Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to Talk:Cho Seung-hui/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Has the molestation angle been explored anywhere in the media?

I'm really surprised that this hasn't come up in the media so far. Here's what we know:

-The two plays, "Richard McBeef" and "Mr. Brownstone" both featured adolescents who were molested by an older authority figure (step-father and teacher, respectively).

-In part of the video, he says "For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you fucked, I did it for them…"

-In another part, he says "You wanna rape us John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us Debra Lafaves? Fuck you." (this, by the way, is almost identical to the part in Richard McBeef where he calls his stepfather "Catholic priest" and "Michael Jackson".

Given all of this, it seems pretty likely that he was either molested or had for some reason come to think that he had been. Has this possibility come up anywhere? In fact, the media silence about it almost suggests that there's some sort of ongoing investigation and that's why they're not commenting on it...Baligant 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Baligant

Must say, this struck me to. He seems to think/hint he has been molested. Fantasy or no. I have not heard it mentioned in the media.

I think a female psychiatrist mentioned this on Fox news, but I didn't catch her name.

Cho was a sadomasochist

I heard the news report that he was a sadomasochist, can anyone prove this?

Behavior and mental health section incorrect

I'm fairly certain that this section needs some significant changes regarding Cho's professors. From what I have read in the news, Professor Nikki Giovanni had him removed from her class and from that point on Lucinda Roy took the initiative to teach Cho on her own. Can someone please confirm this and add those changes? I'm not feeling up to it unfortunately, just wanted to bring it to attention. In the mean time I've removed the uncited sentence that says it was Roy who had him removed from her class (it was Giovanni). -- itistoday (Talk) 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speeding Ticket

The name on his speeding ticket is Seung H. Cho, which must be his legal name. He signed the ticket Seung Cho. The car was a Kia but model was not legible. Ticket was shown on CBS. 141.156.166.127 09:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misattributed quote

The following passage is incorrect and needs to be revised:

"According to professor Nikki Giovanni who taught Cho in a poetry class in 2005, Cho was "extraordinarily lonely—the loneliest person I have ever met in my life." She said that he whispered, took 20 seconds to answer questions, and took cell phone pictures of her in class. After becoming concerned with his behavior and the themes in his writings, the professor started meeting with Cho to work with him one-on-one. She said she was concerned for her safety when she met with him. After notifying the legal authorities about his behavior, the professor urged Cho to seek counseling, but he refused."

It was actually Professor Lucinda Roy who said Cho Seung-hui was "extraordinarily lonely-the loneliest person I have ever met in my life." Professor Nikki Giovanni is actually the person who said that it is "crap" when people say that Cho was "troubled". The cited links for the foregoing passage confirms this. This needs to be changed.

Lonesome road 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

message on 4chan?

http://www.planetblacksburg.com/2007/04/sick_internet_joke_or_real_thing.php

An anonymous user on the English imageboard, 4chan, appears to have posted the following warning Monday just before 5 a.m.

“hey /b/ I‘m going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous”

--Jake7457 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax with a backdated post. THF 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work. --136.150.200.99 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to believe it's authentic and a lot to believe it's not. 4chan thrives on cruelty. --Kizor 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, that screams fake...how the hell did they find a post from monday morning on tuesday? Any /b/tard knows that it's NEVER that slow, especially with the news there was yesterday. --Anonymous21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly the image was indeed a shoop: it contained no leading zeros in the date, while 4chon uses them in single digit date numbers. Also, as Anon said, /b/ moves way too fast to get a message a day later. --86.87.66.216 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The message was REAL, the shoop just a recreation. 88.84.152.212 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a working link: http://www.thestar.com/StarPM/article/204030 I think at least a mention of it should be put in the articl. It should although be stated that this is the only source that makes this claim. --Dr. WTF 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The image included in the original article (which has unsurprisingly has been deleted) is fake. The time displayed on the image of the post was 4:49:27, but 4chan's imageboard system uses leading zeroes for single digit hours, and would have been displayed as 04:49:27, had it been real. Not to mention that even the most popular, high-traffic threads on /b/ don't last longer than a few hours. Kinkify 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I was reading 4chan at the time the image was created, timestamp is wrong and mockups of this kind are made all the time. It was part of a discussion where people were joking about whether the killer was a /b/tard. Some newspapers have been taken in by it, see http://expressen.se/nyheter/1.642133 Ultimately though, pixels, shooped, etc. General Miaow Say Hello! 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, timestamp is fake and the post is not based on a real post. I know, as I made it. Amazing how swedish newspapers proudly use it. Commenting via proxychain to retain my anonymity. - 141.142.30.135 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As much as I occassionally visit 4chan myself, it is not a citable source. People post random stuff in there all the time. KyuuA4 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Killer's scripts

It's now being reported that scripts for two of the killer's plays have been released: [1] [2]

Worthy of mention in the Wiki article? Bueller 007 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Been done. See attributed writings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isocyanide (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

This discussion is already happening up above on this page, see Talk:Cho_Seung-hui#Richard_McBeef. The "Attributed Writings" section kept getting deleted (almost to the point of vandalism? or 3x reversion?) but may stabilize now that the attributions have been cited. Please do not discuss here; please go up the page and discuss under "Richard McBeef" thread to keep the discussion consolidated and coherent. -- Lisasmall 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To keep the article neutral and underlying motivations coherent, it may be worth noting exactly how and why the plays came to be published on the Internet. That is, Ian MacFarlane was a classmate of Seung-hui Cho and was part of the playwriting class that had an assignment to peer review plays. After Cho's identity came to light MacFarlane found the plays and published them on AOLNews with the intent to provide information that will help stop future events like this from occurring. http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ (In other words, to state that the plays have NOTHING TO DO with the murders, though are of academic interest.) Jokeyxero 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Cite in Article

while wikipedia may not be a newspaper article, I think it's important to make sure you add attribution throughout this article. Journalists have to cite everything as police/fire/fbi said, and I think it should be seen in this article too.

Cho Seung-hui was accused of being the shooter in Monday's shooting, university police said. (1) or whatever.

Right now, it reads as if he is definitely the killer, which highly highly probable, but I don't think it's an encyclopedia's job to say who or what did something - especially a massacre. Just give it a written citation, not a footnote, until you get definitive proof from Police, which does not exist yet, that Cho killed everyone in both incidents.

20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that every assertion made has a reliable external source, such as CNN, BBC, the local police website, etc. This article is relatively well-sourced in that respect, it is not necessary to use a journalistic style of "police claim...", etc, but rather cite secondary sources. Anthony.moore 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note?

Did anyone publish the full note? I'm guessing probably not since it's probably considered evidence , but I'm still wondering. --Evilturtlefromhell 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No.. 71.252.244.130 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Killer's writings

The text of two of his writings are available on http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

I don't know how to link them in the article though, or if they should be. Zehly 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first edit, so please forgive any breach of protocol. Under "5.1 Plays," I thought perhaps Edward Falco's name should link to the corresponding article. Rejay9090 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

infobox: criminal?

i have a question....in america, mustn't one be tried and convicted of a crime before one is considered a criminal? --emerson7 | Talk 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

in theory, that's generally true, AFAIK 132.205.44.134 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you call someone that murders 32 people? I'd call them a criminal. I also call people who shoplift from stores and not caught criminals (and thus not prosecuted). I'm sure most would agree. Technically however.... you may be right. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think dead people are attributed any civil rights anywhere in the world. While Cho Seung-hui would be considered an "alleged" criminal and "innocent until proven guilty" if he were alive, b/c he's dead none of that applies. The term criminal applies in this case.--Alabamaboy 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

not really. if it's simply "anyone guilty", then anyone who has ever broken the speed limit is a criminal. or jay-walked for that matter. the term "criminal" is used for those who have been convicted. otherwise... i'm willing to bet just about everyone's a criminal. in some way. hell, look up all the "goofy laws" still on the books... -Heterodoxus 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...should not wikipaedia articles stick with the facts, rather than emotional impressions? --emerson7 | Talk 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if a person is convicted of a crime and then dies while another court is hearing an appeal, the criminal record is wiped out. Therefore, Cho is technically not a criminal, because he has not been convicted, and can never be convicted, of a crime.

the template:Infobox Criminal is incorrect and inappropriate. i'm suggesting a change to template:Infobox Person oder template:Infobox Biography. --emerson7 | Talk 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the using that box will render the same result than feel free to do so under WP:Bold. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Common usage of the word criminal would unquestionably fit as Nja247 says. Legal usage wouldnt fit but we have to use common expressions over legal ones, SqueakBox 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox's point is well taken, but as editors, we should strive for precision of language. For example, "murder" is a legal term for a specifically-defined type of criminal homicide. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being by another. Not all homicides are criminal acts. "Killing" is a word that describes a behavior. Not all killing (even the killing of a human being) is wrongful or criminal. Therefore, it is better to refer to Mr. Cho as a "killer" (the behavioral description) rather than a "murderer" (the legal description), since the former is more precise than the latter, even though both words may be correct in common usage. pointlessforest 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) would classify him as a criminal for the purposes of a civil tort claim. That's good enough for me. --Chris Thompson 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough for me. As a tort classification, res ipsa loquitur has absolutely nothing to do with criminal liability. One who is found responsible for a negligent act under res ipsa loquitur is not called a "criminal." They are a tortfeasor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KyleGoetz (talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Do we use the criminal infobox for someone who has been accused but not commited of a crime? I think people are letting their emotions run wild here. Remember, NPOV. Titanium Dragon 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Mr. Cho is deceased, he cannot ever be formally accused, tried or convicted of any crime that may have occurred. As a matter of law, he cannot properly be referred to as a criminal (unless he has prior felony or misdemeanor convictions). He can and should be referred to as a suspect or presumed killer. This debate harkens back to a similar controversy regarding Lee Oswald, who was never tried, but was formally charged with the murders of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit prior to his own untimely demise, and therefore may be properly referred to as an accused person. pointlessforest 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe suicide is also illegal, which would make him a criminal, even if we can't prove he's a "murderer". Therefore, I believe the description "criminal" is apt. Laura 06:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, Laura's factual premise is false, because suicide is not a crime under the Virginia Criminal Code, a fact easily checked online.[3] Secondly, the argument itself is fallacious, for the same reasons set forth above, because even if suicide was a crime, the suspect is dead and cannot be formally charged, tried or convicted, as a matter of law. pointlessforest 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, people, stop acting emotional! I understand that this is an extremely emotional event, but when you are WRITING material for an encyclopedia, then you need to put your emotions aside as best you can. The truth is, this man is NOT a criminal in the sense of using the infobox for criminals. Yes, common sense clearly dictates that he committed a crime, but technically, he cannot be presented as such. Furthermore, it doesn't make much of a difference, beyond the emotional DESIRE to have him portrayed as a criminal. Just change it to the Person infobox. -- Ubergenius 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Without a conviction, I would say that it is inappropriate to use the the "Criminal" infobox. Even those committing criminal acts, like homicide, can be found not guilty if there are factors such as insanity involved. Using the "Criminal" infobox here is covert POV pushing. --Wordbuilder 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

Am I the only person who finds that picture decidedly not-funny? And how did it get in there with an edit lock in place? Gooshy 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The image got there because the article wasn't fully protected but semi-protected. See here for more info. -- P.B. Pilhet 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you looking for one more uplifting? I think the picture says a thousand words. ~ Rollo44 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://crossfather.skyrock.com/pics/517902982_small.jpg

this is supposedly a picture of him which I found though a Forum, Can anyone else Verify it is him? If so I think we should add it. what about adding his personal infomation like height,Weight etc? Jegal 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... finding an image online does not mean it's free and can be used on wikipedia. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, not only does the person in that photograph not look anything like anything like the person in the other photographs, but simply tracing the address back to the subdomain gives you a blog which photos of the person, who is definitely not Cho Seung-hui. 71.224.249.33 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Im well Aware of Wikipedias image policys you can see on my profiles talk Also the link was not working for me thank you. Jegal 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First name

Gosh, would someone puuullease fix the article so that it says FIRST NAME first (hence the reason why it's called a "first name") and his LAST NAME last??? Cho is a very VERY common last name, and even if the press and the police can't help it, at LEAST wiki should be consistent and make suue his FIRST NAME is written first.

Or maybe since he's an asain, it would make more sense to leave it with the given name first, like how it's traditionally done here?--Nog64 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From the article: This is a Korean name; the family name is Cho and unlike Western family names, comes first when pronouncing full names.Mumun 無文 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

interesting how hes been in usa for 15yrs, yet he still puts his family name first

I agree that the title of the article should read Seung-hui Cho. I am familiar with name order in East Asian countries and Hungary, but when people from those countries live here and are longstanding part of society, they do as the Romans do. That's why there's Kazuhiro Sasaki, Ming-Na Wen, Se Ri Pak, and Zsa Zsa Gabor instead of Sasaki Kazuhiro, Wen Ming Na, Pak Se Ri, and Gabor Zsa Zsa.

Having lived in an area in the US with a large Korean population, my Korean classmates always followed the Western-order when using English. In Korean, of course, they employed their usual order. This list of Korean Americans confirms this.

I hope this is changed for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but I am not sure if this is likely since the media (and someone screwed up, and now everyone's following this order) is popularizing this order. Google News gives 2,700+ hits for Cho Seung-Hui while 49 (ABC News among them) for Seung-Hui Cho. ----Chris 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be because of his non-citizen status that the media recognise him as non-American, and thus use the Asian order? --Kvasir 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he is a nonresident alien? --HappyCamper 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Kvasir, it does seem plausible that the media thought he was a Korean exchange student on a student visa. As for HappyCamper - even norsident aliens here in the US follow western order when using English. --Chris 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys missed the boat on this. Last name first was decided by consensus yesterday, see the archives. --Scientz 02:27p, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is pretty absurd... wiki has a chance to go against the mainstream media, which imho seriously messed up when they listed his surname first. For crying out loud this guy has lived in the US since 1992. Moreover, we should name him according to how he himself preferred to be named. Look at his plays, he lists himself as Seung Cho. Arguments that cite Korean name orders are severely flawed because their base assumption is that Cho is South Korean. HE IS NOT. This guy was KOREAN-AMERICAN. If we change his name to Cho Seung-Hui we should be consistant and change the name oif EVERY American of East Asian descent on wiki to reflect this.

It is true that mechanical application of GENERAL rules for South Koreans is not appropriate in a case like the present where the subject's pertinent life events all happened in the U.S. in an English-speaking environment - note that majored in English. However, the media have widely used the "Asian" name sequence, probably based the notation in official documents (which in turn would be based on his green card and social security card, ultimately on his South Korean passport). The question is thus - under what name would most NEW visitors to WP expect to find the article? Other versions (such as the subject's own preference, "Seung Cho") could be forwarded. WikiFlier 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy's sister is Sun Cho, she uses Cho as her last name. As did Seung. The guy was a KOREAN-AMERICAN functionally. He was in the US for 15 yrs, did not have an accent, and was an english major. Because the media elites may not be familiar with koreans and their customs, does not mean that we should follow their lead. It is really bizarre. His name was Seung Cho, and I suspect in the very near future things will be changed to this. For those resisting, give it up. On english wikipedia, EVEN asians from some countries like Japan have their names put in the American order (though not with koreans yet, like kim jong-il). Fermat1999 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The name should absolutely be listed as Seung-hui Cho. This article is in American English, Cho lived in America, and the standard name order is first, last. I understand that in Korean the family name goes first, but this is not a Korean article. Hungarian name order works in the same way as Korean name order, but the Hungarian national poet Petőfi Sándor is listed on Wikipedia as Sándor Petőfi, and he didn't ever even live in an English-speaking country. The attempt by the media to Koreanize everything seems to be an attempt to paint the shooter as "different" from American society as possible. It's not appropriate on Wikipedia. His name in life was Seung-hui Cho (or simply Seung Cho), and that's how it should be written in the article. — Emiellaiendiay 03:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As for the fact he was a permanent resident (noncitizen), it is irrelevant, as is the order in which his Korean passport lists his name. My Hungarian passport writes my name in the Hungarian, but my American greencard uses Western name order. That's just how it goes in America. — Emiellaiendiay

Hanja

wow how did people find the hanja version of his name so quickly?

Can we double check if the Hanja is correct? How about 趙承熙? --HappyCamper 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am having more doubts about the Hanja now. 曹丞禧 was what we had before. But I can find media sources which use a different name, even 趙承輝. --HappyCamper 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that the last name could be 崔? --HappyCamper 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable source of this is probably his parrents at the moment. --Kvasir 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely cannot be 崔 because this is 성최 높을 최. His family name is clearly 조, not 최, and the difference is vast. Mumun 無文 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found any sources at all for the Hanja in Korean media (by checking News.google.co.kr for 曹 and 趙 [4][5]). The only places I see publishing the Hanja are Chinese media, who tend to indicate that it's just a "phonetic transcription" (譯音), i.e. a wild-ass guess. And some of the Chinese media are coming up with blatantly laughable attempts at writing the Hanja, like 周水辉 [6] which hasn't even got a remote possibility of being correct. cab 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

     Cho Seung-Hui in Hanja is 赵承熙, not 曹承辉.

• 赵承熙
• 曹承辉
  • First of all, there is no way we can know the exact hanja without his parent's input. This means we can only assume, which is against wiki. Secondgen 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, hanja does not use simplified characters of PRC. I'm deleting the "Chinese character" off the article until there the correct hanja is resolved. --Kvasir 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We still have no reliable sources, but the hanja have been reinserted again. I will keep removing them unless someone provides a cite to a Korean newspaper (NOT a Chinese newspaper, for the reason I mentioned above, that their transcriptions are just wild guesses) which uses the Hanja. Thanks, cab 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• 조승희 cannot be 조승辉, for 辉 is not 희 but 휘.

曹 is not a common family name in Korea and the family name 趙 is the 7th largest in S.Korea. 承熙 also common name in Korea. Let me example some. Lee Seung-man, the 1st president of Korea is 이승만(李承晩). Famous Park Jeong-hee, another president of Korea is 박정희(朴正熙). --Queenmillennia 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't guess his hanja name based on popularity. It isn't a vote on what his name is. --Kvasir 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just said the probability on the basis of plausible grounds.--Queenmillennia 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work based on a single authorized/preferred source rule such as "Korean newspapers but not Chinese newspapers". With ANY source there will be legitimate questions about its accuracy, but this does not mean that information is to be withheld until it has been confirmed by "official" sources. Such questions must be resolved by comparison with other sources and review of the inherent consistency/likelihood of each piece of information.

Korean papers generally do not publish any Chinese characters for personal names except where the individual is very exalted. We should not hold our breath waiting for Korean newspapers to give us the hanja, but go ahead and publish what REASONABLE, plausible information we have.

It is true that Chinese newspapers often make up Chinese names for convenience, and that such renditions cannot be regarded as authentic (they are generally labeled as "phonetic renditions"). In this specific case, the prestigious World Journal (Chinese newspaper published in the U.S.) originally rendered the name as 趙承熙, but switched to 曹丞禧 in later reports. Since this change is glaring to Chinese readers, it is reasonable to assume that the latter version is based on better information (probably Korean community in the U.S. which coincidentally includes numerous ethnic Chinese from South Korea who are more astute in their understanding of Chinese characters than Korea's media). It is also inherently plausible because the characters are far less common than those of the original version yet fit the phonetic Korean spelling WikiFlier 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow you guys realize that the world journal probably switched over to the new rendition based on wikipedia? They themselves don't cite it. I'm for taking the Hanja off until we get more information. Also note that the world journal's eariler rendition is also the eariler rendition in the zh language wiki.

No, World Journal was first, I cited them in my original amendment. Please do not delete the hanja unless you have BETTER information. The information we have now is good (1) based on the timeline (see above, and also check the revision history); (2) comports with the phonetic spelling; (3) uses relatively rare characters that are less likely to have been chosen as "phonetic standins" than the more generic, "Korean-sounding" 趙承熙. (The last two characters are "Korean-sounding" to a Chinese reader because they correspond to the "Syng" and "Hee" in the names of former South Korean presidents Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee, respectively. Both characters are commonly seen in Korean given names.) WikiFlier 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Given the situation you describe, the World Journal is more likely than not to be correct; anyway, our threshold is verifiability, not truth, so I don't object to it being reinserted now. But please cite the original article --- right now I do not see any citation from the World Journal in the article, and nor was there one when I removed that information [7]. My comment about "Korean newspapers and not Chinese newspapers" was meant to avoid people searching for information about the case in any random Chinese newspaper and assuming the name they used was correct. As for your statement "Wikipedia does not work based on a single authorized/preferred source rule": we evaluate sources on a case by case basis, and in this case, Chinese papers overseas were publishing stuff that not only doesn't even work in Korean, but also doesn't even sound anything like the original name (e.g. 周水辉 Zhou Shuihui?!??!), so clearly, those papers not reliable in this matter. cab 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cite is back (thank you whoever did this). "Verifiability, not truth" is a better and more concise statement of Wikipedia's ideal. I agree that sources need to be reviewed and weighed on a case by case basis. WikiFlier 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

source: http://china.donga.com/gb/srv/service.php3?biid=2007041937588 (in Chinese)

It is a Korean newspaper and shall be the correct translation.

I have made the change since there are two major Korean newspapers confirmed his Hanja name. Wei Jiang 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This report from Xinhua (China official news agency, in Chinese) also uses 趙承熙. Wei Jiang 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The two cited newspaper articles (Donga and Chosun) are CHINESE TRANSLATIONS of material in English and other languages. They are clearly and admittedly derivative. Accordingly, one should not regard either as adding much authority to the specific rendering of the name. Same point applies in principle to Xinhua which compiles its reports largely from other media sources. None of these sources is remotely conclusive, nor do they collectively add much weight to a particular name version. We are thus still left to piece together the correct version from the sources available. WikiFlier 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the the title that one editor cited has now changed apparently. Instead of "維州理工冷血殺手：韓裔學生曹丞禧", it's now "維州理工冷血殺手：韓裔學生趙承禧". On top of that, 青島日報 (Sing Tao Daily Newspaper), another Chinese newspaper says that his name is neither 曹丞禧 or 趙承禧, but 趙承熙. I'm no expert on Korean names since I'm not Korean, obviously. So I wouldn't know which characters are more likely to be his name. Even if one of the characters are more popular than the other ones, that doesn't mean that there are no chances that the other ones are actually correct. Personally, I think only his parents are the only reliable sources out there, since they chose the name for Cho, and unless someone can contact them and ask them, Cho's Hanja name should be left out.

