left out of the lede. Harris is certainly a prominent figure and commentary on such a situation is well within his public profile. However, anything more than the single sentence attributed view would be excessive weight based on the body of reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I will reply to personal allusions. @MithrasPriest: No, I don't think the use of synonyms constitutes OR. In this case, the original synthesis came from Gekritzl adding a source that stated that Korean pastors were sought to help Cho, alongside a source that said that Korean pastors are likely to perform exorcism, and a third unrelated source about a Korean girl dead probably as a result of an exorcism, all three sources to advance the point that Cho's mother sought an exorcism among Korean Christian congregations. That is synthesis, and I think that we have established so. @Gekritzl: Now you bring the subject of it being a semantic difference. If we are going to get into that, please acknowledge that Webster does not directly defines "exorcism" (the noun) as "to get rid of (something troublesome...)", but does it at the definition of "exorcise" (the verb). There can be semantic differences between the meaning of the verb and the noun.

Discussing about the use of the word exorcism (and leaving away the discussion of reliability of the Sam Harris interview), I think we have somehow acknowledged that using multiple sources to advance the source constitutes both synthesis and undue weight. Now I think that the discussion should focus in the meaning of the term. As ElKevbo stated, the noun "exorcism" is more often used as the ritual of casting out demons from a possessed individual or place (even Gekritzl used the word "possessed"). There are no sources (leaving aside the Harris source, which please let's not get into) that reliably states that there was a belief that Cho was possessed. Having stated that, I have to admit that the verb "exorcise" is wider in it's meanings. So maybe, if we can reach a consensus about it, we could use the verb to include the term that Gekritzl was seeking. But, if we do, I also have to bring the undue weight issue into the discussion. I also think that the sentence shouldn't be in the lead. Basically what I'm proposing is the use of the verb exorcise as a synonym to "get rid of demons", but in a sentence outside the lead. I think that should pretty much cover all the concerns, and would avoid a larger discussion about the reliability of the Harris interview. Thank you all for your opinions and participation. --Legion fi (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I distinctly remember that at the time there was a lot of coverage on Cho's sister and the fact she was their parents' favorite and the effect this had on Cho, yet I don't read any of this back in the article. Care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As this article is related and probably more watched, I'm giving notification here. I have nominated Wendell Flinchum for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Flinchum if you wish to opine. --B (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned that one of the teachers was a Holocaust survivor as he was holding the door shut? This is inappropriate and has nothing to do with his actions at the time of shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.142.155 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 April 2011

How exactly does that make it inappropriate? The source felt a need to make mention and I personally think it's factual and and pertinent that a Holocaust survivor was killed trying to save students during the shooting. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Weapon(s) Glock 19, Walther P22" information seems out of place in the infobox for some reason. Putting that line there puts disproportionate importance and stress on the brands of weapon used, since the rest of the information is of the most fundamental information about the attack (location, amount of casualties, etc). For me, adding weapon brands into the infobox adds a weird artificial coldness to it, making it seem more like something you would find on a website made by people obsessed with mass murders rather than something you would find on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it should be removed. 46.162.70.221 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a picture of the shooter posing with his guns trying to look badass but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap. KevinLuna (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the description of the shootings reads "Conversely, due to the limited penetration depth of hollow point bullets, it is likely that Colman would have died had they not been used". The reference is a 20 year old material, and the ammunition used is not pointed to in the article as what Cho used. The statement that hollowpoint bullets have limited penetration seems to suggest that they have limited wounding capabilities which is ludicrous. Also, you have to go back 3 paragraphs to determine who "Coleman" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jill Orly (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The above person clearly has no grasp of how hollowpoint bullets work. Yes, penetration is limited. Penetration is limited because hollowpoint bullets expand, causing the expanded bullet to cut a larger diameter wound channel and transferring more of the bullet's energy to the target's body. Often that means the bullet runs out of energy before it has passed all the way through the target's body. By way of contrast, "full metal jacket" pistol bullets, in particular those of the 9mm Parabellum cartridge as used in Cho's Glock Model 19, have a reputation for making small-diameter wounds and passing completely though bodies.

It is quite plausibe that Colman would have been killed by bullets passing through Lumbantoruan's body if they had been non-expanding full metal jacket bullets rather than expanding hollowpoint bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.208.243 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally against adding information about the shooting that happened today in this article. We know absolutely nothing about this, the shooter is still on the loose, and it appears to be during a traffic stop. If this turns out to be just random crime during a traffic stop, no one will remember anything about this incident in a year. 129.186.245.2 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur, and I note you have removed it. The event should only go on the Virginia Tech page, if anywhere. Just please use an edit summary for you edits - 220 of ^Borg 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added info about the alert system and it's use yesterday. I don't see yesterday's event is relevant to April 16. I will be reverting or editing that info. --Possum4all (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely worth mentioning since (a) the alert system was installed in direct response to the 2007 shooting and (b) media are making a direct connection between these events. For example, NPR had a brief snippet from of one the father of one the 2007 victims describing his satisfaction with the way the university reacted yesterday. Other news stories have similarly included reaction from students who were present for both events.

With that said, this shouldn't be more than a sentence or two in this article with most of the details left for the article for the 2011 incident. ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not on the massacre page. This page will become a list of Alert notices.... and why are just the shooting incidents being listed, then. Weather related alerts that work and notifications to campus by the system that aren't lock-down in nature should also be include, then. Come on. This is just sensationalism getting pushed on a wikipedia entry page. --Possum4all (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have to list every alert; don't be silly.

The link between these two events is obvious and being widely reported on in reliable sources. Acknowledging the link between the two incidents, particularly the legacy of the 2007 shooting and its alert systems and processes, is quite appropriate. We can do that without allowing this article to become a running commentary of every tragic or alarming event at the university. But to try to freeze this article in place and not acknowledge the continuing impact of the event is short-sighted and makes for a poorer encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I read snippets talking about people kneeling at the 4/16 memorial. I think that the new event elicited responses related to the earlier event and those should be reported. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because it elicits a response or similar response from the Virginia Tech community doesn't mean that the April 16 event needs to be amended to accommodate the response. I don't see how any crime on the Virginia Tech campus that has an immediate response from their community should turn into a wikipedia entry on violence and crime and be tied back to April 16th. People are injured, robbed, asulted, etc.. on campus and the alert system is used for those events, too. They don't result/deserve a wikipedia entry or an addendum to this entry. --Possum4all (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is advocating for adding other events or responses so stop accusing of doing so. We're discussing this one incident, the first incident in which someone was killed by a firearm and is already firmly linked to the 2007 attack by many reliable sources. At this point NPOV demands we include something in this article given the links already drawn by reliable sources.

This article is not a memorial or a static entry limited to the events of one day. It's a living, evolving document that encompasses the event and all of the important things surrounding it, including subsequent events that are strongly linked to it. ElKevbo (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a shooting pointer at the top of the Massacre entry? That page us up for deletion.--Possum4all (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It should still be up there, as it is unknown if the page will be deleted and it stops editors from adding info about the 2011 shooting to this article. Buggie111 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly doesn't hurt anything. If the article is deleted, we'll probably want to change the link to point to wherever the material goes - main VT article, VT history article, whatever. I don't think the hatnote should remain forever, though, only a short time (week?) until the 2011 shooting becomes less of a very prominent topic of discussion. Right now this seems like a good service to provide to readers. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"red flags" such as an "unusual interest in police, military equipment, weapons, and camouflage"

So I guess half the male population is at risk of being mass murderers? I'm sorry, when I was growing up, most all my friends loved playing with guns, reading and talking about guns, the military, and the sometimes the police. And many of my friends wore camo gear or bdu's and military gear for fun. This is ridiculous. Perhaps having testosterone was a red flag that he might be homicidal??? Interest in weapons and the military may indicate a sense of powerlessness, but it doesn't indicate homicidal tendencies. Uh, perhaps stalking women and being diagnosed with mental disorders might have been red flags. Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, deleted from lead. If this detail belongs anywhere, it should be added further down, not in the lead, and in the context of other findings about Cho's behavior. --Sfmammamia (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite the comment by anonymous, the concept of “Red Flags” to identify people who may act violently like Cho is still valid. Reference 1 of the main article, "Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel" , contains Appendix M, “Red Flags, Warning Signs and Indicators” associated with school shootings. There are over 20 such Red Flags or warning signs identified by Roger Depue (the author of Appendix M) that provided a clear actionable indication that Cho was indeed a danger to himself and others (regardless of what the inept bureaucrats who were responsible for leaving him unattended on campus had to say before the massacre). Depue states that “A single warning sign by itself does not warrant overt action….. it should, however attract attention … to look for other possible warning signs… to determine if there is a likelihood of danger.” Dupre goes on to cite an example: “if a person simply possesses firearms and has no other warning signs, it is unlikely they represent a significant risk of danger.”

