Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ebay/Hotmail

Hasn't been posted that he acquired two ammo clips from Ebay. The handle was Blazers5505 on ebay.com and the store was "Oneclickshooting." Beyond me if this is even worth mentioning or if there's a relavence to anything else. Just pointing it out. Neutralitybias 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thrilling details

Actually the fleabay story has been posted, at least twice. Most recently, it was said that this story appeared on Fox "News".

I'd leave to the police and criminologists the matter of "its relevance to anything else". But then perhaps I'm unusual in not understanding how going nuts and offing people renders the killer worthy of detailed examination other than by the police and criminologists.

Oh well, this is one way for a nobody to get a kind of fame, I suppose: kill people. At least the killer will get a careful write-up on Wikipedia! -- Hoary 06:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

missing redirects

70.55.85.67 08:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All created. Thanks! —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 12:57Z

Category: American Criminals

Just to clarify matters, can we please straighten out the classification of bio entries as in Category:American criminals -- specifically what I mean is that in this case Cho can indeed be considered a criminal, as per the guidelines, because he was not convicted due to him dying during the commission of his crime. That's my reading of the rules. Pablosecca 09:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That probably needs to be dealt with at Category talk - I don't think we should be making decisions for the whole category based on this one article. There may even be a recent discussion about this at the category. Natalie 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
of course the other problem is that is a catagory of criminal by nationality and it's debateable that he's an american Harlock jds 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) .
That would be another good question for the category talk page. Natalie 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
i think it's pretty clear that the catagory refers to nationality (note at the top of the cat page it goes Classification: People: By occupation: Criminals: By nationality: American) so he does not meet the criteria (and it's even more cut and dry than the whole Asian amercian debate) because he was clearly not an American National. I'm not inclined to remove the cat (since it would just be a revert war that i don't feel like keeping up with) but it should be droped. Harlock jds 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Was he molested as a child? Reference to news account, include question in article.

I heard a news interview on NPR late night via BBC in which the commentator had dealt extensively with children who had been molested. She said she felt unequivocally that he had been molested as a child based on the nature of his writing and communication. Note that he cited notorious teachers John Mark Karr and Debra Lafave, both themselves child molesters and teachers.

Cho said his reasoning was, "For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you fuck, I did it for them…" Could this be a reference to victims of child molestation ("my brothers and sisters that you fuck")? This line of questioning should be at least referenced in the article as it is getting mentioned in the press and it deserves inclusion.

I hope that the abuse angle can be investigated: It appears that Cho's development was severely arrested at around puberty where he goes from a "boy of knowledge" who "was popular with the girls" in elementary school in Centerville to a withdrawn and resentful youth in high school. Likely his manifesto rantings about abuse have some autobiographical substance, and that the abuse resulted in his social development stopping abruptly. Note that the elementary school description conflits with the description by his aunt of Cho prior to immigrating to the US.  uriel8  (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would this need to be mentioned in the article when there is no reliable source claiming that he was or was not molested? Secondgen 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is a very interesting subject (and most likely quite True), 'Secondgen' is right ... it doesn't belong in Wiki unless we start getting some news reports/commentary on it, and/or the Investigation of the Crime Scene comes up with an "official" motive - possibly including the molestation factor. To just add my own $0.02 (being educated in psychology- abnormal/clinical- and currently in the medical field), I think it's pretty clear that Cho was lashing out at molestation that he at least perceived to be happening to him (and others) - whether it was mental/emotional molestation or physical - and whether or not it was coming from teachers, parents/family or his peers ... Cho, at least, believed it to be true and for him - his perception is all that matters (in terms of leading him to action). Sad either way. 172.146.142.247 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Perpetuating a LIE .... can someone please remove this false statement?

I believe that my previous comments/requests about this are being overlooked due the length of this Talk page, so I am starting a new topic in order to call attention to a false statement; which, hopefully, someone w/EDIT access will correct.

The quote from ABC News about Cho's medication for Depression erroneously states that, "no record of [Cho's] medication for depression existed in FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION DATABASES."

Please refer to my comment(s) on this subject earlier in the Talk Page (go to other heading), but suffice it to say that no such Databases exist, save for the very few number of states which have STATE Prescription Databases/Tracking Systems, of which Virginia is *not* one.

Since this is Reference/Source material, Wiki should not tolerate perpetuating a false statement and this needs to removed ASAP. I do not have the ability to Edit, so I am asking some kind soul to Please do this for me. Thank you SO much! 172.146.142.247 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

This is true. Even if federal prescription databases existed (which they don't, unless they exist in the same way as the NSA wiretapping thing, which also "doesn't exist"), they would not be open to the likes of ABC News or anyone else without a court order and an extremely good lawyer.--Dynaflow 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, where are your previous comments on this? There's so much spam here, I can't find it. Secondgen 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


My earlier comments are under the heading: "Cho's Medication: There are No Federal Prescription Databases" about halfway up this page (they have not yet been archived).

I don't think anyone would disagree with removing this -- so can someone w/EDIT Access please remove it? Thanx 172.146.142.247 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Googling "federal prescription database" seems to indicate there is such a thing. [1] I don't think we should be deciding whether or not such a database exists without appropriate sources. Phony Saint 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed mention of the federal prescription database from the article, but left the statement to the effect there "there were no records." That seems to be a decent compromise that doesn't take anything of substance away from the story. However, given the way this article has been going, someone will probably restore the mention within half an hour or so.--Dynaflow 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Phoney Saint' - Googling doesn't prove it is operational/in place. It is true that it has been PROPOSED, but it is NOT YET fully operational or in place. Please see my comments in the earlier section --- some states, such as Texas, do have Rx Monitoring, but it is STATEwide - however, prescriptions of controlled substances fall under FEDERAL Jurisdiction (and the DEA), so perhaps that is where the confusion lies.

'Dynaflow' - thank you SO MUCH for changing the comment. What you said is perfect. Many thanks (hope no one puts it back either) 172.146.142.247 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Questoin

Have they published the written pages from the multimedia manisfesto? Where can I get my hands on something more than just the still shots.

Though it has nothing to do with the article, here's my theory. NBC won't release them until they finish making some kind of documentary so that they can profit from it. Secondgen 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
More likely, they won't be released until the investigation is complete - I think NBC turned everything over to the feds. Natalie 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

His E-Mail & eBay Account

His E-mail : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

His Shool E-Mail : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

eBay Account : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Source[2][3] Pgdn963 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So? Burnedthru 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not useful to the article, and it is personal information (even if it is personal information of a dead guy) that should not be shared on Wikipedia. Please justify having it here or erase it, please. --Dynaflow 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [EDIT] I have replaced the personal info with x's. If having it here is justified, user Pgdn963 can roll back my edit. --Dynaflow 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Cho's details have been leaked to the media. Cho is also dead, so the details are no longer personal. WhisperToMe 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but his family may still need to deal with his electronic life, and we don't need to make their lives any harder than they already are by directing trolls to those accounts. The media can be as irresponsible as they want, but we don't need to follow suit. Natalie 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Natalie, Wikipedia is an amoral encyclopedia. We do not place morals anywhere other than the value of knowledge. WhisperToMe 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Private or public, moral or amoral (I would disagree with your statement on Wikipedia's morality), his contact information still doesn't add any value to this article. Phony Saint 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The main question is, are they germane to building an encyclopedia? Does it matter for this article what his e-mail address was? Will anyone care in ten years, or even ten months -- or even right now? --Dynaflow 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, he purchased the gun using the eBay IDs and e-mail address, so of course we have to include them. Now, you may remove the school e-mail address if you feel it is unimportant. WhisperToMe 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:IINFO: "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." That he bought from eBay could be relevant, his actual screennames are not. Phony Saint 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Phony Saint, I kinda made that point by saying that the school e-mail is not relevant. Phony, if you walked up to Joe Schmoe and said that your name was "John Q. Public" and then bought a massive computer cracking software package that disabled the FBI computer system, the fact that you used that alias to buy the tool used to commit the crime is notable. WhisperToMe 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Morality and responsibility are completely different things, and Wikipedia does try to be responsible. This can be evidenced by, for example, removing birthdates from articles on private individuals who happen to be notable. This is also evidenced in the fact that we oversight sensitive information, whether or not we know it is correct, because it would be irresponsible to leave it there. Natalie 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sun-Kyung Cho and Seung-Hui Cho no longer qualify as private individuals. And, yes, you are using a moral argument. WhisperToMe 00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, just a supporting argument to the argument that it's in no way useful. Natalie 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, since you are contributing to a public web site, I deem you are no longer a private individual either. Why don't you let us know your real name, your home address, and your date and place of birth? 66.171.76.138 13:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
But this isn't a case where he was going by a fake name; most people use pseudonyms for eBay and e-mail. There is nothing unusual or notable about his screennames, not to the point where people have written articles about them. Phony Saint 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean nothing unusual or notable about the screen names other than the fact he used them to purchase weapons used in a massacre, right? I believe the screen names will become notable because of the massacre. It's the same concept with Eric Harris and "Rebdoomer" - Eric Harris used that alias while maintaining a "Doom" related website. - Would make the same arguments to not include "Rebdoomer"? WhisperToMe 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, Cho didn't use his eBay screenname as an alias. He did, however, use "Question Mark" when talking with others, which is already noted in the article. Phony Saint 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He used his eBay screen name as an alias only within eBay in order to purchase a weapon. The seller probably knew his full name, so both the alias and the full name were together used in the weapon purchase. WhisperToMe 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So what does his screenname contribute to the article? That he used it? If his street address or phone number comes up, do we list them as well? His specific contact information is irrelevant to this article. Phony Saint 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The e-mail address was not included as any gesture for meaningful contact (Hey, one can't talk to dead people). Rather, it is there to show what guise Cho operated under in order to facilitate the purchase of the gun. Any screen name created for any website is an alias. WhisperToMe 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone really needs to explain this to the vast majority of people writing this "article". NON-NOTABLE SHIT EXISTS. His e-mail address and screen names are completely irrelevant. This article begins to resemble a trash heap more and more every day. Bueller 007 09:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And... what? I'm not arguing he didn't use the screenname, I'm arguing that it doesn't have a point in this article. Not everything Cho used is relevant. Stating that he used eBay is more than enough information for a reader. Phony Saint 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Exploitative journalism at its worst. We do not need to follow suit. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 23:17Z

