Jump to content

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proudlyhumble07 (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 22 April 2007 (→‎Add to [[Category:American mass murders]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 20 hours are automatically archived to Talk:Cho Seung-hui/Archive 3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Naming order POLL (again!)

I propose a new poll on the question of whether or not this article should be moved from "Cho Seung-Hui" to "Seung-Hui Cho." Media outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, AP, and a number of others have now switched to Seung-Hui Cho after the family announced that this was the order they used. So shall it be Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho? Many arguments for both sides have been articulated above, and I only propose this new poll because some who weighed in earlier on the talk page might want to rethink their votes given the apparent switch by much of the media. Add your vote here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}


Hikikomori

I'm not saying that Seung-hui was a "true hikikomori," but consider the Hikikomori Contoversy article. Red Plum 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Cho Seung-hui - Legal name + Name used in all sources except for ABC News WhisperToMe 06:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    He is a citizen of South Korea, not the United States. WhisperToMe 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Cho Seung-hui - This is the name he is now known by. Atropos 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This is an American event in the USA, why should you say his name in Korean order? You should not make exceptions for Koreans. The Japanese also say and write their name in FAMILY NAME, Given name order in their own country, but when in an international environment like the USA, they display their names in Western fashion. In the USA you don't call Hideki Matsui, Matsui Hideki nor do you call Ichiro Suziki, Suzuki Ichiro and so on and so on. Koreans need to get with the program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  • Koreans in the US are typically known by Korean order: i.e. Ban Ki-moon. Japanese people treat their names differently. WhisperToMe 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Cho Seung-hui Bueller 007 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • He has a diploma from high school, and I guarantee you it reads "Seung-Hui Cho." Secondgen 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Cho Seung-hui -- easier, the most common name in the media, he is Korean. Mumun 無文 09:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cho Seung-hui Ronnotel 11:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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


  • 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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Hooray, I was not 3RR blocked in vain! =) --Dynaflow 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

South Korean dramatists and playwrights

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

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

Removed. Proserpine 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proserpine, of course he's a notable playwright! I can't believe you would say something like that! Haven't you noticed the controversy over his two plays, Mr. Brownstone and Richard McBeef? They are famous BECAUSE of the incident. WhisperToMe 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, those plays aren't Famous, they are Infamous. There's a difference. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe, he became infamous for his mass murder, not his playwright. We find out later he wrote half-assed plays. That doesn't make him a notable playwright. Secondgen 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a play for a class does not automatically make you a "playwright". WooHoo... I am a scientist, because once, I put baking soda and vinegar in a volcano shaped thing to show a chemical reaction... I do believe I'll add that little tidbit to my resume. --Ali'i 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WhisperToMe 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I am willing to beat it more, Ali'i. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 = "Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays" - Rather notable, isn't it? WhisperToMe 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If this guy is a "notable playwright", then Hitler is a "notable watercolour painter". Bueller 007 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to do this to you WhisperToMe, but sometimes a dead horse does need beating :)
  Main Entry: 1no·ta·ble  
  Pronunciation: 'nO-t&-b&l, for 2 also 'nä-
  Function: adjective
  1 a : worthy of note : REMARKABLE b : DISTINGUISHED, PROMINENT

  As you can see, he is not notable at all in the discussion of playwright. Secondgen 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he is - He's notable because all of his teachers read it and said "Man, this guy needs mental help" - He is distinguished in the sense that his plays were found to be disturbing and representative of his personality. WhisperToMe 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most ridiculous things I've ever seen, really. Come on. This is not the reason he's famous. One might call his "plays" notable, but he himself is not notable AS A PLAYWRIGHT. Bueller 007 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an explanation on how someone's plays can be notable but someone cannot be notable as the author of the said plays. Is it because no professional play publisher (yet) published them? Is it because nobody tried to stage the plays? WhisperToMe 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's because nobody gives two craps about his plays. He's a mass murderer. He gains ABSOLUTELY NO FAME OR NOTABILITY WHATSOEVER for being the author of those plays, and had it not been for the mass murder itself, nobody would ever have known about them. Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now. He is infamous for being a murderer, he is not "notable" as being a playwright. Bueller 007 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing remarkable, distinguishing, prominent, and worthy of his play. He has not impacted society with his writing. Don't confuse a person's emotion to what actually happened. So I find the play to not be anywhere near morbid as what is readily available today. Even so, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, society has not distinguished him as a playwright. And they never will. Secondgen 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Society will find him as a screwed up person who created morbid plays from his "fertile" and crazy mind. But, enough about that.

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

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

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

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

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

WhisperToMe 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MORBID CURIOSITY. And it's YOU who's missing the point. The most important thing I said was "Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now." He is NOT notable as a playwright, and I'm done having this goddamn argument. Note that all of your arguments are arguing for the notability of the plays, not his notability as a playwright. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME. Bueller 007 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bueller 007, I refuse to give in; I refuse to follow fake "morality" and I refuse to accept your rationale. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting him into that category makes as much sense as putting George W. Bush into Category:Cheerleaders. I know he was a cheerleader, it's been written about at several places, the article states he was a cheerleader, but he really is not notable for being a cheerleader. - Bobet 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to see the news articles about the role of the plays. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look he did lots of other stuff too, and he is not famous for any of it. He is famous only for murdering 33 people. The plays can be mentioned in the article, but only in the context of the murders. Without the murders, no one would give a darn about the plays, no matter how disturbing they are.70.21.231.66 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so simple -- he is not notable for his plays, hence he doesn't belong in that category. For him to be there you would have to ask "If he was not a mass murderer, would his plays be notable?", and the answer is, no. The Hitler example is perfect, he is not notable for his art even though it is mentioned many times, including here. 67.11.138.50 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

Which arm?

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

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

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

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

Nubbles 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It wouldn't be very useful considering that if he was right-handed, he probably wrote it in his left arm. And if he was left-handed he most likely wrote it in his right-arm. --Legion fi 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Attributed Writings

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

Anyone care to weigh in on this, or should I just edit as I see fit?Bentobias 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit as you see fit. It's good as it stands. We all have "attributed writings" and his are revealing. ~ Rollo44 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His writings are relevant to why he did the massacre. Christopher Connor 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

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

I heard he's a Christian.

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

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

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

Well, in light of the recently released monologues, I would say that his religious beliefs are central. Also, I believe one of the released photos has him in a Jesus Christ Pose, although drawing that conclusion in the article would probably be considered OR. (Note that I don't think he himself was referencing Soundgarden. I just thought the context was pretty ironic, and hyperlinking is what the cool kids do.) :) -Etafly 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh you don't have to be Muslim to be referencing a figure in Islam. Many people tattoo Chinese characters, many of them don't even know how to say those words. --Kvasir 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Quoting Osama Bin Laden would hardly make one a Muslim. He repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ, never once referring to Allah. As Malamockq says below, it's leaning towards Christianity. I hardly see why you're insisting that he's Muslim, unless you're trying to put forth the argument that his suicide attack defaults him as a Muslim. Also, your link is dead. -Etafly 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in his mailed material shown on MSNBC's website to indicate he is Muslim. To the contrary, he seems to compare society, and his emotional suffering due to it, as a terrorism like that perpetrated by Osama. He actually says "Now you have gone on a 9/11 like BLANKED Osama". I know there are many in the extreme blogging media that would love to paint as Islamic angle to this, but there simply is no evidence of it. In fact, everything points to a confused young man who had a distaste for religion in general. Padishah5000 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Quite apart from the lack of significance that ought to be ascribed to the Ismail/Ishmael point, there is direct evidence that Cho was not a Muslim, at least not any kind of orthodox one. He said: "Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." Most Muslims do not believe that Jesus died at all, on the basis of a statement in the Qur'an; see Islamic view of Jesus. -- Anon.

indeed, there's nothing Islamic at all in anything attributed to him. Don't know how people have managed to convince themselves otherwise. 87.194.191.177 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean Americans |

Forget the semantics, this man was clearly acculturated in the US. He arrived at the age of eight and died there when he was 23. Fifteen-odd formative years ... Nitpicking over how to describe him overlooks the fact that this psychopath was probably shaped more by the country he grew up in than the one he left as a little kid. Johnno2 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cho_Seung-hui" He was from South Korea, and he was a legal resident in Virginia, but is it correct to call him a Korean-American? I didn't remove it. Someone else can do it. I am not sure. --Kalmia 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we had this talk yesterday and today (look in the archive). refer to [[4]] to see that the tag 'American' does not mean citizen of America. Also see [[5]] to note that the category includes those who immigrated from Korea. Harlock jds 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's misleading, not correct. The word Korean-American refers to American citizens, not inhabitants, whether or not "American" in isolation can possibly mean "inhabitant". And he wasn't an "immigrant", he was an alien resident. There's already a category of "Korean immigrants to the United States" applied to him, and so "Korean American" according to your (wrong) interpretation would be identical. So I've removed it. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes he was a immagrent he had a green card and was a perm resident. also see (see [[6]] for another example of 'American' having nothing to do with citizenship. (unsigned)
Fine, we'll just stick disputed on it then. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to add Asian American since that definition (and article) makes it clear that it includes non citizens (BTW if Korean American did refer to citizenship the category shouldn't exist because someone can not really be a citizen of both countries since Korea doesn't recognize dual citizenship, nor should Japanese American and many others)Harlock jds 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The second word indicates *nationality* and the first word indicates *ethnicity*. He was not an American national. He was not an American. Bueller 007 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's personal opinion... the consciences seems to be (on wikipedia at least) that Asian American includes non citizens (as does the word 'American') please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian-American and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/American Harlock jds 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly am I supposed to be looking for here? The first page says "A Korean American is an American of Korean descent." The second says "A person or attribute of the United States of America." We have no proof that Cho ever thought of himself as an American, we have no proof that he is accepted as a "Korean American" by the Korean-American community at large. I've not seen a single major media outlet call him a "Korean American". But that's irrelevant, because calling him an "American" goes against the common dictionary definitions.
Mirriam Webster: "a citizen of the United States"
Oxford: "a native or citizen of the United States" Bueller 007 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition " A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent"
Follow the link to Amerasian and see "Asian American is typically used of a person whose parents are both ethnic Asians but who by birth or naturalization is an American citizen" Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change how they define Asian AmericanHarlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YES, IT DOES. That's why they have a "See Amerasian for usage" link on the Asian American page. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Public Health ""Asian American" is a general term for Asians and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) living in the United States."
No. This would include illegal immigrants and persons on short-stay visas. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes it would... your point (short stay is debatable since live usually means permently resides but i'd include illegals)?Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the definition is ridiculous and obviously far too broad in scope because it includes people who are clearly not Americans: illegal immigrants, and people who are permitted to live there for no more than a couple of years. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since other sources seem to disagree about the subject i think we have to stick with wikipedia's definitions (since this is wikipedia and all) which clearly takes citizenship out of the category. Once those are changed then we can remove it from here but until then he fits. However i'll let someone else add it, if i'm in the minority here then i'll go with the crowd. Harlock jds 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, and second, as far as I know, there has not been A SINGLE REFERENCE to him in the mass media as a "Korean American" or "Asian American". I shouldn't be the one to have to prove your claims wrong, you should be the one to prove yourself right. Please find at least two independent mainstream media references that refer to him as "American". A dictionary that actually supports what you claim wouldn't hurt either. Finally, if this thread is any indication, it would appear that you have already lost the public-opinion battle for defining him as an American. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't consider 2 people disagreeing as 'lost the public-opinion battle'. as for citation I'm pretty sure that categorization don't need cites (and i don't care what the media calls him they have to pander to people like yourself who get upset when perment residents are considered Americans)Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"2 people disagreeing" is not what I was referring to. I estimated that most of the people who have been posting on the talk page about this topic have been AGAINST the use of the term "American". Hence "public opinion". And you may not *HAVE TO* cite a categorization, but you should certainly be able to prove its relevance/appropriateness. If one wants to label him a "Korean-American" there should be at least a SHRED of evidence that the term is in fact appropriate, and this label has been used before, either by him, his family, the Korean-American community or the American community at large. You have shown none of these. (BTW, I love how you use suggest that the media would need to "pander to me" without you even knowing me, my convictions or my motivations.) Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

