Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 4

This contains material from April 20-

Hui

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

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

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

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

• • • Yes, the name is comprised of two Chinese characters however, two characters form a single name, as it is case in Japan as well (eg. Shunsuke, not Shun-Suke or Hideo, not Hide-Oh)...it is something that most Non-Orientals don't understand, and yes, you can compare it with Sa-Rah (instead of Sarah) in Korean, each syllable is written in separate characters, just like Hiragana or Hanzhi (so if you write Sarah in Hangul, it would be written as Sa Rah). There are some Korean names like Yunho (some people would write Yun-Ho) but if you write Yun-Ho, English speakers would be forced to pronounce 'H' of the Ho, but in Korean pronounciation, the 'H' is almost silent so it would be almost read Yuno - please refer to Doenbarum (eg. in Korean, monday = written as Wol-yo-il, is pronounced Woryoil, the L carries over and becomes R). and Seung-Hui Cho would be never referred to as Hui Cho, as his name is Seunghui Cho, not Seung or Hui Cho Luckyj 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When someone creates a creative work (eg. artwork, suicide note) they don't need to register it to receive copyright. They automatically recieve copyright to the work when they create it.--Apartmento 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, I could take a picture of a hippopotamus and, without doing anything else, that picture is protected under copyright law with me as the holder of that copyright? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that copyright applies here. This was a manifesto clearly intended for public dissemination. I would say that there was an implicit waiver of copyrights. Bueller 007 17:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jared you are correct -- copyright law protects your creative work the instant it is created. Everything else is a process of building your legal defense of your rights. Cho's estate owns the copyright to his creations, but because Cho's crimes caused his fame, fair use would probably make republication and dissemination of his work legal. Under Son of Sam laws, the families of Cho's victims would be entitled to any profits that Cho's estate earned from commerce associated with the copyrights. All this is important because eventually someone will seek to perform or film Cho's work for shock value, and the families will likely want to prevent that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.0.91 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

IPA

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

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

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

Biased Quotes pertaining to Christianity and Hedonism

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

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

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

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

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

Jokeyxero 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jokeyxero 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I've brought up this point a couple of times and eventually went and did something about it. The massare article has a link and summary of

Main article: Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre

I suggest that someone here who wants to make it clear where the media is lying do the same for this articleYoungidealist 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

NBA players are paid a heck of a lot of money. According to Cho's neighbor, Abdul Shash, Cho spent much of his time playing the game of basketball. [1] Since he spend so much time with the sport, he could have very well thought about those NBA players and gotten a jealous hatred over their high net worth.

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

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

Korean Reaction

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

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

Why did some of this talk page go missing?

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

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

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

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

pictures

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

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

^{Superscript text}==Doesn't deserve a space in Wikipedia==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrux 14:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Evaulator 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Autism and Asperger's, if that was the reason for Cho’s isolation, are neurological. A person is born that way. Also, autism/Aspergers have a very strong genetic component, twin studies show that ~90% of cases are gene based. At which point, I note the observed isolation faced by the family as a whole, not just Cho. The couple married via an arranged marriage, indicating the husband may have suffered from poor social skills, thus a partner was found for him. Diamonddavej 05:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Post Office Video?

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

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

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

McBeef/Macbeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

While you're correct, I think the parallel to be a coincidence. Due to the quality of the disclosed writings and video (and my limited layman psychoanalysis), I doubt he tried to parallel MacBeth, unless of course it was part of the assignment. But we're also running dangerously close to making a nonconstructive speculative thread. Jokeyxero 04:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no obvious connections to Hamlet or Macbeth, just coincidence and speculation.67.11.138.50 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers & Rape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Railing Against Christianity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all of the media is covering things up or spinning information. There is a mad dash to be the first to report on a topic so a lot of source skimming and quick writing occurs. The facts get spun and misinterpreted on accident generally. Though that's not to say that bad intentions don't exist. There's also a lot of decision making and research that goes into things that could cause a panic, which accounts for some of the slow reporting on obvious conclusions. Jokeyxero 04:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You were right, it is "railing", see my first quote on the subject above, I quoted via copy and paste but apparently didn't pay attention and kept typing "rally". Luckily "rally against" and "rail against" are basically the same when talking about one person. We should probably fix this. Also look up the original source again to verify. Jokeyxero 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Go figure, these idiots would forget about grammar completely in all that quick writting panic and such, wouldn't they? The fact that the person who is speaking these things to the public doesn't know any better only pisses me off more. I think today i would respect a reporter and source that would stop reading the que cards and say, "wait, that's not correct" and explain it to the audience and then manage to keep his or her job just fine for it. -youngidealist 209.129.85.4 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I agree with pookster11, let the professionals with access to the tapes sort it out. Quote psychological professionals, not NBC's white washing or fear mongering (or whatever it is). JeffBurdges 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammatic Errors

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

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

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

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

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

integrating stuff from main article

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

His father committed suicide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich kids

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

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

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

Cho's parents' reaction?