Though it's already more-or-less been said here, my reply to Whisper on my talk page was, "What possible benefit does listing a dead mass murderer's e-mail address on Wikipedia give us? Is this in case some Wikipedian just needs to look up information that allows him or her to e-mail Seung-Hui Cho beyond the grave? C'mon, it's useless for the article; totally useless." This infomation can only clutter the article. There is no possible benefit to having it in, verbatim. That Cho would use multiple e-mail accounts is not news (hell, I do that, and most of the more 'net-savvy people here do too), and that Cho bought clips on eBay deserves maybe one clause in one sentence, unless eBay gets sued over this, and that's a matter of speculation for now. --Dynaflow 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Expert on depression characterizes Cho as an "internalizer"-NPR

"They're not disruptive," she said. "Those students are withdrawn and isolated, and even though we see that as a problem, because it's not disruptive, often they slip through the cracks."

Nonsense. If you read the Wikipedia article in full you'll see that he was, in fact, a disruptive character. The analysis of this so-called "expert" doesn't fit the facts.—greenrd 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it fits many of the occasions where he would just say nothing or behave in a withdrawn manner. Although in the period leading up to the harrassment and shootings disruption applies but I think what the expert says applies to earlier periods of bullying such is highschool where instances that might have provoked action on his part occurred but there are not reports of violence or disruption from him during that period. According to the expert this is an example of "internalizing" depression, rather than acting out. In this way, such people "slip through the cracks." W.C. 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Korean society — Confucian, patriarchal, and steeped in pride, dignity and the importance of family — has long viewed mental illness as a taboo topic best kept in the closet." [4] W.C. 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not really helpful so I'll explain further. Essentially, Korean culture views mental illness as "blood disease". That is, one or both parents (usually claimed to be mother, often claim to be the result of non-virginity) carry "soiled blood" that will be passed on to children if not "prevented". This is not really unique as many other cultures share, or had shared the same view. Anyway, seeking treatment would have resulted in his sister unable to marry to another Korean and possible ostracism from the local community. --Revth 09:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have references for what you've just written maybe you should add them to the article. If not, others may still find the wording used in NPR useful in giving a context to how such a person managed to "slip through the cracks".W.C. 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oldboy?

No mention in this article of the South Korean film Oldboy and the "Hammer pose"? Even Washington Post, TIME, NYTimes covered this. Do a Google search. According to Sky News, detectives claim Cho watched the film repeatedly just prior to the massacre. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261402,00.html). Even in the Oldboy Wikipedia article, the Virginia Tech massacre is mentioned. I think it deserves a mention here too. It's a highly sourced point, not OR. --Naus 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the mainstream has covered this to only mention that there is no evidence that this is true and has stemmed from internet forums. To say there is a connection is original research. Secondgen 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No...that would be speculation based on the similarity in poses. For that part, the public will never know. The media, being their usual selves, were analyzing the similarities to provide reasoning for Cho's pose in the video. lwalt 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Autopsy results for Seung-hui Cho

Here's an article from The Washington Post that discusses the results of Cho's autopsy. According to information from the article, the state examiner's office authorized the release of Cho's body to his family. Here's the citation: Rucker, P. & Spinner, J. (2007, April 23). No Abnormalities Found in Cho's Brain. The Washington Post, p. A09. Retrieved April 23, 2007. lwalt 05:45, 23 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 [5] WhisperToMe 07:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Drivers licenses: Surname, Given name [6] 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}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  • who cares about them japs.
  • 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.[1] 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 helloBe 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)

it should be Cho Seung-hui, think about Kim Jong-il--Lerdthenerd 11:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I sent NPR an email regarding this last night. NPR is now running a story on this topic. [7]. DHN 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Lerdthenerd, please explain how you can compare Kim Jong-il, who I might mention resides in a country called North Korea, to a resident of the U.S. (him being an immigrant means about nothing, it is understood as Seung-Hui Cho because in America the last (family)name is placed last) And if you look up the link listed by Jorobeq Associated Press the family gives the name as Seung-Hui Cho.

Istillcandream 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


  • someone please change it to Seung-Hui Cho, even newspapers are changing to Seung-Hui Cho now. and i can't. so please.
  • Haha, NBC, The New York Times, and AP already recognized how ridiculous they were and changed to the order that the LA Times, NPR, and ABC News were using consistently. DHN 00:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • DHN, here's what to do...
      • If the press organizations reach a consensus to use Western order, try the discussion again, and you are more likely to get a move
      • If the press organizations reach no consensus or continue to use Korean order, I would not bother bringing the discussion to the table. WhisperToMe 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible naming order consensus change

Now that the family is known to prefer "Seung-hui Cho," it seems like the news media organizations are changing their minds about the presentation of his name.

We may have to hold another discussion and possibly have the article moved. WhisperToMe 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is clearly going to have to be moved to Seung-Hui Cho and it should be done asap. CNN has now changed as can be seen here and it seems other media outlets have made the switch as well (I'm assuming for the basic reason that this is what the kid called himself). The Cleveland Plain Dealer has explained it's decision to use "the name on his driver's license, in his school records, and in his writings, which is Seung-Hui Cho." I think the logic on that is pretty strong. Also the family uses this name. Also the article currently contradicts itself, as the Reaction of Cho's family section names his sister as Sun-Kyung Cho. Let's get some consistency here. Personally I feel as though the arguments for using Cho Seung-hui have pretty much collapsed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hooray, I was not 3RR blocked in vain! =) --Dynaflow 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%, and so far I have not seen any valid reasons or consensus for not doing so. See my comment below for my rationale. I was trying to be bold and do it myself, but there is page move protection. --Ali 03:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
While I agree the current name order (Seung-Hui Cho) is the best version now, it's important IMHO to consider there were valid reasons before the family statement Nil Einne 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a bold move would be justified, but perhaps another quick poll on this question given the changing circumstances (i.e. the switch by the media) is the best way to go? I have a feeling many editors who voted for Cho Seung-hui earlier might change their votes now and thus we should start from scratch. Or someone with the authority to move this could just step in and do so. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I voted for Cho Seung-hui because that's what themedia were referring to him as, ergo, that's what people would come to Wikipedia looking for him under. However, in light of the family's statement, I believe the article should be titled Seung-Hui Cho. Scientz 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that we probably should go with the correct "western order" of the name, but with a redirect from the Asian version, possible with a pointer to the article on Asian name order, or a short paragraph explaining the same. A discussion of the events as they unfolded should also make note of the apparent confusion on this issue for the sake of future researchers who may review the article some years or decades from now, and who would want to know what happened. Ema Zee 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first comment, but I would wonder if it's possible to have a double listing of the "name" chosen, so that if someone looks up the "name" in either the Korean style, or the American style, they would be able to see the subject at both places? If not, then maybe a note could be added to the place where the name ISN'T located, pointing to where the subject "name" is located, and how it is spelled.Starbright1 05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect page would be created to take anyone who typed in any version of Cho's name directly to wherever his main article ends up, in the same way "seung hui cho" typed into the seach box will take you directly to this article now. --Dynaflow 05:54, 21 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.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in great depth, we are avoiding the "Korean American" label as he does not have citizenship. He is being called "Korean immigrant to the U.S." Bueller 007 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Bueller, you don't have to have citizenship to be considered a Korean American. Please cite me some authoritative source which constrains identity definitions to citizenship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.124.162.87 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Now that the press is debating the naming order, I say we should keep the section. WhisperToMe 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very big deal, by referring to him as Cho you are giving his whole family a bad name, his name was Seung-Hui, with his family name of Cho, to keep referring to him as Cho you are referring to his whole family. All references of Seung-Hui, should be called Seung-Hui, not Cho. The media has it WRONG.