• • Thanks for the update. I assume you mean 星島日報 (Sing Tao Daily Newspaper). WikiFlier 07:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I meant 星島日報. 青島日報 was a typo. Thanks for correcting!

• Why 曹丞禧? There are a lot more google hits (many of them major sources as well) for 趙承熙 than 曹丞禧.

I suggest removing the Hanja name until someone has first-hand hard evidence. Wikikin 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • First, this is not a popular vote, but an attempt at reasoned discussion.

• • The hanja must not be removed based on Wikipedia principles as aptly cited by CaliforniaAliBaba above. The point of Wikipedia is to present the best information available NOW. "Verifiability, not truth". There are reasonable sources for various versions of the name. Given the confusion, one could consider giving alternatives (each with cites), and leaving the choice to readers. By definition, only kanji-literate readers will even care. (But those of us who do read Chinese care greatly.) WikiFlier 07:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason koreans are usually given hanja is the fact that koreans want a meaning behind their name. NOT SO THAT IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO CHINESE. Therefore, a chinese translation of a korean newspaper does not count as a source. And I'll tell you right now, there is NOT one korean news source that know Seung-hui Cho's hanja. REMOVE IT. Secondgen 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you want to create a chinese translation, use the chinese wikipedia not this one. Secondgen 08:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, foreign names from Chinese media source should be treated as translation. Inconsistency is pretty common. Just look at place names and other people's names for examples. Transliteration is also dependent on the dialect base of the media as well. Ex: 聖地牙哥 or 聖迭戈 for San Diego. --Kvasir 09:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They aren't translating San Diego (Spanish) into Chinese. They are translating a Korean name into Korean. Yes, they are using Hanja (Chinese characters), but it is STILL Korean. The best reason, as mentioned before, for not having it is there are a few different Hanja with the same “sound” that can all be the same name. Unless the parents specify which one it is, a birth certificate is available, or something similar; we don’t know. 146.129.249.238 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Section about the female professor?

I think that the section on the female professor that met with him one on one and suggested counseling needs to be reviewed. Honestly, a story like that coming this quickly after the event seems very fabricated. The actual substance of the passage seems fictional and unlikely. Someone should try to confirm this and make sure its not some product of a media outlet or a "creative-minded" individual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.150.79.160 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

These events are taken from and reiterated in several articles from established news sources, and the citations for which are already present in the article (particularly references 25 and 26, from ABC News and MSNBC, respectively). I see no reason, at this point in time, to be pointedly suspicious of these anecdotes. --Noblesavage 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Search Warrant

CNN.com has a document from the police department detailing all items seized from his dorm room, found here: [8]. I'm not sure how to go about it, but if anyone wants to, I think this is definitely something that should be included in the article. President David Palmer 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Attachment A of this warrent notes that a bomb threat was found at the scene of the incident, and that it is suspect Cho was the cause of the previous bomb threats because of this. Should this be added? Melanie Brouzes 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== Did he fulfill his Korean military service requirement? == *Resolved

I apologize if this has been brought up before, but:

Assuming that Cho indeed was a citizen of the Republic of Korea, as a male over the age of 18 he was under legal obligation to perform 24-27 months of service with the South Korean military. Those living abroad can, I believe, postpone the requirement until later into adulthood than those living in Korea, but they must eventually fulfill this obligation, nonetheless.

Given all these questions about how Cho could be so proficient in weaponry, it would be helpful to know if he had completed his military service requirement, as this would provide at least some basis for his familiarity with the handling of guns. --Noblesavage 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's a pertinent line of questioning, but I'd just like to add that Koreans have an option to defer their military service. I recall talking to a Korean National studying in China saying that you could do it after completing their degree. It's the same with Taiwan too. (Fang Teng 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

I strongly doubt that he completed or was even enrolled in military training. Just by checking out his biography, he is likely to have never left US and instead pursued to complete education before the possible military service. It's probably either he taught himself or his father (who probably had served) had taught him for when he decided to enlist in either RoK or US armed force. --Revth 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, he left Korea before he was 18. 76.198.148.243 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Koreans can defer their requirement until after they've completed their degree (though I've known a fair number of Koreans, both in and out of Korea, who have elected to pre-empt or interrupt their undergraduate education to serve in the military), and yes, he'd lived in the U.S. since he was a child (8 years old, I think?), and yes, I also doubt that he was ever enrolled in the Korean military (nothing in his bio suggests that he ever left to go to Korea for any extended period of time, and current articles available give the impression that he went straight from an American high school into VA Tech). I just wanted to open this for discussion, in case anyone has any concrete information to suggest definitively whether he had or had not completed his training. Thanks! --Noblesavage 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, I think-- citation number 8, a New York Times article, describes Cho as a 2003 graduate of Westfield HS in VA (as already stated in the Wiki article), which would seem to confirm that he went directly from high school to college, leaving no gap during which he could have served in the military. I should have read more closely; thanks anyway to the people who responded. --Noblesavage 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It was still a fair point to make. Given that it doesn't even seem that Cho played video games (no, not saying that violent games make people killers, just that killers are drawn to video games, which could help in some aspects of hand eye coordination/strategical movement), where he completed his firearm training seems to be a mystery. He shot over 60 people, many of them several times. Even assuming he had extensive firearm experience, he would have needed to be carrying several hundred rounds of ammunition- it's possible he shot himself only after he realized he was about to run out. Have any records surfaced as to records of him going to a firing range? Unless he had that, ROTC or hunting experience, how did this kid become so adept??

Nature of the killings

Was his killings more of a bang bang bang, kill as many people as quick as he can, or was it more spread out like a hostage thing with him talking to his victims or shouting out statements? It would be nice if this article could reflect that somehow. Also, did Cho file the numbers off the guns himself, or were they filed off before he bought both guns? The article just says that the numbers were filed off, it doesn't say "before he bought the firearms" or anything JayKeaton 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From all the interview's I've heard it is in my understanding that he just busted into classrooms and started shooting people in the head, people in the front rows first, then he just kept shooting, without saying a thing. In the German class he came and killed almost everyone, then left, the few people that were alive got up and barricaded the door. He went back to that classroom and tried to get back in but couldn't. It's all pretty messed up and I don't understand it. 71.252.244.130 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The gun purchases were 100% above-board, apparently, which would mean he filed the serial numbers off himself. Natalie 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Purchase Date(s) Need Edit

The date(s) listed for the purchase of the gun(s) need to be vetted, and in the meantime, an EDIT needs to be made - at least regarding the section that says the 22cal gun was purchased 'a WEEK prior to the shooting'. Although these are the dates originally reported this am, I have read 3+ news articles that list New Information quoted as being "from Investigators" or "ATF Officials" that now give the dates of the gun purchases as March 13, 2007 for the Glock and ** February (some actually say 'Feb 9') for the 22 cal gun **. I am not registered. Can someone do this please? thx 172.165.109.63 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

SECOND REQUEST. Can someone with EDIT capability please remove the erroneous 'purchased 22cal gun a Week Prior to the killings' statement ..... please? Thx. 172.165.109.63 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

THIRD REQUEST. Sorry, but each time I read it, it grates on my nerves and since I don't have the authority/ability to correct the error .. I need some Help please. It is in the paragraph several sentences below the first mention of the Glock purchase, with no date given, where it says the second gun, the 22, was purchased A WEEK PRIOR TO THE MURDERS. ThxMUCH. 172.165.109.63 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) BeachBlonde

I made an edit...please double check. --HappyCamper 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

         Thank you, HAPPY CAMPER!  I just read it.  Now I can bring it down to the frantic.

Is the source article correct (VA Tech Massacre)? 172.165.109.63 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

I made another edit to update the March 13th date for the Glock. I'm still checking and cross referencing the stuff. --HappyCamper 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks good now. --HappyCamper 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again HAPPY CAMPER. Very much appreciate your help. Cheers - 172.165.109.63 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

I added in the reference to the fact that he did not reveal he'd been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, which would have disqualified him from purchasing the handguns, and that it didn't show up on the background check. Esprix 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Collective Soul

Is the mention that he listened to this song/band at all relevant? I don't think so. Also, no source is listed. 142.161.165.178 02:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the edit... it's all over CNN from an AC interview with the two roommates. I believe it is very valid and very telling of his character/personality (obsessive, etc.). I'm searching for a source right now, but it's very new stuff.... --Carthaginienses 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - I'm not sure that the song was Shine - I was watching the interview w/ his roomates, and I remember it was collective soul, but I don't think it was shine...

It was most certainly Shine. 24.141.134.77 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This piece of information should be removed, unless we could connect the fact in the article itself to the massacre. This is Wikipedia: Let's leave the exploitation of this information to the media, the fundamentalists, and the commentators (like what they did b_tching on 3D shooters right after the Columbine incident).

He apparently wrote the lyrics of the song on his dorm room walls in pen or pencil, as reported by his roommates in the interview.

EDIT: On CNN (Larry King I think) they interviewed his roomates. They mentioned that he would play the song "Shine" by Collective Soul at all hours of the day. It would often wake them up at night. In addition, he would also write the words on the walls of their suite. I think the song was dear to him, and that he may have identified with the lyrics.

"Shine"

Give me a word/ Give me a sign/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Lay me on the ground/ Fly me in the sky/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

Love is in the water/ Love is in the air/ Show me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Teach me how to speak/ Teach me how to share/ Teach me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/music/archives/2007/04/collective_soul.php

Section for "Evidence of Premeditation" (and/or "Planning/Advance Planning") -???

Should we add a section titled: "Evidence of Premeditation" or "Evidence of Planning/Advance Planning"?

I think this is a relevant, timely topic that is central to the issues at hand -- ie, what could have been done to prevent/avert this tragedy. It seems clear that the VA Tech President will be taking much heat for decisions made/not made and much gun controversy politics will use this as a platform for their divergent opinions. Evidence of premediation and his efforts towards planning are central to the issue and can be NPOV ... or used as REF in conjunction with the political commentary.

What do you all think? There is SO MUCH evidence coming out with regard to the actions taken by Cho to meticulously plan out this massacre ... I am of the mind that listing it out (the facts, cited) will not only be valuable for reference sourcing, but also for both future legislation/policy/planning AND for emotional catharsis and healing (although the latter should not matter here on wiki ... nonetheless it is true, and it would be an additional kindness). Just looking at the chain of events in cold, hard facts of premeditation would be of scholarly value, as well as the obvious. Anyone want to take it on? 172.165.109.63 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) BeachBlonde

No one is answering yet, so I will start. It could be in a date/timeline format, or just a listing of actions/preparation steps. Perhaps like this:

Fall 2005 - Cho writes the play 'Richard McBeef', a shocking and disturbing account of pedophilia, violence and murder, unnerving both his classmates and teacher. Many students discuss Cho's aberrant behavior and even debate whether or not Cho could be 'one of those School Shooters'. Cho's teacher reports him to the VA Tech Administration.

Fall 2006 - Cho submits additional writings that cause deep concern. Cho's creative writing instructor ends up having to take multiple actions that lead to Cho being removed from the class, being reported to VA Tech Administration, and referred to counseling. Cho's teacher additionally and notably reports him to POLICE OFFICIALS, who respond that UNDER THE LAW, they can do nothing based on PERCEIVED INTENTIONS AND OPINIONS and their hands are tied until Cho takes action or volunteers to seek help. Cho's teacher is so concerned that she risks her own safety and offers to teach Cho 'one on one' in order to keep him under close observation.

2006 - Winter 2007 - Cho stalks several women on campus, takes pictures of females on campus without their permission, and even starts a fire in his dorm.

March - April 2007 - Cho is stopped by police for speeding in two separate incidents.

Feb 9, 2007 - Cho purchases a 22cal gun from a local VA pawnshop.

Mar 13, 2007 - Cho purchases a Glock-19 semi-automatic handgun from a Blacksburg gun shop, along with 2 boxes of what was termed 'practice' ammo.

Apr 9, 2007 - Cho calls in a Bomb Threat to VA Tech campus admin

(?date?) - Cho calls in a second Bomb Threat to campus admin presumably to test campus security response.

Apr 16, 2007 - 5:00am EDT - Cho is seen by dormmate, 'going into the bathroom, dressed in a tshirt and boxer shorts, to put in his contact lenses and complete his morning routine of applying lotion to his face and inserting his contact lenses'. The dormmate reported that Cho was his 'normal silent self - with no expression of emotion of any kind on his face'.

7:15am EDT - Cho is seen and heard arguing with victim #1, Emily (lastname needed), on the 4th floor of her dorm at AJ. When RA 'Stack' Ryan Clark hears the commotion and comes to investigate, he is shot in the neck by Cho, who also leaves Emily dead. Cho exits AJ Dorm with his weapon(s) seemingly without notice. Emily's boyfriend (name needed) was seen exiting AJ dorm and responding police/security focused on him as the primary suspect while Cho quietly slipped back to his own dorm room. Emily and her boyfriend were known to have been shooting at the practice range the week prior to the killings, which added to the confusion and incorrect suspect identification.

7:30am EDT - 9:00am EDT - While Emily's boyfriend is being detained and questioned by police and campus security, Cho finishes his final preparations. In his dorm room, Cho leaves a long, multi-paged, rambling note, accusing 'others' for causing him to assassinate the 50+ students and faculty he targeted (ultimately killing 32 and wounding 19). He also prepares for the killing spree by wearing a distinctive 'costume' made up of 2 vests, one of which he used to carry and conceal an arsenal of ammunition. Chains which Cho used to trap the students inside Norris Hall were packed in his backpack, leaving the unused sections behind. Cho then heads out across campus and the drill field to the Engineering Building at Norris Hall.

9:00am EDT - Students report seeing Cho enter Norris Hall. Several students state that Cho 'poked his head into the classroom(s) several times, as if he was looking for someone'. It is unknown at this time if reports that Cho was 'looking for his girlfriend' are accurate, was something untrue - yet believed to be true by Cho in a deluded state, or was part of Cho's ruse to 'case' Norris Hall and further plan and refine his precision attack on the unarmed, unsuspecting students and faculty, who were coming to the close of their first classes of the morning.

....... and so on and so on.

Comments?

BTW, I cannot add to or edit a locked page/stub, so I will need someone else to add this for me please if you feel it is warranted. 172.165.109.63 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

no original research or synthesis, please. THF 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Compiling a timeline itself is not original research; creating one & calling it something else would likely lead to a heated discussion & an edit war for various reasons -- accusations of original research, NPOV, unneeded detail, are some that come to mind. As for intent/motivation, having read as much as I could stand of one of Cho's plays, & having listened to the materials he mailed to NBC, has any qualified mental health professional attempted to explain why he was pathologically/obsessively angry? Without, IMHO, reprinting any of his writings is just a troubling exercise of voyeurism. -- llywrch 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Premeditation" is a legal term with a very specific meaning and its use should be avoided here; it refers to a particular aspect of an accused's mental state, one of the elements of a crime that must be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Mr. Cho is deceased, he may never be formally accused, tried or convicted of any crime that may have occurred on April 16, 2007, and therefore "premeditation" is irrelevant and possibly misleading. However, a section that sets forth, in narrative form, the known facts (with proper citations) that reasonably suggest that these events were planned, or part of some behavioral scheme, would be advisable. A distinction needs to be drawn between evidence of planning and that of motive. In my opinion, any timeline should be in a separate section, or shown in graphic form or better yet, left out altogether. pointlessforest 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If "McBeef" proves that Cho was premeditating murder, then what does Hamlet say about Shakespeare? What does any work of Alfred Hitchcock say about him? Edison 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

redirects

Can we make sure that every common variant in the news of this guy's name has a redirect to this page?

• Sueng Cho
• the various ways it's spelled in Korean newspapers

70.51.11.38 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

done for Sueng Cho-Randalllin 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • 조승희 and 조승휘 and 조승회
  • perhaps these as well: 趙承輝 - 赵承熙 - 曹承辉

70.51.11.38 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents trying to commit suicide?

• "조승희 부모 자살기도 확실한 듯(3보) (Cho Seung-hui's parents suicide attempt confirmed)". Naver News. 2007-04-18. Retrieved 2007-04-18.

Anyone know if this is true? NineMSN is calling it "a rumour" [9] cab 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(Oops, looks like I'm late on the "save". Merging sections.)

The Korea Herald is currently parroting a report by Los Angeles-based Radio Korea that Cho's parents attempted suicide after learning of the shootings. It not yet firm enough to put in the article, IMO, but should make it into more credible media sources if confirmed. The Korean media reports have themselves just been reported by MSN. - BanyanTree 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

it was reported earlier that this is simply a rumour, a representative on CNN told the press that it is not true. ALSO - I am not very familiar with wikipedia editing, but someone should add information regarding the interview with two of Cho's ex-roommates. Apparently, he had been stalking a girl down the hall. He told his roommates about this, and they told him to stop stalking women. Afterward, he used AIM to tell them he wanted to kill himself. The roommates then contacted campus police. Cho was observed at some type of clinic for 2 nights and released back to Vtech. Also, in another incident, Cho went to a party with his 2 roommates. After a few beers he opened up and admitted that he had an imaginary girlfriend. This imaginary girlfriend was called Jelly (Gelly?) and she called him Spanky. The imaginay girlfriend was a supermodel. This from http://news.yahoo.com/ videos - cho's roommates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.167.252 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Staying with the suicide rumor topic, the MSN article linked above, which previously relayed the reports of suicide now refutes the report of suicide. (If it was a wiki, we could see exactly when the article changed, but alas.) Apparently the parents are hospitalized due to shock at the news. - BanyanTree 03:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

His parents probably need protection at this point of time. Chirag 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Imaginary Girlfriend

According to an AC interview on CNN, Cho had an imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who referred to him as "Spanky." I added it to the article, but it was reverted.... Did anyone else hear this on CNN and can corroborate? I haven't found a source yet.... -- Carthaginienses 3:51 AM, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was in a CNN interview and is completely valid. His former roommates speak of the time he told them about his imaginary girlfriend and the names (Jelly/Spanky) are accurate. ~ Rollo44 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable published source for this. THF 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I can, I will repost it. I can definitely understand why a source would be needed given the nature of the information.... -- Carthaginienses 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the transcript of the interview, so I've reposted it. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/17/acd.01.html --Carthaginienses 15:31, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

• You should include the part when the roommates said that they drank a few beers first, as it is stated in the transcript. Let the reader decide for himself if Cho was serious or not. Thank you. Secondgen 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's been added. Carthaginienses 16:51, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly "jelly"=KY Jelly, "Spanky" = the masturbation he would do to himself with the KY Jelly.. that's all

Moving page, renaming article

I have changed Cho's name throughout the article to the American given/surname order, and will be moving the article to Seung-hui Cho, leaving Cho Seung-hui as a redirect, unless anyone objects. --Dynaflow 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. His name is Cho Seung-hui. — coelacan — 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object - The news sources (except ABC News) all use Cho Seung-hui, as he is a South Korean citizen. WhisperToMe 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki articles about Japan have a policy for this. Born prior to 1868, [Last name] [First name]. Born after, [First name] [Last name]. I imagine there's probably also a standard set for Korean people. Cho Seung-hui seems to be the way to go, a la Kim Jong-il.

See the discussion of it here. — Emiellaiendiay 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Class Level, 300 or 3000

near the end it should be 300 level not 3000, right? 70.20.232.243 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is 300, since most universities use that system of class notation. Additionally, under the behavior section, it is referenced as 300. --Notmyhandle 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I second. 300 is the correct level for VA Tech. The 'thousand-place' levels are used at the University of Florida (my alma mater) and some other schools, but not this one. I cannot edit. Someone will have to make this change please. Thx 172.165.109.63 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Can someone link to this system i've never seen it before (Gnevin 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Instead of the number system which possibly mean nothing to some readers, why not say, third year level or something like that. --Kvasir 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I, someone not attending VT, have no idea what the 300 means. Darrik2 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbering system is used in pretty much any college across the nation. 100 level classes are generally freshman-level classes, while 200 level classes are generally for sophomores. 300 level classes would then be for juniors. However, Virginia Tech does use the thousands in their class numbering system; To be honest, I do not know why they use it but they definitely use 3000 instead of 300. Macraw83 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

his sister

why do we need to have his sister's name in the article? I removed it. Janviermichelle 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I worry for her (safety et al). she is a Princeton grad with a US Govt contract job (with security clearance) at McNeil (great job, likely stellar resume/cv) .... and has clearly worked hard to get a plum position. Her brother's actions (not her own) may well destroy her life. Seung should NOT have the opportunity to claim a 33rd life, imho. 172.165.109.63 05:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

JanvierMichelle, I can't believe you. The detail is reported in the press. The fact that he has a sister is notable about him.

