Talk:33 dead, 15 injured in Virginia Tech shootings

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shouldn't this article be titled 32 dead?[edit]

as title states. I have not heard of a 33rd deceased yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.225.235 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2007

The 33rd is the shooter himself, Cho. --SVTCobra 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard he killed 31 and then he was the 32nd.

Where's the 20 number coming from?[edit]

Where's the 20 number coming from? 24.27.18.25 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press conference. —Zachary talk 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup sorry my bad has page been moved back?--MarkTalk 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. —Zachary talk 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Injured List? I Need that pronto!!! One of my friends goes there!! And who's the Idiot that put 1337 up there?


calm down the injured list wont come out for quite a while due to the protection laws. just be patient and try to contact your friend yourself for reassureance. or his parents to tell them about the incident. i think (if they dont know yet) it would be best for them to know.User:Maverick423

I moved this discussion down from the top of the page into a topic below if this is ok with people. Sifaka 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

I did some fact-checking.

  • The part attributed to FoxNews lacks specific citation. Just in case I can easily identify, I checked FoxNews' online report and one video that included phone interview with a stuent, but they do not seem to match with what is written in this article.
  • "Resident advisor" is reportedly killed, according to this article. Upon searching Google News [1] and Fox News [2], I see no such information.
  • "get out of there" quote is not found in Google News, either. [3]

Tomos 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

Can anybody clarify the number of casualties? BBC News 24 has been saying 29 are "reported to have been killed" although the article on their website (which IME is usually not as up to date as the TV) says 22. Guinness2702 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC are now saying ABC say 29, and Fox (apparently quoting federal sources) say 32. Guinness2702 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable approach is to cite specific sources with timestamp. When different sources present different figures, we can mention the difference without asserting which of them is true. Tomos 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Now say 31 dead (quoting AP)....go figure Guinness2702 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and the web article is now saying the same, although they say 10 injured, not 29 like the WN article. Guinness2702 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fox is now siting Federal officials at stating the number of causalties is up to 32 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html
Yeah, CNN saying the same too - 32 including the gunman Guinness2702 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speakers from the University Press Conference at Virginia Tech confirmed that there were 33 fatalities, 2 from West Ambler Johnston Hall, and 31 (including the shooter) at Norris Hall. FBMrider86 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched that conference...there is NOT 33 dead,...confirmed is 31. DragonFire1024 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VA Tech official website confirms 33 dead. FBMrider86 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I watched the conference too - there were 31 dead at the 2nd location (Norris Hall) plus two more who died at West Amber. Guinness2702

The press conference had a lower figure for injuries (something like 15) but I forgot it. Definitely less than 29 tho'. Can anyone remember the number? Guinness2702 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now, it was 15 - source BBC News 24 replay of earlier press conference. Guinness2702 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change article name[edit]

Article title should be renamed to "Virginia Tech Massacre". 67.71.155.212 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disagree as said on 'pedia it violates NPOV--MarkTalk 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We prefer informative titles rather than POV ones that spark emotions. Neebs 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the rename, just because I am generally opposed to renames of breaking news as a pain in the arse. However WRT use of the word 'massacre' - well, from wiktionary: "To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter; -- limited to the killing of human beings." - I don't think there's POV there, really. Guinness2702 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly do we know for sure that the killings were "indiscriminate" and also i agree that titles should be informative not emotional.--MarkTalk 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. Gunmen with rocket-launchers massacre 60 at market in Mahmoudiya, Iraq. But I was going to say that we should have a title without a number until a final number is known. --SVTCobra 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Title should be changed to remove victim count. Number is still rising and no title no longer reflects current totals listed in the article. 65.244.115.198
The Saint Valentine's Day massacre was seven people. All that is required for a massacre is multiple helpless people killed, generally by a smaller force. That being said, I believe the standard terms are "shooting" and "killing". --205.201.141.146 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna have to say that its not the best title. if i may suggest i would say "Gunman goes on largest shooting rampage in United states history in virginia techRankun 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)rankun[reply]

As true as it may seem, that is a little over dramatic for a title IMO. DragonFire1024 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the numbers have been confirmed, I suggest "33 die in shooting at Virginia Tech" Guinness2702 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All top television networks, the BBC, and other major outlets now call it “massacre”. “Shooting” fails to distinguish a category in where nobody may have died. With 3177+ articles Google News shows enough coverage that “Virginia Tech” ought sufficiently identify events, and opening the story as such lets “college in USA” drop from the title. As of Apr 17, 00:55 (UTC), after some debate, Wikipedia now reconciles a name for events and calls it “Virginia Tech massacre”. An appropriate headline might go “33 dead, 15 injured in Virginia Tech massacre” JohnLam 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pov sentence[edit]

"This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States." sounds pov even though it might be true. Please change the wording if this is not true. If it is, we should cite our source that said it for NPOV reasons. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worst school shooting was Columbine...this IS the worst school shooting in US history...not sure about the world. DragonFire1024 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how you define your terms. (I would say the Battle of Gettysburg is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States.) Qualifying it with "deadliest school shooting" would be better, since it's (a) objectively more deadly than Columbine, and (b) there are plenty of sources calling Columbine the country's deadliest school shooting (google "columbine deadliest"). --kh
I am speaking school shooting...not wars or battles. DragonFire1024 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post here uses exactly that phrase. The New York Times here says "what appears to be the deadliest shooting rampage in American history, according to federal law-enforcement officials." Guinness2702 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live footage was taken by students[edit]

