Talk:2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting

I realize that in the midst of the Virginia Tech shootings,

there has been more attention and editing towards this article. Please make sure you cite your sources that you are working with to edit on here.

Also, could we monitor this page...some previous edits I have seen on here are not factually accurate. Chrisfortier 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can do. I should say, though, that the edits you removed about the students who disarmed the shooter appeared to be accurate. I've added references to support those facts.--Alabamaboy 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I read your edits and that information is disputed by eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime. I'll find more from work. chrisfortier65.195.225.138 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then lets add in that the info is disputed. To do that, though, we'll need a reliable source for what you're saying. I've also added in several other reliable sources for the info that is currently there. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One article: http://www.roanoke.com/columnists/hart/wb/xp-1420. A second article, that state things more accurately, (written by the Dean of the school at the time, who had access to Peter O's academic records) http://law.utoledo.edu/students/lawreview/volumes/v36n1/Davis%20WJ.htm. An example is the common misconception that Peter O failed out...he didn't at the time of the shooting, read the footnote in the article. Another article by a professor there at the time: http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawrev/abstracts/PDF/32-1Davis.pdf. Another eyewitness account: http://www.elkintribune.com/Archives/Archives%202002/feb13/Local%20man.html. A more complete account with more eyewitness testimony: http://www.thefeeddirectory.com/p/Feed-Viewer-Appalachian-School-of-Law-Shootings___218,,,3120.html. I'm working on finding a source that states the timeline properly. What is written in the article is wrong. My main concern is that everything is portrayed accurately and fairly.Chrisfortier 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like good sources. We'll need to change the info about him possibly having a mental illness (although the sources appear to be conflicted on that, and the state found him competent for trial--can you give a better source on this), and about him failing out. However, nothing in the sources you give contradicts the other sources about two of the students using guns. That information is clearly laid out by a number of extremely reliable sources. The Elkin Tribune article doesn't mention that issue either way, while the Roanoke Times & World News (Roanoke, VA) timeline supports that use of the guns. Excellent work. I've already added in some of the info. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another source: http://www.bradreagan.com/appalachia.html. One of my main concerns is that the roles of both the armed and unarmed students are placed in the article. The story as I have understood it (from sources that were there) was that two armed and two unarmed people restrained the shooter. I also have a letter to the editor that was published on February 7, 2006 to the Roanoke Times which contradicts the total article. (I have it stored but cannot find it online.)Chrisfortier 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another couple of sources (about mental health): http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/lawsuits_over_a.php and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1104154541130 and http://lmtonline.com/news/archive/061204/pagea9.pdf Chrisfortier 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look through the sources later. I've changed the article to reflect that several other unarmed students subdued the shooter after he was confronted by the armed students. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor would not be consider a reliable source for information b/c facts in letters are not usually verified through an editorial process (aside from making sure that the person who sent it in actually wrote the letter). Best, --Alabamaboy 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things: First, I have heard it the other way around, the unarmed students came before the armed students...and this letter to the editor is from an eyewitness at the scene. If any alum is around to correct me on this point, please let me know. chrisfortier

So which is it?

Since there is increased attention on this article given recent tragic events, I think it important to provide consistency - anybody versed in firearms knows there is a difference between a .38 (the first mention in the article) and a .380, as mentioned later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.107.67.88 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

.38 was was the news article stated and I've made this correction.--Alabamaboy 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This source says both. If it was really a semi-auto (and, if it had a magazine, it probably was) it's very unlikely it's a .38. .380 is a very common auto pistol cartridge; .38 special is not. Friday (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. We're using the same source and they list it both ways (at different parts of the story)! How irritating. We'll have to check another source to find out. However, I'm betting its the .380.--Alabamaboy 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one. Friday (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, the media's understanding of firearms seems to be less than thorough. Though a .38 and a .380 are two very different cartridges, they are unlikely to know that and report accurately. Izuko 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I understand that this event has differing opinions on what happened and I believe the article must state this. However, statements like "However, skeptics suggest that, rather than indicating any bias in the media, this was simply the result of most witnesses to the apprehension of Odighizuwa having described the event without mentioning any gun" MUST have reliable sources to back them up. All of the previous info in the article, including opinions on what the shooting meant, are backed up with newspaper and book sources. Please use reliable sources to back up new info. Recent edits to this article (see [1]) appear to be original research using citations to certain aspects of the case. What are needed are citations to the POVs expressed (and if these reliable citations can be provided, there's no reason that POV can't be added in under the Analysis section). Best, --Alabamaboy 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the only reference to anything other than facts in these new edits was this section:

