Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 3

"The 'Question Mark Killer'"

This was in the intro of this article and I think it's fucked up. The evidence is showing us that bullying and social rejection may have contributed to Cho's reaction. Fox, the source used for this is not titling him "The" question mark killer, but rather "A question mark killer" is a more appropriate description of the source. I think that the person who put this sentence up was ignorant of the fact that using such a title will further insight reaction by careless peers of 'loners' everywhere, by using suspicion as an excuse to be even more violent towards them. Somebody please take it down. -youngidealist 68.231.200.13 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No one cares to comment, so I removed it. Youngidealist 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's firearm training???

Someone removed the line under the preparation section stating that Cho's experience with firearms is unknown. This is very relevant, and until more information surfaces on the specifics, it needs to remain in place. Hopefully anyone who does know this will be able to update the information. I've put it back. If more details are be uncovered, replace the line with the information. Tymothy 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I replaced it. It's a couple of days old; surprised that no one added it yet.Chickentoo 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Guys I think I messed up the works cited page

Mental Illness

It's pretty obvious that Cho was very seriously mentally ill. As a psychology student, the first thing that came to my mind after the release of his media package was that his history of behavior prior to the shootings were characteristic of schizotypal disorder comorbid with paranoid personality disorder. His odd speech patterns, extreme isolationist tendencies (far beyond the usual "loner" behavior), odd beliefs (imaginary girlfriend that he nicknamed "Jelly" and who called him "Spanky"), expressions of victimisation, and delusions of grandeur ("dying like Jesus Christ") seem characteristic of this. Although he does fit into the typical "spree killer" profile of being a angry male loner, his expressions of those tendencies really go to pathological extremes.

Jelly (KY) and Spanky (Hand) was a jocular figure of speech used by Cho to describe masturbation, his roommates didn’t understand. Like you they took it to mean he was mentally ill and they stopped talking to him, worsening his isolation. Diamonddavej 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've worked in the U of M aggression research labs so I get internal emails, and I've seen some of my profs parry around paranoid schizophrenia too. I'm also not surprised that some news outlits have said that he was diagnosed with with an autistic spectrum disorder when he first came into the country.

I'm surprised that the mental illness aspect of the killer hasn't been discussed more. In the aftermath of this tragedy, everyone is asking "Why?", baffled at the source of his rage, incoherance, and delusions of grandeur. His actions are obviously inexcusable, but the man was also very, very ill--a fact recognized for years by many of those around him--yet he was not recieving treatment.75.46.52.18 12:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree he was very ill. I think he refused treatment though. As you probably know, most do, when they are active in the mental illness and not compliant in their treatment. I think it was that teacher that recommended he be evaluated. And he did go into some type of treatment, but he dropped out, or did not follow up. That's what's sad. Maybe someone should have persisted more. But, patients have rights, in that, they can refuse treatment and medication, except if they are considered dangerous to themselves or others. It is easy to fake, and the professionals hands are tied or they are overwhelmed, IE money issues for people with mental illness without good insurance, etc. Which I think was the case here. But how does one predict this? There has to be something done, obviously, but this is very sensitive in nature at this time. The actions done by this very sick and dangerous individual may just change the criteria of who and when to involuntary commit to an institution. But that's difficult too, because the person has to be seeing someone who is a professional first and have some way to pay for the services. Everyday people cannot diagnose this type of potentially dangerous behavior. Sad, and very difficult to predict. It's only through hind-sight that we feel something should have been done. There are many who have this type of illness that do not do what he did. But, I think there will be more programs to educate others to help distinguish certain signs from benign, and then step in and help before something like this happens again. Jeeny 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing references and hints that he may have been on the autistic spectrum.

When they went to the United States, they told them it was autism, said Kim, 85, adding that the family had constant worries about Cho.

Via NYT

This is the first autoritative source I've been able to find, but those of us familiar with AS symptoms have been quietly buzzing about this for some time.

As a cautionary note - it may be that some of his references to himself as identifying with Jesus Christ, Martyrdom and various judgments about others as "hedonistic" may possibly derive as much or more from Korean Christian culture and language as from mental illness - though as the mother preferred to pray about his condition over seeking useful interventions and information - the distinction may be moot, or one person removed. Graphictruth 16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Autism(autism with speech delay) and Asperger's Syndrome (autism without speech delay) are often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. In Rampton, Broadmoor and Ashworth hospitals in the UK, 2.4% of the patients were found to have definite autism or AS, rising to 5% with suspected cases added. Some 45% of autistic patients were misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, only 10% previously received a correct diagnosis of autism. Autism distinguished by early childhood onset and a speech delay, schizophrenia is unknown in children before the age of 7-9. The problem in psychiatry, especially in UK and Ireland (don’t know about the US), is that psychiatrists are not trained to spot autism in adults.

“These conditions obviously differ in age at onset, developmental history and mental state examination. In DSM–IV, pervasive developmental disorder is an exclusion condition for schizophrenia and it should be suspected in atypical or non-responsive cases.... The condition may also be at the root of treatment-resistant mental illness in adult psychiatry.” (Fitzgerald & Corvin 2001)

Also, Martin Bryant who perpetrated the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre (35 dead), was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome after his arrest. I’m seeing a pattern here.

Hare D. J., Gould J., Mills R. & Wing L. A., 1999. Preliminary study of individuals with autistic spectrum disorders in three special hospitals in England. National Autistic Society

Fitzgerald M. & Corvin A. 2001. Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 310-318.

Diamonddavej 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a pattern too - but I doubt it will resolve in to the commonsense reaction that may be stickerized into "Don't Poke the Aspie." Graphictruth 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that the source of Cho's anger was because of shunning, people stopped talking and associating with him out of fear and anger following his two stalking incidents some months earlier. The attempt at reaching out was perhaps the first time he attempted to break out of this autism and emotionally connect with another human being. The result was police knocking on his door and a two-day stay in a mental hospital. This is a pattern seen in some young adults with autism. As their autism alleviates, a need for emotional closeness emerges and they make their first faltering attempts at forming friendships/relationships. However their social skills are poorly developed, thus their initial attempts at sociality are responded with ridicule and/or fear. The process is called "gaining insight". The affected autistic, who was previously indifferent to isolation, becomes aware of their oddness and intense aloneness. The rebuffed attempts at reaching out makes them feel abandoned, ignored and persecuted. Many develop clinical depression, anxiety and intensified obsessions. A few succumb to a transient psychotic breakdown. After the event, they rapidly become more social, eventually making genuine friends for the first time in their lives. Diamonddavej 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article that says he was diagnosed as autistic soon after the family's arrival in the US. BloodDoll 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remember though, you are/were talking about an 8 year old. Schizophrenia is not going to be high on your differential diagnosis for that age group. That said, at the time these event were perpetrated, starting in '05, 22years old is just about average age for the onset of schizophrenia, and to me, this guy is a classic paranoid type schizophrenic.--JSteuernagle 03:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, this inventory of deaths related to SSRIs is important and relevant since Cho has been identified as having been on antidepressants

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?sort=date

Ema Zee 04:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Serial Number

It has been mentioned several times that the serial numbers were filed off of the guns he used. Don't guns have serial numbers in more than one location? 141.156.166.127 09:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless,Forensics indicate same gun used in boths attacks(the 2 killings 2 hours before..) Evaulator 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the exact likness of cho except 2 or 3 things.

1. I'm not asian. 2. I really did have a girlfriend back then 3. I did not have down syndrome.

Other than that I was like him being treated like crap as the lowliest person on earth. In Jr high crap was treated better than me. Nerds even picked on me.

I hit puberty in highschool and for some reason I was #1 in highschool.

When I sat and ate. everyone wanted to sit with me. I never understood my childhood.

Has the molestation angle been explored anywhere in the media?

I'm really surprised that this hasn't come up in the media so far. Here's what we know:

-The two plays, "Richard McBeef" and "Mr. Brownstone" both featured adolescents who were molested by an older authority figure (step-father and teacher, respectively).

-In part of the video, he says "For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you fucked, I did it for them…"

-In another part, he says "You wanna rape us John Mark Karrs? You wanna rape us Debra Lafaves? Fuck you." (this, by the way, is almost identical to the part in Richard McBeef where he calls his stepfather "Catholic priest" and "Michael Jackson".

Given all of this, it seems pretty likely that he was either molested or had for some reason come to think that he had been. Has this possibility come up anywhere? In fact, the media silence about it almost suggests that there's some sort of ongoing investigation and that's why they're not commenting on it...Baligant 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Baligant

Must say, this struck me to. He seems to think/hint he has been molested. Fantasy or no. I have not heard it mentioned in the media.

I think a female psychiatrist mentioned this on Fox news, but I didn't catch her name.

Yeah Anderson Cooper asked two psychologists about that, and both said that it's hard to know since mentally ill people such as him have graphic fantasies involving sex and religion. One of them said that he wrote about homosexual molestation because he was afraid of his own homosexual tendencies, though I don't see that at all and it sounds suspiciously Freudian to me. She also said that he stalked women possibly to convince himself of heterosexuality. Chickentoo 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho was a sadomasochist

I heard the news report that he was a sadomasochist, can anyone prove this?

"Cho had intimidated female students by photographing their legs " Evaulator 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Voyeurism != sadomasochism -Etafly 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brownstone

It seems to me that a very interesting and important fact about the character of Mr. Brownstone is that he is a rapist. Each of the other three characters, his presumable students, all say that he raped them. This gives a lot of insight into the type of life Cho Seung-hui was possibly living at home, especially when you consider that the idea of molestation by an older male figure is prevalent in both of these horrifying scripts. --Invisibleinkling 05:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unless some famous psychiatrist assumes this, I wouldn't add speculation. WhisperToMe 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but he could just of been a basket case chump. I would not jump to the conclusion thet he had other Demons to blame.

Regardless of whether or not you can draw any conclusions from it, the fact that that element is in the play (and mentioned repeatedly) can still be addressed. We shouldn't glaze over that horrific fact about the play just because it is particularly distrubing. If we mention that he is a math teacher (which is only stated in one line), then we should mention that he is a rapist, which is mentioned repeatedly.--Invisibleinkling 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a chatroom. We don't add information to an article unless it is verifiable. See also the no original research rule. THF 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to distribute accurate information, and a large part of accuracy depends on what information is displaid and what is withheld. At this time wikipedia does not disply a large part of the scripts written by Cho, and in order to present accurate infromation about these scripts, this item should not be ignored. There needs to be no conclusions drawn, but simply omitting the primary offense of Mr. Brownstone in Cho's script creates a factual blindspot. The rape of the three students in the play is addressed 4 times, and the math teacher is mentioned once. Why is it left out of the description?