I'm pretty sure it's common to refer to people in journalistic articles by their last name. However, I don't see the need for a naming section. It seems that the people in this section are becoming over paranoid. Xenophobia, just because we were using his name as it is usually in korean? That's overreacting IMO. Pzychotix 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Jimbo Wales once said something along the lines of "articles should be written keeping in mind what will be notable or significant 10 years down the road" or something along those lines. The fact that the press reversed his name for the first three days (a completely honest mistake, as he was not an American citizen and they had no evidence of his preferred style) will be COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT compared to his actions. This "naming" section is a total waste of space. Just 100% pure unadulterated CRUFT. It could be condensed to a single set of parentheses like: "Seung-Hui Cho (whose name was previously widely reported in the preferred Asian order Cho Seung-hui)..." I strongly advise the deletion of this section. It cheapens the whole article. Bueller 007 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The naming issue is quite minor and I could go either way on whether to keep it or not. I just made some revisions to (hopefully) make the section read a bit more smoothly, and I think for now maybe we should leave it and see if it's worth it to keep it in the end. I think though that it's a bit odd to have this section on the naming confusion at the beginning--it should be more of an addendum at the end of the article if we keep it at all.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Good, as I was writing the preceding comment another editor moved the section to the end of the article. Maybe we can let it sit there for awhile and see what we think of it. The naming issue has been a bit confusing and presumably some people coming to read the article would appreciate an explanation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

I have been removing then as per WP:Flags whats other user opinion on this . I mean X place , USA United States 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)
I strongly disagree and I'm the one who's been putting them back. WP:Flags is an essay, not a guideline; moreover, the flags appear in tens of thousands of places on Wiki. If you are to delete, delete them everywhere else. They are standard in tens of thousands infoboxes about personalities as far as I can tell. See my rant on the talk page for WP:Flags. Scientz 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was only removing them as long as no one objected . You could of made your objection known a little earlier but ok (Gnevin 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC))
Sorry for my tone. This was the first time someone who removed them pointed me towards the discussion page. I thought I was already in an edit war. :) Scientz 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No Korean Media Reference?

The first two references cited are in Chinese. Isn't that strange? He has nothing to do with China. And I don't think Chinese reports are suitable in the reference section.--Bicttobuct 05:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese references were for the Hanja in his name. Who removed them AGAIN? And there is no rule against foreign-language references in Wikipedia. There also used to be a section with Korean media references called "South Korean reaction", but that got removed too. cab 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bicttobuct: Koreans in Korea have official names written in Chinese characters. These Chinese characters are recorded together with other vital information (birth order etc.) in the family's official registration documents.

In newspapers and other informal writing, names are usually written phonetically in hangul script rather than the more complex Chinese characters. By contrast, Chinese language media are forced by linguistic convention to use the actual Chinese characters. Sometimes, the characters used will be based on guesswork, but if the subject is reasonably prominent, considerable efforts are made to establish the authentic characters from witnesses or official documents. This is why Chinese-language documents are usually the best source to verify the written form of Korean names. Note that the standard for Wikipedia is that material should be verifiable, not (necessarily) true.

Why do Chinese characters matter? Chinese characters matter because they impart meaning that is not clear from the phonetic representation. The actual choice of Chinese characters is a significant indicator of cultural choices by the parents. Recognizing this, the South Korean Foreign Ministry in fact announced the specific Chinese characters constituting Cho's name, but it is quite possible that this official announcement is deliberately wrong. WikiFlier 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Preparation" section

I believe the section about his "Preparation" should be amplified to include the fact he went to the extra, lethal length of using hollow-point bullets and multiple-round clips. Right now, the Preparation section mentions that he purchased two guns, but his choice of ammo shows an even greater degree of pre-planned malice. Here is a good link to include as a source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18209746 71.121.135.67 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Debating semantics here, but neither of his weapons used clips; you mean to say "MAGAZINES," and as far as I'm concerned the distinction is important. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29, particularly the line, "The term clip is commonly improperly used to describe a firearm magazine..." and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearm%29. Of course, magazines are ALL multiple-round (and, although this is irrelevant to this situation, clips are too, since a single round needs no "clipping," needless to say.) There was nothing particularly special about the magazines used, other than the fact that he made sure to carry many of them (I believe I read 15+, mostly 9mm for the Glock.) As for the ammunition, he may or may not have thought about the hollow points, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did or didn't since even if he didn't he likely would've ended up with them anyway. (A person unfamiliar to firearms would, I assume, pick the rounds with the simple rationale, "I don't know what a metal jacket is, but I've heard of hollow points!" or something to that effect.)24.13.34.230 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it fairly obvious from the get-go they were hollow point? The high number of fatalities tipped me off; when you're hunting bipedal prey, you're generally going HP if they aren't wearing body armor. I agree this should be added to the article if it wasn't already. I don't see how its an even greater degree of pre-planned malice, though. Titanium Dragon 06:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As you know a normal bullet can pass right through you with an exit wound that is similar in size to the entry wound, but a hollow-point will expand on impact and cause a much larger exit wound and much more internal damage, making it much more lethal. That's why he chose the HP, to increase the chances that those he shot died. Also one of the photos in his "manifesto" showed his hollow-point ammo lined up on the table (pre-planned malice). 71.121.135.67 06:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. He bought guns because he intended to murder many people. Of course he bought hollowpoints; round-nose pistol bullets are notoriously ineffective, so it's unlikely he sat and deliberated on this point for any length of time. How does this choice make a crazed murderer any more malicious?? 24.7.127.106 06:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
serial numbers filed off guns. (evidence of preparation)

.22 caliber Walther P22 and 9 mm Glock 19 handguns — both expensive, accurate guns favored by gun enthusiasts and cops" Bought first gun from : "thegunsource.com" Purchased second at: "Roanoke Firearms"

He waited between the purchases of guns. He stopped between the killings, to send a package to NBC news.

"This afternoon, NBC received a package they believe was sent to the network by Cho...It appears that the suspect took the time to mail a package in between his shooting spree—-showing a degree of cold-blooded planning." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1)


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui) Evaulator 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointing Out a Significant, Notable Fact about the Manifesto Pics

Does anyone else think that we ought to point out the fact that some of the pics from Cho's Murder Manifesto were actually taken during his killing spree? I mean, if that isn't Notable, then what in the world is? NBC News, Dateline, the Today Show, and several other news outlets (to name a few) have reported that it is clear (some say, has been 'proven') that the pics of Cho taken in his dormitory room, in which he is dressed in the khaki vest carrying ammo and the black baseball cap turned backwards, were taken just after he killed (assassinated, imho) the first two students in their dorm, and immediately prior to mailing his 'Manifesto' after which he continued his rampage by shooting all of the students in/around Norris.

The pic we have here on WIKI of Cho holding both guns is one such photo that was taken during the killing spree -- making it doubly Infamous (and Notable) .... as it is both the exact image that the students/victims saw coming after them that day AND it was actually taken during the horrible act. I cannot think of ANY other instance in which we have a PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD of a killer actually committing his crimes other than the video from Columbine, and this one is unique for a couple of reasons. Therefore, because of its Notability and being utterly Unique, I think it bears mentioning (perhaps under the caption - maybe in a section/paragraph?) in the article on Cho. Maybe even within the section on his 'Murder Manifesto' ... since his video diary includes a section that he recorded during the murders ... in which he said that "you" made "him" do it and 'it didn't have to happen' (my opinion: 'whatever, Jerk'). Any other ideas or opinions on this? 172.146.142.247 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

None of the pictures were taken "during" the killing spree. He was posing for a camera either at some point between the first set of shootings and the second, or some number of days or even weeks before the massacre. AFAIK, neither has been conclusively proven. Bueller 007 09:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


        Bueller -- what I meant by "During" was in the MIDDLE of the killing spree

which is why I expanded on my comments and specified that they were taken BETWEEN the first shootings at AJ and the second at Norris.