Unfortunately as Cho matured, we as a society were not able to see his Red Flags. By the time he was in college, he was sending out at least 16 of Depue’s 22 warning signs. During Cho’s life several responsible adults did try to intervene as best they could, but the invention was not comprehensive and as result was not effective in eliminating the danger he posed to himself and others.

Ironically, Cho did not really stand out as highly unusual in the remaining 6 of the 22 warning signs:

Fascination with weapons (he purchased the guns only several months before the massacre)
Boasting and practicing of fighting and combat proficiency
Violence and cruelty
Inappropriate affect (enjoying cruel behavior)
Unusual interest in police, military, terrorist activities
Use of alcohol / drugs

Cho did however send up over half of Depue’s Red Flags with the following behaviors:

Violent fantasy content (writings, drawings)
Loner
Expressionless face / anhedonia (inability to express joy / pleasure)
Strangeness and aberrant behavior
Interest in previous shooting situations (e.g. Columbine)
Mental Health history
Stalking
Victim/martyr self concept
Suicidal ideation
Homicidal ideation
Anger problems
Police contact

And to a lesser degree

Non-compliance and disciplinary problems
Imitation of other murderers
Paranoia
Acting out

Although not mentioning Cho specifically, Depue concludes “…a person who possesses firearms, is a loner, shows an interest in past shooting situations, writes stories about homicide and suicide, exhibits aberrant behavior, has talked about retribution against others, and has a history of mental illness and refuses counseling would obviously be considered a significant risk of becoming dangerous to himself or others.”

I would hope that someone who is knowledgeable in this area would add a section on “Red Flags” to help educate the rest of us so there is a better chance that the next school shooting could be prevented (rather than documented). Mahetrick (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP poster wasn't saying there shouldn't be a discussion of 'Red Flags,' just that that particular identifier is nonsense. I would say the majority of the male population has such interests, more or less - and they don't go 'postal' and commit a crime of this nature. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request someone reword part of this article:

The article states that visitors and third-parties are banned from carrying weapons: this is not true. As a state entity, VPIU&SU is prohibited from enacting such a ban by Virginia law. It is only a violation of school rules for a student or employee to carry and can be met with disciplinary action. In the case of the student who carried a firearm with a concealed handgun permit, it is NOT illegal and no charges could ever be filed because no law was broken. He could be subject to administrative disciplinary processes, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.43.45 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory, but not a reality. You can do a simple search and quickly find that the courts have ruled that institutions such as schools can mandate policy for bringing a weapon on campus in spite of any permit. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could it be noted somewhere in the article that the fifth anniversary of this is a day or two after Kim-Jong Un's first speech in North Korea? -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? That's an insignificant coincidence. Inferring any relationship would be original research. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A link I added to a recent book on the Virginia Tech Massacre was removed as promotional content/spam. Not sure if this was a mistake or intentional. I reinstated the link and checked the guidelines to be sure. The book is directly relevant to the article's subject. If the new link is somehow inappropriate, the link to the documentary should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An Amazon link to a new book is completely inappropriate for an External links section. If the book is truly invaluable, it would be better listed in a Further reading section. The best thing to do is to actually use the book to add new and interesting material to the article so it's listed in the References section (surely that's easy to do if you've read the book and it's so relevant!). ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a book has to be invaluable to be listed; it need only be directly relevant. But your sarcasm (?) aside, it's significant that in an article on such an important event, no books at all on the event are referenced. Rather than introduce new content into the article from that author's book, I'll take your point and try to add a 'Further Reading' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I've again removed the book. Apologies if this appears to be an edit war but I looked into the book a bit more and it's published by CreateSpace, a self-publishing service. So the book is presumed to be not very reliable unless additional information (positive book reviews, citations in known-reliable sources, etc.) can be provided. Please see WP:RS to review our policies about reliable sources and WP:SPS for specific information about the reliability of self-published sources. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't see those guidelines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead and the box with the victims say 32 killed. BUt this part "of the 30 killed, 28 were shot in the head" says 30. Can someone explain this difference? And if you count Cho it's 33, plus the 6 injured escaping from windows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 July 2012‎ (UTC)

This text refers specifically to the Norris Hall shootings, not the earlier ones from the dormitory. The numbers all appear accurate as of now. Cho shot and killed 32 people before committing suicide, bringing the total to 33. Hokie RNB 17:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In two phone interviews of Cho's suite-mates on Cable TV news programs Cho was reveled to have created Subliminal Distraction exposure and would have experienced the psychotic-like episode SD exposure has been known to cause for 48 years. Both the President and Dean of students at Tech replied to communications and promised action to investigate this. But nothing has been done. This revelation would make Tech responsible for the shooting.

His roommates said he sat in the outer suite room using his computer to perform classwork and would not look up and acknowledge them as they walked by him going and returning from classes. One of them said he increased that activity in the month before the shooting.___ They were describing how disturbed and distant he was and did not understand they were also describing Subliminal Distraction.

Engineers and designers hired to modernize the business office discovered the problem when it caused mental breaks for office workers in 1964. The Cubicle was designed to block peripheral vision to stop it by 1968. That prevents repeating subliminal failed attempts to execute the vision startle reflex, explained in first semester psychology as a subliminal distraction. If the mental break it causes is mentioned in lectures about peripheral vision reflexes it is treated as something that happened only once, long ago. My instructor said, "Subliminal sight caused a problem in the early days of modern office design."

The Redlake tribal school, Jokela Finland school,and Atlanta day trader killers also created this problem. Barton, Atlanta, thought he was having a mental break from inherited mental illness.

L K Tucker VisionAndPsychosis.Net I own the copyright for VisionAndPsychosis.Net. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:1095:FF3D:38F4:1CC4 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it can be added. a little wrewriting but yes looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereisnospoons (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Seung-Hui Cho's page he killed 32 and wounded 23, but this page says he killed 32 and wounded 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.226.193 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! The 15 should have been 17 additional victims shot; another 6 were injured jumping out of windows. I've updated the number and provided an additional reference about the additional 6 injured. The total is 23 injured, which is correct.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The part "previously adjudicated" means that a court of law decided. Rather than just go and change it to "judged by authorities", I'd appreciate feedback.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That didn't take long. A section added here earlier today on 'Criticism of university response' has been removed without comment. Can we have the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Did you actually read the section you removed before removing it?

The subject of the section is criticism of the university's response. The criticism comes from Prof. Kenneth Westhues, who is notable enough apparently to have his own Wiki entry (see deleted section). The section you deleted mentions a series of articles accessible through the link provided -- two of which appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Only one of which is 'self-published', appearing on the professor's blog.

This article has at least half a dozen separate 'response' sub-sections. Is it really impossible that there can be mention of criticism of Virginia Tech's response on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First, although I appreciate you opening this discussion in Talk you should not have restored the text after it was initially removed; that's not how we operate.

