Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 1

Untitled

This contains material from April 16-19.

Disclaimer?

Does anyone else we should have a disclaimer on this page.. something like

"we here at wikipedia have not established this article to glorify a mass murderer, rather we wish to provide information for a public that so needs it at this time, we send our regards to anyone affected in any way by the actions depicted on this page, as such we in due time will be writing articles on those largely affected and the heroes of the massace"

Rankun 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. This is so cheesy. "United we stand" ... Are you American?

not realy 70.20.232.243 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, people who find mass murders cool will see it as glorifying regardless. Zeck 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think we should have a disclaimer

I disagree. Strongly. If this article needs a disclaimer, it should be deleted. Whiskey in the Jar 14:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good God in Heaven, HELL NO! This shouldn't even be discussed. This is an encyclopedia, there is no glorification being done, and as such, no disclaimer is necessary. This is simply displaying information regarding the perpetrator of a now-historical criminal act.

I am just as horrified as you guys are over this act, but the simple truth is, Wikipedia traffics in INFORMATION, nothing more, nothing less. We tell the facts, and leave it at that. No disclaimer about the INTENTIONS of Wiki are necessary. -- Ubergenius 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ubergenius

Part of Wikipedia policy is not to use disclaimers, except for spoiler tags. There used to be disclaimer templates, but they were removed by consensus, stating that they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. Example: who decides what does and doesn't need a disclaimer? This has been discussed before, no disclaimer is necessary. J0lt C0la 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I certainly agree with the sentiment of the original post, such a disclaimer is inappropriate here. If not, consider the many other articles that would likewise merit the same: Charles Whitman, Martin Bryant, Woo Bum-Kon, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Andrew Kehoe, etc., not to mention assassins and serial killers. I agree with the statement that Wikipedia must set forth the facts, nothing more. Besides, there are no words that we could publish that would dissuade those inclined to such behavior. pointlessforest 18:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me heavily of the "Hitler was a great man" statement. It's true, and if anyone wants to misunderstand it as praise, that's their own fault. Wikipedia does not need a disclaimers. WP:NOT#SORRY. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 18:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to terrorist organizations?

Why has none of the media pointed out the shiny "magic triangle" that is clearly visible on the murderer's forehead in his student photo? This triangle has occult significance and may indicate a connection (real or fictional) to South Korean militant extremists like Seoul Freemasonry. I understand that Wikipedia articles are not a place for speculation on such connections before they are established by official sources, but I hope that the alternative media (blogosphere) will get to work on this important issue---just as soon as the day's quizzes, party photos, political flaming, pseudo-science, and general wannabe-preening are posted. Thanks! 69.250.43.106 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.. before you get too carried away, someone should point out your "shiny magic triangle" is just glare from the camera flash on his sweaty forehead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.9.41 (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

yeah definitely, now is not the time for some stupid conspiracy theory, its definitely a glare.Wraith12 07:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Wraith12[reply]

I think the post is sarcasm (case in point: "just as soon as the day's quizzes, party photos, political flaming, pseudo-science, and general wannabe-preening are posted"), relating to the fact that the poster believed that the concept of "Links to terrorist organizations" (Was that at one time part of the article? I'm assuming so) seemed ridiculous to the poster. J0lt C0la 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Ax

I suspect it's a bibilical reference--Genesis 16:12: "And he shall be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him".--Pvednes 08:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relation between Genesis 16:12 and Ismail Ax? There is no mention of Ismail Ax anywhere in the English bible 212.108.17.165 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 16:12 is the prophecy of Ishmael, and Ismail is an acceptable alternate spelling of Ishmael. Plus, 16:12 seems to work in the context of an amok. Keep in mind this is all just speculation on my part. It could also have something to do with the name Ishmael/Ismail--"God will hear"...ax? --Pvednes 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculation, but it appears that his writings suggest he disliked wealthy people. Perhaps the 'Ax' has an inference to Armani AX that has high priced clothing. Koreans are known for coveting luxury goods and designer names. Maybe he had some disdain for the fact?

The tortured English major desired to commit "Malice acts." An intense hatred, inverted and covert found sinister expression in acts of random violence. Written in red, the words became speech acts70.245.112.93 04:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)poyner 17 April 2007[reply]

Just speculating: Ismail (Islamic spelling as opposed to Jewish spelling - Ishmael) was the son of Ibrahim/Abraham. Ismail was known as the father of all Arabs. Ax refers to a weapon. As this was tattoed on his arm, it could mean that he saw himself as the instrument or the vindicator of the Arabs - his arm being the weapon of destruction on behalf of the father of the Arabs, Ismail/Ishmael

Oh, puleeze. Speculation indeed, and racially charged to boot! "Koreans are known for coveting luxury goods and designer names." Sounds a lot like "African-Americans are crazy about fried chicken and watermelon" to me. This kind of speculation is truly offensive and has no potential to add anything to the quality of the article. It doesn't belong here. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ . Cmichael 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about he played Lineage II like most other Koreans and his in game alias is Ismail Ax, I like my speculation the best. --67.8.139.92 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sotero M: Look up "Isma'il ibn Jafar" there is a section in the wikipedia page about Ish'mail Axe. That may be a link to the shooter. Personally, i think it is.

In James Fennimore Cooper’s story “The Prairie,” the settler Ishmael Bush, who is attempting to escape from civilization, sets out across the prairie with two key tools, a gun and an axe. Each has a symbolic meaning. The axe — which can either kill or provide shelter — stands for both creation and destruction. Could be a possible explanation for why this English major had it scrawled on his arm. Obviously it is speculation, and unless we develop a section for possible explanations for the statement (which I know isn't happening), I'm not going to include it myself. Bluefield 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of interest. there is the "Asian Network" on tv called "AZN". There are the AX awards there for asian actors/actresses. It stands for "Asian Excellence". I figure this MAY be a link. - Joetheguy 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this passage for the meaning behind the tattoo:

In the history of mankind, Ibrahim was the great rebel who opposed idolatry and established monotheism in this world. Although physically tired of sufferings, the prophet of responsibility and leadership had a sharp mind. His heart was full of love yet he carried an axe in his hand! Faith shined from the center of Kofr. A clear fountain of tawheed, monotheism, emerged from the sewage of polytheism!

The first to fight idolatry, Ibrahim was raised in the house of Azar who used to make the idols for his tribe. Ibrahim fought not only against idolatry and Nimrod' but also against ignorance and oppression. The leader of this movement, he was riotous against abjectness. He was the source of hope and wishes, the man of faith and the founder of true unity.

Ibrahim, enter the fire - the fire of oppression and ignorance! Help prevent the people from being burned by the fire of oppression and ignorance! The same fire is ignited in the fate and future of every responsible individual who is indebted to enlightenment and guidance. For those who behave like Ibrahim, Allah will make a rose garden from the fire of Nimrods! You will not burn and leave behind your ashes. It is a symbolic demonstration of how close you get to the "fire" during your struggle and performance of Jihad. To throw yourself into the fire in order to save other people is a bitter experience, but even more painful is the Shahadat.

Ibrahim, sacrifice your son Ismail! Cut his throat with your own hands to save the people's neck from being cut. Which people? Those who have been sacrificed at the steps of the palaces of power or near the plunderer's treasures or inside the temples of hypocrisy and misery! To get courage to seize the sword from the hand of the executioner, cut Ismail's throat with a knife! Allah (Ibrahim's God) will pay Ismail's ransom. You do not kill your son nor lose him! This gesture is a lesson for the sake of your faith. You must reach the point of your willingness to sacrifice your most beloved (Ismail) with your own hands.

Source of this is http://www.al-islam.org/hajj/shariati/14.htm. Just a thought to consider I suppose.

You know what i would have done if i was a disgruntled student bent on destruction and causing as much pain to the world as i could. I would scrible something criptic yet entirely meaningless on my arm so that people for years to come would spend hours debating its significance.

Did he play video games?

Jack Thompson claims video games are common among these things. Any info if Seung Hui played? Video of Mr Thompson talking about this shooting on Fox news here: http://kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/

It's likely, given the fact that the guns were apparently purchased relatively recently and he had quite a high accuracy rate with smaller handguns. However, leave that for the police to speculate on first and WP to report later. -Missing NOOO 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a video game that doesn't involve holding anything more than a keyboard and a mouse or trackball could improve one's accuracy with an actual handgun. Perhaps one could make a case for Duck Hunt though... BillG | Talk 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that proficiency with handguns and intention to buy weapons are a likely result of being a gamer. I recommend following your own advice and withhold speculation. Mr. Thompson is skilled at using tragedies to gain media attention and I'd like to see this issue completely shelved unless a direct factual link is demonstrated.--Kwizatch 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not something I'm suggesting at all. I'm a pretty hardcore gamer myself, and do not own any sort of gun or firearm, nor do I have any shooting accuracy last time I checked because I was a terrible shot last time I tried to shoot (my realm of game playing falls mostly under fighting and role playing games; being a gamer is not the same as being an FPS gamer, something some people -- especially anti-game pundits -- do not seem to understand). However, few people have accuracy that good without a good bit of practice, and light guns provide enough accuracy training that it's effective even if it isn't optimal (some militaries provide some amount of training this way). Regardless of Jack Thompson's situational opportunism and the facts I can pull out of my butt, though, the only "factual link" is that the vast majority of people who play even violent games do not go around actually shooting people with guns. Either that, or GTA series sales have been overexaggerated. -Missing NOOO 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you originally suggested that Cho was proficient with handguns despite not owning the guns very long and not having much chance to practice because he may have had some "training" with lightgun type games. I happen to think this is a stretch; I'd attribute it to close quarters firing, blocked exits, (Cho apparently used chains to block doors) and lots of ammo. I think my original point is valid: the only link to video games here is by Thompson, who is a questionable source. --Kwizatch 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to discuss this any further, but please quit twisting my words. I don't have an agenda here, and neither should you. -Missing NOOO 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the information we know about him I'd guess the game he really played was StarCraft. Now I don't see how this leads to violence but imagine if he wasn't good at StarCraft. He'd be singled out, made fun of. How could he possibly go on losing to Zerg Rushes? Now this is my theory, which I wil lbe sending to Jack Thompson, he lost a StarCraft tournament and went to avenge the Terrans. Jack Thompson, I support you and your idiotic, unintelligent accusations upon the video game industry and so I dedicate this to you. Because of you the gamers of today look good, while you look like a senile old fool that even a nursing home wouldn't want. SonnyCorleone 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask everyone not to continue this discussion unless they feel they have something more constructive than this to contribute. --Kizor 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole topic is pretty asinine by itself. I can't stress how ignorant and ridiculous it is to believe that a game, using buttons and thumbsticks, could some how contribute to the careful planning of locking 30+ students in a building and then executing them. Yes, it is a tragedy that affects us all. But using this as a way to gain fame and money for a Crusade against the video game industry? That in itself is a crime. My previous statement was satirizing the whole idea of video games linking to violence. If this was the case then there would be 13 million murderers running wild, as per the number of copies of GTA: Vice City sold world wide. If this was the case then you'd see a massacre much larger than this. Instead of just realizing that the kid had problems we as humans instead try to pass the buck onto other things. Humans will never admit that they are wrongs, probably because we are all arrogant, pompous, prideful jerks. Who's fault is it for this tragedy? A videogame or the criminal's instability? Must we continue the unbelievably immature accusations? As long as we have people like Jack Thompson around, capitalizing on tragedies we will never be able to really confront these troubles, stopping them before they happen. SonnyCorleone 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though Sonny's statements have no place here, he's still correct. Jack Thompson is not someone to be taken seriously, and there is little to substantiate his claims that video games cause violence; not to mention quite a lot of statistical evidence to the contrary. There is absolutely no valid reason to include this in the article unless something comes to light about it, like a journal entry where he says "I practiced for six hours in Counterstrike today... it's almost like real life" or something to that effect. Until then, there is no point to discussing this because it's inconsequential and not remotely encyclopaedic. Ennuified 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck u Jack Thompson, Fuck u Fox News, Fuck u Joe Lieberman, video games are NOT real and have ZERO effect on what you do in real life and does not give u a reason to shoot innocent people just because of GTA. Its about time the parents and teachers take some fuckin responsibility for a change.

