Talk:Woo Bum-kon incident

Untitled

"The victims could not defend themselves, both due to a ban on privately-owned guns..."

Slightly biased conclusion?

Agree... look like to much of an argument from a pro-gun website... --Konstantin 13:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It never would have happened had guns and other weapons been banned all together! I can't believe someone would actually add that to an article in wikipedia.

did you read the article? he was a cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.198.64 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

where I come from, a cop couldn't just walk into an armoury and collect guns, grenades etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.101.110 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the article either? The other officers were at a meeting, and four officers, not including the police chief, were found to be negligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.192.161 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. No one hurts anyone else if you don't let commoners have weapons. Trust in your rulers and your fine upstanding policemen, like Woo Bum-kon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.170.36 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

>where I come from, a cop couldn't just walk into an armoury and collect guns, grenades etc

According to non-english sources, he somehow obtained the rifles by sneaking past the guards (not sure how he would've done that while drunk, but that's what the source says). When they realized what he was doing, he fired a couple of shots into the air and they backed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.241.187 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright

With regards to the copyright notice on this article. The site that is listed as the source for the material is actually my own site. Crimebase. The material was taken from this page with a text link at the end of the article explaining that this article is the original source.

Somebody has wrongly given me credit for being the original author of the article when the info was actually taken from this article in the first place. So you can revert this article back to normal. there has been no copyright infringement. Scienide87 07:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

According to Korean naming standards, shouldn't his name be spelled "Woo Bum-kon" (see for instance Ban Ki-moon and Cho Seung-hui)?

- U Beom-gon. Mumun 無文 02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what's being asked is, should the particle after the hyphen (-Kon) be lower case (-kon) in fitting with other articles. Chris 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes..right, as far as I know there is flexibility on that matter. It just should be consistent. Mumun 無文 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This guys nickname was "Power" it is cited in many places across the internet and it used to be inserted on this entry but has been removed. I know this because i found it humorous that he was called power bum!

Interesting

Isn't it interesting that the shooter from the Virginia Tech massacre was Korean too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.159.10 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Not at all. I'll AGF; perhaps you meant that a category:Spree shooter of Korean descent would be a good idea. Well, set it up, and I'll nominate it for deletion. Hornplease 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm more interested in the fact that they were human beings. ~ Rollo44 23:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know if this has had much impact on the psychological evaluatin procedures used for police. Clearly the advancement of psychology plays a major role all by itself. But, for example, one could mention if people who design these tests have made interesting comments about Woo Bum-Kon or other "killer cops". JeffBurdges 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Other than their ethnicity and nationality, there is no correlation between either shooter. (Although both shooters had an usually high kill to wound ratio in their respective massacres, which is slightly interesting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.241.187 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

massacre

Is there a common name for the massacre? And shouldn't there be a more detailed account of it, in an article of its own? 132.205.44.134 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...Could be faster to enquire over at WT:KOREA, where one the editors might know about that.Mumun 無文 02:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MY EMPEROR, I'VE FAIIIIIIILED YOOOOUUUU!!!

I created this article a under my previous incarnation, Marblefluss. I was drinking vodka at the time, and looking back about 25% of what I wrote is total bullshit. Someone fix this, Google is your friend.. I did not take Wikipedia seriously back then, and only due to recent events did I re-stumble upon this article. My sincere apologies go out to all I misinformed in my Smirnoff-induced haze. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

High score

This guy has the high score, right? Should that be mentioned in the article? Miserlou (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* somehow I expected it to be a police officer to get #1. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Girlfriends Name

His girlfriends name is spelled both "Chun Mal-soon" and "Chun Mai-sun" in this article. Which one is correct? GBizzle (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a phonetic translation, either is right. The article should be consistent though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.101.110 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not possible for both to be correct. The Hangeul symbols for the Korean equivalents of "r"/"l" and "ae" are quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.35 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In this article her name is given as 전말순, so, as far as I can see, "Chun Mal-soon" should be correct. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC))

Death toll?

