Talk:Murder of Anna Svidersky/Archive 1

message: I've noticed that as tragic as this event is, this is quite possibly the only article of a murder victim where no article of the actual murderer exists on Wiki.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) .
:So start one if you feel it's necessary. Tyrenius 03:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No article on the murderer

message: Prod tag (i.e. proposed deletion) was put on the article today. I have left the following on the talk page of User:74.65.167.98 who placed the tag:
:You have put a prod tag on this article (i.e. for deletion). Please note it was put forward as a AFD on May 27, 2006. See discussion. In the light of this, you might like to discuss your objections on the article talk page before proceeding further.
Tyrenius 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod

message: I am somewhat ambivalent about this external link. On the one hand it has 2 good articles, copied (copyright?) from reliable sources, including color photos of the subject and the alleged killer. On the other hand, digging deeper into the site reveals a worrisome picture. It is a collection of "Murder at McDonald's" (USA?) cases, like this article, which already is somewhat slanted because I would assume there would be similar patterns at any other public-accessible near-24x7 drive-in workplaces, and picking on any single corporation is biased. But that part is not the real weird part. The authors then seem to go off the deep end, by proclaiming a bizarre and implausible theory, most likely their idea of a joke, about these murders. So the dilemma is that it is a good source information wise - it seems to have good sources for this and other McDonald's related murders, but OTOH it seems to unfairly attack McDonald's itself, which IMO is mostly an innocent bystander (although one could argue that a safer workplace is needed, but we can't pick on one corporation only). Also, sick jokes should not be given a wide audience. Anyway, I leave this dilemma to others to contemplate. For now I left the link in. Crum375 03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your arguments, I've deleted the reference. There is already a reference anyway at that place in the article. Strictly speaking, wiki should not link to a site that contains a copyvio. It would be better to link to the original articles. Tyrenius 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted that info about Google cache on the Fair use discussion page. Tyrenius 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMurder Link 

message: There are now three references occurring after the name and birth/death dates. This seems excessive. I would have thought one reliable source would be more than adequate. Also it is better if the link occurs at the end of the sentence after the full stop. There is no reference cited at the moment after the first sentence or even after the first paragraph, so maybe these 3 references could be placed more strategically. Tyrenius 00:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I moved the 3 to the end of the 1st sentence for now. They do not relate to the subsequent 'spread of notability' so they can't be at the end of the paragraph. Each reference adds a slightly different and useful perspective  - it's hard to spread them out or to eliminate one - we do want to paint a complete picture and they are just neutral articles. The fundraising amount mentioned in one is re-referenced later. If anyone has an idea on a better 'strategic placement' - sure, it would be great. Crum375 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you in principle about all your points. In practice, however, it is not trivial to sort out all the facts as they appear in the different articles and assign them to the first paragraph that introduces those facts. I welcome anyone to spread out the references in this optimal pattern, but propose that for the time being we leave the 3 main references at the beginning pending a better solution. Once we are sure a given reference is not mentioned anywhere in the article, but is still informative, it can be moved to external links. Crum375 14:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References at start of article

message: I suggest we use June 24, 2006,  rather than 2006-06-24, as the latter can get very confusing with UK and US usage putting days and months in different order to each other. It doesn't apply in this case, but 2006-11-12, for example, could be 11 December or 12 November. Putting the name of the month is the usual practice, e.g. current featured article Uma Thurman. Tyrenius 01:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be missing something. The only place I used yyyy-mm-dd format (which is universal ISO standard for all countries, btw) is inside the cite template, which is invisible externally, where it must be used to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And regarding Uma Thurman, they are a step behind the times - they are not using the template cites which we now have in this article. Crum375 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference dates