Additionally, the fact that CERTAIN PICS/VIDEO were taken "During" the killing spree - IN BETWEEN the first and second murder sites - HAS been conclusively proven ... they used the Time Stamps on the Pics, the Video, the DVD/Computer Disks, and the Forensic Investigation of Cho's computer to Conclusively Determine WHEN these were taken, and the pic of Cho dressed in the Vest, Backwards Baseball cap, Black T-shirt, fingerless gloves, and holding the guns WAS taken just after Cho killed Hilsher and Clarke and immediately prior to him mailing the 'manifesto' and subsequently shooting his victims at Norris. If you will look at the main article for the 'Virginia Tech Massacre', it already references these facts. We just don't have them cited/referenced correctly here on this page. (And they should be - especially for continuity). Can someone with EDIT CAPABILITY please correct and update this to match the main article? Thanx 172.132.29.212 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

None of the references I've looked through state anything more than he mailed the package between the two incidents; the timestamp would be for the postage. In fact, this states that "Cho had worked on the package for some time". So unless you cite some other source, here, that says otherwise, I'm not inclined to change anything. Phony Saint 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I will try to find some on the Net. I am certain of my information however, since our local news ran a story/update on it and SPECIFIED that the time stamps they were referencing were FROM THE COMPUTER/DVD, making a point to say that it made the pictures/video from that day/time "all the more chilling" .... Additionally, this fact was discussed at length on 3 separate Talk Radio programs I listen to - oops, I mean Four. If I get a chance, I'll try to find a transcript online. I have S-L-O-W dial-up, so I can't do it quickly or easily as opposed to others. Thanx 172.132.29.212 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

IIRC, the timestamps that you're mentioning was already said by MSNBC to be the time that Cho was manipulating the data (i.e. moving the files around onto his comp, burning em to the DVD), but not specifically the exact times he shot the pictures. There wasn't any specific evidence to the fact that he took the pictures between the murders AFAIK. Also, I'd make it a point not to get my forensic information from anywhere aside from the investigators on something like this.

I don't think that the Forensic Team has made any kind of public statement *personally* anywhere (I would love to know if they have and I somehow overlooked it, but so far, this is not something I've found) ---- instead, the findings of the Forensic Team have been reported by various media outlets. Now, I will agree that this is not the ideal source of information - particularly since there have been a number of items that have been erroneously reported in this investigation so far ..... however, these errors have become plain enough when the *majority* of the media has presented the correct data/information and only a very few have persisted with faulty stories. I only brought this up after watching several news organizations discuss it at length and point out the difference between the time stamps for mailing and those included on the digital photos (the timestamps both for capture and uploading to disk) as well as the proof contained in the associated video where Cho is sweating, panting, and visibly altered (in stark contrast to the rest of his entire 'package' taken over a period of time) in the time-stamped period between the AJ killings and the Norris Hall killings. If not for those numerous news commentaries built around this very issue, I never would have mentioned this. 172.132.29.212 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

If there are "numerous" news commentaries on this, surely you can link us to one of them. Even if it is "plain enough," we still need a source. Phony Saint 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "Murderer" the correct term?

Article describes Cho as a "mass murderer," but the definition of murder precludes insanity -- an insane person is not capable of murder because he or she does not have a sound mind. All of the descriptions of Cho in childhood and in recent years outline a person is was mentally ill. So, like John Hinckley, Jr., if Cho is was mentally ill then he was not capable of the crime of murder. The source linked to the term mass murder also describes it as someone who is guilty of murdering many people, but it too stands on the definition of murder as a crime committed by someone who is sane. The links to that article likewise do not reference verifiable sources.69.255.0.91 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the definition of murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of someone by another. Insanity only comes into play when convicting someone of it. Phony Saint 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Merriam Webster says that murder is the crime of unlawful killing, but an insane person cannot be found guilty of a crime that requires premeditation, since premeditation requires a sound, rational mind. Anyway, Cho is not a public figure and has not been found guilty of murder, so it may be a step too far to say he is a mass murderer, especially in the first line of the article. The deceased's estate or family could file against Wikipedia and recover funds in order to pay the victims who suffered as a result of Cho's mental illness. But that is not my problem. 69.255.0.91 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Committing a crime and being convicted of it are two different things. Legally, he is not a murderer (his death precluding the possibility of a trial) but the media does refer to him as such. Cho is in fact a public figure, his actions having put him in the public spotlight. Phony Saint 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair defense, and one I'm inclined to accept in not tagging Cho as a murderer/criminal. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, you could rephrase it to say that he was "a Virginia Tech student who killed 32 people in the Virginia Tech massacre". Phony Saint 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Mass murder" is a term used for a specific kind of event. That kind of event happened at Virginia Tech and it was the actions of Seung Cho that brought it about. "Murderer," on the other hand, is an appellation given to a criminal convicted of murder (and, of course, used as a general perjorative for people we don't like whose actions result in death). By this logic, Seung Cho isn't a murderer, because he'll never be convicted, and even if he lived and was tried, he'd probably be found not guilty by reason of insanity and go to a state hospital, not death row. However, his actions do constitute a mass murder. --Dynaflow 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say mass killer? 132.205.44.134 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement About 'Instant Background Check' (re: gun purchase) Is FALSE - Please Correct

I do not have the ability to EDIT, so if someone who does could please correct this, I would appreciate it. As was verified on NPR just this morning, the State of VIRGINIA currently does NOT require an Instant Background Check in order to purchase a gun. This requirement was part of the proposed legislation to change the current gun laws, but it has NOT YET been passed. When Cho purchased his gun(s), all he was required to do was to show THREE FORMS OF ID: Cho presented his State of VA Driver's License, his Legal Resident (aka 'green') Card, and (unbelievably!) a Pre-printed CHECK w/his name and address on it. This has been reported/verified by the store (Blacksburg Gun Shop), the Chief Investigator (Blacksburg Police), the ATF, and numerous other news sources who have been running side stories on gun laws/gun control related to this incident (and how easy it was for Cho to LEGALLY get those guns). Of particular interest, is the issue of Cho's Documented MENTAL ILLNESS, which would have PREVENTED him from legally obtaining a Gun (in those states that require a Background Check - of which Virginia is NOT one) ... IF Virginia would have had this law on the books at the time -- an Instant Background Check would have PREVENTED Cho from buying the guns. Since this issue is white-hot right now, it makes this erroneous statement all the more troubling ... and it needs to be removed (no matter if it was incorrectly reported previously). For further evidence, on Sunday 4/22, the tv news show 'Face the Nation' addressed this very issue, describing how ironic and sad it was that Virginia had failed to pass legislation requiring an Instant Background Check. Can someone please remove the statement and correct this? Thanx! 172.132.29.212 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

So... do you have sources we can use for this? Regardless of whether or not the law was passed, news reports indicate that an instant background check was run. Phony Saint 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment, because after doing a cursory GOOGLE, I found that this statement is most definitely 'in dispute'.

First, on Google, I am finding statments that are what I would term 'second hand' that say that VA DOES require an instant Background Check. The 'first-hand' info (like a pamphlet of the state gun laws) SO FAR, says that Gun DEALERS have to pass a Background Check when BUYING guns for sale (a bit different, and certainly very confusing to those not familiar) - so I am wondering if this is the source of the confusion. Then, I found a few sources that say the Blacksburg gun shop owner said Cho 'passed the instant background check' - yet, none of these are first-hand, and the shop owner was NOT present when Cho purchased the gun. So far, ALL of these 'reports' are at least 5 days old. None are recent. What really confuses me is that I listened to 2 HOURS of Sean Hannity on the radio talking about what a shame it was that VA did not have this Background Check rqmnt in place (and Hannity is very, very careful w/his information) -- a transcript is not yet available, since this was w/in just days ago. Furthermore, I watched the rep from the BRADY CENTER FOR GUN CONTROL all last week and this weekend and at the END of Last Week and through the Weekend, the Brady Rep CHANGED HIS STORY from saying that the Background Check was Fallible because it didn't show Cho's Mental Illness (Court order to seek counseling), to his now saying that 'the state of VA needs to require a Background Check because they failed to pass that law and it is vital that they do it and that furthermore, if VA HAD that law on the books, Cho would not have been able to buy a gun'.

Now, that perplexes me ---- what is going on here? I don't want to report false information - either way - and my only interest is that the FACTS are being properly referenced here. Does anyone have an answer for these discrepancies -- or know why they keep changing their story(ies)? 172.132.29.212 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde


Ok - I found something that MAY end up being the explanation for the discrepancy (although it still may be that there is confusion about what transpired at the Blacksburg gun shop): 

     it seems that the current laws of VA would NOT have req. a Background Check for the 22cal gun purch. on the Net.