Haha. Cursing rather unnecessary but its a common sentiment felt by many gamers. Thomson just exploits situations for his gain everytime. MrMacMan^Talk 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games can teach you how to point and pull the trigger, but no way does it emulate realistic kickback or trajectory, and let's not forget reloading. He knew what he was doing, way beyond the aid of video games. --Palf91 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it teach you how to point and pull the trigger? I'm pretty sure a child could point a gun and pull the trigger. The difference between pointing and pulling the trigger and shooting with accuracy is training and motivation. Saying pulling a 360 controller's trigger and a gun's trigger is similar is plain stupid. There is no way playing a game leads to anything with real guns. It can't train, can't motivate, and can't desensitize. Cho Seung-hui wouldn't be able to plan the massacre, start it, and finish it with precision and accuracy by playing a game. He'd have to rehearse this in real life since a game does not come close to reality. It saddens me that Jack Thompson will call a disturbed man innocent because he's got a vendetta against video games. SonnyCorleone 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think video games will make a person a better shooter. I do play games a lot (have even played duck hunt, wild gunmen, and other games that involve holding an electronic gun). Although i do well in shooting and many other games, i am a very poor shooter with real guns (i can barely make a 20% accuracy shooting a beer can at 10 feet away). I really think that games are just games and as a stepping stone to real life, a game is a very poor teacher. Also, video games (regardless of violence) does not necessarily make a person a mass murderer. If video games were to foster violence and make a gamer a murderer later, perhaps we could have like a school shooting every week. the only reason i think that video games came to the spotlight as a tool that makes people violent and murderous is because people see it that way. Morever, i am yet to find a "well constrcuted" study to prove that games do make people violent. Because of this, whatever jack tompson or other anti-gaming advocates say about games, their views are no better than a layperson's speculation.

The Note He Left

How about something on the page regarding the note he posted http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-070417vtech-shootings,0,4843160.story

Picture

Here is another picture of Cho from the VT website: http://198.82.160.236/tragedy/images/cho.jpg.

Media outlet

If the NY Times is not a reliable source, who is? //THF 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we are an encyclopedia, and we need corroboration on such a statement. I'm redirecting this to the article for now. --Golbez 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a NYT Blog link rather than a vetted, published story. Looks a bit speculative at this point. Even so, why should he have an article? Is he notable beyond the shooting? If not, then he can be discussed in the partent article --StuffOfInterest 13:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman has an article; this will be an article eventually, too, almost certainly. And it's in the main Times now.[1] And ABC News. THF 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing more information at his profile at CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/cho.profile/index.html --Esprix 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub picture

In light of the recent events, is the crime-related stub picture really appropriate? 136.165.46.150 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree about the symbol for the crime related stub. Can we find another? If nothing else, out of respect?--Witchzilla 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. THF 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Witchzilla 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABCnews.com [2] has "the official" picture of Cho Seung-hui. Since I'm kinda new here, I'll let more knowledgeable folks decide if it should go up. --Semiautomata 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture referenced above was not about Cho Seung-hui. It was a picture which appears on "crime stubs". Unfortunately the picture depicted something that would have upset people given the circumstances. We asked that it be removed and our request was graciously honored. --Witchzilla 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

His name is most likely 趙承輝

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%E8%B6%99%E6%89%BF%E8%BC%9D&btnG=Google+Search

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

I don't know how but Seung-hui Cho should be redirected to Cho Seung-hui or vice versa

I am not sure, but is the name correctly written? Should it be "Seung-hui" instead? This is the case for instance with the current UN general secretary whose name is spelled Ban Ki-moon, not Ban Ki-Moon. Do we have any Koreans here who could help out on this? --MoRsE 13

38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also on his first name, are we correct there too?

Hangul	Hanja	Revised	MR	Popular spellings
조승희	趙 or 曺	Jo	Cho	Cho Seung Hee or Cho Seung Hui

--MoRsE 13:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Korean, but an Asian user also told me that all the Korean name are as you have said. MontanNito 13:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move. Let's see if anyone complains. Ronnotel 13:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it looks like all the online news outlets are using the uppercase form : http://news.google.com/news?q=Cho+Seung-hui Danny 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd actually trust an Asian before a journalist in this case, even if they were many. :-) Seriously, one problem with this is if e.g. a large agency like AP get it wrong and the story gets more or less copied a lot, a mistake could spread, although that's just a thought. -- Northgrove 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also seen many different variations on the name, like Choi, Choe (female version?) and of course Cho (There seems to have been an legendary jazz dancer (a girl) with almost(?) the same name, see Choe Seung-hui. Are these different interpretations of the same name or different ones?--MoRsE 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Korean articles. According to the most famous Korean newspaper, the Chosun Ilbo, the gunman's name is 조승희, NOT 조승휘 or 조승회 as was suggested by the infobox. Here's the link [3]. And by the way Choe Seung-hui is completely different. In Wikipedia we use the Revised Romanisation so his romanised name in the infobox is correct. -- Mumun 無文 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be consistency with the name? In the table, the Revised Romanization is Jo Seung-hui while the McCune-Reischauer is Cho Sŭng-hŭi. The current name is Cho Seung-hui, which seems to be a combination of the two. For what it's worth, a Canadian radio station read it as "jo sung-i" --Kvasir 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops nevermind. Not everyone has to anglicise their names in any of the convention. --Kvasir 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly moved the page. We're English Wikipedia, not Korean Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bold move is giving us editors fits. I keep getting errors when I try to save a change. Thomasmallen 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was lame (a comment I made before the re-merging). Once again I apologize. (→Netscott) 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person grew up in the US, went to an American school, and his notoriety stemmed from something he did in the United States. I'm pretty sure that most official documents bearing his name uses the Western order and not the Korean order. Why use the Korean way when it doesn't apply? DHN 19:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because wiki is filled with correctness nazis that lean heavily toward theory instead of actuality. the guy lived in the US for 15 years. he signed his "play" as "Seung Cho". i think it's pretty clear that the article should be listed under that. one of my best friends from grad school (oddly coincidentally named "Seungmin Cho") switched his. also, we referred to him as "SM" sometimes. some of his korean friends hyphenated, but did not capitalize the "M".-Heterodoxus 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his name should be formatted in the American way unless he actually went by "Cho Seung-hui." This kind of reverse cultural elitism does more harm than good. If he wrote under the name Seung Cho and if he was known to friends, teachers, etc., as such, he should be on Wikipedia under that name. --Dynaflow 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

even south korean newspapers do not correctly identifiy the suspect's name, they either use 조승희 or 조승휘. Janviermichelle 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i saw that daum uses 휘 but chosun.com and Yonhap have been using 조승희 at least until the time this message was signed. Perhaps we won't know exactly for a while. Mumun 無文 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, 禧 is 복희...Mumun 無文 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt 휘 is used in masculine Korean names and was common in the era when he was born. 승희 is more of a feminine name, though I have seen males with that given name. A female example is Lee 승희, a female model from the US known for her large breasts and scantily clad photos. Eventually we will find his accurate name.

Hui is more likely 휘 but there are variations of 희. 희 can also be used in male names too, but Hee is the most commonly used romanization. Korean press wouldn't know how to spell his name for sure since the info comes from the American press. The korean media can only guess whether its 희 or 휘. mirageinred 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is largely duplicated and still ongoing here: [4] --Dynaflow 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence he actually still used the asian convention of last name first? I understand cultural sensitivity and all that, but he was, to some degree, an American. Did he still put his last name first? Titanium Dragon 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he signed his play Seung Cho. This is a case of political correctness run amok. DHN 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever he did, someone keeps vandalising the page. Also, ive noted iwthin the article that he is continually refered to be his christian name. I know that, in light of recent events, this is rather trivial, but I think he should be called Seung-hui instead of Cho, at least within the actual article. —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho is his family name, and we refer to people beyond puberty age by their family names, unless the people do not have family names. WhisperToMe 08:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Sorry, I thought his first name was Cho, and I was complaining because I thought his christian name was constantly being used. I was raising the same concerns as you, I just had it mixed up. —ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote his own name Seung Cho, but I assume Wikipedia is the actual expert on how Asians write their names?

