Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seung-Hui Cho article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 2 weeks are automatically archived to Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Good article Seung-Hui Cho has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.


Contents

[edit] Minor edit

In the last edit to this page, I simply added a missing period at the end of paragraph 2. No other edits made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.99.148 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food for Thought

I certainly don't object to the article. I would remind people to keep in mind that notoriety and fame are what such individuals crave. Headlines, made-for-TV movies, even Wikipedia entries splashing "WORST SHOOTING EVER!" serve to encourage copycats. Please keep that in mind when editing articles about this type of thing. The tone matters.Mzmadmike 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connections to Oldboy

Since there are no experts that agree that Cho was influenced by the movie, I suggest that the picture that compares his welding the hammer with the scene from the movie be taken down. WangKon936 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in fact, I think the whole Oldboy speculation bit ought to be removed. It doesn't seem at all relevant, since it apparently was just a coincidence, and removing it would nicely take care of four of the (perhaps too) numerous references. Comments? Muad 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
How about a single sentence saying something along the lines of "A professor brought up the theory that one of the pictures Cho took with a hammer resembled the movie Oldboy, but he later rescinded his theory" or something simple along those lines. 72.200.27.179 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the comparison is interesting enough, and is properly cited. It's ok for credible writers to speculate on matters such as this, as long as credible citations are made, which there are. Malamockq 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smashing Pumpkins

Smashing Pumpkins have been playing a new song called "Question Mark" in their live shows, which appears to be inspired by Cho Seung Hui. Not sure how to incorporate it into the article though. Here's a picture of the setlist. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/photos_1716 Joe 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be trivia for this biography article. BTW, it's not the goal to add a music trivia section to include info about entertainers who were perhaps inspired by Cho, the spree killer (those two concepts in this case are unrelated). Try asking the editors of the Smashing Pumpkins article to see what they think about your proposal -- references to the group's music would be more appropriate there. →Lwalt ♦ talk 03:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stalking

are we going to stick to facts here or are we going to lower the standards of wikipedia by making it some kind of teenage chat room. people who dont know the law are frequently confused about what stalking actually is and misuse the word. wikipedia should not be a place for that since it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a high school locker room. this is the definition according to wiktionary. it's not the best, but still better than how it's been used in this article. "to (try to) follow or contact someone constantly, often resulting in harassment". i dont exactly see how this qualifies as stalking. "Cho frightened a female friend of Koch by writing on her door board a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, scene II, in which Romeo laments to Juliet:". i also fail to see how this other verse in the article qualifies either. "Cho claimed to have sent an instant message online to the female student by AIM and found out where she lived on the campus." This definitely doesn't qualify as stalking by the legal definition or by any definition. they are both isolated incidents and there is no evidence that he had been doing this repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser (talk • contribs)

Both of the girls felt threatened enough to contact the police. Nuff said. Abyssal leviathin 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed the various legal definitions of stalking, the loosest legal definition is in the United Kingdom - Staking is when a person contacts a victim at least twice in any medium and each time they cause fear, alarm or distress. Under UK law, Cho didn't stalk as it was not repeated. Additionally, neither girl felt that it was stalking anyhow, the first termed Cho's behavior (the incident when he said Hi to her) as "annoying"[1] and the second girl was unconcerned until she was contacted by Andy Koch who told her to be scared - see below. But that said, wiki reflects what is said in the media, and it is written that it was staking. I agree that the word has been misused. Diamonddavej 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
British law hasn't been applied in Virginia for over 200 years. But I get what you are meaning. Where I am stalking is "unwarranted", meaning the stalker must have been informed their advances are unwelcome. So you are only guilty of stalking on the second and subsequent attempt to communicate. Kransky 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence Fragment

There's a sentence fragment error in the section Relationship with professors: "After Roy notified the legal authorities about Cho's behavior, Roy urged Cho to seek counseling, but he never followed through with the request to her knowledge."

I assume that the intention is: "After Roy notified legal authorities about Cho's behavior, she urged Cho to seek counseling, but, to her knowledge, Cho never followed through with the request."

