This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Many people have cited Cho's lack of oral speaking skills as a reason why he was unable to fit in, but no one has addressed Cho's online activities. Did Cho use e-mail and online chat software to socialize without speaking? If so, what how did these non-oral social communication tools help him?
There is one news article in the Washington Post that said Cho had a page on MySpace or Facebook, and that one girl in class "friended" him back after he friended her. They had talked after class once before he friended her. However, when she learned from the other girls what had happened in years past, then she deleted herself from his friend page. More importantly, where did Cho get the idea to talk with girls after class and then try to sign up as their friends? Was that friendly advice from a friend or friendly advice from a counselor? Matt605 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Smashing Pumpkins have been playing a new song called "Question Mark" in their live shows, which appears to be inspired by Cho Seung Hui. Not sure how to incorporate it into the article though. Here's a picture of the setlist. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/photos_1716 Joe 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Since there are no experts that agree that Cho was influenced by the movie, I suggest that the picture that compares his welding the hammer with the scene from the movie be taken down. WangKon936 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the comparison is interesting enough, and is properly cited. It's ok for credible writers to speculate on matters such as this, as long as credible citations are made, which there are. Malamockq 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a sentence fragment error in the section Relationship with professors: "After Roy notified the legal authorities about Cho's behavior, Roy urged Cho to seek counseling, but he never followed through with the request to her knowledge."
I assume that the intention is: "After Roy notified legal authorities about Cho's behavior, she urged Cho to seek counseling, but, to her knowledge, Cho never followed through with the request."
There are far too many quotations in this article. We should work to minimize or eliminate them and replace them with balanced prose that describes the situation in our own words.-- SallyForth123 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
On virtually all of the other language pages for "Seung-Hui Cho", the article is titled "Cho Seung-Hui". Should this be ratified, or left as it is? I already moved the Esperanto page, but didn't want to move any more unless I had received an "okay". -- MosheA 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Evidence suggests that he may have rehearsed for the attack Source 1, Source 2. Please incorporate this into the article, if possible. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The beggining of the first paragraph says: "Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a mass murderer". Isn't that too vulgar? It wouldn't be better something like "Seung-Hui Cho was a student who killed/mass murdered....". I mean, he wasn't always a mass murderer... It's like saying that he was a mass murderer in all of his life.
This was discussed (now in the archives). The murders are what he was noted for. He was not notable as a student. If he'd won American Idol we wouldn't say he "was a student who won American Idol." Chromaone 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing edit war over what Cho is or is not from what I'm seeing in reverts and edit summaries. We know this much at this time -- Cho was a student at VA Tech and that he committed mass murder at the campus. Can we come to a consensus by saying the following:
Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a student at Virginia Tech who committed the mass murder of 32 people and wounded 25 others during the shooting rampage known as the Virginia Tech massacre.
Would this alternate sentence resolve the disagreement? In a sentence, the reader is quickly told several things about the greater scope of the article:
The "when" part is already covered in the Virginia Tech massacre article. The only thing here that we don't know is why he did what he did. The format of the first sentence that introduces this article is patterned after the ones in the articles for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Charles Whitman, Woo Bum-kon -- and yes...I went back to the archives to pull out these examples. Anyway, according to the discussions that I've found in the archives, the debate was about mostly about notability as playwright (because of the plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" that Cho wrote for his class) vs. mass murderer and other discussions as to notability as a serial killer vs. spree killer vs. mass murderer, at least noted in various discussions in Archives 1 through 4. The only other discussions that paralleled this one occurred in the threads Is "Murderer" the correct term? (thread no. 18) in Archive 5 and Opening paragraph (thread no. 53) in Archive 6. But, in a nutshell, Cho was a "student" and a "mass murderer" at the same place.
Also, mentioning that Cho was a VA Tech student provides a context for the reader Cho's relationship to the campus to set him apart from a person who merely came onto the campus and committed the mass murder -- that is, Cho's relationship to VA Tech as a student likely explains his familiarity with those parts of the campus where he committed the murders. The term "mass murder" can be wikilinked to the article "Mass murder," while student can be wikilinked to "Student#United States" if that's what you want to do.
Although Cho is widely referred to as a "mass murderer," the term "murder" (referring to this act of murder as homicide in the first degree) is a legal term and the statement referring to a Cho as "murderer" implies that he was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder either under the of the United States federal criminal code or under the Commonwealth of Virginia criminal code (VA Code 18.2-31). The conclusion that Cho was the mass murderer at VT Tech was learned through police investigations and first-person accounts of the survivors after the killings and information contained in the package sent by that Cho sent to NBC News before he committed suicide at VA Tech on April 16. See discussion in Archive 4 under Number of People Killed?, which is thread no. 59 in the table of contents.
Otherwise, this edit war will become inflammatory and simply descend into name calling Cho (student vs. mass murderer) and semantics, given that the changes on this detail will continue to be reverted repeatedly. → Lwalt ♦ talk 15:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't object to the article. I would remind people to keep in mind that notoriety and fame are what such individuals crave. Headlines, made-for-TV movies, even Wikipedia entries splashing "WORST SHOOTING EVER!" serve to encourage copycats. Please keep that in mind when editing articles about this type of thing. The tone matters. Mzmadmike 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Today (Thurs 30 Aug), the BBC News website did an article of a report saying that the Virginia Tech response 'too slow'. Now, in this article, they call him "Cho Seung-hui", then I came on here, and he is "Seung-Hui Cho". At first I presumed you did that thing where you reverse the surname, like Presley Elvis (bad example, I know), but throughout the text, he is called his BBC first name, and WIKI surname. So, which is right? Thanks St91 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
St91 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cho Seung-Hui would make more sense since it is a KOREAN name and Korean names are used with last name before the first name, while American names are used with first name first. If the article about the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong Il (last name first) then why is this article Seung-Hui Cho (first name first)? NHRHS2010 Talk 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
are we going to stick to facts here or are we going to lower the standards of wikipedia by making it some kind of teenage chat room. people who dont know the law are frequently confused about what stalking actually is and misuse the word. wikipedia should not be a place for that since it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a high school locker room. this is the definition according to wiktionary. it's not the best, but still better than how it's been used in this article. "to (try to) follow or contact someone constantly, often resulting in harassment". i dont exactly see how this qualifies as stalking. "Cho frightened a female friend of Koch by writing on her door board a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, scene II, in which Romeo laments to Juliet:". i also fail to see how this other verse in the article qualifies either. "Cho claimed to have sent an instant message online to the female student by AIM and found out where she lived on the campus." This definitely doesn't qualify as stalking by the legal definition or by any definition. they are both isolated incidents and there is no evidence that he had been doing this repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser ( talk • contribs)
Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cho Seung-hui NBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation or evidence is needed to back up this whole paragraph, introduced at the top of the article:
(QUOTE)In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, Timothy Kaine, governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the Virginia Tech shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007. The report devoted more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. It criticized numerous failures — by school administrators, educators, and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years but failed to notice his deteriorating condition and help him. The report also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws. It also faulted Virginia Tech administrators for failing to take immediate action after the first shootings.(QUOTE)
88.105.126.105 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Following the given link to the texts of Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone leads to AOL 'page not found'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.76.226 ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In the last edit to this page, I simply added a missing period at the end of paragraph 2. No other edits made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.99.148 ( talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Seung Hui Cho never became an U.S citizen. So, why an user adds Cho to Americans categories like American mass murderers or Korean Americans if he never became an U.S citizen?? Frankedjsjs ( talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That does seem controversial. He is a permanent resident of USA but not a US citizen. He came here when he was really young and thus raised as an American. America is his home and culture. Maybe we need a category for permanent residents of USA.
