Talk:Virginia Tech/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shooting occurred, April 16

School shooting, reported around 10:30 AM EDT. It's on CNN, waiting for story via Gnews. --168.99.182.30 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

shooting

people just jumping on the train of CNN. "deadliest shooting in history" etc. WHOAA!! As if this was the most important thing about Virginia Tech. It should be mentioned, but NOT in the first sentence of the article and NOT in this way. The article about Virginia Tech should NOT be affected in this measure by actual events. It is enough that you have the link "For the main article on the event, see 2007 Virginia Tech shooting." above. But people just want to get exited about things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site, even though it has this feature. For the news, use the "current event" article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.86.178 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

While I agree fully with you, I don't think it's people excited, per say, but just reacting quickly to a developing situation. But you are fully right, it should NOT be in the first paragraph, and at best, a footnote in the history section. Also, we should be careful early on: Originally it said 32 deaths, when in fact the confirmed toll is 21, and I have changed it. -- Ubergenius 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Student newspaper confirms the 32 deaths.[1] — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Major news sources are quoting the police at 22 dead. Where did the school paper get the other 12? I'd take the police confirmations over the school's paper. --208.44.234.50 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also a fox news source citing 32. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

CNN now says 31. -- Ubergenius 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is people getting excited. Just listening to CNN and I think they have the World Guiness Book of Records in their hands right now, checking which records this incident has broken. Telling people that 20 or 30 people have been killed is just not enough. It has to be some broken record. It's ridiculous. And you, who are fighting this edit war about the number of casualties, are as well ridiculous.

To say accuracy in an encyclopedia isn't important, being that its for each loss of life from this terrible trajedgy, is in itself truly pathetic 216.188.251.229 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No such phrase as "per say," you idiot—you mean "per se," but you *actually* mean "precisely" or "exactly." Fuck.

Watch it. Don't personally attack any editor here, no matter how frustrated you may be. Comment on the article and what can be improved, but don't make potentially harmful comments about the editor. --pIrish 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the number killed from 35 to 32 to reflect the source cited. Jokerst44 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper for crying out loud. This shouldn't be even Wiki'ed until the facts have cleared in reliable news sources. Wikipedia should freeze pages of disaster du jours until the facts settle. If this was 9/11/01 we'd have people editing the White House page to say it was hit by a jetliner, as CBS news wire headlines reported that morning.Piperdown 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cry all you want, but you would have to be an idiot to think to check an encyclopedia first on current events in the first place, than actually watch the news yourself, and by that I mean more than one news station, and not judge the truth about something from the very time it gets reported. Encyclopedias don't need to be idiotproof all the time, but only when there are idiots construing a known fact NOT a 'report'. 216.188.251.229 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The shooting was the deadliest single-perpetrator shooting in United States history. In other words, it was the deadliest shooting committed by one person. The deadliest shooting in U.S. history was committed by at least two people. --Jesant13 23:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

== Applause for Protection ==

Just want to say I think the move to protect this page was a good idea. Recent events could of just plain ruined it. Scryer_360 (who still will not sign in without being forced!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.173.22 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

The shooting section has a error. the shooter was confirmed as a permanent legal resident from korea, not a illegal alien. 
Sanriogurly 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Sanriogirly

Information about the shooting seems to be marginalized in this article. It gets ONE sentence in the entire article! Frankly, most people that are looking up this college are looking for information about the shooting... That's all anyone really cares about anyway. I mean, are new students even going to apply to VT since the shooting occured? Or perhaps the brightest students will steer away from VT and lower-quality applicants will now be accepted? Shouldn't this be discussed in a way rather than like, "Oh, by the way the worst single-shooter massacre ever on U.S. soil occured here, but it wasn't a big deal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.244.140 (talk) 23:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The article should be about the school. We have an entire article on the shooting. Someguy1221 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I cant believe I typed "Virginia Tech" into wikipedia and not once in the entire article about it does it mention the Virginia Tech massacre. Are you kidding me? I know people do not want the school to be known by the shootings but to completely ignore the most important and historic event to ever happen at the school is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.229.247 (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised Infobox

I wasn't going to get around to doing any East Coast schools for a few more months yet, but I moved Virginia Tech up in priority for my Infobox-update project in light of this morning's stupidity and the inevitable orgy of vandalism that seems to have followed in its wake. I've replaced the school color boxes' hard-coding with templates, added the provost and tagline lines, taken out the country line and substituted a flag icon in the location line, and done a little bit of minor cleanup. The only thing I can't find is the University's physical mailing address. Can anyone come up with that? Either Virginia Tech's website hides it really well, or I am blind. --Dynaflow 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dynafl

Here's the info:

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0002

There's no street address, but I think that's cause you don't need one. For more mailing addresses at the university look here: http://www.mailservices.vt.edu/deptcodes.html

Mmalleson 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain why I couldn't find it. I think I'll just leave the Infobox as-is, since the address information would be redundant except for the ZIP code, given that the city and state already appear. Thanks for your help; looking for that address was driving me crazy/ier. --Dynaflow 06:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon for today's events

FYI, if you would like to add a ribbon to your user page in memory of those who were lost in today's events, you can use {{Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{administrator}} icon). --BigDT 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

Wikipedia policy is to name articles using their most commonly used name. This university is called Virgina Tech way more than it is called Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It should thus be at at Virginia Tech. Similarly, the article on Thomas Wilson should be (and is) at Woodrow Wilson because that's what people call him. --69.142.111.235 05:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All colleges have their article at the official school name, rather than their common name. Florida State is at Florida State University. UCLA is at University of California, Los Angeles. That's just the way school articles are named. --BigDT 05:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a redirect page named Virginia Tech which transfers you directly to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The redirect will give you the best of both worlds. --Dynaflow 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between Florida State University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It's true that people sometimes call Florida State University "FSU" for short, everyone knows that FSU stands for Florida State University. Virgina Tech is a rarity, however, in that the full name is almost never used. A better comparison to Virgina Tech is Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, which is almost universally known as Rutgers University. This article should be laid out the same way that the Rutgers article is. --69.142.111.235 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another view on the naming of people and colleges/universities - Although Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is widely known as Virginia Tech, the shorten version of the university's name is really an enduring nickname...namely a colloquialism that represents the mouthful of the school's formal name.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, decided to use "Woodrow Wilson" in the professional context (wonder whether his signature was T. Woodrow Wilson, or simply Woodrow Wilson?) Back on topic...The naming custom for a university in modern times is to use the shorten name for marketing and promotions for sports teams and student recruitment, since the university's name is more likely to be memorable, not to mention that the nickname easily rolls off the tongue. I'm not aware of universities using its nickname in the course of professional or formal business dealings.