Maybe that is the issue - different rules for the two different guns? I'm still not entirely sure, but it's a start. 172.132.29.212 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

From news reports such as this one, he underwent a background check - as required by law, according to the Virginia State Police web site. Obtaining any handgun from out-of-state still requires a background check. Nothing seems to be incorrect about it. Phony Saint 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what I'm saying. The INTERNET rpts state that the BLACKSBURG gun shop ran a Background Check, but the Brady Center Rep is NOW saying that one was not done --- when I researched this on the NET, the only reason I find for this discrepancy is the FACT that the INTERNET GUN PURCHASE (NOT the Blacksburg gun shop) would NOT have required a background check (and nowhere can I find any mention that one was one for the purchase of the 22cal on the NET), and perhaps the BRADY CENTER REP either MEANT that he was referencing the 22cal purchase, OR he was confused by the Two DIFFERENT requirements under the VA law (as the current VA law does NOT require a background check for FFL gun owners at a gun OR for internet/mail order purchases). 172.132.29.212 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

According to the first article, the background check for the Internet-purchased gun would fall under Federal law, not Virginia law: "Under federal law, a weapon purchased from an out-of-state dealer must be shipped to an in-state, federally licensed gun dealer, who runs a background check." If you have a source for what the Brady Center rep says, I'd love to see it. Phony Saint 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Full transcript of videos sent to NBC

I think we should have a full transcript of everything he said in the videos he sent to NBC (that was released). Malamockq 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if that is okay on Wikisource WhisperToMe 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Edit conflict! I was saying the same thing. D: -Etafly 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? Although I'm in total favor of NBC releasing all the material, it's not necessarily notable as far as WP is concerned. Such a transcript might have a home at another site such as Wikisource. Matt Gies 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually having trouble with the transcripts that NBC released in the innaccurate media reports article. They say that he's saying "Jesus loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer into my head." Off the top of my head I can only be sure of what I placed in bold. When you listen to the video, it sounds like he could likely be saying "You just loved to crucify me" Considering that the idea that he's anti-Christin is premature and does not fit with any of his quotes except for this one which might have been wrongfully quoted, I think it's a good idea to give people a resource of his quotes, but I think that it should be noted that the transcripts given by NBC may have been incorrect. Youngidealist 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record I read in some faraway newspaper yesterday that cited his neighbours as saying his family "attended church irregularly", so no, I don't think he was anti-Christian. But he could be another Charles Darwin - someone who grew up in a Christian family but was agnostic/atheistic in the end, I guess. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-24 08:44Z

Pronunciation

This article once had a pronunciation audio file. Someone deleted it, I suspect to deemphasize Cho's "foreignness". However, the fact is (and facts are important to Wikipedia) that Cho was a Korean national. Seung Hui Cho is thus a romanization of his real name, which is written in Korean characters and pronounced in a certain way. This is not merely an academic point -- some news organizations are pronouncing his name like "Joe". The Delete Police are doing us no favors by deleting stuff for no good reason and without discussion. What do people think about restoring pronunciation, perhaps in the "name" section. Soda80 02:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation and audio file were restored before you posted. Phony Saint 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That was quick. Okay, nevermind. 71.255.238.124 12:53, 24 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.

Cho's two "stalking" cases in late 2005 are important in detailing his downfall into mental illness and understanding his motive. In November and December 2005, college authorities received two separate complaints from two female students about "annoying" phone calls and text messages from Cho.[8]
The first incident in November 2005, Cho sent a few "weird" text messages to a girl. She didn't want to make a formal complaint and she characterised the texts as annoying not stalking. Cho was verbally warned by police and he immediately stopped his behaviour. A little later in November 2005, Cho started write disturbing essays and plays. Staff and students who previously considered Cho as odd but harmless felt increasingly intimidated by him. Students started to boycott class and eventually only 7 of 70 of Cho's class turned up to hear him recite his hate fill essays and plays.[9] The boycott got so bad, that Cho was taken out of the class and educated on his own by Prof. Lucinda Roy, head of the English department.[10] Roy also stated that Cho was "extraordinarily lonely—the loneliest person I have ever met in my life."[11]
Then on the 13 December 2005, a second "stalking" complaint was made. Cho texted and rang another girl, who also viewed his contact as annoying not stalking. Police again verbally warned Cho and again he immediately stopped contacting the girl. This time the affects on Cho were dramatic. Later that same day, the police were called back to his dorm as his roommate became concerned that Cho was suicidal (Cho's parents also arrived at VT that evening). Cho was taken voluntarily to Access, a state-sponsored mental health facility and he was released two days later.
It seems that Cho mental health took turn for the worse due social rejection and shunning durning and after Nov-Dec 2005. It is significant that Ishmael (Ishmail Ax, Cho's X-box gaming name was tattooed on his arm and signed on the package he sent to NBC), is a biblical character who was banished to the desert to die as a child. Also, there is a theme of abandonment in Cho’s video manifesto. Social rejection is a common trigger of depression and worse in socially isolating disorders.[12]
Have a look at the effects of shunning and this youtube video, a women explains the difficulties she faces due to her socially isolating condition. Diamonddavej 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bccw0jVovKw

Was Cho Seung-hui A Terrorist?

STOP SIMPLIFYING THINGS. It doesn't matter what you call him. He murdered 30 people. The media now todays has to give simple labels to things so people can easily categorize people as "martyr" or "terrorist" or "revolutionary". The President and his administration have people thinking of black and white, you're either good or evil, patriot or terrorist, if you're not with us you're against us. It doesn't matter what you call him. It never will. The term "terrorist" gets thrown around entirely too much today and is a cute word for people to use for anyone who is "evil". Terrorist is a simple word and has no relevance to the situation. Things aren't always black and white. Calling him something is just a waste of time. And it does not matter what religion he is to consider what to call him. If people continue to simplify people and just label them then you play into stereotypes and ignorance. Labeling people is subjective and is pointless in this article. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, one mans martyr is another's heretic.--68.193.135.2 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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?

These are silly. He was an Indie 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)
I think he fits the label of a terrorist with a really poor capacity to convey his message. Clearly the "you have brought this upon yourself by your actions" thin means he's responding in an effort to get change, likely political in part. Granted I'm sick of the overuse of the term terrorist, but he did try to make clear his killings were to impart a message via means of fear. --Auto(talk / contribs) 04:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Auto, he doesn't seem to want to change polictics, but rather the social atmosphere (Columbine link?). Recently released stories seem to show him having a hard time with bullies, and almost plotting revenge against them [he is said to have kept a list of names of everyone who bullied him - this only implies revenge thinking, so it's not article worthy, but it's worth bearing in mind]. Really, he seems to see himself, to me at least, as a martyr rather than a terrorist, judging from the vid Scanna 03:31, 22 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)

Very good point. Agree 100%. Scientz 21:45, 23 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)

If you have Christian religious beliefs, you're a Christian. I know some Christians have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that so many insane killers have been Christian, but disavowing Hitler doesn't change his religious views. You should take pride in your crazed murderers! Titanium Dragon 05:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon has a lot to learn about what being a Christian is. Just because you CLAIM to BE something doesn't make you one! By the way they live, is how you tell whether or not a person is a Christian, or just someone pretending to be a Christian. And it's disgusting for you to suggest that Christians, or ANYONE, "should take pride" in murderers!!! Please be more grown-up in your response to topics here!!!Starbright1 06:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree 100%. People are allowed to self-identify however they see fit. Just because you don't feel comfortable acknowledging Cho's Christianity doesn't "deChristianize" him. I'm sure many moderate Christians would "deChristianize" the Westboro Baptist Church, and I'm almost postive the WBC would love to do the same to 99.9% of Christians. "God Hates The World" after all. Scientz 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a martyr or revolutionary. Unfortunately revolutionary has ties with radicalism which has ties with terrorism. MSM views it all the same, plus terrorist is a charged word. 67.11.138.50 08:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He's a terrorist because he felt he represented an idea that would live on, he felt he was creating a spectacle that would get a lot of attention and teach society a lesson they would never forget, his actions were calculated to incite the most fear (the level of attention he is getting is really a reflection of our fear of a mass murderer who sets his own time to die), he knew he was setting an example for copycats, and he was issuing a call to action in a way that would guarantee that society would give in to his demands. (Being a terrorist does not require that you act in the name of a religion. And Cho is not a martyr because he did not die at the hands of others who were persecuting him.)