Second, if the material you added comes from multiple sources then you should cite those sources. I only see two sources that you've provided and they're both self-published with one being on the author's website and the other being some blog post on a blog that only has that one post. Without any evidence that this material has been referenced by others, it doesn't belong in this article no matter who wrote it.

There is certainly a case to be made that the university's response wasn't perfect but that case needs to be made with much better evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to click on the ref link given in the section to the 'series of articles'. On the left, in easy to read large text, you will find links to articles by Westhues -- some of which were published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch as mentioned. The main body of the article is indeed 'self-published'. But as Wikipedia's own article on Westhues states, he is a listed authority on the topic of mobbing. It strikes me as odd that this would be a problem since Wikipedia seems to cite blogs and new media all the time. Heinrich66 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, another reason why your comment above is odd is because the purpose of the section 'Criticism of university response' is not to prove the university was at fault. It's simply to note as a fact that criticism exists. In this case, it comes from an established professor who is an authority in his field. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Drop the attacks and focus on the article.

It's not our job to hunt down the references you should have cited in your edit. For the second time, if there are independent sources that have referenced the material you added then you should cite them. Right now all you have are two self-published items, one from a professor's website and the other an unsigned piece on a random blog.

Once again I ask: Why should this material be included in this article if no one else has published it or cited it? I don't dispute that the author is an expert in his field but if no one else has referenced his works then they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it curious how certain articles have these standards rigidly enforced and yet others are a complete mess. [BTW, it's funny that the section has now been immediately deleted by someone who only seems to have contributed to articles about Seung-Hui Cho and George W. Bush in the past. Did you call him up to avoid 3RR?] If Westhues had expressed his opinions in an interview with a magazine (or on somebody else's blog, for that matter) that would have been sufficient as citation to show that a) criticism exists; and b) that he was the one criticizing. Yet the writing by the man himself is somehow not sufficient. The link I gave was itself a direct and the most efficient way for a reader to access Westhues' writing on Virginia Tech -- which is the purpose of citation after all. But fine, if you're to be taken at your word, I'll re-work the section. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia's own guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[6]

So how do you justify what you wrote above? Westhues is an established expert in mobbing (even according to Wikipedia) who self-published at least one piece and published another stating his view that the VT shootings were the result of mobbing. And yet the whole section has been removed. Heinrich66 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Just because something has been published in a reliable source doesn't mean we should or must include it. We must employ judgment about what to include and one of the best ways to do that is to see what other experts have done with the material in question. If no one else has referenced it then that is a good indication that maybe it's not important or influential enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Otherwise we're just left guessing about what's important and relying on the opinions of volunteers who may not be experts or worse. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Now you're moving the goalposts. So you say that *even if* something is determined to be a reliable source, that doesn't mean it should be included? It's a 'judgment call'? And yet somehow this judgment call you're appealing to saves us from the 'opinions of volunteers who may not be experts'?

You are a volunteer, not an expert. According to Wikipedia's own guideline (quoted above) a self-published piece *may* be included "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". This is clearly the case with Westhues. 1) He is a recognized expert on mobbing. 2) He has published in reliable third-party publications on mobbing. 3) He claims mobbing happened at Virginia Tech.

I'd also like to note for anyone reading this, that there should even be a slightly weaker standard here since what we're talking about is not a wiki article on mobbing, but rather the factual question of whether criticism of the university exists in connection with the shootings. It does exist; it's undeniable. In this particular case, the critic (Westhues) has criticized the university for failing to recognize Cho was mobbed. Whether or not we agree with him, it is a fact that he has made this criticism. It's also a fact based on Wikipedia's own guideline above, as a recognized expert in his field, not only can self-published material of his be cited, but as a professor and published author, the balance goes in favor of his inclusion on this point. Heinrich66 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not seriously advocating that we should always include every single publication that meets WP:RS in every applicable article, are you? Surely you see how unworkable and undesirable that standard is! ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not making any sense now. I've reworked the section according to the criticisms of yours that appear legitimate. Whether or not what's going on here is simple gate-keeping, time will tell. Here's a summary of the changes: 1. Three citations are now given for Westhues: a) a self-published piece -- which under Wikipedia guidelines may be used when the author is a specialist/expert in his field b) a published piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch c) a peer-reviewed third-party piece by Ffion Murphy from a series called "The Creativity and Uncertainty Papers: the refereed proceedings of the 13th conference of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, 2008".

These three ought to be sufficient to establish the factual issue of: a) whether criticism of the university exists; b) whether it is Westhues who is criticizing; c) whether that criticism involves the concept of mobbing.

2) I've removed the citation to the unsigned blog post, and redirected it instead to the Westhues piece where he cites it. The responsibility for the citation, therefore, is Westhues', not Wikipedia's.

The above addresses your legitimate concerns. I think it's non-controversial that there should be a section on criticism of the university. The VT massacre was a major event, as shown by its having a Wiki article. Also, as the same article points out, the university was fined, which suggests its conduct was perhaps not impeccable. On the factual question of whether public criticism of the university also exists in connection with the shootings, we have it: a professor who is a recognized expert in his field has publicly criticized the university and its response to the shootings for failing to recognize their cause, which he claims is mobbing. He has not only self-published this view (which can be cited according to Wiki guidelines), but published it in a major newspaper, and his work has been cited at least once by another academic in a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinrich66 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Since she is included here, I'm providing a link to the discussion regarding the deletion of the article for Diane Strickland. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Strickland if you wish to comment.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! About This edit

The idea is not two archived sites but two working links. A site with a working original link and one archive link is okay, because both links work. But since the original link is dead it's not necessary to have a hyperlink of it when we can put in another archive link. Three reasons:

In China, web.archive.org is blocked but webcitation.org is not blocked. Many Chinese don't have access to tools to get around it, so that revert means Chinese users with less technical knowledge are unable to see the report. The English Wikipedia serves everyone around the world, including China.
Many people do not have the technical knowledge needed to "find" the webcitation link or to add things to webcitation, or to get around government blocks
What if web.archive.org is down, or the server has a problem with the machine holding that particular file? (this happens!) You want redundancy! If web.archive.org's link doesn't work, that's okay, because you can just click the webcitation link.

Trying to stick to a rigid "it must be the dead original link and one archive link only" is harmful. When I do archive links, I stick to two working links for the above reasons and that is how I want things to work. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to switch around the archive links to better fit the way the archive template has things described. Now "Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech April 16, 2007: Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel (Massengill Report)" (main link) points to webcitation and the "archived from the original" points to web.archive.org as it did originally. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion was moved here from User talk:D'Ranged 1#Two archived sites.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WhisperToMe—While I tend to agree with your reasoning, it goes against Wikipedia practice. WP:Link rot specifically states:

Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer.

WP:Link rot has an entire section, titled Keeping dead links, that explains why dead links shouldn't be deleted. In a nutshell: the link, even if no longer functional, gives the reader excellent information on where to find the material cited. In this particular instance, suppose both archive sites cease functioning or are down? Having the link to the Commonwealth of Virginia site would at least give a reader a starting place for finding the report.

I have restored the original reference and added the Webcite link as an additional archive copy of the report. If you are making this sort of change to other articles, I would urge you to adopt this method, rather than completely deleting dead links. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I am fine with the new arrangement that was chosen. One important thing: When dealing with the Internet Archive it's apparent what the original URL is based on the internet archive URL. If you take the archive URL http://web.archive.org/web/20131015095917/http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/FullReport.pdf it's clear the original is "http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/FullReport.pdf" - that must be the original and the original cannot be any other URL. In addition you can tell the date based on the URL: 20131015 = October 15, 2013 - Again, I'm fine with the original URL itself being indicated but I understand that even if it wasn't included someone could figure it out.
I think what WP:Link rot is suggesting is that even if there *wasn't* an Internet Archive version made (so it's impossible to make a variant of the dead URL into a working link), the dead link should *still* be kept because the reader may use the dead link as a clue to find new material or an alternate URL. I actually ask people not to remove dead links because I know many dead links can be converted to working ones thanks to the Internet Archive. Additional tricks: I "comment in" any alternate URLs to the same material using  to provide additional info to people WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much aware that the original URL is embedded in the archive.org URL; other users might not be quite so savvy, however. Including the original URL in a comment doesn't make it readily accessible to someone just reading the article. The advantage to leaving the dead URL in place and linking to an additional archive is that the reader can just click on the links to get the information without having to go into edit mode to retrieve information.

