Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive 6

Oldboy

There isn't any real evidence that he watched "Oldboy" from the reference provided, other than that some of the photos he took are similar to some shots in the movie(holding the gun to his head, which has been seen in many other movies, and using a hammer as a weapon). It is possible that he has seen the movie some time before, but the photos are hardly enough evidence to claim that he watched it in the days leading up to the shooting. The reference just sounds like media speculation to me. Short of, say, police actually discovering the DVD among his possessions, I think we shouldn't jump to assume this. -Pravit 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A laughable comparison birthed from internet forums. Secondgen 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oldboy article has a link from skynews reporting that detectives on the case are saying he watched it repeatedly. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261402,00.html. I am not sure how they know that, but that is what the sky news report is saying.XinJeisan 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know more about this too. Who are the "detectives" that this skynews claims to have interviewed.Secondgen 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well he is Korean, and many Korean Americans (I myself included) are familiar with Oldboy. Mr. SmartyPants 10:44AM, 20 April 2007. (UTC)

I'm Korean American as well, I never heard of this "Oldboy." Your point? Secondgen 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that because he's a Korean American, it's highly possible that he had some sort of Influence with Oldboy. It is a film that is highly looked upon by people. I'm not saying he absolutely saw it, I'm saying it's a possibility. Mr. SmartyPants 7:50, 21 April 2007. (UTC)

Cho also had black hair. So did Hitler. It is thus possible that Cho was really inspired by Hitler! Yay for slippery slope logic!

If Cho watched Korean stuff, then it is likely then he watched Old Boy? So? I never watched the movie but all I know is that some dude was stuck in a room for about ten years... Is there anything gruesome in the movie? mirageinred 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If he watched Korean stuff, it's rather likely he watched Oldboy. It is one of the more famous/well known Korean films in the West. Mr. SmartyPants 7:51, 21 April 2007. (UTC)

Definitely gruesome stuff in the movie. There is a scene with a hammer. It's that scene that also suggests for many viewers inspiration from side-scrolling videogames. Might be worth mentioning in the article OB is SK. Also features some sexual perversity. 74.67.42.162 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is likely," is an OR violation and does not belong in wiki. Skynews is an unreliable source as far as I'm concerned. This is not an interpretation given by mainstream media. Secondgen 14:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is New York Times not mainstream media either? I think Oldboy needs to be mentioned. His plays are given so much attention I find it preposterous that Oldboy isn't. Police says he had watched Oldboy repeatedly. --Naus 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If police did say that then kindly provide a reference in the article, otherwise this is just uncited speculation and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it insinuates the notion that the movie "Old Boy" caused Cho to commit these crimes, an outrageous claim. If you claim it does not, then I can see no other purpose for it to be in the article, because then we might as well start adding things like: "Police said Cho ate Pop-tarts for breakfast." -- itistoday (Talk) 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindenting) I noticed now that the picture comparisons are making the Oldboy references more blatantly OR. Also, after reading the sources in this section makes me inclined to think that these sources are OR as well. Stuff in the article like "looks like", "seems logical that", and so on. Even the title of the article:Virginia Tech killer's hammer photograph resembles the violent South Korean movie "Oldboy" sounds OR. I thought we couldn't use sources that are OR or any derivatives, even if they are reliable. UnfriendlyFire 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have just removed a picture and paragraph about "Oldboy" from the article. Bueller 007 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what Original Research means. OR means that we can't come up with our own theories and ideas to put on Wikipedia. However, other sources CAN as long as they are properly cited. This source, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18207904/site/newsweek/?from=rss draws the comparison. It's a valid point to bring up. I have already been through two other editors who had the same skepticism as you do, but see my talk. They both conceded that the inclusion was valid since it was indeed sourced. I must insist that the comparison remains as it is informative, and is properly cited. Malamockq 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the Oldboy reference is pure speculation that was introduced by the media. The media brought up this reference because some purported similarity in the hammer pose. However, nothing has been definitively documented or traced that Cho actually saw the movie. Marking this one as OR, since the MSNBC article also speculates about this factor in its analysis. Unless a copy of the movie, a receipt or other evidence that points to Cho having seen the movie comes up during the investigation, I would leave it out of the article. lwalt 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's media speculation with a solid basis. The media correlates the two because the comparison is there. Cho didn't use a hammer in his killings, yet he posed with it in a photograph. MSNBC and other news sources then draw logical conclusions. That's the point of analyzing the contents of the media package. In any case, a original research disclaimer can't be put up because it's not original research. It is indeed properly sourced. Malamockq 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Cho was autistic?

Does anyone know if any official documentation is alleged -- from sources aside from the family -- regarding the possibility that Cho was mildly autistic? Usually a diagnosis of this sort would be documented by professionals, at school or elsewhere.

Apparently there is no written record of such diagnosis. The claim that he might be autistic was made by his family. So is it a medical diagnosis or just a figure of speech? --128.135.96.228 14:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Autism is a medical diagnosis. If Cho were at all autistic, he would probably have been only mildly so, possibly fitting the description of something like Asperger's Syndrome. That Cho may have had an autistic disorder would go far in explaining his disorientation. If indeed Cho was in any way autistic, then possibly the stress of coping with his disability throughout childhood and adolesence would explain how he developed mental illness.

But the article on Cho suggests that he may never have been diagnosed with autism in the first place. Possibly Cho's parents only told relatives that their disturbed child was autistic in order to protect themselves against the more severe stigma in Korean culture against mental illness proper (i.e., not autism).

I think your last paragraph is right on. If a medical diagnosis was made, there should be a record of it. But there is none. It seems like it was just something the parents said, as sort of an adjective. Like describing someone as depressed (which doesn't mean that person is diagnosed as clinically depressed). --Naus 01:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe there should be a separate section detailing the Cho/autism controversy. It should explain that he never received a medical diagnosis as a child and that the "diagnosis" is only based on the subjective opinion of two elderly relatives and a church pastor. Diamonddavej 03:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think we're moving toward a separate section on the autism controversy. It would be helpful if the media would document the issue. After all, they ran hundreds of stories trumpeting Cho's "autism," and frequently even used the misleading phrase "diagnosed with autism" (the British press was particularly bad about this). What a disservice that the media have not yet picked up on the serious doubts about this supposed diagnosis, nor on the horrified disbelief from the autism community. We apparently know there aren't "records" of his "autism," though there's a hint of medical records (if not school records) suggesting a different diagnosis or mental health assessment.

As for Cho's decorum in the classroom, why aren't reporters talking to classmates or interviewing high school teachers? Or maybe they just all knew he "wouldn't talk" (as they said in the immediate coverage), and left it at that? We on Wikipedia ought to reexamine those eyewitness statements. At Virginia Tech, he was called the "question mark man." His classroom behavior has been been variously described as cellphone stalking (in recent years), and as a low, gutteral, forced voice when he was told he would fail a class unless he spoke (in high school). These various eyewitnesses ought to be re-interviewed, and asked more specifically about Cho's behaviors and how he generally comported himself. If any story cried out for a correction, it's this one. Sandover 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the alleged stalking incidents in 2005, does anyone know the details? Was Cho really stalking female students or did he merely unsettle them with disoriented, bizarre attempts to make their acquaintance (i.e., not a sustained pattern of pursuing or harassing them)?

The later was the case, it seems it was poor social skills not maliciousness. It is also important in detailing his downfall into mental illness.

In November and December 2005, college authorities received two separate complaints from two female students about "annoying" phone calls and text messages that they received from Cho. [1]

The first incident happened in November 2005, a few weird text messages to a girl. She didn't want to make a formal complaint and she characterised the texts as annoying not stalking. Cho was verbally warned by police and he immediately stopped his behaviour.

Then on the 13 December 2005, a second complaint was made. Cho texted and rang another girl, who also viewed the contact as annoying not stalking. Again, police verbally warned him and once again, he immediately stopped contacting the girl. Later that same day, the police were called back to his dorm. His roommate became concerned that Cho was suicidal. His parents also arrived at VT that day (Where they told about his "stalking" and told to go to VT or was it a coincidence? How far away do they live from VT?). Cho was taken voluntarily to Access, a state-sponsored mental health facility. He was released two days later.

Social rejection is a common trigger of depression and worse in Asperger’s Syndrome; and other socially isolating disorders.[2] Ted Kaczynski dated a woman 3 times in 1978-79, then she dumped him.[3] Ted took up his new life in the woods and developed an interest in bomb making.

Have a look at this youtube video, women with AS explains the difficulties she faces due to her AS. Diamonddavej 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bccw0jVovKw

Was there any connection to news articles about the Bridge at No Gun Ri?

Was there any information that the murderer was affected by news coverage of the massacre at No Gun Ri in Korea? At just about the exact time the murderer started preparing his video statement, there was coverage in the news of American killing of civilian refugees at No Gun Ri in Korea during the Korean War. The coverage in the news was of a memorandum that indicated that shooting civilians was a matter of policy by the U.S. Government. The murderer was a Korean national. The murderer in his statement adverts to a wrong to his "brothers and sisters." No news article has discussed the possible connection. It seems like a logical avenue of speculation, but has received absolutely no notice.64.4.228.175 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)AKDan

Speculation has no place on Wikipedia, especially when no news article discusses it. Phony Saint 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The temporal proximity of the publication of stories on No Gun Ri to the acts of the murderer is not speculation. There are two-hundred-some stories about No Gun Ri on Google. This is the discussion page,72.35.105.8 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)AKDan

No reliable news article has mentioned any connection between the two events, thus it is not notable, and putting it into the article would be speculation. Phony Saint 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mental Health and Firearms Legal Issues

The previous section on VA and federal gun law issues substantially misrepresented the New York Times article. The NYT piece says in effect that under federal law, a person is ineligible to purchase a firearm if he or she has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" (or involuntarily committed for treatment). Cho was clearly not involuntarily committed for treatment.

There seems to be some doubt whether the magistrate's order constitutes a finding that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" since - as the piece points out - VA and federal law do not mesh. One of the agenda-driven academics cited in the NYT seem to think that this was the case, but the other interviewee does not say that, nor does the NYT itself pronounce on this issue. Further, the NYT does NOT say that reporting of mental health to the federal database is mandatory as a matter of law. Rewritten accordingly. WikiFlier 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seung-Hui Cho is a Category:Virginia Tech alumni

An alumnus (pl. alumni) according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "a male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." In addition, an alumna (pl. alumnae) is "a woman graduate or former student of a school, college, or university." Bnguyen 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the subject of a sort of indirect edit war. Strictly speaking, he does meet the criteria of "alumnus" by virtue of his being a former student at Virginia Tech. I'm not necessarily in support of its inclusion, but the rationale for its exclusion needs to be something other than "He did not graduate", as is currently the case with Phydend's edit. -Etafly 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well based on the American Heritage Dictionary [4] & Wikipedia definition on alumnus a former student is a alumni. It is simply black and white and rational for it to be included, eventhough of his actions at Virginia Tech (WHICH I DO NOT CONDONE) he should be catagorized properly as a alumbus as described by the dictionary and wikipedia definition.

An example look at wikipedia biography of Ted Bundy was a graduate of University of Washington and is listed in the category as an alumni.Bnguyen 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I started an indirecdt edit war, I definitely didn't want to do that. I should have looked at the definition more closely as he is obviously a former student so should be in the category. Phydend 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Apologies if I implied that you were the one who began it -- it has been ongoing, yours was simply the most recent reversion at the time. -Etafly 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho hired an escort named Chastity Frye one month before rampage

Cho Hired an Escort Before Rampage: http://abcnews.go.com/US/VATech/story?id=3071730&page=1 One wonders if had she performed "full service," this whole tragedy could have been averted. Ah.

• Please try to refrain from speculative gossip. I'm not deleting this because the story might eventually find its way into the body of the article, though I'd question its encyclopedic merit. -Etafly 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some classmates worried that he had a "hit list" of other students he wanted to kill."