With the one minor exception of him not being American. American is NOT an ethnicity, it's a NATIONALITY and one gains nationality by being a citizen of a particular country. Cho was not a United States citizen and not an American or a Korean-American. Korean-American is NOT "a term for an ethnic minority" it's a term for a United States citizen with Korean heritage. "Korean" is an ethnic term, "American" is not (unless dealing with Native Americans). 202.128.1.120 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed on what an ethnic group is and confusing it with race. Please read the article or an anthropology textbook. If there is such a thing as "American culture" then, because there is a community based around that culture, there is an etnic group. But the issue is Korean-American. And no one gains Korean-American nationality. It's an ethnic term. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings on your part. Thank you. --Chris 06:23, 19 April 2007
I’ve read plenty of anthropology books in college and there is no misunderstanding on my part. You are confusing ethnic group with nationality. He is not an American, culturally or otherwise and your insistence to the contrary is what is causing undue misunderstanding. 202.128.1.120 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person to whom you are responding is correct in every way. How can you say "he is not an American, culturally or otherwise"? What about him isn't American, or more specifically Korean American? Who gets to define who is "culturally" American? Can someone live in the U.S. from the age of 8 to 23 without cessation, during the years in which one absorbs a culture, attending public schools, and not be culturally American? Does "culturally American" look only one specific way? On what are you basing your assertions? All of your "arguments" are of the "It's true because I say so" variety, without any nuance or examples to back up your claims. Moncrief 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve just basically summed up my argument for me. My original point was that the whole cultural assimilation criteria are pointless to use because no one can universally define it and it is too subjective. What I call fully Americanized might not be remotely Americanized to someone else. Therefore the only definite measure that is indisputable should be citizenship. My wife is a naturalized American, and after 10 years of being a Green Card holder, she decided herself to fill out and submit a bunch of the paperwork, study like crazy, meet the necessary requirements, pay the fees, take the test, pass the test, stand before a United States Federal District Judge and swear an oath before God that she renounces her loyalty to her home country and swears allegiance to the United States of America. SHE is an American. But every day before she took that oath she was NOT an American even if she may have happened to meet your personal requirements to be called such. There is a way for immigrants to become Americans if they choose. Cho decided not to although he could have. He is NOT an American because he’s met your personal criteria for having hung around the country long enough and speaking enough English. 202.128.1.120 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I understand your concept of "Cultural Nuance" but an encyclopedia is no place for "maybes," "could be’s," or "some people might see it this way." It's a place for facts and the fact is, without nuance, Cho was not American. And it's not that way because I say so, the law says so, and a Federal District Court Judge has the say so, not you. You are the one trying to claim he is American because YOU say so, because he's met your requirements to be called an American and in YOUR nuanced reasoning he is. I say, the law should decide who is an American, and Naturalization law is quite clear. It's not my rules I'm using but Uncle Sam's rules.

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

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

Sigh. He absolutely *DID NOT* have all the rights afforded to an American citizen. "Permanent legal resident" status can be revoked if one commits a crime, for example. That can mean DEPORTATION TO ONE'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Were he to return to SK during his mandatory military service years, he would be drafted into the armed forces, and the American government would have no right to complain or intervene on his behalf. He carried a Korean passport, representing himself as a Korean all over the world. In the eyes of any foreign nation, he would be a Korean, subject to visa restrictions that apply to Koreans, not Americans.
BTW, a child born in America in the fashion you suggest would ABSOLUTELY be an American, unless he chose to renounce his citizenship. (Koreans are not permitted to hold dual citizenship, and are forced to renounce one of their citizenships by the age of 21). Bueller 007 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is a real impasse, and we'll have to get outside arbitrators to settle it. Those of you who see "American" in the case of a phrase like "Korean American" as meaning "U.S. citizen" do not seem to understand that such a phrase is a cultural, nuanced term. That you'd believe that a 20-year-old kid who was born in the U.S. but had lived from the age of one month in Korea never to leave, not speaking any English and without any of the cultural influences an American raised in the U.S. has is a Korean American while someone raised in the U.S. who we have no reason to believe has even been back to Korea since the age of 8 is not a Korean American shows that there really isn't too much point in continuing dialogue. You have a radically different sense of the what such a term means, which is not the way most people understand such a term. I'll put this on Requests for Comment/Arbitration when I get a chance. Moncrief 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the absolute dearth of labelling Cho "Korean American" within the media--and even within the realm of lay conversation from what I can tell--I would hardly say that I am in the minority in my viewpoint. Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about that? See [7] (Reuters). Here's an example of an article using "Korean American" to describe those who, like Cho's parents, emigrated as adults: [8] (S.F. Chronicle). You can do a Google News search on "Cho" and "Korean American" and see just how many articles come up: too many to go through now for me. Moncrief 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure of that. 1) You're looking at an old copy of the Reuters story. It has since been updated and the Korean-American reference has been removed.[9] You'll also note that in newer articles, such as this one [10] they refer to him as "a student from Korea". 2) The other article you provided does not once call him "Korean-American." It calls him a "Korean immigrant". Also, it never refers to "people like his parents" as "Korean-American". It merely uses the word without defining it or giving an example. Given their choice of words in referring to Cho as a "Korean immigrant" it seems likely that "Korean-American" means "a Korean with American citizenship". Don't post articles you haven't actually bothered to read. You'll find the VAST majority of hits you're turning up with Google do not label him as "Korean American", they just merely use the two terms together in one article (i.e., the reaction of the "Korean-American" community in response to the killings by the Korean immigrant). Bueller 007 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from the San Francisco Chronicle article is: "But local Korean American parents are talking about how they can overcome linguistic, cultural and generational barriers to communicate with their children." Do you think that every Korean American parent covered by that sentence is a U.S. citizen? Do you think "U.S. citizen" was the working definition of "Korean American" for the journalist who wrote that sentence? Are the Korean Americans mentioned in all of the articles that mention Korean Americans U.S. citizens? Is citizenship a prerequisite for joining a group comprised of Korean Americans? Do Korean Americans themselves use citizenship as a prerequisite for owning and using that phrase? You seem to be pretty certain of how that phrase is used without offering up any evidence. Moncrief 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that quote makes no claims whatsoever as to what a Korean American is or isn't. It certainly does not call the killer that. It calls him a "Korean immigrant", which appears to be used to deliberately contrast the killer with "Korean Americans". Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here are two more mainstream media references for you: [11] and [12] Moncrief 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's one from ABC. "Hamptonroads" is hardly a mainstream source. Besides, this issue has already been settled down below. There is a "Korean immigrants to the United States" category that would seem to apply to people just like Cho. Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hamptonroads.com is most certainly a mainstream source! LOL! It's the website of one of the largest newspapers in Virginia. What isn't mainstream about it? And I love that you discounted the article below from a major South Korean news agency just because it wasn't "American" (as if sources on Wikipedia need to all originate in the U.S. to be worthwhile). OK then, there's your two. I'll look for more later and put them in the RfC section below. You didn't "refute" any of these. Tell us why hamptonroads.com isn't mainstream, please. Moncrief 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an impasse until you give it up. Please don't re-add disputed categories. - Nunh-huh 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your solution? Those who disagree with a Wikipedia edit are supposed to "give it up"? I'm speechless. Moncrief 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, those who continue to try to add categories that they acknowledge are, at the least, ambiguous, and that they have been informed are misleading, should stop doing so until they have acheived a consensus that favors their addition. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One who inhabits the USA as a legal resident for the most of his years is an American. Citizenship does not define an American. It is an attribute. The government's job is to protect the American people. Not Americans and its immigrants. Many immigrants are in the military. They are Americans. Simple, if you live and pay taxes in America, YOU ARE AN AMERICAN. Thank you, have a nice day. Secondgen 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seung-hui, his sister, his father, and his mother are Americans. You say they are Korean citizens, yet they do not abide under the Korean laws. They have abandoned South Korea, their status is left to collect dust in that country. A citizenship status DOES NOT FOLLOW YOU BEYOND ITS BORDERS WHEN SEEKING ANOTHER RESIDENCY. It just means what rights you have when you stay there. They abide under the American laws and support the government through taxes, and providing human labor. They provide nothing for Korea. Thank you, have a nice day.Secondgen 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I've lived most of my adult life abroad, and I certainly would never consider myself to be anything but the nationality I was born into and the passport I am required to carry. Your citizenship certainly DOES follow you beyond borders. No matter where he travels on earth, he has to use a KOREAN PASSPORT. That's the very definition of "citizenship beyond borders". And despite all his time in America, the Korean government certainly didn't consider him to be "American", as the second he set foot on Korean soil he would have been drafted into the military, and he would have absolutely no recourse through an American embassy. Just because they have "abandoned their country" doesn't make them any less Koreans or any more Americans in the eyes of the law. Besides, given the fact that they were supposedly poor in their home country, it doesn't seem unlikely that you are wrong in your claim of contributing nothing to Korea. Many Asians move to America and send money back home to their families. I imagine for tight-knit Confucian Koreans, this trend is somewhat strong.
This issue of opinion clearly isn't going to be resolved, which is why he has been added to the "Korean Immigrants to the United States" category. That his is an immigrant is undeniable fact. It's about time that you settle. Bueller 007 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's of no concern to me what category YOU place him in. He is an American who is also an immigrant. The two coincides. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders. You are who you pay homage to. End of discussion.Secondgen 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Stunning logic. Of course, you ignore the fact that he's not an American, and "the rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I'll let that slide. End of discussion indeed. Bueller 007 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to others. When you enter a new country, you obtain new rights. Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights. Thank you, have a nice day. I will forever not look at this section again. I promise. Secondgen 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you'll never look at this section again. "Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights that one leaves behind at the border" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Bueller 007 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript of video

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

Myspace Page

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

Behavior and mental health section...