I've also tried to get in the habit of deleting either "http:" or "https:" from the beginning of archive.org URLs; sometimes it defaults to "https:", which some people's browsers won't access. The archive.org site supports what is known as "protocol-relative" links (PRLs); these exclude the designation of "http:" and "https:" and just begin with "//". I don't have that much experience with WebCite, but a quick look seems to indicate that it, too, supports PRLs, so the specific protocol designation could be stripped from those URLs as well. More info: Uniform resource locator#Protocol-relative URLs. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. I just discovered that the WebCite version of the page isn't searchable, while the archive.org version is. I would assume that if you download the document from the WebCite site it would be searchable via a PDF reader, but the archive.org version is searchable online.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to put this out there for consideration. With each additional mass shooting that occurs around the world, a very relevant question emerges for the editorial members of the Wikipedia community. Namely, why this event and Columbine are considered "massacres" while other events (Fort Hood, etc.) are called "shootings?"

Sadly, it would appear to me that Wikipedia writers are making "body count" a determination when titling articles like this one. Who determines what level of body count gets the "massacre" title? Why? Is it objective? Unbiased? Seems not.

And it's not how it's referred to in the local and national media/press coverage. Nor is it how official documents from government/state accounts, panels and reports refer to these events. In Virginia, the Governor's office refers to it simply as "April 16" or "April 16 incident" in the key findings. The University calls it a "Tragedy." The media in the state call it simply the "April 16th shooting" or "April 16, 2007" or "Tragedy." Attorneys for the victim's families, victim's families, and living victims refer to it as a "shooting" or "tragedy." Examples are below.

I'd like to see an explanation and recommendation regarding future titling for active shooter / mass killing articles. I think that it's important for Wikipedia to develop a clear taxonomy for these events. A taxonomy that also makes it easier to research all events would be helpful -- a single phrase or term that would rank higher in search engines and also support end-user phraseology is critical, I think. Calling one event a "massacre" and another a "shooting" isn't objective. Especially if based solely on body count.

In the case of this article, it appears to need a different title so that one could aggregate it with all the other coverage and reports from media, the state and government sources and courts.

(Possum4all (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

As a follow-up, I am cross-posting this from the Columbine High School Talk on titling....

Selecting reasonable, objective and unbiased perspectives/procedures for documenting these acts is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community. If the event has failed to be covered as a "massacre" and is not referred to in public documents, sworn statements and media accounts as such, then why is it being titled that way here? It appears to be sensational and defending it as such does not jive with Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. The guidelines state that when a common name cannot be established or agreed upon, the event should be named according to place, event and when it occurred. Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). It is my opinion that this article has been titled incorrectly according to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions. It should be titled "April 16, 2007 Shooting(s) at Virginia Tech" and not "Virginia Tech Massacre." (Possum4all (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

If you are comparing the Fort Hood shooting to the Virginia Tech massacre and Columbine High School massacre, there is actually a difference. Massacre "denotes the promiscuous slaughter of many who can not make resistance, or much resistance". In the case of Fort Hood, there was a clear exchange of gunfire that indicates the presence of personnel that can put up a resistance against the perpetrator. Although the term "tragedy" is widely used in public, it has a different meaning in an encyclopedic context. There is also no need for a more specific title using a date as the event is unambiguous enough according to the policy you cited. Arsonal (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But it still doesn't account for multiples of place. What if an additional event occurs? It would be "Tiananmen Square Massacre II" right? I just don't think the integrity of the title will stand the test of time, nor is it neutral WP:NPOV -- despite the definition. And I don't think the standard for these kinds of occurrences should be whether or not the victims could return fire. So it's a massacre because the Fort Hood victims exchanged fire with the alleged perpetrator? Offered resistance? Virginia Tech victims barricaded doors. That's resistance, right? Still seems sensational to me to use the phrase "massacre." Makes me think that the original intent for the title was Google hits. (Possum4all (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

We do not speculate on future occurrences. Until a similar incident happens (but hopefully not), the title is unambiguous. On the issue of naming, I believe this event must be limited to the context of a school shooting. (I probably should not have compared it to Fort Hood.) Within this scope, the definition of "slaughter of many" still holds as more deaths occurred at Virginia Tech than any other similar incidents nationally and globally. I do feel that "massacre" is being used objectively and that "shooting" would actually violate neutral point of view by not clearly defining the scale of the incident. Arsonal (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A google news archive search still shows a clear preference for massacre. (5,540 vs. 3,730) Hokie RNB 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the word "massacre" as neutral. It is sensational and inflammatory. "Massacre" is no more or less ambiguous than "shooting" in this situation. And, again, it does not reflect "when" the event occurred per WP Naming guidelines. I don't think "body count" should be a factor in determining the "massacre" naming convention, Arsonal, as it sets the wrong precedent for future taxonomy. I'm sure we'd find, too, that the common search term or keyword would be "shooting" and not "massacre." I'm going to continue to suggest this Article name be changed to "April 16, 2007 Shooting at Viriginia Tech" following the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). We can simply place a Wikipedia:Redirect on the title "Virginia Tech Massacre." (Possum4all (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Per the naming conventions referenced, the only things that are required to identify the event unambiguously:

Where the incident happened. (Virginia Tech)
What happened. (Massacre)

Virginia Tech has had other shootings, but not other massacres. Conversely, there have been other massacres, but not at Virginia Tech. Hokie RNB 13:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the naming guidelines for events, the When is added if the Where and What are not specific enough. A clear example is Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. (Possum4all (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I think you are misunderstanding my points here. You are raising two separate issues. The first is the word choice between "massacre" and "shooting". The second is on usage of a date disambiguator. Resolution of the first must be reached by consensus. Our individual beliefs do not change anything. There was no consensus to change back in April of last year. On the second issue, naming conventions already state that "[t]he year [...] should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident". Arsonal (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on your side here: there is a semantic difference between shooting and massacre. Theshibboleth (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, looks like this has been debated ad nauseum without a resolution or clear consensus. I'm starting to understand why. Hard to build consensus on the semantics of an ambiguous and potentially inflammatory word like "massacre." It appears to me that this will continue to be controversial and should probably be carried to arbitration for a clear resolution. (Possum4all (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

I suggest that we archive or merge this into the Talk archive mentioned above by Arsonal. (Possum4all (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Not all massacres are shootings, so the argument that "massacre" is a more accurate term is false. Furthermore, massacres are generally carried out by more than one person, not a single spree-shooter. Lastly, "spree shootings" almost always involve an unarmed crowd, so there's no need to use "massacre" to further distinguish that. --Ascot4903 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With the Aurora shooting, I think it's becoming clearer that the word "massacre" is wrong for the title. The title is NOT consistent with the other spree shooting events. The spree shootings are all called such, except this and Columbine. Why? --Possum4all (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow up in a post Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Wikipedia

Does anyone still believe that this article should have "massacre" in its title? It would seem that many of the contentions such as body count and media usage have been debunked as being non-policy based. I also agree that massacre is a bad word to use in this context. As a title, it provides little clarity and seemingly only serves to inspire other article writers to use the term rather than be encyclopedic-ally accurate or descriptive. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view covers this:

Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. Rules to select a name should be applied in the following sequence:

If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. See above for how to create a descriptive name.