I agree that the fact the students in the play claim that Mr. Brownstone raped them on several occasions is an important point and should be included. To be original research it would have to say something like 'The students in the play also claim that Mr. Brownstone raped them on several occasions, making the sexual abuse of the young by an elder male figure in a position of responsibility a recurring theme in Cho's work.' I have changed it.(DH 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

My initial reaction when first reading the play was not that Cho was referring to actual sexual abuse. I've just read the play a second time and I can see how it could go either way. The term "ass-raped" can also mean taken advantage of in general. I don't know how many times that I've heard kids say they were ass-raped until they bled by an extremely hard test or some sort of punishment. I understand that most have taken the words literally, but I wonder how many of them are familiar with current slang. The best source I could think of that mentions popular slang was urban dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ass+raped. I know that we'll never know what he actually meant, but I don't think we should make assumptions in the article. 76.187.184.203 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that he didn’t intent to portray Mr. Brownstone as a rapist literally. I see it that he figuratively meant that Mr. Brownstone raped them. By treating them unfairly, and since they are powerless to their teacher, it was like rape. Sheaton319 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article where the sentence refers to a Guns n roses song Mr Brownstone, and Mr Brownstone is wiki linked to Guns and Roses, but does not have the lyrics in the article!! Do I, the reader, have to read the whole script, then look up the lyrics to the song, "Mr Brownstone" and compare the two? I'll answer my own question, if you don't mind: I should not have to, as a reader. The article is long enough, now as an editor, I may in order to be accurate and to write part of the aritcle, etc. I am an editor but do not feel like doing the research of the editor who put that sentence in there in the first place and wikified the link to something that does not make sense, to me as a reader of the subject at hand. As a reader, I do not feel like reading the the lyrics to Guns n roses, or whatever and comparing the two. I do not know the song, am not familiar, do not care for the band. So, as an editor, and a reader, I see this sentence with the wikified link to the Mr Brownstone and there are no lyrics to compare!! So, then I have to do a Google search for the song, then get pop-ups and read a silly song that I don't care about...blah, blah blah. I am unwikifing the link and taking the Guns N Roses out of that sentence until someone, I can't remember the editor's name, makes the sentence make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the song, and does not have to jump through hoops to get the gist of the matter. Jeeny 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Behavior and mental health section incorrect

I'm fairly certain that this section needs some significant changes regarding Cho's professors. From what I have read in the news, Professor Nikki Giovanni had him removed from her class and from that point on Lucinda Roy took the initiative to teach Cho on her own. Can someone please confirm this and add those changes? I'm not feeling up to it unfortunately, just wanted to bring it to attention. In the mean time I've removed the uncited sentence that says it was Roy who had him removed from her class (it was Giovanni). -- itistoday (Talk) 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speeding Ticket

The name on his speeding ticket is Seung H. Cho, which must be his legal name. He signed the ticket Seung Cho. The car was a Kia but model was not legible. Ticket was shown on CBS. 141.156.166.127 09:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

message on 4chan?

http://www.planetblacksburg.com/2007/04/sick_internet_joke_or_real_thing.php

An anonymous user on the English imageboard, 4chan, appears to have posted the following warning Monday just before 5 a.m.

“hey /b/ I‘m going to kill people at vtech today in the name of anonymous”

--Jake7457 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a hoax with a backdated post. THF 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Link doesn't work. --136.150.200.99 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to believe it's authentic and a lot to believe it's not. 4chan thrives on cruelty. --Kizor 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, that screams fake...how the hell did they find a post from monday morning on tuesday? Any /b/tard knows that it's NEVER that slow, especially with the news there was yesterday. --Anonymous21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly the image was indeed a shoop: it contained no leading zeros in the date, while 4chon uses them in single digit date numbers. Also, as Anon said, /b/ moves way too fast to get a message a day later. --86.87.66.216 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The message was REAL, the shoop just a recreation. 88.84.152.212 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a working link: http://www.thestar.com/StarPM/article/204030 I think at least a mention of it should be put in the articl. It should although be stated that this is the only source that makes this claim. --Dr. WTF 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The image included in the original article (which has unsurprisingly has been deleted) is fake. The time displayed on the image of the post was 4:49:27, but 4chan's imageboard system uses leading zeroes for single digit hours, and would have been displayed as 04:49:27, had it been real. Not to mention that even the most popular, high-traffic threads on /b/ don't last longer than a few hours. Kinkify 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I was reading 4chan at the time the image was created, timestamp is wrong and mockups of this kind are made all the time. It was part of a discussion where people were joking about whether the killer was a /b/tard. Some newspapers have been taken in by it, see http://expressen.se/nyheter/1.642133 Ultimately though, pixels, shooped, etc. General Miaow Say Hello! 13:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, timestamp is fake and the post is not based on a real post. I know, as I made it. Amazing how swedish newspapers proudly use it. Commenting via proxychain to retain my anonymity. - 141.142.30.135 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As much as I occassionally visit 4chan myself, it is not a citable source. People post random stuff in there all the time. KyuuA4 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This should probaly get a mention on the Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre article.

Killer's scripts

It's now being reported that scripts for two of the killer's plays have been released: [1] [2]

Worthy of mention in the Wiki article? Bueller 007 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Been done. See attributed writings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isocyanide (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

This discussion is already happening up above on this page, see Talk:Cho_Seung-hui#Richard_McBeef. The "Attributed Writings" section kept getting deleted (almost to the point of vandalism? or 3x reversion?) but may stabilize now that the attributions have been cited. Please do not discuss here; please go up the page and discuss under "Richard McBeef" thread to keep the discussion consolidated and coherent. -- Lisasmall 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To keep the article neutral and underlying motivations coherent, it may be worth noting exactly how and why the plays came to be published on the Internet. That is, Ian MacFarlane was a classmate of Seung-hui Cho and was part of the playwriting class that had an assignment to peer review plays. After Cho's identity came to light MacFarlane found the plays and published them on AOLNews with the intent to provide information that will help stop future events like this from occurring. http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/ (In other words, to state that the plays have NOTHING TO DO with the murders, though are of academic interest.) Jokeyxero 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Killer's writings

The text of two of his writings are available on http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

I don't know how to link them in the article though, or if they should be. Zehly 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my first edit, so please forgive any breach of protocol. Under "5.1 Plays," I thought perhaps Edward Falco's name should link to the corresponding article. Rejay9090 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

infobox: criminal?

i have a question....in america, mustn't one be tried and convicted of a crime before one is considered a criminal? --emerson7 | Talk 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

in theory, that's generally true, AFAIK 132.205.44.134 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you call someone that murders 32 people? I'd call them a criminal. I also call people who shoplift from stores and not caught criminals (and thus not prosecuted). I'm sure most would agree. Technically however.... you may be right. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think dead people are attributed any civil rights anywhere in the world. While Cho Seung-hui would be considered an "alleged" criminal and "innocent until proven guilty" if he were alive, b/c he's dead none of that applies. The term criminal applies in this case.--Alabamaboy 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

not really. if it's simply "anyone guilty", then anyone who has ever broken the speed limit is a criminal. or jay-walked for that matter. the term "criminal" is used for those who have been convicted. otherwise... i'm willing to bet just about everyone's a criminal. in some way. hell, look up all the "goofy laws" still on the books... -Heterodoxus 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

...should not wikipaedia articles stick with the facts, rather than emotional impressions? --emerson7 | Talk 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if a person is convicted of a crime and then dies while another court is hearing an appeal, the criminal record is wiped out. Therefore, Cho is technically not a criminal, because he has not been convicted, and can never be convicted, of a crime.

the template:Infobox Criminal is incorrect and inappropriate. i'm suggesting a change to template:Infobox Person oder template:Infobox Biography. --emerson7 | Talk 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the using that box will render the same result than feel free to do so under WP:Bold. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Common usage of the word criminal would unquestionably fit as Nja247 says. Legal usage wouldnt fit but we have to use common expressions over legal ones, SqueakBox 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox's point is well taken, but as editors, we should strive for precision of language. For example, "murder" is a legal term for a specifically-defined type of criminal homicide. "Homicide" is the killing of a human being by another. Not all homicides are criminal acts. "Killing" is a word that describes a behavior. Not all killing (even the killing of a human being) is wrongful or criminal. Therefore, it is better to refer to Mr. Cho as a "killer" (the behavioral description) rather than a "murderer" (the legal description), since the former is more precise than the latter, even though both words may be correct in common usage. pointlessforest 19:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) would classify him as a criminal for the purposes of a civil tort claim. That's good enough for me. --Chris Thompson 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough for me. As a tort classification, res ipsa loquitur has absolutely nothing to do with criminal liability. One who is found responsible for a negligent act under res ipsa loquitur is not called a "criminal." They are a tortfeasor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KyleGoetz (talk • contribs) 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Do we use the criminal infobox for someone who has been accused but not commited of a crime? I think people are letting their emotions run wild here. Remember, NPOV. Titanium Dragon 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Mr. Cho is deceased, he cannot ever be formally accused, tried or convicted of any crime that may have occurred. As a matter of law, he cannot properly be referred to as a criminal (unless he has prior felony or misdemeanor convictions). He can and should be referred to as a suspect or presumed killer. This debate harkens back to a similar controversy regarding Lee Oswald, who was never tried, but was formally charged with the murders of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit prior to his own untimely demise, and therefore may be properly referred to as an accused person. pointlessforest 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe suicide is also illegal, which would make him a criminal, even if we can't prove he's a "murderer". Therefore, I believe the description "criminal" is apt. Laura 06:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, Laura's factual premise is false, because suicide is not a crime under the Virginia Criminal Code, a fact easily checked online.[3] Secondly, the argument itself is fallacious, for the same reasons set forth above, because even if suicide was a crime, the suspect is dead and cannot be formally charged, tried or convicted, as a matter of law. pointlessforest 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, people, stop acting emotional! I understand that this is an extremely emotional event, but when you are WRITING material for an encyclopedia, then you need to put your emotions aside as best you can. The truth is, this man is NOT a criminal in the sense of using the infobox for criminals. Yes, common sense clearly dictates that he committed a crime, but technically, he cannot be presented as such. Furthermore, it doesn't make much of a difference, beyond the emotional DESIRE to have him portrayed as a criminal. Just change it to the Person infobox. -- Ubergenius 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Without a conviction, I would say that it is inappropriate to use the the "Criminal" infobox. Even those committing criminal acts, like homicide, can be found not guilty if there are factors such as insanity involved. Using the "Criminal" infobox here is covert POV pushing. --Wordbuilder 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask any of you who think that conviction is the standard of criminality: suppose you were arrested, tried, and convicted for an arson you did not commit. Would you be an arsonist, in virtue of your conviction? Of course not. Why? Because you had not actually violated a law, regardless of your conviction. Well, that is the standard of criminality, folks - whether or not you have broken the law. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty as a matter of how the government treats you, but this does nothing substantive to alter the nature of your actions, it merely establishes an official account of them so that society has a basis for determining how it should deal with you. You do not have to be a convict to be a criminal, any more than you have to have a Social Security number to be a human being. Arguing otherwise is to presume a false premise: that whether or not one is innocent or guilty of a crime is entirely a matter of a declaration by a legal authority, be it a judge or a jury. I think we can all see the problems with that point of view. In any case, he sent a package to the media admitting that he did it, and this can reasonably be considered a confession.

I should add that those accusing others of "acting emotional" should consider whether or not their zeal for a false standard of technical accuracy might not come under the same heading. The criminal infobox is completely appropriate for this article. Hieron 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When someone dies in the process of committing a crime, obviously, no trial can be held. But from a legal standpoint, if that person is considered by police to be obvious perpetrator, the case is closed and he is assumed to be guilty unless there is evidence that suggests another suspect or casts doubt on his involvement. The "reasonable doubt" test does not apply as it would in a jury trial; conversely, there is also a somewhat higher standard of proof than there would be in an ordinary arrest, the reason being that authorities need to be certain that there are no other suspects. Under U.S. law, there is no doubt that Cho should be considered a criminal unless further evidence is forthcoming. Bradrules 07:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless he was dead while murdering people, you'd have a valid point about a non-criminal status. You had enough witnesses and proof to show a crime was committed even before a trial, even enough so to claim someone a criminal. While he couldn't have a legal criminal title written clearly on paper within such a tight timeframe, your skipping an entire step of criminal justice as it's beyond ignorant to assume Cho wouldn't be considered a criminal. I fail to see a reason to the defense of this obvious fact. The criminal infobox is correctly placed. --BeggarEthics 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Crime occurs when someone breaks the law. Did he break the law/laws undoubtedly? Yes indeed, the article wouldn't exist otherwise. Thereofore, he clearly was a criminal.--Svetovid 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First name

Gosh, would someone puuullease fix the article so that it says FIRST NAME first (hence the reason why it's called a "first name") and his LAST NAME last??? Cho is a very VERY common last name, and even if the press and the police can't help it, at LEAST wiki should be consistent and make suue his FIRST NAME is written first.