message: I removed the following: In elementary school Anna was given a written reprimand for "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work." Even though it is mentioned in the first referenced news article, that fact is of absolutely no pertinence as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. It only appears in that news article to help convey the mother's grief. Let's use some common sense here, ok? — GT 09:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pointless minutiae do not belong in an article about anybody no matter how notable they are. A written reprimand in elementary school -- I wonder if there's a child in America who never got anything like that when they were young. But whatever -- I have little interest in following this article, so feel free to include this information as well as what brand of toothpaste she used and what color her bedsheets were. — GT 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I agree with Tyrenius, as I mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page. The addition of (reliably sourced) 'color' to a person's biographical page is acceptable as long as the person is otherwise notable. In this case, as I noted above, it is possible that this 'color', described in online news articles along with some of Anna's other humanizing traits and anecdotes, is at least partly responsible for the world wide 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, which is the main basis for inclusion of this article. Crum375 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would chalk it all up to "pretty" and "randomly stabbed", but carry on. — GT 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would have been accurate before the 'mourning after' phenomenon which is the primary justification and theme of this article. Crum375 14:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you not attend school as a young child? Yes, kids misbehave in class and do things that anger their parents. Do I need to go on at length as to the severity of "singing", "dancing", "disrupting class", and "not doing work"? If the notion of such a "written reprimand" is completely foreign to you then please trust me that it is not a big deal in the least bit. And it should be apparent from reading the article that passage came from (you all did read it, right?) what is the point of its presence in the news article. The writer is describing how Anna's mother is going through her daughter's belongings and comes across the "written reprimand", and (here is the important part) in her grieving she is able to forgive her daughter for what previously she was driven to anger over. This is a totally standard part of the grieving process  and just because it might have been appropriate to include that information as a device in a news article doesn't make it worthy of being included in the late young woman's biography under this silly notion that any last bit of minutiae that anybody can dig up belongs in this article. — GT 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, though I think we are going around in circles, I must respectfully disagree. Yes, it is a bit of trivia about the subject's life. But you agree that at least to the new reporter it was important enough to include in her news article. Why did the reporter do so? Sensationalism? Unlikely. In my opinion, the reporter did it to add a layer of humanity to Anna, to show the readers that this was not one more statistic, one more 'random stabbing victim' to use your words, but that this was a real, live, red-blooded, vibrant, caring human being that was snuffed out because the 'system' allowed a repeat sex offender back out on the street. The fact that Anna was reprimanded as a young child in class for 'disrupting the class by singing and dancing' very much adds to her character, that emphasized fun and happiness over formalities, and shows she was a real human being, and adds to the sense of loss we all share when these acts of senseless violence occur. This description in the news article, as I mentioned in my other message below, could have been part of the reason for the outpouring of support and the 'mourning after' phenomenon which is the primary reason for the article. Crum375 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, GT, your points are noted. Would it be possible for you to do some research and add to the article material that it should contain? That would be helpful and postitive. We seem to be expending a huge amount of time and energy needlessly over one sentence, which is after all substantiated from a verifiable source. Tyrenius 12:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I probably won't make it a priority to expand this article as I would have voted "delete" on its AfD if I had been around. To me internet phenomena are generally not encyclopedic topics.Anyway my essential point, which maybe I'm not communicating well, is that even though a journalist who is writing what is basically a feature piece (judging by its content and since it was written over a week after her death) happens to include a bit of information in a particular, entirely appropriate context to convey her mother's grief, that information in a different context (in this case, a biography in an encyclopedia) could find itself completely out of place and irrelevant, and maybe even misleading. How can you say that one instance of getting in trouble as a youngster reveals important details about someone's character, when you have never even met the girl before her tragic death? Especially when the only character analyses we have of this girl seem to be those given to us immediately after her passing by her mourning friends and family, which makes them highly subject to exaggeration, euphemisms, and embellishment.