^ that sounds like something that would be speculated and exaggerated after the event. perhaps there was someone who said that, but most likely it was exaggerated to get publicity. kinda like how, when ever someone young dies or someone dies in an unusual way, all of the distant friends and friends of friends of that person suddenly claim that "their best friend died."

but i could be wrong

I think this reference from abcnews should be included in Section 2.2, Relationship with Students, because that section mentions his failed attempts to meet girls and the so-called stalking incidents. The piece from abcnews is good enough at this time to merit a reference in that section. (Just like the comment elsewhere in the article, "although he had told others he was a business major" was deemed worthy of inclusion because it supposedly shows his state of mind and demeanor leading up to the shooting.) (Although personally, I think the business major part shouldn't be there.) This escort reference seems to support the failed relationship angle and his social clumsiness. All in my opinion. 71.121.135.67 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More on that: here is another article which has some interesting quotes on the topic: "'It would be very odd now to find a serial murderer who is not fueled by pornography. Law enforcement records confirm that,' Reisman continued, adding that hundreds of such cases were alone documented by Vernon J. Geberth, Former Commander, NYPD, Bronx Homicide. 'In our current erototoxic environment certainly rapists, child molesters, thrill killers are fueled by pornography,' said Reisman. 'I would guarantee that a serious investigation would locate pornography among almost all if not all kid killers and serial killers.' According to Reisman, pornography is a common factor shared by mass murdering students in US schools." http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/apr/07042406.html 71.121.135.67 05:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop with these nuts blaming everything around us. Millions of people watch pornography and use escort service or pay hookers, yet it doesn't turn them into psycho killers. If anything, it could help them.--Svetovid 10:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Svetovid, nobody is blaming an escort service for turning him into a mass killer. The point is that his social isolation is reflected not just in his clumsy attempts in chasing female students, but also in his awkward use of the escort service as detailed in the article. In fact all of the documented idiosyncrasies in his behavior (writing on walls; violent plays; stalking; shunning roommates; escort services) should be included in the article because the article is about him as a person. When I suggest the above reference should be cited, it's not to blame his behavior on an outside influence, it's simply to show what he, the subject of this article, is all about. If it turns out he was addicted to collecting jelly beans, that should be included too, not as a way to blame jelly beans for what he did, but because this article is about Seung-Hui Cho. 71.121.135.67 10:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that the shunning was the other way around. People stopped talking to Cho because of his odd behaviour, including clumsy attempts at overcoming his social isolation. After his first "stalking" case in Nov 2005 and particularly on the 13th Dec, people ignored him en masse. Only then did Cho’s essays and plays start to get violent, isolating him further. He didn’t realise he was pushing people away, because he was a socials illiterate. He was seen as odd but harmless before Nov 2005, and gave no trouble at all. I think it was a stupid feed back loop. The article's motive section should detail the timeline of his downfall, and without blame, it should illustrate the mechanism of this feed back loop. The escort was Cho's last attempt at being "normal", he failed. Some prostitutes provide a specialised service to people with mental and physical disabilities and in Holland, mind bogglingly, the disabled are allowed a prostitute paid by the State.[5] -Diamonddavej 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• OR is bad. Especially when it causes the occasional wikipedian to saw a limb off and move to Holland. I know I just considered it. -Etafly 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Writer category?

I'm tempted to removed Category:South Korean writers. Yes, he wrote plays and stories but they were for an educational assignment. Nothing was every published (I don't think, at least not before death) so I don't think the "Writers" category is appropriate. I'm sure everybody wrote stories while in school and/or college so should be applies this category to every biographical article? If anybody disagrees, please explain to rationale as I am curious. If no objects, I will remove it.↔NMajdan•talk 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Writers typically refers to people who write for a living. Go ahead and remove it. Phony Saint 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were removed but added back in due to an unrelated revert. So I removed them again. Phony Saint 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then there are cases like Van Gogh. Is a person who paints a painter if he makes little or no money from his paintings? Henry Adams, is definitely listed as a writer, but did he ever earn any money from his writing? Some people paint paintings for an academic class and later end up selling those paintings but does this mean that those paintings were not done by a "painter" since the original intent was as a class assignment? W.C. 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

By "for a living," I meant occupation (which doesn't necessitate making money.) Regardless, it's not something Cho is known as. Phony Saint 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is with this silly attempt to immortalize this monster by adding him to a couple lists of writers? He is nowhere on par with the likes of JRR Tolkien. All he did was school assignments and the teachers said they were terrible. He did not make a living out of it. His manifesto were ramblings of a mad man with emotional baggage. He is not known for his writing but for his murders. His writings have no influence or merit by themselves. I don't like arguments WC is making or maybe I'll just add my name to the list of writers since I am doing some of my own writing and I'll add my name to the list of painters since I do paintings as well. Whew. I just checked and Cho has been taken off the writers categories. Thank goodness.Azn Clayjar 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Speech Problem

According to various news sources, Cho's grandmother was interviewed and she was quoted as saying that Cho as a child couldn't speak well. This troubled his parents. I saw msnbc cover this on tv as well, saying he had autism.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/19/4068123.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4729152.html http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=6391957

According to other sources, Professor Edward Falco quoted that Cho had a problem speaking. [link to Post Chronicle removed]

This may give insight to Cho's social absence. I can't edit anything yet, this seems worthy to mention. Secondgen 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and Hitler was a sadomasochist who abused cocaine and <insert taboo here>. Can no one make the connection that violence in America is increasing? We are in dystopia. Cho's acts are merely an effect, not a cause.

We should be very careful in adding Autism or other diagnoses to the article. It seems that the autism hypothesis only based on Cho's great-aunts statement (possibly mistranslated) and a few armchair "expert" psychologists ad hoc speculations. Adding autism to the article could stigmatise a vulnerable section of society (there are 2 million Americans with an Autism Spectrum Disorder). Only a definite diagnosis should be added...soured from Cho’s medical notes ideally. But I just saw autism mentioned again on CBS News, its becoming public knowledge despite being speculation.

That said, it is significant that Martin Bryant who perpetrated the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre (35 dead), was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism) after his arrest. In his case he didn’t commit suicide, psychologists had someone to examine; "Although this diagnosis does not directly explain his violence it is thought the isolation Bryant experienced as a result of the Asperger's may have been a contributing factor." Diamonddavej 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

selective mutism (not autism)

Besides autism, there are several possible explanations for Cho's reported social and speech deficits. It is incorrect to label him "autistic" based on what his elderly Korean aunt said in an interview (she met him only twice). On his confession video, Cho's speech cadences seem like those of a neurotypical American, and he does not show any obvious signs of organic autism.

Is it possible that Cho's extreme shyness as a child, his social isolation, or (perhaps) an underlying psychosis induced behaviors that looked like autism? In fact, Cho's childhood behaviors are highly consistent with selective mutism, an anxiety disorder first identified in the 1980s that is easily misdiagnosed as autism (and which sometimes connects to psychosis). Currently there is no indication of an autism diagnosis from the Cho family in the US, nor from US school officials and classmates. Organic autism is highly inconsistent with many of Cho's known developmental milestones. —Sandover 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The spectrum of autistic disorders is wide. Authorities believe autism can manifest itself very mildly, in the form of disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome, for example. It could be that Cho was born with such a disorder, and the horrific stress of growing up with it untreated may have contributed to his obvious mental illness.

Cho may easily have had some other kind of organic learning disability that caused his speech and communication problems. Who knows.

He also shows possible signs of narcissistic personality disorder which, ultimately, burgeoned into a psychosis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that, it sounds like a possibility. However, I read a post on a support group website last year, a young autistic woman said she had stopped talking 3 years ago because of bullying over her odd sounding voice and now used a computerised voice to communicate. And also, have a look at look at Cho's photograph of the bullets he precisely arranged[6] and compare them with an autistic child’s neatly arranged toys[7]; Autistic people are very obsessive and often arrange collections of items in neat rows. Also, Cho displayed a terrible lack of social skills, he didn't understand the feelings of the women he stalked or the emotional effect of his violent hate filled essays/plays on his class (at one stage 90% of the class were too scared to attend one of his essay readings). Autism is Latin for self- the affected person can only see the world from their own point of view, they are often unaware of other people feelings. There is a whole heap of other things that indicate autism, but it would make a boring long list. Diamonddavej 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that—and please, spare me your 'long boring list' and your 'whole heap of other things' and more Latin etymological proofs, because you are obviously not someone with extensive experience in autism and developmental psychology. If you had, you would see red flags all over this notion that Cho was 'diagnosed' with 'autism', particularly given what we are now hearing about his specific childhood behaviors. (See the Los Angeles Times and, in particular, New York Times profiles of Cho over the weekend: "Relatives thought he was a mute. Or mentally ill.") Cho didn't come across as 'autistic' on his videotape. His behaviors were almost certainly not the result of typical organic autism.

For the record, simply lining up things in rows is not an indication of 'autism,' either. It could be OCD-like behavior, which occurs in the company of many other underlying conditions, including autism (and frequently with selective mutism). Also for the record, acting or appearing socially insensitive is not in itself an indicator of 'autism.' (If it were, you could diagnosis me from my opening paragraph, right?) It's interesting, and significant, that no one in Cho's family apparently makes mention of typical autistic 'stimming' behaviors during his childhood, during which Cho was described as mannerly and extremely 'well-behaved,' apparently able to walk without problem or incident, etc. Ask any parent—those descriptions of Cho just won't ring true of children with early autism or Asperger's. Note that the Cho relatives don't talk about any apparent slowness to learn how to speak, but more about his "refusal" to do so, and about his extreme "shyness"; they also mention efforts to "prod" him to talk (i.e., they know he can talk and have heard him talk, but he just won't do it). Cho's Korean grandaunt talks about Cho's mother's wish to "communicate" with him, just to speak and have conversation: "He was very quiet and only followed his mother and father around and when others called his name he just answered 'yes' or 'no' but never showed any feelings or emotions" (link). All of that taken together is, in fact, a big clue—but not to an autism diagnosis.

It's significant that no one is saying Cho had problems with passive language comprehension, either. Nor are his social gaffes those which typically vex people who have autism. (The fact of taking cellphone pictures of girls without their permission—while admittedly a social gaffe that could conceivably be committed by a person with autism or Asperger's—would not be an indicator, in itself, of autistic tendencies. If I saw a man doing that, autism wouldn't be my first, second, or even tenth guess, and it is maddening that the mass media is currently associating Cho's predatory cellphone tactics with 'autistic' behaviors.)

In addition, Cho developed at least one close friendship in elementary school in the US, where he (not incidentally) excelled academically in math and English, despite his apparent inability to engage verbally with teachers, other students, etc. Neither that one friendship, nor the academic acceleration in English, are typical of autism (spare me some lecture on Asperger's—he didn't have Asperger's, either). Instead, these are both hallmarks of selective mutism, which was first systematically described in the early 1980s, and by 1994 was classified by DSM-IV as a social anxiety disorder (Cluster C).

While it's never right to diagnose people without evaluating them firsthand, it's right in my mind to defend at least against this bad armchair diagnosis of 'autism.' Cho wasn't autistic in any ordinary sense. As for the possibility of selective mutism, unless aggressively treated, it's well-established that people with it can drift into autism or something resembling it. They can also drift into psychosis, and a childhood history of selective mutism has been linked to some notable (male) spree killers.

We don't yet really know what Cho's childhood was like. We have yet to see his medical records. We do know selective mutism is often confused with autism, and misdiagnosed as such—until you've seen it side-by-side with autism, it can be difficult to distinguish. I am sure the Cho family, just like the families and survivors of the Virginia Tech tragedy, are struggling for answers, to understand what afflicted the person they thought they knew (and how, in fact, anyone could do this). But why compound this tragedy with tragic misinformation about autism? No one—and certainly not the highly-misunderstood autistic community—deserves this mass-murderer smear. Supporters and advocates for selective mutism would never have wished an individual like Cho to be the one to bring attention to their cause. But perhaps the media can make things better from the start by explaining that the overwhelming majority of those with selective mutism are not at all violent. In fact, the vast majority of people with selective mutism are female—partly for that reason, perhaps, it's a relatively little-known disease. There are indeed effective treatments and interventions, the earlier in childhood the better.

So where did this bogus 'autism' diagnosis come from? It's all based, apparently, on what Cho's mother said over the phone to her elderly aunt during a New Year's telephone call last year. Could Cho's mother have been saving face, or searching for an excuse, or simply looking for her own bewildered explanation for her son's mysterious behaviors? Was she trying to find a reason to explain her son's absence from the family, the reason for his lack of visits to South Korea? 'Autism' is a buzzword, easily thrown around these days—perhaps autism is easier to acknowledge, in a Korean context, than the possibility (or the dread) of mental illness. For what it's worth, the detail about the grandaunt's New Year's call from Cho's mother appears in the latest Time magazine, which just like the Washington Post on its April 21st front page, made the 'autism' claim without any effort to qualify, contextualize or debunk it.

—Sandover 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your information, I knew very little about selective mutism before you helped me out. Also you said: "you are obviously not someone with extensive experience in autism and developmental psychology." On the contrary, I think I do know something about Autism and Asperger's, I have Asperger's Syndrome (AS) myself. I’ve faced a great deal of difficulty due to AS. Thus, saying I have no experience in autism is deeply hurtful to me. Let’s try to be polite, remember no personal attacks.

If it is any consolation, I did not add any reference of autism to the article. In fact, I wrote on a past discussion page requesting its removal and stated that any mention of autism should only be made if evidence of an official diagnosis is found in Cho’s childhood medical records or peer review opinion. I still stand by that. Any mention of autism belongs of the discussion page where people can disagree with it and offer alternatives. Actually, I was looking for a good alternative to autism and you provided it.