I'm betting that universities as a practice do not use their enduring nicknames to conduct formal business and scholarship affairs. In the case of Virginia Tech, I'm fairly certain that, on the diplomas for degrees awarded to its graduates, the formal name Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is the official name used on the diploma. Universities decide to maintain a decorum of professional standard by using their formal names to conduct formal, professional business activities for external affairs. This example of how the university refers to itself - "© copyright 2007 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" was found on the About page of its website. In most other areas of the university, "Virginia Tech" the brand is used for providing information to the public and marketing its undergraduate and graduate programs and marketing its academic programs, Also, the name "Virginia Tech" as the colloquial name is used for internal personnel and academic activities, while the formal name "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" is used by the university in the formal, external context.

I also noted with interest that the press conference conducted by the university on Thursday morning (9:30 a.m. EDT) featured the name "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University," instead of the commonly known "Virginia Tech" name, which was posted in the area where the news conference was held. So, the formal name of the university would be the appropriate one to use for the encyclopedic article. with the redirect is simply another way to help those who prefer use the colloquial name to refer to the university.

To answer your concern about the naming convention this university in particular, or for universities in general, your viewpoints can be better addressed at the Wikipedia: Naming conventions talk page or, better still, at the Wikipedia: Naming conventions - common names talk page. lwalt 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. Actually Wikipedia articles should be placed at the name of most common usage, as you state. Both Virgina Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) and Rutgers University (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey) are great examples. The article really should be moved. Icsunonove 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article's location and naming are consistent with Wikipedia standards for educational institutions. The page also does exist, to an extent, at Virginia Tech through the redirect page. No college article I know of about a significant institution is actually located at a page titled after its informal name. --Dynaflow 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read a single word of what was posted just above? The Anon gave a great example by pointing out that Rutgers is located at Rutgers University, not Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Do you intend on moving it then? Is Rutgers not a "significant institution"? Just as Rutgers, VT can be located at Virginia Tech and at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University through a redirect. Of course you wouldn't locate universities at just abreviations like MIT, VT, UCLA, etc.. but both Rutgers University and Virginia Tech are good examples of where you don't have to follow this so-called standard, which I seriously doubt is such a rigid standard, if it even exists at all. Icsunonove 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please watch your tone; I saw you edit in that "single." Rutgers University is the historically-unifying term for that particular institution. "The State Univeristy of New Jersey" is an attribution that was appended to "Rutgers University" somewhere around World War II, and one of the instances of "University" was dropped in "official" usage to avoid redundancy. "Rutgers University" is still the proper name of the institution. For some counter-examples, take a look at other polytechnic institutes -- colleges in the same "class," name wise, as VT.

Cal Poly is at California Polytechnic State University, CalTech is at California Institute of Technology, Florida Tech is at Florida Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech is at Georgia Institute of Technology, Michigan Tech is at Michigan Technological University, and the list goes on and on. --Dynaflow 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is not your place to tell others to watch their tone; which seems sort of funny already on a Wiki. I could not care less if you saw me "edit in that single". It's my opinion that you ignored the other editors arguments. Regardless, and back on topic: the official name today of Rutgers is as mentioned. Many universities have had their names changed/modified since World War II and even more recently. The Anon has a very valid counter argument, and I'm sorry that your rebuttal doesn't quite pass muster in my opinion. There are other examples such as the University of Michigan not being at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, even though that is its full name, just as the University of Michigan-Dearborn. Anyway, I recommend we simply agree to disagree. At some point there can be a move request submitted and you can make your points then. Icsunonove 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No hostility was implied in asking you to watch your tone; I was pointing out that I heard something in your updated phrasing that suggested just a bit more personal investment in this discussion than is really appropriate or wise. Maybe I was just "hearing things." If I was, then you have my apologies. Just please remember to adhere to WP:EQ.

It is in the interests of consistency to keep the name as it is (see this list for naming conventions followed on other polytechnic schools). Nothing is lost, because "Virginia Tech" still points directly to the article, and the various nicknames are listed right in the first sentence. Something is also gained in that we know immediately and unambiguously that Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is the full, legal name of the institution. --Dynaflow 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While the university's official name is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, there us an official university policy that also allows the use of the name Virginia Tech. See "Policy on the Usage of the University Name" at http://www.policies.vt.edu/12000.pdf.

Attention, editors from commonwealths other than Virginia

Due to the intense international media attention focused on Virginia Tech by yesterday morning's senseless tragedy, this page has been viewed by a (presumably) unusually large number of non-American English speakers (Brits, Irish, Canadians, South Africans, Aussies, Kiwis, Singaporeans, etc.).