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: [13]) 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.[14] 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: [[15] and [16]. Here's one more: [17] 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)

Just my two cents, but it seems to me that "nationality-American" (almost?) always denotes second-generation (or later) immigrants. (e.g. Amy is an African-American descendant of African immigrants, Bob is an Irish-American descendant of Irish immigrants, etc.) Since there is no legal definition of the label, doesn't the answer rely on whether the subject self-applies it? Since the definition of "Korean American" is contentious, and in the absence of evidence for or against self-application, I think Category:Korean immigrants to the United States alone is more accurate and appropriate. Demong 01:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The category description of Category:Korean Americans states that "This category includes articles on people who immigrated from Korea to the United States, or are self-identified as Korean Americans." Cho fits the first description. Also, Category:Korean immigrants to the United States is a subcategory of Korean Americans. Assuming Korean American isn't a pejorative, I would say go with Korean American. (If you have a problem with the category itself, that's a separate issue.) Phony Saint 02:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Autopsies completed-NPR

I'll leave it to others to determine whether they want to try and make use of some of the initial details here [18] at this time, or wait until the full reports are released and digested by the press. W.C. 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the autopsy on Cho included bloodwork to determine if he was on any antidepressants? I noticed there was speculation in the media about whether or not he was ever on prescriptions meds. Since they would leave traces in the bloodstream, the autopsy could have cleared it up. Although come to think of it, it's rather doubtful, because he would need to have been with a psychiatrist to be able to get prescriptions, and a psychiatrist certainly would have noticed Cho's potentially-destructive behaviour. There are doctor-patient confidentiality issues, but it doesn't apply if the patient is a criminal risk, which was the case with this guy. J.J. Bustamante 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I imagine a tox screen is routine for any sort of murder or suicide situation, which this obviously is. I don't know if it's typical to test for prescription antidepressants, but I've heard the possibility mentioned by law enforcement in the media, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Natalie 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Manifesto Screen Capture

Here is a screen capture of the text from Cho's manifesto. [19] --Uthbrian (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was interesting, thanks. I'm waiting eagerly for the full manuscript to be released for reading. 71.121.135.67 08:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal from Wiki

I realise wiki is an encyclopedia of everything but many believe that the reason these school shooters take out a whole bunch of people with them is for the notoriety, the infamy, many news broadcasters have wisely decided not to air any info on the shooter. If we limit the info released about the shooter released so that they achieve no infamy on notoriety it may stave off future large massacres. Thats why i believe he should be removed from wiki why give this man who did something so aweful exactly what he wants?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stupidknowledge24 (talk • contribs).

He's already been plastered over the international news and Youtube. The damage has been done. Clipping this page would be pointless now - it wouldn't achieve anything.—greenrd 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are not giving him anything. He is dead.--Svetovid 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
We are not the arbiters of popularity. We are simply its mirror. --Dynaflow 19:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He fits the WP:NN criteria (as do plenty of other school shooters who also have their own articles). If we excluded everyone who has done something awful from Wikipedia, we wouldn't have a whole lot of articles left. autocratique ✩ 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Or editors, for that matter. --Dynaflow 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is once you begin removing things where does it end? Do you start deleting the Hitlers and Stalins (or fill in the blank with whomever) in order to "deprive" them of noteriety, too? Also, I think there is a difference with broadcast media where families, friends, children can be suddenly subjected to the experience whereas you have to make a conscious effort to view wikipedia. People can make their own choice. W.C. 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
He would have done it whether or not it gained him notariety, and Wikipedia is not the be-all-and-end-all of celebrity status. IF this encourages other killers who are more into popularity, it wouldn't matter, otherwise you'd stop teaching driving, because driving is a skill that can be used to kill, ban water, because it can be used to drown people, ban all coverage of crime, (but how would you know you live in a crime riddled area? or that a sex-criminal moved in next door?) 132.205.44.134 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is hazardous to have so much attention given to Cho, and I agree that it very well may contribute to more mass murderers in the future. Even Cho himself was apparently influenced somewhat by the Comlumbine killers, and there could be a disasterous chain effect. But, I give you another possibility -- people might come to use wikipedia to learn about the guy and the case and use that info to prevent such a thing from happening again. "Knowledge is power," yadda yadda yadda.... It's practical to have a sort of gathering place where all viable info on Cho is compiled so that the case can be studied. Although Congress would also have studies on this and could legislate and regulate to make things work, we don't have the same informational resources as Congress does, so wikipedia might just be the best we have.J.J. Bustamante 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, people without a pre-existing condition are not "influenced" by the existence of other mass murderers into killing 32 people and then committing suicide. I am the exact same age as Cho and was probably in the same year of high school as he was when the Columbine shooting took place, and I have never shot a bunch of people, nor have I ever killed myself. The man was obviously seriously mentally ill and I doubt that the presence or absence of information on other mass murderers made any difference.
That said, the idea that we should deny criminals notoriety because "that's what they want" is preposterous, not least because it makes a pretty huge assumption that notoriety is what criminals want. We have no idea what this person wanted, or even if his wants made any sense at all given his likely mental illness. Natalie 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Where to get his manifesto

Does anyone know where to get the full text (or as much of it as possible) of his 1800-word manifesto? Christopher Connor 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, and this talk page is for discussing the article, not the person. Phony Saint 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The page didn't say anything about his death.

A person who commits suicide is typically dead. Phony Saint 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Authorities have speculated about his the details of how he died but so far it appears that there may have been no actual witnesses to the act. W.C. 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the Cho/VT massacre articles need a one-stop shop for links to the manifesto and all the released video of it available. 68.33.148.172 13:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd Killer?

http://asherheimermann.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/2nd-killer/ This is something that we should do more work on? 67.36.86.19 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an unsubstantiated photo without a verifiable source. Many of those who have seen it have expressed doubts that it's actually Cho in the photo. Furthermore it's on the website of a career conspiracy theorist. If the investigation concludes there was a second killer, a second killer could be discussed, but all forensic mentions so far indicate Cho did it all. 71.121.135.67 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he/she is a theorist. I think he/she was just asking a question. And, thanks for that info. 65.43.22.203 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'railed' against

I can't find a dictionary that uses the word "railing" as a verb. I don't know what journalist came up with the word, but i think it shoud go. I'll give some time for others here to respond before I remove it from the NBC contents sectionYoungidealist 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is standard comtemporary usage, e.g.
"Clear Channel radio host railed against Nick Berg's father, called him a "scumbag"."
mediamatters.org/items/200405170002
"Bill railed against but OK'd. Freight lines won't be liable in wrecks."
headline, Denver Post: www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_5646415 Pete Tillman 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com does provide a definition that fits the usage in the article: "To express objections or criticisms in bitter, harsh, or abusive language." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/railed 71.121.135.67 07:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, If American Heritage Dictionary recognizes it with

"[Middle English railen, from Old French railler, to tease, joke, from Old Provençal ralhar, to chat, joke, from Vulgar Latin *ragulāre, to bray, from Late Latin ragere.]"

Then I can let it be unless someone would contend that the above roots are all false. I'm not against new contemporary language either, but I think it should be decided on by the use of the terminology and the popularity that term gains in the culture itself. Thanks for clarifying. -Youngidealist 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment to contributors

To all those that contributed to this artice: Thank you! It is much more informative, tasteful and intelligent than any coverage I have seen in the news media. 24.215.145.136 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Diagnosing" Cho

After I read through the article, I see that unconfirmed diagnoses and POV statements are creeping into this piece that speculated Cho's mental illness. Can everyone refrain from introducing speculation from real and "armchair" psychiatrists, psychologists and media outlets to keep the article of this information? To my knowledge, I know of no reports that present a confirmed mental illness condition suffered by Cho.

...from the Release of material section

Some psychiatrists who reviewed the materials believe that Cho's rantings offer little insight into the mental illness that may have triggered his rampage. Dr. Michael Wellner stated, "These videos do not help us understand [Cho]. They distort him. He was meek. He was quiet. This is a PR tape of him trying to turn himself into a Quentin Tarantino character."

This information does not appear to have nothing to do with the direct release of the packaged by NBC. This analysis was probably done by psychiatrists who either theorized his mental capacity from information from news reports or were asked by media outlets to give an opinion on Cho's mental condition. In anything, this part belongs in the Reaction to writings section.

...from the Behavior as a young child section

Cho's maternal grandaunt, Kim Yang-soon, described Cho as "cold" and a cause of family concern as an 8-year-old. According to Kim—who met him only twice—the boy was extremely shy and rarely talked unless prompted. He was otherwise considered "well-behaved." After arriving in the U.S., Cho's parents told the elderly aunt he may have autism, a developmental disability marked by profound social isolation and delayed speech acquisition. The aunt said she knew something was wrong because she heard frequent updates about Cho's older sister, but little news about Cho.

"Korean culture does not recognize mental illness,” according to UCLA's Kyeyoung Park, an anthropologist and professor of Korean Studies. “People do not recognize it or get help. There is a huge stigma.” Consequently, and because the confession video showed no indication of autistic behavior, this supposed early "autism" diagnosis has been thrown into doubt. Kim later clarified that Cho's parents only recently offered autism as an explanation for their son's behaviors, sharing the revelation in a recent New Year's call. An autism diagnosis could not be verified with Cho's U.S. family, nor is it clear whether it was ever used by U.S. school authorities ("no records show such a diagnosis"). "Relatives thought he might be a mute. Or mentally ill," reported the New York Times.18 Cho's childhood and later behaviors may signal selective mutism, a rare anxiety disorder sometimes mistaken for autism in children. Selective mutism has been linked (in rare cases) to later psychosis and rampage killings.

To address his emotional problems, Cho's parents would take him to church. He was bullied in his Christian youth group, especially by wealthy members.