Skeptics also note that, by tallying each printing of the identical Associated Press story in individual newspapers as an individual report and by including stories which do not include details about the apprehension (e.g. reports of victims' funerals or being released from hospital), Lott greatly inflates the proportion of stories which do not mention the gun; and that he does not note that some reporters who did not mention Bridges' gun in their first report filed later reports which did mention the gun, information which runs counter to his conclusion of media bias against reporting defensive use of firearms.

Unfortunately, the reference supporting this info is from Counting stories about the Appalachian Law School shootings, Tim Lambert, September 2, 2003. Wikipedia's reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines specifically state that blogs are not reliable sources (unless the article is about that blog). Is there another source for this opinion?--Alabamaboy 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's not a citation for this analysis, I'd be ok simply stating in the analysis section "However, gun control advocates and commentators have disagreed with this view of the shooting and say that the media, in general, did mention the use of defensive firearms." Keeps it short and sweet, just like the one sentence describing the view of Lott and others. Let me know what people think. For now, I've added in this statement (although it still needs a citation).--Alabamaboy 18:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The suggested "However, gun control advocates and commentators have disagreed with this view of the shooting and say that the media, in general, did mention the use of defensive firearms" seems okay, but I'll just point out here on the Talk page that the "big" media I am most familiar with, the New York Times, mentions a gun but uses a favored word "tackled" rather than admitting the gun was pointed, or even displayed, in its story 3 Slain at Law School; Student Is Held. Ask on my user page if you ever want an example of a similar Times elision and the excuse they offered (blaming a freelance writer) when I asked them about it. --CliffC 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cliff, I have heard from people who were there (different sources) that tackling was involved...the letter to the editor I am talking about involves tackling. Read midway down the first article here http://www.thefeeddirectory.com/p/Feed-Viewer-Appalachian-School-of-Law-Shootings___218,,,3120.html Chrisfortier 03:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely the Law School shooter was tackled, I wasn't disputing that, only pointing out that the Times did not mention that a citizen's display and/or pointing of a personal firearm permitted the tackling. Sorry I wasn't more clear about the "similar elision" I noted - that was the case of a July 2006 stabbing in Tennessee where the Times printed only that the stabber was "tackled outside the store", with no mention that a citizen's display of a gun accomplished his surrender, a fact made clear in an online AP story later that day. When I wrote the Times about the omission, I received the response "Thank you, Mr. ____. As you noted, the Associated Press's story online is correct. The briefing item we had this morning was from a freelance writer in Tennessee. We will talk to that reporter on Monday about the omission. As I read it, the brief was not incorrect, just incomplete. But if that is not the case, and a specific error was made, we will indeed run a correction." Predictably, no correction was run. --CliffC 04:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have heard from witnesses at the scene stated that the tackling (Ted and Todd) took place before and during the time Mike and Tracy arrived. I believe the articles have that correct.Chrisfortier 03:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, articles here must have reliable sources of information. First-hand information of evidents is specifically not allowed in articles. If you can provide a reliable referenced source stating that the shooter was tackled before Mike and Tracy arrived, we will add that in as a counter view. Otherwise, it can't go in the article.--Alabamaboy 13:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tagline

Have added NPOV tagline since cited information stating 3 rounds remained in gun has been removed with statement that it is only "a rumour." Yaf