Y Done. The sentence has been changed in the article to your suggested text. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The second "stalking" incident - AIM conversation

The female student involved in the second stalking incident was initially unconcerned by Cho's behavior. It appears that she only became worried after an AIM conversation with Andy Kosh. Here is the Koch/female students edited AIM conversation[2]:


Koch: do u want to know who spankyjelly is

Koch: he is seung ho something ( Seung-Hui )

Female student: yeah i knwo who he is

Koch: he is a creep i would block him just doing u a favor

Female student: ahahha yeah

Koch: well i would block him he got in trouble forr stalking recently so i just wanted to warn you

Female student: yeah..hes called me...written on my door...all of that

Female student: kinda freaky

Koch: written on your door? like your room

Female student: yeah

Female student: the funny thing bout that...

Female student: is im unlisted...like everywhere

Female student: SO he had to do some investigations or something...into my roommate and what not

Koch: the ra's are trying to do something about him

Female student: yikes

Female student: at first i thought he was one of my friends joking around...and i only accepted him cuz i saw a few of my friends were friends with him

Female student : then he turned out all psycho

Koch: i think he is is schophrenic or however you spell it


Diamonddavej 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

how exactly does a conversation with koch and a female student prove that cho stalked anyone? it's speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.246.48 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone else prove that this piece of script is the original and unedited in it's entirety?
What has been edited?
88.105.94.7 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph?

In the failed FAC, the lead paragraph was too short. We need to make the lead into three paragraphs if we can. I need some help on this article as well. Greg Jones II 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Creg, here are a few paragraphs/rewrite to consider:
Seung-Hui Cho[2] (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a mass murderer who killed 32 people[3] and wounded 25 others[4] in the Virginia Tech massacre.[5] Cho then committed suicide after law enforcement officers breached the doors of the building where he had killed and wounded his victims.[7]
Cho was a South Korean national who had permanent resident status in the United States of America, arriving to the US at a young age with his family. He remained a quiet and reserved individual throughout his life. In the weeks leading to the massacre as a senior English major at Virginia Tech[6] he submitted plays that caused concern amongst both teachers and classmates.
Results from an investigation are anticipated to answer questions regarding the relation between Cho and the brief campus life that he experienced leading to the massacre.
68.175.118.95 04:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I need help in writing the paragraph for me. If anyone wants to write this info down, that will be much appreciated. Greg Jones II 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I have removed the "lead section" tag and made the lead into 3 paragraphs. Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police death photos?

How long did it take for the Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold suicide pictures to be made public, and has anything been done or will be done with Seung-Hui Cho? 67.5.159.178 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am struggling to read your point and your question. Can you please explain it more carefully with some more details regarding your question? Why must the "suicide pictures to be made public"?

88.105.78.155 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Languages

On virtually all of the other language pages for "Seung-Hui Cho", the article is titled "Cho Seung-Hui". Should this be ratified, or left as it is? I already moved the Esperanto page, but didn't want to move any more unless I had received an "okay". --MosheA 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

During the early stages, the article's original name was "Cho Seung-Hui." If I remember the discussion correctly from that time, the article was renamed because of the "Americanized" style of name Cho preferred to use to refer to himself. You might want to go back and read the archived discussions and look at the links to the plays that Cho wrote (the cover page on one of the papers even shows Cho's name as "Seung Cho.") →Lwalt ♦ talk 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many quotations...

There are far too many quotations in this article. We should work to minimize or eliminate them and replace them with balanced prose that describes the situation in our own words.--SallyForth123 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet???

If one of you registered users doesn't delete that sentence comparing Richard McBeef to Hamlet, then we have failed as a species. 72.40.101.195 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why must "that sentence" be deleted? On what grounds? Are you suggesting some sort of vandalism?

88.105.78.155 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attack rehearsal

Evidence suggests that he may have rehearsed for the attack Source 1, Source 2. Please incorporate this into the article, if possible. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Seung-Hui Cho a convert to Islam?