Azn Clayjar (
talk)
05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If one of you registered users doesn't delete that sentence comparing Richard McBeef to Hamlet, then we have failed as a species. 72.40.101.195 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why must "that sentence" be deleted? On what grounds? Are you suggesting some sort of vandalism?
88.105.78.155 ( talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone please incorporate into the article the 50 minutes of speech therapy per month he received in high school and his therapist: From Disturbed High Schooler to College Killer by Daniel Golden Xandiar 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Did the speech-therapy had any helpful affect on Mr. Cho, in any way whatsoever?
19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked up what little I can on google about Cho and I see pics of him in a USMC uniform and people asking if he was in the military. Does anyone know if this is valid or just a rumor? If it is confirmed it should be added to the article. If it is debunked, then nevermind. Feral Mind ( talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a section noting that Cho was an atheist. If he was Christian, then we should put he was Christian. If he was Muslim, then we should put he was Muslim. Regardless of what he believed, this should be included and then we'll let the reader determine its influence. Noting a massacre by a radical Christian or a radical Muslim is just as necessary as noting a massacre by a radical secularist. -Brad Kgj08 ( talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As we've seen with all those who kill in the past, it doesn't take on "just" religion to make someone motivated to kill someone. It takes something a like human being to do that. 88.105.16.105 ( talk) 10:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In the little fact file box with his photo, DOB, DOD, etc on the right, directly beneath his date of death and location, it states it was Suicide. I havent seen a cause of death on any other persons biography page included in this section, is it necessary to include it here? Reading the article will clearly explain what happened. Popher 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the re-addition of the "Virginia Tech alumnus" category, as alumnus and alumna refer specifically to graduates of a college or university, not just people who attended classes there. Cho died before graduating and therefore is not an alumnus at all. Ford MF ( talk) 01:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't talk about his romantic relationships. Was he a virgin? Did he have a girlfriend ever and if so what did these girls have to say about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.28 ( talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What you just asked is a very very personal question, especially for the deceased murderer. The late Mr. Cho's social and sexual aspect may or may not have influenced his decisions at the time before or during the shootings. Some revelations regarding your question may be significant to this article.
According to the summarized statement made by user:Diamonddavej, no one can be more than 100% certain if that was entirely true. So it is best to keep it NPOV on that; whenever it's true/not. The ones' that are closer to truth of those aspects would be any close friends or relatives that were in contact with him.
However, I can't stress this enough for the users; please tread very carefully with this part of the subject matter. 88.105.81.227 ( talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The point to many, many shootings, and this one is no exception, is for the murderer to become famous.
Seung-Hui Cho wanted to be famous. The recent shooting in a shopping mall, that young man wanted fame. Research other shootings, I guarantee that you will find a desire for fame in many of the shooters.
By publicizing the murders to the extent that we do, we are merely saying to a lonely, possibly bullied, unknown person, "Look. You want everyone to know who you are? You want to be on the news? You want a Wikipedia article that is longer than Brad Pitt's? Shoot up a school, and voila. There you go." Many teens play copycat, shooting their own schools after seeing the fame it brought to other murders.
I understand that there is a debate to the length of the article here, but I don't believe that we should continue this mad cycle of giving disturbed people a motive for murdering.
Please, let's delete this article.
-Rose
Sirprizeme13 ( talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, is this necasary? This would actually encourage me to do something simillar, because I want to have my own article on wikipedia, and this is a quick way to do it is to go through kill a bunch of people and "set a record" for the number of deaths. I think the School Shooter's article, for all "Massacrist", should be incorporated into the actual "Massacre's" page, because really, this is all to glorifying. I'm just suggesting it, because unlike Exterminating the Jews or starting a holy war, whcih take years, a school shooting can be planned for and executed in under a year, so whats not to say that someone will see all the attention given to Mr.Cho and start feeling a little need? I know I already have a plan if I ever consider going through with it, is that messed up or what? I actually started a book "Songs To Kill To" about the music and mainstream influences that glorify "death culture", but I was side trekked. Also, is it messed up that I can just see myself on national t.v, have what the cheesey announcer guy will say in my head already, about this kind of thing?
MutleeMutlee
13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is in reply to both the above topic and the one above that. I am not holding Wikipedia accountable for mass murderers, but I do believe that any type of media that makes school shooters famous has a part to play. I think that even movies against guns and such do, to some extent, bring attention to shooters. I also feel that such media does more good than bad.
If you read the article, a very evident point is that Cho wanted fame. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. Chances are that he didn't think, "I'm going to shoot a school so that I can get a long Wikipedia article," but at the same time he didn't think, "Oh, I want to get on the Little Town newspaper." No one would think of every individual source that they would
A small article would be acceptable, briefly stating his purpose, but do we need to make it evident that we care more about a mass murderer than we do , but a long article that seems to match closely in length to Martin Luther King Junior is sickening. How about those at the shootings who gave their lives to save their students and friends? Kevin Granata brought twenty students to safety, he was shot and killed. Liviu Librescu and his wife both survived the Holocaust. It was Holocaust Remembrance Day when Mr. Librescu held the door while his students escaped out of the windows. He was shot five times and killed.
And there are more. They are real people, and they are the ones we need to remember. They are our heroes, and it is a disgrace that their names are not deeply ingrained in our minds (and I am not going to claim perfect, this is a mistake our society as made as a whole, I myself do not know their names) the way Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho are. Remember the people who have made a difference worth making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Heading 'Resistence'
-Rose
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Professor Liviu Librescu Henry Lee Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan Zach Petkewicz Katelyn Carney Derek O'Dell Trey Perkins Erin Sheehan Professor Kevin Granata
69.141.75.46 ( talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
~Please think again!~
.......
Maybe this article can be taken as some sort of a reminder of what destructiveness that man's mental ailment can cause.
I think more help and sympathy would be provided for anyone with Mr. Cho's problem. It can be a sad thing for anyone to go through, having the inability to socially connect with anyone you see around you. Perhaps even NONE at all.