Yep... THANKS for the testimonial! --Ali'i 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some people don't understand that his 15 years of residency takes precedence over his country of origin. 15 years of residency defined him. Seung Cho or Seung-hui Cho should be the order of his name. Secondgen 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, common usage is Cho Seung-hui, therefore that's what his article should be titled. Just like Edward Kennedy is his proper name, but his article is located at Ted Kennedy... it more common... even if it's isn't technically "correct". Hope this helps. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your logic, the common usage is Seung Cho or Seung-hui Cho. You just discounted all the people that called him by the western order for 15 years, including himself, based on a couple of days usage from the media. Thank you. Secondgen 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, based on MY logic, since the vast world at large (excluding a few papers and those that may have known him personally) knows him as Cho Seung-hui. For a quick (granted, somewhat unreliable) test, run the names through a Google or GoogleNews search. "Cho Seung-hui" is the far more common name. --Ali'i 18:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make sense of you, but you insist going against logic and calling it your phantom logic. The amounts of google search does not take precendence over what he was known as, for most of his life. Go google yourself logical thinking and try again. Secondgen 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments WP:NPA. No need to fight over something trivial like this. We can sort it out sometime after the fire has died down -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date format

Until we have exact birth date, format should follow guidelines at WP:Date section 1.9. Use c. 1982. Ronnotel 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 18, 1984 http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/04/norris_hall_shooter_identified.html

Web search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Cho+Seung-Hui%22&btnG=Search

It appears there's no mention whatsoever of this person on the 'net, by their full name. So much for the Facebook hunting people had done. -- Zanimum 13:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who has a Cyworld account should search him up (not the American one). Korean people are more likely to use Cy so the chances that he would use Facebook is less. Try Cyworld [5]. Mumun 無文 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searched cyworld and couldn't find his page. Korean newpapers say his family imigrated into the States when he was 2 year old. EDIT: he moved to the States when he was 8. Pessay 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Resident alien

What does resident alien mean? Does this mean he had permanent residency in the US (green card I believe you call it in the US). Or simply that he was legally resident in the US, i.e. could have been there on a student permit, tourist permit or work permit (both the later seem unlikely of course since he was a student). Nil Einne 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resident alien means that an individual is here legally, but typically without a Green Card, and certainly without citizenship. Thomasmallen 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to cnn he did have a green card that was renewed in October 2003, the only difference between a green card holder and a US citizen is that the green card holder can't vote in the presidency elections, i think. [6] on a personal note this is so terrible and sad :( --Witchinghour 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A United States "Green Card" says "Resident Alien" in BIG BOLD LETTERS right across the top of it, so it's not a huge leap to postulate that a "Resident Alien" is a Green Card Holder. Other forms of status such as Student or Diplomatic Visa do not qualify one as a "Resident Alien" since employment and other privileges are often not immediately granted with this type of immigration status. U.S. Permanent Residents have many of the same privileges as U.S. Citizens, with the noted exceptions of voting and serving on a jury. 202.128.1.120 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Aliens cannot vote ! [7] Omoo

It's linked now anyway Nil Einne 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you need a green card to be a resident alien. Those who do not are called non-resident alien. 131.215.7.198 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page locked?

You know, this whole collaborative writing process is going to be very slow if no one can edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.66.1 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We were frequently removing racist vandalism directed towards East Asians and Koreans. I'm pretty sure that's why it was locked. Thomasmallen 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only semi-protected. Log in to edit. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I made an account, and it still wouldn't work.

Your account has to be 4 days old John Stattic 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to edit? Comments on the talk-page can result in changes in the article if other editors agree. THF 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the details already in the Virginia Tech massacre article, I guess. Alleged fight with his girlfriend, maybe a brief account of some of the details we have of the massacre. That type of stuff.

Just to echo what many people might say, I think the semi-protection is a good idea. Yesterday there was so much vandalism happening on the main article. MCalamari 16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he get a gun?

How did this guy find a gun? Doesn't it take years of training and background checks to get one? He was just a kid and had only been in the country for school. Something doesn't make sense here.

You don't need a gun license in Virginia (unsigned comment)

Of course it doesn't require that. Perhaps in other countries or more "liberal" states, but in Virginia you simply have to pass a criminal background check and be of age. And if he wanted to get these guns another way (say, if the legal bars are higher) I know of a guy out that way who sells used 9mm pistols for $350 and new, unmarked ones for $500 on the black market. Thomasmallen 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn't an argument against gun control. "You" may know a guy who can get you a gun illegally, but I doubt this foreign-exchange student would know where to get one. It is sick that this guy can just walk into a store and buy a gun.Bunbury18 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and thanks for the comment. It let me edit your talk page to the correct version (you had blanked the three vandalism warnings). Thomasmallen 14:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho was not a "foreign-exchange student." He had lived here in Northern Virginia since childhood, regardless of what his immigration status was. Foreigners who hold valid permanent residence status, as Cho had, are extended almost all of the same rights as US citizens--including the right to purchase and carry firearms. Only foreigners who are here on "non-immigrant" visas are excluded (and indeed, it is a federal felony for such aliens merely even to possess any firearm).
Moreover, Cho was hardly a "kid" it seems, since he was 23 years old. One must be at least 21 years of age to purchase handguns legally in the United States (or 18 years of age to purchase rifles or shotguns).--Ryanaxp 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs (ie. hotair.com) suggest the guns wwere bought here: http://www.roanokefirearms.com/ because the owner posted the name "Cho" on the black-rifles discussion board April 16, long before the ID was publicly known. The poster also claimed ATF told him the receipt was found on the shooter which was also confirmed by officials today. (CraigM)

Any link?--58.104.66.1 14:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nickqueen.com/?p=248 Is a link to the text, but the original forums (black-rifles.com) site is not responding currently. (CraigM)

http://www.nickqueen.com/?p=248 Now has a screenshot up of the forum post. (Ash) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.63.205 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Both guns mentioned in the forum post (Glock 19 and Walther 22) match those reported today on CNN (CraigM) 74.120.80.20 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might merit a mention in the actual article. Anyone else think so?--58.104.66.1 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoake Firearms is now confirmed as where the guns were purchased (CNN); the forum posting was true. 74.120.80.20 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701083.html has an interview with the owner of the gun shop. It includes "It was a very unremarkable sale," said Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious." I would consider that worthy of entry into the article.Jersey72 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age

It doesn't bother me enormously, but is there any need for the last sentence saying "According to a press conference on April 17, officials identified Cho as being 23 years old." ? I mean, when I read it I felt as though it doesn't flow well with the rest of the article, as in it looks really weird to have it there and worded thus, and is also kind of redundant since we know his date of birth and death anyway. F. Delpierre 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was only added when his exact year of birth was unknown, and was speculated as 1982 or 1983. John Stattic 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChoSeungHui.com

I considered purchasing it because, well, I'm an opportunist, but it already redirects to Virginia Tech. Quick! Thomasmallen 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has also already purchased ChoSeung-hui.com.

and Seung-huiCho.com.

Centreville

I'm a big fan of US spellings for US topics (and British for British topics) but for crying out loud the Virginia city is spelled CENTREVILLE. Stop changing it to "Centerville." Moncrief 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its the US vs. UK spellings -- its the fact that the media has the name of the town wrong. MSNBC says 'resident alien with a residence established in Centerville, Va. '... against CenTERville does not exist in virginia... but we having an edit war now because of it. MrMacMan^Talk 14:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live about five minutes from Centreville, and my office (where I'm entering this) is about ten minutes away via Route 66. I can attest that the name is, truly, Centreville! It has a strong little Korean community west of the intersection of 29 and 66, but overall it's a lame cross between Manassas and Annandale... Thomasmallen 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY do we have an edit war over something that is verifiable? The city is spelled that way. Can people please verify that on their own? The wrong way has a red link, for pete's sake!! Moncrief 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4000 articles say Centreville. Why are we going with the one that has it wrong? Centreville is in Fairfax County. The shooter is from Fairfax County. THF 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we CALM down please? Lets come to a consensus on the name without edit waring? MrMacMan^Talk 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may BE a Centerville, but this guy was from CENTREVILLE, a Washington suburb, per the Washington Post. Moncrief 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that our esteemed colleagues have found a source that says Centreville, instead of fighting over one that says Centerville (Which does exist, but apparently you didn't bother to find out), the fight is over. --Golbez 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you didn't bother to verify that he was from the much more well-known city of Centreville by checking any number of news sources, insisting on a news source in which the name was spelled incorrectly. The fight was wholly generated and perpetuated by you. Moncrief 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to vet your sources, it's my job to work with what I'm given. You're the one who constantly mis-cited a source. I suppose I was so busy preserving our treatment of the source that I lacked the time to check otherwise, so maybe I'm lazy too. --Golbez 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself was a mis-cite. I take a broader view, which is getting accurate information into an article rather than being pigheaded about an obvious misspelling in one news source. Moncrief 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you refused to find a better source, so who's being pigheaded? --Golbez 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post isn't a "better source"? Moncrief 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the post have to do with this? When I was fighting you, the only source was MSNBC saying Centerville. I apologize for getting emotional, but you did the same thing; if it was so obviously a typo, then you could have *easily* (apparently) found a better source. You simply refused to believe that Centerville existed. --Golbez 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV and WP:COOL, please both of you. THF 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Moncrief 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all calm down about this. BOTH cities exist. For confirmation, see here: [8] and here: [9]. Different media outlets are claiming that each city are his city of residence. For confirmation, see the posted MSNBC article (CenTERville), and the posted Washington Post article (CenTREville.) Until this is resolved, the wiki article should reflect the ongoing confusion in this rapidly developing story. I will now edit article to reflect the discrepancies in sources and acknowledge that either may be the case. Elambeth 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damm this guy doesn't live too far from me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.204.2 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok... but every media source says he lived in Fairfax look at a map here. CenTERville is not in the north east section of the state. see map here. So -- again -- I'm pretty sure its cenTREville MrMacMan^Talk 15:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He lived in Centreville. I live in the same neighborhood. The spelling may be silly and an affectation, but that is how it is spelled. And lest I be accused of contributing original research, please, anyone, check google maps or yahoo map or any map at all, using the zip code of his much-publicized high school. He was in the Fairfax County public school system, and that means CenTREville. The article should not reflect "confusion" when there isn't any; MSNBC was just typing too fast. --Lisasmall 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I let myself get way too heated. Sigh. This is a stressful time. I apologize. --Golbez 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in hindsight, why didn't anybody look up zip code, mapquest, atlas, map, or any other similar independent sources other than related media articles? --Kvasir 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He went to Tree Elementary School, for 4th and 5th grade and went by "Seung Cho" (or so the yearbook says). I believe for 6th grade, he went to Brookfield, and then Stone Middle School prior to attending Westfield HS. Gonnadunk 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. According to http://www.fcps.edu/suptapps/schoolprofile/profile.cfm?profile_id=240 Westfield High School did not open until 2000. A high school graduate of 2003 began his high school career in 1999. He attended Centreville High his freshman year after Stone Middle School. I had a class with him, but don't know how we could find verification 129.59.32.17 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding ticket

I don't think it could be the cause, but it appears that Cho received a speeding ticket last week. To verify, go to the Virginia General District Court Case Information System and select "Montgomery County General District/Blacksburg", then on the next page select "Traffic," and then search for "cho, seung". --Ryanaxp 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see corroboration for this at CCN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/cho.profile/index.html Esprix 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably of no relevance to the shooting whatsoever, but CNN is mentioning his court record showing that he was recently busted for speeding, and had a court case coming up.