TimLambert edits

I have reverted User:TimLambert's edits, specifically his removal of referenced information which presented both views of the situation (i.e., whether the gun was empty or not). The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference. However, since there are other reliable accounts stating that the gun was empty, that has also been mentioned. Removing either of these referenced statements would be POV and should not occur. As for whether the shooter saw the guns held by the two shooters, a number of reliable references have been given to support that he did. We can put in a statement saying something like "However, one columnist has quoted unnamed other witnesses as saing that Odighizuwa did not see Bridges and Gross's guns before he was tackled." However, if a columnist is the only person saying that, I'm a little uncomfortable. I would prefer that multiple references to this be given, considering that multiple references have been given to support the other account. Are there other references for this info?

I should also state that User:TimLambert appears to have a conflict of interest in editing this article, since through his writings and website at http://timlambert.org he has been heavily involved in debating this issue. According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in situations like this the way to deal with a COI is for User:TimLambert to propose changes to the article on this talk page. If consensus is to make those edits, we will then make them. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest, and it is an abuse of Wikipedia's guidelines to claim that I have.

The only source offered to support the claim that there were bullets in the gun is this:

"Mitchell later learned that the gun still had three bullets left in it."

Mitchell has no direct knowledge -- he is just repeating a rumour he heard.

On the other hand we have (Roanoke Times Jan 17)

"Mike Stater, a Virginia State Police spokesman, later said the eight-shot Jennings .380-caliber semiautomatic was empty, but Ross had no way of knowing that."

Lexington Herald Leader Jan 18

"When one of the students yelled for him to put down his gun, Odighizuwa placed it, along with an extra magazine, on a lamp post, Gross said. Both were empty, he said."

Kansas City Star March 1

"A nagging wrinkle figures into the law-school shootings: Whose version is true?

The Star recently interviewed two students involved—Bridges and Besen. They gave differing accounts.

Bridges repeated that he pointed his weapon at Odighizuwa and ordered the suspect to put his own down, which he did.

According to Besen, the first student to tackle the suspect, nothing of the sort happened. He said Odighizuwa set down the gun and raised his arms—“like he was mocking everyone: ha, ha, what are you going to do now?”—before the students confronted him.

The two armed students had not yet arrived at the scene, Besen said: “Peter had no knowledge anyone had a gun.”

Virginia State Police confirmed Odighizuwa’s weapon was empty by then."

There are other problems with the article, for example Ted Besen and Todd Ross deserved to be mentioned by name. --TimLambert 15:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Those seem like good references and I have no problem changing the article to say "Most sources state that when he dropped the gun the magazine was empty (with references here)." if I'm not mistaken, that's what the article originally said and it was only changed b/c that other reference came to light. I also agree that the article should mention Ted Besen and Todd Ross. Finally, the way to address the differing view of witnesses is to give both accounts. I'll make these changes; please check them out and let me know what you think. I also hope others involved in editing will check them out and give their views.

As for the conflict of interest, I believe it does exist in this case. As said, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to the article. But it does mean that we should follow the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.--Alabamaboy 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Revisited

For convenience in discussion, point by point response regarding my edits removed en bloc as lacking sufficiently reliable references, as in "newspaper and book sources" (I am using "you" in a rather loose, plural sense):