Her name has been quoted in press reports - And 172.165.109.63, no. Her name has already been leaked to the press. WhisperToMe 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was implying that sad fact in my comment (how else would I have known all that private info), however, we don't need to WIKI her ... reminding the entire Planet Earth of her name and personal details. People will forget one day and those FEW News articles will disappear in the massive media blitz and the next 'big 24 hour news break'. So we should NOT be irresponsible and it ought to be REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. 172.165.109.63 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

We don't bother with fake "morals" - The press has already leaked her name, so the damage is done - Bleachblonde, I would wager to say lying is a stinging, painful offense, isn't it? Then - Not mentioning her name would be lying. WhisperToMe 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't agree with you. we don't need to wiki her. Janviermichelle 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Janvier, you need to explain why. Why? Why "we don't need to wiki her." WhisperToMe 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gates and Neil Armstrong mention such names, so, why can't Cho? WhisperToMe 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

they are not spree killers. try to be in her shoes. Janviermichelle 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Janvier, we have to be cold-blooded to make a real good encyclopedia article. We refrain from using "tragedy," "tragic," "horrible," etc. Let the reader decide if it is horrible! The press has already leaked her name, so trying to cover it is essentially lying to the people of the world. At any rate, Janvier, she will probably be interviewed and will add some insight into the incident. WhisperToMe 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. --Hemlock Martinis 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The text here is written mainly about article deletion - It warns that people should take caution when using "precedent" reasons. Now, I would wager to say that Bill Gates and Armstrong have fairly well-patrolled and monitored articles. The articles, representative of optimal biographical articles, keep the references. WhisperToMe 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but propagating something because it exists elsewhere is the heart of the argument itself. Your examples of Gates and Armstrong are hardly fair comparisons to a school shooter. --Hemlock Martinis 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I find them very much fair comparisons: The heart of this: All three are world-famous public figures. All three became well-known throughout the international media and press. For that matter, I wrote Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - References to names of parents and siblings stayed too. WhisperToMe 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, walking on the moon and founding Microsoft are not the same as a college killing spree. Second, there's a difference between including family members in the article of a famous person and including family members in the article of an infamous person. For what it's worth, I feel that many family member listings in your Columbine perpetrators page are not relevant to the article, but that's a debate for that article. --Hemlock Martinis 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Second, there's a difference between including family members in the article of a famous person and including family members in the article of an infamous person." - That's a value judgement, Hemlock. I pretend that I have no values and morals when I edit the Wiki. We all should. Strip away the values, and the core is the same. WhisperToMe 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't all be heartless like that, Whisper. There remains no good reason to include a relative's name unless it improves the article. --Hemlock Martinis 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, it's one thing to include a name of a relative that has not been reported in the media (of course, that would be swatted down by WP:Original research) - But, in her case, her name has already been leaked by ABC News, therefore the information is verifiable. Wikipedia reports information and does not judge on values. WhisperToMe 06:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ABC News reports that he has a sister. Ok, great. Why is that important? --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It fills holes left by the biography we have now. Right now we mention that he immigrated from South Korea and lived in Virginia with his parents, who worked in a dry cleaning shop. We have a lot of details about his home life here, Hemlock. We are not told about what siblings he has! That one detail will plug that hole in. WhisperToMe 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. In that case, it'd be ok to say he has a sister, but unless she has something substantial to add to the article, her name doesn't need to be used. --Hemlock Martinis 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I will keep her nameless for the moment :) WhisperToMe 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Who are we to decide what to hide. In my quest to know more about this person, I'd like to know the complete bio of his sister and parents.

The catch is that - If the news media does not sketch detailed bios of the parents, including bios on here, even if they are true, would be WP:Original research, which is not allowed on WP. WhisperToMe 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WHISPER: I agree that lying is an offense (both by ommission and by direct falsehood) however, we as sinful human beings are ALL GUILTY OF IT and that does not allow any excuse or relief from condemnation (hence why we need a savior, but I will save the obvious and avoid hyperbole). By your own account, WIKI AND the MSM are Fatally Flawed since the names of Cho's parents are not included (as they have been reported - I know BOTH of their Full Names AND the name of their business AND their full address and phone numbers). This info has either been deleted or not reported/added (their names, etc.) and WELL it SHOULD NOT. By all means, state that Cho had a sister/sibling -- even say she is a Princeton alumna, but DO NOT link her name to INfAMOUS Notariety by linking her one and ONLY Name to the all time worst spree killer in the US, her brother. It is not for us to ruin her life and although WIKI must be NROP, cruelty doesn't apply and we must be responsible. In a court of law, the sister could SUE WIKI for publishing and linking her name to a CRIME she did NOT commit ... for example, if she loses/lost her (amazing, hard won) job and can show cause ... bye bye WIKI Funds. 172.165.109.63 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

• She would sue ABC News first, since they said it first. WhisperToMe 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Likely not, as plenty of legal precedent for suing WIKI separately/individually as well as collectively, being that WIKI is a new form of WORLDWIDE electronic media that is designed to be a PERMANENT REPOSITORY for REFERENCE material, scholarly access, and informational purposes and it puts her name/identity out to a MUCH larger/wider audience for a SIGNIFICANTLY longer period of time (infinite vs. finite). Sorry, but you cannot win regarding the legal precedent for this. 172.165.109.63 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

• • Firstly, she could sue anyone who published it. There is AFAIK no requirement for her to sue anyone 'first'. Whether she would win or not I don't know. But being sued should not be our only concern as WP:BLP has moral concerns as well Nil Einne 09:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A link to a story about his sister has been added, and although less blatent than directly stating her name, it still seems like a violation of her privacy. Her name is not relevent, and has the potential to inflict emense consequences on an innocent person. Anyone who doesnt beleive that there are people crazy enough to pose a threat to someone who has done nothing wrong hasnt been following what they're editing. I would like to request that any references to any articles that are so tasteless and vulturelike as to give his sister's name and place of employment be deleted. We may have a responsibility as editors to present the facts, but we have a responsibility as humans to not make the lives of the people affected by this tragidy any harder then they already are. And I do not see how not including her biography, or any links to it detracts from the article in any way. I'd delete it myself but I'm new, and therefore blocked from editing. Sierrarose23 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It has no place on this Article. Let the Paper get sued. Not the Wikipedia. His Sister has NOTHING to do with this. Isn't it hard enough knowing not only your brothers dead but he did this? WillSWC 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By my lack of an actual username, I imagine all will realize that I'm by no means an established community member. As such, I'm certainly not familiar with Wikipedia protocol pertinent to such situations. That said, I do have to admit that I concur with those offering a humanitarian criticism regarding the inclusion of her name in this article, and feel compelled to weigh in - for whatever it's worth, most likely nothing.

To those arguing that her identity is crucial to his bibliographic entry, I partially agree. The fact that he does have an older, arguably very successful sibling may be pertinent, and merits inclusion. I don't believe that her name, however, contributes anything of significance. Considering the potential ramifications of directly identifying her, I feel very strongly that her name should continue to be omitted. Of course, as this is a very recent, naturally ongoing event, things may unfold in such a way that her identification is necessary. From the presently available materials, however, nothing indicates that it contributes much of interest or relevance to the understanding of her brother's motives or mental state.

Though I forget where exactly I viewed it, one article or video that I caught described her as "palpably distraught" when contacted for interviews. This woman has done nothing wrong, and unless the ensuing proceedings indicate it necessary, I have to say I don't believe that her name should be avoidably tarnished.

Again, since I'm not an official member, please take these comments with a grain of salt. They're just the thoughts of a guy who isn't really all that familiar with Wiki policies...

Thanks for your time in reading this, and hopefully your consideration...

Her name and place of work have been re added. Could someone with edit ability please remove it? the "he has a sister who attends an Ivy League university" line that was previously in the article seemed to work quite well, simultaniously protecting her identity, and giving the information that was relevent to this article (ie that his sister is successful.) It is downright irresponsible of us to give the amount of detail about her that is currently present in this article. Sierrarose23 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

also, the degree of detail on where his parents live seems slightly excessive. Simply stating the town and county would be more appropriate. Sorry to be a stickler about this, but regardless of this being an encyclopedia, we are individual humans with a responsibility to not inflict unneccisary and pointless harm on innocent people, and there are a lot of nutcases out there who WILL herass the family. They have enough s**t to deal with. Sierrarose23 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I logged in (something I swore I wouldn't do again) to re-take the sister's name out. Unless there is a CLEAR and DIRECT connection between the sister and her brother's aberrant behavior THE SISTER'S NAME MUST BE LEFT OUT. She is not a part of this tragedy. Ninodeluz 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

I beg to differ. This is a (however short) biographical article about a person. In any biography I have ever seen, it includes a full background, which includes where and when he was raised and other family members. I believe that it is not the place of wikipedia to show bias toward anything by leaving out any of the facts. If he had a sister, report that he had a sister. If the sister had no bearing on the events that took place on the 16th, then make references to this and state it as well. Just because the sister did not directly affect his behavior does not mean that it is imperative that wikipedia completely disregards her existence. I will wait for a response until this time tomorrow before putting her name back in, because it is pointless to have an edit war over something like this. Macraw83 14:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One more quick note: she is just as much of this tragedy as any other family who lost a member in Blacksburg on the 16th. That family might be even more a part because they are mourning the fact that one of their own family members had turned sour enough to pull such a large stunt. Macraw83 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem stating that he had a sister. There is a very large problem telling people what her name is as knowing her name bears exactly no relevance to the subject at hand. Ninodeluz 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

Can someone tell me exactly why the name is irrelevant? It is a biography; biographies tell the background of the individual, and the background includes where he grew up and the people he grew up with. While the names of the sister and parents should not be placed prominently in the article, they should at least be mentioned. Again, wikipedia is not a place for biased opinions; we are supposed to put the entire story into the article. The article is about the person, not the event, so it should include personal facts about the person. Macraw83 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE from the Wikipedia page: Thomas Jefferson was born on 13 April 1743 (Gregorian N.S) into a wealthy Virginia family, the third of ten children. His mother was Jane Randolph, daughter of Isham Randolph, and a cousin of Peyton Randolph. Jefferson's father was Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor who owned plantations in Albemarle County (Shadwell, then Edge Hill, Virginia.)

Where are the names of his nine siblings? Jefferson is a much more important figure and we don't list his siblings' names. There is NO reason beyond purience to list the name of Cho's sister. Ninodeluz 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

The main reason that the nine siblings are left unnamed is because it would become very repetitive. There are nine names of limited importance. However, in this situation, there is only one sibling; it would not become repetitive to place her name in the article. Also, the analogy cannot be used in its entirety because nobody in Cho's family is listed, as many of Jefferson's are. This is probably because of lack of information at this early date, but it is still an ommission that negates the analogy.

There would be no risk of retaliation against Jefferson's siblings if their names were included. There is a risk with Cho's sister. We have a legal responsibility, as well as a humanitarian one, to not include her name as long as the risk to her outweighs the rather negligable benefit to including her name in the article. If she comes public with some sort of important statement, or goes out and seeks out the victims families and bonds with them or some such, then by all means add her name, but as it is it doesnt seem neccisary, and the consequences could be quite substantial. Kindof like in a child molestation case you wouldnt add the name of the victim. Yes, it's pertinent, but do you add it? no, because it's a) making their lives harder, and b) possibly has legal ramifications. that said, what is currently in the article (that he has a sister who went to princeton, and works for the state department) seems appropriately vague, while getting across the pertinent info (that she's successful). Sierrarose23 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sierrarose. Including the sister's name does not add any value to the article. The fact he has a sister is interesting, but releasing her identity does not make the article anymore useful to a reader. The one exception to this is that it allows the reader to look up his sister, find her personal information on the Internet, discover where she lives and what her phone number is, and proceed to harrass her. And that is not a valid justification to include the information in the article. — Emiellaiendiay 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

social anxiety disorder?

Based on the description in this article, I think that he might have social anxiety disorder, perhaps also selective mutism, as he hardly spoke a word in class. Maybe he was frustrated by his condition and so developed an angry personality. I'm not a specialist so I would like to have your opinions on this. --218.102.183.79 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not our place to diagnose his mental illness. --Kvasir 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I think we should remove the description of him as a "loner" as, for now, it's too broad and vague, and could be easily misinterpreted and misdiagnosed, like suddenly all loners have Cho-like tendencies and are psycho and would be the target of unfair prejudice. See my comments below. I think the exploitation of this fact in the media and by social commentators is already enough--let's leave it to them.

actually, from a psychiatric point of view (I am), it sounds more like Schizoid personality, these people do not fear embarrassment like the Avoidant (shy) personality. This correlates well with the "weird" vibe that people describe. Of course we cannot know. The odds are that this diagnosis was not used by the mental health professionals who saw him (unless they are very well trained). It is an uncommon diagnosis because these people avoid shrinks : ) Rusty MD

There is no need to be sorry Kvasir. The OP here may bring to our attention or keep in mind when one of us see a real source that mentions this as a possibility. Sure original research has no place, but original research could lead to actual sources. Seeing as this killing is popular with the American media I would say that there is a high possibility that news stories and specials might be out there with specialists, using the information they have, to suggest if it sounds like he had something like this illness in their professional opinion. Reasoning for his rampage would be pretty high up on the information people want when they come to this webpage, so posting about illness and having people search for professional opinions of a possible illness seems ok for the this talk page JayKeaton 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fair to say in the article somethin like "NBC reported that his classmates and suitemantes (or the police, or whomever)described him as a "loner." It would be a sourced fact that the persons interviewed used the word. It is not permissible for Wikipedia editors to diagnose various neuroses, psychoses, sociopathies, syndromes, or whatever. Edison 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

VA Tech gun ban

I added this to the sentence on VA Tech's gun laws: "although Virginia Tech students were forbidden from bringing firearms on campus on threat of expulsion.", in the interest of NPOV. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brownstone

It seems to me that a very interesting and important fact about the character of Mr. Brownstone is that he is a rapist. Each of the other three characters, his presumable students, all say that he raped them. This gives a lot of insight into the type of life Cho Seung-hui was possibly living at home, especially when you consider that the idea of molestation by an older male figure is prevalent in both of these horrifying scripts. --Invisibleinkling 05:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unless some famous psychiatrist assumes this, I wouldn't add speculation. WhisperToMe 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but he could just of been a basket case chump. I would not jump to the conclusion thet he had other Demons to blame.

Regardless of whether or not you can draw any conclusions from it, the fact that that element is in the play (and mentioned repeatedly) can still be addressed. We shouldn't glaze over that horrific fact about the play just because it is particularly distrubing. If we mention that he is a math teacher (which is only stated in one line), then we should mention that he is a rapist, which is mentioned repeatedly.--Invisibleinkling 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a chatroom. We don't add information to an article unless it is verifiable. See also the no original research rule. THF 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to distribute accurate information, and a large part of accuracy depends on what information is displaid and what is withheld. At this time wikipedia does not disply a large part of the scripts written by Cho, and in order to present accurate infromation about these scripts, this item should not be ignored. There needs to be no conclusions drawn, but simply omitting the primary offense of Mr. Brownstone in Cho's script creates a factual blindspot. The rape of the three students in the play is addressed 4 times, and the math teacher is mentioned once. Why is it left out of the description?

I agree that the fact the students in the play claim that Mr. Brownstone raped them on several occasions is an important point and should be included. To be original research it would have to say something like 'The students in the play also claim that Mr. Brownstone raped them on several occasions, making the sexual abuse of the young by an elder male figure in a position of responsibility a recurring theme in Cho's work.' I have changed it.(DH 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

My initial reaction when first reading the play was not that Cho was referring to actual sexual abuse. I've just read the play a second time and I can see how it could go either way. The term "ass-raped" can also mean taken advantage of in general. I don't know how many times that I've heard kids say they were ass-raped until they bled by an extremely hard test or some sort of punishment. I understand that most have taken the words literally, but I wonder how many of them are familiar with current slang. The best source I could think of that mentions popular slang was urban dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+raped. I know that we'll never know what he actually meant, but I don't think we should make assumptions in the article. 76.187.184.203 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he didn’t intent to portray Mr. Brownstone as a rapist literally. I see it that he figuratively meant that Mr. Brownstone raped them. By treating them unfairly, and since they are powerless to their teacher, it was like rape. Sheaton319 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article where the sentence refers to a Guns n roses song Mr Brownstone, and Mr Brownstone is wiki linked to Guns and Roses, but does not have the lyrics in the article!! Do I, the reader, have to read the whole script, then look up the lyrics to the song, "Mr Brownstone" and compare the two? I'll answer my own question, if you don't mind: I should not have to, as a reader. The article is long enough, now as an editor, I may in order to be accurate and to write part of the aritcle, etc. I am an editor but do not feel like doing the research of the editor who put that sentence in there in the first place and wikified the link to something that does not make sense, to me as a reader of the subject at hand. As a reader, I do not feel like reading the the lyrics to Guns n roses, or whatever and comparing the two. I do not know the song, am not familiar, do not care for the band. So, as an editor, and a reader, I see this sentence with the wikified link to the Mr Brownstone and there are no lyrics to compare!! So, then I have to do a Google search for the song, then get pop-ups and read a silly song that I don't care about...blah, blah blah. I am unwikifing the link and taking the Guns N Roses out of that sentence until someone, I can't remember the editor's name, makes the sentence make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the song, and does not have to jump through hoops to get the gist of the matter. Jeeny 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is changing the name back to Korean-style and why?

There's been an edit war of sorts over the perp's name. There seems to be a consensus on this page that we should be referring to the perp using the name he would have used in everyday life: Seung-hui Cho, rather than using the Korean convention of last-name first. Can someone who is involved in reverting it please tell me why they're doing it, and could everyone who supports the name change please weigh in? Thanks. --Dynaflow 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Cho was never a US citizen - He was always a South Korean citizen.
• 2. English-language consensus stems from the news media reporting: All sources EXCEPT for ABC News use Korean order

WhisperToMe 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a straw poll on which way it should be, that way one side can claim consensus. GarryKosmos 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming Order

The point in question: Cho Seung-hui, the way most news services are reporting his name; or Seung Cho, the way the person himself used his name. Which ordering should this article use? Add your vote here. Consensus goes to the majority. GarryKosmos 06:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - Legal name + Name used in all sources except for ABC News WhisperToMe 06:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Why is this the "legal" name?? I am pretty sure that most official documents bearing his name: his student ID, his green card, etc. use the Western order. DHN 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  He is a citizen of South Korea, not the United States. WhisperToMe 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, so this person, who spent the vast majority of his life in the United States, who attended US schools, who's in the process of becoming a US citizen, who actively used the Western order of his name, should still be judged as a Korean "foreigner" because he still has Korean citizenship? Thankfully I became a US citizen before I turned 18 else I'd still be judged as some gook. DHN 07:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

His citizenship would matter a lot less than his US permanent residency, had be been in the US as long as they say he was. He will be well-entrenched in the government bureaucracy under an American-grokkable name. What I think we're seeing here is hypercorrection on a massive scale in regards to the guy's name. We're all proud of ourselves that we know "how Asian names work" and we insist on using them whenever it looks like we can, even if it doesn't square with actual, proper usage. --Dynaflow 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem th be assuming the name he choose to use is his preferred name. We have no way of knowing this. The fact that someone is forced to use a different order then their preferred order because of the inability of people to understand foreign names doesn't mean it's his preferred order. Frankly, while not an American, I find it offensive that you suggest someone has to use the western order to be an American Nil Einne 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As a naturalized American, find it offensive that someone who grew up in the United States, adopted American customs, is still considered a foreigner. DHN 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should be proud that you completed the very arduous requirements and testing in order to become naturalized and are now an American with the same rights and privileges as any native-born American, despite having been foreign born. That's the distinction. Cho never bothered to go through the difficult procedure of becoming an American and RENOUNCING his Korean citizenship, as is required to become a naturalized American citizen. And as such, unlike you, he is NOT an American, but he could have freely chosen to become one if he so desired. He NEVER choose to become an American so we should not consider him one if he didn't seem to care enough to renounce his citizenship and legally become an American. 202.128.1.120 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll never know what his preferred name was because he's dead (though it looks like it might have been Ismail Ax), but we do know the name he was commonly known by, before he was posthumously transformed into a media figure, was Seung Cho. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to use the American order to "be American," but he vast majority who have that option choose to take it, and it looks like Seung-hui Cho did too. --Dynaflow 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - Much the same reasons as Whisper. GarryKosmos 06:04, 18 April 2000 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - Look up Bono and it leads with his legal name "Paul David Hewson" what someone might refer to themselves as, especially when interacting with an alien culture is irrelevant. His name is Cho Seung-hui 202.128.1.120 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)

  I don't think Korean naming convention applies here. This person grew up in the United States and uses the Western ordering himself. DHN 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seung-hui Cho - Seung-hui Cho is not an "unofficial" name, it is simply a Western-style reordering, but a reordering which the subject himself used in his writings and it is the way those who knew Cho referred to him. Cho Seung-hui adds an even more distinct level of foreignness to his name, which the name he commonly used did not (see here for a non-citeable, but still instructive, example. As referenced under the headings "name" and "first name," above, there is a lot of agreement on this page that the name should be rendered in the American fashion, as he was a de facto, if not de jure, American. --Dynaflow 06:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He wrote his plays as Seung Cho - Major difference WhisperToMe 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How often do you use your middle initial (assuming you have one)? If you're in the majority of people who don't use theirs, will you still expect it to go into your obituary and articles about you (assuming you attain or already have some sort of notability)? You bet you will.--Dynaflow 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Basically middle names are not recognized in Korea in the Western sense, in which there is a clear differentiation from the given name." - I.E. "Hui" is not a middle name. WhisperToMe 04:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - Just following the populus (ie. media). Can we verify that Cho Seung-hui is in fact the legal name (ie. on US immigration/resident papers)? If so, there is no question but to use CS-h. User:Kvasir
• Seung-hui Cho - This person grew up in the United States, attended a US school, and was an English major who used the name "Seung Cho". I doubt he even knows how to write Korean. Official documents in the United States use the Western order, thus I'm pretty sure most official documents bearing his name (ID card, green card, driver's license) use the Western order. DHN 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cho moved as a 7-year old. He has at least some grasp of Korean. Also, official documents may use "Last name, given name" WhisperToMe 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Most government agencies have come to understand the needless confusion created by using terms such as “First Name” and “Last Name” especially among people of Asian decent, and you will now see those terms replaced with “Family Name” and “Given Name” on most official forms nowadays. 202.128.1.120 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • By that logic, George W. Bush's "official" name would be Bush George. I have a sister who was 8 when she moved to the United States from Vietnam and she couldn't even read a whole Vietnamese sentence. The Vietnamese language, being written with the Latin alphabet, is much easier to read and write than the Hangul-based Korean language. DHN 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But, my point was that most forms are useless for determining name order since legal signing is ordered by last name and then first name for all. WhisperToMe 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hangul is entirely phonetic and not very hard to read. I lived in the US from a much earlier age than either Mr. Cho or your sister, but I can read my various ancestors' languages just fine. Speculation about how good his Korean is based on when he came to the US is mainly WP:OR. cab 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - This is the name he is now known by. Atropos 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: The search warrant used "Seung-hui Cho" http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/17/warrant.pdf - This does not change my stance, though. CNN still decided to use "Cho Seung-hui" - WhisperToMe 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Does cable news really trump a legal document? I thought this whole mess was over what was "official" in the first place. --Dynaflow 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a “legal document” typed up by a low-level bureaucrat who has no concept of Asian naming conventions. It wasn’t filled out by him and is in no way “official” or have any bearing. If you went to Asia and all the legal forms listed your family name first would that make it proper? If he had adopted a Western name like Steve than I’d agree that it should go first “Steve Cho” but saying “Seung-hui Cho” is just plain wrong. It’s like saying Kai Shek Chaing or Ze Dong Mao. It’s just wrong and it doesn’t matter that he happened to live in the U.S. for a while, it’s still incorrect. If he wrote Seung Cho on school papers to avoid confusion as to his family name and given name, it’s also irrelevant. The proper way to write it is “Cho Seung-hui” whether he is in Korea, China, the U.S. or Mars. In Korea, Neil Armstrong is called “Neil Armstrong” because the naming conventions should and are respected there as they should be here.