Continuing with your statement "you are obviously not someone with extensive experience in autism and developmental psychology." Shortly after I was diagnosed, I founded in 2002 and continue to run social group for people with autism and AS. I have personally met over 100 people with varying degrees of autism, from severe autism to a university professor who has AS. Several of my friends are autistic and AS (my autistic friend didn't speak till he was 4 and rarely spoke till 10; he now doing an MSc in microbiology). I have also discussed autism with several experts in field of autism research and forensic psychology including Rita Jordan, Chris Gillberg, Michael Fitzgerald and J. Arturo Silva. In 2005 I appeared in TV documentary about how Asperger’s affects me and I have also talked on the Radio last year about Asperger’s syndrome with Michael Fitzgerald. So, yes I do think I know something about AS and autism, but of course I am happy to learn more. Diamonddavej 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, my sincere apologies to you—I meant no offense, and obviously we're on the same side of this issue. Be proud that your comment (seemingly) ticked me off.

But if I may use your Asperger's diagnosis to make a point, it's that insider knowledge of autism (like yours) is necessarily incomplete and partial, and still prone to many possible misperceptions and generalizations. You're not a developmental specialist with an overview of the field, even if you know your own story and can be articulate about it. You are not in a position to debunk the autism myth that has quickly coalesced around Cho. The very fact that you and others with autism can recognize and verify certain coincidences and commonalities between your autism and Cho's (incomplete and partial) list of behavioral traits—the fact that you can see his awful rant and not completely dismiss his supposed 'autism' as a fiction—is what makes this autism idea about Cho particularly misleading and insidious.

But to tell you the truth, I'm not so much worried about the misperceptions within the autism community—they have a way of getting worked out. I'm worried about the people in the wider world who already have a concept of someone with autism, and who are now trying to reconcile that concept with the image of a potential mass murderer. I'm worried about people who are already saying, 'I heard about that guy who shot three people in the town next door, he might have had Asperger's, too. ' Or, 'there was an autistic guy who cornered me in a room, and I wondered if he was going to kill me. ' I think it's important that with Cho, people realize we are dealing with something very, very far from the ordinary autism experience—and probably not autism at all, but the selective mutism I've described. —Sandover 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." There are more appropriate forums for discussing this elsewhere. (And perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for original research?) Phony Saint 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandover:

I’m not so sure that a developmental disorder like Asperger’s can be ruled out, based on Cho’s reported behavior at college. His suitemates reported that his speech patterns, verbal content, and outward behaviors were bizarre, overly stilted, etc. This is soft evidence that possibly (not definitely, just possibly…) Cho’s capacity to perceive and understand interpersonal issues was impaired. The anecdotes of Cho’s behavior reported by his acquaintances sound in some ways like the symptoms described by neuropsychologist Byron Rourke, who specializes in right hemisphere brain syndromes such as non-verbal learning disorder, Asperger’s, and other similar conditions.

Cho’s academic excellence in grammar school does not automatically discount the possibility of his having some congenital neuropsychological problem, either. Such conditions can be extremely subtle and can manifest themselves in countless different outward ways, particularly in an individual of high innate intelligence.

The bottom line – if the anecdotes about his behavior are trustworthy – is that Cho was seriously disorientated socially (and in other ways, too). At the very least, the possibility of a developmental disorder cannot be discounted on the basis of a snap judgment.

As for developmental psychology, read the theories of Otto Kernberg regarding very severe personality disorders. Again, there is much food for thought here in what we so far know about Cho’s thinking and behavior. Many of the symptoms associated with "selective mutism" overlap with Kernberg's descriptions of exceptionally severe personality disorders, and of their potential in certain cases to spill over into paranoia and psychosis.

Kenmore 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Selective mutism doesn't rule out additional pathologies. I still believe that Asperger's is highly unlikely here (if I were being facetious, I would ask you, what's Asperger's?). Note that selective mutism itself may be genetic, and Cho's father is reportedly reclusive and antisocial himself—his was an arranged marriage (according to the New York Times on April 22), and he had to be pressured by his family to take a bride. As I've said, selective mutism can become something very like autism; however, the autism that results has a different character than organic autism. Selective mutism can also drift into the areas you're talking about, too... that said, I'm not a forensic psychiatrist, so I'll zip it up now. Sandover 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but this page is not a general discussion forum - it exists to discuss improvements to the article. As this conversation is largely original research, it really isn't relevant to the article and thus really don't belong on this page. Natalie 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion helps to improve the article in several ways. First, Cho has been described by the media -- and apparently dubiously so -- as being autistic. A decision has to be made by the editors of the article as to how Cho's alleged "autism" should be discussed. Second, there's the unescapable issue of just what was wrong with Cho mentally. In upcoming days the media will probably announce many new details regarding his past, and that will probably fuel more public commentary from experts about what Cho's pathology or disorder may have been. This discussion serves to sharpen judgment as to how that issue will handled in the main article by the wikipedia editors.

Kenmore 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For 34 hours, there stood an unchallenged statement on Cho's Wikipedia page that he had been diagnosed with autism. Countless newspapers around the world published a purported fact about Cho last week, calling it an autism 'diagnosis,' without first questioning its truth value or origin. We're still waiting for a significant retraction or qualification. It's incredible that on a Monday, a weekday, no news organization has been able to unearth a shred of support for Cho's supposed autism diagnosis. Isn't that remarkable? It's a full five days now since this 'autism' story broke, and a full three days since it began to be doubted here and elsewhere: so where's the proof that any of it was true in the first place? While I agree that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, Wikipedia is the appropriate venue to defend against media facts which plainly don't check out, and which are plainly destructive. For that reason, I can't promise not to do it again. Sandover 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The original research is the lengthy discussion of what mental disorder he might have, which is original research and will not be admissibile in the article, assuming one could even diagnose a mental illness from media reports. I understand the need to fact check a media claim, but that doesn't require an extensive supposition on the possible mental problems of a dead man that you've never met. Natalie 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That dead man I never met didn't have autism, Natalie. The world has printed it as fact when there is apparently little or no justification for it. To have an obvious lie like that in circulation, and to put an 'original research' burden on the people who are defending against it, strikes me as hypocrisy. For what it's worth, I'm not speculating about the disturbance (whatever it is) that caused him to go on his rampage. This is not a paranoia vs. psychosis vs. psychopath debate. It's about debunking a label that has already been (falsely) assigned to Cho. There's a big difference. Sandover 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that take 6 paragraphs of speculative diagnosis that you posted above? I agree with you that we should not label him as autistic, and if it is mentioned at all it should be mentioned as media speculation. But a lengthy conversation, that engages in diagnosing someone site unseen as has happened above, is unecessary and bordering on misuse of a talk page. Natalie 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of the basis of Cho's "autism" diagnosis, however, is a very, very big part of his story. I don't think the subject could be addressed on this talk page without getting into lots of "speculative diagnosis".

Kenmore 10:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Gillberg says that autism itself is made up of sub-varieties; he speaks of autisms not autism – disorders of empathy. Autism is an utilitarian umbrella term that provides similar kinds of help and maximises benefit to as many as possible. Clearly, if we pulled apart autism to the same degree we analyse Cho, we would break autism into its sub-varieties. The war between Splitters and Lumpers is an ancient one (incidentally Fred Volkmar[8] quipped in an interview[9] with NPR that splitters tend to be Aspies due to their difficulties with weak central coherence, they fail to see the forest because they obsess over a tree). Just report that Cho's autism is just speculation, report how it the diagnosis never happened and how the media wrongly reported it (often suspicion is altered to fact after passing between people) and don't diagnose. -Diamonddavej 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Korean word for autism 자폐증 (japyejeung) is a cognate of the Chinese/Japanese term 自閉症 (zibizheng), whose Chinese characters literally just mean "self-closed-syndrome" and can be colloquially applied to anyone who is introverted or noticeably quiet. It is not a very scientifically precise term and its typical usage would be equivalent to describing someone as "depressed" (saying "I am depressed" doesn't imply I have clinical depression). Thus the statement from Cho's grandmother of Cho being "autistic" must be taken with a huge grain of salt. I agree with Sandover, I don't believe Cho was autistic. The media took a translated soundbite of "autism" and made a big deal out of it. --Naus 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for that. One Korean speaker told me japyejeung is a very specific medical word, and doesn't have the generalized sense of introversion that its Chinese cognate seems to have (at least according to your description). Apparently, the word japyejeung spread widely across Korean culture just a couple years ago with a film called "Marathon", which told the story of an autistic boy who runs long-distance races. Several Korean speakers who heard Kim's interview—parents of autistic children themselves—told me she didn't seem very informed about autism, and might have picked up the word from its recent popularization. The first translated interview I saw (CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, April 19) did not use the word "autism" in English translation. Cho was said instead to have been inward or withdrawn. Yet other news organizations apparently translated the same interview (in print) and came up with the word "autism." Can anyone find the actual clip? Sandover 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a Reuters Clip of Kim Yang-Soon. I managed to download the video from the Reuters website on the 22nd April by looking at the page's HTML code (its 12 Mb). It was also on youtube for a while, until it was taken down (copyright). I tried looking for the video today on Reuters but I couldn't find it, I think its been deleted. The translator mostly downs out Kim, but I can hear some of her speech quite distinctly. I found two transcripts of the interview, they differ very slightly (two different translators).[10]and [11] The second is a longer transcript that includes some material not in the video I have, a longer version of the video.

자폐증 is Korean for autism and I'm reasonably impressed by their understanding. When I entered 자폐증 into Google several Korean autism related pages appeared; including - ABOUT AUTISM,[12] Autismcenter Korea,[13] and a Korean wiki page about autism.[14]

Also, it was not reported as much...a church pastor at Centreville Korean Presbyterian Church (Va.) said in an interview with Newsweek magazine, "I felt him a little autistic and advised his mother to take him to hospital. But she did not agree with me," "I now repent for not urging her strongly." The interview was published in print, only a short section of it is online. [15] In this case, there is no possibility of a translation error. Diamonddavej 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff, Dave. Reading those interviews with Kim, I'm not sure if I've misremembered something: "When I nudged him he just looked at me but didn't say a word." In fact, the early childhood section as it currently stands has Cho talking when prodded. In fact, in selective mutism, it's more usual the nudge would produce a glare but no words, just as Kim described. So I think it should be changed.

Interesting how many times Kim mentions the fact that the boy has no problems, except that he won't talk. She attributes the same observation to Cho's mother after their move to the US. "She told me she had nothing to worry but only that her son did not talk." In other words, he can talk, but he won't.

I was struck by this quote: "He would just stand up or sit down, and go to the bathroom or eat when I told him to. He just didn't talk at all." What do you think of incorporating it into the section? Or another? Sandover 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated a paraphrase, stating that he readily obeyed verbal commands and cues. Sandover 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Important Fact Missing

There is a central piece of information which should be added at the top, in fact it should probably be the third sentence of the article: It was the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in United States history. References abound. Would one of the Wiki experts be good enough to add something along those lines? 71.121.135.67 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else thinks this should be mentioned right up at the top?? I thought it was a no-brainer. What's the single-most important fact about Seung-Hui Cho from a historical perspective? It's that he is the individual who committed the largest mass-shooting in US history. Thoughts? 71.121.135.67 05:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "IMPORTANT FACTOID". Factoids by definition are trivial.--68.193.135.2 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I renamed this section Fact instead of Factoid to incorporate your input. Thank you. Since the most important fact related to Seung-Hui Cho is that he is the individual who committed the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, that fact belongs at the very top of the article. I propose the most logical spot is after the second sentence. 71.121.135.67 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Information about childhood

The WaPo did a little more digging into Cho's childhood. A picture of Cho in middle school is also featured in the article. Someone had apparently copied sent and this picture to the The Washington Post from his/her yearbook or WaPo researched the yearbook to find the picture. According to the article, neither Cho's picture nor name appeared in his high school yearbook.

Cho, D. & Gardner, A. (2007, April 24). An isolated boy in a world of strangers: Cho's behavior alarmed some who knew him; family "humbled by this darkness." The Washington Post. Retrieved on April 24, 2007. lwalt 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's imaginary friends - Jelly and Spanky

Who else thinks that Cho's imaginary friends, Jelly and Spanky, were his euphemism for masturbation? "I'm in here with my girlfriend and we're making out."[16][17] Cho said that Jelly and Spanky were imaginary, he knew they didn't exist. Nevertheless, his imaginary friends have been used by some to indicate that Cho was suffering from a delusion, including some qualified psychologists. Cho would have been deluded if he said, "I have a super model girlfriend called Jelly, you like to meet her?" I added to the article that Jelly and Spanky were not an indication of a delusional belief and it might have been Cho's euphemism for masturbation. Is this ok? -Diamonddavej 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's original research. Phony Saint 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this is in the wiki now. Has it been found in another source? If you want to keep it in, at least mark it as "speculated by wiki users." 68.42.17.202 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Speculated by wiki users" is not valid article material. I removed the statements. Phony Saint 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's agreed. I tried removing it myself but there was an edit conflict, someone else deleted it first. -Diamonddavej 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hanja (again)

It's seems that Cho's hanja name is back in the article again. Now that the family has released a statement, is there any way to know for sure what hanja his name is? UnfriendlyFire 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "Name" section necessary?