What can worsen the person's suffering is...everyone else can communicate with other people, being able to pass on opinions, perhaps convey love and affections to others...while- he can't! It can be a very sad and lonely thing for him.
I think anyone should reconsider not removing this article and should think about the life he went through.
(Maybe because I have it as well).
88.105.94.7 ( talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a neutral one, in that. This man has done morally terrible things in our eyes, and similarly been subjected to ailments of horrible types, but neither of these things should make us consider removing the article. They should be stated, and listed, and known. If every scribe in history decided that they would censor events because they gave a madman fame, or because they glorified killing, in their own individual opinion, whole chapters of textbooks would go missing. The article is a document of what has happened, and the man who did these things. You can dislike him, and you can hate the things he has done, but this is a place for neutral encyclopedic entries, and that is all that matters. He gains nothing from this now, nor will he ever, as a side note, as well.
Jwguy ( talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the failed FAC, the lead paragraph was too short. We need to make the lead into three paragraphs if we can. I need some help on this article as well. Greg Jones II 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think the word "murderer" is too biased for an encylopedia. Maybe we should use the term "seperatist" or "radical conservative." --
Cyberman (
talk)
08:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"According to Kim Gyeong-won, who first met Cho in the fifth grade and took classes with him,[16] Cho finished the three-year program at Poplar Tree Elementary School in one and a half years. "
What three year program? ESL? A tad bit more context, pulease! :) Qb | your 2 cents 15:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this news source would be useful to this article. It seems you can't profile much from there (predicting who's going to do 'it' or not). Any Criminologists would say that. So as the sourced web article seem to suggest, his time during the ESL program may have not significantly influenced him prior to the shootings. 88.105.88.96 ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The female student involved in the second stalking incident was initially unconcerned by Cho's behavior. It appears that she only became worried after an AIM conversation with Andy Kosh. Here is the Koch/female students edited AIM conversation [2]:
Koch: do u want to know who spankyjelly is
Koch: he is seung ho something ( Seung-Hui )
Female student: yeah i knwo who he is
Koch: he is a creep i would block him just doing u a favor
Female student: ahahha yeah
Koch: well i would block him he got in trouble forr stalking recently so i just wanted to warn you
Female student: yeah..hes called me...written on my door...all of that
Female student: kinda freaky
Koch: written on your door? like your room
Female student: yeah
Female student: the funny thing bout that...
Female student: is im unlisted...like everywhere
Female student: SO he had to do some investigations or something...into my roommate and what not
Koch: the ra's are trying to do something about him
Female student: yikes
Female student: at first i thought he was one of my friends joking around...and i only accepted him cuz i saw a few of my friends were friends with him
Female student : then he turned out all psycho
Koch: i think he is is schophrenic or however you spell it
Diamonddavej
20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
how exactly does a conversation with koch and a female student prove that cho stalked anyone? it's speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.246.48 ( talk) 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how did though conversation between student Andy Kock and that unnamed female student got extracted and then subsequently been pasted on that news source? How can anyone be sure that conversation ever took place? Where's the solid evidence to support this? Did Mr. Koch purposely logged this conversation knowing some majour incident will happen after that internet session? 88.105.38.34 ( talk) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning 'According to CBS News' cites the 2002 U.S. Secret Service study (the Safe School Initiative) as indicating that Cho Seung-Hui's status as a loner fit the shooter profile. While CBS News may have reported this, the study specifically stated that there was no profile and that it was dangerous to suggest there was a profile of school shooters. Furthermore, it stated that people described as loners comprise a minority of school shooters. I think something should be amended to this section detailing CBS News misrepresentation of this study or have the reference removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.94.144 ( talk) 10:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how this made it into the article?
I wasn't able to look far enough into the history to find the missing url, so I removed the ref. Googling the title didn't do much good either. — CharlotteWebb 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For those of you actively involved with this article, you might be interested in reading this scholarly article that attempts to point toward an explanation of the tragedy. In short, it explains that Cho's character/mental illness alone does not adequately explain why he murdered, but rather, it was a combination if his character and interactions with Virginia Tech professors and other staff that pushed him over the edge. It explains how mobbing by professors, students and other authority figures contributed to this tragedy. Perhaps a mention of this point of view would bring more balance to the article. LinguistAt Large 04:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
http://collegiatetimes.com/cms/site/april16_documents.php
A lot to sift through, but appears to me to suggest a number of revisions and additions to our article.
Chromaone ( talk) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If known (through digital timestamps on the source materials presumably), the article should state when he took the photos and videos that he sent to NBC. Would shed some more light on the level and timing of preparation. Tempshill ( talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been persistently adding to the lead paragraph that Cho is not only a student, but playwright at VT. It has been reverted several times as vandalism, although the editor has been adamant that it is not vandalism, with some mention of Youtube. I am dubious that he has any notability for writing plays, but will bring it here for a more full discussion. In the mean time, I suggest we leave it out of the article until consensus can be reached here. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 04:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Some say so: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Seung-Hui+Cho+convert+Islam&btnG=Google+Search Can anyone confirm or disprove it?
=Motive=
Cho and one of his victims, Ross Alameddine, attended the same English class during Autumn 2006. Emily revealed to many friends on campus that Seung-Hui Cho possessed a tail which was not removed at the time of his birth; the ensuing embarrassment was another cause leading towards the sociopathic murderous rampage. According to classmates enrolled in that class, including Justin Keyser, Alameddine tried to communicate with Cho with no success.[91]
Okay, who on Earth put in the sentence suggesting that Seung-Hui's being bullied because he once "had a tail"?
I read on the article on citation 91 and there is no mention of having a tail attached to Mr Cho or how was that funny on someone who has selective mutism.
88.105.126.105 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cho Seung-Hui is Korean or Korean-American. Majority of Koreans consider him as Korean. Not Chinese or Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 ( talk) 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does the name Seung-Hui Cho have anything to do with Seung being a member of the Hui ethnic group in China?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5OD1X75Ks&feature=related —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.234.210.81 (
talk)
03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
....(What?)
I think Hui of Seung-Hui is just part of another name. Probably another Kanji character. Chinese Mandarin and the Korean language are different. 88.105.107.252 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You see, this 回 ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9E) is the of the Hui Muslims, while this other Korean "Hui" 熙 ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%86%99) is used for a person's name. Every person in Oriental countries know these two are DEFINITELY NOT the same.
88.105.4.107( talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be links to them since I can't find them with Google due to so many articles where they are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.18 ( talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The article reads: "The package, addressed from "A. Ishmael" as seen on an image of the USPS Express Mail envelope (incorrectly printed as "Ismail" by The New York Times" Do we have this image? what citation do we have to back up the New York Times was incorrect? Padillah ( talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Various editors have inserted links to websites which reproduce plays by Cho. Under current copyright laws, unpublished manuscripts are still subject to copyright; and we cannot permit links to sites which violate copyright in this manner. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
[132] In determining the issue of fair use, the balance seems to be in favor of defendants.