(emphasis in the original)

I think the current article title is correct under both points 1 and 2 above. "Massacre" is commonly used to refer to the event by news media: ABC News, CNN, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, NBC News, Biography.com, and History.com; there is a children's social studies book, part of a "Deadly Disasters" series, entitled, Massacre at Virginia Tech: Disaster & Survival; there was a 2008 made-for-TV movie, Massacre at Virginia Tech. The incident is referred to by a variety of common names, such as "shooting", "tragedy", "massacre", etc.; I firmly believe that, although controversial, "massacre" is the best descriptor available. It is certainly a familiar term, and is "a generally accepted word used when identifying the event".

So, to answer your question, yes, there are those who still believe that "massacre" belongs in the title. Further, there is support in the policies, rather than anything being "debunked".—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Just another point: The official report on the incident, commissioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, makes use of the word "massacre" when referring to the event, just not in the title. See "Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech: April 16, 2007: Report of the Review Panel" (PDF). pp. 51, 92, 138.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 16:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In talk for 2014 Isla Vista killings, a strong (5-1) consensus was reached for deletion of college years+majors from the Casualties box there. At least two very experienced editors voted delete and cited what I read as fairly clear policy against inclusion of the years+majors. I think the same reasoning applies here, as I don't see any pertinent difference between the two situations. I also feel that hometowns and other biographical information fall under the same reasoning. Any objection to removing everything from the box except names and ages? If so, why? Mandruss (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My only objections would be to remove the nationalities. But given the policies described on the Isla Vista Page I would support paring it back to only names and ages. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First, there are major differences in the Isla Vista killings and the ones covered here. These students were killed in their classrooms, not on the street. In my view, having their major listed provides useful information—if their major had been different, they wouldn't have been in Norris Hall that morning. As for years (freshman, sophomore, etc.), this is standard information given in almost every news report. As for hometowns, etc., again, it's information that's given in most news reports; we also pretty much always state where a person's from if there's an article on them. While not all of these people were notable enough for their own article, I'm not ready to begrudge them the small amount of information we've included here, while the perpetrator has much more info and his own article. Listing hometowns also serves to inform the reader as to which of the victims was from Virginia and which were from out of state or a different country. As for the discussion at Isla Vista, I'd toss out the arguments that the information isn't "relevant". Who decides what is relevant to the reader? The reader! Also, if we cut every piece of information on the basis of "relevancy", we'd have a very small article indeed, depending on how one defined relevancy. If the information were irrelevant, it wouldn't have been reported elsewhere; there are reliable sources for all the information. I vote to leave it as is.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, what nailed it for IVK was the policy pages cited by Kyohyi. You haven't said that you have read that and understood it (as became apparent in that discussion, you have to read all of it, or you'll miss an exception to an exception), or shown that it does not apply here. If you don't think it applies to IVK, either, I wish you had contributed to that discussion. Mandruss (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Leave the VA Tech info box as is. Editors from Isla Vista page attempting to change this page for consistency seems questionable to me. Prior editors presumably more familiar with the VA Tech massacre sources created this info box, and as I recall, there was much more coverage of the victims in the Virginia Tech massacre than there was for Isla Vista. Even though the VA tech massacre occurred many years ago and the Isla Vista killing spree was recent, I can still from memory tell you much more about the VA victims. The victims lives received a lot of detail in reliable sources and RS should dictate such things, not desire for consistency among somewhat similar articles. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with consistency. I can't be any clearer on that than I already have been, so I'd just ask that you re-read what I've already written. Mandruss (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful for you to cite the policies relied on at IVK here. I don't think they apply, either there nor here. In general, these are guidelines for articles about individuals, not information about individuals in other articles that don't have articles of their own. The BLP policies cited are designed to avoid contentious, defamatory, or disputed information being included in articles on living people (and on those recently deceased). I don't feel including the victim's years, majors, or hometowns falls under any of these restrictions. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy is designed to avoid cluttering up the readability of an article with unnecessary or excessive statistical data. The information here is neither. I will address each one separately below.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM

"...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

I see nothing non-neutral about including this information, the information is well-sourced, and, for college students and professors/instructors, on-topic.

"Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Sadly, these individuals will always be victims; nothing we include or omit here will change that.

WP:NPF

Again, this policy is largely applicable to articles about individuals, not information on an individual in another article. Most of the people in the infobox were not notable enough for their own articles, so in a broad sense, this part of the policy doesn't apply.

"... exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."

The information is relevant to students and instructors/professors, and is sourced appropriately.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE

This policy addresses the inclusion of excessive data in an article. I don't feel the data under discussion here is in any way excessive.

"Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."

These are hardly "long and sprawling lists of statistics". Further, the information given provides the proper context for the reader.

I wasn't aware of the conversation at IVK; I disagree with its outcome and disagree with the removal of this information here.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough response. So what we have now is at least two experienced editors on one side (IVK) and at least one here, in what is essentially the same debate. It wouldn't make any sense to insist on separate and independent conclusions for the two articles. I'm interested in something resembling an actual consensus on this question---something more than just waiting until everyone loses interest---but I don't know how to go about achieving that. Any suggestions? The question was posed yesterday at WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but there has been no response yet. Mandruss |talk 19:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the policies cited to exclude this info do not actually appear to apply here or on Isla Vista page, Also, the interest in excluding this information is difficult to understand. Seems like basic information readers of theses articles would find of interest.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else's motivations, but I don't have any particular "interest in excluding this information". As you probably know, I've been on both sides of this debate. My interest is in achieving some higher consensus than a few guys at the article level, many of whom lack the experience to fully grasp the applicable policy, and are the only people still around who care enough to even enter the discussion. My interest is in effective use of editors' limited and valuable time, which means not repeating the same debates over and over because of an absence of clear and widely accepted consensus. I would guess that probably ten man-hours have been spent discussing a question that could have been resolved years ago---and that's just on these two articles. Mandruss |talk 23:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now the second paragraph of the lead feels very weird; ending on the note that his mother sought aid from a church seems very odd and doesn't lead into the next paragraph. Right now it feels out of place; I think noting that he had a history of psychological problems is definitely important and belongs there, but I think this paragraph needs to be reworked. I think just removing some of the information would make it read better; possibly leaving off with the note that he had been told by Virginia Tech to seek counseling prior to the incident. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it; I realized the reason why it felt weird was that the second and fourth paragraphs were connected. As such, I merged them, and now the new third paragraph is about Cho's mental health, and the changes it caused. Flows much more naturally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

More information Reversed position, and associated replies ...

Reversed position, and associated replies

Oppose I don't think the RS usage is clear enough to justify a move to something that doesn't even convey that people were killed (shooting is not killing, necessarily). RS is a large part of what we need to consider, but it's not the only thing. The title needs to embody the "essential nature" of the subject events, and "shooting" fails that test imo. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adequately noting the severity of the attacks in the title is important enough to overpower titling the page as its most common name, which still describes it fairly well. After all, that would mean we would have to rename September 11 attacks or Boston Marathon bombings to indicate a death toll.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Still, as I said, the RS support for "shooting" is far from clear. For example:

"virginia tech shooting" -massacre -wikipedia site:washingtonpost.com - 3,370 hits

"virginia tech massacre" -shooting -wikipedia site:washingtonpost.com - 30,900 hits ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, I would note that even the Washington Post, which was the site you did this search on, uses "Virginia Tech Shootings" on its official page for coverage of the event a subpage of it can be seen here, and briefly if you click the main words, although it quickly hides behind a paywall. It certainly isn't a simple call.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"virginia tech shooting" 2014 -massacre -wikipedia site:washingtonpost.com - 2,180 hits
"virginia tech massacre" 2014 -shooting -wikipedia site:washingtonpost.com - 45 hits