I understand a lot of people have put a lot of hard work into determining that "Seung-Hui Cho" is the proper way to present his name (instead of "Cho Seung-Hui") but now that it's sorted out, does that section really need to exist in the article? Ultimately nobody will care there was some initial confusion about how to print his name. 71.121.135.67 07:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary. But, that's one opinion and my POV. The naming custom of people from a particular country is really out of scope for this article. lwalt 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you 100% on this Lwalt (on this and some comments you made below). I'm all for the deletion of this section, as well as the psychological speculation on the page. Bueller 007 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, for now, at least. Give it a month or so for people to get used to this order of names. (I still have a kneejerk reaction of "it's backwards!" when I see the given-name-first order.) After that, maybe get rid of it. We probably could trim it down quite a bit, though. Rdfox 76 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment by Rdfox. I don't think there's a rush to take this out, and the initial confusion about his name is still fresh so I think having a section clarifying that is useful. There's a good argument that it should ultimately be deleted, but one could also argue that it should ultimately stay. It's a mildly interesting detail to the overall story, in particular because of the controversy it created among some Korean-Americans/Asian-Americans when media outlets did not use the Westernized version of his name. I'm almost certain when books are written in the future about the VT massacre that this aspect of the media coverage of the story will be discussed. Thus I would probably lean toward keeping it in the end, but if this article is getting too long (which is certainly possible) the name section should probably be the first to go.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest seriously condensing the 'Name' section and turning it into a footnote, outside of the main body of the article.--Pharos 17:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Ideal footnote issue. Ronnotel 17:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pack sent before shooting.

The news reported yesterday that the package to NBC was sent before the shootings, not in between. If anyone would find a source (they are out there), then it can be changed. Just a heads up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.107.41 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

What news report are you looking at? According to most news reports that I know of, the first shooting occurred around 7:15 a.m. ET and the second one occurred about 9:45 a.m on the same morning. The label on the USPS Express Mail label shows that the Cho's package was accepted for mailing at 9:01 a.m. ET that same day. Therefore, the package was accepted for mailing by the U.S. Post Office between the first and second shootings, not before the first shooting. lwalt 06:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I could also confirm this by pulling out some NBC Nightly News videos that I record once in a while, but on the day of the shooting, I decided to record it. If you would like more verification, please reply to this Talk section. Neil the Cellist 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ismail Ax

Although "Ismail ax" is currently redirecting to this page, the article contains no mention of these words being written on his arm during the crime. Ideas for where and how we should note that? Or is it really not notable (in which case the redirects should probably be deleted)? Matt Gies 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CNN did a report on it. Search CNN for Ismail ax, there should be an article there. Add that content into the article and cite CNN. 64.236.245.243 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Oldboy is media speculation and analysis

The reference to the Oldboy movie needs to be removed from this article, since no evidence has surfaced that Cho has seen the movie. Oldboy has been brought up by various media organizations, probably because Oldboy is known as a "Korean" movie and this symbol might provide some insight into Cho's actions, at least to those persons in the media who are trying to analyze his behavior. Therefore, this media speculation has no place in an encyclopedic article since the movie does not relate directly to anything action or behavior attributed to Cho.

Just because Cho's pose was somewhat similar to a pose on a promotional poster for a Korean movie does not mean that Cho had emulated anything from the movie, not to mention from the poster itself. Anyway, the Oldboy poster shows that the actor is using one hand to raise the hammer, while Cho uses both hands. Really not that similar. For all I (or others) know, Cho could have adopted his pose from a video game, but we'll never know.

I can see using the Oldboy reference if the movie and/or poster was found among Cho's possessions, but that was not case, according to what we know to date. If the Oldboy reference is to remain in the article, something other than what the media or mental health experts think' must be included in this article, since the various analyses do not represent a fact about the Oldboy movie/poster and Cho, just opinions by talking heads.

This Oldboy information is original research (i.e., the speculation on Oldboy influences that comes from media analyses, not from anything directly related to Cho himself) without evidence that Cho saw the movie Oldboy or had the Oldboy poster in his possession. Merely including in the article "According to <name your favorite media network, magazine or newspaper>, Cho showed the same (similar) post as the one on the Oldboy poster ..." doesn't cut it, because it's not fact...only drawing a conclusion through speculation, not from anything found in the evidence or chain of events. From what I could see, the Oldboy was just one more angle to spin interest in the Virginia Tech tragedy. lwalt 17:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what original research means. None of the mentions of Oldboy are original research. They are all cited. What is original research is your opinion that the two images don't look similar. That IS original research. The analysis done by the media on the content of the media package Cho sent is interesting, and thought provoking enough to be mentioned. 64.236.245.243 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point here -- media analysis or speculation is not fact; it's just opinion and speculation -- that is the original research that was quoted in this article as fact. And...just because a bunch of media outlets decide to speculate on something that was not directly related to the subject does not mean that the speculation has merit, regardless of the number of like stories about this topic. Remember, the media is selling these stories to frame a specific issue. In this case, the media organizations are framing one aspect of this story to extend the interest-- that is, suggesting a correlation between a South Korean person and a South Korean movie without evidence showing that the two were ever in the same space at the same time. Here, we still wind up with an inference that introduces new information that was not learned through factfinding.

The reference to Oldboy was presented by media reports through speculation because some sectors of the media pointed out the similarity in poses in one of Cho's videos and the pose on the Oldboy promotional poster. So, in this case, the Oldboy reference was introduced in reports really as a "I wonder" question (e.g., I wonder whether Cho viewed this South Korean movie because his pose resembled the one on the promotional poster for the movie). None of the police reports or details of police investigations (information from the list of items removed from the dormitory with a search warrant list the movie or the poster.

But really, my point is that no information has been found to directly link Cho to viewing the movie Oldboy or to having in his possession the movie or the promotional poster for the movie...that's what I'm talking about. Can you point out where or when Cho saw this movie or even had in his possession the Oldboy poster from what has been presented to date...that is, from a first person account (relative or acquaintance who can confirm that Cho viewed the movie, owned/rented the movie video or found this Oldboy poster among his things, for example)?

Unless direct information tying Cho to this movie or the movie's poster can be presented, then the media speculation, analysis, and conclusion (or inference, for that matter) for Oldboy are at best, original research -- that is, introduced by the media as a hypothesis, theory, or whatever that was used to draw a speculative conclusion. lwalt 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not original research. Media outlets are allowed to speculate, and analyze material all they want, and we can report on their analysis here as long as it's cited as a reliable source. MSNBC is a reliable source. It is true as far as I know, that there is no direct evidence that suggests that Cho watched Oldboy, however I do think that the comparison is interesting enough to warrant inclusion here. I could be wrong though, and I invite anyone else to voice their opinion on the matter. If a consenus is reached that it should go, I'll remove the content myself. But until then I must insist that it remain. Malamockq 23:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Productions of Richard McBeef

Several readings and a few more fully realized versions of Richard McBeef began appearing on Youtube within twentyfour hours of the shooting and during the following weeks. Here is an example of one.

Richard McBeef (act:1 scene:1) REEL ONE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCzvFNPkHY4

Richard McBeef (act:1 scene:1 REEL TWO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coScLmOWW1s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renecalvo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

That fact is not really relevant to the article; and is also self-promotion on your part, I should point out. Matt Gies 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the second piece, "Mr.Brownstone" ? It's even more hitting. Merewyn 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Relationship problem

According to "early reports", it seems he was obssessed with a classmate Emily Hilscher and was furious after his romantic advances were denied. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui) (thought ): Being a lonely individual(see below for description on it), it would appear that he actually reached out to one girl in hopes of love

I can't add this because I'm not registered, but this article ("http://abcnews.go.com/US/VATech/story?id=3071730&page=2") states that there are email records that Cho and Emily Hilscher were at least acquainted. This is contrary to this wiki article suggesting that Cho and Emily had never met.68.42.17.202 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the article has been modified since you linked to it but I can't find the place where it says they were acquainted. It simply says that all e-mail records involving either of them were seized. Also even if they had exchanged e-mails, this doesn't mean they'd met. Many people exchanged e-mails without ever having meet. People even exchange intimate e-mails without ever having met... Nil Einne 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho may have sought out one or both of the girls he stalked in Nov-Dec 2005. In particular, the girl he last stalked on the Tuesday, 13th Dec 2005, her complaint led to threats of suicide and a stay in a mental heath clinic; now that’s a grudge. -Diamonddavej 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Movement of autism statement

Leaving the question of whether or not Cho actually had autism aside, where should the statement made by Cho's grandaunt go? If she was told by Cho's parents only a year ago about him supposedly having autism, it certainly doesn't belong in "Behavior as a young child." Putting it under "official psychiatric evaluation" would make it sound like an actual diagnosis; perhaps the section could be renamed to include both the official evaluation and the call? Phony Saint 23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Cho was first suspected to be autistic at 8 years old by Kim Yang-Soon (the sister of Cho's grandfather) just before he moved to the US in 1992. So it should remain in the childhood development section, with the necessary admonishment that it is just opinion. There was also a church pastor who suspected Cho to be autistic and asked his mother to bring him to a Hospital.[18] I don't know how old Cho was at that time; the interview was printed in Newsweek, only a short section of it is online.

I found the transcript of the Reuters Video interview with Kim Yang-Soon.[19] The autism controversy originated from her interview. By looking at HTML source code I was able to download the video from Reuters; I have a copy. I just went back to the Reuters website, the video was since deleted. Kim discusses meeting Cho when he was 8 year old, just before he moved to the US.

85-YEAR-OLD KIM YANG-SOON, CHO'S GREAT AUNT, SAYING: "He would just stand up or sit down, and go to the bathroom or eat when I told him to. He just didn't talk at all."

(SOUNDBITE) (Korean) 85-YEAR-OLD KIM YANG-SOON, CHO'S GREAT AUNT, SAYING: "He was a fine looking boy, but he didn't talk. When I nudged Him (she makes a poking action with her right arm), he just looked at me, but didn't say a word. I thought he was an autistic child."

Kim added she heard from Cho's mother later that the he was diagnosed as being autistic after Cho went to the United States, but this had not been officially confirmed.(see below)

10. (SOUNDBITE) (Korean) 85-YEAR-OLD KIM YANG-SOON, CHO'S GREAT AUNT, SAYING "After the family moved to the U.S., the mother was always worried that the boy was too quiet. She told me she had nothing to worry but only that her son did not talk."

And there is that one other source relating to Cho's alleged autism, the interview with a church Pastor at Centreville (Va.) Korean Presbyterian Church, published in Newsweek magazine.[20] He said, "I felt him a little autistic and advised his mother to take him to hospital. But she did not agree with me," he tells Newsweek. "I now repent for not urging her strongly." (Instead, she prayed for a cure).

A Pastor is not a mental health professional. 68.247.241.34 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Kim Yang-soon misunderstood Cho’s mother; Cho was only suspected as autistic by a church pastor and was not diagnosed by a doctor or she said he was diagnosed to allay her aunts worries. There is no record of an official diagnosis, which should have come to light by now. Diamonddavej 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Naus's comment at the bottom of Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#selective mutism (not autism) about possible interpretations of the grandaunt's statement. But that aside, I'm not concerned about the general statements by Cho's relatives that he seemed odd while living in Korea, but by the specific call stated to have happened last year, in which his parents said he was diagnosed autistic. That statement is out of place in childhood development. Phony Saint 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, Kim's description of Cho's behavior at age 8 is highly consistent with selective mutism, and inconsistent with autism/Asperger's. The word japyejeung (autism) is a relatively new term in the Korean popular lexicon. She says she only heard about japyejeung (she didn't say a diagnosis, only japyejeung) in her last New Year's call. For what it's worth, I have never read an interview translation in which she said he was 'diagnosed' with japyejeung, and from what I gather from native Korean speakers, she doesn't demonstrate significant familiarity with medical jargon.

I think she's offering up her own armchair japyejeung diagnosis, trying to fit the behavioral pieces she knows together...but I think she's drawn the wrong conclusion from them. The fact that Cho wouldn't speak to her (she prodded him, and he glared), but would obey her commands to get up, sit down, go into the other room, etc., seems uncharacteristic of an autistic child's first or second encounter with a new relative. She called him "well-behaved" in another interview. Does any of this sound like an autistic child in a new environment, meeting a stranger? Absolutely not. But all of this is consistent with selective mutism behavior, and as I've said, selective mutism is frequently mistaken for autism. Thanks for finding this transcript, very helpful. Sandover 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't really care whether or not Cho's grandaunt is telling the truth, but I do care that the statement doesn't fit in its current loacation. Phony Saint 14:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't doubt anyone is telling the truth. There's so much that is lost in translation. Sandover 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement regarding Cho’s grandaunt’s conversation with Cho’s mother should stay in the childhood development section. Cho's grandaunt said that she heard from Cho's mother, on the telephone, that Cho was diagnosed with autism after he arrived in the US. Media outlets assume that the diagnosis (and phone call) occurred immediately after arriving in the US, 1992-93. I think we have been confused by misinformation. The reference to a New Years telephone conversation should be removed unless evidence is given of its timing.