Or maybe since he's an asain, it would make more sense to leave it with the given name first, like how it's traditionally done here?--Nog64 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From the article: This is a Korean name; the family name is Cho and unlike Western family names, comes first when pronouncing full names.Mumun 無文 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

interesting how hes been in usa for 15yrs, yet he still puts his family name first

I agree that the title of the article should read Seung-hui Cho. I am familiar with name order in East Asian countries and Hungary, but when people from those countries live here and are longstanding part of society, they do as the Romans do. That's why there's Kazuhiro Sasaki, Ming-Na Wen, Se Ri Pak, and Zsa Zsa Gabor instead of Sasaki Kazuhiro, Wen Ming Na, Pak Se Ri, and Gabor Zsa Zsa.

Having lived in an area in the US with a large Korean population, my Korean classmates always followed the Western-order when using English. In Korean, of course, they employed their usual order. This list of Korean Americans confirms this.

I hope this is changed for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but I am not sure if this is likely since the media (and someone screwed up, and now everyone's following this order) is popularizing this order. Google News gives 2,700+ hits for Cho Seung-Hui while 49 (ABC News among them) for Seung-Hui Cho. ----Chris 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could it be because of his non-citizen status that the media recognise him as non-American, and thus use the Asian order? --Kvasir 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he is a nonresident alien? --HappyCamper 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Kvasir, it does seem plausible that the media thought he was a Korean exchange student on a student visa. As for HappyCamper - even norsident aliens here in the US follow western order when using English. --Chris 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys missed the boat on this. Last name first was decided by consensus yesterday, see the archives. --Scientz 02:27p, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Consensus is always on-going, thus wiki always changes, therefore I will make sure this changes towards the First Name Last Name order. Secondgen 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty absurd... wiki has a chance to go against the mainstream media, which imho seriously messed up when they listed his surname first. For crying out loud this guy has lived in the US since 1992. Moreover, we should name him according to how he himself preferred to be named. Look at his plays, he lists himself as Seung Cho. Arguments that cite Korean name orders are severely flawed because their base assumption is that Cho is South Korean. HE IS NOT. This guy was KOREAN-AMERICAN. If we change his name to Cho Seung-Hui we should be consistant and change the name oif EVERY American of East Asian descent on wiki to reflect this.

It is true that mechanical application of GENERAL rules for South Koreans is not appropriate in a case like the present where the subject's pertinent life events all happened in the U.S. in an English-speaking environment - note that majored in English. However, the media have widely used the "Asian" name sequence, probably based the notation in official documents (which in turn would be based on his green card and social security card, ultimately on his South Korean passport). The question is thus - under what name would most NEW visitors to WP expect to find the article? Other versions (such as the subject's own preference, "Seung Cho") could be forwarded. WikiFlier 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy's sister is Sun Cho, she uses Cho as her last name. As did Seung. The guy was a KOREAN-AMERICAN functionally. He was in the US for 15 yrs, did not have an accent, and was an english major. Because the media elites may not be familiar with koreans and their customs, does not mean that we should follow their lead. It is really bizarre. His name was Seung Cho, and I suspect in the very near future things will be changed to this. For those resisting, give it up. On english wikipedia, EVEN asians from some countries like Japan have their names put in the American order (though not with koreans yet, like kim jong-il). Fermat1999 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The name should absolutely be listed as Seung-hui Cho. This article is in American English, Cho lived in America, and the standard name order is first, last. I understand that in Korean the family name goes first, but this is not a Korean article. Hungarian name order works in the same way as Korean name order, but the Hungarian national poet Petőfi Sándor is listed on Wikipedia as Sándor Petőfi, and he didn't ever even live in an English-speaking country. The attempt by the media to Koreanize everything seems to be an attempt to paint the shooter as "different" from American society as possible. It's not appropriate on Wikipedia. His name in life was Seung-hui Cho (or simply Seung Cho), and that's how it should be written in the article. — Emiellaiendiay 03:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As for the fact he was a permanent resident (noncitizen), it is irrelevant, as is the order in which his Korean passport lists his name. My Hungarian passport writes my name in the Hungarian, but my American greencard uses Western name order. That's just how it goes in America. — Emiellaiendiay

The major media is now starting to call him by the Americanized version. Here's an article from Slate discussing this. CBS News, ABC News, NPR, LA Times will now say Seung-hui Cho and the AP is thinking of following. Reuters is still going with Cho first to conform to what they've done so far. The Asian-American Journalists Association is recommending that news orgs go with the Americanized version, so more will probably follow. In life, he always went with Cho last (speeding ticket, health form, etc.) The reason everyone went with the Korean version is that a Korean police officer in Virginia recommended that Virginia Tech release it the more formal way. --Gloriamarie 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone change it already, as I am myself starting to see major news outlets use SEUNG-HUI CHO. This is getting annoying already. Secondgen 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press: "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.'" Jorobeq 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

someone please change it to Seung-Hui Cho, i can't.

• BBC news still refer to him as Cho Seung-hui [4]Just keep Korean naming style instead of Western naming. Besides, for date we go with the Date/Month/Year not Month/Date/Year. Loompyloompy313 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hanja

wow how did people find the hanja version of his name so quickly?

Can we double check if the Hanja is correct? How about 趙承熙? --HappyCamper 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am having more doubts about the Hanja now. 曹丞禧 was what we had before. But I can find media sources which use a different name, even 趙承輝. --HappyCamper 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that the last name could be 崔? --HappyCamper 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable source of this is probably his parrents at the moment. --Kvasir 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely cannot be 崔 because this is 성최 높을 최. His family name is clearly 조, not 최, and the difference is vast. Mumun 無文 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found any sources at all for the Hanja in Korean media (by checking News.google.co.kr for 曹 and 趙 [5][6]). The only places I see publishing the Hanja are Chinese media, who tend to indicate that it's just a "phonetic transcription" (譯音), i.e. a wild-ass guess. And some of the Chinese media are coming up with blatantly laughable attempts at writing the Hanja, like 周水辉 [7] which hasn't even got a remote possibility of being correct. cab 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

     Cho Seung-Hui in Hanja is 赵承熙, not 曹承辉.

• 赵承熙
• 曹承辉
  • First of all, there is no way we can know the exact hanja without his parent's input. This means we can only assume, which is against wiki. Secondgen 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, hanja does not use simplified characters of PRC. I'm deleting the "Chinese character" off the article until there the correct hanja is resolved. --Kvasir 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We still have no reliable sources, but the hanja have been reinserted again. I will keep removing them unless someone provides a cite to a Korean newspaper (NOT a Chinese newspaper, for the reason I mentioned above, that their transcriptions are just wild guesses) which uses the Hanja. Thanks, cab 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• 조승희 cannot be 조승辉, for 辉 is not 희 but 휘.

曹 is not a common family name in Korea and the family name 趙 is the 7th largest in S.Korea. 承熙 also common name in Korea. Let me example some. Lee Seung-man, the 1st president of Korea is 이승만(李承晩). Famous Park Jeong-hee, another president of Korea is 박정희(朴正熙). --Queenmillennia 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't guess his hanja name based on popularity. It isn't a vote on what his name is. --Kvasir 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just said the probability on the basis of plausible grounds.--Queenmillennia 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work based on a single authorized/preferred source rule such as "Korean newspapers but not Chinese newspapers". With ANY source there will be legitimate questions about its accuracy, but this does not mean that information is to be withheld until it has been confirmed by "official" sources. Such questions must be resolved by comparison with other sources and review of the inherent consistency/likelihood of each piece of information.

Korean papers generally do not publish any Chinese characters for personal names except where the individual is very exalted. We should not hold our breath waiting for Korean newspapers to give us the hanja, but go ahead and publish what REASONABLE, plausible information we have.

It is true that Chinese newspapers often make up Chinese names for convenience, and that such renditions cannot be regarded as authentic (they are generally labeled as "phonetic renditions"). In this specific case, the prestigious World Journal (Chinese newspaper published in the U.S.) originally rendered the name as 趙承熙, but switched to 曹丞禧 in later reports. Since this change is glaring to Chinese readers, it is reasonable to assume that the latter version is based on better information (probably Korean community in the U.S. which coincidentally includes numerous ethnic Chinese from South Korea who are more astute in their understanding of Chinese characters than Korea's media). It is also inherently plausible because the characters are far less common than those of the original version yet fit the phonetic Korean spelling WikiFlier 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow you guys realize that the world journal probably switched over to the new rendition based on wikipedia? They themselves don't cite it. I'm for taking the Hanja off until we get more information. Also note that the world journal's eariler rendition is also the eariler rendition in the zh language wiki.

No, World Journal was first, I cited them in my original amendment. Please do not delete the hanja unless you have BETTER information. The information we have now is good (1) based on the timeline (see above, and also check the revision history); (2) comports with the phonetic spelling; (3) uses relatively rare characters that are less likely to have been chosen as "phonetic standins" than the more generic, "Korean-sounding" 趙承熙. (The last two characters are "Korean-sounding" to a Chinese reader because they correspond to the "Syng" and "Hee" in the names of former South Korean presidents Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee, respectively. Both characters are commonly seen in Korean given names.) WikiFlier 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Given the situation you describe, the World Journal is more likely than not to be correct; anyway, our threshold is verifiability, not truth, so I don't object to it being reinserted now. But please cite the original article --- right now I do not see any citation from the World Journal in the article, and nor was there one when I removed that information [8]. My comment about "Korean newspapers and not Chinese newspapers" was meant to avoid people searching for information about the case in any random Chinese newspaper and assuming the name they used was correct. As for your statement "Wikipedia does not work based on a single authorized/preferred source rule": we evaluate sources on a case by case basis, and in this case, Chinese papers overseas were publishing stuff that not only doesn't even work in Korean, but also doesn't even sound anything like the original name (e.g. 周水辉 Zhou Shuihui?!??!), so clearly, those papers not reliable in this matter. cab 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cite is back (thank you whoever did this). "Verifiability, not truth" is a better and more concise statement of Wikipedia's ideal. I agree that sources need to be reviewed and weighed on a case by case basis. WikiFlier 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

source: http://china.donga.com/gb/srv/service.php3?biid=2007041937588 (in Chinese)

It is a Korean newspaper and shall be the correct translation.

I have made the change since there are two major Korean newspapers confirmed his Hanja name. Wei Jiang 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This report from Xinhua (China official news agency, in Chinese) also uses 趙承熙. Wei Jiang 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The two cited newspaper articles (Donga and Chosun) are CHINESE TRANSLATIONS of material in English and other languages. They are clearly and admittedly derivative. Accordingly, one should not regard either as adding much authority to the specific rendering of the name. Same point applies in principle to Xinhua which compiles its reports largely from other media sources. None of these sources is remotely conclusive, nor do they collectively add much weight to a particular name version. We are thus still left to piece together the correct version from the sources available. WikiFlier 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the the title that one editor cited has now changed apparently. Instead of "維州理工冷血殺手：韓裔學生曹丞禧", it's now "維州理工冷血殺手：韓裔學生趙承禧". On top of that, 青島日報 (Sing Tao Daily Newspaper), another Chinese newspaper says that his name is neither 曹丞禧 or 趙承禧, but 趙承熙. I'm no expert on Korean names since I'm not Korean, obviously. So I wouldn't know which characters are more likely to be his name. Even if one of the characters are more popular than the other ones, that doesn't mean that there are no chances that the other ones are actually correct. Personally, I think only his parents are the only reliable sources out there, since they chose the name for Cho, and unless someone can contact them and ask them, Cho's Hanja name should be left out.