1. You deleted "... described the event without mentioning any gun, as did the Virginia State Police in their statement: '... the Virginia State Police reported." referenced to an African news service. The same entire article is quoted exactly on both Lambert's blog and Lott's blog. Given that the quote goes against Lott's argument, he would not have fabricated it; and Lambert's quote confirms it. I believe that would put the burden of proof on those who believe the quote to be fabricated.
2. You deleted "... even he, when first interviewed on the "Today Show" ... '... Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter...'". referenced to the Today Show transcript. The same exact quote is quoted exactly on both Lambert's blog and Lott's blog. Given that the quote goes against Lott's argument, he would not have fabricated it; and Lambert's quote confirms it. I believe that would put the burden of proof on those who believe the quote to be fabricated.
3. You deleted "...did not mention the unarmed fight: '...saw that I had a weapon, he laid his weapon down...'" referenced to Capitalism magazine, linked to the magazine website itself. Why is this not reliable?
4. You deleted "...But Odighizuwa's gun, authorities say, was already empty, and other witnesses have said the alleged sooter never even saw the other students' guns before surrendering..." referenced to "Legal Times", reprint on law.com. Why is this not reliable?
5. You deleted "...wouldn't have clearly seen what Gross and Bridges were doing" referenced to Lott's blog, which is evidence that Lott himself proposed a theory which differed from what was in his book, upon which this section of the article is entirely based. How is Lott's blog not reliable evidence, while Lott's book is? "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." I.e., by definition, if you are specifying Lott's assertions in his book as reliable, you must accept his assertions in his blog.
6. You deleted "Skeptics also note that...", referenced to Lambert's blog, but replaced this quantitatively established source with "gun control advocates and commentators have disagreed..." with no reference at all! How does this constitute an improvement in verifiability? In fact, citing Lambert's blog disagreeing with Lott as evidence that skeptics disagree with Lott here is obviously verifiable. It also qualifies under "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." As for any ideas about charging that Lambert does not qualify as a significantly notable skeptic, I note that you have argued a conflict of interest for Lambert, since he "has been heavily involved in debating the issue".
7. As in the item above, you have now changed "skeptics" (of Lott's theory) to "gun control advocates and commentators". this is extremely POV. If you have evidence that those who disagree here are "gun control advocates" you should provide that. Otherwise, they are simply skeptics of Lott's theory.
8. You have described these edits as original research. This is an egregious misunderstanding of the concept of original research. "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." None of my additions did anything other than summarize existing material; the existing material was all referenced, even though you challenge the references. "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Regarding Lambert's edits:

1. Your accusation of conflict of interest for Lambert, having "been heavily involved in debating the issue" is misguided. In fact, that does not constitute a Wikipedia conflict of interest; "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors." None of these applies. Your idea seems to be that Lambert is ineligible to edit, since he happens to know quite a bit about the subject, and has not kept it to himself. "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." While Lambert cannot reference his own blog in this matter, for him to reference the primary sources which he also references in his blog, is absolutely in the spirit of Wikipedia, and in this particular case will serve as a valuable balance to the huge reliance on one particular POV, based entirely on Lott's book. Again, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."

Other POV issues:

1. You have many references, such as "When Guns Stop Crime, Media Attach Their Silencers" by Donny Ferguson, The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.), February 4, 2002, page B11, with no weblink. Normally, I wouldn't mention these, as I have no problem in assuming good faith, and I am well aware that there are a vast number of sources not reproduced on the Web; however, I note that my own references to the African News Service and to the Today Show (as in the top two items above) were removed as "unreliable". In fact, my two references are more reliable than this one, since reprinted texts of both of them are available on the web, from two independent sources each. If these are insufficient to establish the credibility of these references, then the credibility of your entirely unsourced reference is certainly insufficient. On the other hand, if simple Assume Good Faith is enough to establish that your reference was not simply made up, then I insist that that is more than adequate for my two references.
2. For the articles for which you do give a weblink, you have given as references "Shooting Hits Many Lives, Roanoke Times & World News (Roanoke, VA), January 20, 2002, page A-1. Story can be accessed at The Feed Directory, and "Area officer helps wrestle law school gunman to ground" The Asheville Citizen-Times, Story can be accessed at The Feed Directory. This is kind of funny, since if you check any of the links Feed Directory gives, you'll find their source for these articles at ....... Tim Lambert's blog. As is explicitly stated at the top of the Feed Directory page, I note. So, are you going to remove these references as unverifiable? A second hand citation of a blog can't logically be any more reliable than using the blog as the primary source, and you have already declared Lambert's blog as unverifiable and deleted anything sourced there.
3. The Students subdued the shooter is still highly POV, with the primary POV being that the armed students subdued Odighizuwa, and one brief sentence mentioning that this is disputed as an afterthought. The first statement, "When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms," establishes that POV right away. It's referenced, not even directly from Lott's book, but from a summary of Lott's book on a heavily and obviously biased website, despite all the cautions above about reliable "newspaper and book sources", applied with such a heavy hand to the edits described above. In fact, all the material whose deletion is discussed above, including Lott's own blog, indicates that the armed students arrived on the scene after the unarmed students; as is hardly unexpected, given that they stopped to retrieve their guns from their cars; deletion of this material in favor of the current version replaces these alleged source validity issues with a huge POV issue, and is in no way an improvement.
4. The article fails to mention that Bridges was also an off-duty officer of the law, like Gross; this fact became a matter of some notoriety, due to Lott's public assertions to the contrary and various flip-flops on the matter, and is documented on the Web.