"Court records obtained by the AP show Cho got a speeding ticket from Virginia Tech police on April 7. He was cited for going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, the AP reported, with a court date set for May 23."[10]

Worth mentioning? Bueller 007 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, otherwise CNN wouldn't have mentioned it. --Kvasir 01:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go in. It could have relevence to his state of mind. Most people don't like getting tickets. Ikilled007 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeding is pretty common though... 132.205.44.134 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, most people don't go on a murderous rampage after getting a speeding ticket. But, I do see your point. Though, it's kind of petty, I mean linking a speeding ticket which is not a real "crime" in the sense that it stays with you on your record for life to this would seem a bit like original research and not encyclopaedic.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant, in the state of Virginia any speeding ticket is pre-payable to avoid appearing in court, so long as the person ticketed was not going over 20mph of the posted speed limit or over 80mph which he was not doing either. If he paid the ticket before the court date, he would not need to appear. I know this being from VA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AcePuppy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Mentioning about the speed ticket doesn't necessary mean linking it to the shooting. It could be worded as: Cho has no prior criminal record other than a speed ticket blah blah blah." That way it simply stated as fact not leading to any conclusion. --Kvasir 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really impossible to say if it's relevant or not at this point. I think we should err on the side of strongly-sourced inclusiveness while this is still a current event. Bartleby 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace page

With MySpace being so popular is it known if he had a MySpace page or not? 71.71.254.71 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) — [reply]

Does that really matter? Or better... does that warrant posting on wikipedia? I say no. MrMacMan^Talk 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes it would matter a lot. Perhaps he was showing signs of his mental breakdown on his page. A lot of people who commited homicide have been found to keep blogs and have occasionally foreshadowed something to the extent of what they were intending to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.204.2 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will try to search for it on my free time, and I will post it on the discussion page before I do anything.SniperWolf1564 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he had a myspace page, but it looks like there is some evidence of web activity. Look at the "Where did he get the gun" section.

Hey remember how lonely this guy was- he sounds like the type who wouldn't bother with a internet thing used to connect people. Leemorrison 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did have a MySpace page according to several students from Virginia Tech on Facebook. His profile was promptly removed including the blogs and pictures. Several fake Facebook profiles have come up since the attack, all of which have been removed. StatsJunkie 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

supposedly he had a facebook under the name "Question Mark" or just "?" according to his roommates.

Bold text I agree any webpages or internet activity do matters. As some people reffer to alcohol and drugs to keep away, others do creative writing. Remember people talk about his plays in his English class maybe he did share something online. Some of this loners use the internet to socialize not always in a positive way, they are known as the haters in chatrooms and blogs. I do believe his writing was a crying for attention and if they had the same sexual abuse history on them, that makes it a sign!

I found the myspace page of Emily Hilsch's roomate. Is that relevant? Joetheguy 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says he's lonely. So he's probably an emo. which means yes, he has a Myspace page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an emo? Suddenly everyone who is lonely is an emo.

  For us older people, WHAT is emo? 141.156.166.127 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allll right.

http://www.myspace.com/seunghuicho

I think that's a fake myspace account or something. Signup was April 17.

Yes, that is fake. They used information from this article or other sources. Nothing original. And the hometown is misspelled. 75.84.142.45 05:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are u kidding me? that myspace is so fake, whoever did this is a horrible person, they just copied and pasted his picture from a news article, and also Tom automatically freinds anyone who just recently put up a myspace page, and to put that he is a Muslim? This stupid and obviously bigoted person is just looking for trouble. There is nowhere in the media that indicates that this killer was a Muslim, although I did read an article that says that in one of his notes he ranted his religion, Christianity. He probably became an atheist. That page should be removed and the person who put it up there should get his head checked because he clearly has a sick mind.Wraith12 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Wraith12[reply]

Facebook Page

http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=question+mark+man&n=-1&k=10008

Cell Phone Camera Video

As a reference with all discussions video for factual events is always warranted with that being said, why was the video that is posted on Youtube deleted as a reference? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNrBd4kKMg AcePuppy 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while back people pointed out that, since Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy towards copyright violations, it doesn't make any sense to allow external links to clear violations of the rights of copyright owners at other sites, notably YouTube. If the video is linked someplace where ownership is attributed and verifiable, and where the owner is getting whatever royalties he can legally claim, Wikipedia can probably link. - Banyan Tree 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the video is not copyrighted and was uploaded via CNN's I-Report, it is in public domain. AcePuppy 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but every created work is automatically the copyright of its creator. The video was made by Jamal Albarghouti, so he is the creator and owner of the copyright to the video. Mr. Albarghouti then uploaded the file to CNN I-Report. The small print there states,

you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party.

So Mr. Albarghouti, maybe without realizing it, signed away most of his rights to his work, which is why so many news broadcasts prominently have the CNN logo, but not Mr. Albarghouti's name. Albarghouti and maybe CNN have the ability to give permission to use the video to third parties. If you don't have that permission, you can't use the video without stepping on someone's copyright. There's always hope that Mr. Albarghouti will license his video under a free license that can be uploaded onto Wikipedia, but in the meantime links to copies of the video that do not appear to originate either from the owner or CNN should be removed. - Banyan Tree 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

We should merge this stub article with the main Virginia Tech massacre article. The shooter has no notoraity except for his crime of mass murder, which is told in the main article. Mytwocents 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible, terrible idea. Do not merge. Moncrief 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the easiest example of perpetrators that have their own article is Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. MrMacMan^Talk 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, as per above. – John Stattic (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree to merge, this is the worst school shooting in US History, even beyond the Columbine shooting, if the gunman at the massacre have there own page why shouldn't the Virginia Tech Killer have one as well. AcePuppy 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no this is a non starter. I'm revoming the box becasue there are too many already, this is a high profile page, and it will put people off. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Charles Whitman. Too early to talk about merging. Let's revisit in a week. THF 15:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rapidly growing, keep --MoRsE 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the box please, this isn't going to happen, and there are 3 boxes now, it looks daft. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. Charles Whitman and the Columbine killers have their own pages. This massacre was worse. The killer here should also have his own page. Bruin03 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly passes WP:N, and I'm sure dozens of articles are going to be written on him in the coming weeks that will allow expansion of this article. Don't merge. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The content should start out as part of the main article, probably in its own section. Once there is enough content to justify splitting out to a separate article then it should happen. Everyone wants to start an article, so we keep doing this backwards. --StuffOfInterest 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bruin03.. 132.205.44.134 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge There are plenty of other major criminals that have their own articles. This one serves to take the focus off the individual on the event page, which should really focus on the event. Already his citizenship and motivation have been discussed. This is a better place for that. MCalamari 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Several spree killers have their own Wikipedia pages --MosheA 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Do Not Merge Like everyone else said, this needs to be its own article and there's plenty of precedent for it. Ennuified 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge Precedent. 74.130.9.41 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

romanisation infobox or 'in-text' romanisation

We should not repeat the romanisation information. We should remove the romanisation infobox or the info in the text. Let's not be repetitive. Please check other articles about Koreans. One way or the other, not both please. Mumun 無文 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for both tags

I removed the current event tag - IF he "recently died" this is obviously a current event, IE this is tautological. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. Too many tags is a bad thing in my mind. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the second tag is reasonable because it is both a recent death AND related to the VA Tech massacre. AEMoreira042281 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it is a tautology. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motives?

I just read in a discussion forum that it had something to do with his girlfriend, with sounds pretty pathetic to commit his acts. Anyone find anything else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.188.204.2 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nothing has been presented to the media about motive. Its all speculation. And its unnecessary to call the dead guy 'pathetic', don't you think? MrMacMan^Talk 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That fellow killed 32 innocent people, you can call him whatever you want IMO. Yellowking 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not stating that he is a pathetic person. Just stating if that were to be his reasoning for it, which in my opinion is very, very pathetic.

Sounds like he was an isolated, frustrated, and angry person. The girlfriend thing was probably just the match which set him off. ~ Rollo44 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence to support the claim that she was even his girlfriend? How do we know this was not someone he was simply infatuated with? TheIguana 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be investigation into the plays that he wrote, Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone. These are show very clear signs that he may have been molested or raped. Very likely a victim of pedophilia. In both of his plays he talks about molestation, pedophilia, and violence..in a very emotional manner.

From Richard McBeef

(Richard gently rests him hand on John's lap.) JOHN What the hell are you doing! (John slaps Richards's hand.) What are you, a Catholic priest! I will not be molested by an aging balding overweight pedophilic stepdad named Dick! Get your hands off me you sicko! Damn you, you Catholic priest....

SUE ..Some stepfather! JOHN He tried to touch my privates!

SUE...Are you a bisexual psycho rapist murderer! Please stop following me. Don't kill me! (She rows wrenches and pipes lying on the ground at him, but he is unhurt.) RICHARD Let me explain! John is a rambunctious pubescent boy! SUE Oh my god! You are a pedophile!

JOHN I hate him. Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick... That fat man murder dad...And he molested me.

From Mr. Brownstone

JOE He a--rapped probably half of the kids in the class. JOHN I want to kill him. JANE I wanna watch him bleed like the way he made us kids bleed.

This really needs to be investigated not only by wikipedia posters, but by the news. So far these plays have been read and talked about; I cant believe no one has put two and two together. Also his parent, there has been no mention of them…

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml

76.80.166.98 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)jeit[reply]

Speculation: The veiled reference to sexual identity disorder makes the most sense to me. His family moved to the states to pursue an easier life where His Father was not known. Perhaps there was scandal and rumor about something not right at home? The details of Sexual Abuse and Violence in his stories and the tatoo also may be a clue. A way of venting without revealing to much. Also the Tatoo, "Is male?" = "Ismail Ax".

Most victims of sexual abuse tend to grow up to be loners and seperated from society, trying desperatly to keep thier secret and shame to themselves. If you have no friends, establish no relationships and keep everyone at a distance, no one will ever know. His signing his name as a question mark speaks alot as well. Either he wanted to show off that no one knew him, and therefor no one could know his secret, or that he himself had no idea who he was because of some trauma from being abused or molested. Perhaps the emotional turmoil of keeping this shame to himself finaly reached a boiling point. The "Stupid Rich Kids" were too distracted to pick up on the subtle clues and hints he left, so in a final act of desperation, he vented his demons to free himself of his shame and rage.