• • Thanks for the update. I assume you mean 星島日報 (Sing Tao Daily Newspaper). WikiFlier 07:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I meant 星島日報. 青島日報 was a typo. Thanks for correcting!

• Why 曹丞禧? There are a lot more google hits (many of them major sources as well) for 趙承熙 than 曹丞禧.

I suggest removing the Hanja name until someone has first-hand hard evidence. Wikikin 06:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • First, this is not a popular vote, but an attempt at reasoned discussion.

• • The hanja must not be removed based on Wikipedia principles as aptly cited by CaliforniaAliBaba above. The point of Wikipedia is to present the best information available NOW. "Verifiability, not truth". There are reasonable sources for various versions of the name. Given the confusion, one could consider giving alternatives (each with cites), and leaving the choice to readers. By definition, only kanji-literate readers will even care. (But those of us who do read Chinese care greatly.) WikiFlier 07:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason koreans are usually given hanja is the fact that koreans want a meaning behind their name. NOT SO THAT IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO CHINESE. Therefore, a chinese translation of a korean newspaper does not count as a source. And I'll tell you right now, there is NOT one korean news source that know Seung-hui Cho's hanja. REMOVE IT. Secondgen 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you want to create a chinese translation, use the chinese wikipedia not this one. Secondgen 08:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, foreign names from Chinese media source should be treated as translation. Inconsistency is pretty common. Just look at place names and other people's names for examples. Transliteration is also dependent on the dialect base of the media as well. Ex: 聖地牙哥 or 聖迭戈 for San Diego. --Kvasir 09:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They aren't translating San Diego (Spanish) into Chinese. They are translating a Korean name into Korean. Yes, they are using Hanja (Chinese characters), but it is STILL Korean. The best reason, as mentioned before, for not having it is there are a few different Hanja with the same “sound” that can all be the same name. Unless the parents specify which one it is, a birth certificate is available, or something similar; we don’t know. 146.129.249.238 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on name: World Journal reports that 趙承熙 is the "unified" hanja version adopted by the Korean Foreign Ministry. Given this statement and the history of different versions discussed above, it is reasonable to assume that 趙承熙 is NOT the true hanja representation, but rather a lie intended to shield the Cho family (and perhaps by extension all Koreans) from further scrutiny. WikiFlier 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well i wouldn't call it a lie, more like a pseudonym when everyone already knows the hangul representation. I can understand protecting the Cho's by not showing the real hanja which is more exact than hangul. But how does it shield all koreans? Everyone knows by now this guy is a Korean. At whatever rate, it should be worked into the article. Could be under South Korean reaction. 趙承熙 could go into the info box with a footnote saying that it's an assumed name. --Kvasir 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has used a Chinese source to put hanja on the korean version of the page. Not sure what the foot note and reference says, but in the discussion someone listed all the possibilities and combination the hanja could be rendered based on the hangul. http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0:%EC%A1%B0%EC%8A%B9%ED%9D%AC --Kvasir 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun Purchase Date(s) Need Edit

The date(s) listed for the purchase of the gun(s) need to be vetted, and in the meantime, an EDIT needs to be made - at least regarding the section that says the 22cal gun was purchased 'a WEEK prior to the shooting'. Although these are the dates originally reported this am, I have read 3+ news articles that list New Information quoted as being "from Investigators" or "ATF Officials" that now give the dates of the gun purchases as March 13, 2007 for the Glock and ** February (some actually say 'Feb 9') for the 22 cal gun **. I am not registered. Can someone do this please? thx 172.165.109.63 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

SECOND REQUEST. Can someone with EDIT capability please remove the erroneous 'purchased 22cal gun a Week Prior to the killings' statement ..... please? Thx. 172.165.109.63 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

THIRD REQUEST. Sorry, but each time I read it, it grates on my nerves and since I don't have the authority/ability to correct the error .. I need some Help please. It is in the paragraph several sentences below the first mention of the Glock purchase, with no date given, where it says the second gun, the 22, was purchased A WEEK PRIOR TO THE MURDERS. ThxMUCH. 172.165.109.63 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) BeachBlonde

I made an edit...please double check. --HappyCamper 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

         Thank you, HAPPY CAMPER!  I just read it.  Now I can bring it down to the frantic.

Is the source article correct (VA Tech Massacre)? 172.165.109.63 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

I made another edit to update the March 13th date for the Glock. I'm still checking and cross referencing the stuff. --HappyCamper 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks good now. --HappyCamper 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again HAPPY CAMPER. Very much appreciate your help. Cheers - 172.165.109.63 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

I added in the reference to the fact that he did not reveal he'd been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, which would have disqualified him from purchasing the handguns, and that it didn't show up on the background check. Esprix 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Collective Soul

(His favourite song that he listened to over and over.) Evaulator 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the mention that he listened to this song/band at all relevant? I don't think so. Also, no source is listed. 142.161.165.178 02:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the edit... it's all over CNN from an AC interview with the two roommates. I believe it is very valid and very telling of his character/personality (obsessive, etc.). I'm searching for a source right now, but it's very new stuff.... --Carthaginienses 03:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - I'm not sure that the song was Shine - I was watching the interview w/ his roomates, and I remember it was collective soul, but I don't think it was shine...

It was most certainly Shine. 24.141.134.77 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This piece of information should be removed, unless we could connect the fact in the article itself to the massacre. This is Wikipedia: Let's leave the exploitation of this information to the media, the fundamentalists, and the commentators (like what they did b_tching on 3D shooters right after the Columbine incident).

He apparently wrote the lyrics of the song on his dorm room walls in pen or pencil, as reported by his roommates in the interview.

EDIT: On CNN (Larry King I think) they interviewed his roomates. They mentioned that he would play the song "Shine" by Collective Soul at all hours of the day. It would often wake them up at night. In addition, he would also write the words on the walls of their suite. I think the song was dear to him, and that he may have identified with the lyrics.

"Shine"

Give me a word/ Give me a sign/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Lay me on the ground/ Fly me in the sky/ Show me where to look/ Tell me what will I find/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

Love is in the water/ Love is in the air/ Show me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Teach me how to speak/ Teach me how to share/ Teach me where to go/ Tell me will love be there/ Oh, heaven let your light shine down/

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/music/archives/2007/04/collective_soul.php

Section for "Evidence of Premeditation" (and/or "Planning/Advance Planning") -???

Should we add a section titled: "Evidence of Premeditation" or "Evidence of Planning/Advance Planning"?

I think this is a relevant, timely topic that is central to the issues at hand -- ie, what could have been done to prevent/avert this tragedy. It seems clear that the VA Tech President will be taking much heat for decisions made/not made and much gun controversy politics will use this as a platform for their divergent opinions. Evidence of premediation and his efforts towards planning are central to the issue and can be NPOV ... or used as REF in conjunction with the political commentary.

What do you all think? There is SO MUCH evidence coming out with regard to the actions taken by Cho to meticulously plan out this massacre ... I am of the mind that listing it out (the facts, cited) will not only be valuable for reference sourcing, but also for both future legislation/policy/planning AND for emotional catharsis and healing (although the latter should not matter here on wiki ... nonetheless it is true, and it would be an additional kindness). Just looking at the chain of events in cold, hard facts of premeditation would be of scholarly value, as well as the obvious. Anyone want to take it on? 172.165.109.63 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) BeachBlonde

No one is answering yet, so I will start. It could be in a date/timeline format, or just a listing of actions/preparation steps. Perhaps like this:

Fall 2005 - Cho writes the play 'Richard McBeef', a shocking and disturbing account of pedophilia, violence and murder, unnerving both his classmates and teacher. Many students discuss Cho's aberrant behavior and even debate whether or not Cho could be 'one of those School Shooters'. Cho's teacher reports him to the VA Tech Administration.

Fall 2006 - Cho submits additional writings that cause deep concern. Cho's creative writing instructor ends up having to take multiple actions that lead to Cho being removed from the class, being reported to VA Tech Administration, and referred to counseling. Cho's teacher additionally and notably reports him to POLICE OFFICIALS, who respond that UNDER THE LAW, they can do nothing based on PERCEIVED INTENTIONS AND OPINIONS and their hands are tied until Cho takes action or volunteers to seek help. Cho's teacher is so concerned that she risks her own safety and offers to teach Cho 'one on one' in order to keep him under close observation.

2006 - Winter 2007 - Cho stalks several women on campus, takes pictures of females on campus without their permission, and even starts a fire in his dorm.

March - April 2007 - Cho is stopped by police for speeding in two separate incidents.

Feb 9, 2007 - Cho purchases a 22cal gun from a local VA pawnshop.

Mar 13, 2007 - Cho purchases a Glock-19 semi-automatic handgun from a Blacksburg gun shop, along with 2 boxes of what was termed 'practice' ammo.

Apr 9, 2007 - Cho calls in a Bomb Threat to VA Tech campus admin

(?date?) - Cho calls in a second Bomb Threat to campus admin presumably to test campus security response.

Apr 16, 2007 - 5:00am EDT - Cho is seen by dormmate, 'going into the bathroom, dressed in a tshirt and boxer shorts, to put in his contact lenses and complete his morning routine of applying lotion to his face and inserting his contact lenses'. The dormmate reported that Cho was his 'normal silent self - with no expression of emotion of any kind on his face'.

7:15am EDT - Cho is seen and heard arguing with victim #1, Emily (lastname needed), on the 4th floor of her dorm at AJ. When RA 'Stack' Ryan Clark hears the commotion and comes to investigate, he is shot in the neck by Cho, who also leaves Emily dead. Cho exits AJ Dorm with his weapon(s) seemingly without notice. Emily's boyfriend (name needed) was seen exiting AJ dorm and responding police/security focused on him as the primary suspect while Cho quietly slipped back to his own dorm room. Emily and her boyfriend were known to have been shooting at the practice range the week prior to the killings, which added to the confusion and incorrect suspect identification.

7:30am EDT - 9:00am EDT - While Emily's boyfriend is being detained and questioned by police and campus security, Cho finishes his final preparations. In his dorm room, Cho leaves a long, multi-paged, rambling note, accusing 'others' for causing him to assassinate the 50+ students and faculty he targeted (ultimately killing 32 and wounding 19). He also prepares for the killing spree by wearing a distinctive 'costume' made up of 2 vests, one of which he used to carry and conceal an arsenal of ammunition. Chains which Cho used to trap the students inside Norris Hall were packed in his backpack, leaving the unused sections behind. Cho then heads out across campus and the drill field to the Engineering Building at Norris Hall.

9:00am EDT - Students report seeing Cho enter Norris Hall. Several students state that Cho 'poked his head into the classroom(s) several times, as if he was looking for someone'. It is unknown at this time if reports that Cho was 'looking for his girlfriend' are accurate, was something untrue - yet believed to be true by Cho in a deluded state, or was part of Cho's ruse to 'case' Norris Hall and further plan and refine his precision attack on the unarmed, unsuspecting students and faculty, who were coming to the close of their first classes of the morning.