Certainly, no media outlet spoke of a mystery New Years telephone call last year. Also, Koreans follow the Chinese Lunar calendar, New Years was on January 29th 2006. There was no specification of a Korean or Western New Year, which leads me to doubt the veracity of the claim.

Kim added she heard from Cho's mother later that the he was diagnosed as being autistic after Cho went to the United States, but this had not been officially confirmed. – Reuters[21]

Diamonddavej 19:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd assumed the details of the call were from the source cited, but checking it doesn't show any chronological details. I'd just go for removing the reference to the date and leave the autism statement attributed to the grandaunt. Phony Saint 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sandover just added a link to where Time mentions the New Year's call. Now what? Phony Saint 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I chose "just last year" because the Time article wasn't specific as to date, but at least specified that it was the most recent New Year (whatever the calendar system). The detail is important mainly because it clarifies that the autism claim doesn't date back to 1992-1993.Sandover 04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Phony Saint, are you going to restore the autism references? Or just pretend as if the issue is resolved, that there is no controversy here? I think there needs to be some active references to fact that the autism claim was made by the media and is now in doubt, otherwise people will still assume it's valid (and will restore it). There are literally hundreds of newspapers around the world which reported this "diagnosis" as fact, and it's not a fact, despite the fact that the mainstream media is yet to issue a correction. The fact that the phone call mentioning 'autism' happened recently, and not in 1992-1993, is important—no one is making a big deal of it, it's just a couple of words. Why do you object to it? Please be more careful when deleting copy, because you have a habit of deleting important footnotes and references. You were the one who deleted the Time reference, for example, which contains the critical reference to the recent New Year's phone call. Could you be a little more careful? Sandover 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing news reports state as fact is that Cho's grandaunt says that his parents told her he had autism, which is far from stating conclusively "Cho had autism." The sentence after that clarifies by saying that no such diagnosis had been found. Phony Saint 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the whole paragraph, I moved it to "Psychiatric evaluation." The only things I removed were the additional references to other news reports since they mostly say the same thing about Cho's grandaunt. (I have a habit?) Phony Saint 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You did delete the Time reference a couple days back, along with a couple links to blogs which doubted the autism diagnosis. I strongly believe autism still belongs in the article, in the early childhood section, with its appropriate caveats, not buried 3/4ths of the way down the article. Until and unless the mainstream media issues a correction, it's important that people know his early childhood was not characterized by autism. Sandover 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to delete the Time reference; as far as blogs go, read WP:SPS. I don't believe it belongs in early childhood, as neither the call nor the autism diagnosis statement didn't happen in early childhood. It doesn't flow chronologically, nor is it our job to point out mistakes in the media ourselves (which falls under WP:NOR and WP:SYN.) Phony Saint 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't intend to delete the Time reference, but you did. And then you questioned whether the aunt had only been told last year, only reneging on that after the Time reference was restored.

The allegation that Cho received an "autism diagnosis" in childhood was widely disseminated in the media, and it is false. For some reason, you don't think people reading about his early childhood should know that there is some dispute about this—but I assure you, although this is not news to you, it is news to people reading his page for the first time, many of whom have already heard about this alleged childhood "autism". and you have now relegated the discussion of autism to the 'psychiatric evaluation' section, although 'autism' is not a 'psychiatric evaluation'.

You have generated no consensus for this move, and I don't see other Wikipedists supporting it. Quite apart from your careless deletions, I don't think you understand the issue, Phony Saint. A false meme about Cho's early childhood "autism" out there. People read Wikipedia to find out what the news is. I am restoring it again. If you can find support from other Wikipedists for your move, then generate it. But you did not do so with this Talk section. Sandover 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I was in support of the statement about the call, having recalled seeing it somewhere, but the sources at the time made no mention of it. Since you put back the Time source, I'm now in support of it.
2. I don't have consensus, but neither do you, so in lieu of that I went with being bold. I asked at the very beginning whether or not we should move it, and nobody has responded with a negative, other than your comments on what you think Cho has, which is not what I was asking, and Diamonddavej's comment disputing when the call took place, which is now shown to be last New Year's (about 3 months ago now, actually.)
3. I am not disputing the fact that there is no record of Cho being diagnosed with autism. I only want to move it further down the article, as a call made during Cho's adulthood would not be appropriately placed in a section about his childhood. There is nothing in Seung-Hui Cho#Behavior as a young child that outright states that Cho was shown to have autism as a child, and why you must prove anything to the reader there is beyond me. Phony Saint 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...So, could someone please comment on this, at least to say that I'm wrong in some way? Does it really make sense to place a 2006 phone call under "Behavior as a young child"? Phony Saint 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From the standpoint of WP:BLP there are lots of innocent people who are somewhere on the autism spectrum, including high function Asperger's syndrome individuals, who would be harmed by an unofficial labelling in the Wikipedia article that Cho was autistic or had Asperger's. The claim does not belong in the article without a reliable source, and hearsay claim that an 85 year old heard something from Cho's mother, or that a pastor not qualified as a diagnostician thought he was autistic, just does not cut it. It is premature and irresponsible to state or imply in the article that Cho was autistic. Armchair diagnoses on this talk page, including discussions as to whether he was autistic based on how he responded to meeting a relative, are inappropriate and should be removed. Reporters badger elderly relatives who had scant contact with him seeking a pithy quote to headline, out of context, and despite language barriers. It is common when someone is revealed to be a serial killer or mass murderer for people to claim "I always knew there was something wrong with that fellow." The article should not be full of recollection from his playmates which may suffer from this sort of hindsight. Edison 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The two stalking incidents in 2005

I found this important Washington Times article [22]. It talks to Andy Koch, Cho’s roommate 2005-06, about the two stalking incidents in November and the 13th Dec 2005. The account differs radically from other sources. This version is much more reliable (its a first hand interview, not a retelling in other newspapers). This time, intriguingly, there is no mention of text messaging or email.

The first stalking incident happened when Cho stared at a girl, and saw "promiscuity" in her eyes. No mention of text messages. The campus cops warned Cho not to stare at girls. In the second stalking incident, Cho wrote a line from a Shakespeare play on a door board.

My name, dear saint, is hateful to myself. . . . Had I it written, I would tear the word.

The girl who lived behind the door read the note, she called the campus cops. Again Cho was warned. Later the same day, Cho emailed roommate Andy Koch saying he was suicidal. The cops returned and brought Cho to a mental heath clinic. That was the 13th Dec 2005. Other versions read that Cho texted and rang the two girls, that he was trying to contact them.

Did Cho use email and text to harass other women or was there a mix up in this story, later journalists adding text and emails?

Have people ever read the psychological research into how people confuse stories? Often people replace the bazaar with the plausible. See "War of the Ghosts".[23] -Diamonddavej 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, does it mean that all that stalking he was turned to police for, consisted of looking into the eyes and writing Shakespeare ("Romeo and Julliet") on a door board? WOW! I wish I was stalked that way. This "stalking" part definitely require checking. Merewyn 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. I'll add it to the section Relationship with students or perhaps a section of its own. Diamonddavej 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any hard facts and evidence that Cho stalked anyone. By stalking I mean the way it is defined by the law. People are often confused with what stalking is. Also, was he actually convicted of stalking in a court of law? If not, I don't know why people keep bringing it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.176.174 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

There is no legal definition in the UK but several court cases have concluded that, "generally, stalking and harassment means intentional behaviour, involving more than one incident, which causes fear, upset or annoyance to the victim."[24]

In the US, stalking is defined as "generally, stalking is defined as the wilful or intentional commission of a series of acts that would cause a reasonable person to fear death or serious bodily injury."

In South Australia, stalking is, "intentionally harassing, threatening and/or intimidating a person by following them about, sending them letters of articles, telephoning them, waiting outside their place of abode and the like."

On the wiki stalking page, I found this gem, "The victim may or may not be aware that it is happening, and the perpetrator may or may not have malicious intent." Reading that made me feel both guilty and paranoid.

According to legal definitions, Cho didn’t stalk to two girls. However, this opinion could change if we find out more about what atually happened. -Diamonddavej 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If indeed these reported "stalking" facts are the full and complete story, then I find it pathetic that he would be regarded as a "stalker". He sounds more like a hopelessly goofy, disoriented young man whom others -- both the alleged stalking victims and Cho's male suitemates -- may have over-reacted to.

Of course -- very obviously -- if this behavior by Cho toward the females had been repeated in spite of their telling him to leave them alone, then it would be justifiable to call the police and label him as a burgeoning stalker. But did anything like this happen in actuality?

Might Cho's "stalking" have been nothing more than a pathetic faux pas?

Perhaps there's more to the "stalking" story than has been reported? I wonder if Cho had had any kind of online parley with these females prior to his attempting to meet them (i.e., an ongoing, cordial exchange of messages by both parties). If so, that may explain Cho's seeking to meet one of the females unannounced.

Then again, it could be that the Cho's online messages to the females were not reciprocated, and that there perhaps was something menacing about the communications. If so, then that would certain justify police involvement.

Or, maybe Cho related non-verbally to these females in something akin to the baleful, deeply unsettling demeanor that his teachers and classmates found to be so threatening? If so, then that would entirely justify a police intervention on behalf of these three females that were the objects of Cho's misguided attention.

There is so much about Cho's personality that is not fully or adequately reported to us by the people who knew him.

Kenmore 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon (my comments above)...I've since read the 4/22/07 article by the Washington Times's Michael E. Ruane. I guess I can see that Cho's behavior in the dorm was freaky enough that the female "stalking" victims showed good judgment in calling the cops immediately, as opposed for waiting for Cho to escalate. The Shakespeare quote that he left on one girl's blackboard could indeed be interpreted as an ominous hint from an obsessive "enemy".

Kenmore 07:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he was a remarkably scary person, able to freak-out women on sight. -Diamonddavej 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Creative writings" lessons on Virginia Tech

Check the works of Cho's teacher Nikki Giovanni, [25], especially the poem Can you kill a nigger, it occurs that actually Cho's plays were not much more cruel or shocking than those of his teacher. Let's compare Giovanni's words Can you shoot straight and Fire for good measure Can you splatter their brains in the street Can you kill them [26] with the Cho's plays. Additionally, the horror books Cho were selling out on eBay, were required for another lecture at Virginia Tech. So, writing horrorful pieces was actually fitting the style of teaching in this school. Hence, the context of the lessons and context of the style of writings of Giovanni must be mentionned to the article. Merewyn 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Seung-hui Cho -- not about Nikki Giovanni. Her role in Cho's story is that Cho presented problems in her class with the work and with other students, in addition to her referral to the VT school administration because of Cho's disrespect of her class. lwalt 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant that we cannot judge in the article the writings of Cho as macabre ect. WITHOUT taking a larger look at the style of teaching at VT, and especially his direct teacher's style. Remember that the words out of context, without social background, are always the words misunderstood. Merewyn 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read the poem you quoted from, I agree. This is relevant. And the thing about the horror books, 100% relevant - definitely add that info.—greenrd 12:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Name section too low

Does anybody else feel like "The Name" section should be somewhere near the top? It seems out of place in the closing paragraph. --132.69.234.73 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistype error?

The article says that On February 2, 2007, Cho purchased his first handgun, while the sources say that he bought it on Februar 9. Merewyn 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

can someone add this link to Cho Seung english version ?

bg:Чо_Сюн_Ху

thanx

Done. autocratique ✩ 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Range

The only connection between Cho and Emily Hilscher we know so far seems to be that they had both practiced at some shooting range. Does anyone know whether they went to the same range?

I thought that was Emily and her boyfriend? Pzychotix 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Parents

Remarks that parents were not identified or spoken to press were also removed, why a ban on this observation? One report of a Korean association spokesman says he is familiar with people who know the parents, who were under distress. Does anyone know why the press has chosen not to identify the parents?

Its not the press. The family is under protection by law. See this.