Again, this is only speculation. CireDark 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 'foreign exchange kid".

The guy(the shooter) is not a 'foriegn exchange kid". He has stayed in the us for 14 years - most of the people who come to the US at a small age blend very well into the society. PLEASE DISPEL ANY THOUGHTS WHICH MAKES HIM A GUY WHO CAME HERE JUST FOR SCHOOL OR SOMETHING STUPID LIKE THAT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumanthsagar (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

... Um... I don't see anywhere in the article a mention about him being a foreign exchange student or not. MrMacMan^Talk 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't necessarily saying that the article does say that. Christopher Connor 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Profile

"According to the Washington Post, his parents live in Fairfax County, an affluent suburb of Washington DC, just outside Arlington and Alexandria."...This is incorrect, Fairfax County borders Arlington county and the City of Alexandria. I also came across a source (Fox, I believe) stating that Centreville is in Eastern Virginia, near Williamsburg! Thomasmallen 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the media really sucks don't they. google map of Centreville MrMacMan^Talk 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please. --Golbez 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't matter since willliamsburg is nowhere near the location on the map. MrMacMan^Talk 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrMacMan, did you pay no attention whatsoever? Centerville ("er") is by williamsburg. So if Fox is mentioning a one by Williamsburg, they mean Cent*er*ville. However, since I can't tell that's what's actually being said, I asked for a map. So, yeah, read. Please. --Golbez 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since you used a google map link: google map of Centerville, you know someday you'll have to admit it exists --Golbez 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your mistaken... a while back i posted a map of CenTERville in this edit here. You can stop being nasty to me now too. MrMacMan^Talk 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just very annoyed at the strawman you created. You show a map of Centreville, then say that it's nowhere near Williamsburg - when obviously they meant Centerville is near Williamsburg. --Golbez 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Korean from Centreville, I can tell you that there are a lot of Koreans in Centreville, and that it's more likely he's from Centreville than Centerville, and the Washington Post is generally a source you can trust to get things right about Virginia locations; they cover the local area more or less, and unlike the Times they aren't full of typos on the front page and a message from the Unification church... I'm betting that whatever news sources say that it's Centerville are spelling it wrong, then looking up where that is. Happens all the time, and I would be doubting this less if he weren't Korean. -129.21.96.59 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax county IS one of the suburbs surrounding the Washington DC area.

Revert?

MrMacMan, what on earth was wrong with that? I was trying to make it following more the guidelines on biographical articles. --MoRsE 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't see why the topic heading wasn't going to be about him. Yes he's notable because of the shooting, but I dont think that would be his entire life. I'm not as familiar with WP:BLP as i should be so if your edits make it better than please change it. I just didn't see that type of format for other school shooters. MrMacMan^Talk 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

조승희

Can someone create a redirect at 조승희 to this article? 132.205.44.134 16:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also for hanja 曹丞禧. 132.205.44.134 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Created redirect for the first one, doing the second one now. Kntrabssi 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done and Done. Kntrabssi 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo

CNN has a new photo from the Department of Homeland Security... 132.205.44.134 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if this photo would be in the public domain? --- RockMFR 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's at http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/newt1.vt13.tues.jpg -- attributed to DHS, from his green card ... I guess that counts as created by a government agency and thus not under copyright, right? --zenohockey 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything by the government is in the public domain. 76.198.148.243 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield High School

CNN announced that Cho, two victims and an unrelated shooter came from Westfield high. The unrelated shooter earlier this month killed two cops. Or atleast I think that's what CNN said. 132.205.44.134 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN says it was last year that Michael Kennedy Westfield alum, shot and killed two cops in a police substation... 132.205.44.134 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Major

This is probably splitting hairs at the worst possible time, but was he an English language major, or English literature major (or perhaps even something else)? I know all links on here right now seem to be pointing to English language, but every news source I've seen is pretty ambiguous. 132.170.29.48 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he was a student of creative writing, so perhaps neither, or English with a specialization in creative writing. I don't think we should link to the language or literature until this is clarified. It's a good question. Moncrief 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the school's English department website, I don't think he could have been an English language major - their program (like most college English major programs) seems more literature-based. I don't know - perhaps English studies would be the appropriate article to wikilink to? schi ^talk 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was involved in creative writing classes and evidentally wrote a play. Why do you believe his major didn't involve literature? Nil Einne 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're attributing that belief to me. His major obviously involves literature - it doesn't mean that it's accurate to say that he's an English literature major. My impression is that the article on English studies is more inclusive (it covers the study of literature as well as creative writing, for example), in the absence of detailed information on his major. schi ^talk 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family necessary?

Is it really necessary to talk about his family? They are innocent and people shouldn't associate him with his family - or even ruin his family's business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.111.231.185 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

More importantly, should we really be putting his parent's exact address here?--58.104.66.1 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake, remove the family's address, don't you think they're having enough trouble right now? Who thought putting the address in the article was even a remotely reasonable thing to do?

Agreed. I think their EXACT address is overkill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.60.210.5 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it hasn't been already, i'm going to ask for the address to be OVERSIGHT'd. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their home address is of no relevance to this or other articles and will most likely only cause the parents more stress one way or another. Away with it. --MoRsE 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why it's necessary or useful to include the info about his parents' dry-cleaning business and his sister's college? How is that in any way relevant? Cerebus19 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Klebold#Early_life. It gives important context. At the same time, nonsense such as home addresses or phone numbers is obviously not proper. 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Admin, please add interwiki: pl:Cho Seung-hui and ru:Чо Сеунг-хуи. Bocianski 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- feb^OBJECTION! 17:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean club

How is this at all notable? There's no reason we should expect him to participate in such activities. Seems racist to think he'd "stick to his own kind". Titanium Dragon 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, especially with the wording as it now exists in the article -- as if there is a implied negative connotation because he didn't participate in those activities. Moncrief 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to clean it up some. Lemme know if you think it could be done better -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and it says, "he rarely joined or talked with them." It does NOT say that he refused to talk or join them. Janviermichelle 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Korean club even mentioned? He doesn't have an obligation to join even if he was Korean. Why don't we mention he didn't join the chess club or the basketball team and did not talk with them. --Kvasir 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the article as a fact. It's up to readers to draw conclusions from facts. I know many people are quite bad at drawing unbiased conclusions from mere facts, but that's not the issue here.--Svetovid 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what people should draw from these facts isnt the issue. The issue is that the fact that he wasnt involved in the korean club isnt worth mentioning, it's missleading and unnecessary.

Parents' home address

I think posting his parents' home address is very inappropriate. They need their privacy during this time as well, and someone in law school I know says there's all sorts of liability for Wikipedia if that stays. 69.234.216.51 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone per WP:BLP. Can an admin delete the relevant history? THF 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for the history pages in question to be removed through Oversight -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one newspaper has printed the address, so this is ultimately futile, alas. THF 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what the rags print, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and beyond that being beyond good taste and reason (and potentially, the law), it's unencyclopaedic. Let the paper be sued, don't get wikipedia involved.-- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the newspaper or the insertion. THF 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Asian American" (or "Korean American") category removal

Those who argue that Cho was an "American" by virtue of his mere presence in the US are wrong. Using their logic, Mohammed Atta was an Arab-American.Jameswchen 06:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor reasoning. This ignores the factual data thrown around this discussion and skews the logic used by many people. Atta did not grow up in America and he did not have American citizenship. Atta was not a part of American culture and hated American culture. The guy we're talking about may not have been a citizen, but certainly grew up in America. I may think he's a hyphenated American, but many don't. The ones who do believe so because he grew up here. The others here don't think he's American because he doesn't have citizenship, but at the same time that doesn't mean they don't think he's culturally American at least in part. I certainly believe that someone who grew up here in NOVA of all places would certainly be at least culturally American. If you meant to use reason based on the facts, please rethink how you want to argue what you actually intended to say. I'm assuming you don't normally rely on such asinine arguments.EECavazos 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for removing this category that I've seen in the edit summaries is specious: that he wasn't a US citizen. Why does one need to be a US citizen and not a US permanent resident who has been living in the US since the age of 8 to be considered "American"? Here was an English major, someone who was living in this country from the age of 8, but because he didn't yet have a US passport he can't be considered American. I think this is absurd reasoning, frankly. The concept of "Asian American" has more to do with identification than citizenship, and if you disagree, please cite some evidence for your point of view.

If you disagree with this, I assume you'll back me up if I go through every European American category and delete those people in said categories who never obtained US citizenship but lived in the US for any number of years. Moncrief 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Passport, no citizenship. If your not an american citizen, your not American.

Can you PLEASE sign your posts? It's "you're" not "your." Who says? You can't even sign your posts; why do you get to define who is American and who isn't? Do you have any idea what permanent legal residency even means? Moncrief 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, o anonymous one, your "no passport, no citizenship" criterion is pretty funny, considering how few American citizens hold passports. I guess non-passport-holding Americans wouldn't qualify as Americans under your analysis. Moncrief 22:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't by me (the main anti-"Category: Asian Americans" editor). The point is though, if I live in Argentina for the next 12 years while retaining my American citizenship, I'm under the aegis of the United States and no other nation. However, I might be considered a Buenos Airean, just as this student could be a Centrevillian (which would be, by the way, a very cool bad-guy nickname).

You make a good point about residency, but I don't think that residency alone quite cuts it. Thomasmallen 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? What evidence do you have to back your assertion up? Will you work with me to remove from the, say, Italian American category every person who never got US citizenship? Moncrief 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Asian American. Note the WP article begins with "An Asian American is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States." (my emphasis added) schi ^talk 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. We're supposed to ignore the information in the category itself about who belongs in that category? I will be thrilled to take this matter to Requests for Comment if it keeps getting reverted. Why is it so difficult to accept that someone who has lived in the US since the age of 8 is American? When has "American" been defined solely by citizenship (and permanent residency is in many ways a social equivalent) and not by identification and culture? Are you telling me that if he had been born in the U.S. when his Korean parents were on vacation but moved to Korea at the age of three months and had lived there since that he would THEN be an Asian American? Why not? He would be an automatic U.S. citizen in that case. Moncrief 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Immigrant" means they have citizenship or are applying for citizenship. If they don't have citizenship or not applying for citizenship, then they're "migrants" or "resident aliens."EECavazos 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who last reverted, but you won't see more reverting from me. I've already caved :^) Thomasmallen

I’d be inclined to agree with the anonymous guy. He is fundamentally right but has poorly chosen his words by bringing the passport issue into the discussion. Yes, MANY, if not MOST(?), Americans do not hold a passport and this has no bearing whatsoever as to their citizenship. However, it is a plain and simple fact that Cho was NOT a U.S. Citizen and that he WAS a citizen of the Republic of Korea. He could have lived in the United States every day he was alive except for the day he was born in Korea and he would NOT ever have been an American regardless of how Americanized he may have become. The term “American” infers a citizen of the United States and he simply never was, and any attempt to label him a Korean-American is inappropriate. He was a Korean national residing in the United States. 202.128.1.120 01:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's the problem being an 'American' does not infer being a citizen of the U.S.A, it only infers that one lives in America which does not require citizenship. It's a cutural definition not a legal oneHarlock jds 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most definitely infers citizenship. Using the “Cultural” argument carries about as much weight as the “Cultural Catholic” tag that people who haven’t been to a church since 1983 try to use. When someone says, “I am an American” it means one thing: "I am a citizen of the United States" and trying to blur that distinction only causes undo confusion. You can be as culturally Americanized as John Wayne but it wouldn’t make you an American. And trying to attach a legal criterion to speech makes for a disingenuous argument. If you want to talk legalisms and law, he was legally a citizen of the ROK, and NOT the United States, and NOT an American. If I lived 99 years in Canada but was born in the United States, I would not ever, ever, ever be a Canadian even if I had Canadian residency, regardless of how culturally Canadian I became.