....... and so on and so on.

Comments?

BTW, I cannot add to or edit a locked page/stub, so I will need someone else to add this for me please if you feel it is warranted. 172.165.109.63 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

no original research or synthesis, please. THF 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Compiling a timeline itself is not original research; creating one & calling it something else would likely lead to a heated discussion & an edit war for various reasons -- accusations of original research, NPOV, unneeded detail, are some that come to mind. As for intent/motivation, having read as much as I could stand of one of Cho's plays, & having listened to the materials he mailed to NBC, has any qualified mental health professional attempted to explain why he was pathologically/obsessively angry? Without, IMHO, reprinting any of his writings is just a troubling exercise of voyeurism. -- llywrch 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Premeditation" is a legal term with a very specific meaning and its use should be avoided here; it refers to a particular aspect of an accused's mental state, one of the elements of a crime that must be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Mr. Cho is deceased, he may never be formally accused, tried or convicted of any crime that may have occurred on April 16, 2007, and therefore "premeditation" is irrelevant and possibly misleading. However, a section that sets forth, in narrative form, the known facts (with proper citations) that reasonably suggest that these events were planned, or part of some behavioral scheme, would be advisable. A distinction needs to be drawn between evidence of planning and that of motive. In my opinion, any timeline should be in a separate section, or shown in graphic form or better yet, left out altogether. pointlessforest 19:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If "McBeef" proves that Cho was premeditating murder, then what does Hamlet say about Shakespeare? What does any work of Alfred Hitchcock say about him? Edison 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Imaginary Girlfriend

According to an AC interview on CNN, Cho had an imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who referred to him as "Spanky." I added it to the article, but it was reverted.... Did anyone else hear this on CNN and can corroborate? I haven't found a source yet.... -- Carthaginienses 3:51 AM, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was in a CNN interview and is completely valid. His former roommates speak of the time he told them about his imaginary girlfriend and the names (Jelly/Spanky) are accurate. ~ Rollo44 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable published source for this. THF 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I can, I will repost it. I can definitely understand why a source would be needed given the nature of the information.... -- Carthaginienses 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the transcript of the interview, so I've reposted it. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/17/acd.01.html --Carthaginienses 15:31, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

• You should include the part when the roommates said that they drank a few beers first, as it is stated in the transcript. Let the reader decide for himself if Cho was serious or not. Thank you. Secondgen 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's been added. Carthaginienses 16:51, 18 April, 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly "jelly"=KY Jelly, "Spanky" = the masturbation he would do to himself with the KY Jelly.. that's all

It was a Joke! So because the two roommates didn't know Cho was just joking, they thought he really had an imaginary friend, they shunned him and ignored him from that day on? I am now wondering what would have happened if they had a sense of humour. Diamonddavej 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving page, renaming article

I have changed Cho's name throughout the article to the American given/surname order, and will be moving the article to Seung-hui Cho, leaving Cho Seung-hui as a redirect, unless anyone objects. --Dynaflow 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. His name is Cho Seung-hui. — coelacan — 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object - The news sources (except ABC News) all use Cho Seung-hui, as he is a South Korean citizen. WhisperToMe 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki articles about Japan have a policy for this. Born prior to 1868, [Last name] [First name]. Born after, [First name] [Last name]. I imagine there's probably also a standard set for Korean people. Cho Seung-hui seems to be the way to go, a la Kim Jong-il.

See the discussion of it here. — Emiellaiendiay 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Class Level, 300 or 3000

near the end it should be 300 level not 3000, right? 70.20.232.243 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is 300, since most universities use that system of class notation. Additionally, under the behavior section, it is referenced as 300. --Notmyhandle 04:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I second. 300 is the correct level for VA Tech. The 'thousand-place' levels are used at the University of Florida (my alma mater) and some other schools, but not this one. I cannot edit. Someone will have to make this change please. Thx 172.165.109.63 04:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

Can someone link to this system i've never seen it before (Gnevin 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

Instead of the number system which possibly mean nothing to some readers, why not say, third year level or something like that. --Kvasir 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I, someone not attending VT, have no idea what the 300 means. Darrik2 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbering system is used in pretty much any college across the nation. 100 level classes are generally freshman-level classes, while 200 level classes are generally for sophomores. 300 level classes would then be for juniors. However, Virginia Tech does use the thousands in their class numbering system; To be honest, I do not know why they use it but they definitely use 3000 instead of 300. Macraw83 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

his sister

why do we need to have his sister's name in the article? I removed it. Janviermichelle 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I worry for her (safety et al). she is a Princeton grad with a US Govt contract job (with security clearance) at McNeil (great job, likely stellar resume/cv) .... and has clearly worked hard to get a plum position. Her brother's actions (not her own) may well destroy her life. Seung should NOT have the opportunity to claim a 33rd life, imho. 172.165.109.63 05:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

JanvierMichelle, I can't believe you. The detail is reported in the press. The fact that he has a sister is notable about him.

Her name has been quoted in press reports - And 172.165.109.63, no. Her name has already been leaked to the press. WhisperToMe 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was implying that sad fact in my comment (how else would I have known all that private info), however, we don't need to WIKI her ... reminding the entire Planet Earth of her name and personal details. People will forget one day and those FEW News articles will disappear in the massive media blitz and the next 'big 24 hour news break'. So we should NOT be irresponsible and it ought to be REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. 172.165.109.63 05:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

We don't bother with fake "morals" - The press has already leaked her name, so the damage is done - Bleachblonde, I would wager to say lying is a stinging, painful offense, isn't it? Then - Not mentioning her name would be lying. WhisperToMe 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't agree with you. we don't need to wiki her. Janviermichelle 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Janvier, you need to explain why. Why? Why "we don't need to wiki her." WhisperToMe 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gates and Neil Armstrong mention such names, so, why can't Cho? WhisperToMe 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

they are not spree killers. try to be in her shoes. Janviermichelle 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Janvier, we have to be cold-blooded to make a real good encyclopedia article. We refrain from using "tragedy," "tragic," "horrible," etc. Let the reader decide if it is horrible! The press has already leaked her name, so trying to cover it is essentially lying to the people of the world. At any rate, Janvier, she will probably be interviewed and will add some insight into the incident. WhisperToMe 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. --Hemlock Martinis 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The text here is written mainly about article deletion - It warns that people should take caution when using "precedent" reasons. Now, I would wager to say that Bill Gates and Armstrong have fairly well-patrolled and monitored articles. The articles, representative of optimal biographical articles, keep the references. WhisperToMe 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but propagating something because it exists elsewhere is the heart of the argument itself. Your examples of Gates and Armstrong are hardly fair comparisons to a school shooter. --Hemlock Martinis 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I find them very much fair comparisons: The heart of this: All three are world-famous public figures. All three became well-known throughout the international media and press. For that matter, I wrote Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - References to names of parents and siblings stayed too. WhisperToMe 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, walking on the moon and founding Microsoft are not the same as a college killing spree. Second, there's a difference between including family members in the article of a famous person and including family members in the article of an infamous person. For what it's worth, I feel that many family member listings in your Columbine perpetrators page are not relevant to the article, but that's a debate for that article. --Hemlock Martinis 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Second, there's a difference between including family members in the article of a famous person and including family members in the article of an infamous person." - That's a value judgement, Hemlock. I pretend that I have no values and morals when I edit the Wiki. We all should. Strip away the values, and the core is the same. WhisperToMe 06:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't all be heartless like that, Whisper. There remains no good reason to include a relative's name unless it improves the article. --Hemlock Martinis 06:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, it's one thing to include a name of a relative that has not been reported in the media (of course, that would be swatted down by WP:Original research) - But, in her case, her name has already been leaked by ABC News, therefore the information is verifiable. Wikipedia reports information and does not judge on values. WhisperToMe 06:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ABC News reports that he has a sister. Ok, great. Why is that important? --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It fills holes left by the biography we have now. Right now we mention that he immigrated from South Korea and lived in Virginia with his parents, who worked in a dry cleaning shop. We have a lot of details about his home life here, Hemlock. We are not told about what siblings he has! That one detail will plug that hole in. WhisperToMe 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. In that case, it'd be ok to say he has a sister, but unless she has something substantial to add to the article, her name doesn't need to be used. --Hemlock Martinis 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I will keep her nameless for the moment :) WhisperToMe 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Who are we to decide what to hide. In my quest to know more about this person, I'd like to know the complete bio of his sister and parents.

The catch is that - If the news media does not sketch detailed bios of the parents, including bios on here, even if they are true, would be WP:Original research, which is not allowed on WP. WhisperToMe 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WHISPER: I agree that lying is an offense (both by ommission and by direct falsehood) however, we as sinful human beings are ALL GUILTY OF IT and that does not allow any excuse or relief from condemnation (hence why we need a savior, but I will save the obvious and avoid hyperbole). By your own account, WIKI AND the MSM are Fatally Flawed since the names of Cho's parents are not included (as they have been reported - I know BOTH of their Full Names AND the name of their business AND their full address and phone numbers). This info has either been deleted or not reported/added (their names, etc.) and WELL it SHOULD NOT. By all means, state that Cho had a sister/sibling -- even say she is a Princeton alumna, but DO NOT link her name to INfAMOUS Notariety by linking her one and ONLY Name to the all time worst spree killer in the US, her brother. It is not for us to ruin her life and although WIKI must be NROP, cruelty doesn't apply and we must be responsible. In a court of law, the sister could SUE WIKI for publishing and linking her name to a CRIME she did NOT commit ... for example, if she loses/lost her (amazing, hard won) job and can show cause ... bye bye WIKI Funds. 172.165.109.63 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

• She would sue ABC News first, since they said it first. WhisperToMe 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Likely not, as plenty of legal precedent for suing WIKI separately/individually as well as collectively, being that WIKI is a new form of WORLDWIDE electronic media that is designed to be a PERMANENT REPOSITORY for REFERENCE material, scholarly access, and informational purposes and it puts her name/identity out to a MUCH larger/wider audience for a SIGNIFICANTLY longer period of time (infinite vs. finite). Sorry, but you cannot win regarding the legal precedent for this. 172.165.109.63 06:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)BeachBlonde

• • Firstly, she could sue anyone who published it. There is AFAIK no requirement for her to sue anyone 'first'. Whether she would win or not I don't know. But being sued should not be our only concern as WP:BLP has moral concerns as well Nil Einne 09:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A link to a story about his sister has been added, and although less blatent than directly stating her name, it still seems like a violation of her privacy. Her name is not relevent, and has the potential to inflict emense consequences on an innocent person. Anyone who doesnt beleive that there are people crazy enough to pose a threat to someone who has done nothing wrong hasnt been following what they're editing. I would like to request that any references to any articles that are so tasteless and vulturelike as to give his sister's name and place of employment be deleted. We may have a responsibility as editors to present the facts, but we have a responsibility as humans to not make the lives of the people affected by this tragidy any harder then they already are. And I do not see how not including her biography, or any links to it detracts from the article in any way. I'd delete it myself but I'm new, and therefore blocked from editing. Sierrarose23 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It has no place on this Article. Let the Paper get sued. Not the Wikipedia. His Sister has NOTHING to do with this. Isn't it hard enough knowing not only your brothers dead but he did this? WillSWC 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By my lack of an actual username, I imagine all will realize that I'm by no means an established community member. As such, I'm certainly not familiar with Wikipedia protocol pertinent to such situations. That said, I do have to admit that I concur with those offering a humanitarian criticism regarding the inclusion of her name in this article, and feel compelled to weigh in - for whatever it's worth, most likely nothing.