I carefully read thru the mental health form.[13]

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

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

Some jurisdictions have a few other criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree, especially since his "homoeroticism" hasn't been brought up in the media. You can bring it up on the talk page if you wish, but I don't think we should draw that interpretation from that source.--Cúchullain t/c 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above was a conversation on my talk page, which Uriel8 placed here. The context was that I removed a line he'd added saying "Andy" described "two possibly-homoerotic stalking incidents". I don't think this is a fair interpretation of the source, Andy says nothing about the incidents being homoerotic. Others may disagree.--Cúchullain t/c 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Drawing such a conclusion is both OR and POV. Good work. -Etafly 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a psychologists on CNN spoke extensively on the homoeroticism angle. She seemed to be under the impression that the plays displayed an underlying fear of being gay, and that the self-hatred merged the homoeroticism with violence. She said that the stalking of girls was consistent with this - that it would have been an attempt to prove himself, and consistent with the view that all women are promiscuous (which the self-loathing and gay tendencies would induce) -Lciaccio 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DISAGREE STRONGLY with two admins' timidity of taboo subjects, and thank you, Lciaccio, for your thoughts and comments on the plays: It is far from "original research" (OR) to quote a first-hand witness account as suggesting homoeroticism, which it did; nor is it to interject a "point of view" (POV). The reason the media avoids the topic, obscurely, is because homosexuality is still taboo.
Even paranoia, which Cho exhibits, according to recent expert psychiatric opinions, is taboo in this culture, so obscurely not addressed by the media. Look here (NAMI.org) to see how Virginia gets a D as does the U.S.A. a D grade overall on mental health issues. Readers tend to miss these issues unless they are highlighted, so I did, saying: "possible-homoeroticism" was suggested by suitemate Andy. He should know, he had to live with the idiot, Cho, taking pictures of him in the dark in the middle of the night. That is the implication of Andy, why not just say it so it is not lost and left uninvestigated by other principles. The state of mental health screening and support is evidently left wanting in this country, and in the state of Virginia. It should be a central point in the Cho story if the country is to ever advance in the right direction.  uriel8  (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After watching Cho's manifesto, I felt that the "you" at his note and videoclip is he himself. "You" in him seemms to constantly incite him and molest him, like a bug in his head or something. See this video, Eavesdropping device is in my ears.. One person intruded in the live news studio, saying "Eavesdropping device is in my ears. I've met into many other cases of this kind. Some person said that evil being had planted a brainwave receiver in his brain and was controlling him.--Queenmillennia 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hui

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

  • His full Korean name is Cho Seung-hui. It seems that he used the abbreviated form Seung Cho when writing in English. It is not clear whether he used the abbreviated form outside his writing. WikiFlier 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seung-hui is the full name, acually the use of '-' in the middle is sometimes disputed...you wouln't see Sa-Rah or Jo-Seph (instead of Sarah or Joseph). However the way Seung was used instead of Seung-hui is kind of like some people with name Thomas using Tom or Stephen using Steve. Luckyj 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seung-hui is his full given name but they represent two characters. As such, it makes sense to seperate them. Personally I think without dash is best (Seung Hui) but people use dash for a variety of reasons including personal preference or some cases simply to prevent being called Seung Cho by programs (and people) that are unable to understand your given name (first name) is Seung Hui not Seung. You can't really compare using Seung-hui to using Sa-Rah since Chinese and Korean names are different. Also, in terms of him calling himself Seung Cho, people with traditional Chinese or Korean names are more likely to call themselves Hui Cho because the Seung part may be a generational name shared by siblings and cousins. However if it's not a generational name (or it is but there are no same-sex siblings and limited associated with cousins), there's no real reason or difference between him calling himself Hui Cho and Seung Cho. Seung Cho is perhaps the more likely choice because it may sound nicer Nil Einne 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the name is comprised of two Chinese characters however, two characters form a single name, as it is case in Japan as well (eg. Shunsuke, not Shun-Suke or Hideo, not Hide-Oh)...it is something that most Non-Orientals don't understand, and yes, you can compare it with Sa-Rah (instead of Sarah) in Korean, each syllable is written in separate characters, just like Hiragana or Hanzhi (so if you write Sarah in Hangul, it would be written as Sa Rah). There are some Korean names like Yunho (some people would write Yun-Ho) but if you write Yun-Ho, English speakers would be forced to pronounce 'H' of the Ho, but in Korean pronounciation, the 'H' is almost silent so it would be almost read Yuno - please refer to Doenbarum (eg. in Korean, monday = written as Wol-yo-il, is pronounced Woryoil, the L carries over and becomes R). and Seung-Hui Cho would be never referred to as Hui Cho, as his name is Seunghui Cho, not Seung or Hui Cho Luckyj 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cho owns it. Well, owned it, given he's dead. His family owns the copyrights on them, in theory, assuming he has any family. If not, then whoever he willed it to owns it. And if not that... then I think it defaults to the public domain. All of this, of course, assumes he didn't release it to the public domain which he may well have. In any event, it seems that NBC feels free to air them, and they certainly -don't- own the copyrights on them, so I think it may have been public domain'd. Titanium Dragon 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading something about a written work becomes pubilc domain 50 years after the person is deceased and no one else (estate or otherwise) is claiming that right. Something along those lines. --Kvasir 00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if no one claims the rights, it reverts to public domain 75 years (in the US) after the copyright creator dies. It is very stupid (I personally think it should be more like 5-10 years post death) but whatever. I have the feeling his family won't claim the rights to these videos though, but we don't know that yet. It is also possible he released them to the public domain. Titanium Dragon 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{Crosspost). It's more like 75 years after the author's death; in the meantime, copyright goes to his estate, which would probably be his parents and/or sister. However, isolated quotes amounts to fair use. I'm not sure if that's the case for publication of whole writings, such as the two plays that are out there on the net. That would seem to be copyright violation to me, but whether his family will go after violators or not is another question. --Yksin 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His parents and sister may claim the rights to prevent them from being published (or sell them if they happen to be really twisted). --Kvasir 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think they have to actively release the material into the public domain - i.e. the estate holding copyright is the default position. Natalie 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gotten to this part of law yet, but I also think when laws have been violated like this, Cho and his family lose their rights to copyrighted material (at least that material relevant to the crime committed). Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as this material was directly related to a criminal act, there's part of the "you-can't-profit-from-a-crime" precedent to be invoked here... 67.166.42.205 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)becir[reply]
I was under the impression laws limiting people's ability to profit indirectly from a crime were virtually non existant in the US because they were usually rejected on freedom of speech grounds Nil Einne 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What actually often happens is that the crime victims or families sue and then gain that copyright (or any money from any endeavor related to the crime). That could likely happen here.--Gloriamarie 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those "you can't profit from your crime" laws don't cover copyright, since there's no inherent profit involved in owning copyright. Those are meant to keep a famous criminal from writing a book or selling their story to a filmmaker (ala Paul Bernadino and Kathleen Homolka) and actually making cash money from it. Copyright law involves many things other than financial profit or loss, so it isn't a part of those laws. Natalie 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There's also a pretty good chance that, because of being involved in a criminal investigation, a lot of this will end up in court case files, which are a part of the public domain. That's how we have so much material online about Scientology's actual religious documents, all of which are protected by copyright but a number of which have appeared in court documents and thus can be replicated. Titanium Dragon 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand a thing about copyright, but from what I thought I understood, no one would own the copyright because the stuff wasn't copyrighted! In order for the stuff to be under any protection under US law, doesn't it have to be registered with the copyright bureau or something? Thus, my reasoning would suggest that no one would own the copyright, and it's all free stuff. Could someone explain my incorrect logic?! └Jared┘┌talk┐  18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

IPA

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

Biased Quotes pertaining to Christianity and Hedonism

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

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

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

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

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

Jokeyxero 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course Conservapedia cites his hatred of Christianity, and they don't even have the Jesus quote to back it up. Their reasoning: What else would an evil man rail against?70.21.231.66 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that we should be careful. The last thing we want to do is jump to wild conclusions and certain other wikis have done.—70.21.231.66 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was constructive. Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to quote him verbatim. But I think the reason there was this mention about him railing against Christianity was from him saying something along the lines of "Jesus induced cancer in my head" or something. Still yeah, I don't see it as something against Christianity. Secondgen 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the NBC page material (my browser for some reason won't read it) but if the "88" reference from Cho is true, than it may be interesting to note that if we take the numerical equivalent of the letters used in "Ismail Ax" then we found 9 + 19 + 13 + 1 + 9 + 12 + 1 + 24 = 88. Of course it is speculation. Xuxunette 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

NBA players are paid a heck of a lot of money. According to Cho's neighbor, Abdul Shash, Cho spent much of his time playing the game of basketball. [14] Since he spend so much time with the sport, he could have very well thought about those NBA players and gotten a jealous hatred over their high net worth.

WP:NOR. hbdragon88 04:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. I don't think it occured to him at all - his jealousy was aimed at the middle class students at his university and extended from that, rich people just seems to be a term for anyone he didn't like. In any case this qould be speculative. --JamesTheNumberless 08:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Reaction

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

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


Motive section

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

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

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

Upon understanding this, all is clear.

Why did some of this talk page go missing?

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

The section is now restored. For some reason it had gone lost when multiple users were editing simultaneously. I couldn't find out at which point between the 3 hours from its last edit to the first time someone notice the section had gone missing. Phewwww. --Kvasir 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Yksin 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good. I was wondering about that, too, but I couldn't figure out how it had disappeared. Natalie 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

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

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

Superscript text==Doesn't deserve a space in Wikipedia==

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

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

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

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

Disagree. Albert Fish and Jeffrey Dahmer are listed here, and all three meet the criteria for inclusion. This isn't a moral judgment, but simply one of notability.
YOU, Jicosa, are reading this page (rather than some victim eulogy page somewhere else on the web). YOU decided that this page and the accompanying main page are relevant. Based on historical precedent, it is quite likely that people will still talk about the incident and its ramifications in 50 years. One may not find this admirable, but this is the reality. WikiFlier 09:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw there was a request for merge with Virginia Tech massacre. That would be like merging Lee Harvey Oswald with John F. Kennedy assassination, and I don't like the idea. I'd prefer to see them kept separate. -Etoile 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disagree. Do you know what Wikipedia is for? It's not for memorializing those who "deserve" a place in it, it's for history. This was the largest school massacre ever, and it's certainly history. Notability =! admirability. Celestialteapot 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Celestialteapot on this. Wikipedia should should be a neutral reporting on historically noteworthy subjects. The only determining degree of "deserving" should be popularity in the general public body of knowledge. Some guy that killed someone with no friends in an alley yesterday that no media covered is hardly worth noting, but someone who murdered 32 people and gained massive media coverage affecting millions of people, that seems noteworthy. No matter how unappealing. Jokeyxero 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrux 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jicosa, I would strongly encourage you to help improve some of Wikipedia's articles on significant figures in Spanish or Latin American history. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia tends to have a systemic bias towards topics about English speaking nations, particularly the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and to a lesser extent India. Your English seems very good to me, and if you grew up in Spain you are going to have a better understanding of historical figures of Spain than a person from another country. I'd be bold and write some articles! Natalie 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Celestialteapot, this is not "the largest school massacre ever" to be accurate the Bath School disaster is still the largest ever. It's the means that differ. Jeeny 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I give you an (should be) extremly strong rebuttle. Reasons to discuss this (Our world is desensitized by seeing so much violence and killing, that people killed, is just brushed off, as a murder in American history, that was more deadly than Columbine, it it worth discussion.): 1) prevent future acts and since NBC released footage(prevent copy cats) 2) discussion of what penalty he would have faced(among other things), (while you can sympathize with the victims. the real source is prevention and fixing what's wrong with our society.) He choose to be lonely. He was rejected by a girl. 3) Reccomendation for future prevent of such acts? (Psychological evaluation and mandatory counselling, temporary individual studies for school ) 4) School response procedures: mandatory school lock-down or evacuation(with police escort or equivalent) 5) Why did he do it? What was wrong in his life?