Neither Chiang nor Mao were Americans (and whatever you say about Cho's citizenship, he seems to have been culturally American). Neil Armstrong never lived in Korea, to my knowledge (or if he did, it would have been on a military base as an armed-services member). Every single Asian-American person I know who doesn't have an Anglicised name uses their "ethnic" given name as a "first name" on legal documents and in just about every other context other than going on trips to "the old country." --Dynaflow 08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Why keep insisting on a certain way when he himself uses the US order? DHN 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - this is not even a question what is right, the university spelled out his name like this, it is also correct according to the naming conventions, Seung Cho can be mentioned in the text.--MoRsE 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I think we should use Seung Cho. It's not the name the media is using, but it's the name he used for himself. That should probably take precedence. --Sleepvivid 07:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui Going by Wikipedia:Naming conflict, this should be the choice as it is the most commonly used name in English reliable sources, in addition to being the official name of the subject that would appear in his passport (without a comma between the family name and personal name) given that he is a Korean citizen. cab 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I just looked at my US passport, and my last name is first, on a line of its own called "Surname," with "Given names" following -- passports and other computer print-outs are more or less irrelevant to this. When my name is rendered into Chinese characters (I am not Chinese), my last name comes first, and that is what I am referred to as. This is an English encyclopedia article on an de facto American, and we should follow the American standard, as the decedent himself did. --Dynaflow 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • When, for example, Eric Shinseki's name is rendered into Japanese, it is as "Erikku Shinseki", not Shinseki Erikku. The only people in Asia whose names get rendered in family-given order are those who actually take on local style names, such as David Aldwinckle (now Arudou Debito, but never "Aldwinckle David") or Denis Laktionov (sometimes Lee Seung-nam, but never Laktionov Denis). But in my opinion that's neither here nor there because we're not talking about how non-Koreans get referred to in Korea or the rest of Asia. cab 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What about his student ID, green card, driver's license, high school diploma, college application, search warrant, etc.? DHN 07:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't entirely without precedent. YOO Seung Jun and SON Ho Young, for example, who are both not just de-facto Americans but actual American citizens (in the former case, quite infamous for being an American citizen). cab 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Your examples give more credence for the case of using the Western order. Those people, while being Americans, are famous in Korea, thus their names are rendered in the East Asian order. This person is famous for something he did in the US. Consider the Korean cast of Lost: Yunjin Kim, Sun-Hwa Kwon, Jin-Soo Kwon, Daniel Dae Kim. DHN 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • But Cho is famous as Cho Seung-hui right here in the US of A. WhisperToMe 08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Drivers licenses: Surname, Given name [10] WhisperToMe 07:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Drivers licenses: Surname, Given name [11] WhisperToMe 07:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • • • • And why do you think that comma after the surname is there? It's there for a reason.Secondgen 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• This is an American event in the USA, why should you say his name in Korean order? You should not make exceptions for Koreans. The Japanese also say and write their name in FAMILY NAME, Given name order in their own country, but when in an international environment like the USA, they display their names in Western fashion. In the USA you don't call Hideki Matsui, Matsui Hideki nor do you call Ichiro Suziki, Suzuki Ichiro and so on and so on. Koreans need to get with the program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Koreans in the US are typically known by Korean order: i.e. Ban Ki-moon. Japanese people treat their names differently. WhisperToMe 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ban Ki-moon is an international figure, and have only tangential connections to the US. DHN 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho - When you enter the United States as a legal immigrant, you are required to fill all official documents in this order. Since the age of 8, everyone around him has known and referred to him as Seung-hui Cho or Seung Cho. Just because the media suddenly declares white to be black, does not make it so. An arguement stating that he was a so called "citizen" of South Korea does not warrant the conventional Korean order. There are many places where dual citizenships are allowed. A permanent resident mentioned in wiki, who has lived in the United States most of his life AND has a dual citizenship from 2 different countries, should certainly be known as whoever he was in his residency. Therefore, Seung-hui Choi is appropriate. Secondgen 08:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho did not have US citizenship and that is why there is a debate. Also, not EVERYONE refers to him as S-h Cho, at least his parents and relatives would refered to him by his Korean name (in Korean order). That won't change by because they have moved to the US. --Kvasir 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Please do not add the same comment multiple times. cab 08:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui Bueller 007 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - As I've already explained previously, unless we can establish his preferred order we should use the default order. The fact that he supposedly used Seung Cho in a play doesn't say much. Many people may choose to use a certain name or order for convience. It doesn't mean it's their preferred order. The best way to establish a preferred order would be to ask him. This obviously isn't possible. The second best way would be to look at things like his diploma or other similar documents. Since he never graduated and it's unlikely we can obtain these anyway, this doesn't work either. Therefore, it's best to go with Cho Seung-hui which is also the name the media are using. Nil Einne 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He has a diploma from high school, and I guarantee you it reads "Seung-Hui Cho." Secondgen 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Do highschools in the US actually ask you want name you want to have on it? If not, it's irrelevant Nil Einne 08:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The answer is yes. High schools do ask you to verify your name and if any changes should be implemented. For example, middle name included or not. Have you forgotten? Secondgen

If Cho's school didn't grant the option to choose the form of one's name to appear on the diploma (mine did), it would actually strengthen the argument that Seung-hui Cho is the guy's legal name, in addition to being his most common casually-used name for, which has already been established. --Dynaflow 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He lived in the USA for many, many years and I'm sure he used the American custom of personal name first, family name after! To put his family name first is quite pedantic. --Sonjaaa 09:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - its easier that way, and besides his korean.--Lerdthenerd 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui per the majority of news sources. What he himself may or may not have done is largely irrelevant for us. —Angr 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Besides, he is dead does he really care anymore? still im sure what his parents call him is more important--Lerdthenerd 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can guarantee that his parents would call him by his Korean name, in Korean. That won't change by the fact that the family have moved to the US. --Kvasir 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• An inhabitant is someone who resides in a location for a long period of time. He is an inhabitant of the United States. An ihabitant of the United States is an American. Seung-hui Cho is an American. An American is not defined by U.S. Citizenship, Native American Indians. INS will attest to this. Secondgen 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• OED: American [noun]: a native or citizen of the United States. Cho was not a native, and not a citizen. He was not American. Bueller 007 11:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to play the dictionary look up game, let's try m-w.com by Merriam-Webster.
  • Main Entry: 1Amer·i·can
  • Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'me-r&-
  • Function: noun

   1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
   2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
   3 : a citizen of the United States
   4 : AMERICAN ENGLISH

   Obviously they do not have to be all of the following. 

   Main Entry: in·hab·i·tant
   Pronunciation: in-'ha-b&-t&nt
   Function: noun
   one that occupies a particular place regularly, routinely, or for a period of time <inhabitants       
   of large cities> <the tapeworm is an inhabitant of the intestine>

   Also, there are countless numbers of permanent residents like Seung-hui Cho who are in the United     
   States military. They represent America, therefore are Americans.

Secondgen 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Unfortunately, you have failed to make the very important distinction between the two senses. He may be an "American" in the sense that he is an Asian person who lives somewhere on one of the American continents, but he is not an "American" in the sense that you implied when you said "An ihabitant [sic] of the United States is an American." Bueller 007 14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui -- easier, the most common name in the media, he is Korean. Mumun 無文 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui Ronnotel 11:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho simply because this is how he would've been known by his classmates, etc. They would have called him "Seung" and it's likely that most records state his name in this style, first name followed by last. Thomasmallen 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui -- Not only is it the technically correct name order for a Korean name, there's also the fact that it's the name being used in the media, and thus the name that people are most likely to search for him under. I know Wiki has some amazing bandwidth and servers, but do we really need the extra load of having everyone look for him under Cho Seung-hui and get redirected to Seung-hui Cho? Rdfox 76 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While I agree with the notion that we should use the name people expect to find (the one being used by the media), this is for the reader's convenience and not for the servers. Please remember, wp:don't worry about performance. — coelacan — 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui -- For much the same reasons as the other pro-Korean order people. -Scientz 09:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
• Seung Cho -- It's the name he wrote under, which is the best documented proof we have of the name he used for himself. He lived in America almost all his life, and we have no evidence that he even considered himself Korean. The media is using 'Cho Seung-hui', but that's probably because the first reports mistakenly identified him as a foreign exchange student. Scientivore 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, basically this comes down to whether we consider him to be Korean or American, and it's roughly the same as the debate over the "Korean-American" category which is happening below. Personally, I think the fact that we're treating him as a Korean (including using a Korean naming order which, as far as we know, he himself never used) smacks of xenophobia. It's quite likely that he barely even remembers Korea. Scientivore 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui is his name, and it is also the name readers will be looking for. Yes, we have a redirect, but we should also use the name less surprising to the reader when they get to the final destination. See WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. — coelacan — 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the media was just using the "correct" order from Wikipedia. DHN 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The university itself used that naming order, which is how it spread in the media. WhisperToMe 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho -- he personally used the Americanized version of his name. At least three Korean-Americans I know use this convention as well, for what that's worth. UltraNurd 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho - Given that he himself used this as his name, and given that is his legal name, I don't really care what CNN calls him. I care what the government calls him. It sounds to me like this is simply someone in the media thinking this is correct because he is/was Korean, despite the fact that he called himself by the western order. He's an American (or was, before he died). This is the US, he was an American, and he used this order. Therefore, he is Seung-hui Cho. Titanium Dragon 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the NY Times calls him Cho Seung-Hui or Mr. Cho. I won't tell you what I've been calling him. pointlessforest 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - Although he has lived in the United States for many years and I myself put my last name after my first name as an immigrant to the US, this is the name the media uses the most, so this is how he is best known as. mirageinred 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'd suggest that the article be left where it is, simply because it's already there, with a small discussion of his name order in the article. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• It seems that some of the press is backtracking. NBC is naming his sister using the Western order. I hope they realize how stupid it is to call him using the Korean order when everyone around him, and even himself, use the Western order. I admire the LA Times, NPR, and ABC News for staying consistent without confusing the audience in naming him. DHN 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The press isn't backtracking - It is choosing to treat his sister differently - Sung-Kyung Cho gets Western, but Cho Seung-hui gets Eastern. WhisperToMe 04:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - that is how it's presented in the media, and that is what people will search for. cma 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cho Seung-hui - this is how it is written in Wikipedia, like Yi Sun-sin or Roh Muh-hyun. Note that the "Cho" is the last name. Seung-hui is the first name. This is also how it is written in Korean. Good friend100 00:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed but please, "Cho" is the FAMILY name and "Seung-hui" his GIVEN name. In many Asian cultures, the family name is written first. It may sound like a trivial distinction to use these terms but "First Name" and "Last Name" cause way too much unneeded confusion. 202.128.1.120 04:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But Goodfriend, both Yi and Roh are not Korean Americans like Seung Cho is. Also, Seung Cho wrote his name as Seung Cho on his play, and not Cho Seung-hui. Look at list of Korean Americans and you'll see the word order the vast majority of Korean Americans use. --Chris 05:42, 19 April 2007
• Cho Seung-hui because it's the most commonly-cited form, with a note giving variants, especially "Seung Cho" which he used on a daily basis. In general, people should get to pick how their name is going to be rendered (except Prince of course, who has abused the privilege), but it seems likely in this case that he used different forms in different situations, and didn't do anything definitive such as a legal name-change. It's a judgement call and very arguable, I know. Dawud

The name Cho Seung-hui is accurate. What needs to be fixed is the date. The incident occurred not in the year 2007, but in the year 4340 of the Dangun-giwon Dynasty. — Tdadamemd 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seung-hui Cho or simply Seung Cho. Especially the latter since that is the name that he himself used in the title of his plays. The fact that the media made a mistake with his name should not be reflected in the article. What if the media started misspelling George Bush's name as Goerge Bush, should we make an article about that? Of course not! People are assuming that just because he's Asian, that we definitely must use the Asian order of family names. But that is not the case whatsoever. He was an American in every sense, despite his citizenship, which doesn't make a difference at all culturally. He grew up here, and was educated in English and in Korean. And like many other Korean Americans, used the Western order of his surname. --Chris 05:37, 19 April 2007
  • I’d agree if he had a Western name like Steve, then I’d say call him Steve Cho . But listing an Asian name in the Western style is just poor form even if he was American born. My wife is Asian and is forced to invert her name constantly. When she calls the doctor she has to invert her name to the western style and give her family name second so they pull the right file. When she was in school she had to invert her name so the professors would have her family name listed correctly and avoid confusion, in fact she must invert her name numerous times throughout the course of just one day. This doesn’t change the fact that her actual name is Ming Li. And if anyone were to care to ask her what her true name is she would say “Ming Li” with “Ming” being her family name. Just because she has to use “Li Ming” all the time when in America doesn’t make it her proper name, it’s a corrupted version used only out of necessity and not preference. 202.128.1.120 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho Because it's what he went by in every day life. If someone close to him (family, etc.)comes forward and calls him by Cho Seung-hui, I would reverse my opinion, but I'd rather trust what he put on his writing over what the media chose to call him out of possibly missplaced political correctness.Sierrarose23 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not "Political Correctness" it's just "Correctness." If you lived in Korea for 15 years and then did something to make you famous, should the whole world call you "Smith John" because that's the way they do it in the country you were living in, regardless of the fact that it's totally wrong to say it that way? Or would it be "Political Correctness" to ask that the name was written properly? 202.128.1.120 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Insisting to use the Korean naming convention because it's a Korean name is bullshit. A name is just, how do I explain this without being philosophical? It's a common label that everyone recognizes, uniformly. So if everyone recognized him, uniformly, as Seunghui Cho, his name is considered to be Seunghui Cho. If he was uniformly recgnized as Cho Seunghui, his name is considered to be Cho Seunghui. So your arguement doesn't even belong. The question is whether we should use the name he was known as before, Seunghui Cho, or the name he is known as now, Cho Seunghui. Jin29 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If you want to talk about the name he was known as before, what was he known as before Seunghui Cho? Answer: Cho Seunghui. What was Bono, Sting and Voltaire known as before they became known as "Bono" "Sting" and "Voltaire?" Look them up and see how they are listed and see if they are listed by birth name and then tell me which is bullshit.
• Cho Seunghui - It's the most common term that's circulating around. But, I think it is most probable that he used Seunghui Cho, so if this is true, a note should be added stating that while he is South Korean (where it is customary to use the family name first), he stayed in the US for most of his life and used the personal name first. But, I don't understand why Cho Seunghui is the most common term in the first place. I think it's weird that they didn't use Seunghui Choi, which is probably what appeared on all his transcripts and would have been what others knew him as. So maybe he used his family name first after all. Jin29 09:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - This is the name most common in the public, even if it is the fault of the media. Most people are going to know him as Cho Seung-hui, if only because they have been hearing that name the entire time. Also, the average wikipedia user is not going to care whether the name is Cho Seung-hui or Seung-hui Cho or Seung Cho or whatever. Therefore, I am in favor of using the conventional Korean form, as it is the current name of the wikipedia article and is the most popular name in the public. Macraw83 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cho Seung-hui - mostly commonly used in media, proper order in Korean, Cho was a South Korean citizen even if he was living in the U.S., & easily redirected from the alternatives. --Yksin 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I vote "Cho Seung-hui", and just to awkward, isn't 'Hui' capitalised. Someone may have already said this, but to be honest, I really can't be bothered to read through some people's mad ramblings! Some people, may or may not be aware that in some countries (Although I'm not sure of how it works in South Korea, although I know this happens in some Arab countries) Surname is written before given name. Thats why it's called "given name" and not "first name" because it's not always first. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, read Given Name It explains this, and confirms that in Korea, given name comes AFTER family name. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Last edit on this.. I swear! People are saying it should be Seung-hui Cho Because that is the Korean way of saying his name. But sorry, this article is meant for people in the west. And the Western way of saying it is Cho Seung-hui. end of. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You just stated that completely backwards you know. - Arch NME 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seung-hui Cho would be the preference, with a reference in the article to the Korean order of the name as Cho Seung-hui. Barring that, then redirect Seung-hui Cho to Cho Seung-hui. Seung-hui Cho was the name used on the Temporary Detention Order issued by the court for mental evaluation, Seung Cho was the name that he used as author of the plays written for class assignments, and Seung Cho was visibly indicated on the door of his dorm room in a video clip that appeared in a news segment on CNN's Situation Room between 7:00 p.m. ET and 7:15 p.m. ET. From all appearences, Cho apparently used or preferred use of the American naming convention. lwalt 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seung-hui Cho - Redirect from Cho Seung-hui. It's more important to be correct than to just go with the more popular usage in the media. The redirect will allow people to find the article just fine. - Arch NME 00:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am a Korean American who was born in America, I go by my American name, then my Korean name (as my middle name), then my last(family) name. When I am referred to in Korean, my name is Lee Jee-Hye. what I am called, Jee-Hye (although almost everyone I know calls me by my American name. My mom (an immigrant and a citizen) goes by her korean name as the first part (as a first name). The second part as her middle name and her family name(actually my dad's family name) as the last one. I also know adults who use the other way with a dash. So I think Seung Hui Cho or Seung-Hui Cho(with Seung or Seung-Hui being the first name). This is a person who lived in America since 1992! Just go by Seung Hui Cho or Seung-Hui Cho unless someone gets exact information from the family or friends of the family or how it was registered (as in government, driver's license seems fine), ok? Besides, it doesn't matter(if he preferred Cho Seung-Hui)! The meaning (as being put across in english) is put culturally in that form (as in first name then last name)anyway. This is America. Istillcandream 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

South Korean dramatists and playwrights

Is it really necessary to list him under this category? He's hardly a notable playwright. Proserpine 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Secondgen 08:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Proserpine 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proserpine, of course he's a notable playwright! I can't believe you would say something like that! Haven't you noticed the controversy over his two plays, Mr. Brownstone and Richard McBeef? They are famous BECAUSE of the incident. WhisperToMe 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, those plays aren't Famous, they are Infamous. There's a difference. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, he became infamous for his mass murder, not his playwright. We find out later he wrote half-assed plays. That doesn't make him a notable playwright. Secondgen 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing a play for a class does not automatically make you a "playwright". WooHoo... I am a scientist, because once, I put baking soda and vinegar in a volcano shaped thing to show a chemical reaction... I do believe I'll add that little tidbit to my resume. --Ali'i 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be one thing if he was a killer who merely wrote plays on the side. But, the fact that he wrote plays that apparently revealed his mental condition and alerted teachers shows that he is notable for writing the plays, and therefore is a playwright. WhisperToMe 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 = "Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays "
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18155081/ = "Suspect’s writing ‘macabre, twisted’"
• These two sources = Cho is now known for his writing

WhisperToMe 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to beat the horse into more pulp, I can use a dictionary entry. "play·wright /ˈpleɪˌraɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pley-rahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun a writer of plays; dramatist." From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/playwright

If someone writes a play, he is automatically a playwright according to this dictionary definition. WhisperToMe 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you somehow think the horse is dead... You stated, "It would be one thing if he was a killer who merely wrote plays on the side." THAT'S exactly what happened! He is a killer who happened to write a couple of plays for a class. Despite what your little dicdef says, writing a few plays for class makes you as much a "playwright" as Neil Armstrong is an American photographer just because he happened to take a few pictures on the moon.

--Ali'i 16:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to beat it more, Ali'i. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 = "Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays" - Rather notable, isn't it? WhisperToMe 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If this guy is a "notable playwright", then Hitler is a "notable watercolour painter". Bueller 007 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to do this to you WhisperToMe, but sometimes a dead horse does need beating :)

  Main Entry: 1no·ta·ble  
  Pronunciation: 'nO-t&-b&l, for 2 also 'nä-
  Function: adjective
  1 a : worthy of note : REMARKABLE b : DISTINGUISHED, PROMINENT

  As you can see, he is not notable at all in the discussion of playwright. Secondgen 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is - He's notable because all of his teachers read it and said "Man, this guy needs mental help" - He is distinguished in the sense that his plays were found to be disturbing and representative of his personality. WhisperToMe 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous things I've ever seen, really. Come on. This is not the reason he's famous. One might call his "plays" notable, but he himself is not notable AS A PLAYWRIGHT. Bueller 007 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like an explanation on how someone's plays can be notable but someone cannot be notable as the author of the said plays. Is it because no professional play publisher (yet) published them? Is it because nobody tried to stage the plays? WhisperToMe 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's because nobody gives two craps about his plays. He's a mass murderer. He gains ABSOLUTELY NO FAME OR NOTABILITY WHATSOEVER for being the author of those plays, and had it not been for the mass murder itself, nobody would ever have known about them. Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now. He is infamous for being a murderer, he is not "notable" as being a playwright. Bueller 007 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing remarkable, distinguishing, prominent, and worthy of his play. He has not impacted society with his writing. Don't confuse a person's emotion to what actually happened. So I find the play to not be anywhere near morbid as what is readily available today. Even so, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, society has not distinguished him as a playwright. And they never will. Secondgen 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Society will find him as a screwed up person who created morbid plays from his "fertile" and crazy mind. But, enough about that.