It's important to note that different countries have different understandings of citizenship and national identity. If I moved to China when I was a little boy, grew up there and went to school there, no matter what I would never be American Chinese because China, like Germany (traditionally at least), has an ethnonationalist form of identity. Even if I were to become a Chinese citizen I would not be an American Chinese, instead I would be a weird gweilo. France right now is struggling with an identity crisis namely whether you can be Algerian French and still be French. America is different because no native identity exists (at least those that weren't wiped out) and instead relies on an "either/or combination" which means you can be culturally American and not a citizen and still be "American" likewise you can be a citizen but not part of the "American culture" and still be a hyphenated American. There is no one path to being American but two.EECavazos 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH! Key point, if you rely on proving someone is a hyphenated American through the culture analysis and that person is not a citizen, then you have the burden to prove that person is "American" because otherwise any person who eats fastfood and listens to pop music could be called an "American." If a person living in America for fifteen years ever since that person was a little child, grew up and went to school here, went to college and gave no indication of leaving - then that meets the burden of proving the person is an American by the culture analysis.EECavazos 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Simply put, he was not Korean-American. Especially considering there is already a term to describe exactly what he really was, and not some vague concept of possible degree of cultural assimilation. He was a “Korean Permanent Resident.” It’s a better, more accurate term that does not open the door to speculation, debate or doubt and as such is how he should be called since that’s exactly what he was.202.128.1.120 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I made myself unclear it seems. I should explain that when you "meet a burden" that means you pass a test. I only emphasized that this is a hard test to pass becauase otherwise anyone with a shred of American culture could be claimed to be American even if they live in Finland and eat American fastfood and listen to pop music. Yes, I agree speculation should be limited, but not to the point of relying on an overly formalistic and exclusive approach.EECavazos 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being a citizen or not is based on a certain, unavoidable level of exclusion. You either are, or you are not. And nobody, who does not carry U.S. citizenship should be able to rightly call themselves an American. I’m not being jingoistic. I think this criteria should apply to all countries. If you’re not a citizen of Argentina, I don’t think you have any business calling yourself Argentinian no matter how long you’ve lived there. There is a substantial German immigrant population in Argentina and unless a German person was born there or until he becomes naturalized, they are not German-Argentinians. It just seems that freely throwing around who should be called “Americans” to include people who just happen to live in the U.S. for a while, and eat at McDonalds, and know the lyrics to a bunch of Britney Spears songs, even though they happen to be citizens of another county, cheapens the term. It’s especially disrespectful towards those individuals who actually go through the trouble of applying for naturalization, studying, taking a test, renouncing citizenship to the country of their birth and swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States and actually really, legally becoming Americans. But for some that effort seems to be irrelevant. All you need to do is live in the U.S. for a while, speak some English and that’s good enough, you’re “American.” It doesn’t seem right. 202.128.1.120 07:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of that, especially renouncing citizenship in another country but that doesn't change America. German's are German; South Americans are South American. They define identity their own way. Americans define identity another way, a way unlike any other country. Some may want to be like other countries, but I prefer the American approach over the European (also South American) and Asian approaches that you're advocating. It is by no means disprespectful for someone with a green card to call themselves American or for others to call them American. These green card holders pay taxes, must serve in the military if they get called up in the draft, but they can't vote. That sounds like they're paying their dues while making extra sacrifices for whatever purpose of not going for naturalization (usually family issues and visa issues on visiting, I guess). So they pay taxes, can't vote but can die if called upon, and culturally they're as American as apple pie . . . so where's the disrespect? You disrespect someone by making fun of their moms or dancing on their grave, not by choosing a path that won't allow you to vote even though you pay taxes and may have to go to war. I certainly think that each of the points you made would go into determining the Americaness of a person. I disagree in saying that they're alone determinative. I also disagree in characterizing any of that as disrespectful to those who went through the process. I'm sure none of naturalized folks would care unless someone with a green card cheated on their taxes and voted and dodged the draft(it would also of course be quite illegal), but still then I'm not sure if a reasonable naturalized American would care. They would probably care more if someone came in without papers, but then got the right for applying to US citizenship in an amnesty (but that's just subjective speculation). EECavazos 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, however, he had at some point become a Naturalized U.S. Citizen, he could then rightly be called a "Korean-American." But he never did and remained and ROK Citizen. He could be properly called a "Korean-U.S. Resident Alien." 202.128.1.120 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he's an Asian American or not will ultimately depend on his POV. In the absence of sources for this, the fact he has been there since 8 or 9 should suggest he probably did consider himself an Asian American Nil Einne 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a Asian living permanently in America and thus an Asian American, I'm confused why this is an issue.Harlock jds 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew. If it's reverted again, please revert it back. I've hit my 3 reverts for the day. Moncrief 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please re-add the category? Could the deleter please explain how a 23-year-old who has lived in the United States since he was 8 as a legal permanent resident doesn't qualify as "Asian American"? What criteria are you using in your judgment? How is he a "South Korean student" and not an Asian American when he's lived here for almost 15 years and attends an American university after having graduated from an American high school. Moncrief 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasoning. Although I would add more to your argument because the implication of what you say may be too limiting. Culture alone isn't determinative otherwise that means immigrants (people who are American citizens but who were citizens of another country) who are only sightly American culture-wise are then not American (hyphenated or otherwise). A person doesn't have to speak perfect English or even any English to be a hyphenated American. In fact, you don't have to be culturally American to be American, at least entirely. The idea that you have to be culturally American to be American constitutes the French form of identity. To them, to be French you have to be a part of French culture. To be American is broader than mere culture. Since it is broader you can be culturally American and live in America and intend to stay in American and be a hyphenated American even if you're not a citizen. Likewise in America, you could not be a complete cultural American and still be American whether hyphenated or not because you're a citizen who pays your taxes and votes.EECavazos 05:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia, pure and simple. Atleast this man was not a muslim, or had come from a muslim state 15 years ago. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'll re-add it at a later time when the article calms down since i don't think it'll be useful to do so now (since it'll just get removed again). Harlock jds 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought. If the Korean/Asian American label is about identification rather than citizenship, then whose identification?

Does the label Korean/Asian American refer to someone's self-identification? If the label refers to self-identification, then perhaps we should wait to apply any Korean/Asian American label until evidence pops up that he applied that label to himself (which I belive is quite likely even if he has a great deal of national pride for South Korea/Korea/Corea). Perhaps telling, if he wanted to be "American" then instead of just renewing his green card he would have gone for the citizenship test. Many other people his age go for citizenship when they head out to college or are in college. Maybe he had the choice to become a citizen of America but instead chose to remain a permenant resident of America.

Does Korean/Asian American label depend on others identifying him as Korean/Asian American? If so, then we'd have to ask if either people who knew him identified as Korean/Asian American or on a less strict standard whether an ordinary person who knew of him would view him as Asian/Korean American. More importantly, we should think about the Korean culture part rather than just the American culture part to see if he could have retained his Korean cultural identity as viewed by those who are Koreans in Korea. For example, if you talk to a foreigner and ask them about people from their country who moved to and then assimilated into American culture, often they'll scoff at such people should they claim to retain their native identity. This is pretty universal around the world. At the same, time that gives hyphenated Americans a unique identity and so may turn around and support a label of Korean/Asian American.

On the other hand, maybe ____ American refers to American citizenship rather than culture and identity. Perhaps maybe the hypenated just refers to the origin of a person, which naturally occurs in a country whose population mostly comes from immigration. To get ahold of this possibility we'd have to ask if other countries also have hyphenated citizens. If they do, I imagine it's asserted by whatever group as a source of cultural pride. This perhaps lends to the likelihood that hyphenated Americans constitute a category proved by culture rather than citizenship.

Personally, I'd say he's Korean American because he was here since he was a young boy, so he was probably sufficiently assimilated to constitute Korean American. WHY? NOVA has enough of a Korean-American population to allow a nexus of Korean American identity to develop and overwhelm a broader Asian American identity that otherwise would have watered down the Korean culture from his folks. Also, only whiny, angst filled Americans major in English at US Universities (jk!). Although, at the same time, I'd delete from any European American category a person who lived in America but who didn't acquire US citizenship. Contradictory, I know, but that exclusion of Europeans is probably just my prejudice speaking out, and such emotion is not rational and should not be relied upon.EECavazos 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know people that have lived in America for decades and take pride in the fact that they're not American. Mayorcheese 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have examples for Cho Seung-hui specifically his residence in the U.S., going to a school here and no evidence to the contrary are going to allow him to be classified under that category. MrMacMan^Talk 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? In other words, please, sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EECavazos (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just because you know people who reside in the U.S. who don't label themselves as 'american' doesn't mean that Cho Seung-hui didn't label himself as such. MrMacMan^Talk 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You're confusing me further with this statement. I'm trying to understand what you want to say with the statement you gave earlier. I think it has something to do with presumptions, but I'm not sure because the sentence was written quickly. Your subsequent statement mars it further because you talk about self-labeling.EECavazos 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder why he was in the states for 15yrs and didnt apply for citizenship. people are eligible after 5 yrs of permanent residency