[133] There is a public interest in having the fullest information available [my emphasis] on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration. While doubtless the theory could be explained with sketches of the type used at page 87 of the Book and in The Saturday Evening Post, the explanation actually made in the Book with copies is easier to understand. The Book is not bought because it contained the Zapruder Pictures; the Book is bought because of the theory of Thompson and its explanation, supported by Zapruder pictures.
[134] There seems little, if any, injury to plaintiff, the copyright owner. There is no competition between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff does not sell the Zapruder pictures as such and no market for the copyrighted work appears to be affected. Defendants do not publish a magazine. There are projects for use by plaintiff of the film in the future as a motion picture or in books, but the effect of the use of certain frames in the Book on such projects is speculative. It seems more reasonable to speculate that the Book would, it anything, enhance the value of the copyrighted work; it is difficult to see any decrease in its value. -- TIME INC. v. BERNARD GEIS ASSOCS., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
How long did it take for the Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold suicide pictures to be made public, and has anything been done or will be done with Seung-Hui Cho? 67.5.159.178 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am struggling to read your point and your question. Can you please explain it more carefully with some more details regarding your question? Why must the "suicide pictures to be made public"?
88.105.78.155 ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a controversy over including the Cho article in categories that include the word "American." The disagreement appears to revolve around the question of how American one must be before we can label him or her "American." One one side is the opinion that you must be a de jure US citizen before you are properly qualified to call yourself an American; either you're in or you're out, and citizenship is the dividing line. On the other side of the great divide are those who are willing to weigh various factors (such as where one grew up, what culture/subculture one identifies with, primary language, country of current and anticipated future legal residency, etc.) and concede that a particular non-citizen might be considered "American enough" to fit into the fuzzy category, "American," or in this instance, "Korean American."
I subscribe to the latter view, Penser ( talk · contribs) seems to subscribe to the former, and in this case, our conclusions are mutually exclusive. Luckily, this disagreement is over article categories, whose primary purpose to help readers find articles on related topics. Readers are not looking for demonstrations of perfect, formal-logic consistency when they make use of the categories; they're looking for more articles. That frees us from any sort of felt obligation to use one designation or the other and instead include ... both. As long as it is conceivable that a decent subset of readers will find a categorization germane and useful, there's no reason not to include it.
Cho's article can thus be usefully indexed to the "South Koreans" and "Korean Americans" categories, and so I have put both categories in. The "American Spree Killers" cat is also germane and useful for category surfers, degree-of-Americanness quibbles aside, because the article is about the perpetrator of an American spree killing, and it is the kind of article a reader might reasonably expect to find in that category. --Dynaflow babble 03:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't find your justification in Wikipedia's guide to categorization, but to be honest, I just don't care that much about the categories feature. Half of the categories are so silly and overly broad (e.g. College students who committed suicide, People from Seoul) that I can't believe many people really use this feature often. Anyway, I'll let someone else fight this battle if they have more expertise about categories. Penser ( talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)penser
I subscribe to the latter view, You are wrong. Vidor ( talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
one must be tried and convicted of a crime before one is considered a criminal -- emerson7 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
might want to properly format refs 5, 6 and 7 to maintain GA standards. Chensiyuan ( talk) 03:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the article and I think its ready for Peer Review, in preparation for FA nomination. A few of the problems in the June 2007 nomination was that the lead was too short...everything was too short, it was unstable... I think that has all been addressed now. Since I'm not a frequent editor on this article, and have not been aware with recent discussions, talk amongst yourselves. I'm just leaving a suggestion, since the article has improved massively than the June 20, 2007 version that I just checked. -- haha169 ( talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/VATech/story?id=3071730&page=1
I think this should be included into Cho's biography, and am quite surprised that it wasn't. It would provide the reader with some insight into Cho's sexual history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.117.6 ( talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? He was on magazine covers. THF ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
i don't follow the meaning of that phrase; there should be an explanation of it provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.177.100 ( talk) 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Did anything important happen between the Preparation and the Aftermath? 67.169.185.246 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The first couple sections of this article have been very badly edited or possibly vandalised. There are chunks of broken English interspersed with nonsense/random typing. The history page shows that this version has already been revised specifically to correct vandalism, so I'm not sure what to do. I'm making a note of it here in hopes that someone who knows how to edit articles will see it. 108.203.202.17 ( talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article currently states: According to CBS News, "Cho Seung-Hui's violent writing [and] loner status fit the Secret Service shooter profile,"[149] referring to a 2002 U.S. Secret Service study that was conducted after the Columbine massacre...
The CBS article is sensational, and its emphasis and interpretation are completely different than conclusions and recommendations made by the source it cites. Checking the actual study, no such claim is made. In fact, quite the opposite. "The study findings also revealed that there is no "profile" of a school shooter; instead, the students who carried out the attacks differed from one another in numerous ways. However, almost every attacker had engaged in behavior before the shooting that seriously concerned at least one adult - and for many had concerned three or more different adults." http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml 50.54.238.241 ( talk) 14:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I notice the Wikipedia Bullying portal is at the bottom of this page. I can't remember ever reading that bullying was a key or even minor motivator for Cho's killing spree so unless someone can produce a source indicating otherwise I would like to suggest removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.226.114 ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Why the fuck do we have to create an entirely separate page for this maniac. Like an biography. No wonder there's more mass shooting. If someone tried to kill more people, they are entitled to a biography?
This article violates this specific Wikipedia policy, thus it will be merged into the Virginia Tech shooting article
Seung-Hui Cho is a non-notable person, only known for his spree-killing at Virginia Tech. The same logic was used to remove the separate article for Adam Lanza as he is also was a non-notable person, only known for his spree killing event which is documented in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article Moebiusstrip ( talk) 03:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This article and some copycats are citing his name as "Kenneth Cho". It's certainly believable to me that he'd go by an English name in the US, but without any mention of this in the article, I hesitate to make a redirect. Is this an error or just an overlooked alternative name? -- BDD ( talk) 19:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/pdf/cho_mentalhealth.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In the final section of the article "Reactions to Writings," in the third paragraph:
While it is true that CBS claimed that, the Secret Service study referenced by CBS says no such thing. Furthermore, the referenced article by Christine Lagorio, attributes the false notion of "quiet loner" to "CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews." Since the linked article by Lagorio doesn't provide links to the sources, I feel that is is not particularly verifiable.
The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiate (the "Secret Service" study) says
The last sentence of this paragraph suggests that interest in one's own violent writings, while shunning other violence was a significant conclusion of the report. The report contradicts this. On pages 11 & 12 under the heading of Overview of Safe School Initiative Findings are 10 key findings [2]. Not listed is interest in violence or writing.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Many people have cited Cho's lack of oral speaking skills as a reason why he was unable to fit in, but no one has addressed Cho's online activities. Did Cho use e-mail and online chat software to socialize without speaking? If so, what how did these non-oral social communication tools help him?