Bueller 007, if "nobody gives two craps about his plays," then:

• Why did the Smoking Gun and AOL decide to publish them?
• Why did the students and teachers make those remarks describing them as disturbing?
• Why did the teachers try to seek help for Cho after reading them?

"There is nothing remarkable, distinguishing, prominent, and worthy of his play."

I think we are missing the point, folks. Secondgen, please read the plays and the media reports created about the plays. What distinguishes the plays:

• Incredibly juvenile language used by an English major
• Poor attempts at comic violence
• Recurring theme of rape by elder figure
• Reactions to the plays (Teachers seeking professional help)

WhisperToMe 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MORBID CURIOSITY. And it's YOU who's missing the point. The most important thing I said was "Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now." He is NOT notable as a playwright, and I'm done having this goddamn argument. Note that all of your arguments are arguing for the notability of the plays, not his notability as a playwright. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME. Bueller 007 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bueller 007, I refuse to give in; I refuse to follow fake "morality" and I refuse to accept your rationale. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting him into that category makes as much sense as putting George W. Bush into Category:Cheerleaders. I know he was a cheerleader, it's been written about at several places, the article states he was a cheerleader, but he really is not notable for being a cheerleader. - Bobet 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see the news articles about the role of the plays. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look he did lots of other stuff too, and he is not famous for any of it. He is famous only for murdering 33 people. The plays can be mentioned in the article, but only in the context of the murders. Without the murders, no one would give a darn about the plays, no matter how disturbing they are.70.21.231.66 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so simple -- he is not notable for his plays, hence he doesn't belong in that category. For him to be there you would have to ask "If he was not a mass murderer, would his plays be notable?", and the answer is, no. The Hitler example is perfect, he is not notable for his art even though it is mentioned many times, including here. 67.11.138.50 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whispertome, you fucking idiot. Cho seunghui is not a playwright in the first place. Writing a play as a class assignment doesn't make you a playwright. You can't go to Broadway and say, "I'm a playwright since I wrote this, accept me."

• I don't think he should be recorded as a "Notable Playwright". He wrote a few distrubing plays. And it's people of the "YouTube" generation, who are watching these fucked up plays that are giving this screwed up person the fame (And I use FAME, not INFAMEY) that he does not diserve. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Norfolk, I hate Cho with all of my heart and I wish he was captured so he would be held accountable for his actions. Anyway, though, on WP we are supposed to be cold blooded. We do not use "tragedy" and "tragic" - We do not go into memorial mode... WhisperToMe 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hardly the point I'm making. He was never FAMOUS for being a Notable Playwright, and I honestly doubt he will ever be recorded as such. He is however, INFAMOUS, for killing all those people. However, if he ever does become a Notable playwright, does he earn that status after just 4 days of his plays being known internationally? I'm sure Shakespeare wasn't known as such so quickly. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External links?

I see there's now an external link to a url called "www.cho-sueng-hui.info" - is this appropriate?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.219.227.6 (talk • contribs).

I've deleted the inappropriate site. The third picture is absolutely NOT Cho. Look at the shape of jawbone. It's different from other pictures. Who commits a blunder! I don't know who is in the picture(third), but it is the infringement of his privacy and right. --2SteamClocks 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I previously removed it twice. Can we find out who's repeatedly adding this spam and give them the appropriate warning? THF 11:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's always the spam blacklist, which will keep it from being added no matter who does it. Natalie 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Loner

The dude sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.

I see putting his description here as merely a "loner" problematic. I mean, was he (a) a loner by choice, or (b) a loner only because he didn't have any social skills and felt left out? Not all loners are socially inept, you see. Conversely, people who appear to be socially active may not even have well adjusted social skills or are awfully awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is Wikipedia, not a chat room. Take up the "loner" description with the media; the claim is reliably sourced.THF 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this is Wikipedia, not something where just anyone should be able to pick up statements, sourced reliably or not, and draw judgments on that. Leave that to the media (and the social commentators who analyze after them).

He was a person with a serious mental illness that needed psychiatric help, not psychological help. And this fact was ignored by university authorities and the little help he received he received it too late. That's it. Hey, John Forbes Nash was a crazy loner and he won a Nobel prize, so that does not make anyone evil, but he had people around him who helped him and tried to understand him. But I agree this is social commentary that does not belong in Wikipedia. 66.201.172.192

Well, in the case of not being able to classify "loner", this webpage should state "he was described as a 'loner'" rather than "he was a loner" JayKeaton 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, "Loner" is often indicative of schizoid traits whereas "Shy" is more someone who is afraid of embarrassment, both types are by themselves most of the time, but for different reasons. The loner does not feel that he needs people and lacks insight into the lack of social skills, the shy one may have social skills but is so afraid of saying or doing the wrong thing that s/he avoids people, but wishes that s/he could be with people.

"He was a person with a serious mental illness that needed psychiatric help" probably true, but he may have been more criminal than psychiatric, he may have been making a conscious decision to express his anger and impotence by these actions. There is no evidence (so far) that he was, in any way, out of touch with reality. Rusty MD

Excluding the imaginary girlfriend, you mean. Bueller 007 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point...Though we're still not 100% sure that he thought he actually had a girlfriend. WillSWC 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with saying "he was described as a 'loner'" and loner isn't always indicative of schizoid traits.User:jmrepetto

Not only he had an imaginary girlfriend. Some people said he was looking for her and even peeked inside a few classrooms to look for her while shooting.66.201.172.192

I think the relevance lies in the fact that people that knew him personally are referring to Mr. Cho as "loner," and what that means to them, subjectively. Readers may draw their own conclusions as to the meaning, perhaps after reviewing other psychological or sociological articles on the topic of "loner." pointlessforest 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooter spent time in mental hospital in 2005 - accused of stalking

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.

Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.

He said the woman declined to press charges and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. During one of those incidents, both in late 2005, the department received a call from Cho’s parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal, and he was taken to a mental health facility, he said

--Jake7457 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

yes these incidents are relevant and should be incorporated. I suggest a new sub-section called "Criminal history" or something under "Behaviour" or "Biography". --Kvasir 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

CAVEAT: The term, "mental health facility" is very broad, and includes emergency and non-emergency intervention and assessment services, outatient therapy and clinical offices, community-based residential or day programs as well as acute pyschiatriac care, correctional and forensic hospitals. We should verify the precise nature of the services provided (or offered) ASAP, so that our readers are not mislead; many assume facility = hospital. If he was seen once or twice on an outpatient basis, that cannot be characterized as "hospitalized," and if he was merely "assessed," he was not "treated." Strive for precision, that's my motto. pointlessforest 20:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Naming" section

Since I posted a message on the original author's discussion page, which I proceeded to ignore, I will broach the topic here

AFAIC, there's no justifiable reason for this article to have a "naming" section. Wikipedia has a Korean name template for this very purpose.

{{Korean name|[[Cho (Korean name)|Cho]]}}

gives you:

This is a Korean name; the family name is Cho, and, unlike Western family names, comes first when pronouncing full names.

We don't need a whole paragraph talking about possible variations on a name. It adds nothing to this article. Delete it. Bueller 007 16:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is credited, but this kid grew up in America from age 8 on. Do we have a source that confirms that he indeed went by his last name, Cho, instead of his first name Seung-Hui? We have to remember that this guy is way more of a product of America than he is of South Korea. I think its severely misleading to write his name as Cho Seung-hui, this only perpetuates the idea that Seung-Hui is a foreigner and that his actions stem from non-American influences. In fact if you look at the plays he wrote, you'll notice that he himself prefers to go by Seung Cho. Moreover, naming him by his last name first contradicts previous wiki articles. Refer to "gang lu" for example, in that case Lu is the surname, but is listed after his first name, Gang.

Wikipedia's Korean name template is for KOREANS not Korean Americans. The vast vast majority of Asian-Americans in the US list their first names first, proceeded by their last name. This is a HUGE issue guys, the media has already played up the xenophobic, foreign, outsider image to the max, I don't think wiki should follow in that direction.

Behavior

People keep removing the fact that he enjoyed taking photos of female students from under their desks. I think this is a very telling aspect of his personality.Block1of4 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

True, this aspect is only the beginning leaning towards his behavior. The stories/papers he wrote, very well describe his Behavior. Nothing has been released about the information on his laptop either, for all we know his "Behavior" could be written like a book inside of his laptop. I believe that the laptop will describe him more than anything, this is my opinion of course. Keihiro 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's very relevant. I won't remove it, though. I did take out the "enjoyed" part, because that's just conjecture. --Elliskev 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I that Block1of4 has reinserted the "enjoyed" language. I will revert once and no more. Please provide a source that he "enjoyed" taking pictures. --Elliskev 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Section 5

Section 5 seems to be about the massacre, not about Cho. There's a section of the same name with virtually identitcal material in it on the main page. I really think it's not needed here. Ikilled007 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - that section is not about him. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Which arm?

It would be quite useful if someone knows which arm he wrote Ismail Ax on. Then we could determine further whether or not it is religious. I don't know, but is there a religion which strongly enforced which hand is better?

If you don't understand what I mean, here is an example.

People in the past always thought left was bad. So if you were left handed, they would try to "convert" you to be right handed.

I heard this from my history teacher (secondary school teacher)

Nubbles 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to "determine" anything - according to the article as written, this was his XBOX Live Gamertag. It could be a boast to his friends for all we know. If an outside source states it was on the left/right arm for religious reasons, then it could be included. Until then, no action required. SupaDane 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It could also be to make sure that everyone knew that he sent the package to NBC, as he has the sender name as such.209.43.114.77 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, did it occur to anyone that the word 'mail' is in that name? Johan de Ruiter

Relevance of Attributed Writings

It seems like having a different section for each of the different writings that have been discussed so far in the media is unnecessary. I think to have a section about Attributed Writings does little more than suggest that this man was some kind of tortured artist, when the reality is that he was completely lacking talent in the area (as mentioned in the article). Also, these plays were written as assigned work for a class. Further, it is contradictory to have an entire section about his writing, only to include a comment by his teacher calling them "adolescent and silly". In my opinion, it would do more than enough to say that he wrote violent and disturbing things -- this could be included under the Behavior section. Bentobias 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to weigh in on this, or should I just edit as I see fit?Bentobias 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit as you see fit. It's good as it stands. We all have "attributed writings" and his are revealing. ~ Rollo44 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His writings are relevant to why he did the massacre. Christopher Connor 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Was Cho a Muslim? Ismail a very prominent name in the Koran. He's a prophet and the son of Ibrahim (Abraham in the bible). Seems like people are walking on eggshells to avoid using the word 'Muslim' anywhere on this page.

I heard he's a Christian.

He's not a Muslim. CNN interviewed his former pastor briefly last night.24.141.134.77 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, he had expressed some complaints against Christianity in one of his notes. 129.7.131.198 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)gnoko

Even so, there is nothing to indicate that he was a Muslim. However, there is strong evidence that, at some point in his life, he was a Christian. I don't think his religious views are particularly relevant though.24.141.134.77 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in light of the recently released monologues, I would say that his religious beliefs are central. Also, I believe one of the released photos has him in a Jesus Christ Pose, although drawing that conclusion in the article would probably be considered OR. (Note that I don't think he himself was referencing Soundgarden. I just thought the context was pretty ironic, and hyperlinking is what the cool kids do.) :) -Etafly 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh you don't have to be Muslim to be referencing a figure in Islam. Many people tattoo Chinese characters, many of them don't even know how to say those words. --Kvasir 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Cho was motivated by and even quotes Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 in his manifesto. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18186064/ His writings certainly seem to indicate he is a muslim. He also says "Now that you have gone a hummer safari on me like fucking Bush".

• Quoting Osama Bin Laden would hardly make one a Muslim. He repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ, never once referring to Allah. As Malamockq says below, it's leaning towards Christianity. I hardly see why you're insisting that he's Muslim, unless you're trying to put forth the argument that his suicide attack defaults him as a Muslim. Also, your link is dead. -Etafly 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in his mailed material shown on MSNBC's website to indicate he is Muslim. To the contrary, he seems to compare society, and his emotional suffering due to it, as a terrorism like that perpetrated by Osama. He actually says "Now you have gone on a 9/11 like BLANKED Osama". I know there are many in the extreme blogging media that would love to paint as Islamic angle to this, but there simply is no evidence of it. In fact, everything points to a confused young man who had a distaste for religion in general. Padishah5000 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He comes from a christian family. In his video, he compared himself to Jesus Christ. Malamockq 05:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely no indication that Cho is a Muslim, he most likely mispelled "Ishmael", and used the arabic pronunciation "Ismail" on his arm. I read that he made a lot of typos in some of the assignments that he wrote, also he used the Christian version spelling Ishmael in the package he sent to NBC. He was most likely raised as a Christian, considering he made references to Jesus, and compared himself to him, also from reading what he wrote on that link he did not indicate he supported 9/11 or Osama bin Laden, he mentioned many figures that had been in the news recently, such as George Bush, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Ill , John Mark Carr (the man who claimed to have killed Jon Benet Ramsey), and La Fave (the teacher who is convicted of having sex with her student). He states that everyone "has gone 9/11 on his life like fucking ( please pardon the profanity, I assumed that is the word he used) Osama," this obviously shows he is not a supporter of Osama bin Laden, he obviously just wants the same level of attention the Osama bin Laden, and the many other people he mentioned. So far there has been no reports of him being tied to Islam, or any Islamic materials in his possession and him referring to Islam in any of his writings or videos, so to make that kind of speculation of him being a Muslim is ridiculous. I think people making that speculation has some bias against Muslims because they just assume only a Muslim is capable of doing suicidal acts of violence, there has been only few instances where Converts to Islam have been involved in violent and suicidal acts, and they represent only a tiny minority of Muslim Converts, most Muslim Converts convert to Islam for peaceful purposes. I think we should drop the subject of his religion because clearly no religion caused him to commit this atrocious act, he was just an insane and deeply troubled man.Wraith12 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

==> You edits and guesses of Cho's redacted words are assumptions, and not supports.

It really says a lot about right-wing bloggers' level of education that they think the only meaning of "Ishmael" is Muslim-related. Hasn't anyone read Moby Dick? "Ishmael" is also the name of the main character in James Fenimore Cooper's "The Prairie". Being that Cho was an English major, he was likely acquainted with at least one of these works, and could have imagined himself as an iconoclastic and misunderstood hero.

Category:Korean Americans |

He was from South Korea, and he was a legal resident in Virginia, but is it correct to call him a Korean-American? I didn't remove it. Someone else can do it. I am not sure. --Kalmia 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

we had this talk yesterday and today (look in the archive). refer to [[12]] to see that the tag 'American' does not mean citizen of America. Also see [[13]] to note that the category includes those who immigrated from Korea. Harlock jds 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's misleading, not correct. The word Korean-American refers to American citizens, not inhabitants, whether or not "American" in isolation can possibly mean "inhabitant". And he wasn't an "immigrant", he was an alien resident. There's already a category of "Korean immigrants to the United States" applied to him, and so "Korean American" according to your (wrong) interpretation would be identical. So I've removed it. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yes he was a immagrent he had a green card and was a perm resident. also see (see [[14]] for another example of 'American' having nothing to do with citizenship. (unsigned)

Fine, we'll just stick disputed on it then. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to add Asian American since that definition (and article) makes it clear that it includes non citizens (BTW if Korean American did refer to citizenship the category shouldn't exist because someone can not really be a citizen of both countries since Korea doesn't recognize dual citizenship, nor should Japanese American and many others)Harlock jds 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The second word indicates *nationality* and the first word indicates *ethnicity*. He was not an American national. He was not an American. Bueller 007 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that's personal opinion... the consciences seems to be (on wikipedia at least) that Asian American includes non citizens (as does the word 'American') please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian-American and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/American Harlock jds 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to be looking for here? The first page says "A Korean American is an American of Korean descent." The second says "A person or attribute of the United States of America." We have no proof that Cho ever thought of himself as an American, we have no proof that he is accepted as a "Korean American" by the Korean-American community at large. I've not seen a single major media outlet call him a "Korean American". But that's irrelevant, because calling him an "American" goes against the common dictionary definitions.

Mirriam Webster: "a citizen of the United States"

Oxford: "a native or citizen of the United States" Bueller 007 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition " A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent"

Follow the link to Amerasian and see "Asian American is typically used of a person whose parents are both ethnic Asians but who by birth or naturalization is an American citizen" Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change how they define Asian AmericanHarlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

YES, IT DOES. That's why they have a "See Amerasian for usage" link on the Asian American page. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Public Health ""Asian American" is a general term for Asians and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) living in the United States."

No. This would include illegal immigrants and persons on short-stay visas. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yes it would... your point (short stay is debatable since live usually means permently resides but i'd include illegals)?Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the definition is ridiculous and obviously far too broad in scope because it includes people who are clearly not Americans: illegal immigrants, and people who are permitted to live there for no more than a couple of years. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

since other sources seem to disagree about the subject i think we have to stick with wikipedia's definitions (since this is wikipedia and all) which clearly takes citizenship out of the category. Once those are changed then we can remove it from here but until then he fits. However i'll let someone else add it, if i'm in the minority here then i'll go with the crowd. Harlock jds 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, and second, as far as I know, there has not been A SINGLE REFERENCE to him in the mass media as a "Korean American" or "Asian American". I shouldn't be the one to have to prove your claims wrong, you should be the one to prove yourself right. Please find at least two independent mainstream media references that refer to him as "American". A dictionary that actually supports what you claim wouldn't hurt either. Finally, if this thread is any indication, it would appear that you have already lost the public-opinion battle for defining him as an American. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't consider 2 people disagreeing as 'lost the public-opinion battle'. as for citation I'm pretty sure that categorization don't need cites (and i don't care what the media calls him they have to pander to people like yourself who get upset when perment residents are considered Americans)Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"2 people disagreeing" is not what I was referring to. I estimated that most of the people who have been posting on the talk page about this topic have been AGAINST the use of the term "American". Hence "public opinion". And you may not *HAVE TO* cite a categorization, but you should certainly be able to prove its relevance/appropriateness. If one wants to label him a "Korean-American" there should be at least a SHRED of evidence that the term is in fact appropriate, and this label has been used before, either by him, his family, the Korean-American community or the American community at large. You have shown none of these. (BTW, I love how you use suggest that the media would need to "pander to me" without you even knowing me, my convictions or my motivations.) Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't reference internal wikipidia sites for evidence. From the Oxford American dictionary definition of Asian American: "an American who is of Asian (chiefly Far Eastern) descent." That's it. Period. It seems basic, but some people don't get it. You have to be an American to be an Asian American. Penser 04:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)penser It is not important to have him in either Asian or Korean categories. This may be true but it is not relevant information. 75.3.2.207 04:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. He wasn't a citizen and therefore was not American, therefore was not Korean-American, Asian-American, Homicidal-American or any other derivation thereof. It seems awful simple to me but many others are trying to jam a round peg into a square hole and call him American based on some vague concept of cultural assimilation, the criteria for which apparently established by themselves. The facts, however, indicate that he was a Korean citizen with U.S. Permanent Residency. A Green Card and residency does not make one an American. But we've been all through this yesterday and some folks belive that an immigrant doesn't need to go through the trouble of becoming a naturalized citizen to be an American. I guess they feel they are able to confer that distinction on whoever can walk, talk and play the part well enough. 202.128.1.120 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Seung Cho is a Korean-American. Korean American is a term for an ethnic minority, regardless of citizenship. --Chris 05:49, 19 April 2007 PS: And why in the world are we relying on a dictionary for a question about ethnicity? From an anthropological standpoint, he would fit every criterion to be a Korean American.

With the one minor exception of him not being American. American is NOT an ethnicity, it's a NATIONALITY and one gains nationality by being a citizen of a particular country. Cho was not a United States citizen and not an American or a Korean-American. Korean-American is NOT "a term for an ethnic minority" it's a term for a United States citizen with Korean heritage. "Korean" is an ethnic term, "American" is not (unless dealing with Native Americans). 202.128.1.120 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misinformed on what an ethnic group is and confusing it with race. Please read the article or an anthropology textbook. If there is such a thing as "American culture" then, because there is a community based around that culture, there is an etnic group. But the issue is Korean-American. And no one gains Korean-American nationality. It's an ethnic term. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings on your part. Thank you. --Chris 06:23, 19 April 2007

I’ve read plenty of anthropology books in college and there is no misunderstanding on my part. You are confusing ethnic group with nationality. He is not an American, culturally or otherwise and your insistence to the contrary is what is causing undue misunderstanding. 202.128.1.120 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The person to whom you are responding is correct in every way. How can you say "he is not an American, culturally or otherwise"? What about him isn't American, or more specifically Korean American? Who gets to define who is "culturally" American? Can someone live in the U.S. from the age of 8 to 23 without cessation, during the years in which one absorbs a culture, attending public schools, and not be culturally American? Does "culturally American" look only one specific way? On what are you basing your assertions? All of your "arguments" are of the "It's true because I say so" variety, without any nuance or examples to back up your claims. Moncrief 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You’ve just basically summed up my argument for me. My original point was that the whole cultural assimilation criteria are pointless to use because no one can universally define it and it is too subjective. What I call fully Americanized might not be remotely Americanized to someone else. Therefore the only definite measure that is indisputable should be citizenship. My wife is a naturalized American, and after 10 years of being a Green Card holder, she decided herself to fill out and submit a bunch of the paperwork, study like crazy, meet the necessary requirements, pay the fees, take the test, pass the test, stand before a United States Federal District Judge and swear an oath before God that she renounces her loyalty to her home country and swears allegiance to the United States of America. SHE is an American. But every day before she took that oath she was NOT an American even if she may have happened to meet your personal requirements to be called such. There is a way for immigrants to become Americans if they choose. Cho decided not to although he could have. He is NOT an American because he’s met your personal criteria for having hung around the country long enough and speaking enough English. 202.128.1.120 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I understand your concept of "Cultural Nuance" but an encyclopedia is no place for "maybes," "could be’s," or "some people might see it this way." It's a place for facts and the fact is, without nuance, Cho was not American. And it's not that way because I say so, the law says so, and a Federal District Court Judge has the say so, not you. You are the one trying to claim he is American because YOU say so, because he's met your requirements to be called an American and in YOUR nuanced reasoning he is. I say, the law should decide who is an American, and Naturalization law is quite clear. It's not my rules I'm using but Uncle Sam's rules.