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

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

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

Teasing in HS

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

It's unknown if those statements made are actually true. It's just the media getting a quote from an unverifiable person. We shouldn't add speculation to the article until the facts are concrete. 64.236.245.243 14:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Behavioral Implications section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral Implications

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

Dtaw2001 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for further input

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, you clearly don't understand what "original research" means. I realize that you didn't write the paper, but by MAKING COMPARISONS of the shooter to the profile suggested in the paper, you are doing "original research". You need a scientific study of Cho as pertains to that "profile" (which again, your paper says DOESN'T EXIST) or a media analysis of how well Cho is categorized by the (non-extant) profile that is (not) suggested in your paper. Otherwise, it's original research and it can be printed here. Bueller 007 06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Stuff I added that was removed

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

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

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

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

"Crap and mean"

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

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

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

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

I've seen at least one newspaper doing this misquotation. It probably was brought into this article by someone citing a newspaper that misquoted this prof. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:39Z

needs editing

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

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

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

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

South Korean reaction section

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

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

Non-sense sentence

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

Quotes

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

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

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

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

It was a manifesto clearly intended for public dissemination. There's no copyright here. Bueller 007 06:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Westfield High, Westfield High, Westfield High

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

link to ryan stack clark

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

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

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

Spree killer capture

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

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

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

Contents of his room

Personally I don't have any involvement with this article but I will mention that the search warrant lists the contents of his dorm room [2]. This may be useful in the article.. in the link it is used to disprove that he plays videogames. Chopper Dave 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

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

Attributed writings?

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

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

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

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

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

Cho's early life in America & his murdered mother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going mildly off topic here, but I would say that maybe we're not trying to justify, but to understand. That's what I'm here fro, anyway. Understanding. I feel that maybe I do understand, but I know I cannot, and would not, justify. Scanna 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Theory: Initial shootings were NOT pre-planned

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

Ellett62 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Serial killer

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

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

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

What you two fail to consider is that the American Heritage Dictionary offers the following as one of the definitions of a serial killer: "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval." [3]. The sexual motivatoins, concealing of crimes, identifying certain characteristics of victims (which Cho DID to, by the way), etc. are all characteristics of serial killers, but that does not mean that ALL serial killers have those characteristics. Stanley011 04:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho of course did kill his victims one at a time, there were more than three (there were 32 to be exact), and it was a relatively short interval (3-4 hours). Therefore, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, Cho is a serial killer. Please discuss. Stanley011 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter, when everyone can agree on "mass murderer" yet not all can a agree on "serial killer" when you're arguing they mean the same thing? Is it worth the semantic effort required? -Halo 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

American Heritage says no such thing. Stop making crap up. Their definition of serial killer is "A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents." Bueller 007 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The source stating what Stanley011 is asserting is "WordNet" [4]. The definition that project gives, especially considering the three or more in a short time requirement, sounds very odd to me. I've been trying to look up information on WordNet, and as far as I can tell it's an algorithm-driven system more concerned with providing general or best-effort definitions for groupings of words based on the meanings of the member words -- WordNet#Limitations doesn't help my faith in this definition either. -- 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Encyclopaedic articles shouldn't be here to pioneer the use of modern terminology, like the appalling phrase "spree killer". Let's just leave it as "mass murderer". LeBofSportif 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was NOT a spree killer. A spree killer is an indiscriminate serial killer who kills his victims in a quick succession of individual events. The characters from "Natural Born Killers" are "spree killers". Cho was a "mass murderer". Bueller 007 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

REQUEST FOR EDIT: I noticed that this quote still exists in the article and the original poster is correct --- there are no "Federal Prescription Databases" per se ... the closest one can get is a few select states (such as Texas) which have implemented a STATE Prescription Monitoring System/Database. Last I heard/knew, VIRGINIA was NOT one of them. Cho could have obtained a Rx from any Doctor, legally, and filled it at a NON-Chain Pharmacy and it would be nearly impossible to find/track, unless every single pharmacy - independent and non-linked chains (such as grocery stores) - searched their individual computer systems for his name/combination of possible names. Additionally, with the advent of online pharmacies as well as online prescription services, Cho could have obtained his meds either from a doctor (legally) and then sent it to be filled at an online pharmacy, OR he could have used an Online Physician Service (which would then send him the meds after issuing a legal Rx) ... and if you want to go "gray market", Cho could have obtained them from Canada, Mexico, or even overseas. It depends on how he viewed his meds, his need for them, any stigma he may or may not have attached to them, etc. The only other issue relative to this is the very, very unlikely possibility that Legal Aliens with Residency Cards must register any Prescriptions/Ongoing Medical Treatments with the Federal Gov't. That - I doubt very much ... but it is within the realm of possibility. Notwithstanding --- this issue needs to be VETTED and then EDITED appropriately --- and in all likelihood it needs to be either notated with a sentence that says "erroneously reported as having Federal Rx Databases" ... or something similar -- OR Removed altogether. I do not have edit capabilities so I need someone else to do this. Seeing it here grates on my nerves as it serves to be a piece of FALSE information contained in a Reference Source. Thanx 172.144.14.200 02:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Knock -- knock .... Anybody there??? This erroneous statement is still contained in the article. It is sourced as being a quote from ABC news. Alright, ABC News incorrectly reported this, but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to perpetuate the error. Since I don't have EDIT access, PLEASE CAN SOMEONE REMOVE THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE 'FEDERAL RX DATABASES'??? PLease! 172.146.142.247 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Biography: Business Major vs English Major

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

Not quite. He was not talkative to begin with so every comment he had made is important. Those who attended the same school could find out or ask around to discover that he wasn't a business major. Making a such easily uncoverable lie is, especially if he thought that being a business major was somehow better than an English major, a good look into his mind. Remember that he had been picked on for his command of English at middle and high school so that could have easily made him despise his study. Also, his elder sister had a undergraduate degree in economics, so his lie could have been an attempt to fantasize himself as succesful as her. --Revth 07:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but a "biography" section should be composed of the 10 or 20 most salient facts about an individual. He may have once told a suitemate that he was a business major, but that doesn't seem to rise to the level of being important in this case. If he had a pattern of telling lies and making fabrications, and if that was relevant to the matter, there could be a section on that. We are discussing small potatoes so it doesn't really matter, but I do believe that "although he had told others he was a business major" doesn't belong in a pithy biography. If you can show me a widespread pattern of him saying that, beyond what he told a suitemate, perhaps it could be ruled important somehow. 71.121.135.67 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He actually was a business major initially. Then he switched to English.