There is one news article in the Washington Post that said Cho had a page on MySpace or Facebook, and that one girl in class "friended" him back after he friended her. They had talked after class once before he friended her. However, when she learned from the other girls what had happened in years past, then she deleted herself from his friend page. More importantly, where did Cho get the idea to talk with girls after class and then try to sign up as their friends? Was that friendly advice from a friend or friendly advice from a counselor? Matt605 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Smashing Pumpkins have been playing a new song called "Question Mark" in their live shows, which appears to be inspired by Cho Seung Hui. Not sure how to incorporate it into the article though. Here's a picture of the setlist. http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/photos_1716 Joe 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Since there are no experts that agree that Cho was influenced by the movie, I suggest that the picture that compares his welding the hammer with the scene from the movie be taken down. WangKon936 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the comparison is interesting enough, and is properly cited. It's ok for credible writers to speculate on matters such as this, as long as credible citations are made, which there are. Malamockq 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a sentence fragment error in the section Relationship with professors: "After Roy notified the legal authorities about Cho's behavior, Roy urged Cho to seek counseling, but he never followed through with the request to her knowledge."
I assume that the intention is: "After Roy notified legal authorities about Cho's behavior, she urged Cho to seek counseling, but, to her knowledge, Cho never followed through with the request."
There are far too many quotations in this article. We should work to minimize or eliminate them and replace them with balanced prose that describes the situation in our own words.-- SallyForth123 06:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
On virtually all of the other language pages for "Seung-Hui Cho", the article is titled "Cho Seung-Hui". Should this be ratified, or left as it is? I already moved the Esperanto page, but didn't want to move any more unless I had received an "okay". -- MosheA 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Evidence suggests that he may have rehearsed for the attack Source 1, Source 2. Please incorporate this into the article, if possible. BlueAg09 ( Talk) 18:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The beggining of the first paragraph says: "Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a mass murderer". Isn't that too vulgar? It wouldn't be better something like "Seung-Hui Cho was a student who killed/mass murdered....". I mean, he wasn't always a mass murderer... It's like saying that he was a mass murderer in all of his life.
This was discussed (now in the archives). The murders are what he was noted for. He was not notable as a student. If he'd won American Idol we wouldn't say he "was a student who won American Idol." Chromaone 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing edit war over what Cho is or is not from what I'm seeing in reverts and edit summaries. We know this much at this time -- Cho was a student at VA Tech and that he committed mass murder at the campus. Can we come to a consensus by saying the following:
Seung-Hui Cho (January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a student at Virginia Tech who committed the mass murder of 32 people and wounded 25 others during the shooting rampage known as the Virginia Tech massacre.
Would this alternate sentence resolve the disagreement? In a sentence, the reader is quickly told several things about the greater scope of the article:
The "when" part is already covered in the Virginia Tech massacre article. The only thing here that we don't know is why he did what he did. The format of the first sentence that introduces this article is patterned after the ones in the articles for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Charles Whitman, Woo Bum-kon -- and yes...I went back to the archives to pull out these examples. Anyway, according to the discussions that I've found in the archives, the debate was about mostly about notability as playwright (because of the plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" that Cho wrote for his class) vs. mass murderer and other discussions as to notability as a serial killer vs. spree killer vs. mass murderer, at least noted in various discussions in Archives 1 through 4. The only other discussions that paralleled this one occurred in the threads Is "Murderer" the correct term? (thread no. 18) in Archive 5 and Opening paragraph (thread no. 53) in Archive 6. But, in a nutshell, Cho was a "student" and a "mass murderer" at the same place.
Also, mentioning that Cho was a VA Tech student provides a context for the reader Cho's relationship to the campus to set him apart from a person who merely came onto the campus and committed the mass murder -- that is, Cho's relationship to VA Tech as a student likely explains his familiarity with those parts of the campus where he committed the murders. The term "mass murder" can be wikilinked to the article "Mass murder," while student can be wikilinked to "Student#United States" if that's what you want to do.
Although Cho is widely referred to as a "mass murderer," the term "murder" (referring to this act of murder as homicide in the first degree) is a legal term and the statement referring to a Cho as "murderer" implies that he was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder either under the of the United States federal criminal code or under the Commonwealth of Virginia criminal code (VA Code 18.2-31). The conclusion that Cho was the mass murderer at VT Tech was learned through police investigations and first-person accounts of the survivors after the killings and information contained in the package sent by that Cho sent to NBC News before he committed suicide at VA Tech on April 16. See discussion in Archive 4 under Number of People Killed?, which is thread no. 59 in the table of contents.
Otherwise, this edit war will become inflammatory and simply descend into name calling Cho (student vs. mass murderer) and semantics, given that the changes on this detail will continue to be reverted repeatedly. → Lwalt ♦ talk 15:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't object to the article. I would remind people to keep in mind that notoriety and fame are what such individuals crave. Headlines, made-for-TV movies, even Wikipedia entries splashing "WORST SHOOTING EVER!" serve to encourage copycats. Please keep that in mind when editing articles about this type of thing. The tone matters. Mzmadmike 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Today (Thurs 30 Aug), the BBC News website did an article of a report saying that the Virginia Tech response 'too slow'. Now, in this article, they call him "Cho Seung-hui", then I came on here, and he is "Seung-Hui Cho". At first I presumed you did that thing where you reverse the surname, like Presley Elvis (bad example, I know), but throughout the text, he is called his BBC first name, and WIKI surname. So, which is right? Thanks St91 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
St91 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Cho Seung-Hui would make more sense since it is a KOREAN name and Korean names are used with last name before the first name, while American names are used with first name first. If the article about the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong Il (last name first) then why is this article Seung-Hui Cho (first name first)? NHRHS2010 Talk 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
are we going to stick to facts here or are we going to lower the standards of wikipedia by making it some kind of teenage chat room. people who dont know the law are frequently confused about what stalking actually is and misuse the word. wikipedia should not be a place for that since it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a high school locker room. this is the definition according to wiktionary. it's not the best, but still better than how it's been used in this article. "to (try to) follow or contact someone constantly, often resulting in harassment". i dont exactly see how this qualifies as stalking. "Cho frightened a female friend of Koch by writing on her door board a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, scene II, in which Romeo laments to Juliet:". i also fail to see how this other verse in the article qualifies either. "Cho claimed to have sent an instant message online to the female student by AIM and found out where she lived on the campus." This definitely doesn't qualify as stalking by the legal definition or by any definition. they are both isolated incidents and there is no evidence that he had been doing this repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordugihauser ( talk • contribs)
Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Cho Seung-hui NBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:ChoSh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Citation or evidence is needed to back up this whole paragraph, introduced at the top of the article:
(QUOTE)In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, Timothy Kaine, governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the Virginia Tech shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007. The report devoted more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. It criticized numerous failures — by school administrators, educators, and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years but failed to notice his deteriorating condition and help him. The report also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws. It also faulted Virginia Tech administrators for failing to take immediate action after the first shootings.(QUOTE)
88.105.126.105 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Following the given link to the texts of Richard McBeef and Mr. Brownstone leads to AOL 'page not found'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.76.226 ( talk) 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In the last edit to this page, I simply added a missing period at the end of paragraph 2. No other edits made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.99.148 ( talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Seung Hui Cho never became an U.S citizen. So, why an user adds Cho to Americans categories like American mass murderers or Korean Americans if he never became an U.S citizen?? Frankedjsjs ( talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That does seem controversial. He is a permanent resident of USA but not a US citizen. He came here when he was really young and thus raised as an American. America is his home and culture. Maybe we need a category for permanent residents of USA.