Speaking of anthopology, can someone please unearth a similar discussion section out of the Archive? I have a major case of deja vu here. --Kvasir 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The continuing removal of this category is unfortunate. I thought this had already been resolved. Cho was a permanent, legal resident of the United States, who had lived here since he was eight years old without cessation. He was raised in this country, went to schools here, spoke English with an American accent, and attended university here. As a permanent, legal resident he was afforded all the rights U.S. citizens are, with the exception of voting. Whether or not he was a U.S. citizen is a straw man: as I've pointed out before, in the last discussion of this, a Korean person born in the U.S. while his parents are on vacation but who leaves the country as an infant, never to return, is a U.S. citizen by virtue of having been born in the country. In that case such a person would be a Korean American without objection? (No one has yet addressed this example.) Someone of Korean heritage who is raised in the U.S. and lives in the U.S. as an adult is a Korean American in every sense of the word. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate a misunderstanding both of American history and of immigration to the United States, particularly when it includes being raised in the U.S. Moncrief 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. He absolutely *DID NOT* have all the rights afforded to an American citizen. "Permanent legal resident" status can be revoked if one commits a crime, for example. That can mean DEPORTATION TO ONE'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Were he to return to SK during his mandatory military service years, he would be drafted into the armed forces, and the American government would have no right to complain or intervene on his behalf. He carried a Korean passport, representing himself as a Korean all over the world. In the eyes of any foreign nation, he would be a Korean, subject to visa restrictions that apply to Koreans, not Americans.

BTW, a child born in America in the fashion you suggest would ABSOLUTELY be an American, unless he chose to renounce his citizenship. (Koreans are not permitted to hold dual citizenship, and are forced to renounce one of their citizenships by the age of 21). Bueller 007 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is a real impasse, and we'll have to get outside arbitrators to settle it. Those of you who see "American" in the case of a phrase like "Korean American" as meaning "U.S. citizen" do not seem to understand that such a phrase is a cultural, nuanced term. That you'd believe that a 20-year-old kid who was born in the U.S. but had lived from the age of one month in Korea never to leave, not speaking any English and without any of the cultural influences an American raised in the U.S. has is a Korean American while someone raised in the U.S. who we have no reason to believe has even been back to Korea since the age of 8 is not a Korean American shows that there really isn't too much point in continuing dialogue. You have a radically different sense of the what such a term means, which is not the way most people understand such a term. I'll put this on Requests for Comment/Arbitration when I get a chance. Moncrief 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the absolute dearth of labelling Cho "Korean American" within the media--and even within the realm of lay conversation from what I can tell--I would hardly say that I am in the minority in my viewpoint. Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that? See [15] (Reuters). Here's an example of an article using "Korean American" to describe those who, like Cho's parents, emigrated as adults: [16] (S.F. Chronicle). You can do a Google News search on "Cho" and "Korean American" and see just how many articles come up: too many to go through now for me. Moncrief 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure of that. 1) You're looking at an old copy of the Reuters story. It has since been updated and the Korean-American reference has been removed.[17] You'll also note that in newer articles, such as this one [18] they refer to him as "a student from Korea". 2) The other article you provided does not once call him "Korean-American." It calls him a "Korean immigrant". Also, it never refers to "people like his parents" as "Korean-American". It merely uses the word without defining it or giving an example. Given their choice of words in referring to Cho as a "Korean immigrant" it seems likely that "Korean-American" means "a Korean with American citizenship". Don't post articles you haven't actually bothered to read. You'll find the VAST majority of hits you're turning up with Google do not label him as "Korean American", they just merely use the two terms together in one article (i.e., the reaction of the "Korean-American" community in response to the killings by the Korean immigrant). Bueller 007 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the San Francisco Chronicle article is: "But local Korean American parents are talking about how they can overcome linguistic, cultural and generational barriers to communicate with their children." Do you think that every Korean American parent covered by that sentence is a U.S. citizen? Do you think "U.S. citizen" was the working definition of "Korean American" for the journalist who wrote that sentence? Are the Korean Americans mentioned in all of the articles that mention Korean Americans U.S. citizens? Is citizenship a prerequisite for joining a group comprised of Korean Americans? Do Korean Americans themselves use citizenship as a prerequisite for owning and using that phrase? You seem to be pretty certain of how that phrase is used without offering up any evidence. Moncrief 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that quote makes no claims whatsoever as to what a Korean American is or isn't. It certainly does not call the killer that. It calls him a "Korean immigrant", which appears to be used to deliberately contrast the killer with "Korean Americans". Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here are two more mainstream media references for you: [19] and [20] Moncrief 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's one from ABC. "Hamptonroads" is hardly a mainstream source. Besides, this issue has already been settled down below. There is a "Korean immigrants to the United States" category that would seem to apply to people just like Cho. Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamptonroads.com is most certainly a mainstream source! LOL! It's the website of one of the largest newspapers in Virginia. What isn't mainstream about it? And I love that you discounted the article below from a major South Korean news agency just because it wasn't "American" (as if sources on Wikipedia need to all originate in the U.S. to be worthwhile). OK then, there's your two. I'll look for more later and put them in the RfC section below. You didn't "refute" any of these. Tell us why hamptonroads.com isn't mainstream, please. Moncrief 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only an impasse until you give it up. Please don't re-add disputed categories. - Nunh-huh 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your solution? Those who disagree with a Wikipedia edit are supposed to "give it up"? I'm speechless. Moncrief 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, those who continue to try to add categories that they acknowledge are, at the least, ambiguous, and that they have been informed are misleading, should stop doing so until they have acheived a consensus that favors their addition. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• One who inhabits the USA as a legal resident for the most of his years is an American. Citizenship does not define an American. It is an attribute. The government's job is to protect the American people. Not Americans and its immigrants. Many immigrants are in the military. They are Americans. Simple, if you live and pay taxes in America, YOU ARE AN AMERICAN. Thank you, have a nice day. Secondgen 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Seung-hui, his sister, his father, and his mother are Americans. You say they are Korean citizens, yet they do not abide under the Korean laws. They have abandoned South Korea, their status is left to collect dust in that country. A citizenship status DOES NOT FOLLOW YOU BEYOND ITS BORDERS WHEN SEEKING ANOTHER RESIDENCY. It just means what rights you have when you stay there. They abide under the American laws and support the government through taxes, and providing human labor. They provide nothing for Korea. Thank you, have a nice day.Secondgen 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've lived most of my adult life abroad, and I certainly would never consider myself to be anything but the nationality I was born into and the passport I am required to carry. Your citizenship certainly DOES follow you beyond borders. No matter where he travels on earth, he has to use a KOREAN PASSPORT. That's the very definition of "citizenship beyond borders". And despite all his time in America, the Korean government certainly didn't consider him to be "American", as the second he set foot on Korean soil he would have been drafted into the military, and he would have absolutely no recourse through an American embassy. Just because they have "abandoned their country" doesn't make them any less Koreans or any more Americans in the eyes of the law. Besides, given the fact that they were supposedly poor in their home country, it doesn't seem unlikely that you are wrong in your claim of contributing nothing to Korea. Many Asians move to America and send money back home to their families. I imagine for tight-knit Confucian Koreans, this trend is somewhat strong.

This issue of opinion clearly isn't going to be resolved, which is why he has been added to the "Korean Immigrants to the United States" category. That his is an immigrant is undeniable fact. It's about time that you settle. Bueller 007 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's of no concern to me what category YOU place him in. He is an American who is also an immigrant. The two coincides. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders. You are who you pay homage to. End of discussion.Secondgen 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Stunning logic. Of course, you ignore the fact that he's not an American, and "the rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I'll let that slide. End of discussion indeed. Bueller 007 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to others. When you enter a new country, you obtain new rights. Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights. Thank you, have a nice day. I will forever not look at this section again. I promise. Secondgen 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you'll never look at this section again. "Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights that one leaves behind at the border" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Bueller 007 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcript of video

Does anyone have a transcript of the video he sent to NBC News? 209.244.43.215 01:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Myspace Page

The private Myspace page indicated as being that of Cho Seung-hui's in the "External Links" section of the article is not in fact his at all. Use of a code from www.joyboner.com reveals that the signup date of the owner of the page is 4/17/07. This link should be removed from the article.

Behavior and mental health section...

I carefully read thru the mental health form.[21]

A police officer cannot declare someone mentally ill. What they can do (generally speaking) is-- detain someone (so that they get assessed by a mental health professional) if they:

1. suspect that they may have a mental illness and
2. either will harm themself or others.

Some jurisdictions have a few other criteria.

Both CNN and ABC got the details wrong. It seems obvious to me (based on the comments about mood and affect) that the psychiatrist was under the impression the man was depressed. There were no indications he was going to harm someone else (based on the assessment). The psychiatrist didn't think he need to be held involuntarily at that time (i.e. he wasn't a risk to himself or to others based on that assessment)-- and could be sent for out-patient care. Nephron  T|C 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Cho was involuntarily detained because he was believed to be suicidal. The conclusion by the psychiatrist was that he posed an imminent danger to himself but not to others, and that this condition was to be treated with outpatient therapy. Look at the findings and conditions on page 6. The document only pertains to Cho being admitted for psychiatric care. It does not contain assessments for his time while committed or anything concerning his discharge. Presumably he would not have been discharged until he was found to no longer represent a threat to himself. No homicidal tendencies were noted at the time of his admittance. 71.205.216.122 04:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho (include possible-homoeroticism suitemate Andy describes in video interview)

Andy says in the NBC interview that he was "weirded out" by the appearance of Cho taking photos in his doorway late at night. Possibly Andy was partially unclothed at the time. Andy also speculates that he did not know what else Cho might be doing there at that time of night besides the photos, implying that it might be other prurient activity. I believe that this adds up to possible-homoeroticism, implied by Andy. If true, the homoeroticism could be a potentially important personality trait of Cho's that should be mentioned. uriel8  (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's only an interpretation of what the source says. If no source says it directly, neither should we.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy is talking about male-male prurient activity. The word for that is homoeroticism or at the very least possible-homoeroticism.  uriel8  (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, especially since his "homoeroticism" hasn't been brought up in the media. You can bring it up on the talk page if you wish, but I don't think we should draw that interpretation from that source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The above was a conversation on my talk page, which Uriel8 placed here. The context was that I removed a line he'd added saying "Andy" described "two possibly-homoerotic stalking incidents". I don't think this is a fair interpretation of the source, Andy says nothing about the incidents being homoerotic. Others may disagree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Drawing such a conclusion is both OR and POV. Good work. -Etafly 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After watching Cho's manifesto, I felt that the "you" at his note and videoclip is he himself. "You" in him seemms to constantly incite him and molest him, like a bug in his head or something. See this video, Eavesdropping device is in my ears.. One person intruded in the live news studio, saying "Eavesdropping device is in my ears. I've met into many other cases of this kind. Some person said that evil being had planted a brainwave receiver in his brain and was controlling him.--Queenmillennia 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hui

What exactly is the "hui" part in Cho Seung-hui? In the news reports, where they show the graphic play scripts, on the front is "Cho Seung" with no Hui. Can someone explain this to me? Wikipedian64 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• His full Korean name is Cho Seung-hui. It seems that he used the abbreviated form Seung Cho when writing in English. It is not clear whether he used the abbreviated form outside his writing. WikiFlier 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seung-hui is the full name, acually the use of '-' in the middle is sometimes disputed...you wouln't see Sa-Rah or Jo-Seph (instead of Sarah or Joseph). However the way Seung was used instead of Seung-hui is kind of like some people with name Thomas using Tom or Stephen using Steve. Luckyj 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Seung-hui is his full given name but they represent two characters. As such, it makes sense to seperate them. Personally I think without dash is best (Seung Hui) but people use dash for a variety of reasons including personal preference or some cases simply to prevent being called Seung Cho by programs (and people) that are unable to understand your given name (first name) is Seung Hui not Seung. You can't really compare using Seung-hui to using Sa-Rah since Chinese and Korean names are different. Also, in terms of him calling himself Seung Cho, people with traditional Chinese or Korean names are more likely to call themselves Hui Cho because the Seung part may be a generational name shared by siblings and cousins. However if it's not a generational name (or it is but there are no same-sex siblings and limited associated with cousins), there's no real reason or difference between him calling himself Hui Cho and Seung Cho. Seung Cho is perhaps the more likely choice because it may sound nicer Nil Einne 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright on the materials Cho sent to NBC?

I'm curious what permissions (if any) would be needed to include the various materials in the packet Cho sent to NBC before the final stage of his murder/suicide. Some might be suitable for inclusion on Wikisource or Commons, even if not here. They weren't works-for-hire (obviously), so it is unlikely that NBC itself owns the copyright. Since Cho made the videos/wrote the text/took the pictures himself, presumably he would be the copyright holder, but he's dead. Who owns the copyrights on the material now? His family? Or if he dies intestate, does it revert to the public domain? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho owns it. Well, owned it, given he's dead. His family owns the copyrights on them, in theory, assuming he has any family. If not, then whoever he willed it to owns it. And if not that... then I think it defaults to the public domain. All of this, of course, assumes he didn't release it to the public domain which he may well have. In any event, it seems that NBC feels free to air them, and they certainly -don't- own the copyrights on them, so I think it may have been public domain'd. Titanium Dragon 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading something about a written work becomes pubilc domain 50 years after the person is deceased and no one else (estate or otherwise) is claiming that right. Something along those lines. --Kvasir 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if no one claims the rights, it reverts to public domain 75 years (in the US) after the copyright creator dies. It is very stupid (I personally think it should be more like 5-10 years post death) but whatever. I have the feeling his family won't claim the rights to these videos though, but we don't know that yet. It is also possible he released them to the public domain. Titanium Dragon 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

{Crosspost). It's more like 75 years after the author's death; in the meantime, copyright goes to his estate, which would probably be his parents and/or sister. However, isolated quotes amounts to fair use. I'm not sure if that's the case for publication of whole writings, such as the two plays that are out there on the net. That would seem to be copyright violation to me, but whether his family will go after violators or not is another question. --Yksin 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His parents and sister may claim the rights to prevent them from being published (or sell them if they happen to be really twisted). --Kvasir 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think they have to actively release the material into the public domain - i.e. the estate holding copyright is the default position. Natalie 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to this part of law yet, but I also think when laws have been violated like this, Cho and his family lose their rights to copyrighted material (at least that material relevant to the crime committed). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as this material was directly related to a criminal act, there's part of the "you-can't-profit-from-a-crime" precedent to be invoked here... 67.166.42.205 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)becir

I was under the impression laws limiting people's ability to profit indirectly from a crime were virtually non existant in the US because they were usually rejected on freedom of speech grounds Nil Einne 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What actually often happens is that the crime victims or families sue and then gain that copyright (or any money from any endeavor related to the crime). That could likely happen here.--Gloriamarie 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those "you can't profit from your crime" laws don't cover copyright, since there's no inherent profit involved in owning copyright. Those are meant to keep a famous criminal from writing a book or selling their story to a filmmaker (ala Paul Bernadino and Kathleen Homolka) and actually making cash money from it. Copyright law involves many things other than financial profit or loss, so it isn't a part of those laws. Natalie 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright for the stuff Cho sent to NBC? Does NBC own it, or does Cho? Either way, would the images fall under fair use?

• Technically, Cho held the copyright (now his estate), but by sending it to NBC, he implicitly agreed to its dissemination by NBC and beyond. WikiFlier 03:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a few hours ago, but now it's gone. His estate (probably his parents) holds copyright. Natalie 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

When, if ever, will NBC or Cho's parents authorize the release of the manifesto's full text? That document is the single most important insight into what his motivations were and should be made public.

Unsourced photo

The photo has been re-cropped to remove the second person, but it still is not sourced. The newly cropped image has also had the name tag removed from view, the original name displayed as Hui. It appears to me that someone found a picture of an Asian soldier and decided to post it... I recommend immediate delete. Pissedpat 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about an immediate delete, since it might actually be genuine. But it should at least be removed from the main article until that can be confirmed. --Sleepvivid 03:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Shouldn't this be [ʨo sɯŋ.hi] (or is it [ʨo sɯŋ.hɯi])? Are we going for the actual Korean pronunciation or the American media pronunciation? cab 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Add both, please :) WhisperToMe 03:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Currently it says dʒoʊ sʌŋ'hi for English. Shouldn't it be ʧ and not dʒ? --66.41.102.194 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased Quotes pertaining to Christianity and Hedonism

From the Quotes section: "railed against people of wealth, as well as Christianity and Hedonism"

This is uninformed/biased as far as the released text is concerned.
Citing the version of the text posted here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/?GT1=9246
Under the "A Killer Speaks" sidebar.

The part about "people of wealth" is correct.
However, the inclusion of rallying against Christianity and Hedonism is incorrect.

The only mentions of Christianity in the provided text are:
- "Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
- "Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement?"
Neither of these rally against Christianity. They are both using the figure of Jesus as an example of a martyr.

The only mention of Hedonism in the provided text is:
- "Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs."
- "Those" refers to "everything you wanted" and "your Mercedes, golden necklaces, trust fund, vodka, Cognac, and debaucheries" -- as listed in the containing paragraph.
- Assuming the "you" refers to "rich kids."
This statement does not appear to rally against Hedonism. It appears to merely use it as an adjective, and seems well placed. The text alludes to Hedonism, but is not against it, but against certain people Cho perceives as hedonistic. Any change to this should also be reflected in other articles that have directly quoted this or the MSNBC anchor (name forgotten, video on MSNBC's website) who originally said the line.

Jokeyxero 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Of Course Conservapedia cites his hatred of Christianity, and they don't even have the Jesus quote to back it up. Their reasoning: What else would an evil man rail against?70.21.231.66 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point being that we should be careful. The last thing we want to do is jump to wild conclusions and certain other wikis have done.—70.21.231.66 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that was constructive. Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to quote him verbatim. But I think the reason there was this mention about him railing against Christianity was from him saying something along the lines of "Jesus induced cancer in my head" or something. Still yeah, I don't see it as something against Christianity. Secondgen 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More related quotes:
Citing from here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18186064/

He does seem to harbor anger toward:
- Osama bin Laden for 9/11
- Kim Jong-Il possibly for mistreatment of North Korean peoples
- George W. Bush for "a hummer safari" (??)
- John Mark Karrs[sic] possibly for percieved child molestation and possibly using "Karrs" to include all child molesters
- Debra LaFaves[sic] possibly for child molestation and possibly using "LaFaves" to include all child molesters
[Speculation] The inclusion of both Karr and LaFave suggests a generalized, gender-neutral, hatred toward child molesters, especially those who were teachers.

He also cites an interconnected "88" as either the "Number of the Anti-Terrorist" or as an illustration for "Karr and Lafave", it's not clear which.
[Speculation] "88" has a lot of known meanings, four that stand out in this context are white supremecy, hip hop, oral sex performed twice, hugs and kisses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)

Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=88+anti-terrorist) for "88 anti-terrorist" brings up the Wikipedia page for Detasemen_Khusus_88, an Indonesia anti-terrorist group. Llachglin 07:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The anti-Christian angle was slant added by the media; I'm pretty sure it was just sensationalism rather than any sort of real factual information. The media is pretty worthless sometimes, and school shootings are one of those times. Titanium Dragon 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

His love for basketball linked to his hate for the Rich (Conspiracy Theory)

NBA players are paid a heck of a lot of money. According to Cho's neighbor, Abdul Shash, Cho spent much of his time playing the game of basketball. [22] Since he spend so much time with the sport, he could have very well thought about those NBA players and gotten a jealous hatred over their high net worth.

WP:NOR. hbdragon88 04:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. I don't think it occured to him at all - his jealousy was aimed at the middle class students at his university and extended from that, rich people just seems to be a term for anyone he didn't like. In any case this qould be speculative. --JamesTheNumberless 08:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean Reaction

This section seems out of place in a biography. There has been no notable backlash against Koreans or Asians. This section should be removed until it is a noteworthy component of his biography or the VT Massacre. —Ocatecir ^Talk 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This section isn't about reaction against Koreans; it's about the public reaction to the subject of the article in his country of origin (hundreds of news stories), which seems relevant. cab 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Motive section

"Prior to committing the killings, Cho is said to have possessed three (and most likely more) general characteristics common among school shooters: (1) Cho did not simply "snap". The disturbing manifesto he created was made over a period of at least six days, according to PDF and CD dates investigators were able to uncover, and he bought the guns used in the killings several weeks before the massacre took place. (2) Cho was considered a threat by others, even though he never overtly threatened anyone. (3) Fellow students and teachers were concerned by Cho's behavior. Many students found his writing disturbingly dark and overly angry. [34]"

This is biased and is not encyclopedic. The source given is a piece of commentary, not factual information.

http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html

Upon understanding this, all is clear.

Why did some of this talk page go missing?