John Mark Karr quote

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

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

NBCs to NBC's

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

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

As Cho spoke of "the weak and defenceless" then there appeared a suggestion [5] that Ishmael Ax could concern the Tribe of Ishmael - group that were the target of a 1907 "eugenic" program of forced sterilization in Indiana. Eventually, the handicaped, retarded, weak people were rallied in sort of camps in purpose to "clean up" the society of the "weak elements". The pseudo-scientific ideas that inspired later the Nazis. Check:

• Eugenics Archive
• War against the weak
• [6] for "The tribe of Ishmael: A study of social degradation. By OSCAR C. McCOLLOCH".

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

You can't jump from "Ismail Ax" to "The Tribe of Ishmael" without any clear cut evidence or reliable sources. Inferences don't belong here. Secondgen 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Secondgen, The package was addressed from "A. ISHMAEL" as seen on an image of the USPS Express Mail envelope (incorrectly printed as the Arabic name "Ismail" by The New York Times) - see the article for references. So, there was no jump because there was no your "Ismail". Hence, the interpretetion by the Tribe of Ishmael remain valid. Merewyn 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, the article does not exist for editors to spread their own theories. Whether there is a link or not, this is original research and therefore should not be included in the article. autocratique ✩ 22:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho was not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination (just read his so-called "plays" for evidence of that). To attribute his "Ishmael Ax" comment to some larger concept or deeper meaning is reading too much into it, in my opinion. 71.121.135.67 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, inability to express thoughts coherently does not imply inability to read and associate semantics. Just because his plays are retarded, doesn't mean he was.

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

Medias report that shooter was bullied at school

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

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

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

No, the Columbine shooters were not bullied. That is a myth. Slate.com had a story on that recently. I am skeptical of Cho being bullied either. I know people want a satisfying and easy-to-understand narrative to explain his actions, but in this case, we would be forcing a narrative. Cho's own "persecutions" seems different. He refused to speak with anyone even when others reached out with him.

Just because the shooters in Columbine were not bullied does that mean Cho wasn't? Despite multiple people saying the same thing that he was bullied and Cho himself implying that he was picked on probably by wealthy kids (whom he implied having everything already yet were still hungry for dominance). No, it probably isn't the whole story but it certainly is a part of it. Yet you still want to say that bullying wasn't a factor. Maybe because it would be too "easy-to-understand narrative". Amazing. 66.171.76.138 13:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signatures in red ink in korean folk belief

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

red ink on white paper, and you are making inferences. Secondgen 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We would be giving him too much credit if we concluded that his "Ishmael Ax" had deeper, intellectual, symbolic meanings. Read his so-called "plays." They are on the 4th-grade level to be generous. 71.121.135.67 23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bullshit. Inability to express thoughts is not the same as inability to read, understand and associate.

If what he wrote in his plays is devoid of underlying symbolism and connective references to literature, culture, or greater concepts, why should we assume that what he wrote on his arm is pregnant with elusive and deeper meaning? 71.121.135.67 22:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that red means death in Korean culture. Since the signature stamps in books and paintings are done in red ink as is the custom in China.

Psychopathic Behavior

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

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

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

The evidence clearly supports the claim that Cho did in fact have paranoid delusions, such as with Schizophrenia. This is a real life physical illness, that greatly affects mental cognition. I think it deserves to be said within the article, source : http://abcnews.go.com/Health/VATech/story?id=3050483&page=1

Fine, so you can say "According to ... he might have had schizophrenia", but don't go further than what you can find published in a reliable source. No Original Research please, even if your conclusions seem obvious to you.—greenrd 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The video Headlined "From Mental to Murder", health report of FOXNEWS - Dr. Manny investigates how the misdiagnosis Cho Seung-Hui's mental illness may have led to his violent behavior. In the video, Dr. Igor Galynker, director of the Bipolar Family Treatment Center at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, N.Y. was interviewed. He commented about Cho’s schizophrenic problem and the medication.

Click on the URL below to watch the video:[7]

(Summarized as follows)

Dr. Manny, “When tragedy strikes, the first question many asked is: ‘Why?’”

VT student A, “It was unreal! I mean you never think shootings could be happened at the school!” VT student B, “I think I am so in shock! I don’t want to believe that is true!”

Dr. Manny, “One question is ‘Could this tragedy be prevented?’ In 2005, Cho Seung-Hui was declared mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and possibly pose an imminent danger. So, was this diagnosis taken seriously?”

Dr. Galynker, “From what I heard and what I read actually created a fairly clear picture: somebody who had undiagnosed and untreated either paranoia or undifferentiated schizophrenia, an evolution.”

Cho’s suitemate, Mr. Karan Grewal, “He shows no emotion ever, not happiness, not sadness, anger, ever... He never looks in the eyes, just looks down on the floor when he walks. He just would sit there as he never heard me or I was invisible...”