The article says they are under protection of law enforcement which means they are being protected from physical attack. They are still free to talk to the press and the the CNN article quotes from a statement they released. I don't believe there is a law that protects their identity but there is no reason to mention it. --Gbleem 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Hi. The article used to say that because this is a Korean name, the surname comes first. However, the notice is now gone, and the name now comes last. I suppose this has been discussed previously, but why is it changed this way when the article first purposely said otherwise? Also, is there a link to this debate, if it has been disscussed? I again didn't really have time to read all of the archives. Please explain why this happened, the repeated changing of the placement of surname. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a vote, and we changed the policy because that's what AP and the rest of the media did (after there was proof that this was Cho's preferred method of writing it). Bueller 007 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is explained in the name section of the article. SMBriscoe 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

repeated sentences

Hi. I discovered repeated sentences in the article. Compare this paragraph: During a New Year's telephone call in 2006, Cho's mother told the elderly aunt that Cho might have autism, a developmental disability marked by profound social isolation and delayed speech acquisition.[13][14] No autism diagnosis could be verified with Cho's parents, and no records or other evidence have surfaced to indicate such a diagnosis was made or relied upon by U.S. school authorities.[15] Cho's relatives thought that he was mute or even mentally ill.[16] According to Cho's uncle, Cho "didn’t say much and didn't mix with other children."[16], from "Behaviour as a young child", with this: In a New Year's call in 2006, Cho's parents told the elderly aunt that he might have autism, a developmental disability marked by profound social isolation and delayed speech acquisition.[13][53] However, no autism diagnosis could be verified with Cho's parents, and no records or other evidence have surfaced to indicate such a diagnosis was ever made, let alone relied upon, by U.S. school authorities.[54], from "phychiatric evaluation". One part of the first mention is clearly copied into the second one, so it should be removed. I didn't do so because it may be seen as removal of info, and because they may have different citations. Please do what you can to fix it if possible. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be due to me as per Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#Movement of autism statement. I initially moved the paragraph further down the article, someone disagreed and put back the paragraph in its original spot, creating two paragraphs. I removed the second one. Phony Saint 03:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho's stay at private facility

I found from someone else's post a link to a site stating that Cho did stay a few days at a private facility in December 2005. I'm not sure how to verify this as I've not seen or heard this anywhere else. If this was true, wouldn't it had made a difference in Cho being able to get a gun? I'm not sure if wikipedia would allow this to be put in if it cannot be verified elsewhere, but I thought I'd pass it on if it could be useful.

www.sptimes.com/2007/04/19/Worldandnation/Cho_had_history_with_.shtml

-fmp

207.119.2.72 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New piece of information

You should reference this fact in the Cho article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04292007/tv/did_dateline_push_cho_too_far__tv_phil_mushnick.htm

Complete speculation. Nothing says that Cho watched Dateline. Phony Saint 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, there's a TON of useless speculation in the article at present. We still have that stupid picture of Oldboy in there. Bueller 007 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Notoriety Beats Anonymity link?

Anyone else think this link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/reportage/article1678526.ece is out of place here? Seems like lots of speculation and judgemental armchair diagnosis. Plenty of that available in the media, but it doesn't add anything factual. Chromaone 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It sounded very poor. Have a look at this link [27] by Prof. Paul T. P. Wong, who gives both a cultural and psychological perspective. -Diamonddavej 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please get rid of this stupid link in an attempt to sell newspapers!141.155.160.152

While the Wong article lacks the sensational tone of the Times article, I don't think it belongs here either. It is not a big improvement that he is able to discern anger, hate, sadness and loneliness all from one college ID photo. Any attempt to diagnose Cho based on the meager data publicly available today is speculation. Chromaone 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed both of those links. Linking to speculations is almost as bad as speculating ourselves. Phony Saint 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Archiving Bot

Does anyone else think archiving anything older than 24 hours is somewhat excessive? I would think a minimum 72 hours would be much more appropriate. 24 hours barely allows a discussion to get started before it's in the archives, in my opinion. Thoughts? Ikilled007 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, especially since the rate of discussion (and thus, the danger of the page becoming unmanageably long) has so markedly fallen. Matt Gies 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the configuration settings up top. Is that all that has to be done? --BigDT 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, will manually archiving the non-timestamped sections affect the bot? Phony Saint 04:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Why was the naming/name section deleted? Many Americans were confused about the Asian way of putting the surname last. I thought it was well documented and very informative. Why was it removed? Is it because the article was getting too long again? Perhaps, the article length issue may be discussed to allow articles to be a bit longer. I hope the editors may consider reinstating the naming section. Cherylyoung 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I had moved the info (well, the essential part of it), to a footnote, while someone else has now changed the format to that a reference, which is not what it is, and moreover, a format in which the info is hidden to the casual reader. I suggest moving back to a footnote for this.--Pharos 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Please keep image use within WP:NONFREE, which says that use of nonfree images should be kept to a minimum and details the circumstances under which they may be used. --Minderbinder 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no violation of policy here and the images are crucial to the article. You'd have to have bias against having a scholarly article on this subject to want them gone. Ikilled007 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus right now is that the images are appropriate and important to the article. Do not remove them. Malamockq 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Behaviour in elementary school?

Is there any source that has reported on how Cho acted in elementary school? There's a curious time gap between the accounts of him as a young child and as a high school student. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-22 13:02Z

According to a friend, he was relatively popular and not hated. She claims "she only has good memories." It seems in Middle School his bullying began. Middle School can be much more alienating. -KS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.184.39 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Sexual Orientation?

Is there any information about his sexual orientation?--Jerrypp772000 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He reportedly spent time with a female "escort" prior to the shootings. He was also accused of stalking female classmates and taking photographs of them underneath their desks. [28] Italiavivi 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• In any case, I don't see why it's relevant. -Etafly 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was just curious.--Jerrypp772000 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that he was straight -KS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.184.39 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I added the escort hiring to the main section under "pre-shooting behavior". Now of course, the tabloids claim he's secretly gay. :-P --Kschang77 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone decided that it should renamed "Female Escort Encounter". While I agree with the title, I was hoping that someone will dig up some MORE of his strange behavior before the shooting and group it under that heading. Oh well. :P -- Kschang77 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I have some more information regarding his sexual orientation here http://www.nndb.com/people/307/000131911/

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo Mispelling in the Article

Dr. Michael Wellner is properly spelled with only one L. The correct spelling is "Welner". Editor, please fix.

 Done. I googled the doctor's name and found both spellings. Looks like the news media spelled his name with "LL" and that's how the spelling in the article was picked up. Dr. Welner's profile is online, and I found the spelling with only one L. lwalt 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

I am posting my response to Wooyi here regarding stalking and Cho. I think it is a serious issue and mention of it should be put in his biography.

Hello, I appreciate that you have told me about yourself so I will tell you about my background.

I live in Michigan. My daughter, Rochelle, while in high school tutored kids from a youth home. She was stalked. We moved. They found her an murdered her. After she was murdered. I learned that in Westland 2 girls had complained to police several times that Aldo Funari had assaulted them and was leaving death threats on their answering machine with a countdown of days. They went to the police several times and since there were no witnesses, the police just took a report. On the last day of the countdown, my daughter was murdered. Aldo got his friends to help. They used his gun and put it in my daughter's mouth then put her by the railroad tracks. Aldo, who held her arms was a juvenile was put on a tether and is now free. Calvin went to prison.

After my daughter's murder, worked with Michgan legislators to get laws changed for personal protection orders, truth in sentencing and sentencing guidelines. Recently, a young man who brutally killed at age 12, was paroled. For Abrahamson and Aldo, there will be no further follow up.

It was difficult to get the laws changed because it costs $40K to keep a person in prison. I know a lot about stalking and murder because I spent a lot of time with victims and their parents. One woman from Ann Arbor thought he daughter was OK. The stalker went to her daughter's bedroom window, shot an killed her as she lay asleep in bed. Maybe sometimes a person will accuse someone of stalking and it is not serious, more often, I think, it is not taken seriously and women are discouraged from "pressing charges" so nothing is done other than the report.

Many, many young women have been killed. Most cases never get press coverage. I am a member of Parents of Murdered Children, and Citizen's against Homicide. I am glad that the stalking incidents in your highschool were not serious. When a person gets a personal protection order and the stalker violates that order, there is a paper trail that may be used by police. A personal protection order has more effect than someone notifying a stalker to have no further contact. When a person obtains a personl protection order, the stalker is not incarcerated, the stalker is just given written notification that he is not to have contact with that person. If the stalker violates that order, then there may be something like a tether before actual incarceration.

Yes, some people may be helped with counseling. Others may not. Usually, there is a long trial and error period to find the medication to treat the symptoms of anxiety, depression, mania, psychosis, etc. and counseling is a long, long process. Cho, like many people with mental problems refused to comply with treatment. Andy Koch, his roommate reached out to him as well as Lucinda Roy, the codirector of Creative Writing. Cho was not cooperative. The mental health laws protect the patient. There are confidentiality laws and laws to insure that a person is not given medication against their will. This is good but when a seriously delusional person refuses treatment and medication, there is nothing that can be done. At the time when my daughter tried to reach out to the youth in the youth home, I was proud of her community service, but the abused, abandoned and neglected youth should be handled by professionals. Cherylyoung 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a sad fact that most stalking cases went unreported and were found AFTER the fact, when STALKING is the ONLY crime in which a POTENTIAL kidnapper/murderer actually ADVERTISE themselves to police and other law enforcement.

People forgot all about Richard Farley and the ESL shooting of 1988 by now, but Farley is probably one of the best documented stalkers in the US. He had sent over 200 letters to his victim over period of 4 years, used pre-texting to obtain her phone number and/or address, even after she moved (she moved at least 4 times) and will not let up even when he was terminated from his job at ESL. Finally in 1988 Black filed for restraining order, to be made permanent on February 17th, 1988. A day before the court date, Richard Farley walked into ESL with 3 long guns and 2 pistols, and shot dead 7 ESL employees, and wounded 5, including Laura Black, whom he probably thought he killed. Farley is still on California death row.

Stalking is a serious problem, but only the big cases gets covered. Rebecca Schaeffer, any one? She opened her door, and an unknown guy shot her in the chest. She didn't even know she's being stalked, and what her stalker wanted: to sent her to heaven.

Part of the problem is with the society mindset. We want to see boy gets the girl at the end, and we often think the girl is just playing "hard to get". When the stalker entered an imaginary world, that world was so good based on his own fantasies that he no longer wants to leave... Until something, usually bad, happens.

Again, stalking is about the ONLY crime where potential murders, rapists, and kidnappers advertise themselves. It should be treated FAR MORE SERIOUSLY than it is now. --Kschang77 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...What does any of this have to do with Cho? Or more specifically, with this article? Phony Saint 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PS... Because Cho had manifested MANY classic symptoms of a stalker... secretly filming other students, leaving notes, surprise visits, and so on. However, in each case VATech police stepped in and he stopped, but he was never followed up on until his dorm mate called in police again and have him evaluated psychologically. Yes, hindsight is 20/20 and all that. -- Kschang77 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The stalking incidents are already mentioned, and they're all that need to be said. Phony Saint 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Date Discrepancy

There is something that doesn't make sense to me. The article says Cho was born in 1984, but graduated in 2003. Individuals born in 1984 would have to have graduated by 2002. Did he fail a grade ?

What is more confusing that is says he completed a three year elementary program in one and a half years. If this is true, then it would have shaved atleast another year off, being he should have graduated in 2001.

Can anyone figure out why there is such a big date discrepancy ?

by Raindreamer.

"When Cho was a sophomore, he was a member of the Westfield High School Science Club, according to the school's 2001 yearbook." From The Washington Post, paragraph 7.

"Cho graduated from Westfield High School, a Fairfax County public school, in 2003. The school system says two of the dead yesterday at Virginia Tech had graduated from Westfield in 2006; they would have been freshmen when Cho was a senior." From ABC News, paragraph 22.

"The school files contain only a single sheet of paper on Cho, showing he left the school in August 1992, at age 8, after partially completing second grade." From The Los Angeles Times, second to last paragraph.

Also, I can no longer check/verify the statement from the article, "Cho finished the three-year program at Poplar Tree Elementary School in one and a half years," since the link for this reference is now dead. According to Cho's classmate, the classmate mentioned that Cho finished the program early, but which program is referred to here? ... I dunno. Apparently, the mention of an early finish must have been stated in the article, according to other links that I've googled. Should this be removed from the article if another "live" reference cannot be found to support this statement?

If a live reference cannot be found to replace the one in the article, "According to Kim Gyeong-won, Cho's friend in elementary school for three years who now attends Kyung Hee University in Seoul, South Korea, Cho finished the three-year program at Poplar Tree Elementary School in one and a half years. Cho was noted for being good at mathematics and English, and teachers pointed to him as an example for other students." should be changed to:

"According to Kim Gyeong-won, Cho's friend in elementary school for three years who now attends Kyung Hee University in Seoul, South Korea, Cho was noted for being good at mathematics and English, and teachers pointed to him as an example for other students." lwalt 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a great question that I was wondering about myself. However, there MAY be one explanation that addresses the cultural/education gap between Korea and the US in regards to starting school at what age. When Korean kids immigrate to the US, they are kept at the same grade level they were in Korea when they are actually a year or two behind in the American education system in terms of age. For example, my cousin was born in November 1985 in Korea, but was put into the 10th grade for the '02-'03 school year when he immigrated to the US, when he should have been in the 12th grade. By Korean standards, he was in the 10th grade, and his education was transferred as such. The gunman may have had that experience as well, in which he was put a year or two behind in elementary school by American standards. This is probably why the math doesn't seem to add up. If there are others out there who understand the Asian education system better than I do, then please correct any mistakes here, as I am going by what I know from my family. I'm sorry that I can't answer the question regarding the timeline he spent in elementary school, because I don't know myself. C12young 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this question...and reminding me. After I thought about the age gap, I was reminded of the Chinese student who was in my class at middle school (junior high school where I'm from). Back then, the student was in the 7th grade at 14 years old. By U.S. standards, a student of that age would have been at least in the 9th grade, assuming that the student's birth date was earlier than the cutoff date for the grade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by lwalt 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he was much older than his class mates might have prevented him from fitting in and would have led him to be bullied more. Maybe there was a link between his age, his being bullied, and his subsequent shooting spree.