— GT 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with much of what you say, so let me try to emphasize the differences. I agree that 'Internet phenomena' in general may not be notable - this should be a careful case-by-case decision, and we did have an extensive AfD discussion about this one (and BTW my own initial vote there was a Delete that was changed to a Keep after the changes). As far as the 'character analyses' etc. - I agree with you - we, as strangers, don't really know her real character, and these small tidbits only give us a hint. I also agree that in a regular encyclopedic bio article they may not belong at all. But here, once you accept the premise of inclusion of the article which was the rapid spread of the 'mourning after' phenomenon, we have to find some reliable evidence that could supply clues as to why that rapid spread and mass grief occured. I personally feel that the otherwise non-encyclopedic tidbits, that were available online to the remote mourners, and were selected by a neutral news reporter, had a reasonable probability of enhancing that grief and catalyzing the process. Therefore, they become logical for inclusion, despite perhaps not being included in a generic bio of person X. Crum375 18:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Small correction: I did not vote an initial Delete - just said that a cleanup was needed, which I then proceeded to help with. Crum375 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we are getting somewhere. I have reorganized the page and moved the tidbit in question. Feel totally free to alter my revision in any way you please but according to the justification you have presented the only appropriate way to include this information is in the context of how strangers used it to connect with her, and since as you have agreed it is of no real practical relevance as far as being an important detail about her life it makes no sense to include it as "background" information. Personally I don't find it necessary to include every tiny detail we can glean from the news articles, as Wikipedia is not Wikinews (and the fact that this topic is so devoid of any other sources that we have to do so is, as far as I'm concerned, prima facie evidence that this article shouldn't exist in the first place), but if you all don't have any major problems with my most recent edit then I will leave it be at that. — GT 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, excuse me. Firstly I didn't say "the only appropriate way...etc", nor do I agree with it. I think background information is perfectly valid in its own right. You have completely ignored the comparison with the Douglas Adams article above. Could you please read it, consider it and answer that point. Secondly you have now introduced OR by stating that the spread of the mourning was connected with the newspaper coverage. Can you please cite your source for this? The source I have cited (The Guardian) attributed it to the internet, not to print media. I don't find the editing and suggestions are getting us anywhere very far. If you want to help the article, can you please add some good content. There's really no point quibbling over something like this with the end result that the article is now not accurate. We are trying to research this, not put in speculation. Thank you! Tyrenius 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize but I don't find the comparison between the employment history of one of the most famous authors of the 20th century and a child getting yelled at for disrupting class to hold any water. The latter is a fact that is simply not important, not even in the slightest bit. I understand the WP:OR concerns (although I too was describing an internet publication, not a print one) and invite you to rewrite my edit while keeping it in that section of the article, but if you can't find a way to do that then I invite you to remove the information altogether. It simply does not belong under the "Background" heading under any circumstances. The newspaper article did not include it because it was important. The writer mentioned it to show that the mother is grieving and can't bring herself to hold any anger towards her daughter anymore. Again, trust me on this -- a "written reprimand" in elementary school is not even remotely important, even in this young woman's short and, until the end, relatively uneventful life.  — GT 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if the newspaper included it in that way, then perhaps this article should also include it in that way? I am not familiar with the US school system. If you are, perhaps you could  confirm that a written reprimand is something that is commonly handed out, and most children would expect to get one at some time. According to the US Census elementary age is 5-13. Is this correct? As I mentioned, the new edit is incorrect - However, they came to be exposed to her personality by viewing her Myspace page and via the ensuing media coverage through small details such as for instance, a news article... Nope, they weren't exposed to her personality through a news article etc., just the internet, particularly MySpace. However, she was by all accounts a lively and fun person, and the reprimand illustrates this. That is a significant reason for including it. Insight into the personality of this life that was cut short is not merely appropriate, but necessary, bearing in mind that it was key to creating the factor of notability (namely the widespread grief etc.); i.e. had she been a dull, boring, non-charismatic, unattractive person, then it would most likely not have been the catalyst that it was. It is therefore central to the article to show the nature of the personality that was the catalyst. People did not react to a statistic; they reacted to a human being. Again, if you are interested in adding to the quality of this article, could you please find some more material to add to it? Thank you.Tyrenius 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed useless and unimportant fact 