Dr. Galynker, “Because the long prodrome which was social isolation, poor social skills along his inability to connect with people, withdraw, and he had evolving psychosis which eventually combinated in his shooting people. His writings and his explanations were often reported as rambling. And, that is called 'throat disorder', and is also a symptom of schizophrenia.”

Dr. Manny, “So, can misdiagnosis and wrong treatment in mental illness be a lethal combination?”

Dr. Galynker, “A wrong diagnosis and a wrong medication or the right diagnosis and the wrong medication that can make people aggressive and violent. If somebody has schizophrenia and is having an effective Efexor with depression and is given an antidepressant that make them more aggressive and they are going to act sudden and may become violent. However, if Cho was treated or would be treated two years ago, he most likely would end up that being a quiet and withdrawn person who may or may not have been studying but would not be paranoiac nor dangerous.”

Dr. Manny, “Mental illness is a complicated disease which can be hard to understand. Remember: not all violent acts are due to mental illness. But, attention needs to be paid when signs present and things just don’t seem right. “

It has also been stated on various newsprograms, that even know diagnosis is pretty much impossible post-partum but symptoms I have recognized : Paranoia, Troubling communicating "word salad," (instance of Cho being teased in class for not being able to read), Catatonic, emotionless in expression, Around the right age for a psychotic episode. I feel this deserves to be within the article so that people realise the seriousness of this disease, and how important it is that we do not just see Cho's horrible actions as the act of his own inherent evilness. This is society's fault for not appropiating the proper treatment to someone with such obvious mental illness. Chantalshivan 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Blames the Devil!

• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266860,00.html

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

It's clearly not true, so no. Bueller 007 19:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to add something about Cho, or something about Fox News? By the way, if you read the article you'd know that the article doesn't blame the devil. It's an article written by Fox's religion correspondent looking at the story from a religious good/evil angle. --Elliskev 19:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

His family has the americanized name

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

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

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

The family's statement calls him Seung-Hui Cho. While I agreed with the Korean naming convention in the absence of other evidence, they appear to have Americanized his name. We generally make article names of biographies the name by which the subject is known--Anna Nicole Smith isn't under Vickie Marshall, for example, even though the latter is "correct." THF 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He was raised in America, and known by his classmates and everyone else as Seung-Hui Cho. Just going by his initial immigrant documentation is foolish and incompetent. His surname WAS Cho, and hi used it as his last name, as do virtually ALL korean americans/korean immigrants. Fermat1999 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been reading the papers today - have they switched the name order? We need to use whatever name the person is most commonly known as, which isn't necessarily their legal name (see Prince (musician)). Natalie 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Why not hold a poll now with a new title? That way, the move will come at no surprise to anyone. :) WhisperToMe 03:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Great-Aunt vs. Grand Aunt

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

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

Your resort to personal attacks reveals the bankrupcy of your thinking, and your argument. Please see cousin for an explanation as to why you are wrong. Stanley011 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also if math isn't your thing, which I suspect it isn't, please see [8] for a friendlier explanation that even you can understand. Stanley011 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Astonishing the things people get excited about. You're wrong -- together your websites offer a single source that prefers "grandaunt" over the semantically equivalent term "great-aunt", whereas I've offered three sources that prefer "great-aunt" -- but I'm not going to waste time reverting this. 75.3.91.25 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley011, please do 'not change it again. Even the sourced reference link page has "great aunt." It is to be great-aunt or great aunt as that is what's reported, referenced and the consenses says. No "grandaunt" as it is your POV and the wikilink you use to argue in defence of your POV is irrelevant to this article. Also, ironically you are personally attacking someone for a personal attack? One that is less of an "attack" as you're doing here. Please stop. Jeeny 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources demonstrate that grandaunt is accurate while great-aunt it not. We at wikipedia strive to be accurate, not inaccurate. Stanley011 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not demonstrate your POV. It has been shown to you. See the ref link beside that sentence. You ignore the disscussions, and continue to change it. Please stop! Jeeny 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

WhisperToMe 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WTM, no it's not. I understand it looks that way. Please see the sources. This is not a biology or math class. The sources all say "great aunt". This is accurate. Anyway, the American dictionary say both are correct, insofar as grammar is concerned. This issue, relating to the article should match the sources. As, it is, with "great aunt" it is accurate per sources and correct grammar. This is a POV, not a he says she says. <sarcasm> How about adding that image tree to the relative section, that should clear it up for the readers, right? Oh, and add a wiki link to cousin that should help too.<sarcasm off> Seriously, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a biology/geneology lesson. The grammar is correct. Cheers. Jeeny 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh, I just looked at the tree image. It even furthers the argument. LOL. Great aunt, is correct in geneology, at least according to that image. More importantly to all the references in the article and it matches the American Heritage Dictionary too. Now, is that enough to leave "great aunt" in the article? :) Thanks WTM. Jeeny 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No because mother's aunt is more precise. Stanley011 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Murder-suicide?