The temptation has arisen in some of them to "correct" what they see as "incorrect" English usage by, for example, de-compounding words like "postseason" and changing "canceled" to "cancelled." Unless you are either an American English speaker or are otherwise familiar with the differences between British and American English, please refrain from copy-editing this article for spelling, diction, and grammar. According to Wikipedia standards, articles should be internally-consistent in terms of regional dialect, and the dialect used should usually be consistent with the article subject's region. Thanks. --Dynaflow 18:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty silly standard. Were I to rewrite Virginia Tech entirely using examples and form found in Southern American English, it wouldn't be very meaningful to most people reading the article. --msk 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Y'all don't need to speak Southron. Standard American English's just fine. --Dynaflow 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

map

Should there be a map of Viriginia showing where VT is? 132.205.44.134 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There aren't, generally, in educational-institution Wikipedia articles. The geographic coordinates are now located in the upper right-hand corner of most or all college articles, and the infobox will link to the Wikipedia article on the locale where the subject institution is based. The locality articles tend to have maps. --Dynaflow 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to have. Michigan State University has one in their article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thejermdotorg (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

MSU seems to have a campus map, which would be useful if you want to create one and find a good place in the page layout for it. A map of where in Virginia VT is, on the other hand, would be a less appropriate addition. --Dynaflow 02:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps currently available... 132.205.44.134 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The first image is absolutely awful and should not be used in any articles other than possibly a "what not to do" article on graphic design. The third one isn't much better. That they are both products of the Federal government does not surprise me in the least. The second image is good, but it already appears on the article for VT's hometown, which is directly linked to the intro section and the infobox. Maps of Virginia are totally unnecessary (mapcruft?), but a campus map may be called for, given the reasons for the school's newfound international notoriety. --Dynaflow 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre - non-essential info duplication

What justifies the copying of this from the Virginia Tech massacre article:

Within days, some companies offering cellphone text-message alert systems were overwhelmed by other colleges inquiring about cellphone-based early warning systems ?

--Lklundin 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead professors

...should probably be added to the "Distinguished Alumni" list

Someone who is an alumni is a person who attended or graduated from the school as a student, not a current or former faculty member. --Bvjrm 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. In that case, would Cho count? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.66.1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think he graduated... you are a bit slow, eh? :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Whether Cho graduated or not doesn't matter. Having attended Virginia Tech is sufficient to make him an alumnus.212.182.158.110 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University or Virginia Tech

According to the April 18, 2007 St. Petersburg Times, the name "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" is what the college is formerly known as. I propose this article be renamed simply Virginia Tech. Soxrock 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking it up following the tedious argument under the heading "Name of article" (above), it seems that "Virginia Tech" has been approved for use in official communications from the University, but the actual, legal name of the institution is still Virginia Polytechnic and State University, which is also the name which appears on legal documents issued by the University, including diplomas (the main article goes over this).

This is in contrast with places like Arkansas Tech (actually more of a JC) and Texas A&M, which have been granted full legal use of those names by their respective state legislatures, their chartering authorities. The "A&M" in "Texas A&M," for example, doesn't officially stand for anything anymore, even though it used to stand for "Agricultural and Mechanical." The "Tech" in "Virginia Tech," on the other hand, is still an abbreviation for the legally-chartered "Polytechnic Institute and State University." Until the University gains full sanction from the Virginia Assembly to use "Virginia Tech" as its full, legal name, "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" should remain the title of the article, but the "Virginia Tech" name should be mentioned within the first sentence and the issue with the name should be explained somewhere in the first section of the article. --Dynaflow 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 1970s, the school was renamed to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Virginia Tech is the "informal" name. The school seal, my diploma, and anything formal will always use the full name. If you attended the school, you put the full name on your resume. You don't major in math at Virginia Tech - you major in mathematics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. When discussing athletics or "informally" referencing the school, "Virginia Tech" is the common name. On Wikipedia, this series of articles follows the standard that we use for all schools. The school article is named by the full name. Related articles like Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech Hokies football use the common name. --BigDT (416) 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I put Virginia Tech on my resume. :-) Icsunonove 09:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To back that up, during all formal events and news conferences recently you'll notice the seals and logos behind the speaker use the full formal name "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". Now what is WAS called about 30 years ago was just "Virginia Polytechnic Institute", or VPI for short, then the "State University" was added on. There is no reason to even argue this considering this source is from the school it self.--Bvjrm 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And to add to that, people used to call it VPISU until it was shortened to "Virginia Tech" around the 80s, then around the early 90s the schools started to use it informally on its documents. --Bvjrm 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of "Virginia Tech" instead of "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" is formal, not informal, usage as of 2002 under Policy 12000, Policy on the Usage of the University Name, Section 2.1, Accepted References - "The accepted references to the university are (a) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and (b) Virginia Tech." Wiikiwiiki (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tech known because of the shooting?

Can someone explain this [2]? I've removed it a few times and it has been readded repeatedly. Tech is a top 50 public school and plays D1A football. I'm pretty sure it was known nationally before this week. Can anyone offer some insight as to this claim? --BigDT (416) 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the reason I am re-editing a lot is because I keep noticed things that I forgot to add. I just checked it and the information is now the way it should be. I added the information in the first place because the section above it says how the university is known, and it is known now because of the shooting, so I added that. --Jesant13 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever on any front. You keep re-adding the same phrase over and over - you aren't adding more information. You checked it where? What verifiable source do you have that says the school's reputation is only based on this shooting? --BigDT (416) 14:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I said that it is ALSO KNOWN because of the shooting. I don't need a source, It is a common fact, plus the sources are already listed at the bottom of the page, one of them has to say that in them. Also, I don't need any more information. There is a link to more information. If you wish, I could merge the entire other article into the one on Virginia Tech. --Jesant13 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Known as" is not as bad. The problem is that you said "because". "A is known because of B" means that if B had not happened, A would not be known. That is a patently false statement. The removal of the word "because" in your latest edit makes it more tolerable, although it still doesn't make too much sense. It isn't known as the place where the shooting occurred - it is the place where the shooting occurred. --BigDT (416) 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly to claim that Virginia Tech was not known before this event. I think that Jesant13 should obtain consensus on this Talk page before adding his unlikely claim yet again. EdJohnston 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I think this original phrasing is the best suited to this article:

"Virginia Tech gained nationwide attention in April 2007, because of the massacre that killed 33 people, becoming the nation's largest shooting massacre in United States history."

I, myself, had never heard of Virginia Tech until the terrible ordeal and I think this is true for most people. It has been all over the internet and been made news in many different countries. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it is now most well known for being the scene of a deadly massacre. This doesn't mean that it wasn't well known before, it just means that this is, unfortunately, the reason why it is now most well known.