Evaulator 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He chose to be lonely" is an unfair assumption given that he obviously had some sort of mental illness, was autistic, or even both... who knows. If anything it sounds like he was an outcast who couldn't reach out... it's not that he simply wouldn't out of choice. Drozmight 22:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another large photograph courtesy of NBC can be found right here. Could someone please add this is they feel it necessary to do so. Adam 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Cho Seung-hui A Terrorist?

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [15]) 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)[reply]

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.[16] 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)[reply]
Here's your ample evidence: [[17] and [18]. Here's one more: [19] Moncrief 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with the Category:Korean immigrants to the United States designation 100%. Bueller 007 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Post Office Video?

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

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

I for one think he walked into the post office in full camo-fatigues, backwards hat, guns drawn and a package to mail. The video would prove this to be the case. Drozmight 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McBeef/Macbeth

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

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

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

I don't think the connections are "obvious" - I'm going to remove that qualification from the article. Would Richard be a reference to Richard III (play)? Is "McBeef" a reference to McDonald's? I agree with Etafly that this "McBeef" hardly suggests any literary references. --HappyCamper 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard" is probably more of a way for him to get away with calling him "Dick" through the entire play than a reference to Richard III (play). "McBeef" is probably more of a shot at McDonalds and another phallic reference. I'm not sure the plays have anything to do with this story. Though they are interesting to psychologists. Jokeyxero 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with MacBeth is clear to me, but just speculation. MacBeth kills the King of Scotland to gain the throne; "McBeef" allegedly kills the child's father to get inside the mother's "pant".--Rypoll 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct, I think the parallel to be a coincidence. Due to the quality of the disclosed writings and video (and my limited layman psychoanalysis), I doubt he tried to parallel MacBeth, unless of course it was part of the assignment. But we're also running dangerously close to making a nonconstructive speculative thread. Jokeyxero 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell does that even mean? Natalie 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Disturbed', I think would be allowable; from his 'manifesto' it's clear he wasn't really sane at the time. HalfShadow 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers & Rape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I think, from looking at the play Mr Breownstone, we definately need to see changes that the play COULD BE INTERPATED TO IMPLY sexual abuse. It doesn't seem literal at all to me. 203.134.13.194 06:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railing Against Christianity?

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

You'd have to have another source saying that it would be misinformation. Otherwise, it's original research. Some may look at it and say that he was against Christianity and some may say that means he's a Christian-- what the media reports is what Wikipedia has to go by.--Gloriamarie 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could use the videos themselves that are posted on NBCnews.com and quote him from it. You do use evidence like that for what you might call valid "orgional research" right? It isn't really necessary for it to be written in print by another source for it to go on wikipedia right? -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rule out the "railing against Christianity". We haven't seen it, but then NBC hasn't released the full tape. And a rant agains Christianity is probably just the type of thing they'd cut out. It would be seriously inflammatory at such a sensitive time. I think the railing against Christianity should be reincluded, but with the disclaimer that this is a claim by NBC, and that they have not released the supporting video clip.--58.104.66.1 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They would refuse to release the video, but they would speak on it? That still sounds like they are twisting the information. If Cho was ranting against christianity in another video, then either he's contradicting himself or he's ranting against most Christians in that typical christian tone of accusing the "others" of not being "true" christians. Plus, look at the markings of pedophillia in his writtings... I bet he's Catholic :O -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I am the one who started the discussion about the "rallying against Christianity (and Hedonism)" statement being false, I would like to point that Cho can very well make arguments against Christianity (though no evidence supports this yet) and still liken himself to Jesus. Much like Martin Luther and John Calvin protested the church but were still a part of it. Given the apparent state of Cho's mental state he could very well make many contradictory statements in his package. And I believe Bertrand Russell set the stage for allowing individuals the right of changing stances over time due to gained knowledge without being labeled a hypocrite. So I'd suggest not jumping down that road when the topic comes up (as it surely will). Jokeyxero 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops, my bad I guess, I could have sworn both times that they said 'Railing' and just took it as media aesthetics. I fixed the category here, and now realise that I'm posting the discussion on the Cho page rather than the massacre page. It's still relevant here but I'll go there to continue with my opinon. Though, I'm not sure which road you are implying. I really am sick of the media twisting things at their leisure and ignoring that people need and deserve the complete truth. I think that every one of the wikipedia pages on current events need to blacklist the bastard media sources that intentionally twist things for their own propaganda and ratings. But that's just me. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the media is covering things up or spinning information. There is a mad dash to be the first to report on a topic so a lot of source skimming and quick writing occurs. The facts get spun and misinterpreted on accident generally. Though that's not to say that bad intentions don't exist. There's also a lot of decision making and research that goes into things that could cause a panic, which accounts for some of the slow reporting on obvious conclusions. Jokeyxero 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were right, it is "railing", see my first quote on the subject above, I quoted via copy and paste but apparently didn't pay attention and kept typing "rally". Luckily "rally against" and "rail against" are basically the same when talking about one person. We should probably fix this. Also look up the original source again to verify. Jokeyxero 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go figure, these idiots would forget about grammar completely in all that quick writting panic and such, wouldn't they? The fact that the person who is speaking these things to the public doesn't know any better only pisses me off more. I think today i would respect a reporter and source that would stop reading the que cards and say, "wait, that's not correct" and explain it to the audience and then manage to keep his or her job just fine for it. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me it would be incorrect to assume a coherent argument, political or moral, in his ravings. They are, in essence, a series of non-sequiturs rather than an attempt at any coherent statement, pro- or anti- anything. pookster11 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with pookster11, let the professionals with access to the tapes sort it out. Quote psychological professionals, not NBC's white washing or fear mongering (or whatever it is). JeffBurdges 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatic Errors

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

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

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

Just as an FYI: the proper spelling is "grammatic" not "gramatic." And within the phrase, "grammatical errors" not "gramatic errors." --Yksin 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the heads up. There's no telling how bad that would have looked if a spelling nazi had seen it first. It'd be a another catastropphy all together. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

integrating stuff from main article

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

His father committed suicide?

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

Hmmm. I think that with conformation via sourcing, it might be relevent with respect to Cho's mental state. Ikilled007 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out that rumor yesterday, & it was just that: a rumor, unfounded in fact. News reports did disclose, however, that his parents were both in shock, & had apparently been hospitalized for that. --Yksin 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cho Seung-hui article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Ikilled007 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, that's why I'm asking "Should it be included?" and not "What do you guys think?" because if it's true, I'd say it is relevant to the article. --jmrepetto
My comment was not a response to yours, but rather to one which someone obviously deleted. I hate when people go back and undo comments on the talk page. It causes confusion like this. Ikilled007 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Speech Problem

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

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

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

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

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

We should be very careful in adding Autism or other diagnoses to the article. It seems that the autism hypothesis only based on Cho's great-aunts statement (possibly mistranslated) and a few armchair "expert" psychologists ad hoc speculations. Adding autism to the article could stigmatise a vulnerable section of society (there are 2 million Americans with an Autism Spectrum Disorder). Only a definite diagnosis should be added...soured from Cho’s medical notes ideally. But I just saw autism mentioned again on CBS News, its becoming public knowledge despite being speculation.
That said, it is significant that Martin Bryant who perpetrated the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre (35 dead), was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) after his arrest. In his case he didn’t commit suicide, psychologists had someone to examine; "Although this diagnosis does not directly explain his violence it is thought the isolation Bryant experienced as a result of the Asperger's may have been a contributing factor." Diamonddavej 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich kids

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

The townhouse he grew up in was purchased new in 1997 for $145,000 and according to public record it is now assessed at $416,100. 141.156.166.127 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The place Cho lived in South Korea, Dobong district has, or used to have a slum. So his youth definitely wasn't as rich, if not in poverty. Also, Koreans in general try to buy the best house they could even if that means they had to forgo other luxuries. Living in the house of his own is an aspiring goal for them, so it's bit deceptive to judge from house alone. --Revth 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho's parents' reaction?

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

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

The family has since released a statement through Cho's sister. This can be read here: CNN Article Adam 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teasing in HS

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

It's unknown if those statements made are actually true. It's just the media getting a quote from an unverifiable person. We shouldn't add speculation to the article until the facts are concrete. 64.236.245.243 14:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just came here to post that. Here's a bit longer article, including a quote from the postal worker: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/virginiatechshooting/main2703671.shtml Dirtysocks 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldboy

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

A laughable comparison birthed from internet forums. Secondgen 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Oldboy article has a link from skynews reporting that detectives on the case are saying he watched it repeatedly. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261402,00.html. I am not sure how they know that, but that is what the sky news report is saying.XinJeisan 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know more about this too. Who are the "detectives" that this skynews claims to have interviewed.Secondgen 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he is Korean, and many Korean Americans (I myself included) are familiar with Oldboy. Mr. SmartyPants 10:44AM, 20 April 2007. (UTC)
I'm Korean American as well, I never heard of this "Oldboy." Your point? Secondgen 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that because he's a Korean American, it's highly possible that he had some sort of Influence with Oldboy. It is a film that is highly looked upon by people. I'm not saying he absolutely saw it, I'm saying it's a possibility. Mr. SmartyPants 7:50, 21 April 2007. (UTC)
If Cho watched Korean stuff, then it is likely then he watched Old Boy? So? I never watched the movie but all I know is that some dude was stuck in a room for about ten years... Is there anything gruesome in the movie? mirageinred 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he watched Korean stuff, it's rather likely he watched Oldboy. It is one of the more famous/well known Korean films in the West. Mr. SmartyPants 7:51, 21 April 2007. (UTC)
Definitely gruesome stuff in the movie. There is a scene with a hammer. It's that scene that also suggests for many viewers inspiration from side-scrolling videogames. Might be worth mentioning in the article OB is SK. Also features some sexual perversity. 74.67.42.162 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Implications section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind. It's gone. :) --Elliskev 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it moved to the writings section. i still think it should go for the reasons stated above. --Elliskev 17:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me. I deleted it twice, basically on the same grounds you had, and then was tagged as a "vandal" by the original poster, so I moved it to a tiny little corner in the writings section. I have absolutely no qualms about anybody deleting this reference. Bueller 007 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Behavioral Implications

Violent writing was the most typical attribute of school shooters. According to a 2002 US Secret Service study, "The largest group of [school shooters] exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays or journal entries (37 percent)," compared to 12 percent who showed an interest in violent video games, violent movies (27 percent) and violent books (24 percent). [2]