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

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

Dry Cleaners

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

Protection tag

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

I think that its better to have a tag up there to inform anons and new users that the page is protected. Most anons and new users don't know that it is protected because the lock icon is way too subtle to be noticed. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove conspiracy theory section

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

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

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

Agreed, the conspiracy theory has no place here. It might warrant inclusion on Alex Jones (radio), but not here. And really, it says much more about Alex Jones than it does about Seung-hui Cho. autocratique ✩ 11:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Autocratique, I agree with you 100% it should be on the Alex Jones page and not here. (For instance, and this is not a perfect example, but Louis Farrakhan's personal theory that, during Hurricane Katrina, the failure of the levee was "a deliberate attempt to wipe out the population of largely black sections within the city" is not detailed on the Hurricane Katrina page, but is instead outlined on the Louis Farrakhan page where it belongs.) The Alex Jones theory is all about the self-promoter Alex Jones, has no support in the media, and doesn't belong on the Cho page. If it were a more widespread topic, that would be one thing, but it's just AJ at this point. 71.121.135.67 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Conspiracy Theories section for the time being, both for the sake of consistency and because I don't really see the relevance in including this material in more than one article. Jones's theories are already described on Alex Jones (radio) and his theories pertaining to other topics are not included on these other topics' individual articles. autocratique ✩ 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good man. 71.121.135.67 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not that I have anything against Alex Jones, but it would be ridiculous to include his theories in this article. I'm sure there are even wilder theories out there, but that doesn't mean they deserve inclusion in this encyclopedia article. ~ Rollo44 06:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Virgina Tech Massacre name

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

The Helsinki Times calls it a bloodbath, just for the record... --Kizor 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because the mainstream American media use a certain term doesn't mean it's sensationalist or unwarranted. "Massacre" means "brutal and indiscriminate killing of people". This more than qualifies. Bueller 007 13:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, it's not Wikipedia's job to name things. We use names other reliable secondary sources are using, and right now that happens to be "massacre". I think it's sensationalist too, but the other one their using a lot is "shooting rampage" which I find more sensationlist and poor wording. Natalie 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that "massacre" is widely used in the media. "Shooting" seems to be the most prevelant used term I have noted. My reaction to seeing "massacre" here was simply that from what I see of most of the contributors is that among those who haven't openly made subjective remarks, there is a certain unstated rage against the killer coupled with a perhaps unwitting, unrecognized desire to be sensationalistic (despite saying they're not). This is what I see in people trying to justify the brutality invested in the present title. The reason why institutions like NPR would use a more sober and neutral term is that it is simply the best NPOV way to deal with a subject. It is not the role of a wikipedia article to invest a title with a judgement of brutality in the title. That would be POV. Yet that is what has been decided by the early contributors who changed the original wording to "massacre" and strongly opposed ammending the title thereafter. Perhaps sensationalistic contributors are drawn to sensationalistic topics at their early stages and this accounts for it. Apples99 raises a legitimate issue, however, the pro-"massacre" wikipedians seem to be strong in number and quite vocal at this time. I am not completely confident anyone will be able to pursaude them see just how NPOV the current title is and to adopt a less POV title. W.C. 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that massacre is problematic, and would prefer "shootings", but I think that, since it only happened 5 days ago, we don't have enough perspective to settle on a name yet. Also, emotions are high right now (check out the deletion debates for some of the victims...) and this has attracted a lot of new users who aren't as familiar with Wikipedia conventions and processes as other users. And we do use somewhat POV titles if that is how they are commonly known: Boston Massacre, Bath school disaster (disaster is an opinion, albeit a commonly accepted one), Columbine High School massacre, My Lai Massacre, Bataan Death March.

Actually, you make my point. Those NPOV title instances are examples of wikpeidans acting in a POV way by relying on media consensus. However, in the case of this article, the wikipedians who insisted on changing it from its original title to massacre (probably for sensationistic reasons of their own) did not abide by media consensus but rather took it upon themselves to use "massacre". W.C. 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

From where are you taking your assertions that those who changed it from shootings to massacre did not abide by media consensus? It's been discussed numerous times at the Virginia Tech massacre. Natalie 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Aunt/Grand Aunt v. Mother's Aunt

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

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

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

I started a new heading because it is a new topic. Is there something you don't understand about that? Stanley011 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you really think a double possessive is good style? "Maternal great-aunt" is exactly the same as "Cho's mother's aunt". We don't have to use overly simplistic phrases; that's what the Simple English Wiki is for. autocratique ✩ 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's good style. "Maternal great-aunt" requires more thought than "mother's aunt" which conveys the information to the reader right away. I believe "maternal great aunt" is an overly simplistic phrase that does not delineate the relationship as clearly and as immediately as "mother's aunt." Yes of course both phrases are functionally equivalent, but I believe we should opt with the one that conveys the relationship more immediately. Stanley011 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Request for further input

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

I agree, but don't want to get in trouble or an edit war again. How about this:

"Cho's great aunt, Kim Yang-soon, described Cho as "cold" and a cause of concern as an 8-year-old. According to Kim, the boy rarely talked unless prodded, although he was otherwise considered "well-behaved." (keeping the ref that's there after this sentence, as it covers all of it) plus wikilinking "great aunt" will help those not familiar with the term.