Myspace Page

The private Myspace page indicated as being that of Cho Seung-hui's in the "External Links" section of the article is not in fact his at all. Use of a code from www.joyboner.com reveals that the signup date of the owner of the page is 4/17/07. This link should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.252.59 (talk) 02:10, 19 April, 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes in behaviour prior to mass killing

In recent weeks his routine had changed. His roommates say he went to the campus gym at night, lifting weights to bulk up He went for a haircut — surprising them by coming back to the room with a military-style buzz cut. Students say he seemed as quiet as ever in the days before Monday's rampage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaulator (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 April, 2007 (UTC)

Personality characteristics

Personality characteristics : lonely(by choice), did not talk much(quiet)-- (refused to participate in class even when called upon, refused to respond to people even with greeted.), "meanness" "arrogant","obnoxious","intelligent man" (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaulator (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 April, 2007

Virginia Tech special team for Seung Hui

I read somewhere Vriginia Tech had special team for Seung Hi, and they had regular meetings too.

What was the activity of the special team?

Anybody know?

I read there is a special team of administrators, health professionals, and law enforcement people who meet regularly at Tech on any number of topics, which could have included Cho. Also not in the public sphere are Cho's experiences with the mental health professionals on campus and through his court-ordered counseling.69.255.0.91 23:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC

bullying

I'm a bit confused. i read the newsweek article and it mentioned that cho was bullied but not by his church youth group. is there another source? it should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.168.38 (talk) 00:32, 28 April, 2007 (UTC)

His name

I thought it was Cho Seung-Hui, not Seung-Hui Cho. I also heard CNN say it was "Cho Sung Lee", but that seems to be an obvious misunderstanding. Explanation? - Two-Sixteen.11.222.21 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

see this article, one of many explanations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002288.html

I'm not sure where CNN got their name, but in East Asia the surname comes first in someone's name (or at least in non-Westernized countries) but when he immigrated he may have Americanized his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Working for Him (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Disappointment of the parents?

I remember reading somewhere that Cho's parents were not pleased with their son having to "settle" for VA Tech, when his sister was able to get into Princeton. Being an APA myself, I can understand this kind of pressure. Does any one know where that citation came from or was it all speculation? -- Kschang77 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised, seeing his writings, that he was an English major anywhere. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25 3 May 2007 (GMT).

To Kschang - Are you referring to the statement, "And he was raised in a South Korean family and culture that so values boys his mother once told her employer that she wished her son had attended Princeton instead of her daughter." This statement can be found in the 7th paragraph of this article. SOURCE: Drogin, B., Fiore, F. & Kang, C. (2007, April 22). Bright daughter, brooding son: Enigma in the Cho household. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.

P.S. While I was searching for the statement by Cho's mother, I came across something else that I found interesting - a purported quote by an uncle in South Korea (identified in the article as "Kim"). "[W]hen I heard that it happened in Virginia, where my sister lived, and the name was Seung Hui, I knew. He has a girl's name - Seung Hui is a rare name for a man." SOURCE: Sang-Han, C. (2007, April 20). Relatives in South Korea say Cho was an enigma. The International Herald. Retrieved on May 9, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lwalt (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Hanja (again)

I noticed that Cho's hanja is back in the article again. I did some digging and his Korean article lists his Hanja from a Chinese source. Can anyone verify that because as I recall when his name first came out, everyone was guessing his hanja. UnfriendlyFire 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from manifesto

Just a bit ago, the quote from the manifesto in the Weapons section ("All the shit you've given me...") was changed from having "(expletive deleted)" included, citing that Wiki is not censored. The problem with this is that, while Wiki is NOT censored, the original source IS. Going to the source material at MSNBC, they specify that all foul language is redacted from it per NBC News policy. While "shit" is certainly the logical inferrence for that particular word, isn't that technically speculation? The MSNBC page is the only place that I've seen the page in question, and unless we can get a source showing the actual word used, I think we need to go back to "(expletive deleted)" for the accuracy of the quotation. Thoughts? Rdfox 76 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're 100% correct. Bueller 007

I don't think that's necessary. I think the intention of the quotes we place here should be what Cho said, not what NBC news says. Malamockq 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point, as the new reference found lists the deleted word as "s---", which *IS* enough to infer the actual word used, and it was changed back. Rdfox 76 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shit, as in: "Stephen King is a piece of shit"190.57.12.128

...yes, that's what I mean. And it was returned to that version because of it. Rdfox 76 12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Soot, site, salt, silt, slap etc. It is technically speculation as we do not know. See No original research, Citing sources. Monkeyblue 12:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Between the two sources, one can logically infer that the word is "shit," because:

• MSNBC stated that they redacted only foul language, per company policy, and
• The Boston Globe's report indicates that the redacted word starts with S and is four letters long.

I dunno about you, but I can only think of one four-letter word starting with S that would grammatically fit into that spot AND which is considered foul language. IMO, there's a difference between pure speculation and a logical deduction from citable source evidence. Rdfox 76 12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to "think" or "logically infer". You're supposed to cite a source. If you're quoting MSNBC, then quote them.--132.69.234.73 08:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. No one is inferring, why would they bleep out a four letter word such as "soot". C'mon now. Simple deduction would state that the only four letter, commonly censored word would be "shit". Why would they censor a word that was not profane? Think please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.57.3.174 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Technical gripe

I would just change the page, but this is one of those pages that is protected (for good reason). As a VT student who lived in the exact suite in Harper last year that Cho lived in this year, there is a minor flaw I'd like to see fixed by someone who has access.

The line reads 'Andy Koch and John Eide, students who also shared a room with Cho at Harper Hall'. Andy and John were Cho's roomates in 2005-2006 in Cochrane Hall, not Harper.

Thanks.

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. lwalt 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering

I believe, based on my clinical experience, that Seung-Hui Cho was a stutterer and that a great deal of his anti-social behavior was based upon not revealing the fact that he was a stutterer. It has been reported that Cho, when asked by one of his teachers to recite something, did it by whispering, a manner of speaking commonly used by stutters to deal with their stuttering. In the wikipedia citation of Cho, it is mentionned that, when forced by another teacher to recite in class, he resorted to a very low pitch voice and spoke as if there was something in his mouth (another technique sometimes used by stutters to deal with their stuttering). It has also been mentionned that Cho would sometimes pause a long time before responding - again a tactic used by stutterers (it has been called clinically, Time Out). I read somewhere that he stuttered as a child but apparently outgrew it. I would submit that he did not, but simply turned to anti-social mutism to deal with his problem. Now you may disagree with this analysis becuase you viewed the tape of his speaking and there appeared to be no sign of stuttering. I would point out that this tape was made by Cho when he was alone and it is well documented that stutterers do not stutter when they speak out loud alone. I might further point out that stutteres often do not stutter when they are angry or under some extreme emotional stress - both also present when he made his video tapes. Many stutterers remain aloof, alone, misunderstood, rather than reveal the fact that they stutter. It is my contention that Cho's hidden stuttering fits all the facts described and that it has been completely missed because most people are simply unaware of the above factual information.Orthophonist 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Get a blog. This is not the place for speculation or original research. Bueller 007 13:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bueller, please, no biting. Orthophonist, I would agree that WP is not the place for original ideas, as the above appears to be. Although describing Cho as a stutterer might be appropriate if it can attributed to a reliable source. Good luck. Ronnotel 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Female escort encounter

This section seems like undue weight to me. That Cho may or may not have been a little aggressive for his lap dance is notable? Posssssibly worth a mention, but not an entire section. I'd like remove entirely - it seems more like tittilation than substance. Anyone else agree? Ronnotel 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Representing someone else, I agree. Seems absolutely irrelevant, regardless of whether or not it's actually true. It sounds pretty dubious to me, not to mention highly unencyclopedic. -Etafly 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: How did he kill so many so quickly?

Points noted. Probably a curiosity for a different place. My main point was exactly how cold and efficiently premeditated this was, which, to me, is shocking. 69.245.55.21 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

69.245.55.21 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. Also, please place new comments at the bottom of the talk page. CMummert · talk 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Morbidity aside, what does any of this speculation have to do with improving the article? -Etafly 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about the ask the same thing about this person's "theory." After I read it, all I was left with was "huh??"

To Wilsonhb - Is there a point or points to be made from your theory? If so, how does this help us improve the article? lwalt 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hollow point bullets information

Do we really need to describe how they work in this article? If anybody really wanted to know they'd go to hollow point bullets. The trauma center director's description of "like a flower" isn't critical to understanding and is a bit on the sensationalist side. Phony Saint 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Linking is more than adequate. No need to bloat the article further. -Etafly 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then keep the latter and remove the former, or combine them. Having two points (increased damage and flower petals (no, kid, that can't be described as "Sensationalistic" as you can read the article and see the images of the expanded bullets) is enough of a paraphrasing of the *large* hollow point article. WhisperToMe 03:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried rephrasing it like this: "Cho also bought hollow point bullets, which cause more tissue damage than armor piercing bullets against unarmored targets [72] by causing pieces of the bullet to spread into petals "like a flower," as quoted by Sydney J. Vail, the director of the trauma center at Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital.[73] "

WhisperToMe 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with needing a description of how hollow points cause more damage. That they cause more damage to flesh is somewhat informative; how they deal more damage is unnecessary when we can link to the article on hollow points. Phony Saint 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence, the thesis sentence, of "hollow point bullets" - that does NOT say "Hollow point bullets cause more damage than other bullets" - Because the thesis statement of the article says X, the statement about hollow point statement in this article should state X too. WhisperToMe 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"A hollow point is a bullet that has a pit, or hollowed out shape, in its tip, generally intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it" - This is the very first sentence within the article - We can easily convey that here. The "juicy details" which the user is to see if he or she wants more knowledge about do not have to be conveyed here, but, come on, this is the thesis statement. WhisperToMe 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phony Saint - borders on undue weight. Ronnotel 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel, I fail to see how it borders on Undue Weight. Let's look at that: "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." - The sentence in question is a factual statement about a bullet that can cause damage, not a specific point of view in a debate. WhisperToMe 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I cited WP:UNDUE because I believe the use of an emotive phrase such as causing pieces of the bullet to spread into petals "like a flower,", can be interpreted as injecting a pro-gun control POV into the paragraph. I'm neither pro- nor anti-gun control, I just think this description unnecessarily distracts the reader from the paragraph's main point. Ronnotel 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant sentence from WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. (bold emphasis mine) Ronnotel 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we can change the statement to "by causing the bullet to expand upon entering the body" WhisperToMe 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better. Ronnotel 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Phony Saint 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I liked the article better when it started off with "Seung-Hui Cho was a mass murderer who killed 32 people..." instead of "Seung-Hui Cho was a university student..."

I don't think he is primarily known for being a university student. It's just more accurate to say he's a mass murderer. Identifying someone necessarily by their primary vocation is a bit misleading -- people should be identified by what they're known for.

By analogy, say there's an article about a world-renowned chess player. It doesn't start off with "So-and-so is a computer programmer...", it starts off with "So-and-so is a chess champion...".

24.80.117.217 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mass murderer who killed 32 people" is redundant; it's already stated in the first sentence that he kills 32 people in an incident called a massacre, do we really need to reinforce it by calling him a mass murderer? Phony Saint 14:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were redundant, it would be saying the same thing twice. But the phrase "...who killed 32 people" clearly adds more detail to the initial term (i.e. 'how many did he kill'). Not all mass murderers have killed 32 people, so to say that Seung-Hui Cho did is not redundant. 24.80.117.217 02:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone who commits a massacre or mass murder is a mass murderer. We could go with "perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre, in which he killed 32 people and wounded 25 others" or something similar. Phony Saint 04:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Perpetrator" is OK, particularly in the legal sense that Cho was "alleged" to have committed the crime (fingerprints on weapons confirmed from immigration records), in addition to Cho's confession by inference through the ranting as seen in the video clips. But, the term "mass murderer" does specifically refer to what Cho is infamous for, along with supporting the specific details that follow about the number of people he killed (and wounded) during the VT rampage. lwalt 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets not try to apologize for this mass murderer. The opening paragrah should clearly read that he was a Christian Suicide Terrorist and Mass Murderer.