Seraphim Whipp 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, are you in the US or another country? I guarantee that the vast majority of college educated adults in the US had heard of Virginia Tech. Better phrasing might be that it gained international recognition because of the incident. Although, this statement is also unattributed. We don't make novel syntheses of facts here. The fact that Tech is where the shooting occurred is common knowledge - the degree to which that incident helped Tech to become more well recognized needs to be cited. --BigDT (416) 22:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, although Wikipedia is for an international English speaking audience. That said, it's a well known college, I had heard of it in Ireland --213.202.174.150 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am on the opposite side of the United States (approximately 4400km away), and even I have heard of Virginia Tech and know it is a respectable school. It is assumed on Wikipedia that all institutions of higher education, other than things like Fly By Night Junior Technical College, are inherently, prima facie notable, in and of themselves, and the phrasing in the article should reflect this. Take a look at the phrasing found at the article for École Polytechnique de Montréal in Canada, the site of what was, until this incident, the best-known college shooting rampage. The shooting gets one sentence, far down in the article:

"On December 6, 1989, it was the site of the École Polytechnique massacre, in which 14 women students were killed by Marc Lépine."

I think this is how posterity is going to view this incident. It's a dark and significant footnote in the history of the institution, but a footnote nonetheless. --Dynaflow 23:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to know how posterity is going to view this incident. Just because a comparable incident from 20 years ago may have ended up as a long-forgotten footnote doesn't mean that this one will. The significance of an event is not unrelated to the size of its audience. In a time of internet for the masses, a school shooting has way more of an impact than a similar incident would have had 20, 50, or 100 years ago. The École Polytechnique massacre may be a footnote for all practical purposes, but this incident seems more like the Columbine shooting, which has a prominent place on the Columbine High School Wikipedia page.

I'm in England. I know nothing of the American based universitys or colleges. "International recognition" is a better phrasing and is true. I don't think there needs to be a citation to prove that it became more popular as a result of the shooting. It's just common knowledge now and will remain as such because of it's historical properties.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Within the USA Virginia Tech may be primarily known for its football team, but in the rest of the world most people that know of Virginia Tech do so because of the shooting. Since Wikipedia is an INTERNATIONAL online encyclopedia, I've added a brief reference to the shooting to the introduction of the article. -RS- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.158.110 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of Faculty/Students

These numbers are the same as they were before the recent incidents. Presumably they need to go down by 30 or so? 213.187.48.149 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Have a heart and wait for the next set of official numbers. Besides, numbers of students and faculty are never anything more than a snapshot of one moment -- students drop out, accept admission, or reactivate themselves for the next semester's classes all the time, and faculty (particularly research rather than teaching faculty) can start or leave at any point too, so just subtracting the number killed wouldn't even be accurate -- it wouldn't take into account the other changes between the original number and the killings. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 12:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Viginia Tech Massacer

Why has no one added anything about the Massacer (ecxuse my spelling) yet? Youd think such a big thing would at least be on wikipedia a week after it happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.112.172 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Because this article is about the school, not the shooting. We have a thread for that. -Cam^T|C 02:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Massacre template? You've got to be kidding me.

I'm entirely too irritated by this, so I'm not going to whack it from the article on my own right now -- I want someone with a cooler head to back me up. But the standing templates on this page were Public colleges and universities in Virginia, US military academies and senior military colleges, and Atlantic Coast Conference -- all definitional categories for this university. Now, placed above those templates in a brighter color to help it stand out, is a template for one dark day in the university's life. Patently ridiculous IMO. Thoughts? VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many stakes we've tried to drive through its heart, that tasteless template will not die -- and now it's speading. It defeated a TfD review, and now it seems to have spawned a second, mutant version which exists in Wikispace in parallel with the first and is attempting to colonize articles on major public institutions. It should be put on masscre-specific articles only and should not be on the main page of the University. Editors should see above for why we are limiting "coverage" of the massacre on this page. --Dynaflow 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

presidents timeline

i'll state the problem here so it can be discussed and worked out, as edit wars are not uncommon on this page. when the contents bar is set to "hide" and not "show", the presidents timeline gets pushed into the middle of the article. the timeline should be moved further down the page. i do not know where every one would like it... so i'm merely pointing this out. if you have any questions about what i'm talking about please indicate so on my talk page. thank you for your time, Matthew Yeager 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a standing TODO above to expand the history section; when that happens (currently working on a draft in my userspace), this problem will be resolved, as a decent history section should take up at least that much vertical space. There's really nowhere else in the article a presidents timeline would be appropriate anyway. Responding to your aside, I wouldn't say edit wars are any more common on this article than anywhere else, but for the one-off problems related to April's unfortunate events. Addressing the issue on the talk page first is appreciated, though. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Including more than a "see also" about the massacre.

Before the massacre, the majority of the world did not know that Virginia Tech even existed. In history, what it will be most remembered for is the massacre. However, there is no reference to this on the entire page, save a small link at the very bottom.

There should be at least a mention of it somewhere in the article besides a small, easily missed link at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.39.115 (talk • contribs)

Sorry if this answer will seem curt, but this edit of yours makes me question how serious you are about this particular historical occurrence. Note that the VT shootings do get a mention in the History section. Read WP:RECENT and then read the articles for École Polytechnique de Montréal and Kent State University, two other educational institutions which were the scenes of famous massacres, with which their names will be forever linked ... and no one ever cared about them before ... and it overshadows every bit of everything that's happened there before or since ... et cetera. See how those articles handle analagous situations, and you'll find that this article is entirely consistent in its treatment of VT's recent unfortunate events. --Dynaflow babble 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Montreal and Kent State happened in different times, before world-wide internet access and widespread attention to mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooting is more like the Columbine shooting, and should be treated accordingly on its Wikipedia enty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.158.110 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll on article move