That will cover all issues, IMO, if the reader desires more info, it's there. Anyway, the link just beside "mother's aunt" (only to support the 'term'), is poorly written as if two different people wrote the article. Near the beginning it says his "great aunt" then further down says "mother's aunt", and spells her name as "Kim Yang-soon", further in the article it spells her name as as "Yong-soon" two different spellings, and two different terms. What do you think? Jeeny 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Jeeny I don't think that's much of a compromise at all. You see, grandaunt will also direct the reader to that same page, and it also has the advantage of being gramatically precise. The current wording allows for maximum precision, which all of us at wikipedia strive to achieve. Stanley011 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick follow up: the reason the current wording is a compromise is because it doesn't state either "grandaunt" which is what I want, nor "great aunt" which is what Jeeny wants. Furthermore, it is the most precise of the bunch because it delineates the exact relationship--readers can grasp right away the precise relationship between Cho and the woman who was commenting on him Stanley011 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about getting rid of the ref link for the reason I stated; that it's poorly written as it's not precise at all, and replace it with another? Or else change the wording to match a more "percise" example, such as grandaunt, or great aunt - whatever - as long as the cited article is from a reliable source and well writen and matches what is to be cited. Just get rid of the ref, because the wording, plus the current ref is distracting and not very percise. :) Jeeny (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it's not what I WANT, it's what I believe to be correct and accurate and matches the references. "Mother's aunt" is poor style and not encyclopedic at all. Jeeny (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely live with getting rid of that particular link--the article is poorly written and formatted, as you say. But I really do believe "mother's aunt" to be the best wording because a. she is the mother's aunt and b. a generic term like "grandaunt" or "great aunt" does not convey as much information/detail as "mother's aunt" (plus the debate is pretty heated about which one is correct so we should avoid that as much as possible). Thanks for your observations and I will be sure to change the link ASAP! Stanley011 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley, please - just use "grandaunt", as that is very close to all the articles that are cited, mother's aunt is poor style, really. Everyone is hearing or reading one or the other in the media. Put grandaunt, just like you wanted before without a ref beside it though, because the article in the next ref supports it either way, Grand - great - very simular and a compromise. How about that? We're the ones that are/were "heated" lol. Jeeny (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, as you say. Stanley011 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that I'm happy we could reach a consensus, but it seems that someone else (not me or Jeeny, for the record) has changed it back to great-aunt. I'd suggest letting it rest for the time being and perhaps returning to the article when it's become a little less busy, but obviously that's a personal choice. autocratique ✩ 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Exact Content of the Package

What was the exact content of the package? It should be added in the 'Media Package''s 'Content' subsection. As far as I can find it contained: 23 short video and a 1,800-word manuscript accompanied by 80 photos.[9] It is important to add this information because as it is indicated further down the article NBC has not released the totality of the package.Xuxunette 15:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: Virginia Tech Alumni

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

Technically, everyone who enters school is considered an alum ... although that tag is probably not in great taste. --BigDT (416) 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely he would have had to graduated to be considered an Alumni?SkorponokX 23:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. On this list, for example, it shows both those who graduated and those who did not. It just provides a notation to the effect that so-and-so did not graduate. An alumnus, as per technically-correct usage, has attended and institution:

"The term is often mistakenly thought of as synonymous with "graduate". However, anyone who has been formally admitted to the school as a student, in addition to those who completed their time at the school, is an alumnus (or alumna)." --Dynaflow 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, I stand corrected.SkorponokX 23:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The corresponding section in alumni needs a citation. [10] says there are dictionaries out there for whom an alumni can only be someone who has already graduated. And lastly, someone has just removed the category again. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 16:48Z

Hui vs. hui

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

I have no idea. I moved it based on the edit protected request and consensus above. Looking at Google [11] - it seems that capitalized is preferred, but I have no opinion/knowledge one way or the other. --BigDT (416) 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'd say it should probably be lowercase. "Seung-hui" is a single name, and the hyphen is only used to represent the position of the syllabic break. One name = one capital letter, IMO. Kim Il-jong and Kim Il-sung are romanized this way. Unless we have proof of him or his family using it with the second cap, it should probably be lowercase for consistency. Bueller 007 18:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• AP has it capitalized. That's the way his driver's license name is spelled. Romanization depends on the system the individual uses, not conventions in the English language. --Naus 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's why I specifically made an exception for "unless we have proof..." "Hui" it is, then. Bueller 007 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Why bother citing AP after it's botched his name in the first place. DHN 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing else offical to cite right now. -Phoenix 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I had an East-Asian History prof try to explain this once; let me see if I can give a low-fi bootleg of his explanation:

Apparently there have been several systems for romanizing Korean names over the years, and each has gone into and out of fashion in succession. The current "correct" way to romanize a name like "Cho Seung-Hui" would be "Cho Seung-hui," which would be reversed to the American order of "Seung-hui Cho." However, in the era when Cho's family immigrated, it's possible that the convention in fashion dictated that the romanization be "Cho Seung-Hui," which would be reversed to the version of the name we are currently using on this article. In another era, the name might have been romanized something like Choe Sung Wee (not really sure about the second part of the given name; that's my guess). For all names not coming from languages that don't use romantic script (this includes Chinese, Thai, Korean, Russian, Arabic, etc.), the romanization methods used will be highly variable and the preference of the name's "owner" should always take priority. --Dynaflow 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

While I agree that King's comments on Cho's mental state are irrelevant due to his lack of expertise in the field of psychoanalysis, I have to say that I feel his comments on Cho's plays are entirely relevant; whatever you think of his writing skills, as a published author, King is recognized as someone with the expertise needed to accurately discuss the quality of fiction. Yes, if you choose to go read Cho's plays, their lack of plot is self-evident, but for those who don't want to subject themselves to the plays, or for those who, in the future, may not have access to them (just how long will the linked copies remain online, after all?), King's review of them may be of some use.

