Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: No one cares to comment, so I removed it. Youngidealist 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 'Question Mark Killer'" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cho's firearm training??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nonetheless,Forensics indicate same gun used in boths attacks(the 2 killings 2 hours before..) Evaulator 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Serial Number 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Voyeurism != sadomasochism -Etafly 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cho was a sadomasochist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Mr. Brownstone 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''Behavior and mental health'' section incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speeding Ticket 

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  message on 4chan? 

message: It's now being reported that scripts for two of the killer's plays have been released:
Worthy of mention in the Wiki article? Bueller 007 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been done. See attributed writings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isocyanide (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Killer's scripts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Killer's writings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is it possible that the last name could be 崔? --HappyCamper 01:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most reliable source of this is probably his parrents at the moment. --Kvasir 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I haven't found any sources at all for the Hanja in Korean media (by checking News.google.co.kr for 曹 and 趙 ). 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  which hasn't even got a remote possibility of being correct. cab 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hanja 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: OK, it looks good now. --HappyCamper 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Purchase Date(s) Need Edit 

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

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

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

text: Can someone link to this system i've never seen it before (Gnevin 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I, someone not attending VT, have no idea what the 300 means. Darrik2 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Class Level, 300 or 3000 

message: why do we need to have his sister's name in the article? I removed it. Janviermichelle 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  i don't agree with you. we don't need to wiki her. Janviermichelle 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Janvier, you need to explain why. Why? Why "we don't need to wiki her." WhisperToMe 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Bill Gates and Neil Armstrong mention such names, so, why can't Cho? WhisperToMe 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  they are not spree killers. try to be in her shoes. Janviermichelle 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. --Hemlock Martinis 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  ABC News reports that he has a sister. Ok, great. Why is that important? --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  his sister 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a mass murderer? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This had been discussed to death.  You're beating a dead horse. DHN 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naming order POLL (again!) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hikikomori 

message: Is it really necessary to list him under this category?  He's hardly a notable playwright. Proserpine 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Proserpine 08:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  By the way, those plays aren't Famous, they are Infamous. There's a difference. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You may wish to see the news articles about the role of the plays. WhisperToMe 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  South Korean dramatists and playwrights 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Which arm? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: His writings are relevant to why he did the massacre. Christopher Connor 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Attributed Writings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

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