Most of this text does not belong in the article, since much some of it appears to be original research that adds nothing about Cho's behavior during childhood. From what I see, only the first paragraph describes Cho's behavior as a young child, since this info comes from a firsthand account of a relative. If any of the other information could be verified/validated, the rest of it could be included in a new section about how the South Korean culture views mental illness, but even that is a stretch and out of scope for this article, since this type of information applies generally to a group of people and not specifically to Cho.

---

My other concern here is that some of this information has been recycled and placed in the article in news format (e.g., Kim met Cho in fifth grade, attending the same classes and riding the school bus together. There were only three Korean students in the school. Back then, he said, nobody hated Cho and he "was recognised by friends as a boy of knowledge... a good dresser who was popular with the girls." Cho kept a distance from others because he chose to do so. Kim added that "I only have good memories about him."). lwalt 14:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we don't have a diagnosis. We shouldn't be making diagnoses. The problem is that the 'neutrality' label doesn't help someone understand that the false autism claim has gone around the world in hundreds of articles over the last five days, was never verified with the Cho family or with school officials, and apparently turns out never to have been an official diagnosis (there is no school record of it). The article needs to say that, without qualification.
The autistic community has been put into an impossible situation. It doesn't like labels and armchair diagnoses; it doesn't want to throw them out on others. But by that token, this armchair diagnosis doesn't fit us, was probably never merited, and is creating a tragic misunderstanding around the world. When I read a Wikipedia article and see a 'neutrality' label, I assume the whole section is deeply flawed—and worst of all, after reading it with the 'neutrality' label, I might still read it wondering if Cho was autistic. To say that the section lacks 'neutrality' is to obscure the fundamantal fact that Cho's autism was never verified and is now widely cast in doubt (at least on the Internet...as of this writing, not a single media propagator of the autism slur has bothered to run an article interviewing an expert to question it. The cowardly Washington Post, which helped launch the smear in the US, inserted a one line comment in an article on Sunday, saying there were no school records of his supposed autism.)
For the record, I see the "autistic" and "selective mutism" discussion as different from that of his underlying pathology, what drove him to murder. We're never going to know the full truth on that, and also, those labels (psychopath, psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic, etc) lack their own specificity and truth value. Can we not lump in "autistic" and "selective mutism" with the various psychological diagnoses? In fact, the debate about autism vs. selective mutism is relevant to the basic understanding of his upbringing. Does anyone doubt the Wikipedia article should reflect the facts of his childhood?
Also, for what it's worth, his middle school friendship with another Korean-American is important, because those single intimate "protector" relationships are a hallmark of selective mutism (just like the fact that Cho could speak, fluently, in some circumstances, but was completely impaired in others..that isn't typical autism, but it is typical of selective mutism, which is often misdiagnosed as autism). I suggest educating yourself about the issues—read my discussion of selective mutism, above—and educate yourself. Revise the copy, if you wish. Then remove the 'neutrality' label. To my mind, you have not done a good job of justifying why you think the 'neutrality' label is merited. Sandover 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Iwalt; selective multism doesn't have a place in the article, as that's people attempting to diagnose him posthumously. The only relevant information is that his grandaunt said his parents said he was autistic, and that nobody found any such records. Phony Saint 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I will leave the copy as is, but with one caveat: you are creating a false impression by defining and characterizing autism as "delayed speech acquisition" without specifically stating that Cho's developmental history indicates something different.
To be sure, the article says he didn't talk unless prompted, and says that relatives wondered if he was "mute." But it doesn't specifically state that Cho showed no signs of "delayed speech acquisition." In fact, it implies that people observed this, which in fact appears not to be the case. Sandover 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So is your problem with the description of autism as having delayed speech acquisition, or is that Cho didn't have it? If it's the former, you can simply remove that part from the description. If it's the latter, nobody specifically said that he did, so again you can just remove that part of the description. Phony Saint 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The description of autism is fine; it's the implication that Cho, too, had speech delays (which he apparently did not). Short of adding a sentence or phrase, however, I don't know how to fix it. So I'll leave it for now. Sandover 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the implication, aside from the description of autism. His relatives only said he had difficulties socializing. Phony Saint 00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculative

The main page should display warnings about bias. Since there is no diagnosis of autism, it is not the disease and, since it is a very misunderstood disease (which can't be "eliminated" the way "Rock Autism" claims) -- this is an example of the article's speculative bias and lack of factual matter. Please place an NPOV or other appropriate tag on the page. 70.5.81.28 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done See my comments in previous section. lwalt 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed 'neutrality' label, pending a better justification for its use. I rewrote the section on his young childhood and hope it now satisfies. —Sandover 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
The only problem is that his nametag reads "Hu", not "Hui". It's obviously a hoax. Parsecboy 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Edit By Nathan Fluet webmaster of abuse-of-power.org : The way to discern the authenticity of a photo is not by looking at a name tag please look at these enlarged comparisons http://abuse-of-power.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=314 of the image alongside 2 known photos of Cho from NBC there are common scars and both the eyes, nose and brow all match the eyebrows don't but again you don't use hair to match a subject you use facial structure and this my friends is Cho. Abuseofpower 10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Holy Jesus, an Asian-lookin' guy in MARPAT! It must be that Korean guy from the news, since there can't possibly be any Asian-lookin' folks who are actually in the American armed forces, and, well... the logic still breaks down ... But that must still be him!"
This is an obvious hoax. --Dynaflow 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow you cant even click on a link and look at the comparison huh so you know i have even shown this comparison to a South Korean and he said it is the same person too, this isn't a round eye seeing all Asians as looking the same as i said there is even a common scar. Abuseofpower 12:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did click the link, I did look, and I am far from convinced. One of the reasons people wear balaclavas (besides to keep sand and dust out of their mouths while on patrol) is to conceal their identities. It is very hard to identify someone by the bridge of his or her nose, and any identification of this photograph's subjects will be tenuous in the extreme (read: a wild stab in the dark) until someone comes up with a verifiable source for where it came from, who took it, and when. Until then, my hoax RADAR is on full alert. --Dynaflow 12:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good picture to prove my method of comparing facial structure, in this picture we see almond shaped eyes relatively evenly tapered at each side in the picture in question and in all known picture of Cho the eyes are wider on the inside edge and tapers on the outside edge, next this mans brow is not near as pronounced as the brow of Cho but the man in the picture in question has the same structure to his brow as Cho, next is to compare the space between the eyes, and then the space from the inner edge of the eye to the side of the bridge of the nose, next comes measurement of the length and width of the nose followed by scar identification and comparison. All of these comparisons show this picture in question is in fact Cho, when you have a arguement slightly more scientific I would look forward to hearing it. Abuseofpower 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know many Asian people? These are extremely common features you're listing. Two big holes, aside from the obvious:
  1. The healed scar on the Marine is being correlated to a raised blemish on the soon-to-be-dead Cho. We can assume the blemish never had time to heal on the latter if the reports are true that Cho's last-minute multimedia extravaganza was put together the day of his rampage.
  2. Also, if you look at the Marine, he has a widow's peak hair formation, while Cho does not show the same (genetically-mediated) feature even though his hair is cut to the same length as the Marine's. --Dynaflow 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Try this: Take the photos into Photoshop (or download GIMP -- it's free!) and start messing around with hues and saturation and such, and you will start to see other features come out that you can't see easily in the normal versions of the photographs, like the raised blemish on Cho. --Dynaflow 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hairlines can be easily modified as the eyebrows can look at the Virginia tech ID picture and the NBC pictures his eyebrows are longer in the ID this proves nothing are you going to say the ID picture isn't Cho now? And if you want i can add Cho's ID to the comparison as the scar is visible in that picture too as well as the marine picture. And to answer your question I grew up with all Laotian, Vietnamese and South Koreans my best friends back home were all of those nationalities and I used to speak Laotian fairly well, you want to paint me as a ignorant person who thinks all Asians look alike the fact of the matter is that i can tell most Asian peoples nationality by looking at there face because each country has its own unique facial characteristics, foreheads, brows, eye shape, cheekbone structure etc... for you to attempt to say that you cant match these available facial features including the shape and size of the nose, the outline of which is clearly visible through the balaclava is ridiculous do you think that every Asian persons eyes are the same distance apart and that every one of there noses is the same length,eyes the same width and shape, and that they all have matching scars on there brows lets be serious here..Abuseofpower 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to come off as an ass in this, but let's just say your theory is true. That this photo is of Cho. Well first off, if it is, it had to have been taken recently, as some of his photos that he took himself, his hair is not fully shaved, and then in others they are. I am talking about some of the photos of him just recently. So what happens to all of the other pictures where he has long hair, and when exactly did he find the time to join the Marines? When he was still living at the dorm in V-Tech. These are small factors you have to look at. Being prior military, you cannot join the military for all of the following reasons:
1 - You must be atleast 18 to join the military, where as Cho was enrolled in college at this age
2 - You can be in the military with mental disorders, but they will not let you join, if you have these mental disorders, without proper treatment, not to mention, they would have more medical paperwork to go with.
3 - One thing that stands out here, is if this is Cho, in the "MARINES" he would not be able to attend full time college, as the Marines do not have a National Guard based program, where you only attend one weekend a month.
As I said, I don't want to come off as an ass, but I too have taken good looks at the photos, and there are alot of parts that don't match. His eyebrows for one, his skin color is a very different hue in the military photo than in his normal photos. Many blemishes that you are pointing out is much harder to see due to the pixelation of the other photos. The fact that the Marine has the widows peak, and Cho does not, is a big one. Yes, hairlines can be changed. But the fact is, Cho had just recently shaved his head, before the killings. Not to mention, when you look at the photos of him with hair, he does not bare the line that the marine does, because it would still stand out with hair. Just as mine does... sadly... Anyway, this photo is definately a fake to try and start shit with the American Government, just to pull us all apart. Or it is Cho, but, he was not in the Marines. --CorpusDelecti 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that there is much need to dwell on it further. The image has been deleted. If it is reuploaded again, it will be deleted again. --BigDT (416) 16:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's just a matter of discussion! =D--CorpusDelecti 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