Some say so: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Seung-Hui+Cho+convert+Islam&btnG=Google+Search Can anyone confirm or disprove it?

Original research, since this represents theory and speculation of motive. →Lwalt ♦ talk 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
How is it original research? The speculation is not from a Wiki editor, but from an outside source. It appears speculative at present, but it's worth tracking.Mzmadmike 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a heartier laugh in quite some time. Not only is this speculation pure sensationalized fiction, but it smacks of an extreme anti-Muslim bigotry by many of the people who would waste such time in such pointless speculation. For anyone wondering how such an extreme anti-Muslim piece of bigotry could find its way into here of all places, it's due to Cho spelling "Ishmael" (son of Abraham in the Bible) as as the more Arabic (or possibly misspelled) form of "Ismael," who is still a character of Judaism and Christianity in addition to Islam. Considering that Cho actually signed one of his letters with "Ismael-AX," this leads me to believe this might have been an online gamertag instead. I myself have seen both "Ismael" and "Ishmael" used as names in the online game "World of Warcraft," for instance. If anything, this speculation seems meaningless to me and if anything, tells me that some people here have a rather unhealthy fixation with Muslims.Shabeki 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Education Plan at Westfield High for Selective Mutism

Someone please incorporate into the article the 50 minutes of speech therapy per month he received in high school and his therapist: From Disturbed High Schooler to College Killer by Daniel GoldenXandiar 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Did the speech-therapy had any helpful affect on Mr. Cho, in any way whatsoever?

19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seung-Hui Cho was a mass murderer

The beggining of the first paragraph says: "Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a mass murderer". Isn't that too vulgar? It wouldn't be better something like "Seung-Hui Cho was a student who killed/mass murdered....". I mean, he wasn't always a mass murderer... It's like saying that he was a mass murderer in all of his life.

This was discussed (now in the archives). The murders are what he was noted for. He was not notable as a student. If he'd won American Idol we wouldn't say he "was a student who won American Idol." Chromaone 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over the intro sentence

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over what Cho is or is not from what I'm seeing in reverts and edit summaries. We know this much at this time -- Cho was a student at VA Tech and that he committed mass murder at the campus. Can we come to a consensus by saying the following:

Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a student at Virginia Tech who committed the mass murder of 32 people and wounded 25 others during the shooting rampage known as the Virginia Tech massacre.

Would this alternate sentence resolve the disagreement? In a sentence, the reader is quickly told several things about the greater scope of the article:

  • Who Cho was leading up to the event ("student at VA Tech" which is widely reported and now notable)
  • What Cho did (killed many people (the "mass murder," which became very much notable) and wounded other people who survived the event)
  • Where the event occurred ("VA Tech" (which was taken from Cho's status as student) - the location of which is also very much notable)
  • How Cho committed the killings ("shooting rampage")
  • The infamous event that resulted ("Virginia Tech massacre")

The "when" part is already covered in the Virginia Tech massacre article. The only thing here that we don't know is why he did what he did. The format of the first sentence that introduces this article is patterned after the ones in the articles for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Charles Whitman, Woo Bum-kon -- and yes...I went back to the archives to pull out these examples. Anyway, according to the discussions that I've found in the archives, the debate was about mostly about notability as playwright (because of the plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" that Cho wrote for his class) vs. mass murderer and other discussions as to notability as a serial killer vs. spree killer vs. mass murderer, at least noted in various discussions in Archives 1 through 4. The only other discussions that paralleled this one occurred in the threads Is "Murderer" the correct term? (thread no. 18) in Archive 5 and Opening paragraph (thread no. 53) in Archive 6. But, in a nutshell, Cho was a "student" and a "mass murderer" at the same place.

Also, mentioning that Cho was a VA Tech student provides a context for the reader Cho's relationship to the campus to set him apart from a person who merely came onto the campus and committed the mass murder -- that is, Cho's relationship to VA Tech as a student likely explains his familiarity with those parts of the campus where he committed the murders. The term "mass murder" can be wikilinked to the article "Mass murder," while student can be wikilinked to "Student#United States" if that's what you want to do.