To those arguing that her identity is crucial to his bibliographic entry, I partially agree. The fact that he does have an older, arguably very successful sibling may be pertinent, and merits inclusion. I don't believe that her name, however, contributes anything of significance. Considering the potential ramifications of directly identifying her, I feel very strongly that her name should continue to be omitted. Of course, as this is a very recent, naturally ongoing event, things may unfold in such a way that her identification is necessary. From the presently available materials, however, nothing indicates that it contributes much of interest or relevance to the understanding of her brother's motives or mental state.

Though I forget where exactly I viewed it, one article or video that I caught described her as "palpably distraught" when contacted for interviews. This woman has done nothing wrong, and unless the ensuing proceedings indicate it necessary, I have to say I don't believe that her name should be avoidably tarnished.

Again, since I'm not an official member, please take these comments with a grain of salt. They're just the thoughts of a guy who isn't really all that familiar with Wiki policies...

Thanks for your time in reading this, and hopefully your consideration...

Her name and place of work have been re added. Could someone with edit ability please remove it? the "he has a sister who attends an Ivy League university" line that was previously in the article seemed to work quite well, simultaniously protecting her identity, and giving the information that was relevent to this article (ie that his sister is successful.) It is downright irresponsible of us to give the amount of detail about her that is currently present in this article. Sierrarose23 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

also, the degree of detail on where his parents live seems slightly excessive. Simply stating the town and county would be more appropriate. Sorry to be a stickler about this, but regardless of this being an encyclopedia, we are individual humans with a responsibility to not inflict unneccisary and pointless harm on innocent people, and there are a lot of nutcases out there who WILL herass the family. They have enough s**t to deal with. Sierrarose23 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I logged in (something I swore I wouldn't do again) to re-take the sister's name out. Unless there is a CLEAR and DIRECT connection between the sister and her brother's aberrant behavior THE SISTER'S NAME MUST BE LEFT OUT. She is not a part of this tragedy. Ninodeluz 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

I beg to differ. This is a (however short) biographical article about a person. In any biography I have ever seen, it includes a full background, which includes where and when he was raised and other family members. I believe that it is not the place of wikipedia to show bias toward anything by leaving out any of the facts. If he had a sister, report that he had a sister. If the sister had no bearing on the events that took place on the 16th, then make references to this and state it as well. Just because the sister did not directly affect his behavior does not mean that it is imperative that wikipedia completely disregards her existence. I will wait for a response until this time tomorrow before putting her name back in, because it is pointless to have an edit war over something like this. Macraw83 14:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One more quick note: she is just as much of this tragedy as any other family who lost a member in Blacksburg on the 16th. That family might be even more a part because they are mourning the fact that one of their own family members had turned sour enough to pull such a large stunt. Macraw83 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem stating that he had a sister. There is a very large problem telling people what her name is as knowing her name bears exactly no relevance to the subject at hand. Ninodeluz 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

Can someone tell me exactly why the name is irrelevant? It is a biography; biographies tell the background of the individual, and the background includes where he grew up and the people he grew up with. While the names of the sister and parents should not be placed prominently in the article, they should at least be mentioned. Again, wikipedia is not a place for biased opinions; we are supposed to put the entire story into the article. The article is about the person, not the event, so it should include personal facts about the person. Macraw83 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE from the Wikipedia page: Thomas Jefferson was born on 13 April 1743 (Gregorian N.S) into a wealthy Virginia family, the third of ten children. His mother was Jane Randolph, daughter of Isham Randolph, and a cousin of Peyton Randolph. Jefferson's father was Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor who owned plantations in Albemarle County (Shadwell, then Edge Hill, Virginia.)

Where are the names of his nine siblings? Jefferson is a much more important figure and we don't list his siblings' names. There is NO reason beyond purience to list the name of Cho's sister. Ninodeluz 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC) NIN

The main reason that the nine siblings are left unnamed is because it would become very repetitive. There are nine names of limited importance. However, in this situation, there is only one sibling; it would not become repetitive to place her name in the article. Also, the analogy cannot be used in its entirety because nobody in Cho's family is listed, as many of Jefferson's are. This is probably because of lack of information at this early date, but it is still an ommission that negates the analogy.

There would be no risk of retaliation against Jefferson's siblings if their names were included. There is a risk with Cho's sister. We have a legal responsibility, as well as a humanitarian one, to not include her name as long as the risk to her outweighs the rather negligable benefit to including her name in the article. If she comes public with some sort of important statement, or goes out and seeks out the victims families and bonds with them or some such, then by all means add her name, but as it is it doesnt seem neccisary, and the consequences could be quite substantial. Kindof like in a child molestation case you wouldnt add the name of the victim. Yes, it's pertinent, but do you add it? no, because it's a) making their lives harder, and b) possibly has legal ramifications. that said, what is currently in the article (that he has a sister who went to princeton, and works for the state department) seems appropriately vague, while getting across the pertinent info (that she's successful). Sierrarose23 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sierrarose. Including the sister's name does not add any value to the article. The fact he has a sister is interesting, but releasing her identity does not make the article anymore useful to a reader. The one exception to this is that it allows the reader to look up his sister, find her personal information on the Internet, discover where she lives and what her phone number is, and proceed to harrass her. And that is not a valid justification to include the information in the article. —

Emiellaiendiay 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that noting information about his sister is in line with with encyclopedic standards; you generally only mention a sibling when the sibling is a notable person. I think we should totally remove the info about his sister. Besides--you may all recall that someone kept trying to add the name of the wrong person as the perpetrator on the VA Tech massacre page--at one point the poor guy's address was even listed. Thankfully, these things were deleted, but I'm sure this guy was harassed anyway just because he had a Korean surname. Efrafra 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

from what im reading, you people think that his sister's name should be there because it's 'lying' if it isnt. well then, what does his sister have to do with any of this? based on this logic, are you saying that we should then put up his whole family tree including his father, mother, relatives, etc, on this page for everyone to see? remove his sister's name, most importantly to protect the family's safety and also because i do not see what his sister has to do with an article on himself. - Howe Law, 21 April 2007

a mass murderer?

Is it necessary to keep this sensational tone in the Wikipedia, apparently so concerned with acuracy, approprietness of presented materials? I find it sickening to see, just days after the whole tragedy, this new Wikipedia page eagerly labelled "mass murderer". Anybody interested in exploring deeper than 1/4 inch under the surface? Plus the respect for the family and the dead killer himself (a human being after all...). I am aware my words might sound strange, nevertheless if Wikipedia strives to become a respectable source of information, perhaps it could apply its severe editing policies where is needed.--Traveler273 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming order POLL (again!)

Cho Seung-Hui was a Korean citizen not an American citizen. Among Asians, in the US both the Asian (Korean and Chinese) order of family name is used and the Americanized way. Usually the order becomes Americanized due to the way that the forms are set up. The family name is important and people are generally called by Mr. Cho (Cho sonsangnim) with the first name rarely being used. It is not wrong to use the Asian order because he was STILL a Korean citizen as were his family members. Only the sister used the Americanized order. I can appreciate that Asians want to minimize his "Asianess" because it is embarassing to them. However, the fact remains that he was Asian. Probably some of the difficulty he had was BECAUSE he was Asian and did not fit in with his peers. His older sister, because she was older and a girl had less difficulty. I STRONGLY feel that the order should be Cho Seung-Hui. It becomes very confusing to read an article when there are two versions of the names. If the aunt, mother, father, etc. are listed in the Asian way (especially those still IN Korea MUST be listed this way) then for continuity in the article, the name should be KEPT in the Asian way.Cherylyoung 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This had been discussed to death. You're beating a dead horse. DHN 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will support the request if we can also have the Teodor Kaczynski and Ricardo Ramirez articles renamed to make them seem foreign and comfort ourselves that no American, after all, could do anything so heinous.--Dynaflow 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Seung-Hui Cho. Read my comment above for my rationale. Remember, this is not a majority vote, but rather a poll to determine a consensus of opinion. --Ali 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho: Regardless of the initial reporting, this ordering is prefered by the family and media now - it's a no-brainer. Scepia 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. Agree no-brainer, family and Cho himself use this name, it is the name on official documents such as drivers license and school records, major U.S. media are apparently switching to this version as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Again, Seung-hui Cho is the proper (and legal) name order for this particular de facto Korean American. Wikipedia is about accuracy, not news media precedent. --Dynaflow 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. He and his family consistently used the Americanized version, and it's been established above that several major media outlets are making the switch, so Wikipedia should as well. -Big Smooth 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho, because the media switched. WhisperToMe 06:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. If that's what those closest to him called him, then that's what the article should be. I support the move (and changing all references in assorted articles to reflect the change). Valadius 06:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. It's what he used (that or "Seung Cho"), it's the order his sister uses. --zenohockey 06:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seng-hui Cho, and it should have always been so. The press, sans NPR, LA Times, and ABC News, finally realized how ridiculous they were. DHN 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You may wish to see this Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2164659/?nav=fix WhisperToMe 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho He had lived in U.S from his childhood and everyone around him had called him Seung-hui Cho. Also Cho himself put his surname last. He was in the progress of being an Ameican citizen and lived in American culture like many Americans.--2SteamClocks 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. The family stated what they use and the American news media has switched over to reporting him as Seung-Hui Cho. ------S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 07:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho, now that there's evidence that that's what he used, and especially since the media has switched over, it seems likely that in the future this is the name he'll most commonly have been known by. Bueller 007 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-hui Cho - if the family uses this order and the media have switched over, it's just simply more likely to stick. autocratique ✩ 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Seung-Hui Cho. Which ordering did his family use? His friends? Himself? Italiavivi 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• This poll's results seem to be anonymous, and the name on the page has already been changed, so I'm using this "editprotected" template to request that an administrator move this semi-protected page to "Seung-hui Cho", and redirect "Cho Seung-hui" to there. Bueller 007 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Capital H or lower case H? It should be capital, right? --BigDT (416) 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Capital H seems to be the correct way to go, based on what media outlets are using.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

• • • Done as requested. Please help with the 2x redirects. --BigDT (416) 17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hikikomori

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

I agree with you, but it seems original research. It appears most likely, I read peer review, that hikikomori is a culture specific expression of various socially disabling disorders e.g. autism, asperger’s syndrome, social phobia, avoidant personality disorder, schizophrenia etc. Greater social pressures to succeed with feelings of shame due to failure, worsens the socially disabled persons condition and greatly exaggerates social withdrawal. With hikikomori in mind, read work of R.D. Laing. Diamonddavej 04:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

South Korean dramatists and playwrights

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

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

Removed. Proserpine 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proserpine, of course he's a notable playwright! I can't believe you would say something like that! Haven't you noticed the controversy over his two plays, Mr. Brownstone and Richard McBeef? They are famous BECAUSE of the incident. WhisperToMe 15:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, those plays aren't Famous, they are Infamous. There's a difference. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, he became infamous for his mass murder, not his playwright. We find out later he wrote half-assed plays. That doesn't make him a notable playwright. Secondgen 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing a play for a class does not automatically make you a "playwright". WooHoo... I am a scientist, because once, I put baking soda and vinegar in a volcano shaped thing to show a chemical reaction... I do believe I'll add that little tidbit to my resume. --Ali'i 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 = "Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays "
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18155081/ = "Suspect’s writing ‘macabre, twisted’"
• These two sources = Cho is now known for his writing

WhisperToMe 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am willing to beat it more, Ali'i. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1 = "Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays" - Rather notable, isn't it? WhisperToMe 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If this guy is a "notable playwright", then Hitler is a "notable watercolour painter". Bueller 007 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate to do this to you WhisperToMe, but sometimes a dead horse does need beating :)

  Main Entry: 1no·ta·ble  
  Pronunciation: 'nO-t&-b&l, for 2 also 'nä-
  Function: adjective
  1 a : worthy of note : REMARKABLE b : DISTINGUISHED, PROMINENT

  As you can see, he is not notable at all in the discussion of playwright. Secondgen 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course he is - He's notable because all of his teachers read it and said "Man, this guy needs mental help" - He is distinguished in the sense that his plays were found to be disturbing and representative of his personality. WhisperToMe 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous things I've ever seen, really. Come on. This is not the reason he's famous. One might call his "plays" notable, but he himself is not notable AS A PLAYWRIGHT. Bueller 007 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like an explanation on how someone's plays can be notable but someone cannot be notable as the author of the said plays. Is it because no professional play publisher (yet) published them? Is it because nobody tried to stage the plays? WhisperToMe 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's because nobody gives two craps about his plays. He's a mass murderer. He gains ABSOLUTELY NO FAME OR NOTABILITY WHATSOEVER for being the author of those plays, and had it not been for the mass murder itself, nobody would ever have known about them. Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now. He is infamous for being a murderer, he is not "notable" as being a playwright. Bueller 007 17:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing remarkable, distinguishing, prominent, and worthy of his play. He has not impacted society with his writing. Don't confuse a person's emotion to what actually happened. So I find the play to not be anywhere near morbid as what is readily available today. Even so, it doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is, society has not distinguished him as a playwright. And they never will. Secondgen 17:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Society will find him as a screwed up person who created morbid plays from his "fertile" and crazy mind. But, enough about that.