citizenship requires taking a test amongst many other details found here MrMacMan^Talk 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additionally Korea does not recolonize dual citizenship so one mush reject their Korean citizenship to become an American citizen. many choose to have the flexibility of retaining their Korean citizenship while having perm residency (which has very few restrictions) in the US. not to mention that in some cases a male would have to serve in the Korean military before being able to renounce their citizenship Harlock jds 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had to choose American citizenship or Korean citizenship and they chose Korean citizenship, that sounds like they'd want to be Korean rather than American. Especially since all you have to do is take the test and that wouldn't be a problem for a high school educated person. However, why would you want to be Korean rather than American if you spend all your time in America? I'm sure there'd be reasons but then you'd have to pry into their life and I don't know how possible that will be. Anyway, I have a friend from college who is in Seoul right now and my friend became a citizen of America in college. He's not serving in the military. Overall, I'd say it's hard to discern personal motive and identity unless they wrote about it or talked about it frequently with many people or they told you.EECavazos 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship doesn't matter it's a cultural definition i don't think you can argue that culturally he wasn't an "Asian American' (aka an Asian living in America' or a Korean American (aka a Korean living in America. if it was a question about citizenship we wouldn't even have the title of Korean American since it's IMPOSABLE to be a dual citizen of Korea and America (Korea considers you one or the other) or Japanese American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 02:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't argue that he's not an Asian or Korean American. In fact, I argued that he is a hyphenated American. Rather than rely on glib reasoning, I prefer to address each of the elements that impact becoming a hyphenated American. Some people prefer to just state "cultural" without quantifying anything and instead rely on it with faith that it constitutes a self-evident explanation. It requires much more work than that. Describing the hyphenated American as merely cultural is over-broad since that means anyone could claim to be any nationality. Someone living in Sweden could claim to be American because they eat fastfood and listen to pop music and have an American grandparent. Someone whose family been American for a hundred years could claim to be Swedish American because they listen to Army of Lovers and had a great grandparent who was Swedish. What do you mean by "imposable"? A country cannot impose citizenship on another, well, unless they're born there. Or do you mean impossible? The hyphenated American thing doesn't refer to dual citizenship. It refers to something else, namely the American part refers to culture/citizenship while the preceding part refers to ancestry/cultural background of the person. Neither impossible nor imposable apply.EECavazos 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho was a South Korean citizen who held "Permanent Resident" status in the US. That does not make him an American, an Asian-American or even a Korean-American. He could not legally vote in the US, nor was he ever eligible to hold a US Passport. Hence, he was not an American.

I suspect that some people want Cho to be categorized as an "American" in order to make a political point about "those violent Americans". Get over it. Cho was not an American citizen. Period. Jameswchen 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments and discussion we had prior to your comment here... I don't think people are trying to make a point, its that he lived in the U.S. for 15 years. MrMacMan^Talk 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, if Cho had been born in the U.S. when his parents were on vacation at Disneyland, then brought back to Korea at age two months, never to leave the country of Korea again, never to return to the U.S. again, you (the collective "you" above, with your "citizenship" argument) would be OK with calling him an "Asian American". I mean, why not? He would be a U.S. citizen, as all people born inside the U.S. are.

I'm not sure if those against labeling him an Asian American live in places with extremely low immigration rates or if they don't know any immigrants, or what, but most people with any degree of awareness of people who have grown up in this culture whether citizens OR permanent and legal U.S. residents (which, for all intents and purposes other than voting is like citizenship -- you can live here as long as you want as a legal resident and can come and go as you please) know that such people are thoroughly American. We have no proof whatsoever that Cho lived in Korea at any time after the age of 8. How was he not American? Those wanting to paint him as a "foreign student" are doing much more of a disservice to reality than the other side. I'll re-add the Asian American category when things calm down, perhaps after it's gone through Requests for Comment.

And my offer above still stands: do you want to help me purge all the European American category lists of those Italian Americans and German Americans and French Americans who never became U.S. citizens despite living here for years? Moncrief 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Eduardo. I don't mean to be challenging or adversarial in this question, but are there really such people listed as German Americans who are not American citizens? That sounds pretty funny. I'd want to check out those articles and see what those people were thinking in the articles discussion pages. Do you know of any offhand who are not citizens? If you know plenty could you list them? I want to check them out.EECavazos 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he was not an American CITIZEN, but does it take a document to show that one is an American? I mean, doesn't every resident alien, immigrant, or non-immigrant who lives in the US and follows its laws and customs have the right to say they are an American? Personally, its pretty sad we're even talking about this, but saying that one is not American because he/she does not hold an US citizenship is kind of wrong, because its not ONLY the citizens who contribute to the development of the US, is it? So basically those who say that only a citizenship makes a person an American, should take into consideration the tens of thousands of non-citizens who believe that America is their country. I'm not condoning this idiot's actions. Rather, I'm speaking for those who find it unfair that people are regarding non-citizens as "un-American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.39.63.24 (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Alright -- I believe that being an 'American' doesn't mean you have citizenship. If we look at some fellow Asian Americans we come across NFL player Eric Kimble (born in Korea, moved to US -- no mention of citizenship), nobel prize winning physicist Tsung-Dao Lee (born in china, no mention of citizenship), LPGA golfer Grace Park (golfer), pornstar Lucy Lee (Korean) (born in korea, no mention of citizenship). animator Peter Chung, olympic medalist Toby Dawson (born in korea). I could continue, but I feel this is enough to establish a pattern here. What do we think? MrMacMan^Talk 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is poor reasoning. They don't list their citizenship so you infer they're not American. Maybe they don't list their citizenship because it's expected that everyone would assume they're American since they're listed as hyphenated Americans. I looked up Tsung-Dao Lee's article and then clicked on the link to his home page. On his homepage it says that he's American [citizen]. Perhaps not all of them have citizenship, but before you start listing people as not citizens you should do more research, at least for a guy who [earned] a Nobel Prize. Immigrants have hard enough time with people assuming they're not American citizens because they weren't born here. Lets forgo assumptions and do more detailed work for wikipedia.EECavazos 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me say that I disagree with the whole Asian American tag being used for cultural reasons (presumption abounds when defining someone else's culture), like EECavazos seems to be getting at. I tried to make a supported argument for this, but I realized I couldn't because, according to Asian_Americans#Terminology (see the last paragraph in the Terminology section) "Asian American" *can* mean anybody who could be counted as such by the US census, which does not rely on citizenship for its count (according to the article I cited) but only physical presence in the US and ethnic background. On that basis, the tag "Asian American" for Cho stands, although I'd be happy to stop at the more precise and less connotative "Korean immigrants to the United States" tag, which gets the same job done but with less room, in my eyes, for controversy (but even me suggesting this is probably, in fact, controversial). Nonetheless, using the Wikipedia definition says it's okay to label this individual as "Asian American." It seems to me that Wikipedia has spoken, and it's in conflict with my gut; however, I don't outweigh Wikipedia and I'm willing to leave the cultural debate about the appropriateness of calling this person "Asian American" to a venue other than this Wikipedia page. EECavazos, et al., could you go along with this line of reasoning? Insignificant1 07:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the consensus and it abides the rules of Wikipedia, that's what should be done. A consensus needs well reasoned arguments both ways so that the decision creates a well formulated product within the laws of wikipedia. EECavazos 07:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia does have a clear consensus on this according to it's own entry Asian American "is generally defined as a person of Asian ancestry who was born in or is an immigrant to the United States." and "American refers to people either born, raised, or currently living in the United States.". Like i said before i don't see why people are squacking so much about this but i also think a revert war is useless, the issue will get fixed when the article cools down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

An "American" is a state of mind, not defined by a certain document. His lifestyle was that of an American. Thank you.

I think it's fair to say Mr. Cho was a product of American educational/cultural systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnyjH5wusqs

Please be careful editing

Please be careful in deleting footnotes that are named: someone deleted the first Newsday footnote, and now two other footnotes have been blanked as a result. THF 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean norms

Why is English Wikipedia following Korean norms by having this person's last name first? (→Netscott) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing's for sure, every single English news outlet is using Cho Seung-hui. -- RattleMan 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they are doing so blindly. There is a redirect in place... so there shouldn't be a problem for people looking for this article. (→Netscott) 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News organizations are not “doing so blindly” they are doing so correctly. And please be careful with comments such as “they put the last name first.” When dealing with many Asian naming practices, they put the FAMILY NAME first. Using terms like “first name” and “last name” needlessly confuses the issue. His name should read “Cho Seung-hui” with his family name first. To do otherwise would blindly ignore millennia worth of Asian naming conventions and would just be downright wrong. And the fact that ABC News can’t get it right doesn’t warrant mention in the article, IMO. Chinese is the same, for example with “Mao Ze Dong” “Mao” is his family name and Ze Dong are his given names. Just because other cultures may have different naming conventions, he will never be Ze Dong Mao just because that’s the way “we” do it here. There’s correct and there’s incorrect and “Cho Seung-hui” is correct and should be left that way.202.128.1.120 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be put back to Cho Seung-hui. Korean names are last name first, and the MSM outlets are all using Cho Seung-hui. --Scientz

We might be reinventing the wheel here. I imagine there is a style guide for this that spells out how this type of thing is to be dealt with. (→Netscott) 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there was pretty strong defacto consensus on this format as Cho Seung-hui, let's please keep this as was. Ronnotel 18:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as per Ronnotel. Cho Seung-hui it is.Mumun 無文 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an admin is needed here as I've been unable to revert the move, it complains that Cho Seung-hui already exists. Does anyone know how to get around this? Ronnotel 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is to use family name first unless the individual is known to prefer otherwise so Cho Seung-hui is according to policy as well Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) Nil Einne