Although Cho is widely referred to as a "mass murderer," the term "murder" (referring to this act of murder as homicide in the first degree) is a legal term and the statement referring to a Cho as "murderer" implies that he was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder either under the of the United States federal criminal code or under the Commonwealth of Virginia criminal code (VA Code 18.2-31). The conclusion that Cho was the mass murderer at VT Tech was learned through police investigations and first-person accounts of the survivors after the killings and information contained in the package sent by that Cho sent to NBC News before he committed suicide at VA Tech on April 16. See discussion in Archive 4 under Number of People Killed?, which is thread no. 59 in the table of contents.

Otherwise, this edit war will become inflammatory and simply descend into name calling Cho (student vs. mass murderer) and semantics, given that the changes on this detail will continue to be reverted repeatedly. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a single anon user making the change to "student." However, per WP:NOTE, Cho was not notable as a student, only as a mass murderer. Wikipedia, not being a legal document, can use the normal definition of mass murderer ("someone who kills a bunch of people in cold blood") instead of the legal definition. If we had to use the legal definition, then we'd have to stop using the word "murder" in articles like Zodiac Killer, the Harris and Kliebold articles, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Charles Whitman, since none of them were convicted--Zodiac because he was never caught, and the others because, like Cho, they didn't survive to see trial. Rdfox 76 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That much -- that is, the "legal" definition of murder or murder -- we know already. The discussion was reposted here as a reminder of a past discussion. However, that does not change who Cho was -- a VT Tech student who committed mass murder at VT Tech, the school that he attended until his suicide. These facts set the context for the article per my earlier discussion. When Cho is mentioned in media reports, he's mostly referred to the troubled student who killed lots of people at the school he attended, not simply as someone who killed a lot of people at that school. Both the student and mass murder aspects are notable, given that this combination is a rare occurrence in criminology. That's the whole purpose of why the Commonwealth of Virginia convened a panel to review what happened and to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again, not to mention looking at the Virginia Tech's role in investigating academic and/or mental health issues regarding its students and responding to the shootings by its own student that resulted in a Columbine-like tragedy. If the student part was not a factor or not of importance, the state would place no weight on that issue and would have skip that part of the study already.
In short, what I'm getting at is doing something along the same line as similar articles, rather than someone's preferred version, regardless of who made the revision, so that the article does not once again become the subject of edit wars and to provide a neutral context to start the article. These examples were already supplied in my earlier message. Two of these articles report similar circumstances -- mass murder of people where the person(s) attended the same school. That's what I call setting the context in a sentence, and even if a reader does not care to finish reading the article, at least the reader knows the context and scope of the discussion within that article -- all set out in the first sentence. Therefore, I recommended the sentence to get beyond the edit war so that the context and scope can be set for the article -- that is, the who, what, where and how as indicated earlier. I left the "when" to the related article, Virginia Tech massacre.
What do you think about this approach?
Anway, WP:NOTE is only a guideline, not a policy, and we're going to WP:IGNORE that for the moment and maintain an open mind to skip over the wikilawyering to not make a point. →Lwalt ♦ talk 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seung-hui Cho or Cho Seung-hui?

Today (Thurs 30 Aug), the BBC News website did an article of a report saying that the Virginia Tech response 'too slow'. Now, in this article, they call him "Cho Seung-hui", then I came on here, and he is "Seung-Hui Cho". At first I presumed you did that thing where you reverse the surname, like Presley Elvis (bad example, I know), but throughout the text, he is called his BBC first name, and WIKI surname. So, which is right? Thanks St91 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • THERE seems to be a problem with the wikipedia clock! When I leave four ~, it says it's 08:54. It is in fact 09:54*

St91 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Ref #1 in the article. You're on summer time, while UTC does not account for daylight saving time. DHN 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-Hui would make more sense since it is a KOREAN name and Korean names are used with last name before the first name, while American names are used with first name first. If the article about the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong Il (last name first) then why is this article Seung-Hui Cho (first name first)? NHRHS2010 Talk 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • We decided to use "Seung-Hui Cho" a long time ago. Check the archives of this page. WhisperToMe 14:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What makes an Americanized name better for a Korean name? NHRHS2010 Talk 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • This was decided a long time ago, like back when this was very fresh in everyone's minds. Check the archives --lucid 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The format of Cho's name was documented in a footnote to this article. See footnote 2. The reference is noted just after his name on the first line of the introduction to the article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg

Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cho Seung-hui NBC.jpg

Image:Cho Seung-hui NBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg

Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ChoSh.jpg

Image:ChoSh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Seung-Hui had a tail"????