Azn Clayjar (
talk)
05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If one of you registered users doesn't delete that sentence comparing Richard McBeef to Hamlet, then we have failed as a species. 72.40.101.195 07:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why must "that sentence" be deleted? On what grounds? Are you suggesting some sort of vandalism?
88.105.78.155 ( talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone please incorporate into the article the 50 minutes of speech therapy per month he received in high school and his therapist: From Disturbed High Schooler to College Killer by Daniel Golden Xandiar 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Did the speech-therapy had any helpful affect on Mr. Cho, in any way whatsoever?
19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked up what little I can on google about Cho and I see pics of him in a USMC uniform and people asking if he was in the military. Does anyone know if this is valid or just a rumor? If it is confirmed it should be added to the article. If it is debunked, then nevermind. Feral Mind ( talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a section noting that Cho was an atheist. If he was Christian, then we should put he was Christian. If he was Muslim, then we should put he was Muslim. Regardless of what he believed, this should be included and then we'll let the reader determine its influence. Noting a massacre by a radical Christian or a radical Muslim is just as necessary as noting a massacre by a radical secularist. -Brad Kgj08 ( talk) 11:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As we've seen with all those who kill in the past, it doesn't take on "just" religion to make someone motivated to kill someone. It takes something a like human being to do that. 88.105.16.105 ( talk) 10:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In the little fact file box with his photo, DOB, DOD, etc on the right, directly beneath his date of death and location, it states it was Suicide. I havent seen a cause of death on any other persons biography page included in this section, is it necessary to include it here? Reading the article will clearly explain what happened. Popher 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the re-addition of the "Virginia Tech alumnus" category, as alumnus and alumna refer specifically to graduates of a college or university, not just people who attended classes there. Cho died before graduating and therefore is not an alumnus at all. Ford MF ( talk) 01:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't talk about his romantic relationships. Was he a virgin? Did he have a girlfriend ever and if so what did these girls have to say about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.219.28 ( talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What you just asked is a very very personal question, especially for the deceased murderer. The late Mr. Cho's social and sexual aspect may or may not have influenced his decisions at the time before or during the shootings. Some revelations regarding your question may be significant to this article.
According to the summarized statement made by user:Diamonddavej, no one can be more than 100% certain if that was entirely true. So it is best to keep it NPOV on that; whenever it's true/not. The ones' that are closer to truth of those aspects would be any close friends or relatives that were in contact with him.
However, I can't stress this enough for the users; please tread very carefully with this part of the subject matter. 88.105.81.227 ( talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The point to many, many shootings, and this one is no exception, is for the murderer to become famous.
Seung-Hui Cho wanted to be famous. The recent shooting in a shopping mall, that young man wanted fame. Research other shootings, I guarantee that you will find a desire for fame in many of the shooters.
By publicizing the murders to the extent that we do, we are merely saying to a lonely, possibly bullied, unknown person, "Look. You want everyone to know who you are? You want to be on the news? You want a Wikipedia article that is longer than Brad Pitt's? Shoot up a school, and voila. There you go." Many teens play copycat, shooting their own schools after seeing the fame it brought to other murders.
I understand that there is a debate to the length of the article here, but I don't believe that we should continue this mad cycle of giving disturbed people a motive for murdering.
Please, let's delete this article.
-Rose
Sirprizeme13 ( talk) 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, is this necasary? This would actually encourage me to do something simillar, because I want to have my own article on wikipedia, and this is a quick way to do it is to go through kill a bunch of people and "set a record" for the number of deaths. I think the School Shooter's article, for all "Massacrist", should be incorporated into the actual "Massacre's" page, because really, this is all to glorifying. I'm just suggesting it, because unlike Exterminating the Jews or starting a holy war, whcih take years, a school shooting can be planned for and executed in under a year, so whats not to say that someone will see all the attention given to Mr.Cho and start feeling a little need? I know I already have a plan if I ever consider going through with it, is that messed up or what? I actually started a book "Songs To Kill To" about the music and mainstream influences that glorify "death culture", but I was side trekked. Also, is it messed up that I can just see myself on national t.v, have what the cheesey announcer guy will say in my head already, about this kind of thing?
MutleeMutlee
13:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is in reply to both the above topic and the one above that. I am not holding Wikipedia accountable for mass murderers, but I do believe that any type of media that makes school shooters famous has a part to play. I think that even movies against guns and such do, to some extent, bring attention to shooters. I also feel that such media does more good than bad.
If you read the article, a very evident point is that Cho wanted fame. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. Chances are that he didn't think, "I'm going to shoot a school so that I can get a long Wikipedia article," but at the same time he didn't think, "Oh, I want to get on the Little Town newspaper." No one would think of every individual source that they would
A small article would be acceptable, briefly stating his purpose, but do we need to make it evident that we care more about a mass murderer than we do , but a long article that seems to match closely in length to Martin Luther King Junior is sickening. How about those at the shootings who gave their lives to save their students and friends? Kevin Granata brought twenty students to safety, he was shot and killed. Liviu Librescu and his wife both survived the Holocaust. It was Holocaust Remembrance Day when Mr. Librescu held the door while his students escaped out of the windows. He was shot five times and killed.
And there are more. They are real people, and they are the ones we need to remember. They are our heroes, and it is a disgrace that their names are not deeply ingrained in our minds (and I am not going to claim perfect, this is a mistake our society as made as a whole, I myself do not know their names) the way Dylan Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho are. Remember the people who have made a difference worth making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Heading 'Resistence'
-Rose
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Professor Liviu Librescu Henry Lee Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan Zach Petkewicz Katelyn Carney Derek O'Dell Trey Perkins Erin Sheehan Professor Kevin Granata
69.141.75.46 ( talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
~Please think again!~
.......
Maybe this article can be taken as some sort of a reminder of what destructiveness that man's mental ailment can cause.
I think more help and sympathy would be provided for anyone with Mr. Cho's problem. It can be a sad thing for anyone to go through, having the inability to socially connect with anyone you see around you. Perhaps even NONE at all.