I think this is because of their copyright notice on the bottom of the page; going back to 2013, we end up with much more mixed usage (51 vs 82), which suggests that the Washington Post is not at all consistent on which term to use, and they also seem to use the term "shootings". Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Close

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per COMMONNAME. There was only one opposer (after Mandruss changed their mind), but by making a strange claim that was easily rebutted, I have discounted their opinion. Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Number 5 7 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre → Virginia Tech shooting – This was discussed a long time ago, and the page ended up at Virginia Tech massacre. However, at this point, it seems that it should be moved to Virginia Tech Shooting per WP:COMMONNAME; looking at references to it in the news this year, they seem to refer to it as the Virginia Tech shooting pretty consistently, and all of the top results for the Virginia Tech massacre on Google also call it the Virginia Tech shooting other than the Wikipedia page. CNN and The Huffington Post both refer to it as "shooting" now (Huffington Post used to refer to it as the Virginia Tech massacre and shooting interchangeably, and still tags articles both ways), while USA Today uses both (shooting in the headline, massacre in the article body). The New York Times appears to refer to them as the "Virginia Tech shooting" in the navigator bar, CBS calls it the Virginia Tech shooting in the headline (it mentions that the person "survived a massacre" in the article text), Deadline live called it such, as does MSNBC, the AP (and again), Fox 59, Living for 32, which is a movie about the shooting, The Washington Post, In The Capital, ect. Googling for "Virginia Tech massacre" brings up a lot of articles which are entitled "Virginia Tech shooting". I did find this article from the University Herald, which refers to it as a massacre, but the majority of places - and the most important news outlets - seem to refer to it as the "Virginia Tech shooting" now fairly consistently, with "Virginia Tech massacre" being secondary and appearing in fewer sources, at least one of which used both. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuff noted by folks in the comments:

The Washington Post has their primary page on the incident refer to the Virginia Tech shootings, and appears to use Virginia Tech shooting, Virginia Tech shootings, and Virginia Tech massacre interchangeably and inconsistently. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Official reports used by the government and university appear to use the term "Virginia Tech shooting" and "Virginia Tech shootings", but not "Virginia Tech massacre". The document is entitled "Mass shootings at Virginia Tech". Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Google returns more results for "shooting at Virginia Tech" than "massacre at Virginia Tech", but that is somewhat clouded by the fact that there have been other, non-notable (at least, as far as I know) shooting incidents there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"virginia tech shooting" 2014 -massacre -shootings -wikipedia returns 240,000 results.
"virginia tech massacre" 2014 -shooting -shootings -wikipedia returns 194,000 results.
"virginia tech shootings" 2014 -shooting -massacre -wikipedia returns 849,000 results.

I hadn't even considered the pluralized form. However, again, "shooting" and "shootings" may be exaggerated because of other shooting events; I'm not sure how useful a guide pure Google hits are here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support It's a trivial distinction over a serious event, but common usage is clear and some people might get confused. —innotata 23:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- We would definitely set up Virginia Tech massacre as a redirect to it, just as Virginia Tech shooting is a redirect to Virginia Tech massacre right now; it is the second most common name for it. It is really less about confusion than it is about WP:COMMONNAME; we generally strive to use the common name, and shooting does have the advantage of being a little more precision as well as common usage. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Since our purpose is to be an encyclopedia and not simply a news source, it makes sense for us to follow what the long term notability of the event will be, which according to your research the bulk of reliable sources indicate is "shooting".--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, shooting seems to be the term used in official reports used by the government and university. Now this is in part likely due to the less sensationalist and more descriptive nature of the term shooting over massacre, but hey, that's probably another reason in itself to move the page back to shooting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point; I hadn't actually looked at the academic and government sources, but they're obviously a major consideration as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment 32 is a lot of people historically, when compared to other 'shootings'. I think that should be considered when discussing this issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this table, second highest death count among school massacres (their word, not mine), since we started keeping track, worldwide. Highest since 1927. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Incidentally, part of the reason that page is called "school massacres" is that it is meant to encompass all mass killings at schools, regardless of method; the Bath School Disaster, the highest death toll of any such event, was not a shooting, but a guy who blew up a school with dynamite. It also would include the mass stabbings which occur, such as the Shiguan kindergarten attack in China. "School shooting" is a more commonly used term than "school massacre" (if you exclude Wikipedia, it is about 4 million to 1 million on Google), but because the page isn't just about shootings, we call it by the name which does refer to all such events. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: It has only been called the Virginia Tech Massacre, never the Virginia Tech Shooting. If approved, every shooting at Virginia Tech could, technically, be added to the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if that is a joke or not. Even people here who oppose the decision would not be so silly as to claim it has "only been called" the massacre -- did you read the discussion or the article or the sources at all? And your second point is weirder. For obvious reasons. You're saying " every shooting at Virginia Tech" as though that is a run of the mill occurrence -- I don't know if you come from a war-torn or violence prone area but that really is just an unreasonable comment in this context. People may certainly get shot on the campus again, although it's unlikely to happen very often, but if it's a non-notable even we don't have to add it just because it is in this article -- just like if there was another massacre it would have a page created as its own event. Would you argue that if another attack in any context happened on the 11th of September we would be forced to add it to the 9/11 attacks article?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:: Please look at the source material I linked to. A great number of sources use "Virginia Tech shooting" instead of "Virginia Tech massacre". Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Reversal of oppose position above. Arguments for support are more compelling, in particular official reports used by the government and university. More weighty than any other RS. The document does use "massacre" in places, but "shootings" is the word they chose for the title (presumably, they put some amount of thought into that choice). Worth noting that they chose the plural. In case someone argues for "mass shootings" per the document title, I'll preemptively counter that that is incorrect usage. There were shootings, but only one mass shooting. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

According to the clowns who refuse to retitle the Sandy Hooking Elementary School shooting article to use the word "massacre" instead of shooting, article titles are dictated by the most commonly accepted naming convention, specifically by comparing the number of Google hits for two different potential names. "Virginia Tech shooting" gets 21,000,000 hits, whereas "Virginia Tech massacre" only gets 2,100,000 hits. Somebody needs to retitle this article "Virginia Tech shooting". After all, it's a bit silly to have the Sandy Hook tragedy titled "shooting" but this is titled "massacre" when the alleged naming standard dictates that both incidents should be named "shootings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@108.73.44.248: There had been debate about this at the time; I had held with the position it should be labelled shooting, not massacre. If the thing has clearly ended up being called the Virginia Tech shooting, then we should call it that. Do we have many contemporary sources which refer to it? That might be helpful to determining what folks call it in retrospect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the high rate of gun violence in the United States, many scores of people have to die before it can be considered a "massacre." A massacre in the United States constitutes the death of at least 412 persons. Only 22 people died at Virginia Tech. A massacre? Hardly. Chisme (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre and Boston Massacre were just shootings? Do read Massacre, which shows that the term is variable and is used when "many" are killed(usually, unarmed people being killed by armed people or person).Wzrd1 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just shootings, I'm afraid. Note that the St. Valentine's Day massacre and Boston Massacre occurred, the one in 1929 and the other in 1770. By the standards of 1929 (5 deaths) and 1770 (6 deaths), those shootings were indeed massacres. However, gun violence in American has ratcheted up to such a degree that, in order to be considered a massacre, the death toll must reach 412 persons. Virginia Tech is nowhere near that. It's just another shooting in America, albeit a tragic one. Chisme (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This article claims (without a source) that the shooting "also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years." I don't believe this is true. What new "federal gun control measure" was passed? The article refers to a law that strengthened the NICS. But then it adds that, in addition, there was a new federal gun control measure. But no source is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are new laws regarding the face ot face purchase of ammo in California coming up in feb 2011, but no Federal laws were put into effect as a knee jerk reaction of this incident. J. ORLY? (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement is correct and has been sourced.70.9.253.200 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Could someone who is more experienced/skilled with categorization of articles take a look at the categories here? Because this article has the same title as a category (an eponymous category), it's confusing to me as to which categories should be included and which should be excluded because they are parents of subcategories that are also listed. Here's a breakdown with my recommendations:

DELETE

Category:2007 crimes in the United States

Parent of Category:2007 murders in the United States

Category:2007 in Virginia

Seems overly broad in scope

Category:Disasters in Virginia

Seems overly broad, the murder and shootings categories are more specific

Category:Crimes in Virginia

Seems overly broad, the murder and shootings categories are more specific

Category:History of Virginia

Seems extremely broad in scope

RETAIN

CONFUSING / REDUNDANT?