=Motive=

Cho and one of his victims, Ross Alameddine, attended the same English class during Autumn 2006. Emily revealed to many friends on campus that Seung-Hui Cho possessed a tail which was not removed at the time of his birth; the ensuing embarrassment was another cause leading towards the sociopathic murderous rampage. According to classmates enrolled in that class, including Justin Keyser, Alameddine tried to communicate with Cho with no success.[91]

Okay, who on Earth put in the sentence suggesting that Seung-Hui's being bullied because he once "had a tail"?

I read on the article on citation 91 and there is no mention of having a tail attached to Mr Cho or how was that funny on someone who has selective mutism.

88.105.126.105 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

Citation or evidence is needed to back up this whole paragraph, introduced at the top of the article:

(QUOTE)In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, Timothy Kaine, governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the Virginia Tech shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007. The report devoted more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. It criticized numerous failures — by school administrators, educators, and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years but failed to notice his deteriorating condition and help him. The report also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws. It also faulted Virginia Tech administrators for failing to take immediate action after the first shootings.(QUOTE)

88.105.126.105 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to texts of plays no longer works.

Following the given link to the texts of Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone leads to AOL 'page not found'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.76.226 (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (kept)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Necessary to include "Suicide"

In the little fact file box with his photo, DOB, DOD, etc on the right, directly beneath his date of death and location, it states it was Suicide. I havent seen a cause of death on any other persons biography page included in this section, is it necessary to include it here? Reading the article will clearly explain what happened. Popher 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather have us write, became an hero?--Tomglima 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's at all what User:Popher is implying. And I agree with them. There's a field in the {{person}} infobox for "cause of death", but virtually no other biographical infoboxes have it. There is, for example, no "suicide" in the infobox of famous suicides like Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Cobain, Budd Dwyer. Ford MF 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is because the cause of death cannot be suicide. Cause of death, in this case, would be gunshot wound to the head. Similarly, for someone who commits suicide by throwing himself out of a window, the cause of death would be polytraumatism, head trauma, internal bleeding, or something like that. Suicide is not a cause of death. –W2bh (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cho's nationality

Seung Hui Cho never became an U.S citizen. So, why an user adds Cho to Americans categories like American mass murderers or Korean Americans if he never became an U.S citizen??Frankedjsjs (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


That does seem controversial. He is a permanent resident of USA but not a US citizen. He came here when he was really young and thus raised as an American. America is his home and culture. Maybe we need a category for permanent residents of USA. Azn Clayjar (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article SHould be Removed

The point to many, many shootings, and this one is no exception, is for the murderer to become famous.

Seung-Hui Cho wanted to be famous. The recent shooting in a shopping mall, that young man wanted fame. Research other shootings, I guarantee that you will find a desire for fame in many of the shooters.

By publicizing the murders to the extent that we do, we are merely saying to a lonely, possibly bullied, unknown person, "Look. You want everyone to know who you are? You want to be on the news? You want a Wikipedia article that is longer than Brad Pitt's? Shoot up a school, and voila. There you go." Many teens play copycat, shooting their own schools after seeing the fame it brought to other murders.

I understand that there is a debate to the length of the article here, but I don't believe that we should continue this mad cycle of giving disturbed people a motive for murdering.

Please, let's delete this article.