Last sentence in opening paragraph

The statement "He was officially declared to be mentally ill and had serious psychological problems according to authorities" is vague. To my knowledge, no report has been released to provide information about an "official" mental health diagnosis. If this sentence stays in the intro paragraph, the summary sentence needs to be more a bit more specific, with a reference or references to support the statement. For example:

• "Declared" -- Who declared what was going on with Cho? In other words, who "officially" declared Cho mentally ill, since mental illness was mentioned in the statement?

• "Authorities" - Are we referring to the police, professors at VT, the pychologist/psychiatrist or other mental health professional who performed the cursory mental health evaluation that resulted from the stalking incident, among other things?

• "Mentally ill" - Conditions too n

umerous to name here -- was it depression, schizophrenia, bipolar illness?

• "Serious psychological problems" - Is this referring to his antisocial behavior? If not, then what? lwalt 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That statement wasn't there when I edited the lead a day ago. It should go as it's not critical or identifying information about him, and his psychiatric problems were vaguely defined anyway. Phony Saint 04:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait another day to see whether the original editor can add some rationale for adding the sentence here (which really seems misplaced in the intro paragraph) before removing it. lwalt 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Never mind...another editor has already removed the statement, thus taking care of this issue. lwalt 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I insist the entire message script that Koch had with a female student should be added, since it shows pretty much what happened around Cho at the time. Also in the script Koch mentions of ra - residential assistent which gives a hint the school faculties may be involved in isolating Cho.

• • Koch: do u want to know who spankyjelly is
  • Koch: he is seung ho something
  • 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

I would like to also discuss the similarity of this incident to movie Carrie 1976.

This incident has striking similarity to the movie Carrie in the following way.

Carrie storyline can be found here. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/plotsummary

• • Both Carrie and Cho were lonely, was innocent, and was pursuing love relationship
  • Both Carrie and Cho were brought up in isolation because of their unusual background, was talked by other students as some kind of weird person throughout the life/ Fellow pupils didn't like her/him because of their weirdness.
  • Both Carrie and Cho later seem to generalize the target of the rage to everybody. In the movie, Carrie was invited to this big party held in the gym and get a load of pig's blood in front of all the students.
  • Both Carrie and Cho locked the doors to massacre everybody.

There should be more..--Dongsoola 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's speculation and doesn't belong in the article without reliable sources. [[User:Phony

Saint|Phony Saint]] 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the IM log, which relates to the last stalking incident, it confirms reports that Koch encouraged the female student to complain; that she was initially unconcerned and she didn't find Cho frightening until Koch told her about him. Also, what did she mean by "He called me" - a phone call? So it was not just the message on her door. Oh, so "SpankyJelly" was Cho's instant messaging handle. -Diamonddavej 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I took out the protection. If you think it is necessary, put it back in, I dont mind, but I think that Cho deserves whatever is said about him.All.ya.little.triksters 07:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note that removing a protection tag does not actually unprotect the article. Also note that vandalism has no merit in wikipedia, regardless of whether or not you think that the subject 'deserves it'. Consider your implication, and the vast plethora of lawsuits that would drown wikipedia therein. -Etafly 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael

What is the significance of A. Ishmael, Ismail, Ismail Ax, et al.?

It is mentioned that this name was used on the NBC package, and scrawled on his arm. Whats the meaning? Is it explained anywhere? 72.174.2.252 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm - nevermind...

"With the origin of "Ismail-Ax" still unknown, the Internet has erupted with people trying to decipher its true meaning. Perhaps they hope that unlocking the secret behind "Ismail-Ax" will explain how a troubled kid could commit an act so terrible." - ABC News.

Seems like it was intentionally cryptic, and that he wanted people to "recognize his genius" and debate about the meaning. pfft. sorry I asked. 72.174.2.252 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I Passed the Good Article Nomination because it complied with the good article criteria. Flubeca (t) 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the length of the main prose, the lead can be substantially expanded. Also, how stable is this mess? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

House Arrest?

This is not supported by the listed reference. I've only seen it mentioned here. Anyone see this anywhere else? Chromaone 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right...there's nothing at the indicated source about house arrest. I removed the sentence from the article. lwalt 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian?

Fervent belief can motivate an individual to do acts (helpful or horrendous) that he/she would otherwise avoid doing. Excerpts from the manifesto indicate several religious references, and it is very significant that the killer was found with a religious reference written on his body that relates to a story which can easily be construed as symbolic of his actions. Releasing the complete contents of the manifesto might reveal more information about his religious zeal and its impact on his motivation. This might be precisely why it has not been released.

His infobox says he's Christian, but the source only indicates that his parents are Christian, and that he was raised in the religion. Given his comments about Jesus Christ, isn't it safe to assume he is a lapsed Christian, perhaps an agnostic? Any sources/thoughts? . – John Stattic (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say anything against christianity in his videos. He compared himself to Jesus Christ, that's the most of it. I agree however, that assuming he is christian just because his parents were christian and he was raised christian, is dubious, but he didn't state anything that might lead one to assume otherwise. Malamockq 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why even guess at his religion at this point? Right now, the article says Agnostic, but do we really know for sure? It seems that making any kind of guess as to what his religion was is original research. 75.40.225.228 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the reference completely. In this Newsweek piece [29], his childhood pastor says that Cho could understand the Bible but he doubted that Cho believed the words. Only in blogs does anybody try to claim that Cho was a Christian. For us to speculate on his personal religious identification would be original research. --BigDT 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, he acknowledges the existence of Jesus Christ, and islamic figure Ishmael. Since he is referencing two religions, he would be considered Agnostic. However, it seems he was influenced by the Bible, and it seems he did in fact believe in God. Christians can be violent too. Let us not get our personal religious beliefs caught up in the truth about Cho. -KS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.184.39 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, all acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ.

That's not true you can't speak for those religions. Hinduism and Buddhism say nothing about a christ figure. thats like saying christians believe in Buddha and Krishna. If there belief systems say nothing about that specific deity, then they as a collective whole do not believe in them. I really don't thing you should speak for other religions.68.227.171.177 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Believing in God, even believing in God and the existence of Jesus Christ, doesn't make one a Christian. Muslims, Bahais, and some Hindus would also be "people who believe Christ existed and that there is a God." For that matter there are deists who believe Christ existed and, unlike Muslims, even believe he was crucified. Nothing Seung-Hui's shown to have said indicates, to me, that he thinks Jesus had any supernatural aspect of any kind or that Christ was even a perfect human being. In fact I'm pretty sure he was in conflict with his parents on religious matters. As for some Christians being bad, sure. There are even, undeniable, examples of serial-killers who were Christian. For example Dennis Rader.--T. Anthony 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"he acknowledges the existence of Jesus Christ, and islamic figure Ishmael." Ishmael is referenced in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible. So, Ishmael is not just an Islamic figure. "Since he is referencing two religions, he would be considered Agnostic." Well, he's not necessarily referencing two religions, but even if he were, I don't think that would establish that he was an agnostic.

"Christians can be violent too." Love it. On the subject at hand, I agree that calling him either Christian or Agnostic is original research. --132.69.234.73 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there NO MENTION in the article or discussion about his attack on Jesus Christ? Is this being censored by Wikipedia? He had a video rant against Jesus, and I heard two sentences of it. It wasn't just a comparison of him and Jesus, there was another segment that was a condemnation of Jesus. This was also downplayed by most media outlets, esp. the conservative ones. I think this should be considered a MAJOR factor in explaining his behavior! Quote: "Jesus loves crucifying me. You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing." It seems there was more to that, and part of it is missing (there's an edit after that last line), then he goes on later in another segment to state that "I die like Jesus Christ". I'd love to know what is missing there... 12.210.242.111 20:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure the whole "Jesus loves crucifying me" thing is a misquote. I'm pretty sure Cho actually said "You just loved crucifying me." I've seen both versions in online articles, but the second one makes the most sense. Why would he call Jesus an inspiration to generations in comparison with himself and then call Jesus a sadist? Accusing the people he felt wronged him makes more sense and is more consistent with the other time he mentioned Jesus. Then again with the clumsy way he spoke it's not hard to see how it would be difficult to understand what he's saying. Abyssal leviathin 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't belong in the Category:South Korean Christians because he was not notable for his religion and it is unknown if he actually was a Christian. Just because a person is raised by parents of a certain religion doesn't always mean that they will always have that same religion.

I agree this category is wrong. I've seen no evidence he was Christian. Being raised in a Christian home and attending church with your family does not make you a Christian. On the contrary, there is evidence that at least some Christians he hated. In the NBC frame-grab from his printed text he railed against 'Christian Nazis.' Chromaone 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because he disliked some Christians doesn't mean he wasn't a member of the religion. For example, many people in mainstream churches can't stand fundamentalists.Abyssal leviathin 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, it is speculation on his religion. He was raised Christian, but did he still practice it in his adult life? Just don't mention his religion at all. He has done nothing to advance the cause of Christianity and people looking up South Korean Christians is not going to look this guy up. Azn Clayjar 06:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it now says that he was raised christian, no more can be known, no less is honest. JeffBurdges 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Stephen King

I fail to see how this contributes to this article. Yes, Stephen King has critics - I'm not particularly fond of his writing myself - but that should be covered in Stephen King's article, not here. Phony Saint 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this adds yet more weight to something that barely deserves any mention. It may be debatable whether King has any standing as a literary critic. It should be clear that his referring to Cho as ‘crazy’, ‘paranoid’, ‘asshole’, etc. are unsupported personal judgments that do not belong here.

I’d drop the quote entirely and just mention something like ‘Novelist Stephen King found Cho’s writing’s devoid of any creativity.’ Chromaone 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that "Stephen King's ability to accurately judge creativity" is simply a matter of opinion and considered a POV by some in the media and literary world, anyway. Yes, the weight for Stephen King's critique should be minimized in the article to remove undue prominence. lwalt 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brownstone was actually a pretty good premise for a play, by no means in its final version, the story is very creative. 122.46.167.24 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King does not deserve an entire paragraph at the end of Seung-hui's page. Why? Stephen King doesn't know Cho. He is one of many who find him crazy, and his actions evil. Seems to me like a final nail in Cho's coffin rather than an objective fact about his writing. Not to mention that Stephen King isn't even considered literature by many academics. He is not appropriate in this article. If anyone is appropriate to give insight into Cho's writings, it should be his own professors. The entire paragraph by King just doesn't belong and I request to have it removed. Timeloss

I included Stephen King in the paragraph along with reactions from Cho's actual english professors who had the chance to read his work over time. Their assessment of Cho's work is much more important than Stephen King's. However, King is still mentioned at the end of the paragraph.Timeloss

While the page is locked and the Stephen King section is still there, I suggest rewording the text ``wrote negative reviews to ``discounting their merit as improved wording. 68.175.118.95 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

[revised 6/12/2007 - additions in bold]

Does anyone have ideas for expanding the introduction of the article? From the comments posted by editors in the FAC review, the short introduction is one of the criteria that will prevent the article from receiving favorable consideration for FA status at a future time (the other criterion is instability of the article, given the recent history of the incident). From what I can come up with (and suggest), perhaps a summary along the lines of "From Cho's early childhood right up to his suicide during the Virginia Tech rampage, family, teachers classmates became concerned about Cho's behavior," a summation of his overall demeanor and worsening of his mental condition, along with a summation about his family life, might fill out the introduction section. What do you think about this approach? →Lwalt^♦ talk 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How bout this?

Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a Virginia Tech student who killed 27 fellow students, 5 faculty members and and wounded 25 others in a shooting spree on the morning of April 16, 2007. The massacre took place in a dormitory and several lecture halls of a building on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia. Cho killed two students in Ambler Hall just after 7 a.m. At 9:30, he opened fire in Norris Hall, an academic building on the other side of the Virginia Tech campus from the place of the original shooting. Cho did not know his victims and used a 9mm semi-automatic handgun to fire approximately 170 rounds before taking his own life as campus security breached the building doors that Cho had chain locked.

Two days after the massacre, NBC News released selected pictures and video that Cho had assembled on the morning of the shootings and sent to its headquarters in New York. The entire contents of the package were not released to the public, and attention began to focus upon the decision by university officials to keep the campus open after they learned of a shooting in a dormity.

Police then disclosed that Cho had purchased the two handguns he owned in violation of federal law and due to a loophole in the Virginia gun statute. While federal law prohibits the easy purchase of firearms by individuals who have been declared mentally defective by a court, Virginia recorded in its database only individuals who had been involuntarily committed to inpatient psychiatric treatment. Cho was found mentally defective by a court in December 2005 and ordered to receive outpatient treatment, but the mental health center that was directed to serve him was not equipped to provide it. Lucinda Roy, a professor who attempted to help Cho, reported on the day of the attack that Cho had declined to seek further treatment from university counseling services because he had already been there. Cho's medical and academic records remain in the control of his parents. The contents of the package sent to NBC News remain in its control.