Attempts to make distinctions between "mass shootings", "spree shootings", and "massacres" seem to have failed, but I feel the distinctions should be made and adhered to. Not sure that can be done without lengthy discussions elsewhere, though.

Thanks for any help provided. 70.9.253.200 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted above in the Talk:Virginia Tech shooting#Two archived sites section, links to the Internet Archive have purposefully been protocol-relevant; as some users cannot access https:// sites at all. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 44#Internet Archive and HTTPS as well; also more information at Uniform Resource Locator#Protocol-relative URLs.2602:306:BD7B:4230:95D6:A510:1872:68C1 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See this RfC consensus of a few weeks ago. Per that consensus, Bender235 is mass-changing all archive.org HTTP to HTTPS. I don't know whether they are also changing PRURL to HTTPS. In any case, as Wikipedia itself is HTTPS now (check your address bar), how are the users you speak of able to access Wikipedia to click a link to archive.org? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help avoid this kind of problem if Boshomi would link to the above RfC in their edit summaries when changing URLs for archive.org. Either that, or some other community consensus that shows they know what they are doing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not changing existing protocol-relative URLs. I only change HTTP to HTTPS. But to OP's point in general, who ever cannot access HTTPS in general won't be able to access Wikipedia in this first place. --bender235 (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

btw. webcitation.org don't works with PR-links, it's just http only, PR redirects to https.Boshomi (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215091614/http://www.dailynews-record.com:80/news_details.php?AID=9816 to http://www.dailynews-record.com/news_details.php?AID=9816
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vt.edu/about/buildings/ambler-johnston-hall.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vt.edu/about/buildings/ambler-johnston-hall.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215091614/http://www.dailynews-record.com:80/news_details.php?AID=9816 to http://www.dailynews-record.com/news_details.php?AID=9816

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

An unregistered editor is insisting on removing the following text from this article:

The attack is the second deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history (surpassed only by the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting^[1]) and one of the deadliest by a single gunman worldwide.

We can quibble over exactly how this is all phrased but the main points of the statement - (a) second deadliest single gunman shooting in U.S. history, (b) second to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and (c) one of the deadliest single gunman attacks in the world - seem to be absolutely critical to readers' understanding of this event and its importance in U.S. culture and history. Our unregistered colleague has only described this information as "unnecessary" in his or her edit summaries without further explanation or discussion here or anywhere else. @71.72.130.81: Why are you willing to edit war over this? Why do you believe that it's unnecessary to place this into historical context? ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Specific content issues

"The Massengill Report detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that should have served as a warning to his deteriorating mental condition." Warning to whom? Who says they should? Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "The Massengill Report detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that illustrated his deteriorating mental condition." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have protected fellow student Guillermo Colman by diving on top of him. Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of being shot. Multiple gunshots killed Lumbantoruan, but Colman was protected by Lumbantoruan's body." Convoluted and clumsy wording. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have shielded fellow student Guillermo Colman from more serious injury. Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of Lumbantoruan being shot." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Some teachers, having seen many troubled students over the years and sensing deep problems with Cho, attempted to "manage the situation" in such a way as to not alienate him and to allow him to successfully graduate with his reputation still intact." Which teachers? Specific citation for this sentence, please.Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "One professor tried to get him to seek counseling, but he would not go." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Norris Hall shootings has no timeline in the section, not even estimates. I KNOW the time of the 911 call will be recorded... Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit The first paragraph of the section opens with "About two hours after the initial shootings..." and closes with "Within one or two minutes of the first shots, the first call to 9-1-1 was received.", which are estimates, but I changed the last sentence of the paragraph to "The first call to 9-1-1 was received at 9:42 a.m." to be more specific, with an additional citation. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The building now houses the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, the Biomechanics Cluster Research Center, and the Global Technology Center, as well as other uses." How do you house 'other uses'? Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "The building now houses the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, the Biomechanics Cluster Research Center, and the Global Technology Center, as well as other programs." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Governor Kaine later created an eight-member panel, including former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to review all aspects of the Virginia Tech shooting, from Cho's medical history to the school's widely criticized delay in warning students of danger and locking down the campus after the bodies of Cho's first two victims were discovered." Why does 'widely criticized' belong there? Seems unnecessarily POV. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Removed phrase, although I could argue that it is a factual statement. The response time was widely criticized and VT lost a lawsuit over it. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Prompted by the incident, the federal government passed the most significant gun control law in more than a decade." Source does not support 'significant', but rather calls it the only new federal gun control legislation since 1994. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Changed "most significant" to "first". —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"the government of South Korea convened an emergency meeting to consider possible ramifications." Not obvious in the immediately prior or following citations. Should have its own cite. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit Added citation. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Some schools went beyond this and offered or provided cash donations and other forms of expertise and support, such as housing for officers and additional counseling support for Virginia Tech." I suppose it's possible to make a more awkward-sounding grammatically correct sentence, but the specifics of how to do that don't occur to me at the present. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "Some schools also offered or provided cash donations, housing for officers, and additional counseling support for Virginia Tech." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Construction Industry Institute (CII), a University of Texas-based research institute promoting collaboration between industry and academia, had a relationship with Tech before the tragedy—having sponsored several Virginia Tech-led engineering research projects. CII felt the loss deeply and upon learning of the tragedy, CII members immediately sought to develop a positive response. In just a few months, CII worked with Virginia Tech faculty to design a three-credit graduate class teaching CII Best Practices to the future leaders of the construction industry. The first class was taught in Fall 2007 over three weekends by subject matter experts from CII member companies Procter & Gamble, KBR, Fluor Corporation, the Smithsonian Institution, BE&K, the Department of State, and CII staff." Sorry, but this comes off as paid PR excrement. Prune it with fire or remove it entirely. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "The Construction Industry Institute (CII), a University of Texas-based research institute promoting collaboration between industry and academia, worked with Virginia Tech faculty to design a three-credit graduate class teaching CII Best Practices to the future leaders of the construction industry." —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The report, entitled, "The IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses", was "a synthesis of the reports written following the tragedy at Virginia Tech and related recommendations for campus safety by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators" and included IACLEA's Key Recommendations, a Summary of 10 Key Findings of Virginia Governor's Review Panel, a listing of Fatal Shootings on U.S. Campuses, and the IACLEA Position Statement on Concealed-Carry Initiatives." Run on, extra commas. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit "The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) convened a Special Review Task Force, which issued its report on April 18, 2008, titled, "The IACLEA Blueprint for Safer Campuses". The report was "a synthesis of the reports written following the tragedy at Virginia Tech and related recommendations for campus safety by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators". It included IACLEA's Key Recommendations, a Summary of 10 Key Findings of Virginia Governor's Review Panel, a listing of Fatal Shootings on U.S. Campuses, and the IACLEA Position Statement on Concealed-Carry Initiatives. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"The Task Force made twenty specific recommendations, representing "the Association's priorities for the betterment of campus safety" and reinforcing "key goals and objectives in mitigating and responding to threats at institutions of higher learning."" Might this fit better with the "campus firearm ban" section, below? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit I disagree; not moved. The report includes more than a ban on firearms. To split the narrative and move the firearms-ban-related material to the other section would be extremely awkward and require duplication of information; the entire narrative about the Task Force doesn't belong in that section. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Securing the safety of our campuses is an iterative process that requires an institutional and personal commitment from every member of our educational communities. Let these recommendations strengthen that resolve." I am unconvinced that this is important enough a response for a pull quote. Convince me? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit I believe it was largely done to illustrate the paragraph break. No longer a pull quote. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If EQUITAS doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, why are we giving their report that much space? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit No change. The IACLEA doesn't have an article, either. Inclusion of a think tank provides a balanced POV, in my opinion. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk : 02:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"In May 2010, the American band Exodus released an album, titled, Exhibit B: The Human Condition, which included the track "Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)". Band member Gary Holt said, "It’s about one of America’s favorite pastimes — the school shooting," and added, "The song was primarily inspired by the massacre at Virginia Tech, as well as Columbine and the many other instances of unhinged individuals who decided to take out their wrath on their classmates, going all the way back to Charles J. Whitman."" Trivial, and when all the other responses get so little coverage, UNDUE. I'd eliminate it. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"On September 4, 2009, the Marching Virginians, one of Virginia Tech's marching bands, took a 140-mile (230 km) side trip on their way to the season opening football game against the University of Alabama at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. The 350-member band, 20 cheerleaders, and members of the Corps of Cadets color guard performed at Lakeside High School, alma mater of Ryan Clark, along with the Lakeside Marching Band and visiting Evans High's band. The event was organized by the Central Savannah River Area Virginia Tech alumni chapter to honor Clark's memory and as a fundraiser for a scholarship in his name." Trivial, excessive, UNDUE. See above. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Following the 2007 shootings, Virginia Tech began employing an alert system on their website and text messages to warn students of danger. The alert system was first activated in 2008 when an exploded cartridge from a nail gun produced sounds similar to gunfire near a campus dormitory. It was again activated on August 4, 2011, when children attending a summer class reported a man carrying a handgun; police were unable to find anyone matching the children's description.[179] Later in 2011, on December 8, the system was activated again after a police officer was shot and killed on campus. This turned out to be a random act by a part-time Radford University student. He had carjacked a Mercedes SUV earlier in the day in nearby Radford and had parked it in the general area of a Virginia Tech parking lot where the victim officer was conducting a routine traffic stop on a third party. The shooter turned the gun on himself a half-hour later." Excessive, unfocused, UNDUE. You know what? the entire "continuing response" section could be eliminated in its entirety without hurting the article one bit. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