-Rose

Sirprizeme13 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum for such discussions. See WP:AFD. Also, somehow...just somehow...I doubt that getting a Wiki article is motivation for people who are already mentally ill to commit murder. You should be looking at the illness as the direct cause. --Strothra (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Really, is this necasary? This would actually encourage me to do something simillar, because I want to have my own article on wikipedia, and this is a quick way to do it is to go through kill a bunch of people and "set a record" for the number of deaths. I think the School Shooter's article, for all "Massacrist", should be incorporated into the actual "Massacre's" page, because really, this is all to glorifying. I'm just suggesting it, because unlike Exterminating the Jews or starting a holy war, whcih take years, a school shooting can be planned for and executed in under a year, so whats not to say that someone will see all the attention given to Mr.Cho and start feeling a little need? I know I already have a plan if I ever consider going through with it, is that messed up or what? I actually started a book "Songs To Kill To" about the music and mainstream influences that glorify "death culture", but I was side trekked. Also, is it messed up that I can just see myself on national t.v, have what the cheesey announcer guy will say in my head already, about this kind of thing? MutleeMutlee 13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did this really need its own heading? Y'know, the section above this is about the exact same thing, right? And anyway, I think that it's stupid to try to hold Wikipedia accountable for this kind of thing. Even if we erased every article related to school shootings, they would still happen, because the causes would still be there. The bullying in schools, untreated mental illness, easy access to guns, etc, etc, etc. And using your logic, why don't we remove all criminology related articles? What if reading Drive-by shooting reminds a reader how much he hates members of a rival gang? What if reading about bank robberies makes an unstable teen yearn for a quick way to get rich? What if reading about the Zodiac killer gives some psycho a new hero and role model? Why don't we remove articles on weapons? That way nobody will be impressed enough by their destructive capabilities to go out and get them? Why don't we erase all of Wikipedia? That way nobody could possibly get any bad ideas here. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


This is in reply to both the above topic and the one above that. I am not holding Wikipedia accountable for mass murderers, but I do believe that any type of media that makes school shooters famous has a part to play. I think that even movies against guns and such do, to some extent, bring attention to shooters. I also feel that such media does more good than bad.

If you read the article, a very evident point is that Cho wanted fame. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. Chances are that he didn't think, "I'm going to shoot a school so that I can get a long Wikipedia article," but at the same time he didn't think, "Oh, I want to get on the Little Town newspaper." No one would think of every individual source that they would

A small article would be acceptable, briefly stating his purpose, but do we need to make it evident that we care more about a mass murderer than we do , but a long article that seems to match closely in length to Martin Luther King Junior is sickening. How about those at the shootings who gave their lives to save their students and friends? Kevin Granata brought twenty students to safety, he was shot and killed. Liviu Librescu and his wife both survived the Holocaust. It was Holocaust Remembrance Day when Mr. Librescu held the door while his students escaped out of the windows. He was shot five times and killed.

And there are more. They are real people, and they are the ones we need to remember. They are our heroes, and it is a disgrace that their names are not deeply ingrained in our minds (and I am not going to claim perfect, this is a mistake our society as made as a whole, I myself do not know their names) the way Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho are. Remember the people who have made a difference worth making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Heading 'Resistence'

-Rose

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Professor Liviu Librescu Henry Lee Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan Zach Petkewicz Katelyn Carney Derek O'Dell Trey Perkins Erin Sheehan Professor Kevin Granata

69.141.75.46 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

~Please think again!~

.......


Maybe this article can be taken as some sort of a reminder of what destructiveness that man's mental ailment can cause.

I think more help and sympathy would be provided for anyone with Mr. Cho's problem. It can be a sad thing for anyone to go through, having the inability to socially connect with anyone you see around you. Perhaps even NONE at all.

What can worsen the person's suffering is...everyone else can communicate with other people, being able to pass on opinions, perhaps convey love and affections to others...while- he can't! It can be a very sad and lonely thing for him.

I think anyone should reconsider not removing this article and should think about the life he went through.

(Maybe because I have it as well).