Given the above, without making any personal attacks, and assuming good faith, it's clear that you have a strong POV which, consciously or unconsciously, is biasing your editing of this article, and I ask you to please be more skeptical of your own work and less dismissive of the work of others.

In addition:

• You have cited several sources multiple times; for instance:

1. ^ "Suspect in law school slayings arraigned" USA Today, January 17, 2002.
2. ...
3. ^ "Suspect in law school slayings arraigned" USA Today, January 17, 2002.
4. ^ "Suspect in law school slayings arraigned" USA Today, January 17, 2002.

This is erroneous. Where I had corrected it, you have reversed the corrections; however, I assume/hope that this is not a deliberate policy of adopting this practice.

• On the other hand, you collapse multiple sources into one; for instance:

16. ^ The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control is Wrong by John R. Lott, Regnery Publishing, 2003, page 27. "When Guns Stop Crime, Media Attach Their Silencers" by Donny Ferguson, The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.), February 4, 2002, page B11. Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite by Bernard Goldberg, Warner Books, 2003, pages 185-87.

This is also erroneous, and I once again assume/hope that it is not a deliberate policy. Gzuckier 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses: 1) Blogs are not reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. The only time they can be used is if there are no reliable sources of info, which is not the case here. 2) The problem wasn't with the references you provided; it was with how you used them. You drew your own conclusions from a number of referenced facts. That is not permitted here. What you need are references to the facts AND to the conclusions. 3) Lambert does have a COI with this article. 4) There is nothing wrong with giving a newspaper citation AND giving a link to a mirror site (like Feed or a blog) which reprints the source. This is done so people w/o access to the original source can at least see a copy of the source. That is still a reliable source b/c the source is the original newspaper article, not the mirror. 5) There is nothing wrong with citing the same source multiple times, nor with collapsing multiple sources into one citation when they all support a specific fact. 6) The "Students subdued the shooter" is referenced from Lott's book; I merely gave the website summary so people w/o the book would be able to also see the info.

Since there is such a disagreement over this article, perhaps we should all try to create a consensus version we can agree on. I'm game if others are.--Alabamaboy 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, I don't think that your responses to Gzuckier are adequate. If I have a COI because I've discussed this extensively, then so do you -- there is plenty of discussion involving you on this talk page. You also do not understand the guidelines on reliable sources. You take as a reliable source a newpaper that says that Mitchell heard that Peter O still had three bullets. That's not a reliable source that he really did have three bullets, since we don't know who told this to Mitchell. It is a reliable source as to what Mitchell said, but so would a blog post that we knew to be from Mitchell. Similarly, if you want to source a statement from Lott, a book by Lott, a newspaper story that quotes him or Lott's blog are all appropriate. In fact his blog is probably a better source than a news story since it's less likely to misquote him. A blog by someone other that Lott would not be a reliable source for Lott's statement, and that is what the guidelines for reliable sources are trying to tell you. --TimLambert 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason you have a COI with this article is that you've been involved in extremely public debates about this subject and other gun issues with Lott and others. The fact that several people here have used your website to reference info is evidence to that. As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to you working on the article; just do so under COI guidelines. As for blogs, there are times when they can be reliable citations. However, if you want to source a statement from Lott and have to choose from a book by Lott, a newspaper story that quotes him or Lott's blog, the use of the blog would be the least reliable.