Just wanted to get some editor opinions (gage interest) on possibly moving this page to the more common English usage of Virginia Tech; using the example of Rutgers University being used instead of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey or University of Michigan instead of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, etc. cheers, Icsunonove 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above threads on this same matter and this thread on a similar (failed) suggestion: Talk:University of California, Los Angeles#Requested move. See also the article names used for other "x Tech" schools: Institute of technology#Institutions using the terms "institute of technology" or "polytechnic". --Dynaflow babble 01:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well, this isn't really a similar suggestion to the request made for UCLA (one I also would not agree with); you could say it was similar if it were a request for an acronym like VT or VPI&SU. This idea is more similar to the examples I described above. Could you please make your argument to why we should not use Virginia Tech, when we do not use the official Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor? We are either completely consistent or the convention doesn't really exist. Thanks for the discussion by the way! Icsunonove 05:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • comment it should be vpi&su because that is the encyclopedic name of the school. to list it primarily by its nickname is sort of like listing it by 'hokies'.... not quite right. beyond that, the university's media guidelines is pretty clear in regard to what it should be called in official document and documentation.--Buridan 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well note that we aren't changing the official name. We are just talking about where to locate the article. All the names are then in the first paragraph. I believe part of the general naming convention is that the articles be at the location of common English usage. That said, no one really says Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. With that in mind, could you also comment on the examples I gave for Rutgers and Michigan? thanks, Icsunonove 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers is a unique case, given its long history under various versions of the "Rutgers" name. "Rutgers University" is probably the best, historically-unifying term, though I would personally like to see it at its current, official name instead. The University of Michigan thing is a different matter entirely, having to do mainly with a flagship campus getting its article placed at the name-spot that should theoreticallly be an article on the university system of which it is a part or a disambiguation page listing all the institutions in that system (contrast the approaches taken at University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of California. --Dynaflow babble 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it just gets back to my question of if there really is a strict convention (and as if conventions don't change every other month on Wikipedia anyway. :-) To me, Virginia Tech is also a unique case. The argument you make for Rutgers can be used for Virginia Tech as well. At this point in time it is a unifying term for a school that was named Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College, Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College and Polytechnic Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and now Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (sorry to rehash what is in the article actually :) Icsunonove 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose full name is appropriate here, virginia tech should forward here.--Buridan 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think a redirect is perfectly acceptable. It would be like moving the article on the United States to the comman usage USA. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but by your argument do you think we should actually be using Unites States of America, Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland instead of United States, Virginia, and Maryland? Also note that USA is an acronym, just like VPI&SU, UCLA, VA, MD, which isn't what is being asked for. thanks. Icsunonove 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Including a reference to the massacre in the lead

I think that there is a pro-coverup bias involved with writing only 1 sentence about the shooting. one sentence?! people in china, russia, india, (etc) know about virginia tech....and because of the virginia tech shooting (not because of the superfast computer, or its admissions standards, both of which are examples of things with more coverage). i know this has already been discussed a bit, but there really should be more than 1 sentence (1 sentence!!) on this, its more important regarding the history of the university than a lot of the things on the page, also i believe there really should be an entire small section starting with "Main article: The Virginia Tech Shooting". I also think that it is pro-virginia tech admissions office for there to be very little about this on the page. i also think it may be disrespectful to the victims to minimize it.

i mean this with honesty and not disrespect, if my opinion's wrong then its all good. go hokies!

forgot to sign, Virsingh 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"the biggest event to ever happen related to Virginia Tech", it is hard to come up with a more arrogant statement than that about an institution. Umm, and a cover-up? Double the recommendation on reading [Wikipedia:Recentism]]. Its supercomputer was already big news in the field of computer science. It is not like long-term information like this should be deleted and the article about Virginia Tech be 99% about the shooting. Way to go when you try and speak for 2-3 billion people though.. LOL. 192.45.72.26 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a University of California alumnus, and I really don't care all that much about the hopes and dreams of VT's admissions office regarding their Wikipedia presence. What I do care about is maintaining perspective on one day's events which, at the risk of sounding insensitive, didn't change much about the institution -- certainly not its past and likely not much about its future. The shootings and the shooter get their own articles, and you can find them quickly from the VT article if you are seeking information on them. The shootings happened at the institution, and this article says that. However, the shootings do not define the institution and are essentially an isolated, if significant, footnote in the long and continuing history of Virginia Tech. I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Recentism; it explains much of the logic behind why we have thus far decided to keep "coverage" of the massacre limited here. --Dynaflow babble 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's enough on the shooting already in the article. It has a link to the extensive article about the massacre itself, and that should cover it. Darwin16 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have retitled this section of discussion to better match the content, which is centered on how, if at all, the lead paragraph should treat the April 16 massacre that happened on the campus. I think that the unfortunate reality is that wikipedia's policies are in favor of adding a mention in the lead paragraph, as it is significantly more verifiable that the campus of Virginia Tech is "known" as the site of the massacre than that it is "known" as being beautiful. True as the claim may be, I haven't seen anyone point to a source that actually makes the claim about the beauty of the campus. I'm inclined to agree that the persistent anonymous editor has a point. HokieRNB 03:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph could just be removed entirely, if we'd rather avoid a debate on what Virginia Tech is "more known for", academics, research, campus location, or the massacre. Kent State and the University of Texas both have had similar events in their history, and neither article has their massacres discussed in the very beginning of the article. Darwin16 04:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea IMHO. The history of the "is known for" text goes back to a list of academic program highlights that (predictably) got out of hand, and got trimmed and relocated to the 1st para eventually. The most recent iteration was introduced as part of a (POV) compliment to the campus, and only became the operative part of the sentence when the POV text was appropriately trimmed. Football has nosed in on the "is known for" segment too, and eventually found its way out; perhaps it's time to wave the whole thing goodbye, and let the body text speak to each aspect. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegheny or Blue Ridge?

From the maps on their respective pages, it seems clear that the campus is more closely related to the Blue Ridge Mountains than the Allegheny Mountains. However, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce claims that it is "nestled between the picturesque Blue Ridge and Allegheny Mountains". May I recommend the following paragraph:

The Virginia Tech campus is located in the New River Valley between the Blue Ridge Mountains and Allegheny Mountains, a few miles from the Jefferson National Forest in Montgomery County in southwestern Virginia.