88.105.94.7 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section

I think we need a section noting that Cho was an atheist. If he was Christian, then we should put he was Christian. If he was Muslim, then we should put he was Muslim. Regardless of what he believed, this should be included and then we'll let the reader determine its influence. Noting a massacre by a radical Christian or a radical Muslim is just as necessary as noting a massacre by a radical secularist. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You have reliable sources stating that Cho was a "radical secularist?" --ElKevbo (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hell, do you have reliable sources stating that he was an atheist? In any event, noting the religious beliefs of spree killers is unnecessary and arguably violates WP:NPOV, unless there are reliable sources indicating that those religious beliefs played a role in the killer's decision-making process (e.g., suicide bombers motivated by religious beliefs, or the start of the Waco seige, where the Branch-Davidian religious beliefs played a major role in the decision to respond to the search warrant with gunfire). To my knowledge, there's no indication that Cho's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, played any role in the decision to go through with the assault. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
OTOH, even if it didn't motivate him, it might be worth mentioning in an existing section(with a good reference). For example, if he sang in his 'church' choir(though I' NOT claming he did so!), then it would be good to mention this when speaking about his mutism.Kairos (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, he supposedly went to church, but nothing in Christianity encourages believers to do violence.--69.234.205.106 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As we've seen with all those who kill in the past, it doesn't take on "just" religion to make someone motivated to kill someone. It takes something a like human being to do that. 88.105.16.105 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

I've taken a quick look at the article and I think its ready for Peer Review, in preparation for FA nomination. A few of the problems in the June 2007 nomination was that the lead was too short...everything was too short, it was unstable... I think that has all been addressed now. Since I'm not a frequent editor on this article, and have not been aware with recent discussions, talk amongst yourselves. I'm just leaving a suggestion, since the article has improved massively than the June 20, 2007 version that I just checked. --haha169 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic group

Does the name Seung-Hui Cho have anything to do with Seung being a member of the Hui ethnic group in China? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5OD1X75Ks&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.210.81 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

....(What?)

I think Hui of Seung-Hui is just part of another name. Probably another Kanji character. Chinese Mandarin and the Korean language are different. 88.105.107.252 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hui is a Korean given name meaning "bright" or "sparkling." The Hui are Chinese Muslims. Correlation = exactly 0. --Dynaflow babble 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Some user mentioned quite a while ago about some people how do they really have, what could be deemed, as a "unhealthy fixation" with Muslims...
88.105.16.105 (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Hui" is just the Revised Romanization and McCune-Reischauer romanization of the 2nd character of Cho's given name. --Kvasir (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, this 回 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9E) is the of the Hui Muslims, while this other Korean "Hui" 熙 (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%86%99) is used for a person's name. Every person in Oriental countries know these two are DEFINITELY NOT the same.

88.105.4.107(talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marines?

I have looked up what little I can on google about Cho and I see pics of him in a USMC uniform and people asking if he was in the military. Does anyone know if this is valid or just a rumor? If it is confirmed it should be added to the article. If it is debunked, then nevermind.Feral Mind (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to add that photo last year, when the story was still fever-hot. The photo was of two Marines wearing balaclavas which left only the eye-regions of their faces visible. One of them was Asian and -- of course -- had a military-style haircut, and so various Internet sages reasoned that the individual depicted must therefore be Seung-Hui Cho. Never mind that the name tape on the Marine's MCCUU blouse reads Hu or that there are a hell of a lot of Asian-Americans serving in the military, most of whom (amongst the males, at least) would be sporting military-style haircuts. I would consider the matter debunked. --Dynaflow babble 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love life

This doesn't talk about his romantic relationships. Was he a virgin? Did he have a girlfriend ever and if so what did these girls have to say about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.28 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cho never had a girlfriend, dated and he never had a close friend. At home he only spoke to his sister. His father was authoritarian and his mother withdrawn. His well intentioned premier attempts at creating social relationships in Nov and Dec 2005 led to punitive action by campus police and ultimately led to his threat of suicide on 13th Dec 2005, for which he was hospitalized. This further isolated him. His hate filled speech dwelt on the deceitfulness, materialism and hedonism of other students, thus it seems, he was angry and jealous at the socially adept. --Diamonddavej (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)