What can worsen the person's suffering is...everyone else can communicate with other people, being able to pass on opinions, perhaps convey love and affections to others...while- he can't! It can be a very sad and lonely thing for him.
I think anyone should reconsider not removing this article and should think about the life he went through.
(Maybe because I have it as well).
88.105.94.7 ( talk) 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a neutral one, in that. This man has done morally terrible things in our eyes, and similarly been subjected to ailments of horrible types, but neither of these things should make us consider removing the article. They should be stated, and listed, and known. If every scribe in history decided that they would censor events because they gave a madman fame, or because they glorified killing, in their own individual opinion, whole chapters of textbooks would go missing. The article is a document of what has happened, and the man who did these things. You can dislike him, and you can hate the things he has done, but this is a place for neutral encyclopedic entries, and that is all that matters. He gains nothing from this now, nor will he ever, as a side note, as well.
Jwguy ( talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the failed FAC, the lead paragraph was too short. We need to make the lead into three paragraphs if we can. I need some help on this article as well. Greg Jones II 02:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I think the word "murderer" is too biased for an encylopedia. Maybe we should use the term "seperatist" or "radical conservative." --
Cyberman (
talk)
08:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
"According to Kim Gyeong-won, who first met Cho in the fifth grade and took classes with him,[16] Cho finished the three-year program at Poplar Tree Elementary School in one and a half years. "
What three year program? ESL? A tad bit more context, pulease! :) Qb | your 2 cents 15:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this news source would be useful to this article. It seems you can't profile much from there (predicting who's going to do 'it' or not). Any Criminologists would say that. So as the sourced web article seem to suggest, his time during the ESL program may have not significantly influenced him prior to the shootings. 88.105.88.96 ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The female student involved in the second stalking incident was initially unconcerned by Cho's behavior. It appears that she only became worried after an AIM conversation with Andy Kosh. Here is the Koch/female students edited AIM conversation [2]:
Koch: do u want to know who spankyjelly is
Koch: he is seung ho something ( Seung-Hui )
Female student: yeah i knwo who he is
Koch: he is a creep i would block him just doing u a favor
Female student: ahahha yeah
Koch: well i would block him he got in trouble forr stalking recently so i just wanted to warn you
Female student: yeah..hes called me...written on my door...all of that
Female student: kinda freaky
Koch: written on your door? like your room
Female student: yeah
Female student: the funny thing bout that...
Female student: is im unlisted...like everywhere
Female student: SO he had to do some investigations or something...into my roommate and what not
Koch: the ra's are trying to do something about him
Female student: yikes
Female student: at first i thought he was one of my friends joking around...and i only accepted him cuz i saw a few of my friends were friends with him
Female student : then he turned out all psycho
Koch: i think he is is schophrenic or however you spell it
Diamonddavej
20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
how exactly does a conversation with koch and a female student prove that cho stalked anyone? it's speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.246.48 ( talk) 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how did though conversation between student Andy Kock and that unnamed female student got extracted and then subsequently been pasted on that news source? How can anyone be sure that conversation ever took place? Where's the solid evidence to support this? Did Mr. Koch purposely logged this conversation knowing some majour incident will happen after that internet session? 88.105.38.34 ( talk) 22:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning 'According to CBS News' cites the 2002 U.S. Secret Service study (the Safe School Initiative) as indicating that Cho Seung-Hui's status as a loner fit the shooter profile. While CBS News may have reported this, the study specifically stated that there was no profile and that it was dangerous to suggest there was a profile of school shooters. Furthermore, it stated that people described as loners comprise a minority of school shooters. I think something should be amended to this section detailing CBS News misrepresentation of this study or have the reference removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.94.144 ( talk) 10:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Any idea how this made it into the article?
I wasn't able to look far enough into the history to find the missing url, so I removed the ref. Googling the title didn't do much good either. — CharlotteWebb 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For those of you actively involved with this article, you might be interested in reading this scholarly article that attempts to point toward an explanation of the tragedy. In short, it explains that Cho's character/mental illness alone does not adequately explain why he murdered, but rather, it was a combination if his character and interactions with Virginia Tech professors and other staff that pushed him over the edge. It explains how mobbing by professors, students and other authority figures contributed to this tragedy. Perhaps a mention of this point of view would bring more balance to the article. LinguistAt Large 04:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
http://collegiatetimes.com/cms/site/april16_documents.php
A lot to sift through, but appears to me to suggest a number of revisions and additions to our article.
Chromaone ( talk) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If known (through digital timestamps on the source materials presumably), the article should state when he took the photos and videos that he sent to NBC. Would shed some more light on the level and timing of preparation. Tempshill ( talk) 03:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been persistently adding to the lead paragraph that Cho is not only a student, but playwright at VT. It has been reverted several times as vandalism, although the editor has been adamant that it is not vandalism, with some mention of Youtube. I am dubious that he has any notability for writing plays, but will bring it here for a more full discussion. In the mean time, I suggest we leave it out of the article until consensus can be reached here. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 04:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Some say so: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Seung-Hui+Cho+convert+Islam&btnG=Google+Search Can anyone confirm or disprove it?
=Motive=
Cho and one of his victims, Ross Alameddine, attended the same English class during Autumn 2006. Emily revealed to many friends on campus that Seung-Hui Cho possessed a tail which was not removed at the time of his birth; the ensuing embarrassment was another cause leading towards the sociopathic murderous rampage. According to classmates enrolled in that class, including Justin Keyser, Alameddine tried to communicate with Cho with no success.[91]
Okay, who on Earth put in the sentence suggesting that Seung-Hui's being bullied because he once "had a tail"?
I read on the article on citation 91 and there is no mention of having a tail attached to Mr Cho or how was that funny on someone who has selective mutism.
88.105.126.105 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cho Seung-Hui is Korean or Korean-American. Majority of Koreans consider him as Korean. Not Chinese or Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.207.12 ( talk) 10:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Does the name Seung-Hui Cho have anything to do with Seung being a member of the Hui ethnic group in China?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5OD1X75Ks&feature=related —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.234.210.81 (
talk)
03:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
....(What?)
I think Hui of Seung-Hui is just part of another name. Probably another Kanji character. Chinese Mandarin and the Korean language are different. 88.105.107.252 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You see, this 回 ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9E) is the of the Hui Muslims, while this other Korean "Hui" 熙 ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%86%99) is used for a person's name. Every person in Oriental countries know these two are DEFINITELY NOT the same.
88.105.4.107( talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be links to them since I can't find them with Google due to so many articles where they are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.18 ( talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The article reads: "The package, addressed from "A. Ishmael" as seen on an image of the USPS Express Mail envelope (incorrectly printed as "Ismail" by The New York Times" Do we have this image? what citation do we have to back up the New York Times was incorrect? Padillah ( talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Various editors have inserted links to websites which reproduce plays by Cho. Under current copyright laws, unpublished manuscripts are still subject to copyright; and we cannot permit links to sites which violate copyright in this manner. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
[132] In determining the issue of fair use, the balance seems to be in favor of defendants.