Death toll is stated as both 57 and 58 in different parts of the article. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.210.124 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

58 (including Woo himself), 57 (excluding Woo). Though I'd like to know, why the Korean Wikipedia article states 62 people killed, and here it says 56. Does anyone know what's correct? (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Several of the articles I've read so far seem to suggest the final death toll was 63. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.241.187 (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

North Korea

Is there any evidence that any media or government officials theorized there could be a connection to North Korea, since there is a history of terrorist operations in South Korea? Bachcell (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Never. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aepyornis (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Motive?

the article doesn't really discuss his motive? Did he just snap? --173.74.88.168 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, he never gave a reason for the rampage, either in writing or in statements to his victims. His girlfriend's comments about his inferiority complex imply that he may just have been suicidal and angry at humanity in general. Dreadwyrm (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the non-english sources I've read so far, he was a college student for a couple of years until he was drafted into the SK military. Eventually he left the military and joined the police force where he temporarily held a high rank, however he was demoted and was instead forced to be a police officer at the village where the rampage began. Due to this, he was unable to attain a higher rank and he felt he wasn't being paid enough. Apparently this caused him great anger and he began drinking alchohol again (he temporarily quit alcohol so he could maintain his high rank). In the weeks before the shooting, he was given a lot of crap from his superiors, which probably added to his inferiority complex. Eventually his girlfriend woke him up by swatting the fly (one source says she slapped him on the face while swatting the fly) which enraged him and the rest is history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.241.187 (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the death toll be 63 instead of 57?

All of the non-english sources I've read so far say that 63 died (57 died instantly, 6 others were mortally wounded, including his girlfriend). It seems disrespectful to the 6 who were mortally wounded and their families to suggest their deaths aren't valid by not including them in the death toll. 92.13.241.187 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It should include both numbers, that 57 were killed in the initial attack and a further 6 would die in the aftermath from injures inflicted. Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

List of victims in "Immediate aftermath" section

The list of victims is cut off (outside the screen) and thus partially not viewable when reading the article in mobile browser. I think, working with particular <div> styles is probably too restricting. A style and position that may look good on one screen, might not work on a screen of a different size. I'd recommend to just write the list as a bullet point list without any <div> formatting. It's how it is done in other similar articles, and it is also correctly displayed on various screen sizes. Nakonana (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nakonana I mean a lot of articles on mass murder don't even have victim lists so we could just remove it? It looks kind of garish and is too long to have as just a list. I'll try to see if I can figure out a way to have it be more accessible for mobile browsers and if not it should probably be removed PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it serves a purpose in that it puts a spotlight on the victims instead of the perpetrator as some perpetrators do such acts for attention. Highlighting the victims instead takes attention away from the perpetrator. There are number of articles with lists, e.g., Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Events (that list works on my mobile browser), or 2016 Munich shooting#Casualties. Nakonana (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

And there's a lot that don't. This particular shooting is the second deadliest ever so it would be way too long. The 2011 Utoya attack, or the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, or the Christchurch shooting, or the OKC bombing (which is a FA) doesn't which I would argue is more comparable given the death toll. There isn't really any encyclopedic value in the victim's names (either as an event-organized or person-organized article) so a lot of the time these sections in articles are removed which has happened before on many of these kinds of articles after discussion. I don't care too much either way so I just keep whatever's already there. The examples you gave have 27 and 9 victims instead of 62 as is the case here, which causes display difficulties. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to do it accessibly so, removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA Late to the discussion, but I really do feel a list of victims is warranted here. They do deserved to be remembered. The original list had a source, and the addition to make it hidden by default made it much less of a problem than it was originally. I see no reason to delete it, it is valuable information that cannot be found anywhere else. GoatLord234 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@GoatLord234 WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Victim lists are a contentious thing to and including them has caused many, many, many arguments. Generally I'm not opposed to keeping them if they're manageable, but in this case there are 60 of them, so including them causes visual problems for the page. Similar fatality incidents like Las Vegas also do not have lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidents like Vegas have very large articles, however. This article is fairly small. GoatLord234 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which makes it more unbalanced to the current state of this article, if it is overloaded with a list of names. As the person complained above, hiding it causes it to expand off the page on mobile, and not having it hidden unbalances this page. Whether there are to be these lists is decided on a case by case basis, and the pros for keeping this are outweighed by the visual and content problems it introduces.

The reason I can't expand this article is because all of the actually detailed later coverage is in Korean, obviously. There is a lot more information but I do not speak the language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Woo Bum-kon → Woo Bum-kon incident – Per WP:BIO1E. Woo is notable for murdering a lot of people in one event, and not much else. Someone had previously tried to change this article to Uiryeong massacre, however this title is original research: all of the later Korean sources call it some variation of "Woo Bom-kon incident", "Woo Bom-kon shooting incident", etc, see (우범곤 사건, lit Woo Bum-kon incident). It is the clear common name, and we can't just make up our own titles. I believe this means it will be delisted as a vital article though, since it no longer fits the category it is listed in.