I've put in a request for moving on WP:AN. (→Netscott) 18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through FCPS like he did, I'm pretty sure he was called something like "Seung-Hui Cho" in the Western order by classmates and teachers for most of his life in school and society at large; this is the norm for Asians in American public schools. That's probably how it will go down in the end. However, most coverage out there currently has it in the Korean order, and that's how it should go for now. -129.21.96.59 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the cover of the play he apparently wrote, "Richard McBeef", he has listed his name as "Seung Cho". -129.21.96.59 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the something writen by him tho? It's not that uncommon I suspect for him to be called 'Seung Cho' by crappy programs as well as people who don't understand Korean naming. He may receive letters address to Seung Cho because the naming program is somewhat flawed, it doesn't indicate it's something he uses in real life. BTW, note that asking people to call him Seung-Hui Cho does not establish that it's his preferred order. Many people may choose to use one order for convenience but still prefer the traditional order. I'm Malaysian Chinese and often use the western order for convenience and clarity in New Zealand, as do my siblings, but all of use still prefer the proper order Nil Einne 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm still in doubt as to the authenticity of the play's authorship, even. However, the "crappy program" was probably Microsoft Word, and the typist was probably him, unless you can prove otherwise. After all, if someone else wrote the play, it'd either have another name on it, or it's fake. Encyclopedically speaking, whatever you go by most is the one you prefer, even if you don't like it as much. (Me? My Asian name is my middle name, so no mixing around. Ha!) -129.21.96.59 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By crappy programs I more meant the university's crappy programs. If he printed the play out himself, then I would presume he chose to call himself Seung Cho but if it is something printed out by the university or if the university produces the coverpage or something, then it may not be something he calls himself. However even assuming he did call himself Seung Cho in the play, it's difficult to establish his preferred name as it may again be more of a matter of convience. Actually, it would suprise me less if he called himself Hui Cho. If he had any brothers or male paternal cousins, they may share the same generational name with him (Seung) so calling himself Seung Cho would be a bit strange. But he may not have or may not care. Anyway I guess this is getting too OT should I should stop here Nil Einne 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, these days it's unlikely (but not impossible) that they would use specialized software just to typeset plays for the English department. However, I'm thinking it is very very unlikely he would call himself "Hui", because "Hui" as in 희 is a pretty common element in female Korean names (sort of like "ko" is the end of a lot of Japanese girls' names; someone else discussed this in more detail elsewhere on this talk page). More investigation would be needed to justify moving article to "Seung Cho". And yes, we are kind of OT :) -129.21.96.59 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully move-protected the article, after Angr untangled the mess made by a bunch of page moves. If there's any need to move the page, request unprotection. --Slowking Man 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural taboo

I've taken this out of the article because of WP:SYN. WP:NOR prohibits citing to sources to draw conclusions or do analysis not available in reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. THF 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you're referring to specifically? Moncrief 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a Korean taboo to write or print somebody's name in red ink. However, I am not too sure that the words "Ismail Axe" qualify as as a name of a person. Mumun 無文 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McBeef

Apparently, our murderer wrote a play: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

I read it (well, skimmed it thoroughly. It's a brief 10 pages), and that is one awful excuse for a play. Sounds like he threw it together after a night of (name the time-consuming leisure activity). Certainly not on par with the stuff the Unabomber wrote. Thomasmallen 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man do i agree with you on that one. Not only is it poorly written with bad grammar, he plagiarised a section from the movie "Weatherman" almost verbatim. (About the 'asshole' face). I would be embarrassed for that to have leaked since he was an English major. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The thing I find most disturbing about his plays is that a reputable University would actually accept a person with his standard of writing onto an English course. I would never have passed High School had I written like that --JamesTheNumberless 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info is relevant. I think it should be in the motive section . But 1st it NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. _Lilkunta 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will whoever keeps deleting this hold off for ten seconds so that I can put the citation in, please? The attribution has been made by multiple news sources, including MSNBC at 3:45 pm ET this date. --Lisasmall 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Writings" section needs cleanup

The info is relevant. I think it should be in the motive section . But 1st it NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. _Lilkunta 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it keeps getting deleted! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Writings section, and any relevant information elsewhere needs to be cleaned up. According to a classmate, Cho was in the Playwriting class "last fall" (http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/). According to VT's website, the class was taught by Falco, not Roy (http://www.english.vt.edu/ug/Fall%202006.pdf)

Woo Bum-Kon

Is it really necessary to link to the second Korean mass-murderer? Other than being a Korean killer, what connection is there between these two individuals? Links to the Columbine killers are not present, so why would this be linked? Bluefield 19:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, pending any evidence of relevance. Anthony.moore 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both set records in spree killing. Woo Bum-Kon set the world record, while Cho Seung hui set the record for the United States. In any case, it's not unusual for wikipedia articles to link to other similar cases. You see that sort of thing on many crime-related articles. If they weren't both Korean, it'd still merit a link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isocyanide (talk

--Isocyanide 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC) • contribs) 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe that there is a link to the Colubmine killings via the School massacre link in "see also." At least, I've added it twice amid all the vandalism today. I think Woo Bum-Kon is relevant both for nationality, and for the record-setting that both men have in common, as Isocyanide says above. --Lisasmall 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are talking about how they "set records" like it is an Olympic competition or something. Why not link to the article about Shoko Asahara while we are at it? He is an Asian killer. Why not establish who the most prolific killer is in every country in the world and a "See Also" link to them as well? The inclusion of Bum-Kon in this article is unnecessary and there is no reason to relate this kid to a Korean soldier. And the link to the Columbine killers is only through a link to all school shootings, then through the link to Columbine, while Bum-Kon gets a direct link? Totally inconsistent. Bluefield 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bluefield. We need to establish a top 100 list or something for most confirmed kills by one person acting alone. Ikilled007 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoko Asahara wasn't a spree killer. He was a cult leader who ordered killings, which is a different thing. The similarities with Bum-kon (a former policeman, not a soldier) also go beyond record setting (and if you have a better way to phrase it, please do). Both did not stop after their first set of killings, but moved away to later kill another set of people. The trigger for both has allegedly been a fight with their girlfriends. And of course, both committed suicide. You cannot say the same for any other two spree killers—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isocyanide (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Consensus seems pretty clear here to remove the name. I don't see the need in it either. I am removing it for the moment. Please do not add it back as consensus is against it.--Jersey Devil 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you weighed in, it was 2 vs. 2. I won't re-add it yet, but a consensus has not yet been reached.--Isocyanide 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isocyanide; we do not have consensus. I strongly believe it should stay in. It is not racist — a list of two names does not condemn an entire people — and it would be of interest to someone researching either killer. Finally, even though I think the ethnic link makes the addition worthwhile (and we don't hesitate to link U.S. spree killers to one another as "see also" entries), the resemblances between the crimes go beyond ethnicity and a "see also" would be justified just for that. --Lisasmall 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more differences than similarities between the two. One gained access to weapons from a military depot, one from a gun shop. One was upset that he didn't have enough money to marry his live-in girlfriend, the other apparently had a dispute with his girlfriend. One killed people in two separate rural villages in Korea, the other targeted his own university. The fact that they are both prolific Korean killers is not noteworthy at all. The linking of U.S. spree killings is appropriate because this act occurred in America. We don't need to look for spurious connections between Seung-hui and any other person in the world just to build up the "See Also" section of the page. Bluefield 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any direct link between Bum-kon and Seung-Hui except that they are Korean. What is the academic reasoning for adding this into this particular page and the main Virginia Tech Massacre page? FYI, that Bum-kon link in the main event page was also removed as there was no relevance whatsoever. --24.141.67.63 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a racism to me, it seems that including Bum-kon implies that South Koreans are prone to be spree killers, which is not. Janviermichelle 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Bum-kon should not be included at least until this article becomes part of "history" rather than "current events". That's the best reason I can come up with, having felt uncomfortable with the cross-reference but not really knowing why I felt that way. Siofra 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I heard about VA Tech massacre before the criminal identification, I thought of Woo Beum-gon. He was in strife with his female housemate. he killed TENS of people; he committed it with guns;he stormed 4 villages;he suicided.--Queenmillennia 11:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Suicide

The article says he shot himself (in the head?). Do we know which gun he used on himself? Ikilled007 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the other person in the mask?

In the picture featured in the article, Who is the other person next to Cho wearing the mask? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TO QUESTIONS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

I have long believed that when a person is "diagnosed" with a potentially dangerous mental disorder, his name should be entered into a national database to avoid selling that person any kind of firearm by legal means. Also, this would help authorities track people with mental problems who have tried to purchase guns in the future, and keep and eye on them. This law should also state that ANY person who is in the database is found to have a firearm in their possession they should be treated the same way as a felon in possession of a firearm. t would be up to congress to pass a law restricting gun sales to mentally unbalanced people, and to carefully choose what kinds of mental problems would fall into that category, because if the law states that ANY mental disorder is grounds for rejection of a gun sale, then 300 million americans would most likely lose their right to own guns. I don't think this tragedy could have been avoided other than by this guy's own reasoning. The way he rants on the videos shows total disgust with others and the determination to follow through, so a gun law to this effect may have done little to prevent this from happening, but maybe he would have been tracked by police once he tried to purchase the guns. I know that there are probably a million reasons why the government can't use medical histories of citizens for these kinds of purposes, but right now, I know of a good one why they should.

Gun control is a scapegoat. There are plenty of guns throughout the world, and are used responsibly. The problem is America. http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html

- Update

As it turns out, there is a law prohibiting the diagnosed with mental problems from purchasing guns, but apparently, this person fell through the cracks...FyT 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McBeef's call for understanding

I believe the McBeef story reflects how he viewed other people's power over him, and him not being able to respond as "normal" people do. (I say "normal" as a means to differentiate his mental state from those around him.) I see a frustration in his video, and writings of a person who felt was always made the scapegoat, or punching bag for the more astute people around him. I believe he was channeling what he felt through McBeef's frustration at the fact he wasnt doing anything but other people simply blamed him out of spite, fear, anger, or plain childish bullying, and in the end was made to look like a reject in his own eyes, or one that always brought problems, and therefore people avoided him, or were mean to him. What the kid did to McBeef in his story is basically what he believed was being done to him, nad I think he wanted to be that kid, if only once he could feel that power over someone else, were he could do anything to others without consequence to himself. The final part when McBeef strikes the kid out of "desecrated hurt and anger" was what he felt was happening to himself. In reality I think the story really talks about McBeef being himself, the kid is those who made fun of him and terrorized, hurt, or otherwise made him into the punching bag because of his condition, looks or whatever it was, and the mother is society who automatically blamed him for whatever others claimed, or did. The story about him stalking two girls may be another pointer, maybe he meant no harm to the girls he supposedly stalked, no charges were ever brought against him for stalking, so I have to assume the situation was borderline if anything, if thats the case, he must have felt rejected on a monumental scale. At least in my eyes, stalkers are amongst the lowest types in society. Now, a lot of people are vilifying this guy for what he did, some call him evil, some a monster, even a lunatic. But McBeef looks like the victim in the story, and I believe 99% of people who read that story thought that the kid had it coming, or at least would not punish McBeef for his action, because we all read how the kid brought him to a point of no return, and the mother sided with the kid immediately without thought to McBeef's claims, and this I think, is the missing link in this tragedy.

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do to turn back time, and we can't arrest someone simply for writing these things, because if we do, then people like Quentin Tarrantino, or Stephen king would be committed to a mental hospital for life, but we can learn to better understand people in his situation and get them real help before they go all out and commit this kind of atrocious crimes...FyT 19:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*4 images, 86 citations. Smee 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)