[133] There is a public interest in having the fullest information available [my emphasis] on the murder of President Kennedy. Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration. While doubtless the theory could be explained with sketches of the type used at page 87 of the Book and in The Saturday Evening Post, the explanation actually made in the Book with copies is easier to understand. The Book is not bought because it contained the Zapruder Pictures; the Book is bought because of the theory of Thompson and its explanation, supported by Zapruder pictures.
[134] There seems little, if any, injury to plaintiff, the copyright owner. There is no competition between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff does not sell the Zapruder pictures as such and no market for the copyrighted work appears to be affected. Defendants do not publish a magazine. There are projects for use by plaintiff of the film in the future as a motion picture or in books, but the effect of the use of certain frames in the Book on such projects is speculative. It seems more reasonable to speculate that the Book would, it anything, enhance the value of the copyrighted work; it is difficult to see any decrease in its value. -- TIME INC. v. BERNARD GEIS ASSOCS., 293 F. Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
How long did it take for the Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold suicide pictures to be made public, and has anything been done or will be done with Seung-Hui Cho? 67.5.159.178 02:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am struggling to read your point and your question. Can you please explain it more carefully with some more details regarding your question? Why must the "suicide pictures to be made public"?
88.105.78.155 ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a controversy over including the Cho article in categories that include the word "American." The disagreement appears to revolve around the question of how American one must be before we can label him or her "American." One one side is the opinion that you must be a de jure US citizen before you are properly qualified to call yourself an American; either you're in or you're out, and citizenship is the dividing line. On the other side of the great divide are those who are willing to weigh various factors (such as where one grew up, what culture/subculture one identifies with, primary language, country of current and anticipated future legal residency, etc.) and concede that a particular non-citizen might be considered "American enough" to fit into the fuzzy category, "American," or in this instance, "Korean American."
I subscribe to the latter view, Penser ( talk · contribs) seems to subscribe to the former, and in this case, our conclusions are mutually exclusive. Luckily, this disagreement is over article categories, whose primary purpose to help readers find articles on related topics. Readers are not looking for demonstrations of perfect, formal-logic consistency when they make use of the categories; they're looking for more articles. That frees us from any sort of felt obligation to use one designation or the other and instead include ... both. As long as it is conceivable that a decent subset of readers will find a categorization germane and useful, there's no reason not to include it.
Cho's article can thus be usefully indexed to the "South Koreans" and "Korean Americans" categories, and so I have put both categories in. The "American Spree Killers" cat is also germane and useful for category surfers, degree-of-Americanness quibbles aside, because the article is about the perpetrator of an American spree killing, and it is the kind of article a reader might reasonably expect to find in that category. --Dynaflow babble 03:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't find your justification in Wikipedia's guide to categorization, but to be honest, I just don't care that much about the categories feature. Half of the categories are so silly and overly broad (e.g. College students who committed suicide, People from Seoul) that I can't believe many people really use this feature often. Anyway, I'll let someone else fight this battle if they have more expertise about categories. Penser ( talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)penser
I subscribe to the latter view, You are wrong. Vidor ( talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
one must be tried and convicted of a crime before one is considered a criminal -- emerson7 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
might want to properly format refs 5, 6 and 7 to maintain GA standards. Chensiyuan ( talk) 03:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the article and I think its ready for Peer Review, in preparation for FA nomination. A few of the problems in the June 2007 nomination was that the lead was too short...everything was too short, it was unstable... I think that has all been addressed now. Since I'm not a frequent editor on this article, and have not been aware with recent discussions, talk amongst yourselves. I'm just leaving a suggestion, since the article has improved massively than the June 20, 2007 version that I just checked. -- haha169 ( talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/VATech/story?id=3071730&page=1
I think this should be included into Cho's biography, and am quite surprised that it wasn't. It would provide the reader with some insight into Cho's sexual history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.117.6 ( talk) 20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? He was on magazine covers. THF ( talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
i don't follow the meaning of that phrase; there should be an explanation of it provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.177.100 ( talk) 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Did anything important happen between the Preparation and the Aftermath? 67.169.185.246 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The first couple sections of this article have been very badly edited or possibly vandalised. There are chunks of broken English interspersed with nonsense/random typing. The history page shows that this version has already been revised specifically to correct vandalism, so I'm not sure what to do. I'm making a note of it here in hopes that someone who knows how to edit articles will see it. 108.203.202.17 ( talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article currently states: According to CBS News, "Cho Seung-Hui's violent writing [and] loner status fit the Secret Service shooter profile,"[149] referring to a 2002 U.S. Secret Service study that was conducted after the Columbine massacre...
The CBS article is sensational, and its emphasis and interpretation are completely different than conclusions and recommendations made by the source it cites. Checking the actual study, no such claim is made. In fact, quite the opposite. "The study findings also revealed that there is no "profile" of a school shooter; instead, the students who carried out the attacks differed from one another in numerous ways. However, almost every attacker had engaged in behavior before the shooting that seriously concerned at least one adult - and for many had concerned three or more different adults." http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml 50.54.238.241 ( talk) 14:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I notice the Wikipedia Bullying portal is at the bottom of this page. I can't remember ever reading that bullying was a key or even minor motivator for Cho's killing spree so unless someone can produce a source indicating otherwise I would like to suggest removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.226.114 ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Why the fuck do we have to create an entirely separate page for this maniac. Like an biography. No wonder there's more mass shooting. If someone tried to kill more people, they are entitled to a biography?
This article violates this specific Wikipedia policy, thus it will be merged into the Virginia Tech shooting article
Seung-Hui Cho is a non-notable person, only known for his spree-killing at Virginia Tech. The same logic was used to remove the separate article for Adam Lanza as he is also was a non-notable person, only known for his spree killing event which is documented in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article Moebiusstrip ( talk) 03:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This article and some copycats are citing his name as "Kenneth Cho". It's certainly believable to me that he'd go by an English name in the US, but without any mention of this in the article, I hesitate to make a redirect. Is this an error or just an overlooked alternative name? -- BDD ( talk) 19:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/pdf/cho_mentalhealth.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Seung-Hui Cho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In the final section of the article "Reactions to Writings," in the third paragraph:
While it is true that CBS claimed that, the Secret Service study referenced by CBS says no such thing. Furthermore, the referenced article by Christine Lagorio, attributes the false notion of "quiet loner" to "CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andrews." Since the linked article by Lagorio doesn't provide links to the sources, I feel that is is not particularly verifiable.
The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiate (the "Secret Service" study) says
The last sentence of this paragraph suggests that interest in one's own violent writings, while shunning other violence was a significant conclusion of the report. The report contradicts this. On pages 11 & 12 under the heading of Overview of Safe School Initiative Findings are 10 key findings [2]. Not listed is interest in violence or writing.