I'll fully agree that the Time op-ed piece has no place being referenced on Wiki, however, as it's neither a hard-fact source document nor expert analysis. Rdfox 76 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (and just as the original talkpage was converted to a redirect, too... x.x)

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

I'm inclined to agree that we need to keep the media speculation to a minimum. Every time something like this happens, various publicity whores trot out their pet theory to explain the incident, or apply their pet cause to the incident. That is not our role, nor should it be. Natalie 20:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think we should keep a very close watch on non expert commentary especially on irrelevant topics, Man Law. Shaun 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire section on writing and plays merits inclusion only as far as understanding of state of mind and possible motives are concerned. I don't see how any commentary on literary style is relevant if it offers no such insight. After all are we to include critical reviews of Cho's abilities as a playwright in this section? All that King's comments imply is that Cho was an uninspired playwright(although there is no evidence suggesting he had any such ambitions) who lacked creativity to think of an original way to massacre innocent people. While such comments may be notable in celebrity gossip sections I don't see how they have a place in scholarly articles. Al

Consider this

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

Nothing to consider. Revealed as a phony long ago on the talk page here and elsewhere. Bueller 007 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Look here for the archived discussion on the talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:American criminals and South Korean murderers

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

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

Number of People Killed?

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

• Cho was the 33rd to fall WhisperToMe 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, killing is either called manslaughter or murder under law. In this case, each person was murdered. Wikipedia defines murder as something between two parties. So, therefore, his death doesn't count if it was suicide. --88.193.241.224 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes it does, and no, "killing" is not defined that way. To "kill oneself" is perfectly common terminology, and AFAIK, the law nowhere defines the term. Clearly he didn't "murder" himself (did anyone ever claim he did?) but saying that he "killed himself" is absolutely correct usage. Bueller 007 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most accurate phrasing might be something along the lines of "shot and killed 33 people, including himself" (minus emphasis in the article). That seems to convey the appropriate information with just two extra words. But that may just be me. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another option is "shot and killed 32 people before committing suicide", ala Columbine High School massacre.

While saying he killed himself is perfectly normal, saying he killed 33 people without the qualifier (including himself) is IMHO unusual and potentially confusing. Either of the above options are okay altho shot and killed 32 people before commiting suicide is probably the better option. On the other hand, saying 33 people died in the incident is normal but saying 33 people were killed is similar strange. In other words, while it's normal to say someone killed themselves when they commit suicide, it's not usually normal to count them as people 'killed' unless you specify the total includes them. Also while I'm not an expert on US law, I'm pretty sure Bueller is right and the law doesn't define killing. It may define homicide. But even then 88's description doesn't seem accurate because I'm pretty sure justifiable homicides are not considered murder or manslaughter in US law Nil Einne 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not be right about how US law defines killing - I don't know - but I don't think it's relevant. (US law certainly has a definition of "murder", but that doesn't seem to be the point here). Killing is widely (universally?) defined as the ending of life. I doubt anyone is quibbling that he didn't end his life, and thus he was killed. He also ended the lives of 32 other people, thus they were killed. Natalie 06:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mizabot: Archiving

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

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

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

Does something else need to be done to get the bot to look at this page? I archived some threads manually and I'm going to do another group of them. There are some 2-day old threads that haven't been edited in 2 days that have not been archived. --BigDT (416) 20:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the period of time was changed in the last day. That is, I think yesterday the bot was set to archive anything that hadn't been edited in 2 days, and today it's 20 hours. I don't know when that change was made, but it might be affecting what's being archived when. Natalie 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New info - Ebay Purchases - Computer Activity

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

The Fox article says: This guy wanted to leave a trail. He wasn't trying to conceal what he did," Rasch said. Isn't that first part is a bit of an exageration? If one has already decided in ending the killings with suicide what is the purpose of concealing things? And if this refers to the "trail" before Cho actually put his plans into action, isn't that "trail" rather meaningless--in the sense that you can't lock someone away just for selling books about horror or buying amunition over the internet?

The following comments about the article are regarding this part of the article, "Books by those three authors were taught in his Contemporary Horror class, meaning he could have been merely selling the used books at the end of the semester." With the hourly news spot on the radio it was mentioned that the books were for "a horror scriptwriting class" offered by the university. One begins wondering whether the faculty (teachers who decry the horror of his writings) and university (who only describe his "writing" classes in very generic terms, never giving, for example, course titles) have been up to now reluctant to divulge certain details under the pretenese of not wanting to violate Cho's privacy rights that might show the English program and the content of their courses in an potentially unfavorable light. Isn't it one thing for the wikipedia article simply to quote people saying his plays were "morbid" and "like something out of a nightmare" with no context or only an impartial context (an assumption that these were assignments for some generic or typical "writing" class) and quite antoher thing to relate those comments in the context of an academic program that offers specific courses such as horror writing? Doesn't the former show in a somewhat POV light how abberant the subject matter of the plays are but the latter, for all their idiocyncrasies and indeed peculiarities, show in a less POV manner how the fact that the plays were horrorific was in some sense a requirement of the assignments or influenced by what the university was offering?

Wouldn't the latter come to something like his professor meaning "I'm appalled about how horrific the plays were[--but incidentally I just happen to be an expert at writing horrific things, this course is all about writing horrific things and the the market place pays big money to the likes of Stephen King (who seems now in the wikipedia article to be anxious to disassociate himself from the kind of horror writing Cho does--since it lacks "story") for being horrific, so naturally the university would have a course in horror writing] and those writings were done in this context"?