Here's the reason I don't think websites and blogs should be used in this article: There are too many disputing views of what happened at this shooting. As a result, we should use the most reliable references possible, which are newspaper accounts and books. When I first edited this article, I researched the subject, found the best reliable citations I could, and entered that info. As I've been shown reliable citations which dispute other cited info, I've tried to ballance all that out while making sure POV opinions are kept out UNLESS they are cited and in the appropriate place and length (i.e., so that we don't get ten pages of one side's opinion and one sentence of the other's). As I said, I'm happy to work toward a consensus version of this article, but b/c of the contentious nature of the subject I believe we should only use the most reliable of citations. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would make a better explanation had you only removed the two items sourced to blogs. (Even though one reference was to the fact that "skeptics disagree" and was a link to the blog of a skeptic, (TL), disagreeing, and the other was to lott's blog to point out that his opinion in his book is not his only opinion). However, you also deleted info sourced from a newsfeed, the Today show, an online copy of a magazine, and an online reprint of Legal Times. Care to comment on the thought process that went into that? And the revelation that your newspaper articles are in fact reprints of Lambert's blog must, therefore cause them to be just as unreliable as a direct reference to Lambert's blog. Any comment?Gzuckier 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper articles are not reprints of Lambert's blog. He reprinted the articles on his blog. As I stated above, the references are to the original articles. For convenience, links are provided to mirror copies of the articles so people can see them (since one would have to pay through Lexus Nexus to access the original articles, which is what I did). The explanation of why I deleted the other info is b/c, as said previously, it was original research b/c original conclusions were derived from the sourced info (which is not allowed).--Alabamaboy 13:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case might as well save us all some time and NPOV it. Gzuckier 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So I take it you're not interested in working toward a consensus version?--Alabamaboy 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, me again. I'm just weary of having put a bunch of hours into it so far with no detectable result, and I gotta say I'm burned out from wikiwars elsewhere. Gzuckier 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"... The info about the gun still having bullets in it comes from a newspaper article, which is an extremely reliable reference...." This may be the funniest sentence in all of Wikipedia. Most newspapers, at least in my experience, are notoriously unreliable references in regards to anything involving firearms. htom 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially when the point being made is how newspapers don't report shootings correctly. Gzuckier 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the restrainers speaks out

In response to Newt Gingrich's account of the story...http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--virginiatech-gin0424apr24,0,3795608.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia from Ted Besen himself. He was one of the unarmed students who restrained Peter O. I knew something like this would come out. Chrisfortier 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Link is dead. Probably expired. What was the point? Greswik 13:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article explained what happened from Besen's point of view on how the events ended. He was responding to Newt Gingrich's statement on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" which basically was two students pointed their guns at Peter O. and he immediately surrendered. Besen explained his account of the story, which was entered into the Wikipedia article. Chrisfortier 02:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mental Health

This event had more to it than what is indicated on the article (who did the restraining, what the gun was). There was a major mental health element to the story. Here is a source of analysis: http://www.law.stetson.edu/lawrev/abstracts/PDF/32-1Epstein.pdf Chrisfortier 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Add it in. --Alabamaboy 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Appalachian School of Law 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423093817/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2002/US/01/16/law.school.shooting/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/16/law.school.shooting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070420151206/http://www.uwire.com:80/content/topops012402002.html to http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elkintribune.com/Archives/Archives
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904040324/http://www.asl.edu:80/memorial/index.php to http://www.asl.edu/memorial/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193013/http://www.asl.edu/current/pad.php to http://www.asl.edu/current/pad.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192856/http://www.asl.edu/current/pdp.php to http://www.asl.edu/current/pdp.php

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)