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

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

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

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

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

WhisperToMe 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MORBID CURIOSITY. And it's YOU who's missing the point. The most important thing I said was "Had the plays not existed, he would be just as notorious as he is now." He is NOT notable as a playwright, and I'm done having this goddamn argument. Note that all of your arguments are arguing for the notability of the plays, not his notability as a playwright. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME. Bueller 007 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bueller 007, I refuse to give in; I refuse to follow fake "morality" and I refuse to accept your rationale. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting him into that category makes as much sense as putting George W. Bush into Category:Cheerleaders. I know he was a cheerleader, it's been written about at several places, the article states he was a cheerleader, but he really is not notable for being a cheerleader. - Bobet 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see the news articles about the role of the plays. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Look he did lots of other stuff too, and he is not famous for any of it. He is famous only for murdering 33 people. The plays can be mentioned in the article, but only in the context of the murders. Without the murders, no one would give a darn about the plays, no matter how disturbing they are.70.21.231.66 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so simple -- he is not notable for his plays, hence he doesn't belong in that category. For him to be there you would have to ask "If he was not a mass murderer, would his plays be notable?", and the answer is, no. The Hitler example is perfect, he is not notable for his art even though it is mentioned many times, including here. 67.11.138.50 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• I don't think he should be recorded as a "Notable Playwright". He wrote a few distrubing plays. And it's people of the "YouTube" generation, who are watching these fucked up plays that are giving this screwed up person the fame (And I use FAME, not INFAMEY) that he does not diserve. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Norfolk, I hate Cho with all of my heart and I wish he was captured so he would be held accountable for his actions. Anyway, though, on WP we are supposed to be cold blooded. We do not use "tragedy" and "tragic" - We do not go into memorial mode... WhisperToMe 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hardly the point I'm making. He was never FAMOUS for being a Notable Playwright, and I honestly doubt he will ever be recorded as such. He is however, INFAMOUS, for killing all those people. However, if he ever does become a Notable playwright, does he earn that status after just 4 days of his plays being known internationally? I'm sure Shakespeare wasn't known as such so quickly. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm beginning to see both sides here. We don't refer to Adolf Hitler as a painter, even though they've uncovered some of his mediocre paintings. Seung Cho's writings were turned in as artifacts to maybe provide some answers about why he murdered so many people. Thousands of comments on AOL about the 2 plays included some that looked at their creative merits. And then there's the multimedia package he sent to NBC, which could be considered high-impact performance art, completely in sync with today's broadcast-yourself culture. I'm really trying to see both sides of the argument here, guys, but still Seung Cho comes across to me more as a terrorist and like all good terrorists was out to create a spectacle. I don't think he qualifies as a playwright because he wasn't making a living at it, wasn't trying to, wasn't trying to get published, never described himself as a playwright, was never recognized as one. I think it is completely correct to instead refer to him as a "student."

Which arm?

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

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

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

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

Nubbles 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Although speculation, the anagram of Ismail Ax is "Mix Alias". Might have more meaning to someone who know Cho, or might not mean anything at all...

Also, I consider it likely he was right handed. In the photos, he held the Glock in his right hand. The Glock has stronger recoil, which is why he would use his right hand to fire.

Not much to go by, methinks. Personally I'd think that he'd use one pistol at a time. Recoil can be quite shocking for someone unprepared. Plus reloading both pistols at one time is quite a hassle. However, this topic isn't really for me to speculate on. Pzychotix 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Attributed Writings

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

Anyone care to weigh in on this, or should I just edit as I see fit?Bentobias 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit as you see fit. It's good as it stands. We all have "attributed writings" and his are revealing. ~ Rollo44 03:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His writings are relevant to why he did the massacre. Christopher Connor 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

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

I heard he's a Christian.

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

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

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

Well, in light of the recently released monologues, I would say that his religious beliefs are central. Also, I believe one of the released photos has him in a Jesus Christ Pose, although drawing that conclusion in the article would probably be considered OR. (Note that I don't think he himself was referencing Soundgarden. I just thought the context was pretty ironic, and hyperlinking is what the cool kids do.) :) -Etafly 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh you don't have to be Muslim to be referencing a figure in Islam. Many people tattoo Chinese characters, many of them don't even know how to say those words. --Kvasir 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Quoting Osama Bin Laden would hardly make one a Muslim. He repeatedly refers to Jesus Christ, never once referring to Allah. As Malamockq says below, it's leaning towards Christianity. I hardly see why you're insisting that he's Muslim, unless you're trying to put forth the argument that his suicide attack defaults him as a Muslim. Also, your link is dead. -Etafly 06:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in his mailed material shown on MSNBC's website to indicate he is Muslim. To the contrary, he seems to compare society, and his emotional suffering due to it, as a terrorism like that perpetrated by Osama. He actually says "Now you have gone on a 9/11 like BLANKED Osama". I know there are many in the extreme blogging media that would love to paint as Islamic angle to this, but there simply is no evidence of it. In fact, everything points to a confused young man who had a distaste for religion in general. Padishah5000 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Korean Americans |

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

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

we had this talk yesterday and today (look in the archive). refer to [[9]] to see that the tag 'American' does not mean citizen of America. Also see [[10]] to note that the category includes those who immigrated from Korea. Harlock jds 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's misleading, not correct. The word Korean-American refers to American citizens, not inhabitants, whether or not "American" in isolation can possibly mean "inhabitant". And he wasn't an "immigrant", he was an alien resident. There's already a category of "Korean immigrants to the United States" applied to him, and so "Korean American" according to your (wrong) interpretation would be identical. So I've removed it. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yes he was a immagrent he had a green card and was a perm resident. also see (see [[11]] for another example of 'American' having nothing to do with citizenship. (unsigned)

Fine, we'll just stick disputed on it then. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to add Asian American since that definition (and article) makes it clear that it includes non citizens (BTW if Korean American did refer to citizenship the category shouldn't exist because someone can not really be a citizen of both countries since Korea doesn't recognize dual citizenship, nor should Japanese American and many others)Harlock jds 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The second word indicates *nationality* and the first word indicates *ethnicity*. He was not an American national. He was not an American. Bueller 007 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

that's personal opinion... the consciences seems to be (on wikipedia at least) that Asian American includes non citizens (as does the word 'American') please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian-American and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/American Harlock jds 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly am I supposed to be looking for here? The first page says "A Korean American is an American of Korean descent." The second says "A person or attribute of the United States of America." We have no proof that Cho ever thought of himself as an American, we have no proof that he is accepted as a "Korean American" by the Korean-American community at large. I've not seen a single major media outlet call him a "Korean American". But that's irrelevant, because calling him an "American" goes against the common dictionary definitions.

Mirriam Webster: "a citizen of the United States"

Oxford: "a native or citizen of the United States" Bueller 007 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition " A U.S. citizen or resident of Asian descent"

Follow the link to Amerasian and see "Asian American is typically used of a person whose parents are both ethnic Asians but who by birth or naturalization is an American citizen" Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change how they define Asian AmericanHarlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

YES, IT DOES. That's why they have a "See Amerasian for usage" link on the Asian American page. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Public Health ""Asian American" is a general term for Asians and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) living in the United States."

No. This would include illegal immigrants and persons on short-stay visas. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yes it would... your point (short stay is debatable since live usually means permently resides but i'd include illegals)?Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the definition is ridiculous and obviously far too broad in scope because it includes people who are clearly not Americans: illegal immigrants, and people who are permitted to live there for no more than a couple of years. Bueller 007 13:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

since other sources seem to disagree about the subject i think we have to stick with wikipedia's definitions (since this is wikipedia and all) which clearly takes citizenship out of the category. Once those are changed then we can remove it from here but until then he fits. However i'll let someone else add it, if i'm in the minority here then i'll go with the crowd. Harlock jds 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, and second, as far as I know, there has not been A SINGLE REFERENCE to him in the mass media as a "Korean American" or "Asian American". I shouldn't be the one to have to prove your claims wrong, you should be the one to prove yourself right. Please find at least two independent mainstream media references that refer to him as "American". A dictionary that actually supports what you claim wouldn't hurt either. Finally, if this thread is any indication, it would appear that you have already lost the public-opinion battle for defining him as an American. Bueller 007 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't consider 2 people disagreeing as 'lost the public-opinion battle'. as for citation I'm pretty sure that categorization don't need cites (and i don't care what the media calls him they have to pander to people like yourself who get upset when perment residents are considered Americans)Harlock jds 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"2 people disagreeing" is not what I was referring to. I estimated that most of the people who have been posting on the talk page about this topic have been AGAINST the use of the term "American". Hence "public opinion". And you may not *HAVE TO* cite a categorization, but you should certainly be able to prove its relevance/appropriateness. If one wants to label him a "Korean-American" there should be at least a SHRED of evidence that the term is in fact appropriate, and this label has been used before, either by him, his family, the Korean-American community or the American community at large. You have shown none of these. (BTW, I love how you use suggest that the media would need to "pander to me" without you even knowing me, my convictions or my motivations.) Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

With the one minor exception of him not being American. American is NOT an ethnicity, it's a NATIONALITY and one gains nationality by being a citizen of a particular country. Cho was not a United States citizen and not an American or a Korean-American. Korean-American is NOT "a term for an ethnic minority" it's a term for a United States citizen with Korean heritage. "Korean" is an ethnic term, "American" is not (unless dealing with Native Americans). 202.128.1.120 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are misinformed on what an ethnic group is and confusing it with race. Please read the article or an anthropology textbook. If there is such a thing as "American culture" then, because there is a community based around that culture, there is an etnic group. But the issue is Korean-American. And no one gains Korean-American nationality. It's an ethnic term. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings on your part. Thank you. --Chris 06:23, 19 April 2007