HokieRNB 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

completely unnecessary, it is part of the blue ridge mountains, allegheny start way far away. that the CCC doesn't have the geography quite right, should not be reflected in the university page. see Allegheny Mountains --Buridan 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken three maps and done a very rough overlay to show that there could be some ambiguity, but that the Blue Ridge Mountains are clearly the best choice if only one range is mentioned. HokieRNB 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair, to use Blue Ridge if we're only mentioning one. Thanks for doing the research, folks, and apologies for the hair-trigger rv. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a reference to the massacre in the lead

As horrifying and tragic as this event is, it is also of encyclopedic interest. It is bizarre not to have a mention of it in the lead paragraph, when most encyclopedia users will never have heard of VT if not for this event. According to WP rules on lead sections [3], "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. NuclearWinner 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, if anything, it should be done the way the Kent State massacre is handled in its page. A quick note at the beginning with a link to the page about the shooting. Darwin16 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just the way it is now. NuclearWinner 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

requested semi-protection

The recent vandalism is getting old. I put in a request for protection but it was denied.--Rtphokie 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_page_protection

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. I concur with User:VT hawkeye that it would be profitable to discuss the naming of this and related articles as a group and the relationship between these names and WP:UCN. Dekimasuよ! 07:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University → Virginia Tech — Article should be moved as per WP:COMMONNAME because "Virginia Tech" is a much more common name than the official name of the institution. The name "Virginia Tech" also appears on the university's homepage and in its logos, and all other articles relating to the university begin with that name, such as Virginia Tech Hokies, not Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Hokies. —–Dream out loud (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose per the discussions above in which this issue has been exhaustively/exhaustingly discussed: Talk:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University#Name of article; Talk:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University#Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University or Virginia Tech; Talk:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University#Straw Poll on article move; as well as the discussion over a similar (now failed) requested move here: Talk:University of California, Los Angeles#Requested move. In a nutshell, until the university is rechartered as "Virginia Tech," its Wikipedia article should should be located at the institution's full, official, state commonwealth-sanctioned name. --Dynaflow babble 21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia precedent for Caltech, Georgia Tech, Louisiana Tech, Texas Tech, Penn State, and all other institutes of higher education which use the full name as the wikipedia article title (with the exception of Rutgers University). Having Virginia Tech redirect to the article does not pose a barrier to people finding the information. HokieRNB 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME is there to prevent needless complication (Canis lupus familiaris vs dog is a good example) and ensure that articles can be easily found. Neither is an issue with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University vs Virginia Tech. It's arguable whether Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University or Virginia Tech is more commonly used. It depends on the context. In a sports context, "Virginia Tech" is more often used. In scholarly journals, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is often used. In college guides, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is often used. "Virginia Tech" isn't common enough to justify this name change. --Rtphokie 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME also says don't overdo it. If I'm not mistaken, this move may have been motivated because of the recent attention the institute has received in the news. That would ruin the consistency with other university articles that have common names but are under their proper names. Reginmund 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Common sense oppose here. It is its proper name. An abbreviated term is great for a redrect but not main article. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - the name of the university is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. As said above, other university articles use the name of the school as the title. Lord Bodak 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• It would appear that common WP practice for educational institutions and WP:COMMONNAME are somewhat in conflict here. The university Identity Standards give more information than you probably ever wanted to know about how the school cares to be identified (short version: "Virginia Tech" is authorized and generally encouraged in all but formal academic settings). It seems to me, though, that a move like this should be only done as part of a mass move of all similar institutions, endorsed and driven by WP:UNI. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Virginia Tech seal.png

Image:Virginia Tech seal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[a la Ballpark Franks commercial] "Deletion bot get what deletion bot want!" This has now been taken care of. --Dynaflow babble 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Endowment reversions

I've noticed some IP editors trying to change the endowment amount for the VT Foundation, and then being reverted. Please assume good faith and at least click through to what the editors reference to see if it's true or not. According to the linked ref, straight from the VTF's website, their endowment has indeed increased to almost $941 million. Again, please look before you revert. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The page that keeps getting set as a reference for the $941 million dollar number is for total managed funds. There are numerous organizations within Virginia Tech that use VTF (the foundation) for accounts. Think of them as a bank. Not all funds that they managed can be attributed to the endowment. If you click through to the referenced PDF, you'll see this: "The value of the Virginia Tech endowment was $524.7 million at the end of the fiscal year." If you have any more questions about which number is correct, please feel free to ask here and I'll explain them to you. Just because the edits were made via an IP editor does not mean it is incorrect. Please look at the source before blindly assuming a different number is correct. Thanks. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.55.0 (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image choice

Please compare these two images:

I contend that the bottom one is brighter, has a better view of the VT logo, shows the Hokie stone better, focuses more on the subject of the building than the foreground of the pavement, and in general is a better choice for this article.HokieRNB (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the fact that it shows the hokie stone better but it looks washed out and unprofessional. I have cropped the other image so that it shows the hokie stone better and focuses more on the bridge. I also have added a better lit picture that I have that I think is more professional looking. Let me know what you think:

cropped version

alternative, brighter version

Don't take this the wrong way, but they all look crooked. I'd use the "level" tool in Photoshop or Gimp to crop them correctly. (Possum4all (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Academics

Great job whoever just expanded the academics section. It's just what we needed. Chuy1530 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Art's Initiative

Would the art initiatives bit that was recently reverted due to being a blatant copy and paste be worthy of being in the article if it were rewritten? I'd be willing to rewrite it so that it isn't a copyright issue but only if it's deemed appropriate for the article. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: references should read "Virginia Tech"

I move that in other wiki pages that reference this page the link should read "Virginia Tech" not "Virginia Polytechnic Institute". "Virginia Tech" is one of the university's official names and is by far the most common name. It's even on the letterhead. SnappingTurtle (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

go for it --Buridan (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Research Computing

I'm not really sure how the editing goes, but while doing some work for my resume I found some more information on the newest super computer from the CHECS(Center for High End Computing) site.

http://www.checs.eng.vt.edu/

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2008&itemno=745 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.117.165 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

don't know who killed the research computing bit, but it is very important for a section of the audience and key to virginia tech's reputation in many fields. --Buridan (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

• Propose that Virginia Tech Hampton Roads Center be merged here. The material would usefull expand the section here on that center, but it's not enough for an article of its own, at the moment anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - There's not really a much information written about it. A quick searcg via google shows it being mentioned, but no substantial writeups that would indicate a separate article would be justified. -- Whpq (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A new bizarre episode involving violent death -- include or not?