For an article about the shooting itself, the "response" section, in its entirety, is too long and detailed. I would consider breaking it out into a Summary Style sub-article if you want to keep the content, as it's clearly RS'ed adequately, and then keeping only the most significant matters in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"At the time of the shooting, Virginia law also limited purchases of handguns to one every 30 days. That limit was repealed on April 3, 2013." Move that next to the bit where he waited a month between handgun purchases, please, to make more sense and give specific context for his purchasing strategy. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Campus Firearms Ban section only really covers things happening before the shooting in question. It doesn't mention Students for Concealed Carry, an organization specifically formed in response to this shooting. It probably should. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, it's in the NEXT section, two paragraphs down. Glad the content's there, but it really should be organized more logically. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Opponents of gun control viewed this larger move as an unwarranted expansion and as a possible prelude waypoint akin to full gun registration for all gun sales." Awkward, reword please. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a good reason for listing all the Massengill report authors/review panel members in the article. I'm even less convinced this one spot is an optimum spot for such a list, given how scattered references to the report are throughout the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Department of Education fined the University $55,000 on March 29, 2011, for waiting too long to notify students of the initial shootings. The fine was the highest amount that the Department of Education could levy for the two violations of the Clery Act resulting from the failure to notify students in a timely manner of the shootings in West Ambler Johnston. In announcing the fine against the University, the director of a department panel which reviewed the case was quoted as saying "While Virginia Tech's violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute, the department's fine authority is limited". As of March 30, 2011, the University had announced its intention to appeal the decision." too long, the quotes is of the "well, duh" variety. I'd lose the quote and tighten up the prose here. Oh, yeah, and the second subsequent paragraph updates the disposition of the fine. It needs to read like a good narrative, not like someone tacked on the latter paragraph after the first one was written, even if that is, in fact, how it was originally authored. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, reading further, the whole "legal aftermath" section needs to be gutted and rewritten from a current standpoint, rather than the blow-by-blow we have here, and trimmed a good bit in the process. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=%2F2007%2F06%2F13%2F688491.html&cvqh=itn_gunlaw
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F04%2F19%2Fwkorea119.xml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline%3Dwe-are-glad-he-is-dead-by-cho-s-family%E2%80%94%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D18931479%26siteid%3D89520-name_page.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1613010%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C266374%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/virginia-tech-fined-55k-f_n_842191.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gamepolitics.com/2007/05/15/v-tech-rampage-creator-demands-payment-to-remove-game
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redcross.org/article/0%2C1072%2C0_312_6578%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512215131/http://shenandoahhokies.com/blood-drive.html to http://www.shenandoahhokies.com/blood-drive.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1613417%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns9dec09%2C0%2C5923876.story
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.oldboy20apr20%2C0%2C5585502.story
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F04%2F18%2Fsports%2Fs200358D74.DTL
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news%2Fnational_world&id=5223557
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6QK80tA35?url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20131015095917%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.governor.virginia.gov%2FTempContent%2FtechPanelReport-docs%2FFullReport.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/default_archive.asp?fpArchive=041708

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virginia Tech shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of odd points would seem to require some further explanation, or perhaps some additional internal links:

Attacks section, Norris Hall shootings subsection: Professor Liviu Librescu, is described as "an Israeli Holocaust survivor". I can find no reference, anywhere, to an "Israeli Holocaust", and had no idea that there was such a thing. If there is/was such a thing, then a footnote or reference explaining the "Israeli Holocaust" should be included.

If what is meant, perhaps, is that Professor Librescu was an Israeli national, who happened also to have been a survivor of the Holocaust of WWII, then the sentence needs to be rewritten; as it stands, it is ambiguous and confusing.

Responses to the incidents section, University response subsection: there is absolutely no mention of whether the University made use of broadcast media (radio; TV; PA systems; etc.) to attempt to warn students of the situation. All that is mentioned is "The university first informed students via e-mail at 9:26 a.m., about two hours after the first shooting". It seems unlikely that the only way the University would have attempted to warn students would have been by email, which some students might not have checked for hours or even days.

Were other announcements (e.g. radio) made? If so, when? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Librescu was Romanian Jew who moved to Israel when well into his adult years. He moved to America after living in Israel for many years. PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

[1]

Follow up in a post Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Wikipedia

Specific content issues

Follow up in a post Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Wikipedia

Specific content issues

Move undone

Anti Korean Backlash

Conspiracy theorists

New details of VT massacre

Settlement

Add reference to "No Right to Remain Silent"

Hokie

Chronological order

infobox photo

Popular Culture

Response section

Activist versus Group

Edits about Cho's mother seeking spiritual help / exorcism

Cho's sister

AFD notification

Liviu Librescu

Weapons line in infobox

Photos of the victims and shooter

Ballistics inaccuracy/explanation

December 2011 Shooting

Pointer to 2011 Shooting

Red Flags???

Some misinformation on Gun Laws

Kim-Jong Un

External Links

Numbers wrong

Subliminal Distraction

How many wounded?

There are some problems with one sentence

Criticism of university response

Articles for Deletion Nomination: Diane Strickland

Two archived sites

Titling seems inconsistent and biased when comparing articles about shootings.

Hometowns and college years+majors, etc. in Victims box

Second paragraph of lead

Requested move

It wasn't a massacre, it was a "shooting"

New federal gun control measure?

Categorization

Protocol-relevant URLs

External links modified

External links modified

Explicit description as second deadliest single gunman shooting in U.S. history

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Further Explanation Needed