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199001329&subSection=News DragonFire1024 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Please use sources other than Wikipedia as Wikipedia will be using news sources just like we are. Plus the article on WP is supposed to be speedy deleted...according to WP editors. DragonFire1024 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sources came from news articles, not wikipedia. It was merely copied from Wikipedia, which is not copyrighted, since this article is lacking information about the said topics. I think my edits should be restored. Furthermore that article on wikipedia is not going to be up for speedy deletion at all. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. Sifaka 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pls see: User_talk:FellowWikiNews/Archive_1#Wikipedia_vs_Wikinews_and_copying. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter Name[edit]

I believe William Morva is the gunman associated with an earlier Virginia Tech shooting that took place a few months ago, not this one. 4.159.249.26 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be removed. Ycanneh 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. According to the press conference I'm watching now via teh BBC interwebs, they "have not identified the shooter as he had no identification on him". Guinness2702 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original[edit]

I added a statement from the live news conference that started at around 4:40 p.m. [EST]. "no names of victims will be released". DragonFire1024 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please KEEP original reporting template.. info from live conferences is considered OR. DragonFire1024 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information. Description of the shooter and locations of the shootings[edit]

This should be added into the article. Sifaka 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BOLD applies here: You can add it yourself :) Ycanneh 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Reference tags are NOT used on Wikinews. DragonFire1024 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Reporting[edit]

Please provide original reporting notes below per WN:OR. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented on a lot of stuff in the casualties section above + edit comments for earlier edits. Guinness2702 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My OR is from the Live press conference by the college. DragonFire1024 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News 24 is quoting the daily express as saying that 2 people died jumping out of the window to avoid being "executed" - is this good enough to include in the article now or should we wait? Guinness2702 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement to Use?[edit]

http://asherheimermann.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/virginia-tech-shooting/ Is this something we should use or not? 67.36.86.100 22:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, no. It's essentially POV, and it is neither notable, nor does it add anything newsworty. Guinness2702 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought - because it's being updated and it's real. Thanks anyway. 67.36.86.100 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

A number of so called 'quotes' are indeed direct quotes. It's just that the source is TV and hence no web link can be given - see the Original Reporting stuff above. Guinness2702 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following[edit]

Although no bombs have been reported at this time, neither were any bombs reported at Columbine until after tactical response arrived on the scene. The original plan layed out by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was to bomb the cafeteria using two IEDs and gun down the survivors, and police had to disarm almost thirty 'uncooked' bombs found inside the school, as well as shooter Dylan Klebold's car set with an explosive to detonate at 11:56 PM (faulty wiring switched AM and PM; Klebold planned to keep police busy with that while he and Harris began the massacre).

In my view this does not belong. --SVTCobra 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has no relevance to the shooting at Virginia Tech. It definitely doesn't belong! Nishkid64 00:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I think we have a problem with the external links section of this page. It has grown exponentially. I am hesitant to remove it because the VT.edu site is relevant. But it is also growing past what WN:SG suggests. --SVTCobra 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I know it, all sources, unless repeats of other sources, should remain in the article...DragonFire1024 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is unacceptably long and looks as if it is being used to promote a number of sites where you can upload video. External links are not really sources, but more references. All those that do not significantly contribute to the details used in the story should be removed - especially the ones which link to a video and a million and one ignorant/racist comments. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, links to copyright violations (capture of MSNBC) should never be linked to. They should vanish fairly quickly because of what they are. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First brush reaction: The "sources" section is where existing news reports relating to the news reside. "external links" could or should be the only links listed in a Wikinews report. I'm interested in what the community has to report. -Edbrown05 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have removed some of them. others need to be checked out. –Doldrums(talk) 09:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why do some of these have to be removed? -Edbrown05 09:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
basically, the idea is that a wikinews article reports whatever is noteworthy and sources it. so external links have a limited role to play. the university website for instance is appropriate, that's where ppl shld be directed to for specific information about particular people. the transcripts shld probably be in the sources. the timeline is useful information that we can't simply copy over, so we link instead.
but ext links is not a place to deposit every webpage that talks about the incident (there're better places to do that). it is not a place to link to copyvio media. WN:SG and w:WP:EL have more to say about what kind of links are appropriate.–Doldrums(talk) 09:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia has much to say on this topic, as they allow no original research. Meanwhile, back at Wikinews, external links are the original research. -Edbrown05 09:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AND YOU DELETED SOME EXTERNAL LINKS. -Edbrown05 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External sources do not have a limited role to play, they have the most vital role to play. -Edbrown05 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a couple of External links to Sources. --SVTCobra 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Hurt[edit]

May I ask how the number of 15 is found? I thought that it was 29, per this website 65.43.22.156 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well one, this website is a blog, with no links to where he got his information. IMO this is NOT a reliable source. DragonFire1024 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can even go on Wikipedia and it's there... Duh! 65.43.22.156 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you follow the reference at the wikipedia page, you'll find that the source no longer reports that number. But I noticed that almost no current MSM page mentions the number of wounded/injured anylonger. That seems curious. But to answer your question, the only reference I found (among the updated ones) was an "at least 15" so to use 29 is not proper until you find a credible source. --SVTCobra 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:33_dead,_15_injured_in_Virginia_Tech_shootings&oldid=406676"