Don't worry your not, but your arguement is no good hair grows back fast and the time it would take, even for the picture he has the longest hair in would be a few months from a high and tight, also his mental illness was not diagnosed until 2005 and he is 23 so that wouldn't have been a factor in joining the services if he say joined at 18, if i did my math right he started at VT when he was 19. If he served only a year or less I doubt you would see the line, after many years of the same cut maybe, but not after 1. By the way i received my Honorable Discharge in February of 2006. Also do you know of any higher quality copies of the NBC photos because I will gladly debunk my own theory if they show things differently than the slightly pixelated ones. Abuseofpower 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not bashing! =) As of now, I am unsure of any other photos, although I have been following this incident very closely and a friend of mine works with SAIC and they have been doing investigations with this matter. So I will be sure to try and supply whatever I am able to legally provide about it. Although, I do understand that he could have joined the Marines back when he was 18, however as stated by his family members, he was autistic, which I am pretty sure would have kept him out of the military. Also he was a perminent resident of the US but I have not seen anything stating that he was a nationalized citizen, which would also keep him from joining the American Armed Forces. However, as I said, if it is him, then this photo is just to make the military and the government look bad as it is being spread about. Which is wrong. There are actually a few sites stating that this whole thing was a Black Ops program to get gun control more intact. But also, you being prior military as well should know how easy it is for someone to get ahold of military uniforms and clothing. It is really not that hard, so even if it is him, it does not mean he was in the Marines, if he was, then he would have had to have been discharged right before going into college, because why would he pay to live in a dorm when he could have just as easily lived on the base close by for free? I dunno, I really don't believe that this picture is of Cho, or that he was in the military, and also I don't think I mentioned this earlier, but his Westernized (American) name was Seung-Hui Cho, Cho being his last name, which would have been what was on the name tag. No Hu, or Hui. That is another thing that people are looking past, and if he was in the Marines, I don't see why more people did not come about to give insight about Cho than have so far. Why only teachers, family and classmates? They also have yet to even look into whether he was enlisted or not. I dunno, I'm just ranting now, work is really boring today! LOL.--CorpusDelecti 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Two things: green-card holders are, in fact, allowed to join the military, though that should not distract us from the basic hoaxiness of the photo's reputed origins. Also, I don't really see what the angle is here. Is the accusation that the government is covering up the "fact" that Cho "was" a Marine? That would be pretty stupid, since records of having served in the armed forces are a matter of public record, and getting trapped in that kind of lie would be a matter of course. It's been my impression that the Marine Corps, in particular, has been somewhat proud, in a backhanded sort of way, of ex-Marines who snap and yet still revert to their training as highly efficient warriors (e.g. Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald. If Cho was a Marine, there's no reason for "Them" to not just 'fess up to it. What type of conspiracy theory is this hoax shilling for? --Dynaflow 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are seeming to miss out on the fact that he was also pretty much "autistic" which he would not have been able to enlist due to.--CorpusDelecti 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"if it is him, then this photo is just to make the military and the government look bad as it is being spread about." this is only part right, if it is him it does make the government look bad but it also means that they aren't telling us the entire truth about the issue and people will spread this photo to enlighten our fellow citizens to this fact. About Hu, the name name Hu is Chinese, why it would be on a uniform Cho was wearing would only be speculation and conspiracy theories, I am basing my arguement strictly from observation of available data. About gun control that happens when people like Congressman Dennis Kucinich draft legislation the day after the shooting that will strip all Americans of all handguns unconditionally, see this pdf of the congressional record http://abuse-of-power.org/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=1&lid=61 Abuseofpower 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
... What? --Dynaflow 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was addressing CorpusDelecti's comment, other then that was something unclear? Abuseofpower 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All I'm trying to say is, since he was autistic there is no way that he would have been able to join the military. I've just never heard of it.--CorpusDelecti 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
All you have to do is watch the video he sent to NBC and you can see that he isn't autistic. Have you ever known someone with autism, and I mean true autism not this sliding scale of autism severity they try and dish us now, Ill tell you that I grew up with a Autistic friend and there is no way he could sat there reading through all of that material on camera without freaking out, that all my friend did like every 5 minutes he would freak out and scream and through a fit. They can not even behave in a mildly normal fashion and are by no means "quiet" people. Abuseofpower 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to say my friend, but that is the likes of Turrets Syndrome, not Autism. Autism is exactly what Cho had shown. Especially when he was reading, his speech was very slow, and his voice was almost as if he could not speak. Sounding much as if he were deaf or mute and trying to make the sounds. This is the definition and symptoms of Autism.
This is pulled off of Wiki itself.
Autism is classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) and American Psychological Association as a developmental disability that results from a disorder of the human central nervous system.[1] It is diagnosed using specific criteria for impairments to social interaction, communication, interests, imagination and activities.[2] The causes, symptoms, etiology, treatment, and other issues are controversial.
Autism manifests itself "before the age of three years" according to the WHO's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10).[3] Children with autism are marked by delays in their "social interaction, language as used in social communication, or symbolic or imaginative play" (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).[4]
Autism, and the other four pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), are all considered to be neurodevelopmental disorders. They are diagnosed on the basis of a triad, or group of three behavioral impairments or dysfunctions: 1. impaired social interaction, 2. impaired communication and 3. restricted and repetitive interests and activities.[5] These three basic characteristics reflect Dr. Leo Kanner's first reports of autism emphasizing "autistic aloneness" and "insistence on sameness."
And the symptoms are as follows for children, have not found adults yet:
Noted Behaviors in Children
stares into open areas, doesn't focus on anything specific.
does not respond to his/her name.
cannot explain what he/she wants.
language skills are slow to develop or speech is delayed.
doesn't follow directions.
will fuss if didn't get what wanted.
at times, the child seems to be deaf.
doesn't point or wave "bye-bye."
doesn't understand the concept of pointing; will look at the hand pointing rather than the object being pointed at.
used to say a few words or babble, but now he/she doesn't.
throws intense or violent tantrums.
has odd movement patterns.
likes to spin around in a circle.
likes being in a place well known.
hands on ears often.
is overly active, uncooperative, or resistant.
doesn't know how to play with toys.
doesn't smile when smiled at.
has poor eye contact.
gets "stuck" doing the same things over and over and can't move on to other things.
seems to prefer to play alone.
gets things for him/herself only.
is very independent for his/her age.
does things "early" compared to other children.
seems to be in his/her "own world."
seems to tune people out.
is not interested in other children.
dislikes playing pretend.
walks on his/her toes.
shows unusual attachments to toys, objects, or schedules (i.e., always holding a string or having to put socks on before pants).
spends a lot of time stacking objects, lining things up or putting things in a certain order.
unconcerned about - or completely oblivious to - dangers around him/her (i.e., standing in the middle of the street without worrying about getting hit by a car).
I hope that this might help you see a little more about how Cho was definately Autistic by what reports and interviews state.--CorpusDelecti 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe autism is even allowed on the Seung-Hui Cho page because it is unverifiable and that only select news organizations translated what his family member said as autism, if you think you can diagnose a dead guy with autism, well thats just a little humorous. And besides that I know you would like to think that the Military only takes the best of the best but the fact is they take whoever they can get, I even know recruiters who have destroyed medical records and given recruits substances to allow them to pass drug tests, when I went to MEPS my knee's cracked loud as hell as I duck walked about half the required distance and they didn't care. Abuseofpower 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake it says the parent told the aunt that he "may have autism" and it also says the diagnosis "could not be verified" and that "no records show such a diagnosis" hmmm Abuseofpower 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18virginia.html?th&emc=th
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seung-Hui_Cho/Archive_5&oldid=1056578592"