User talk:Davecullen

Welcome!

Hello, Davecullen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --BigDT (416) 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've actually contributed for several years, but it's been at least a year since I posted anything. (The four tildas thing is new to me. I don't know that I ever signed anything before.) Wikipedia sure has gotten dramatically better over the years. I'm very glad to see all the citations now.

Davecullen 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Dave Cullen[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Are you the author of the Slate article? No problem posting that reference, but just be sure to steer clear of getting your name on Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles (i.e., never edit an article about yourself).

Your article on Cho was excellent, by the way, and full of insights. Thank you for your work. —Sandover 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the author. Thanks, and I'll be careful. I've tried to be judicious over the past several years. I have mainly contributed to the Columbine page over the years, which has improved greatly over that time, but still needs a lot of work. (I think most of it was created during the early years of wikipedia, when citations were not the rule.) The myths on that page used to drive me nuts, but most of them have been cleared out. I added a slew of comments to the discussion page tonight, but I was hesitant to cut out statements already in the text. (Is this where I should be replying to this? Is there a PM fuction?)

Davecullen 07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Dave Cullen 23 April 2007[reply]

In your April 27, 2007 New York Times article, "Talk to the Chos," you wrote:

We know Mr. Cho demonstrated symptoms consistent with autism and Asperger’s syndrome, but these can also be signs of schizophrenia.

Cho's great aunt may have used the word japyejeung (autism), but when speaking about what she remembers of Cho, she is not describing symptoms consistent with autism and Asperger's. Neither Cho's "well-behaved" demeanor as a young child, nor his ability to obey commands and cues, is consistent with autism. Nor does a hypothetical "Asperger's" diagnosis seem to fit with the description of Cho as reclusive, shy, and non-verbal.

It now seems as if Cho's great aunt in Korea only heard the recently-popularized Korean word japyejeung ('self-closed syndrome') in a recent New Year's call. But there was apparently no official 'autism' diagnosis, and from what we know of Cho, autism just doesn't fit; it is far more likely Cho was affected by selective mutism, since his childhood and early adolescent behaviors fit the textbook case. While your editorial about the need for the Cho family to come clean with what they knew is well-merited, you do a disservice to repeat the notion that Cho was autistic. At this point, if not debunked, the notion is at least highly suspect —Sandover 04:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I interviewed several leading psychologists/psychiatrists who saw quite a bit in Cho that appeared consistent with someone on the autism or Asperger's spectrum. I was careful about the wording and did not say he was diagnosed, or that he had the condition, merely that he had shown symptoms consistent with those. In fact, I was downplaying the possibility--suggesting that even though apparent symptoms were visible, they could be other things. The discussion of these diagnoses was widely reported, and there was evidence consistent with them--so I really don't think acknowledging that situation in order to downplay it was a problem. Dave Cullen 04:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widely mis-reported as autism, we now know... Though it is to Wikipedia's credit that the wholly unchallenged notion that Cho was autistic lasted a mere 36 hours or so in his biography, and that this community was amenable to reasonable and informed argument on the subject. It is to NBC News' credit that they broadcast what they did (they didn't get much praise for that decision), since Cho's speech patterns were to me so clearly out of key with autistic spectrum demeanor and speech. Cho was not autistic, but without the NBC broadcast, I might not have been so firm about asserting it.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Cho was diagnosed with "selective mutism" by his sophomore year in high school, and received special education accommodations including a waiver on participation in class discussion. As will be much discussed, he received 50 minutes a month of speech and language therapy to address his problem. Soon enough, people will be finding precedents for selective mutism slipping into psychosis, as has been noted in the literature. My heart is with the families of children, in particular, with the selective mutism diagnosis, who don't deserve the burden of Cho... He's an exceptional case, of course, and a tragic one.

I'm not at all surprised about the selective mutism diagnosis. It was there in the telling detail of Cho's single junior high school friend (with whom he could, in fact, talk), and in so many other confirmations spelled out in the grandaunt's account of the two times she met him, the second time when he was 8. As I said above, she was not describing autism, she was describing selective mutism. The problem wasn't that Cho couldn't talk, it was that he wouldn't talk, at least as the grandaunt saw the situation; the family knew he had the ability to speak, of course, but felt he was being reluctant to do so (though in fact it's a different anxiety mechanism in play, not a willful refusal).

Frankly, if "leading pyschologists/psychiatrists" signed off on Cho being autistic rather than a selective mute, they really should turn in their badges... Or were you talking to forensic psychiatrists, the fancy folk who talk about serial killers? I'm not surprised they are out of the loop, because they have so rarely done fieldwork or met real children. They might not know at all what I am talking about. Sandover 22:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine[edit]

Hi Dave, sorry to bother you but I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind. I've written a couple papers for college on the shooting, and I've always wondered what exactly is myth and what is truth. From my research it appears that there really was no rhyme or reason to anything Eric and Dylan did, and that it was random as random gets for the most part. I realize that most of the early rumors were myths i.e. targeting of Christians, jocks, minorities, etc. The article says one of them asked for all the ppl with white hats/jocks to stand up. Is that part true? Also, does anyone know why they only killed as few people as they did? Don't get me wrong, it was horrible but it looks to me like they could have killed far more than they did. Did anyone see them show any signs of remorse or anything? If you do not have time to answer this I completely understand. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Landon[edit]

Hi Landon. I just saw your question.

They definitely had a plan, but it was based mainly on the big bombs, which failed. Then they started shooting, randomly. Outside, they basically shot at every single person they saw, continuing to fire at little groups as they ran, but moving targets at distance are hard to hit, and they were not great shots.

The few-killed is a legit question, which even the victims' families ask. That was mainly due to the failure of their plan, no contingency, and some rash choices. (And maybe lack of bravery to walk into the cafeteria firing.)

No signs of remorse that day. The closest was Dylan letting a friend he saw in the library go.

The jocks-stand command appears to be true, but needs to be in context. They made countless jabs at all sorts of groups while in the library, including kids with ostentacious eyeglasses (seriously).

My book is coming out in April, and if you can wait until then, I've got a very detailed account of all your qeustions. I hope this tides you over.

Dave Dave Cullen (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will be sure and purchase a copy of your book. Thanks again. Landon1980 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Geoff Peterson has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. →Σ τ c. 03:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Dave, April 2015:

I'm just seeing this comment, and I'm incredulous. I checked the edit, and my edit was to change “Geoff Peterson is the robot skeleton sidekick...” to “Geoff Peterson is the gay robot skeleton sidekick… “ (i.e., I added the word, “gay.”) And in my description, I wrote: 'Added "gay" to the first line. It needs to go somewhere on the page.' Since host Craig Ferguson referred to Geoff as his gay robot skeleton nearly every night on the show, it seemed appropriate to include--and odd for the previous writer to omit the word Craig constantly used on the page. Moreover, as I stated in my summary, the word gay appeared nowhere on the page, which was a glaring omission I was attempting to correct. (You could move it somewhere else, but it needed to be somewhere.) This was a bio page on a fictional character whose entire identity was summarized as "gay robot skeleton," so to omit 1/3 of that made no sense. (And clearly, reeked of someone afraid of just including the damn information.) Also, the gay aspect of Geoff's character was a regular source of the interplay between the two. To delete the change and call it "unconstructive" was kind of obnoxious. Looks like you have an agenda. I'm glad to see that you were over-ruled eventually, and Geoff is no ID'd as gay on the page. -

Speedy deletion nomination of David Yoo[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Yoo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]