When I saw this anonymous edit, I assumed it was typical bullshit vandalism. Indeed, another anon editor removed it almost immediately as an "inaccuracy." Just to make sure all my ducks were in a row before leaving the first anon a {{uw-error1}}, I checked the Collegiate Times, and to my surprise found that it seems the first IP editor was substantially correct.
Naturally, other editors in the grip of WP:RECENTISM will want to add this incident to the article, perhaps, as the first person to attempt the addition did, link it implicitly with the Cho incident. There are a lot of good reasons this new murder should not be included in the article for the time being and should not be added in the future unless it ends up having some sort of earth-shattering, direction-changing impact on the institution itself. For a precedent, and a detailed discussion of the aforementioned good reasons to leave this kind of thing out, see Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/RfC: Should a murder be included in a college's article (link to last revision before page was courtesy-blanked). --Dynaflow babble 09:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it's necessary. Why is it relevant at all on this page? His bio would be the best place, right? Would the top-most Army page get updated? I think not. Why this page? (Possum4all (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Major Major Nidal Malik Hasan

The article has nothing about the fact that the Major Nidal Malik Hasan studied in this instituition.Agre22 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Why is this relevant to the institution's wikipedia page? It can simply be reflected in his bio. It's not relevant with respect to the institutional history and academic mission. Nor does it have a place on the page and doesn't deserve it's own callout. (Possum4all (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I concur, but I think it would be appropriate to include it in an expansion of the "alumni" section. I went to Texas A&M and we made sure to include Wen Ho Lee, despite his notorious past, as he was notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Math Emporium

I'm somewhat surprised that this article makes no mention of the university's "Math Emporium". It's been open since 1997, and is part of nearly every undergraduate's experience there. 198.82.17.209 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done While there is zero coverage coming up in newspapers and magazines, its actually received a lot of coverage in books, particularly those on the politics and administration of education. A paragraph has been added.--RadioFan (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight of 2007 massacre

Please understand that I don't mean to be obsessed with tragic events here, but I do think that mentioning the Virginia Tech massacre only as a 'see also' in this page is probably downplaying its significance too much. Especially given that readers unfamiliar with the subject will take some time to recognise that 'Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University' is in fact the same institution commonly referred to as 'Virginia Tech', the lack of any mention in the text may leave people unsure whether they are on the right page. Would it not be worth adding a one sentence mention in the 'History' section with a quick link? Something like "On 16 April 2007, 32 students and members of staff were shot dead and many others wounded by a student in the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history." (or possibly shorter) Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. It is obviously (however unsavoury it may be) something that is tied with the university. It does need to be referenced in the intro and more directly in the history summary. This has precedent as evidenced by the Columbine High School page. It can't simply not be mentioned beyond the reference link. No one intends to be hurtful, but Wikpeadia shouldn't censor itself for the sake of political correctness. If no one has any better suggestions I will do so later. Syferus (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to have a subsection under History that directed readers to the main article, but it seems that an IP editor removed it diff. I will add it back. --Dynaflow babble 00:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the shootings do not have enough weight. Listing the massacre as the final "See Also" is burying it way too much. I think it needs to be a couple sentences in the history summary, with a link, at the very least. Otto1970 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for the massacre, I must admit, I doubted for a second if it was a different V-tech, since the word death isn't even mentioned in the article. I think it's cool that some people can baw so much, that the rational people just censor the whole thing to shut them up for good. But I also think it would be smart to start discussing how many shootings/deaths are necessary for them to make it into this page. Kind of, since all this is bound to happen again, why not set right here right now, how many shootings have to take place before they are acknowledged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.217.212 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's right there in the article: "In 2007, the school and campus received international attention as the site of the Virginia Tech massacre, which was the deadliest peacetime shooting incident by a single gunman in United States history, on or off of a school campus." HokieRNB 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

December 8, 2011

According to reports, Virginia State Police responded to Virginia Tech in reference to a shooting in reference to a Virginia Tech police officer being shot and killed while on a traffic stop at the Cassell Coliseum parking lot on Spring Road. Virginia Tech police requested that the Virginia State Police assume primary responsibility for the investigation of the incident.

The individual fled that crime scene in the direction of a second crime scene a quarter of a mile away, where a male body was found at that location with a gunshot wound. --Possum4all (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In a follow-up press conference, officials said that the Virginia Tech Alert System was very helpful and worked as expected. A total of 6 alerts were sent throughout the day, the first was issued at 12:37pm. Dr. Charles Steger, Virginia Tech President, said the system "worked extremely well." --Possum4all (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Obvious Bias

This article has been quite clearly doctored in order to remove reference to the 2007 Seung-Hui Cho shooting, arguably (and somewhat unfortunately) the most notable aspect of the entire university. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a result of university PR, but a single sentence at the bottom of the History section and a link to the main article hidden at the bottom is quite simply an embarrassment. It at the very least deserves its own subsection (with a subheading link to the main article), as well as some impartial editors, rather than the VT affiliates currently policing the article and reverting changes under bogus citations of notability and quality. 82.14.195.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