Until more details are disclosed, we shall have to accept what seems to be the wikipedia article's incomplete account of horrific writing done where horror it appears was not the expectation, rather than horrorific writing done for or in proximity of classes bearing course titles similar to "Horror screenplay writing"

I've now gone back and looked at the course descriptions for the courses offered at Virginai Tech. It appears that the story on the radio might have been confusing a course description mentioning horror films to watched and and where students would write journals as being one explicitly about the writing of horror film scripts. Elsewhere in the other semesters there might be such a scriptwriting class as I have not checked them all yet. Only Fall 2007, and Fall 2006 where I found this description.

Media accounts have quick to characterize the chainsaw that appears in "Richard McBeef" as strange. But the course description for the class reads: "...we’ll watch films such as Saw and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" And says they will read "Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover".

Professor Stevens ends the course description with this: WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.

Some might find some of the violent events depicted in Cho's writings as absolutely bizzare. However, had they read the likes of Clive Barker and others covered in this course wouldn't they later have found what happens in Cho's work a lot less horrific and even mudane?

Just in the event the discriptioin becomes unavailable to us in the future, I've copied the full text of it below for those interested:

Fall 2006

UNDERGRADUATE COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

English 3984: Special Studies: Contemporary Horror

Stevens

English 3984: Special Studies: Contemporary Horror Stevens It used to be that horror films came out at a prescribed time: October. But now it seems as if every week a new film invades the multiplex. We are consuming horror on an unprecedented scale. But the rules have changed. Until recent years, lead characters could be counted on to survive the invasion of zombies/ homicidal maniacs/ vampires. But this margin of safety no longer exists; horror has become a masochistic pleasure. How do these texts construct us as spectators? How does identity affect our readings of these works? What do they say about our current societal fears? In order to answer these questions, we’ll watch films such as Saw and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and we'll read The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole, considered the first gothic horror novel; William Beckford’s Vathel, a forgotten gem that tells the Faustian myth from an Eastern perspective; some tales by Poe, Lovecraft, King, Ramsey Campbell, Clive Barker, Joyce Carol Oates, and Dean Koontz. We will also read Patricia Cornwell’s semi-nonfiction book on Jack the Ripper, Case Closed, and one book of criticism: Men, Women and Chainsaws by Carol Clover. And finally, we will read one graphic novel, From Hell by Alan Moore, one of the most popular and accomplished writers in the medium. There will be two papers, a midterm and a final as well as a fear journal in which students will write narratives about their personal fears and catalogue their interactions with the texts we encounter. WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.

http://www.english.vt.edu/ug/Fall%202006.pd W.C. 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents' Profession in Korea

His parents operated a used book store in Korea. here

Interesting fact. If true, then his family was really poor. South Korea's used book market is very small and many stores barely make the end meet by selling things like vegetables. --Revth 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho

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

Cho's name was given as "Cho Seung-Hui" by police earlier this week. But the Cho family statement rendered his name as "Seung-Hui Cho." Source: [12]

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

Seung-Hui, Cho

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

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

His given name Seung-Hui and his family name is Cho. In the Far East, the family name is said/written before the given name. It's just that some people say/write his name in the Far Eastern order, while others say/write it in the Western order.Pastel kitten 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ebay transactions

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

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

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

Yes, you might be familiar with "Hell House" and Barker, but apparently many wikipedians here as well as media pundits are not or they would find Cho's writings to be rather tame or mundane. Other authors and titles mentioned in the artilce match the course description I have included below so it is interesting that while the university may not be at liberty to disclose what courses Cho took, that investigators having his computer and the online records such as eBay can in some sense circumvent the schools non-disclosure. Ever newer versions of this eBay story keep evolving with more and more detail added so we many have a clear picture over time on this.It is probably only a matter of time before journalists begin assessing what is known with the course descriptions at the English department at the school. W.C. 12:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Add to Category:American mass murders

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

External links

Are all of these external links really needed/helpful?

• Text of Richard McBeef from TheSmokingGun.com
• Text of Richard McBeef from Timesonline.co.uk
• Text of Mr. Brownstone from Timesonline.co.uk
• Text of Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone on aol.com
• Search warrant for Cho's on-campus residence
• Video excerpts of the manifesto mailed to NBC
• "Cho's mental evaluation form" (PDF)., December 2005, hosted by The Washington Post

Khoikhoi 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can certainly reduce the plays to one link to the Smoking Gun - why we need 4 to accomplish this purpose is beyond me. I have no opinion on the other links. Natalie 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has mentioned the possiblity that the play texts may not be available to us at some point. So in excluding some it may be useful to decide which link is likely to be around longer than others if that is possible to discern. In that case, one idea might be to wait for a while until it becomes apparent which links become obsolete and prune those from the list.

Another criteria might be which of the links is for a site that is convenient to read through. I noted the AOL site is especially slow, for example. If the text were availble, for instance, on a single long page/screen that would be more convenient than having to go through it page by page on a slow site. W.C. 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the Smoking Gun has permanent archives - I know I've looked for things years after they were posted there and found them. Whereas the Times Online is a newspaper, and will probably take them down in a few weeks to save server space. Given WC's comments, I'd be inclined to remove the Times Online links and keep on link to the Smoking Gun, as I'm sure they have a title page with links to both plays. Natalie 15:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, Smoking Gun only has McBeef. Brownstone is not on Smoking Gun. WhisperToMe 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)