Also, this article still has the problem of being overwhelmingly tilted towards 80s English news coverage instead of the boatload of later, more accurate, Korean language sourcing, but as I do not speak Korean this is a difficult issue to fix. Hopefully someone will, someday. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Tentative support; think there should be an examination of what English-lang sources call the incident to establish target title, but I agree the orig title isn't so good. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There are as far as I know no later (reliable) English sources. These kinds of titles only pop up in retrospect and all the English coverage was immediately after it occurred. All the later ones are in Korean. There are results from "Uireyong massacre" but no reliable ones; they all seem to be mirroring the Wiki page and that's the heading we used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough; unless anyone else comments with research to the contrary, willing to support the move.

Tentative keep; I don't think putting "incident" at the end is the right move since it just sounds kind of strange and isn't indicative of criminal activity, and I don't think it matters what Korean media calls it as this is English wiki, as long as the facts are right. Current title is fine but I can understand a change as not much is known about him otherwise. Would be in favor of a change to Uiryeong massacre, Woo Bum-kon shooting spree, or keeping the current title. Genberg47 (talk) 5:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "Uiryeong massacre", as it is OR because no reputable source has ever called it that (it floats around online on social media because it used to be a heading on this page, circular, etc). We can't keep the current title because it is BLP1E and therefore against policy to keep it as a person-focused article. I'm willing to change the exact title, but I can't think of any better alternatives when that is generally what it's called, and yeah, it's awkward, but not without precedent, Tian Mingjian incident is the common name for that shooting. Sometimes titles get weird when it's only referred to in languages that translate awkwardly into English.

And yes, what Korean language press calls the incident is relevant, as it is WP:OR to make up our own titles when it does have a common name. If the English language press had referred to it, we could use that - but they did not, past the immediate day of the incident, where they didn't give it an event based name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles (or youtube videos from news channels and the titles they use for this incident, translated (roughly)

Officer Woo Bumgon shooting incident

Officer Woo Bumgon's shooting incident

Woo Bumgon Incident

Officer Woo shooting

Woo Bumgon case

Patrolman Woo Bum-gon Case

The fact that it took place in Uiryeong broadly does not seem to be noted all that often, probably because it was the county and he was going from village to village. An alternative would be Woo Bum-kon murder case? Close enough to incident, could plausibly translate the title as that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; I think, when in doubt, aligning with the Korean naming is a safer bet. "Incident" is very common for Asia-related articles about disasters; imo few with exposure to this trend will bat an eyelid at the use of the term. 174.198.3.115 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep

If the article is going to be steered away from a biography and more towards the incident itself, I think Uiryeong massacre would be fitting. As Parakanyaa pointed out, not many sources refer to it as the "Uiryeong massacre", aside from some Korean sources and internet posts about the incident, but I do feel it's more fitting, as it took place throughout Uiryeong-gun. "1982 Uiryeong County attacks" or something similar wouldn't align with any sources, but it kind of goes with the title style of other Wikipedia articles, for example, the 2011 Norway attacks, called such as they took place at two different locations in Norway. GoatLord234 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoatLord234 1) WP:OR and WP:COMMONNAME overrules this. This is what the sources call it. No reliable source has ever used the name, and there is a name they do call it. Just because you think it's more fitting does not make it not OR.

The fact that it's Uiryeong county is barely mentioned in reliable sources - there does not appear to have been a central "Uiryeong community" that set out to mourn these incidents. The fact that it took place there, in a random county level subdivision, is not often mentioned, and it is undue weight to focus on it. What sources do exist focus on the individual villages. Also, massacre titles are vague and bad (and OR) when they are not common name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death toll is 56, not 62

This article from 1982 states that the final death toll was 56, but some casualties were counted twice due to the seriously injured being dispersed to three hospitals and the scene of the incident being in four villages, giving way for discrepancies. The 2024 memorial lists 56 victims, so it seems like the most reliable death toll. I'm changing the death toll. AgeOfPlastic (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying this now since someone keeps reverting without a rationale, but yeah I agree, the count is almost certainly 56. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)