For example, there was a lengthy & pertinent discussion on copyright in Cho's writings & the package he sent to NBC which is now missing (except in page history). It's not in the 1 page of archives either. Is there some reason someone deleted a big chunk of this talk page? --Yksin 07:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is now restored. For some reason it had gone lost when multiple users were editing simultaneously. I couldn't find out at which point between the 3 hours from its last edit to the first time someone notice the section had gone missing. Phewwww. --Kvasir 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yksin 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. I was wondering about that, too, but I couldn't figure out how it had disappeared. Natalie 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

pictures

In the middle of this article there is a picture of Cho posing with 2 guns is this picture really neccessary? Also the picture at the top looks like a different person to the lower two photos are you sure thats Cho?--Lerdthenerd 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo of him with the two guns is one of the photos that was in the group that he sent to the news after the first shooting. It is unlikely that they are different people. Shotmenot 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't deserve a space in Wikipedia

Sorry, guys, but I believe this assassin doesn’t deserves a space in Wikipedia, but the memory of the victims. This person’s goal was to be famous. To appears here. And your are contributing to make his goal come true. Is incredible that he has right now more space than, for example, Francisco de Miranda, a revolutionary man who was involved in Independence wars in United States and Latin America, was a general serving to French revolution and a universal person of XVIII century (his name is engraved on the Arc de Triomphe), with a legacy and ideas that will be remembered forever. This kind of people, and not a crazy assassin, deserves spaces, and dedication, in this encyclopedia. Jicosa 09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - this is a newsworthy article and still developing story of interest to many. 141.156.166.127

I understand that matters on this situation are still raw. Personal and emotional feelings may influence an opinion. Wikipedia includes this person because he passes WP:BIO clearly. If you feel that the revolutionary person is very important, you are encouraged to improve that article. Sr13 (T|C) 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about emotional feelings. I'm talking about if is worthy or not to talk about him. He will be an important person in 10 years, 50 years, a century??? Or is was just another psychopatic person who wanted to be famous? If is a newsworthy article, then read de papers and watch the news. This is an encyclopedia, not The New York Times... Jicosa 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Albert Fish and Jeffrey Dahmer are listed here, and all three meet the criteria for inclusion. This isn't a moral judgment, but simply one of notability.

YOU, Jicosa, are reading this page (rather than some victim eulogy page somewhere else on the web). YOU decided that this page and the accompanying main page are relevant. Based on historical precedent, it is quite likely that people will still talk about the incident and its ramifications in 50 years. One may not find this admirable, but this is the reality. WikiFlier 09:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw there was a request for merge with Virginia Tech massacre. That would be like merging Lee Harvey Oswald with John F. Kennedy assassination, and I don't like the idea. I'd prefer to see them kept separate. -Etoile 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to search this page in order to check how many space (and dedication, which in Wikipedia mostly means space) is receiving. I live in Spain, not in United States, so this tragedy (an unfortunately tragedy) is very away from my daily life. The problem with reality (this reality), WikiFLier, is that the most important things, and facts, are on the side, and only morbo-things, like these assassinations, are making people to write and investigate (another unfortunately tragedy). (By the way, sorry about my english: is not my language...) Jicosa 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Do you know what Wikipedia is for? It's not for memorializing those who "deserve" a place in it, it's for history. This was the largest school massacre ever, and it's certainly history. Notability =! admirability. Celestialteapot 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Celestialteapot on this. Wikipedia should should be a neutral reporting on historically noteworthy subjects. The only determining degree of "deserving" should be popularity in the general public body of knowledge. Some guy that killed someone with no friends in an alley yesterday that no media covered is hardly worth noting, but someone who murdered 32 people and gained massive media coverage affecting millions of people, that seems noteworthy. No matter how unappealing. Jokeyxero 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Adrux 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jicosa, I would strongly encourage you to help improve some of Wikipedia's articles on significant figures in Spanish or Latin American history. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia tends to have a systemic bias towards topics about English speaking nations, particularly the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and to a lesser extent India. Your English seems very good to me, and if you grew up in Spain you are going to have a better understanding of historical figures of Spain than a person from another country. I'd be bold and write some articles! Natalie 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Celestialteapot, this is not "the largest school massacre ever" to be accurate the Bath School disaster is still the largest ever. It's the means that differ. Jeeny 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Was Cho Seung-hui A Terrorist?

Given that we all know now that Cho was a Christian and grow up as a Christian and made inferences in his Video to him being like Jesus

"Thanks to you, I die, Like Jesus, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people" He also made inferences of being a Martyr, in the christian sense.

Should we label him as a Christian Terrorist? or a Korean Terrorist? Asian Terrorist? Immigrant Terrorist? or just a Terrorist? ==> Please post links to your supports that Cho is a christian. No major network has posted anything remotely resembling that.

If Cho had any affiliation with the Muslim Religion, you can be assured that the media today would immediately jump on his religion and automatically label him as a potential terrorist or Muslim terrorist and focus on his religion. But because Cho was a Christian and not from the Middle East or any of the Muslim countries, the term "Terror" is not even mentioned nor his religion questioned.

It seems like the term "Terror" is only reserved for any of the 1.4 billion Muslims. And when ever any one of those 1.4 Muslims commits a crime they are immediately affiliated with their religion (painting the impression that it is the religion that made them do it).

On the other hand, you can have columbine shooting, Oklahoma bombing, the Jeffery Dahmers, Ted Kazinski, and on and on, but no one will ever associate their religion with them. Why the double standard???

Let us realize and learn that "Terror has no religion, no ethnicity, no nationality, no race, and no boundaries" Cho Terrorized thousands of people and by definition he is a terrorist.

No, he's not. As of yet, we have not seen any evidence that he stated political ends to this act. By definition, a terrorist uses violence or intimidation to achieve *political aims*. The evidence at present seems to suggest much more strongly that he was mentally ill. Also, I'm sorry, but I don't understand the reference to Dahmers and Unabomber, etc. You do realize that Dahmers wasn't a terrorist and that Unabomber's religion played no role in his terrorism, right? Legitimate Christian terrorists, such as Eric Robert Rudolph, do, in fact, receive mention of their religion. Bueller 007 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A terrorist is someone whose primary goal in their actions is to incite terror. As far as I can tell, his primary goal was to kill people. Titanium Dragon 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think saying he is a Christian is speculation. On the other hand, he might have been raised as a Christian. (Which is a big difference to me) Istillcandream 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Category:Korean Americans

Statements from those involved in the dispute

Statement: A few users continue to remove Category:Korean Americans from the Cho Seung-hui page. Cho was born in South Korea but legally emigrated to the United States at the age of 8. He and his family were permanent, legal residents of the U.S., and there is no indication that he ever returned to Korea after the age of 8, except perhaps (though I'm not sure even of this) for brief visits. (Edit: This article impiles they never returned at all after 1992: [23]) He was raised in suburban Virginia, attended U.S. public schools, and was attending a U.S. university at the time of his death. In other words, he did not live on an embassy compound or was not otherwise isolated from mainstream U.S. society. As one would expect of someone who became a member of a culture at the age of 8, he spoke the culture's dominant language, in this case English, as a native speaker would. In other words, during the period of time in which a person absorbs and assimilates a culture -- in his case, from the age of 8 until the age of 23 -- he lived only in the United States.

Those who want to remove this category seem to be certain that one can only be a Korean American if one is a U.S. citizen. While there is certainly a legal definition of "American" that is an equivalent to "U.S. citizen" for the purposes of voting and obtaining a passport, the term "Korean American" is not a legal term (it holds no legal weight since evidently you can't be a dual U.S.-Korea passport holder), but rather it's a cultural one. The term implies a sense of belonging to two cultures, frequently experienced by first-generation, "Generation 1.5" (which Cho was), and second-generation immigrants. The confusion about this term is between those who see it somehow as a strict legal definition requiring one to be a U.S. citizen rather than a legal, permanent resident (which is not a widely accepted use of the term), and those who see Korean American as a term in the broader sense, meaning one who lives legally and for the long-term in the United States while being of Korean heritage or birth. Previous discussions of this question, in an attempt to find resolution of the matter, are here and here. Question: Should this category be allowed to remain in the article? Moncrief 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You know my opinion already, although I will point out that I have not once removed the term or category "Korean American" from the article itself.

Let me allow myself to reiterate a few salient points.

1) While, as you said, there is no "legal definition" for Korean American, there are definitions for both of those individual words. Korean [adjective] = "of or relating to North or South Korea or its people or its language". American [noun] = "a native or citizen of the United States". Cho is clearly not a "Korean American" by this definition.

2) If one chooses to ignore the dictionary definitions, and base their decision on the definition of "American" as "someone extremely knowledgeable of, and thoroughly assimilated into, American culture", then Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, would certainly qualify as a "Jewish American". At least one of the 9/11 hijackers would also have fallen into the "Arab American" category. I'm sure everyone can agree that these are preposterous claims.

3) If one chooses to define "American" by their acceptance as such into the community, then we have no evidence to support this. First, there has been NO persisting media coverage of Cho in which he was referred to as a Korean American. NONE. An early press report by Reuters did refer to him as K-A, but it was quickly revoked.[24] Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that his family, the Korean community or the American community would accept him as a member of the "Korean-American" community. The fact that no media source refers to him as "Korean-American", certainly implies that he is *not* accepted into the community. And we have no evidence that Cho would define himself as a "Korean-American".

4) The onus is not on us to prove that the term is *not* appropriate. The onus is on you to prove it *is* appropriate, without using Wikipedia as a source. I would consider ample "evidence" of the appropriateness of this term to be *two independent mainstream media references* in which he was called "Korean-American" that have not since been retracted. This, I feel, is a very low barrier for entry considering how much time major news outlets are devoting to talking about him. I would not say that the media referring to him as a "Korean American" would make such assertions *correct*, but I do think that it might possibly give ample grounds for labelling him as such on Wikipedia, and it would certainly give credence to any belief that he falls into the publicly-accepted definition of "Korean American". The current lack of such labelling unquestionably suggests otherwise. Bueller 007 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's your ample evidence: [[25] and [26]. Here's one more: [27] Moncrief 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yonhap is not a mainstream news source in America. I have refuted the other two sources above. Bueller 007 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You most certainly did not. You acknowledged that one is from ABC News, about as mainstream as you can get. You were somehow confused about what hamptonroads.com is, but it's the website of one of the largest papers in Virginia, and as mainstream as it gets. You can discount Yonhap if you want, although I don't know why all Wikipedia sources need to be U.S. in origin. But there's your two. Feel free to explain how hamptonroads.com isn't a "mainstream" source, but please do your homework first. I'll try to find others later. Those three took me well less than ten minutes to find, not to mention the huge plethora of articles about the Korean American response to the events, none of which define Korean Americans as US citizens. Moncrief 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, while you've been scouring the internet for examples, the rational people have already come to a conclusion. "Korean Immigrant to the United States" category. It's not controversial or disputable in any way, and that's the way that most media sources describe him. If you want to go ahead and categorize him as "Korean American", go ahead. I have never removed any references to him as such from the Article Page, and I will not do so if you add them now. But you're going against the "gentleman's agreement" that seems to have taken place below, and I'm sure that someone other Wiki surfer will remove a reference to him as "American" before too long. I don't see why you have such a hard on for "Korean American" when it's a term that clearly that media sources clearly go out of their way to avoid and has been disputed within this talk page by numerous people. "Korean Immigrant to the United States" is 100% accurate. It should suffice. Bueller 007 18:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "scouring" the Internet for anything. You asked me to find two mainstream sources referring to him as a Korean American, which I did. It took not very much time at all. That's hardly scouring. It's good to know you don't intend to revert. An eight-year-old is a very young child who doesn't have any say in where he grows up; Cho grew up in the U.S. with no plans to leave the country. The decision is unlike that taken by his parents, for example, who were adults with a developed unicultural background. If growing up in the U.S. doesn't qualify someone as a hyphenated American in the cultural sense terms like "Korean American" are understood (Korean American culture, organizations much quoted recently, and so on, none of which I'm sure check citizenship status as a prerequisite for inclusion), I'm not sure what would. Edit: I can absolutely guarantee that if he had German or Swiss or French or British parents and moved here at the age of 8 and for whatever reason never took US citizenship, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He'd be referred to as American to the point that someone adding "German American" (or whichever nationality) would be an afterthought, well after "American shooters," etc. That's the double standard I'm pointing out. Now I hope we hear from some other people too. Moncrief 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If Netanyahu had stayed in the US and not moved to Israel, he would definitely be a Jewish American. The term "Korean American" implies to me not only that one has grown up in the US (which is more than a "familiarity" with the culture) but that one still lives in the US as a fulltime resident with no intent to live elsewhere. I'm not sure how any of the 9/11 hijackers qualify in any way. Regarding the multitude of other articles mentioning the Korean American reaction and community to this event: are we to believe that all such people mentioned are U.S. citizens? I have yet to see a distinction made with regards to U.S. citizenship either in any recent mainstream articles or elsewhere. Can you point me to a non-Wikipedia definition of "Korean American", from a reputable, mainstream source, that uses citizenship as the defining line for inclusion in this category? How about two? Moncrief 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. There is DISPUTE about this category. YOU are the one who persists on adding something that many people disagree with. I am trying to talk you out of adding something to an article that I, and many others, feel is untrue. I support the Category:Korean immigrants to the United States tag, which absolutely NO ONE *would* or *could* debate. That category exists for *exactly* the category of person that Cho falls into. You're beating a dead horse. Bueller 007 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Patronizing people on Wikipedia is bad form. It's your POV that I'm "beating a dead horse." That's kind of you to try and "talk me out of" adding a category, something I haven't done since before I set up this RfC, but I don't need you to look out for me or try and spare me the misery of being reverted. We'll let this RfC run its course. Calling something in debate a "dead horse" doesn't add to the discussion. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks the category should be added. Moncrief 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed my personal POv is that he's an Asian Americnan (and Korean American) but this is not a undebatable fact, many reasonable people don't see it that way. Personally i think it's best if we just stick to undebatable category's (like Korean immigrants to the United States) instead of debating POV's Harlock jds 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think having Category:Korean immigrants to the United States on this article covers it well enough. He was Korean. He immigrated to the US. All bases covered. --Ali'i 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it covers it well enough without reintroducing debate (which is bigger than just this article and the issue isn't clear cut)Harlock jds 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Category:Korean immigrants to the United States designation 100%. Bueller 007 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree too. It is the best category to describe him because that's what he was and it exists for people like him. There is no dispute from anyone on this category. Since he wasn't American, Korean-American should not be used despite some peoples insistence that he meets their personal criteria for being considered "Culturally American." 202.128.1.120 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To revert material that comes from Yonhap just because it is not American is highly inappropriate! Sounds arbitrary and POV. What's the real reason for such an action? There is plenty of material in this article and the main article that originally comes from Yonhap. Are you going to revert that too? I would like some clarification on this, please. Mumun 無文 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to what are you referring? As best I can tell, nobody mentioned anything about reverting info from Yonhap. Bueller 007 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, phew...I apologize. I reread was was written. I had inserted some material that is still in both articles from Korean-language sources from Yonhap and was worried that a review of such material was imminenet. It's the second time today I have misread something -- my fault ! ^-^Mumun 無文 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the addition of Category:Korean immigrants to the United States, but also support Category:Korean Americans - they both appear to me to be accurate. Note from the article on the analogous term Asian American that the "most commonly-used definition of Asian American is the Census Bureau definition of Asian", and that the census counts as Asian Americans as citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors, and illegal aliens. schi ^talk 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the bit about the "most commonly-used definition of Asian American is the Census Bureau definition of Asian" is not cited and prob should be deleted from the article (but i'm not in the mood to do so).Harlock jds 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what they're saying here when they say "the most commonly-used definition of Asian American is the Census Bureau definition of Asian" is that, for example, most people consider a Chinese person to be an "Asian", whereas they don't consider a person from the Middle East (despite actually living in Asia) to be an Asian. The Census Bureau definition reflects this. That was the point being made. Bueller 007 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not an American, hence he is not a Korean American. He is a Korean immigrant living in America, though. Hence, I support Category:Korean immigrants to the United States Yaf 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of Category:Korean immigrants to the United States and Category:Korean Americans categories -- 'Korean-American' is not a legal term and does not imply citizenship -- its a status people can give themselves no matter what legal relation they have. It's personal, cultural and not something that's been defined, but his residency and status as a permanent resident is really good enough for me. Did he go back to Korea for his military service? No. Did he go back to Korea for college education? No. Just because people don't want him to be categorized as an american doesn't mean that he didn't think of himself as one and shouldn't be classified as one. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Have any sources specifically say he is not "Korean American"? I've only seen him described as a resident alien. The way that a term like "Korean American" is used, it doesn't always necessitate US citizenship, and it looks like Moncrief has provided sources to support that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Post Office Video?

I'm wondering if they caught him on Post Office security mailing the package...this could possibly show what state of mind he was in. Anyone heard anything about a video? 71.71.254.71 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How would posting a package show what state of mind he was in? Him posting a package would just show that he indeed did, and knew how to work around the Post Office. --66.16.38.129 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

McBeef/Macbeth

After reading Cho's play it is pretty clear that he is referencing Hamlet and the Gertrude/Claudius situation rather than Macbeth.--131.123.229.172 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• While the Hamlet situation is potentially there, I don't see how a reference to MacBeth is a reference to Hamlet. The style/quality of McBeef/Brownstone hardly suggest any literary references. I think that he'd probably be embarrassed knowing that they came out. Seems more like last minute school projects he put very little effort into. Alas, even if there were a connection, drawing one in the article would be original research. Although it's interesting, on the topic of McBeef, I do seem to remember him using the phrase 'shoved down our throat' in one of the videos sent to NBC, similar to the cereal bar being shoved down poor old McBeef's throat. Perhaps it's nothing more than a phrase he liked to use, or perhaps there's something more. -Etafly 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to echo that. Also, from the standpoint of good form, if it were an "obvious reference" it wouldn't need to be pointed out. Something along the lines of "The play's title McBeef is a reference to Shakespear's MacBeth, although the story more closely follows that of another one of The Bard's plays, Hamlet." That's also badly in need of editing, but it's a start. I can't do it, because I haven't got an account. -Davi

I don't think the connections are "obvious" - I'm going to remove that qualification from the article. Would Richard be a reference to Richard III (play)? Is "McBeef" a reference to McDonald's? I agree with Etafly that this "McBeef" hardly suggests any literary references. --HappyCamper 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Richard" is probably more of a way for him to get away with calling him "Dick" through the entire play than a reference to Richard III (play). "McBeef" is probably more of a shot at McDonalds and another phallic reference. I'm not sure the plays have anything to do with this story. Though they are interesting to psychologists. Jokeyxero 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection with MacBeth is clear to me, but just speculation. MacBeth kills the King of Scotland to gain the throne; "McBeef" allegedly kills the child's father to get inside the mother's "pant".--Rypoll 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Adjetives "evil" or "disturbed" in the intro.

People have repeatedly written "he was the evil perpetrator" or the "disturbed perpetrator".

These are points of view. Some people might think he's evil, other might think he was mentally insane, other might think he was on drugs totally unconscious of his actions, some might think he was possessed.

POV have no room here and if anyone wants to comment on his mental state, they should do it in the appropriate section.

Moreover, if you see other Wikipedia pages on murderers (eg. Columbiane)etc. you'll see that no adjective is written next to perpetrators. Adrux 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

calling Cho 'disturbed' is not POV. It is an objective truth, and self admitted. Marteau

Evil is arbitrary. http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html Upon reading this, all is clear.

Validation of the use of the word "Disturbed" or "Mentally Questionable" performed by WIKICHECK. April 19 2007 18:39pm. WikiCheck 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does that even mean? Natalie 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

'Disturbed', I think would be allowable; from his 'manifesto' it's clear he wasn't really sane at the time. HalfShadow 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Teachers & Rape

So he mentions Karr and Lafave in his manifesto. I believe he has a comma splice -- as he means to write:

"You wanna rape us, John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us, Debra Lafaves?"

This is evidenced by his "Fuck you" immediately following.

Cho was also obsessed with abusive teachers in his play "Mr. Brownstone."

I put the "fuck you" in to make sure that people understood Cho was not identifiying with Kerr and Lafave (which was unclear in the article because it comes after the Kliebold section). If there's a better way to make that connection, I'd be glad to entertain it.

I'm certainly interested in seeing what comes out/if something comes out of why he seems to think teachers = rapists.

Ninodeluz 15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

[Speculation] I think people may be putting too much emphasis on the plays. Remember they were released by a classmate and were class assignments, they were not part of the documents he wanted made public. In Mr. Brownstone, I'm not sure he means physical rape. I thought of it more as a metaphor, as in, "We got raped in baseball last night." Keep in mind he seems to have had the mentality of a teenager (closer to 17 than 23) and he was possibly active in online gaming, combining those two to produce a grammar for him would leave me to believe he meant rape/sodomy as literally as most people in this demographic mean gay/ghey/gei/fag to actually mean homosexual, i.e., not at all, more of an obscenity expressing disgust with something. And it's usage and meaning definitely not heavily considered. Jokeyxero 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He was prone to using imagery of sex/rape, death/murder, violence, and religion in both the plays and his "manifesto". Note also that according the released filenames he referred to "the manifesto" simply at his "letter" (filename of the video of him reading the pdf-file named "axishmiel"). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18187368/
"axishmiel" (or however you want to spell it) seems to have been as much of a codename for his massacre plans as anything else. Though I'm starting to agree with the idea that it is a reference to the religious story since it does fit the profile presented in the "manifesto". Jokeyxero 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rallying Against Christianity?

Cho shows several signs of being a christian and comparing himself to Jesus. I've heard NBC and ABC both claim that he's "railing against Christianity" and this is a load of bullshit. I saw a category of media misinformation yesterday, but the discussion seems to be missing on it. If the media misinformation is gone I vote that we put it back up and include this religious propaganda made intentionally by NBC and ABC. -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to have another source saying that it would be misinformation. Otherwise, it's original research. Some may look at it and say that he was against Christianity and some may say that means he's a Christian-- what the media reports is what Wikipedia has to go by.--Gloriamarie 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone could use the videos themselves that are posted on NBCnews.com and quote him from it. You do use evidence like that for what you might call valid "orgional research" right? It isn't really necessary for it to be written in print by another source for it to go on wikipedia right? -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out the "railing against Christianity". We haven't seen it, but then NBC hasn't released the full tape. And a rant agains Christianity is probably just the type of thing they'd cut out. It would be seriously inflammatory at such a sensitive time. I think the railing against Christianity should be reincluded, but with the disclaimer that this is a claim by NBC, and that they have not released the supporting video clip.--58.104.66.1 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They would refuse to release the video, but they would speak on it? That still sounds like they are twisting the information. If Cho was ranting against christianity in another video, then either he's contradicting himself or he's ranting against most Christians in that typical christian tone of accusing the "others" of not being "true" christians. Plus, look at the markings of pedophillia in his writtings... I bet he's Catholic :O -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How can he be railing against Christianity if he's saying that he's dying like Jesus in one of his videos?? 65.92.162.187 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While I am the one who started the discussion about the "rallying against Christianity (and Hedonism)" statement being false, I would like to point that Cho can very well make arguments against Christianity (though no evidence supports this yet) and still liken himself to Jesus. Much like Martin Luther and John Calvin protested the church but were still a part of it. Given the apparent state of Cho's mental state he could very well make many contradictory statements in his package. And I believe Bertrand Russell set the stage for allowing individuals the right of changing stances over time due to gained knowledge without being labeled a hypocrite. So I'd suggest not jumping down that road when the topic comes up (as it surely will). Jokeyxero 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

oops, my bad I guess, I could have sworn both times that they said 'Railing' and just took it as media aesthetics. I fixed the category here, and now realise that I'm posting the discussion on the Cho page rather than the massacre page. It's still relevant here but I'll go there to continue with my opinon. Though, I'm not sure which road you are implying. I really am sick of the media twisting things at their leisure and ignoring that people need and deserve the complete truth. I think that every one of the wikipedia pages on current events need to blacklist the bastard media sources that intentionally twist things for their own propaganda and ratings. But that's just me. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be incorrect to assume a coherent argument, political or moral, in his ravings. They are, in essence, a series of non-sequiturs rather than an attempt at any coherent statement, pro- or anti- anything. pookster11 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammatic Errors

"Violent writings was the most typical attribute of school shooters. According to the US Secret Service, "The largest group of [school shooters] exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent), compared to only 12 percent who showed an interest in violent video games."