Dtaw2001 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Make that four times now. Bueller 007 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age and race are not behavioral attributes. This was a section on violent writing, not age and race. Dtaw2001 18:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the "10 key findings" of that paper is "There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence." Sounds like you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It's not our job to be making these comparisons anyway. Bueller 007 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BTW, I see you went ahead and put it right back in with (again) an edit summary referring to its removal as vandalism. I started this discussion before I removed it the first time. I find it hard to believe that you have any interest in a real discussion if you continuously refuse to assume good faith. --Elliskev 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Be careful of 3RR. --Elliskev 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further input

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

I don't see a good reason to reference this particular study in an encyclopaedic article on Cho Seung-hui. It should probably be added to School shooting if it hasn't been already, but there's no need to include it on the school shooters' individual pages. Also - personal opinion - we should be careful about playing this up. Violence in writing may be a common trait among school shooters, but it's also very common among "normal" students and is therefore hardly a meaningful sign on its own. autocratique ✩ 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting point, and the reason I cited this study, is that his English instructor found his writings disturbing enough to report him to university administration. I wonder how many "normal" students she reported. Cho's writings have been a focus of much attention, which is why this information should be included in his bio. Dtaw2001 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then as I said, you make a single sentence notice of this somewhere else. I did this already for you once, but it was deleted in its entirety by another person who thought that your information was just as silly as I did. Your information does not deserve its own section. I'm thinking a single line in the paragraph about "response to writings". However, you haven't addressed the comment I made above. I said:
One of the "10 key findings" of that paper is "There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence." Sounds like you're trying to squeeze blood from a stone. It's not our job to be making these comparisons anyway. Bueller 007 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're referring to Nikki Giovanni. If so, the article currently states that she had him removed from her class because his behavior was so menacing. His behaviour, not his writings in and of themselves. Regardless, the fact that slightly more than a third of all school shooters referenced in the study you linked stated that they had written violent/disturbing stories prior to the shootings does not establish any kind of clear profile Cho could have fit. autocratique ✩ 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous poster. The article is about Cho Seung-hui not about "school shootings" in general. Thus, I don't think it belongs here. Adrux 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about school shootings in general but about how Cho's behavior fits the profile of a school shooter. I reworded the first sentence to make this more clear. Dtaw2001 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until you can show me a media analysis of Cho's personality that shows he somehow "fits the profile of a school shooter" as defined by your paper (and, your paper, as I noted above, says such a profile DOESN'T EXIST), then you making these comparisons is tantamount to original research, and is grounds for deletion. Bueller 007 21:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but the US Secret Service is a more trustworthy source than "Media Analysis" IMO. I suppose we should get Dr. Phil to weigh in. And it is not MY paper, but that of a well researched government study. Finally, the section makes two points. 1. Cho was known for violent writings. 2. Violent writing is the most common behavioral attribute in school shooters. Although the link is obvious, it is the reader who can take the information and draw the appropriate conclusions. Dtaw2001 21:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you clearly don't understand what "original research" means. I realize that you didn't write the paper, but by MAKING COMPARISONS of the shooter to the profile suggested in the paper, you are doing "original research". You need a scientific study of Cho as pertains to that "profile" (which again, your paper says DOESN'T EXIST) or a media analysis of how well Cho is categorized by the (non-extant) profile that is (not) suggested in your paper. Otherwise, it's original research and it can be printed here. Bueller 007 06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added that the study fails to establish a control group. How the heck do you establish a control group for school shooters. That's just ridiculous. Dtaw2001 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff I added that was removed

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

Can you try to remove some of the stuff about Cho in the massacre article? His section is far too long, while the victims only get a sentence (in addition to the timeline above). --GunnarRene 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was done by User:Natalie earlier, and I've put it back as that ver. See User:Halo/Virginia Tech Perpetrator for the old version available suitable for anyone interested in merging. -Halo 19:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crap and mean"

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

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


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

This isn't the first case of misquotation I've seen in this article. Christopher Connor 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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))[reply]

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

needs editing

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

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

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

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

South Korean reaction section

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

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

Non-sense sentence

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

Quotes

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

I agree that there are too many. I'd rather see them off to Wikiquote, but I know that I won't get support for that. --Elliskev 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Convert to prose. Bueller 007 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to limit this to qualify for fair use anyway? Not violating copyright law is a pretty good reason to trim a quotation. Natalie 22:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a manifesto clearly intended for public dissemination. There's no copyright here. Bueller 007 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield High, Westfield High, Westfield High

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

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

Would you mind linking his Wiki article? All I can find is a disambiguation page. autocratique ✩ 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article on Ryan C. Clark - it was merged into the main massacre article or possibly the victims article. This is also the likely outcome of the article about Emily Hilscher. The only victims that are possibly notable enough for separate articles are some of the faculty, because they were quite prominent in their fields. Natalie 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spree killer capture

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

IMO, anyone who wants to know what a spree killer is can click on the spree killer link... -Halo 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no indication that he went back "to reload", you're repeating information in that paragraph and you're comparing to another killer (which is totally inappropriate). -Halo 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of his room

Personally I don't have any involvement with this article but I will mention that the search warrant lists the contents of his dorm room [20]. This may be useful in the article.. in the link it is used to disprove that he plays videogames. Chopper Dave 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

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

Attributed writings?

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

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

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

"Attributed" does not necessarily mean "people say that this person was responsible but it hasn't been confirmed". Bueller 007 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used at times with authorship as a kind of hedge, though. When it is known with certainty that a work was made by a given person I don't believe I have ever seen "attributed" used in a heading like this. None of the wikipedia articles about artists or writers I have seen ever use "attributed" in such a case. For example, "The Sun Also Rises" is not listed as "attributed to" Hemingway. Matt has changed this, for now, and his change seems appropriate to me. W.C. 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's early life in America & his murdered mother

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its also interesting that nowhere in his slide-show of terror does he mention anything like this. pookster11 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a lot of other newspapers picked this up, I wasn't looking hard enough. No one is trying to "justify" his killing spree but people are trying to find what the killer thought in HIS own mind that justified what he did. JpKllA 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that we need to somehow justify what he did because we need to understand it so that it doesn't happen again. He is a human being and he is our brother, one of us, whether we like it or not. Even God forgave and protected Cain.190.57.13.78
How did his father file for divorce after Cho's mother had already died? I wouldn't include it in the article; there've been so many rumours about his family and none of them have been proven true so far. I reckon that if it really had happened and NBC had reported at the time, they would have picked it up by now. autocratique ✩ 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is confirmed that the person who was killed by a robber was not his mother but his relative. Korean embassy confirmed that his biological mother is still alive --Armius 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory: Initial shootings were NOT pre-planned

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

Ellett62 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not engage in original research. I don't see the need for speculation, given it isn't a testable hypothesis; we should simply wait and see if it is revealed in all his junk. Titanium Dragon 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your theory intriguing. I suspect that he had somewhat entertained doing this beforehand, I think he must have. However, once he killed the two in West AJ, he figured he had "crossed the Rubicon," there was no going back, and he would go ahead and do the thing he had been contemplating, going out in a blaze of glory. I am not inclined to think that he didn't at all know the Hischler girl -- I think he did have some connection with her. Furthermore, I've read somewhere that he went looking for her in West AJ? I also understand that her boyfriend from a nearby college dropped her off that morning. So, it sounds to me that she spent the weekend with her boyfriend at the college ten miles away, he dropped her off first thing Monday morning, Cho encountered her, it was obvious she had spent the night with her boyfriend, he went into a jealous rage, and killed her. This was the spark for the massacre. While she was never his girlfriend, I suspect that they had had some interaction before, which Cho was attempting to follow up on. He perhaps tried to contact her over the weekend, but could never get her (because she was at Radford University with her boyfriend), and then thought he would "catch her" with her boyfriend, and confront that "rich kid" woman for her "debauchery." (Have you seen the photo of her sitting on a horse -- she does look somewhat like a rich kid.)

Serial killer

This guy was a serial killer and should be noted as such. Just as the wiki pages of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jon Wayne Gacy identify them as serial killers, Cho's page should do the same. He killed just as many as any of those guys, after all Stanley011 04:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, no. Seung-hui is a mass murderer, not a serial killer. A mass murder commits multiple murders in one setting. A spree killer commits a series of murders over multiple days or in multiple locations. A serial killer is entirely different. Serial killers typically have sexual motivations behind their crimes, conceal their crimes, identify certain charactistics of victims that attract them(Bundy liked long hair Brunettes..etc), and may operate over a series of years as a killer. I am changing any instances of "serial killer" to "mass murderer". --Gypsyjazzbo 04:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Stanley011 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Gypsyjazzbo, here. Cho falls under the category of "mass murderer" and certainly not serial killer. BlakeTyner 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you two fail to consider is that the American Heritage Dictionary offers the following as one of the definitions of a serial killer: "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval." [21]. The sexual motivatoins, concealing of crimes, identifying certain characteristics of victims (which Cho DID to, by the way), etc. are all characteristics of serial killers, but that does not mean that ALL serial killers have those characteristics. Stanley011 04:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cho of course did kill his victims one at a time, there were more than three (there were 32 to be exact), and it was a relatively short interval (3-4 hours). Therefore, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, Cho is a serial killer. Please discuss. Stanley011 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter, when everyone can agree on "mass murderer" yet not all can a agree on "serial killer" when you're arguing they mean the same thing? Is it worth the semantic effort required? -Halo 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American Heritage says no such thing. Stop making crap up. Their definition of serial killer is "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents." Bueller 007 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source stating what Stanley011 is asserting is "WordNet" [22]. The definition that project gives, especially considering the three or more in a short time requirement, sounds very odd to me. I've been trying to look up information on WordNet, and as far as I can tell it's an algorithm-driven system more concerned with providing general or best-effort definitions for groupings of words based on the meanings of the member words -- WordNet#Limitations doesn't help my faith in this definition either. -- 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he should not be labeled as a "serial killer." A serial killer in modern usage is a killer who operates over a period of time, often years, killing his victims serially; thus the word "serial" in the phrase. Cho went on a one-time rampage, a murder-suicide. He shouldn't be referred to as a serial killer. -added on 04:53, 20 April 2007 71.121.135.67

He was a spree killer, not a serial killer. They are differentiated by the length of time they spend committing their crimes; a spree killer does it all in a very short period of time (measured in days at most), whereas a serial killer is months to years. Titanium Dragon 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic articles shouldn't be here to pioneer the use of modern terminology, like the appalling phrase "spree killer". Let's just leave it as "mass murderer". LeBofSportif 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was NOT a spree killer. A spree killer is an indiscriminate serial killer who kills his victims in a quick succession of individual events. The characters from "Natural Born Killers" are "spree killers". Cho was a "mass murderer". Bueller 007 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cho's Medication: There are no "federal prescription databases"

The following sentence is very misleading, because there are no "federal prescription databases," because of HIPAA medical privacy laws. A(s far as I can tell, the only news agency to claim that he wasn't on medication for depression was ABC, without attribution.)