I’ve read plenty of anthropology books in college and there is no misunderstanding on my part. You are confusing ethnic group with nationality. He is not an American, culturally or otherwise and your insistence to the contrary is what is causing undue misunderstanding. 202.128.1.120 06:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The person to whom you are responding is correct in every way. How can you say "he is not an American, culturally or otherwise"? What about him isn't American, or more specifically Korean American? Who gets to define who is "culturally" American? Can someone live in the U.S. from the age of 8 to 23 without cessation, during the years in which one absorbs a culture, attending public schools, and not be culturally American? Does "culturally American" look only one specific way? On what are you basing your assertions? All of your "arguments" are of the "It's true because I say so" variety, without any nuance or examples to back up your claims. Moncrief 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You’ve just basically summed up my argument for me. My original point was that the whole cultural assimilation criteria are pointless to use because no one can universally define it and it is too subjective. What I call fully Americanized might not be remotely Americanized to someone else. Therefore the only definite measure that is indisputable should be citizenship. My wife is a naturalized American, and after 10 years of being a Green Card holder, she decided herself to fill out and submit a bunch of the paperwork, study like crazy, meet the necessary requirements, pay the fees, take the test, pass the test, stand before a United States Federal District Judge and swear an oath before God that she renounces her loyalty to her home country and swears allegiance to the United States of America. SHE is an American. But every day before she took that oath she was NOT an American even if she may have happened to meet your personal requirements to be called such. There is a way for immigrants to become Americans if they choose. Cho decided not to although he could have. He is NOT an American because he’s met your personal criteria for having hung around the country long enough and speaking enough English. 202.128.1.120 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I understand your concept of "Cultural Nuance" but an encyclopedia is no place for "maybes," "could be’s," or "some people might see it this way." It's a place for facts and the fact is, without nuance, Cho was not American. And it's not that way because I say so, the law says so, and a Federal District Court Judge has the say so, not you. You are the one trying to claim he is American because YOU say so, because he's met your requirements to be called an American and in YOUR nuanced reasoning he is. I say, the law should decide who is an American, and Naturalization law is quite clear. It's not my rules I'm using but Uncle Sam's rules.

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

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

Sigh. He absolutely *DID NOT* have all the rights afforded to an American citizen. "Permanent legal resident" status can be revoked if one commits a crime, for example. That can mean DEPORTATION TO ONE'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Were he to return to SK during his mandatory military service years, he would be drafted into the armed forces, and the American government would have no right to complain or intervene on his behalf. He carried a Korean passport, representing himself as a Korean all over the world. In the eyes of any foreign nation, he would be a Korean, subject to visa restrictions that apply to Koreans, not Americans.

BTW, a child born in America in the fashion you suggest would ABSOLUTELY be an American, unless he chose to renounce his citizenship. (Koreans are not permitted to hold dual citizenship, and are forced to renounce one of their citizenships by the age of 21). Bueller 007 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this is a real impasse, and we'll have to get outside arbitrators to settle it. Those of you who see "American" in the case of a phrase like "Korean American" as meaning "U.S. citizen" do not seem to understand that such a phrase is a cultural, nuanced term. That you'd believe that a 20-year-old kid who was born in the U.S. but had lived from the age of one month in Korea never to leave, not speaking any English and without any of the cultural influences an American raised in the U.S. has is a Korean American while someone raised in the U.S. who we have no reason to believe has even been back to Korea since the age of 8 is not a Korean American shows that there really isn't too much point in continuing dialogue. You have a radically different sense of the what such a term means, which is not the way most people understand such a term. I'll put this on Requests for Comment/Arbitration when I get a chance. Moncrief 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the absolute dearth of labelling Cho "Korean American" within the media--and even within the realm of lay conversation from what I can tell--I would hardly say that I am in the minority in my viewpoint. Bueller 007 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that? See [12] (Reuters). Here's an example of an article using "Korean American" to describe those who, like Cho's parents, emigrated as adults: [13] (S.F. Chronicle). You can do a Google News search on "Cho" and "Korean American" and see just how many articles come up: too many to go through now for me. Moncrief 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure of that. 1) You're looking at an old copy of the Reuters story. It has since been updated and the Korean-American reference has been removed.[14] You'll also note that in newer articles, such as this one [15] they refer to him as "a student from Korea". 2) The other article you provided does not once call him "Korean-American." It calls him a "Korean immigrant". Also, it never refers to "people like his parents" as "Korean-American". It merely uses the word without defining it or giving an example. Given their choice of words in referring to Cho as a "Korean immigrant" it seems likely that "Korean-American" means "a Korean with American citizenship". Don't post articles you haven't actually bothered to read. You'll find the VAST majority of hits you're turning up with Google do not label him as "Korean American", they just merely use the two terms together in one article (i.e., the reaction of the "Korean-American" community in response to the killings by the Korean immigrant). Bueller 007 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the San Francisco Chronicle article is: "But local Korean American parents are talking about how they can overcome linguistic, cultural and generational barriers to communicate with their children." Do you think that every Korean American parent covered by that sentence is a U.S. citizen? Do you think "U.S. citizen" was the working definition of "Korean American" for the journalist who wrote that sentence? Are the Korean Americans mentioned in all of the articles that mention Korean Americans U.S. citizens? Is citizenship a prerequisite for joining a group comprised of Korean Americans? Do Korean Americans themselves use citizenship as a prerequisite for owning and using that phrase? You seem to be pretty certain of how that phrase is used without offering up any evidence. Moncrief 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that quote makes no claims whatsoever as to what a Korean American is or isn't. It certainly does not call the killer that. It calls him a "Korean immigrant", which appears to be used to deliberately contrast the killer with "Korean Americans". Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here are two more mainstream media references for you: [16] and [17] Moncrief 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's one from ABC. "Hamptonroads" is hardly a mainstream source. Besides, this issue has already been settled down below. There is a "Korean immigrants to the United States" category that would seem to apply to people just like Cho. Bueller 007 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamptonroads.com is most certainly a mainstream source! LOL! It's the website of one of the largest newspapers in Virginia. What isn't mainstream about it? And I love that you discounted the article below from a major South Korean news agency just because it wasn't "American" (as if sources on Wikipedia need to all originate in the U.S. to be worthwhile). OK then, there's your two. I'll look for more later and put them in the RfC section below. You didn't "refute" any of these. Tell us why hamptonroads.com isn't mainstream, please. Moncrief 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only an impasse until you give it up. Please don't re-add disputed categories. - Nunh-huh 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your solution? Those who disagree with a Wikipedia edit are supposed to "give it up"? I'm speechless. Moncrief 13:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, those who continue to try to add categories that they acknowledge are, at the least, ambiguous, and that they have been informed are misleading, should stop doing so until they have acheived a consensus that favors their addition. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• One who inhabits the USA as a legal resident for the most of his years is an American. Citizenship does not define an American. It is an attribute. The government's job is to protect the American people. Not Americans and its immigrants. Many immigrants are in the military. They are Americans. Simple, if you live and pay taxes in America, YOU ARE AN AMERICAN. Thank you, have a nice day. Secondgen 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Seung-hui, his sister, his father, and his mother are Americans. You say they are Korean citizens, yet they do not abide under the Korean laws. They have abandoned South Korea, their status is left to collect dust in that country. A citizenship status DOES NOT FOLLOW YOU BEYOND ITS BORDERS WHEN SEEKING ANOTHER RESIDENCY. It just means what rights you have when you stay there. They abide under the American laws and support the government through taxes, and providing human labor. They provide nothing for Korea. Thank you, have a nice day.Secondgen 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've lived most of my adult life abroad, and I certainly would never consider myself to be anything but the nationality I was born into and the passport I am required to carry. Your citizenship certainly DOES follow you beyond borders. No matter where he travels on earth, he has to use a KOREAN PASSPORT. That's the very definition of "citizenship beyond borders". And despite all his time in America, the Korean government certainly didn't consider him to be "American", as the second he set foot on Korean soil he would have been drafted into the military, and he would have absolutely no recourse through an American embassy. Just because they have "abandoned their country" doesn't make them any less Koreans or any more Americans in the eyes of the law. Besides, given the fact that they were supposedly poor in their home country, it doesn't seem unlikely that you are wrong in your claim of contributing nothing to Korea. Many Asians move to America and send money back home to their families. I imagine for tight-knit Confucian Koreans, this trend is somewhat strong.

This issue of opinion clearly isn't going to be resolved, which is why he has been added to the "Korean Immigrants to the United States" category. That his is an immigrant is undeniable fact. It's about time that you settle. Bueller 007 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's of no concern to me what category YOU place him in. He is an American who is also an immigrant. The two coincides. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders. You are who you pay homage to. End of discussion.Secondgen 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Stunning logic. Of course, you ignore the fact that he's not an American, and "the rights of a Korean citizen is alien to other borders" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I'll let that slide. End of discussion indeed. Bueller 007 18:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. The rights of a Korean citizen is alien to others. When you enter a new country, you obtain new rights. Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights. Thank you, have a nice day. I will forever not look at this section again. I promise. Secondgen 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you'll never look at this section again. "Citizenship is nothing more than sets of rights that one leaves behind at the border" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Bueller 007 18:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcript of video

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

Behavior and mental health section...

I carefully read thru the mental health form.[18]

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

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

Some jurisdictions have a few other criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree, especially since his "homoeroticism" hasn't been brought up in the media. You can bring it up on the talk page if you wish, but I don't think we should draw that interpretation from that source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The above was a conversation on my talk page, which Uriel8 placed here. The context was that I removed a line he'd added saying "Andy" described "two possibly-homoerotic stalking incidents". I don't think this is a fair interpretation of the source, Andy says nothing about the incidents being homoerotic. Others may disagree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Drawing such a conclusion is both OR and POV. Good work. -Etafly 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a psychologists on CNN spoke extensively on the homoeroticism angle. She seemed to be under the impression that the plays displayed an underlying fear of being gay, and that the self-hatred merged the homoeroticism with violence. She said that the stalking of girls was consistent with this - that it would have been an attempt to prove himself, and consistent with the view that all women are promiscuous (which the self-loathing and gay tendencies would induce) -Lciaccio 15:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DISAGREE STRONGLY with two admins' timidity of taboo subjects, and thank you, Lciaccio, for your thoughts and comments on the plays: It is far from "original research" (OR) to quote a first-hand witness account as suggesting homoeroticism, which it did; nor is it to interject a "point of view" (POV). The reason the media avoids the topic, obscurely, is because homosexuality is still taboo.

Even paranoia, which Cho exhibits, according to recent expert psychiatric opinions, is taboo in this culture, so obscurely not addressed by the media. Look here (NAMI.org) to see how Virginia gets a D as does the U.S.A. a D grade overall on mental health issues. Readers tend to miss these issues unless they are highlighted, so I did, saying: "possible-homoeroticism" was suggested by suitemate Andy. He should know, he had to live with the idiot, Cho, taking pictures of him in the dark in the middle of the night. That is the implication of Andy, why not just say it so it is not lost and left uninvestigated by other principles. The state of mental health screening and support is evidently left wanting in this country, and in the state of Virginia. It should be a central point in the Cho story if the country is to ever advance in the right direction.  uriel8  (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even more taboo in Korean culture. Most see it as "A western problem" which does not exist there. Heh. I'm taking a class called Taboo subjects. -141.154.235.71 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After watching Cho's manifesto, I felt that the "you" at his note and videoclip is he himself. "You" in him seemms to constantly incite him and molest him, like a bug in his head or something. See this video, Eavesdropping device is in my ears.. One person intruded in the live news studio, saying "Eavesdropping device is in my ears. I've met into many other cases of this kind. Some person said that evil being had planted a brainwave receiver in his brain and was controlling him.--Queenmillennia 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)