This is pretty much what I thought. There almost seems to be an embarrassment about mentioning the 2007 incident, particularly when compared to articles like Columbine High School and University of Texas at Austin, which contain clear summaries of the shooting incidents. There is a lack of due weight in the current wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur and I endorse your decision to change the wording. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the university, not the 2007 incident. It is absolutely appropriate to summarize the 2007 incident in the history section but a subsection is not necessary. The subject is already well covered in the article dedicated to the subject there is no need to extend coverage here. Additionally, accusation of bias is serious and shouldn't be tossed about based solely on superficial observation. --RadioFan (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that a subsection is not necessary. The shooting incident at VT was of a large enough magnitude that it defines the University and Wikipedia should not belittle its influence. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with RadioFan that a single sentence doesn't deserve a section; however, I believe the section should be slightly expanded so it can stand alone. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't think it needs a section either, but something more like the short paragraph in University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Recent_history.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The focus here should be on content not size. What specific content is missing from the information on the 2007 incident? What needs to be added?--RadioFan (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the identity of the shooter should be included, a sentence on the reaction should be included, and information on the failure of VT to notify it's students properly should be included. I don't believe that the fine should be included as I believe that would give undue weight to the subject. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether Tech failed to properly notify its students is a matter of opinion, not something that should be claimed as factual. Obviously, the Obama administration thinks that there was a delay, but Tech disagrees with that assessment. Timely warnings meant something different before April 16, 2007. The official Cleary Act handbook from the government gives samples of Cleary "timely warnings" that are two days and six days after the incidents in question. That Virginia Tech should have sent out a warning in under two hours is a matter of opinion, not something that should be referred to as a "failure". --B (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The identity of the shooter is included in the dedicated article. I dont see how it would improve the article on the university. The notification controversy is also well covered and as B notes, is subjective and not appropriate for a summary as a result. It's better covered in the dedicated article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but it looks like it appears in two places.... History and the See Also reference at the bottom of the page. The word "failure" is certainly up for debate, Ryan, and you might want to find a more objective word to communicate the debate about culpability. --Possum4all (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Call for discussion/consensus on adding shooting incidents to this page

There seems to be quite a few edit adding and removing the 2007 and 2011 shooting incidents. I recommend that we come to a consensus on whether or not the incidents should be reference. In so much as the University of Texas, Kent State, Columbine High School and others that have had major incidents have a reference to the incident on that schools wiki page as well as a separate, more in depth page for the incident. Since wiki is a place to look for information, I feel that both VT incidents should be included/summarized on the main page and then expanded on a separate page. To not include them seems to violate the NPOV ideal. Thanks, chris W4chris (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on this page nor does it deserves it's own page as it's an on-going news item -- and a person-on-person random act of violence. Please see Notability. --Possum4all (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the December 2011 incident has the same long term notability as the 2007 incident. It would be strange for this article to make no mention at all of the 2007 incident, and it might look like an attempt to airbrush it out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove the 2007 entry. But the 2011 entry is a murder-suicide... a crime. Crimes happen all the time on campuses around the country. They don't show up on the main pages on wikipedia as unique entries. It doesn't deserve a place on this page nor it's own unique article. Notability is at play here. --Possum4all (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Had it not been for the 2007 incident, the 2011 incident would not have received nearly as much coverage. It would be best to see how the coverage of the 2011 incident settles down in the next few days. It is probably not worth a mention in this article, or a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I could buy that the 2011 incident does not meet notability but the 2007 shooting definitely does and need to be summarized. W4chris (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a summary and was disappointed to see it removed here. The current wording is poor and could do with some tidying up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2007 incident has been mentioned in this article and wikilinked to the dedicated Virginia Tech massacre article which covers the subject extensively. That has served the Virginia Tech article well for years and last week's incident didn't create a need for more explanation of the 2007 incident. The current wording is excellent. If you look back over the article's history you'll find that the sentence was worded carefully (e.g. "the site of") to keep to the focus on the subject of this article, the university. Expanding this information into a paragraph or especially into its own section is unnecessary and takes the focus this well written article has. If there were no dedicated article on the subject I'd be all for expanding information here, but there is a dedicated article and no need to duplicate so many details here. Readers need to know that this happened but this article is about the university, not the 2007 incident, let's not take the focus away.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is logical and parallels entries for other academic institutions. --Possum4all (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 8, 2011 Event

Will someone please keep this up to date as this event progresses. If it becomes an extremely major event, this will need to be expanded. I don't get much information from the Midwest. Thank you. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

section on recent violence at Tech?

I dont know where/how it would fit on their wiki page, but should something be put in the article about all of the recent violence directly or indirectly involving tech? It would include the Virginia Tech Massacre, the actions of William Morva in 2006, the shootings today (Dec 8, 2011), the VT students executed in Jefferson Forest, the VT Student stabbed to death and decapitated on campus, and that the shooter from the Fort Hood shooting was an alum. Opinion?

Once a Hokie, always a Hokie... Jwalte04 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there has been a lot of violence at the school, this would definately warrent a seperate section. As stated before, as I am in the Midwest, I am not aware of everything going on there unless it is a major news story. I'm only aware of the massacre and the event today. Items to include in the section would be events and what the university is doing to prevent this from happening in the future. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

News story here. Reportedly two people killed today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

VT.edu's website says: "Police investigating shootings on campus; shooter's status unknown. (Posted: 1:49 p.m.) Shortly after noon today, a Virginia Tech police officer stopped a vehicle on campus during a routine traffic stop in the Coliseum parking lot near McComas Hall. During the traffic stop. the officer was shot and killed. There were witnesses to this shooting. Witnesses reported to police the shooter fled on foot heading toward the Cage, a parking lot near Duck Pond Drive. At that parking lot, a second person was found. That person is also deceased. Several law enforcement agencies have responded to assist. Virginia State Police has been requested to take lead in the investigation. The status of the shooter is unknown. The campus community should continue to shelter in place and visitors should not come to campus."

Still breaking news.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The dead person in the parking lot is reportedly the alleged shooter.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Less breaking news now, it's looking more and more like a murder-suicide and random act of violence.--Possum4all (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that there is "a lot of violence" is not supported by Clery act data. Virginia Tech isn't even the highest in the Commonwealth regarding reported violence. You need to qualify your assertion that there's "a lot" of violence with some sort of link or report. --198.82.10.203 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Userspace draft

This might be something best put into a userspace draft for now, to avoid recentism. If it becomes noteworthy the draft can be moved to the mainspace, if it doesn't the important sections can be added to this article. I'd do it, but I'm busy preparing for finals. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)