"Some reports state that Cho is believed to have been taking psychiatric medications for depression,[55] but there is no record of this in federal prescription databases.[56]"

Here's a discussion of the medication issue: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4210_what_was_cho_se.html


"From Mental to Murder", foxnews

The video Headlined "From Mental to Murder" of foxnews, Dr. Manny investigates how the misdiagnosis Cho Seung-Hui's mental illness may have led to his violent behavior. In the video, Dr. Igor Galynker, Psychiatrist, Beth Israel Hospital of New York, commented as follows,

Click on the URL below to watch the video: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?041907/041907_health_schizo1&From%20Mental%20to%20Murder&Dr_Manny&Dr.%20Manny%20investigates%20how%20the%20misdiagnosis%20Cho%20Seung-Hui%92s%20mental%20illness%20may%20have%20led%20to%20his%20violent%20behavior&Health&-1&From%20Mental%20to%20Murder&Video%20Launch%20Page&News

Biography: Business Major vs English Major

I believe this part should be removed from the biography section: "although he had told others he was a business major." I've scanned through the news articles to verify how widespread the fib was, and it seems to have been simply limited to something he once told a roommate/suitemate. It didn't seem to be something that he repeated to a lot of people, at least not enough to warrant that comment being elevated up to the biography section as an important part of his background. He was an English major in fact, so the bio should just state that fact only, in my opinion. 71.121.135.67 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. He was not talkative to begin with so every comment he had made is important. Those who attended the same school could find out or ask around to discover that he wasn't a business major. Making a such easily uncoverable lie is, especially if he thought that being a business major was somehow better than an English major, a good look into his mind. Remember that he had been picked on for his command of English at middle and high school so that could have easily made him despise his study. Also, his elder sister had a undergraduate degree in economics, so his lie could have been an attempt to fantasize himself as succesful as her. --Revth 07:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but a "biography" section should be composed of the 10 or 20 most salient facts about an individual. He may have once told a suitemate that he was a business major, but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of being important in this case. If he had a pattern of telling lies and making fabrications, and if that was relevant to the matter, there could be a section on that. We are discussing small potatoes so it doesn't really matter, but I do believe that "although he had told others he was a business major" doesn't belong in a pithy biography. If you can show me a widespread pattern of him saying that, beyond what he told a suitemate, perhaps it could be ruled important somehow. 71.121.135.67 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He actually was a business major initially. Then he switched to English.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Real fiction

Cho's rampage reminds me of this South Korean arthouse film I've seen called Real Fiction. I wonder if there's any information on what movies he's been influnced by?

Here's one: Hammer link to bloody South Korean movie
Ugh, more crap and speculation that the media is churning out. [sarcasm] What about Rambo, there is so much killing in that movie that there HAS to have been SOME influence. [/sarcasm] Anyways, the claims above have no substantial proof or evidence, as with most other information that is currently out there. Why don't everyone just relax and wait like a month or two for all the speculation and theories to settle down? JpKllA 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Karr quote

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

That's a good point, and I made the change to read "[Redacted]". Hopefully, someone will find an unexpurgated source. Raggaga 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBCs to NBC's

I can't edit, 'cos this article's locked. Please could someone correct "NBCs decision" to "NBC's decision"? Thanks! 86.152.203.212 08:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Ax - most possible meaning is "The Tribe of Ishmael"

As Cho spoke of "the weak and defenceless" then there appeared a suggestion [23] that Ishmael Ax could concern the Tribe of Ishmael - group that were the target of a 1907 "eugenic" program of forced sterilization in Indiana. Eventually, the handicaped, retarded, weak people were rallied in sort of camps in purpose to "clean up" the society of the "weak elements". The pseudo-scientific ideas that inspired later the Nazis. Check:

ect. There are many sources available about Tribe of Ishmael in Indiana and I am very surprised that there is no word of mention in Wikipedia about it. Is America ashamed of her own history? Merewyn 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't jump from "Ismail Ax" to "The Tribe of Ishmael" without any clear cut evidence or reliable sources. Inferences don't belong here. Secondgen 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Secondgen, The package was addressed from "A. ISHMAEL" as seen on an image of the USPS Express Mail envelope (incorrectly printed as the Arabic name "Ismail" by The New York Times) - see the article for references. So, there was no jump because there was no your "Ismail". Hence, the interpretetion by the Tribe of Ishmael remain valid. Merewyn 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia, the article does not exist for editors to spread their own theories. Whether there is a link or not, this is original research and therefore should not be included in the article. autocratique ✩ 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cho was not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination (just read his so-called "plays" for evidence of that). To attribute his "Ishmael Ax" comment to some larger concept or deeper meaning is reading too much into it, in my opinion. 71.121.135.67 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


== This is a little eerie: http://www.the-chosen.com/chosen/ishmael.asp ==

Medias report that shooter was bullied at school

News media have begun reporting that Cho was severely bullied earlier in school, this seems quite relevant and can offer a clue to why he did it and to who the video message was directed towards. This needs to be addressed somehow in the article. Essentially it is this story that is channeled out in several newspapers, The Scotsman example article. --MoRsE 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was bullied due to his irregular speech patterns,quiet disposition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cho_Seung-hui)Evaulator 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history of bullying in high school needs to be investigated and included in the Wikipedia entry. Weren't the Columbine killers victims of bullying as well, and didn't Cho cite the Columbine killers in his manifesto? Not to detract from his defective personality to begin with, but the bullying was most probably (in my opinion) a large contributing factor to his vengeful rage. As a locked-out person, I can only comment here and not in the article itself :P 71.121.135.67 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes in behaviour prior to mass killing

In recent weeks his routine had changed. His roommates say he went to the campus gym at night, lifting weights to bulk up He went for a haircut — surprising them by coming back to the room with a military-style buzz cut. Students say he seemed as quiet as ever in the days before Monday's rampage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui)


Relationship problem

According to "early reports", it seems he was obssessed with a classmate Emily Hilscher and was furious after his romantic advances were denied. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui) (thought ): Being a lonely individual(see below for description on it), it would appear that he actually reached out to one girl in hopes of love

Personality characteristics

Personality characteristics : lonely(by choice), did not talk much(quiet)-- (refused to participate in class even when called upon, refused to respond to people even with greeted.), "meanness" "arrogant","obnoxious","intelligent man" (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui)

Signatures in red ink in korean folk belief

I haven't seen this listed previously anywhere but the "Ismael Axe" apparently written on his arm was said to be in red ink. In "traditional" korean culture, signature in red ink are said to be symbolic of death.

red ink on white paper, and you are making inferences. Secondgen 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We would be giving him too much credit if we concluded that his "Ishmael Ax" had deeper, intellectual, symbolic meanings. Read his so-called "plays." They are on the 4th-grade level to be generous. 71.121.135.67 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathic Behavior

You need to classify him not just as a mass murderer, but a psychotic one. While, nobody has officially diagnosed him with any mental illness, he certainly fits DSM-IV's classification of someone having paranoid psychosis, where the person loses contact with reality and has unfounded delusions (such as the world is out to get him). Interestingly, Cho should not be considered as a psychopath since his violent impulses were controlled (before the massacare), was not socially manipulative etc. Ted Bundy was a psychopath but not a psychotic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis#Delusions_and_paranoia

Please find a reliable source for the claims that he was a psychotic murderer, and was not a psychopath, otherwise you cannot put either of them in the article. Diagnoses, or attempted refutations of diagnoses, from random people on the Internet are Original Research and are not tolerated in Wikipedia articles.—greenrd 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Blames the Devil!

Is this worth mentioning in the article? Amanojyaku 18:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not true, so no. Bueller 007 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to add something about Cho, or something about Fox News? By the way, if you read the article you'd know that the article doesn't blame the devil. It's an article written by Fox's religion correspondent looking at the story from a religious good/evil angle. --Elliskev 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


His family has the americanized name

Shouldn't his name be Seung-hui cho? His family gave his name like that in their written statement and now much of the media are referring him to as such. many Asian-Americans (or Asians living in America) have their names written in the American style.

His name is in Korean so it would make more sense if the last name is first, before the (Korean) first name. Amos Han Talk 21:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post something about this. For those who are confused, Cho Seung-Hui is the original Korean, Seung-Hui Cho would be the Americanized version. (Cho is the family name, Seung-Hui is the given name.) Wikipedia has a special guideline page on Korean naming conventions which suggests we should keep it as it is, "Cho Seung-Hui." K. Lásztocska 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The family's statement calls him Seung-Hui Cho. While I agreed with the Korean naming convention in the absence of other evidence, they appear to have Americanized his name. We generally make article names of biographies the name by which the subject is known--Anna Nicole Smith isn't under Vickie Marshall, for example, even though the latter is "correct." THF 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was raised in America, and known by his classmates and everyone else as Seung-Hui Cho. Just going by his initial immigrant documentation is foolish and incompetent. His surname WAS Cho, and hi used it as his last name, as do virtually ALL korean americans/korean immigrants. Fermat1999 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been reading the papers today - have they switched the name order? We need to use whatever name the person is most commonly known as, which isn't necessarily their legal name (see Prince (musician)). Natalie 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an AP article that mentions the family's name change: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting The article states, "Cho's name was given as "Cho Seung-Hui" by police and school officials earlier this week. But the the South Korean immigrant family said their preference was "Seung-Hui Cho." Many Asian immigrant families Americanize their names by reversing them and putting their surnames last." Since that is the family's preference and that's how he was known, that's the name we should use.--Alabamaboy 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the press comes to a consensus that "Seung-hui Cho" should be used, we should hold another name discussion. If it turns out that the press is still divided or if there is consensus to use "Cho Seung-hui," we should let the sleeping dog lie. WhisperToMe 01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it already is - check this MSNBC article for instance, the article refers to him as Seung-Hui Cho and states "The gunman’s name was given as Cho Seung-Hui by police earlier this week, with the surname first, as is common among many Korean families, but the Cho family statement rendered his name as Seung-Hui Cho, with the surname last in the American fashion. NBC News and MSNBC.com are adopting that rendering." It is quite apparent that he was known by that name - and even the media now agrees. I suggest we move this article to Seung-Hui Cho or Seung-hui Cho - as that seems to be the consensus now. --Ali 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that a name change is necessary at this point. As I mentioned in another section above, 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. CNN has also switched to Seung-Hui Cho. Also the article currently contradicts itself, as the Reaction of Cho's family section names his sister as Sun-Kyung Cho. The fact that this is what Cho called himself is I think enough to move this article, and I think most who in an earlier poll voted for Cho Seung-Hui would change their votes at this point (the main reason these editors gave was that the media was using this order, which is no longer the case).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I vote for the Americanized name "Seung-Hui Cho" as an article just said that his family prefers to call him that way. Of course, in my opinion, his name doesn't deserve to be recognized and he should simply be called a killer. Azn Clayjar 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new topic/poll to the bottom of the page. I'm new to these talk page polls so I don't know if majority generally rules or what. Anyhow, vote away.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great-Aunt vs. Grand Aunt

Some schmuck finds it important to change "great-aunt" to the unnatural "grand aunt." http://www.jdlasica.com/family/relationshipchart.html http://www.answers.com/topic/great-aunt http://www.reference.com/search?q=grand%20aunt&r=d&db=web http://www.reference.com/search?q=great-aunt&db=web