Can someone please make this first sentence gramatically correct? "Violent writings are the most typical attribute of school shooters." (And is there a better term than "school shooters?"--- It actually is grammatically correct. "Violent writings" is actually singular- a single attribute. If you wanted to reword it- "Violent writings were most typically attributed to school shooters." 66.6.71.222 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)beverlyw

It seemed like you mixed yoursubject with mine above, so I titled it and gave it it's own section in the discussion -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: the proper spelling is "grammatic" not "gramatic." And within the phrase, "grammatical errors" not "gramatic errors." --Yksin 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. There's no telling how bad that would have looked if a spelling nazi had seen it first. It'd be a another catastropphy all together. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

integrating stuff from main article

Our section on Cho over at Virginia Tech massacre is getting excessivly long, so I'm going to be integrating some of the information here. Hopefully it will not be too difficult. Natalie 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His father committed suicide?

According to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704180028.html he did, but I haven't seen this anywhere else. Should it be included? --jmrepetto

Hmmm. I think that with conformation via sourcing, it might be relevent with respect to Cho's mental state. Ikilled007 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked out that rumor yesterday, & it was just that: a rumor, unfounded in fact. News reports did disclose, however, that his parents were both in shock, & had apparently been hospitalized for that. --Yksin 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cho Seung-hui article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ikilled007 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that, that's why I'm asking "Should it be included?" and not "What do you guys think?" because if it's true, I'd say it is relevant to the article. --jmrepetto

My comment was not a response to yours, but rather to one which someone obviously deleted. I hate when people go back and undo comments on the talk page. It causes confusion like this. Ikilled007 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The parents were hospitalized due to nervous tension is what I heard on msnbc, while they discredited the "suicide" rumors. These people must be going through the same feelings and emotions the parents of the families are going through, please respect them, they had nothing to do with this tragedy.FyT 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They have everything to do with this

Speech Problem

According to various news sources, Cho's grandmother was interviewed and she was quoted as saying that Cho as a child couldn't speak well. This troubled his parents. I saw msnbc cover this on tv as well, saying he had autism.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/19/4068123.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4729152.html http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6391957

According to other sources, Professor Edward Falco quoted that Cho had a problem speaking. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21275843.shtml

This may give insight to Cho's social absence. I can't edit anything yet, this seems worthy to mention. Secondgen 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and Hitler was a sadomasochist who abused cocaine and <insert taboo here>. Can no one make the connection that violence in America is increasing? We are in dystopia. Cho's acts are merely an effect, not a cause.

We should be very careful in adding Autism or other diagnoses to the article. It seems that the autism hypothesis only based on Cho's great-aunts statement (possibly mistranslated) and a few armchair "expert" psychologists ad hoc speculations. Adding autism to the article could stigmatise a vulnerable section of society (there are 2 million Americans with an Autism Spectrum Disorder). Only a definite diagnosis should be added...soured from Cho’s medical notes ideally. But I just saw autism mentioned again on CBS News, its becoming public knowledge despite being speculation.

That said, it is significant that Martin Bryant who perpetrated the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre (35 dead), was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) after his arrest. In his case he didn’t commit suicide, psychologists had someone to examine; "Although this diagnosis does not directly explain his violence it is thought the isolation Bryant experienced as a result of the Asperger's may have been a contributing factor." Diamonddavej 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rich kids

Cho has on several occasions shown a deep hatred for the "rich kids". I'm just wondering if he grew up in poverty as a child? The article briefly said that Cho's family "lived a poor life" before coming to America, but it also said Centreville is largely affluent. So did he actually grow up poor, middle class, or relatively well-off? 198.103.221.51 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  The townhouse he grew up in was purchased new in 1997 for $145,000 and according to public record it is now assessed at $416,100.  141.156.166.127 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The place Cho lived in South Korea, Dobong district has, or used to have a slum. So his youth definitely wasn't as rich, if not in poverty. Also, Koreans in general try to buy the best house they could even if that means they had to forgo other luxuries. Living in the house of his own is an aspiring goal for them, so it's bit deceptive to judge from house alone. --Revth 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's parents' reaction?

I am not hearing or reading anything about his parents' reaction to the matter. Please keep on the lookout for that.66.76.60.154 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents are in seclusion from the media. Grandparents in S. Korea did speak. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-04-19T132257Z_01_SEO292754_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRIME -USA-SHOOTING-KOREA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 75.89.75.106 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

Teasing in HS

It is now being reported that Cho was teased in HS, possibly because of the way he spoke English. Students said "Go back to China" when he read a passage in English class. More information here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_284;_ylt=Al4VIYR6FutuUxUSZruEF39H2ocA 75.89.75.106 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

Just came here to post that. Here's a bit longer article, including a quote from the postal worker: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/virginiatechshooting/main2703671.shtml Dirtysocks 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oldboy

There isn't any real evidence that he watched "Oldboy" from the reference provided, other than that some of the photos he took are similar to some shots in the movie(holding the gun to his head, which has been seen in many other movies, and using a hammer as a weapon). It is possible that he has seen the movie some time before, but the photos are hardly enough evidence to claim that he watched it in the days leading up to the shooting. The reference just sounds like media speculation to me. Short of, say, police actually discovering the DVD among his possessions, I think we shouldn't jump to assume this. -Pravit 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A laughable comparison birthed from internet forums. Secondgen 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oldboy article has a link from skynews reporting that detectives on the case are saying he watched it repeatedly. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261402,00.html. I am not sure how they know that, but that is what the sky news report is saying.XinJeisan 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know more about this too. Who are the "detectives" that this skynews claims to have interviewed.Secondgen 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Behavioral Implications section

I think this section should be dropped. It doesn't tell the whole story. The report also says the following about the characteristics of the study population:

• The attackers ranged in age from 11 to 21, with most attackers between the ages of 13

and 18 at the time of the attack (85 percent, n=35).

• Three-quarters of the attackers were white (76 percent, n=31). One-quarter of the

attackers came from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, including African American (12 percent, n=5), Hispanic (5 percent, n=2), Native Alaskan (2 percent, n=1), Native American (2 percent, n=1), and Asian (2 percent, n=1).

• Few attackers had no close friends (12 percent, n=5).
• One-third of attackers had been characterized by others as “loners,” or felt themselves

to be loners (34 percent, n=14).

• However, nearly half of the attackers were involved in some organized social activities

in or outside of school (44 percent, n=18). These activities included sports teams, school clubs, extracurricular activities and mainstream religious groups.

• Only one-third of attackers had ever received a mental health evaluation (34 percent,

n=14), and fewer than one-fifth had been diagnosed with mental health or behavior disorder prior to the attack (17 percent, n=7).

There are other characteristics that do match, but can we pick and choose? --Elliskev 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's gone. :) --Elliskev 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it moved to the writings section. i still think it should go for the reasons stated above. --Elliskev 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. I deleted it twice, basically on the same grounds you had, and then was tagged as a "vandal" by the original poster, so I moved it to a tiny little corner in the writings section. I have absolutely no qualms about anybody deleting this reference. Bueller 007 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the section that Beuller 2007 keeps deleting. It is a US government scientific study that shows that violent writing is the most common attribute of school shooters. Since this is under the writing section, it is an important contribution. For some reason Beuller does not want people to know that Cho's behavior is typical of shooters.

Behavioral Implications

Violent writing was the most typical attribute of school shooters. According to a 2002 US Secret Service study, "The largest group of [school shooters] exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent)," compared to 12 percent who showed an interest in violent video games, violent movies (27 percent) and violent books (24 percent).

Dtaw2001 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I "kept on deleting" it only twice, as I recall. There are at least two people here who don't want this section in and fail to see its relevance/importance. We already know what it said. You're going to have to make a better case than that. As mentioned above, there are also more telling factors that you omit, such as the "Caucasian factor" and the "age factor". Bueller 007 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Make that four times now. Bueller 007 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Age and race are not behavioral attributes. This was a section on violent writing, not age and race. Dtaw2001 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the "10 key findings" of that paper is "There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence." Sounds like you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It's not our job to be making these comparisons anyway. Bueller 007 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dtaw2001, the study says that 37% of the subjects of the study exhibited that trait. If you want to put it in, you have to weigh it against how well Cho is represented by the subjects included in the population of the study. This article is not the place for that analysis. --Elliskev 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I see you went ahead and put it right back in with (again) an edit summary referring to its removal as vandalism. I started this discussion before I removed it the first time. I find it hard to believe that you have any interest in a real discussion if you continuously refuse to assume good faith. --Elliskev 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And again. Be careful of 3RR. --Elliskev 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for further input

This is going nowhere. It's just going back and forth with reversions. Can we get some input from other editors here to see if we can build a consensus one way or the other? --Elliskev 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to reference this particular study in an encyclopaedic article on Cho Seung-hui. It should probably be added to School shooting if it hasn't been already, but there's no need to include it on the school shooters' individual pages. Also - personal opinion - we should be careful about playing this up. Violence in writing may be a common trait among school shooters, but it's also very common among "normal" students and is therefore hardly a meaningful sign on its own. autocratique ✩ 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The interesting point, and the reason I cited this study, is that his English instructor found his writings disturbing enough to report him to university administration. I wonder how many "normal" students she reported. Cho's writings have been a focus of much attention, which is why this information should be included in his bio. Dtaw2001 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then as I said, you make a single sentence notice of this somewhere else. I did this already for you once, but it was deleted in its entirety by another person who thought that your information was just as silly as I did. Your information does not deserve its own section. I'm thinking a single line in the paragraph about "response to writings". However, you haven't addressed the comment I made above. I said:

One of the "10 key findings" of that paper is "There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence." Sounds like you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It's not our job to be making these comparisons anyway. Bueller 007 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to Nikki Giovanni. If so, the article currently states that she had him removed from her class because his behavior was so menacing. His behaviour, not his writings in and of themselves. Regardless, the fact that slightly more than a third of all school shooters referenced in the study you linked stated that they had written violent/disturbing stories prior to the shootings does not establish any kind of clear profile Cho could have fit. autocratique ✩ 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster. The article is about Cho Seung-hui not about "school shootings" in general. Thus, I don't think it belongs here. Adrux 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not about school shootings in general but about how Cho's behavior fits the profile of a school shooter. I reworded the first sentence to make this more clear. Dtaw2001 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Until you can show me a media analysis of Cho's personality that shows he somehow "fits the profile of a school shooter" as defined by your paper (and, your paper, as I noted above, says such a profile DOESN'T EXIST), then you making these comparisons is tantamount to original research, and is grounds for deletion. Bueller 007 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the US Secret Service is a more trustworthy source than "Media Analysis" IMO. I suppose we should get Dr. Phil to weigh in. And it is not MY paper, but that of a well researched government study. Finally, the section makes two points. 1. Cho was known for violent writings. 2. Violent writing is the most common behavioral attribute in school shooters. Although the link is obvious, it is the reader who can take the information and draw the appropriate conclusions. Dtaw2001 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone added that the study fails to establish a control group. How the heck do you establish a control group for school shooters. That's just ridiculous. Dtaw2001 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff I added that was removed

I'm trying to merge from Virginia Tech massacre, yet they keep getting removed. Some of it might need cleaning up, but it certainly expands on what's currently available. Why is it being removed? -Halo 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I've readded it, as I think it may have been deleted in the crossfire -Halo 18:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to remove some of the stuff about Cho in the massacre article? His section is far too long, while the victims only get a sentence (in addition to the timeline above). --GunnarRene 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It was done by User:Natalie earlier, and I've put it back as that ver. See User:Halo/Virginia Tech Perpetrator for the old version available suitable for anyone interested in merging. -Halo 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Crap and mean"

I know that CNN reported this: As tales of Cho's worrisome behavior continued to surface Wednesday, a renowned poet and author who taught the 23-year-old gunman called the notion that he was troubled "crap" and said he was "mean."

But this is what the professor actually said: "I know we're talking about a troubled youngster and crap like that, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings; troubled youngsters drink and drive," Giovanni said. "I've taught troubled youngsters. I've taught crazy people. It was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

So really the conclusion doesn't follow the quote... so I think it should be changed. Adrux 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Time between shootings

There was a pause in the shootings while he went to mail the package to NBC. I think he waited until then to make sure he started the shooting before sending out the package. It would have been a very bad thing for him if he got cold feet after sending the package.

Flags in infobox

I have been removing then as per WP:Flags whats other user opinion on this . I mean X place , USA adds no information, this article is not about the american flag and doesnt need to be included (Gnevin 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Thank you. --Elliskev 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mark Karr quote

"You wanna rape us John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us Debra Lafaves? Fuck you." The source cited has the entire word before "you" blotted out. Is there an uncensored source, or are we just assuming it is "fuck"? Although it would make the most sense from context, to be sure, we cannot make such an assumption in an encyclopedia. Either the word should be blotted out or a reliable, first-hand, uncensored source must be added.

needs editing

Cho did not "supposedly" kill the two in WAJ, he did kill them.

Also, he did not commit suicide "as police closed in on him". According to his own video and writings, he planned on killing himself initially. According to NBC nightly news (April 18, 2007) one victim who was shot three times but survived heard the gunshots that ended Cho's life and this was before Police entered the room.

69.252.188.137 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Allysa M. Voborny 4/19/07

It doesn't matter that the suicide was planned. He committed suicide when he knew the police were going to get him and his rampage was over. "as police closed in on him" is a perfectly accurate phrase. Bueller 007 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

South Korean reaction section

I'm kind of uncomfortable with this section. We don't include reactions from any other groups. Why is the South Korean reaction pertinent? --Elliskev 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If anywhere, it belongs in the article about the incident itself. Bueller 007 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-sense sentence

I can't edit, 'cos this article's locked. There's a sentence which reads "Professor Nikki Giovanni, who taught Cho in a poetry class and had him removed from her class because his behavior was so menacing." Please could someone correct the grammar so that it reads properly. Thanks! 86.152.203.212 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I've thrown up the quotefarm tag. The "Media package sent to NBC" contains far too many quotes for Wikipedia. I understand they are important because they came from the actual perpetrator, but we just can't have 4 block quotes in that section. Can we convert to prose? Chupper 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many. I'd rather see them off to Wikiquote, but I know that I won't get support for that. --Elliskev 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Convert to prose. Bueller 007 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to limit this to qualify for fair use anyway? Not violating copyright law is a pretty good reason to trim a quotation. Natalie 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Westfield High, Westfield High, Westfield High

That he graduated from Westfield High School is mentioned three, count 'em three, times in one paragraph. I'd try and fix but I can't get my head around the jumble that paragraph has become. Moncrief 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

link to ryan stack clark

there is a wikipedia for him so there should be a link to him also.

Would you mind linking his Wiki article? All I can find is a disambiguation page. autocratique ✩ 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no article on Ryan C. Clark - it was merged into the main massacre article or possibly the victims article. This is also the likely outcome of the article about Emily Hilscher. The only victims that are possibly notable enough for separate articles are some of the faculty, because they were quite prominent in their fields. Natalie 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's Hotel Stay & Car Rental

Cho rented a car, possibly from Enterprise...possibly a maroon Kia van. this could have been the car that he made some of his videos in, and the car in which he got a speeding ticket. he also stayed in a Days Inn (?) for one night, using his real name. one of his guns, by the way, was purchased from a WI dealer on www.thegunsource.com

75.89.68.80 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) gnoko

Spree killer capture

(incorrect title! I ment: Spree killer chapter) I certainly think we need a small chapter about the fact, that Cho Seung-hui was a spree killer per definition (this is not original research as someone has stated in the version-history). It is, for sure, no knew fact, but needs to be lined out for people who don't know about the fact that there ARE differences between serial killers, spree killers and mass murders. It is simply no original research since it is just a summarizing of facts and the fact that he was a spree killer is ALSO mentioned all over the place in both articles (that one about him and that about the shooting). I realy think it is just a good idea to outline to all normal readers, who simply are not aware of this differences, that Cho Seung-hui was IN FACT a spree killer per definition and it is certainly a good idea to just quick and simply mention what that means. So, if you have problems with that section, please discuss it here and don't simply delete the whole section. thx. ColdCase 22:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, anyone who wants to know what a spree killer is can click on the spree killer link... -Halo 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's no indication that he went back "to reload", you're repeating information in that paragraph and you're comparing to another killer (which is totally inappropriate). -Halo 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents of his room

Personally I don't have any involvement with this article but I will mention that the search warrant lists the contents of his dorm room [28]. This may be useful in the article.. in the link it is used to disprove that he plays videogames. Chopper Dave 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Just curious. How long is this article going to stay semiprotected? It's been so for a while now. --Elliskev 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Attributed writings?

Since it has now been confirmed that the 2 plays were in fact written by him (see "Reactions to writings" section) is it still appropriate to use the sub-heading "Attributed Writings"? W.C. 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? By the way, I reverted your edit to that section - the one adding the fake ID language. I think stating that the three kids are 17 is enough. --Elliskev 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Writings", "Playwriting Assignments", "Plays", "One-Act Plays". Maybe something else. I'll leave it for others to consider. Just thought I would point out "attributed" indicates some doubt about the authorship which may have existed before his professor went on record. I think "attributed" is used elsewhere, too. Articles on wikipedia can have a tendency to develop like this with a framework of an earlier stage (attributed) failing to be ammended later on when doubt no longer exists.W.C. 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's early life in America & his murdered mother

I am directly translating this from a just recently posted article from a major Korean newspaper...

In 1993, just a year after the family immigrated and settled in Detroit, Cho's mother was shot in the chest and was killed by a armed robber(s). FOX 2 and the local NBC had reported on this incident at the time and this was when Cho was only ten years of age. This information was supplied by Korean neighbors who knew the family. 3 months after this incident, Cho's father filed for divorce. His father used to go?/work? at a Korean church at Grand River Road and 8 Mile in Detroit but he moved to Michigan apparently because of the incident.

The Koreans who knew Seung Hui and his family in Detroit said that they recognized him from the pictures and they expressed remorse and sorrow that the shock in which he received from his mother's death had scarred him. However, they also said that his mother's death definitely did not justify his killings in any possible way but they expressed beliefs that this information of his early childhood in America could help American media to understand or give clues into his background.

Article can be found here... http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/world/200704/h2007042009053122470.htm

Anyways, I am having some doubts that all of this is true. One, because there needs seems to be no hard evidence. And two, because some of Cho's relatives have already spoken with the media and never mentioned this, his great-aunt for ex. was interviewed (can be seen at CNN). Three, I have yet to see other people picking this information up... Any thoughts/comments? JpKllA 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• How is it that his father filed for divorce three months after his mother was killed? -Etafly 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yah, my thoughts is why are you people still trying to give him justifaction for doing this. Besides, he's dead!

Its also interesting that nowhere in his slide-show of terror does he mention anything like this. pookster11 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of other newspapers picked this up, I wasn't looking hard enough. No one is trying to "justify" his killing spree but people are trying to find what the killer thought in HIS own mind that justified what he did. JpKllA 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that we need to somehow justify what he did because we need to understand it so that it doesn't happen again. He is a human being and he is our brother, one of us, whether we like it or not. Even God forgave and protected Cain.190.57.13.78

How did his father file for divorce after Cho's mother had already died? I wouldn't include it in the article; there've been so many rumours about his family and none of them have been proven true so far. I reckon that if it really had happened and NBC had reported at the time, they would have picked it up by now. autocratique ✩ 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• mistranslation"filed for divorce"->"remarried"--Armius 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is confirmed that the person who was killed by a robber was not his mother but his relative. Korean embassy confirmed that his biological mother is still alive --Armius 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, it seems that the newspaper got false information and it now says that it was a relative. JpKllA 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Initial shootings pre-planned VS Spur of the moment

Here is what I find strange about the manifesto. People assume that he planned these killings well in advance, but I have doubts about this. If he went to West AJ hall with the intention of killing (as the fact that he took a gun indicates), why would he not have sent out his manifesto first? Surely he didn’t expect that he could shoot some people and then come back to his dorm, get his manifesto, and take it to the post office. It seems that it was an afterthought. When he had come back from shooting 2 people at the neighboring dorm, he realized it was all over, and before committing suicide, he was going to go out in a blaze. He downloaded his ‘manifesto’ and perhaps some videos he had previously made, then quickly headed out to get away from the scene of the crime. It seems that some of the videos he made that morning, as he mentions ‘today’ in them, so I assume that he made these in the interim after leaving his dorm, then burned a DVD somewhere, then went to post office (did it open at 9 am? Was he waiting for it to open before going on his killing spree?). It is likely that he had written his manifesto previously. But the videos mostly show him wearing the same garb he wore that day, and he mentions “today I die”. But then I don’t understand why he took a gun with him to AJ Hall if he had no intentions of shooting anyone. Did he always carry it around with him? Any comments?

Ellett62 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)