That is officially the worst study break I have ever taken. Jimshlif 22:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your resort to personal attacks reveals the bankrupcy of your thinking, and your argument. Please see cousin for an explanation as to why you are wrong. Stanley011 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also if math isn't your thing, which I suspect it isn't, please see [25] for a friendlier explanation that even you can understand. Stanley011 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing the things people get excited about. You're wrong -- together your websites offer a single source that prefers "grandaunt" over the semantically equivalent term "great-aunt", whereas I've offered three sources that prefer "great-aunt" -- but I'm not going to waste time reverting this. 75.3.91.25 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stanley011, please do 'not change it again. Even the sourced reference link page has "great aunt." It is to be great-aunt or great aunt as that is what's reported, referenced and the consenses says. No "grandaunt" as it is your POV and the wikilink you use to argue in defence of your POV is irrelevant to this article. Also, ironically you are personally attacking someone for a personal attack? One that is less of an "attack" as you're doing here. Please stop. Jeeny 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The sources demonstrate that grandaunt is accurate while great-aunt it not. We at wikipedia strive to be accurate, not inaccurate. Stanley011 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not demonstrate your POV. It has been shown to you. See the ref link beside that sentence. You ignore the disscussions, and continue to change it. Please stop! Jeeny 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I smell a "he said, she said" discussion... I think we need to sort this out... WhisperToMe 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cousin_tree.png

WhisperToMe 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTM, no it's not. I understand it looks that way. Please see the sources. This is not a biology or math class. The sources all say "great aunt". This is accurate. Anyway, the American dictionary say both are correct, insofar as grammar is concerned. This issue, relating to the article should match the sources. As, it is, with "great aunt" it is accurate per sources and correct grammar. This is a POV, not a he says she says. <sarcasm> How about adding that image tree to the relative section, that should clear it up for the readers, right? Oh, and add a wiki link to cousin that should help too.<sarcasm off> Seriously, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a biology/geneology lesson. The grammar is correct. Cheers. Jeeny 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sheesh, I just looked at the tree image. It even furthers the argument. LOL. Great aunt, is correct in geneology, at least according to that image. More importantly to all the references in the article and it matches the American Heritage Dictionary too. Now, is that enough to leave "great aunt" in the article? :) Thanks WTM. Jeeny 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No because mother's aunt is more precise. Stanley011 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder-suicide?

Wouldn't it be more correct to say Murder-suicide instead of just suicide--71.123.191.125 00:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. Murder-suicide is an act. Suicide is how he lost his life.--Svetovid 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Cleaners

Why is it now allowed to mention the profession of the parents? Isn't that a fairly standard biography item? Certainly a biography of Ted Kennedy or GW Bush would include what their parents did. It is also well-documented ethnic niche for Korean Americans (and yes, the term as used by most Asian and Korean Americans who, afterall, coined the term, does not exclude non-citizens as much as many editors here would like to eliminate that usage). Cho's background is remarkably typical for a korean youth, 1.5 generation, parents work in or own a dry cleaners, both children go to 4 year university, live in predominantly white suburb, friends of family remark kids study a lot. Seems people are being overly sensitive to facts that would be quite routinely mentioned in any Asian American history course, but being dismissed here as prejudically stereotyped?? --Bachcell 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parents

Remarks that parents were not identified or spoken to press were also removed, why a ban on this observation? One report of a Korean association spokesman says he is familiar with people who know the parents, who were under distress. Does anyone know why the press has chosen not to identify the parents?

Its not the press. The family is under protection by law. See this.

Protection tag

While I am in complete support of this article being semi-protected for the time being, must we have that hideous tag at the top of the page? Shouldn't the lock on the upper right corner be sufficient? That is, {sprotected2}. My apologies if this has already been raised. -Etafly 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its better to have a tag up there to inform anons and new users that the page is protected. Most anons and new users don't know that it is protected because the lock icon is way too subtle to be noticed. -- Hdt83 Chat 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove conspiracy theory section

Can we please get rid of this section? There are no citations from any legitimate news services. (No, prisonplanet.com is not real journalism.) No one really believes it. The linked picture is of some random Asian guy in military garb. The section hardly deserves a place. I'll delete it soon after some people weigh in here. ~ Rollo44 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Alex Jones is given enough awareness in the public mind, evidenced by the fact that a Wikipedia article has been devoted to him for some time, that his theories are relevant enough to warrant the inclusion of an objective account of the existence of his information. Surely many readers will find this information relevant to their inquiry, regardless of the conclusions each person may or may not draw from it. - equiprimordial

I, for one, am offended by the inclusion of the Conspiracy Theory. It's as if someone thinks it's politically correct that we must include a "counter" argument which flies in the face of all truth and rationality. With 11 sections and one on the conspiracy, the Wikipedia article is now 1/11 about a laughable conspiracy theory that couldn't garner support from .00001% of the population. Let's call it what it is: Complete garbage that somebody dredged out of the sewer of the internet and posted here in order to be "counter" and cause a reaction. The so-called "author" of the theory is already mentioning the Wikipedia article on his website because all he hopes to do is to use this tragedy in order to draw attention to himself, and Wikipedia is a convenient lever. It's an affront to every affected family and an embarrassment to the Wikipedia article. 71.121.135.67 11:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the conspiracy theory has no place here. It might warrant inclusion on Alex Jones (radio), but not here. And really, it says much more about Alex Jones than it does about Seung-hui Cho. autocratique ✩ 11:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autocratique, I agree with you 100% it should be on the Alex Jones page and not here. (For instance, and this is not a perfect example, but Louis Farrakhan's personal theory that, during Hurricane Katrina, the failure of the levee was "a deliberate attempt to wipe out the population of largely black sections within the city" is not detailed on the Hurricane Katrina page, but is instead outlined on the Louis Farrakhan page where it belongs.) The Alex Jones theory is all about the self-promoter Alex Jones, has no support in the media, and doesn't belong on the Cho page. If it were a more widespread topic, that would be one thing, but it's just AJ at this point. 71.121.135.67 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Conspiracy Theories section for the time being, both for the sake of consistency and because I don't really see the relevance in including this material in more than one article. Jones's theories are already described on Alex Jones (radio) and his theories pertaining to other topics are not included on these other topics' individual articles. autocratique ✩ 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good man. 71.121.135.67 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgina Tech Massacre name

"The shooting rampage, termed the "Virginia Tech massacre,"" Termed by whom? The only people I've heard call it this is the corporate American media. I don't see this sensational description being used by the BBC or any of the International media. BBC doesn't seem to have any clear name for it. They call it the "Virginia killings" and the "rampage at Virginia Tech" as well as the "Virginia shootings". Just because the media uses one term doesn't mean we have to. It's the same as the insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter/homicide bomber rhetoric we hear on various networks. I think what's needed is a simple, descriptive, accurate term that isn't sensational. Virgina Tech Killings would be more appropriate. Naming things 9/11 7/7 and so forth isn't helpful, it's just pushing someone else's agenda.--Apples99 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Helsinki Times calls it a bloodbath, just for the record... --Kizor 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the mainstream American media use a certain term doesn't mean it's sensationalist or unwarranted. "Massacre" means "brutal and indiscriminate killing of people". This more than qualifies. Bueller 007 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, it's not Wikipedia's job to name things. We use names other reliable secondary sources are using, and right now that happens to be "massacre". I think it's sensationalist too, but the other one their using a lot is "shooting rampage" which I find more sensationlist and poor wording. Natalie 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence that "massacre" is widely used in the media. "Shooting" seems to be the most prevelant used term I have noted. My reaction to seeing "massacre" here was simply that from what I see of most of the contributors is that among those who haven't openly made subjective remarks, there is a certain unstated rage against the killer coupled with a perhaps unwitting, unrecognized desire to be sensationalistic (despite saying they're not). This is what I see in people trying to justify the brutality invested in the present title. The reason why institutions like NPR would use a more sober and neutral term is that it is simply the best NPOV way to deal with a subject. It is not the role of a wikipedia article to invest a title with a judgement of brutality in the title. That would be POV. Yet that is what has been decided by the early contributors who changed the original wording to "massacre" and strongly opposed ammending the title thereafter. Perhaps sensationalistic contributors are drawn to sensationalistic topics at their early stages and this accounts for it. Apples99 raises a legitimate issue, however, the pro-"massacre" wikipedians seem to be strong in number and quite vocal at this time. I am not completely confident anyone will be able to pursaude them see just how NPOV the current title is and to adopt a less POV title. W.C. 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that massacre is problematic, and would prefer "shootings", but I think that, since it only happened 5 days ago, we don't have enough perspective to settle on a name yet. Also, emotions are high right now (check out the deletion debates for some of the victims...) and this has attracted a lot of new users who aren't as familiar with Wikipedia conventions and processes as other users. And we do use somewhat POV titles if that is how they are commonly known: Boston Massacre, Bath school disaster (disaster is an opinion, albeit a commonly accepted one), Columbine High School massacre, My Lai Massacre, Bataan Death March.

Great Aunt/Grand Aunt v. Mother's Aunt

I provided a source stating that Kim is his mother's aunt. Jeeny, however, refuses to check his inflated ego at the door and instead edits without discussing them and falsely claims consensus where none exists. Anyone who cares to opine on this matter, whether Kim should be identified as merely his "great aunt" or his "mother's aunt" please do so here. Stanley011 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian, which is the source that identifies Kim as Cho's mother's aunt, is a reputable source. Wikipedia should strive to be as precise as possible; since "mother's aunt" is more precise than "great aunt," mother's aunt is the wording that should remain. Stanley011 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you start a new heading when one already existed here? You provide ONE source to push your POV. Like I've said, and others too, the reputable sources support the term "great-aunt." Also, I am not a him, I'm a woman. And certainly not liberal when someone insists their view is the only and correct one when all sources in the article support otherwise, but your ONE. I'm sorry, but I question your good faith. Jeeny 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I started a new heading because it is a new topic. Is there something you don't understand about that? Stanley011 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand why this is such a big deal. "Mother's aunt" clearly is more precise. As long as that terminology is factually accurate (and is demonstrated as being so by reference to a reputable source), then can't we move on to more substantive issues? DagnyB 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's aunt is precise, NOW, because he went totally out of his way to find a reference to support his POV. The reference before and throughout the article says "great-aunt" and there was consensus, which he ignored many times instead he changed the article. He is not using discussion until I confronted his obvious disregard for others and POV pushing, it's the principle, the integrity of Wikipedia, and personal attacks on other editors are uncalled for. As was descussed under another heading of the same topic here. Jeeny

How about using "maternal great-aunt"? "Cho's mother's aunt" sounds a tad clumsy to me, but if we do have a more precise source I don't see why we shouldn't include it. autocratique ✩ 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "maternal great-aunt" is less clumsy than the current version. But the current version has the additional advantage of simplicity: it tells the reader directly and simply that she is his mother's aunt. Stanley011 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think a double possessive is good style? "Maternal great-aunt" is exactly the same as "Cho's mother's aunt". We don't have to use overly simplistic phrases; that's what the Simple English Wiki is for. autocratique ✩ 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's good style. "Maternal great-aunt" requires more thought than "mother's aunt" which conveys the information to the reader right away. I believe "maternal great aunt" is an overly simplistic phrase that does not delineate the relationship as clearly and as immediately as "mother's aunt." Yes of course both phrases are functionally equivalent, but I believe we should opt with the one that conveys the relationship more immediately. Stanley011 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as it is not clear whether the correct terminology is "greataunt" or "grandaunt" (sources conflict regarding this matter), this wording avoids that great (or grand?) debate. Stanley011

I would not suggest wording one's grandfather for example as "father's father" or "mother's father"--in that case "maternal" or "paternal" grandfather would be appropriate because the relationship is easier to understand. I think with grandaunts and uncles though, the relationship is less direct and therefore less readily graspable and so the possessives ought to be used. Stanley011 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further input

I personally think "Cho's mother's aunt" is bad style, but I don't mind its inclusion if we can reach a wider consensus. Can we get some input from other editors, please? "Cho's mother's aunt", "Cho's (maternal) great-aunt" or "Cho's (maternal) grand-aunt", what's it to be? autocratique ✩ 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact Content of the Package

What was the exact content of the package? It should be added in the 'Media Packages 'Content' subsection. As far as I can find it contained: 23 short video and a 1,800-word manuscript accompanied by 80 photos.[26] It is important to add this information because as it is indicated further down the article NBC has not released the totality of the package.Xuxunette 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Virginia Tech Alumni

Should this Category tag be removed? He never graduated. 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, everyone who enters school is considered an alum ... although that tag is probably not in great taste. --BigDT (416) 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely he would have had to graduated to be considered an Alumni?SkorponokX 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. On this list, for example, it shows both those who graduated and those who did not. It just provides a notation to the effect that so-and-so did not graduate. An alumnus, as per technically-correct usage, has attended and institution:
"The term is often mistakenly thought of as synonymous with "graduate". However, anyone who has been formally admitted to the school as a student, in addition to those who completed their time at the school, is an alumnus (or alumna)." --Dynaflow 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, I stand corrected.SkorponokX 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hui vs. hui

Is it supposed to be capitalized or not? Everywhere I've seen it, it is lowercase, so I'm wondering why it's cap'd here. └Jared┘┌talk┐  17:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I moved it based on the edit protected request and consensus above. Looking at Google [27] - it seems that capitalized is preferred, but I have no opinion/knowledge one way or the other. --BigDT (416) 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I'd say it should probably be lowercase. "Seung-hui" is a single name, and the hyphen is only used to represent the position of the syllabic break. One name = one capital letter, IMO. Kim Il-jong and Kim Il-sung are romanized this way. Unless we have proof of him or his family using it with the second cap, it should probably be lowercase for consistency. Bueller 007 18:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AP has it capitalized. That's the way his driver's license name is spelled. Romanization depends on the system the individual uses, not conventions in the English language. --Naus 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's why I specifically made an exceptions for "unless we have proof..." "Hui" it is, then. Bueller 007 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hui should be capitalized. This AP article, which appeared in our newspaper, clarified the proper order of his name. Similarly the Kyung in the name of his sister, Sun-Kyung Cho, should also be capitalized. --Chris S. 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother citing AP after it's botched his name in the first place. DHN 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing else offical to cite right now. -Phoenix 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had an East-Asian History prof try to explain this once; let me see if I can give a low-fi bootleg of his explanation:
Apparently there have been several systems for romanizing Korean names over the years, and each has gone into and out of fashion in succession. The current "correct" way to romanize a name like "Cho Seung-Hui" would be "Cho Seung-hui," which would be reversed to the American order of "Seung-hui Cho." However, in the era when Cho's family immigrated, it's possible that the convention in fashion dictated that the romanization be "Cho Seung-Hui," which would be reversed to the version of the name we are currently using on this article. In another era, the name might have been romanized something like Choe Sung Wee (not really sure about the second part of the given name; that's my guess). For all names not coming from languages that don't use romantic script (this includes Chinese, Thai, Korean, Russian, Arabic, etc.), the romanization methods used will be highly variable and the preference of the name's "owner" should always take priority. --Dynaflow 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urging restraint regarding inclusion in article of non-expert commentary from the media

I just wanted to voice the opinion that some restraint needs to be excercised here. There is a lot of media rage (and most understandably so) against the killer but one needs to ask oneself to what degree this has worked its way into various non-expert commentary in ways that may not very useful or objective for the wikipedia article.

Do readers gain much, for example, by having a middle-brow novelist like Stephen King tell them that Cho is incapable of concocting a plot ("no story here")? Can't readers can easily figure this out for themselves without King's "expertise"? As for King's comments on Cho's thought process as having gone "DEFCON-1", he is no expert (comments by bona fide experts would be welcomed) in this area, and one might wonder if his stating something many may already find self-evident is of any use to us. He is a big-name novelist, true, and a lot of his fans might like to see his name connected with a high profile case, but his inclusion ought to be based on something more than its name-dropping value here.

Time magazine's columnist attempts to make a strident case for remedying everything by having had Cho expelled many months ago and based on things like the fact that he was sleeping fitfully with the lights on as evidence he was dangerous. Here, one needs to ask oneself whether this line of thinking was prompted from rage or second-guessing more than clear thinking. But isn't expulsion something close to being terminated from a job? And haven't we all heard about how the latter (such as that case involving the postal service) too has led to similar killings? Would expulsion have "made the problem go away"? Or would the crime be simply acted out in a slightly different form at the university? If instead Cho had gone on a rampage sparked by expulsion what might that columnist be advising us retrospectively, today?

It might be tempting to want to add well-recognized name like King or Time to the article, but one also needs to assess the value of commentary's content in light of whether it adds anything of value for readers of this article before rushing to get it into wikipedia for name value only. W.C. 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that King's comments on Cho's mental state are irrelevant due to his lack of expertise in the field of psychoanalysis, I have to say that I feel his comments on Cho's plays are entirely relevant; whatever you think of his writing skills, as a published author, King is recognized as someone with the expertise needed to accurately discuss the quality of fiction. Yes, if you choose to go read Cho's plays, their lack of plot is self-evident, but for those who don't want to subject themselves to the plays, or for those who, in the future, may not have access to them (just how long will the linked copies remain online, after all?), King's review of them may be of some use.
I'll fully agree that the Time op-ed piece has no place being referenced on Wiki, however, as it's neither a hard-fact source document nor expert analysis. Rdfox 76 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (and just as the original talkpage was converted to a redirect, too... x.x)[reply]

The kind of commentary that would best serve future readers if the orginal texts--and the possiblity of this is good point for you to raise--became unavailable would be more constructive or involve genuine literary analysis. So does his "too dim to think up such a scenario on his own" really meet this criteria? Is King (or most of the "experts" mainstream media is limitted to call on since they need the widest name recognition) likely to be familiar with kinds of highly regarded playwriting that also lacks the story dynamics of a best-selling novel i.e., Samuel Beckett and more recently Sarah Kane? I think one has to judge whether someone like King for all his skill at a certain kind of writing--and one perhaps not applicable in this case-- is just giving the public some glib sound bites on a hot topic or whether what he offers really amounts to a bona fide liteary discussion. W.C. 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that we need to keep the media speculation to a minimum. Every time something like this happens, various publicity whores trot out their pet theory to explain the incident, or apply their pet cause to the incident. That is not our role, nor should it be. Natalie 20:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should keep a very close watch on non expert commentary especially on irrelevant topics, Man Law. Shaun 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this

http://www.finnchan.fi/b/files/1176999718/1_lul.jpg --88.193.241.224 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to consider. Revealed as a phony long ago on the talk page here and elsewhere. Bueller 007 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look here for the archived discussion on the talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American criminals and South Korean murderers

- Based upon how these categories are defined, you cannot allege that Cho is a murderer without alleging he was a criminal. Also, unless you live in la-la land (no offense intended), it is indisputable that Cho is both a murderer and a criminal. If someone alleges one, but not the other, I will place a contradiction tag at the top of this article. It is reasonable, though I would disagree with it, to remove all tags relating to criminality if you doubt his guilt. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "allegedly" from the paragraph about the first two victims. I'm not sure if this clears things up for you. This happens when a story is first breaking and people rush to post things and no one thinks to ammend those items properly later on once crimes have been confirmed to have been committed by a specific individual. Similarly, some wikipedians showed some hesitation at removing "attributed" from "attributed writings" once authorship of the plays had been established with certainty. W.C. 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of People Killed?

It says in the article he shot and killed 32, then later it says he killed 33. I was told he killed 33.

Uh, yes it does, and no, "killing" is not defined that way. To "kill oneself" is perfectly common terminology, and AFAIK, the law nowhere defines the term. Clearly he didn't "murder" himself (did anyone ever claim he did?) but saying that he "killed himself" is absolutely correct usage. Bueller 007 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the most accurate phrasing might be something along the lines of "shot and killed 33 people, including himself" (minus emphasis in the article). That seems to convey the appropriate information with just two extra words. But that may just be me. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is "shot and killed 32 people before committing suicide", ala Columbine High School massacre.

Mizabot: Archiving

Now you've shortened it to 20 hours? I realize this is a hot topic but you shouldn't be so worried about getting lost in over 100 sections here. Some people are even bumping their crap to the top. We should find an order of importance and gerality if you want it organized, but 20 hours is just crap to not get people's important points noticed. The whole page will under go complete metamorphasis in a day at that rate. -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is 245K ... that's long enough to make it painful for people on dialup/slow computers. --BigDT (416) 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template isn't super clear: MiszaBot archives based on the newest timestamp. So a thread that had been started on Tuesday, but was still being discussed, would not be archived, while a thread that was started yesterday and was never responded to would be archived. Hope that clears things up. Natalie 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does something else need to be done to get the bot to look at this page? I archived some threads manually and I'm going to do another group of them. There are some 2-day old threads that haven't been edited in 2 days that have not been archived. --BigDT (416) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the period of time was changed in the last day. That is, I think yesterday the bot was set to archive anything that hadn't been edited in 2 days, and today it's 20 hours. I don't know when that change was made, but it might be affecting what's being archived when. Natalie 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info - Ebay Purchases - Computer Activity

purchased 2 clips on ebay used email Blazers5505@hotmail.com sold and bought books on half.com http://www.yahoo.com/s/135782/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

Parents' Profession in Korea

His parents operated a used book store in Korea. here

Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho

As taken from an article written by the folks over at CNN. I quote:

Cho's name was given as "Cho Seung-Hui" by police earlier this week. But the Cho family statement rendered his name as "Seung-Hui Cho." Source: [28]

It's too early to say for definite what his real name is, but let's please keep an eye on this. Perhaps the initial name is incorrect. However, it may simply be a case of the family referring to him as:

Seung-Hui, Cho

And therefore perhaps the CNN article failed to recognise the comma. I am not sure, but it was worth mentioning. Adam 01:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up. ^ --Dynaflow 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ebay transactions

It's just come out that Cho bought some of the bullets on ebay, using the handle "blazers5505"

Story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267682,00.html

It's interesting to note some of his other purchases and sales; the book "Hell House" for one. 132.170.54.248 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add to Category:American mass murders

warranted by achievements.Proudlyhumble07 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18virginia.html?th&emc=th
  2. ^ Vossekuil, Bryan (May 2002). "Safe School Initiative Final Report" (PDF). U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. p. 26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seung-Hui_Cho&oldid=124763950"