message: I have no doubt whatsoever that GT means well and wants to either delete or improve the article. Unfortunately, it is clear to me, as Tyrenius stated above, that actually stating in the article what we speculated on here in the Talk page, i.e. the exact grounds for the 'mourning after' effect, would become WP:OR. I also think the article is easier to read in its current form. While I admit that style is not a primary factor, overall presentation is also important. Thanks, Crum375 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think GT has picked up on something, which is that, as things stand, these two points seem a little gratuitous. However, that is because it needs more such background material at this place in the article. Once that is done, they will settle into proportion. Tyrenius 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and GT that as it stands the 'singing and dancing' bit seems a little bare on its own - it seems like it's missing some other pieces. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of material to work with since not a lot is on the online record. But it may make sense to review the published articles and see if we can add some meat to it with what we have. Crum375 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are actually quite a lot more pieces in the press reports, which I would have included also, but for shortage of time, so I just used the two that are now in. We'll see who gets to them first. Tyrenius 19:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of GT's version 

message: As we agree that this information doesn't sit comfortably on its own, I have removed it from the article and stored it below, until such time as more material is sourced to put it in a fuller context.
:In elementary school Anna was given a written reprimand for "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work." For the year before her death Anna had been sending $24 via the Christian Children's Fund to a Vietnamese girl every month. When Anna had her long hair shortened, she donated the shorn locks to a charity that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair from cancer treatment.
Tyrenius 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though not perfect, I still feel this material belongs more in the article than here. In the article, it adds color to her character and potential justification to the 'mourning after' phenonmenon, mentioned later. Over here, it may sit and stagnate, and hides reliably sourced, relevant information from the readers. Just because it isn't perfect is no reason to kill it or hide it. We can always improve it in the article. I leave it to your judgment to revert it. Thanks, Crum375 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, but if it goes back in, what happens? GT goes hammer and tongs at it. We have an edit war. Over what? 2 sentences. If it's expanded, then the information will sit in context and will make more sense. I don't believe in reverts and quibbling over details like this. It's much more important to use the time constructively by adding content to the article, not to the talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not sure this article really needs so much more research - I think it's fairly close to optimal. I think if GT does come and revert this, he'll have to justify the reversion, but he seemed very reasonable in his prior discussions here. I would think it makes more sense to include it, and if GT or anyone protests or reverts or criticizes then we need to discuss it and deal with it, as we have up to now. Simply hiding under the bed is not WP policy, especially as I think we both believe this is useful content that we are keeping from the readers. You have to do what you believe is correct, and defend your position (or change your mind) if it's criticized. Crum375 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was aware when I added those points that I hadn't done it as well as I could/should have, but I was flagging! It does read somewhat abruptly and arbitrarily at present, which gives credence to GT's argument. In the news reports that have been cited there is more material about her that needs to be added to make that part of the article read smoothly and to be properly integrated into the flow of the text. (That's material that's being kept from the readers!) That is why I'm not prepared to make a stand right now. If/when I feel that section is up to the right standard, then it will be a different matter. There's no harm having a breathing space, and an incentive to dig again into the sources. I'm not up to that right this minute, but you might like to have a go yourself? Tyrenius 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, GT has sought to meet half-way, though this went askew for other reasons. Sorry to talk about you in the third person, GT, but you seem so unsympathetic to this article (as you have pointed out, though that wasn't necessary) that it impedes a harmonious working relationship. Crum375 and I only got involved in this via the AfD, and we have taken time to find verifiable sources to write from a NPOV. I am aware that currently there are a lot of people who find this subject of great significance and who will be accessing it. I want to provide the content that will enhance wiki's reputation, when they do. I invite you to join us in this endeavour, by taking the time for further research, or else to trust us to get on with the best job that we can. Tyrenius 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background material

message: Thanks. That sounds right to me. Tyrenius 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your guidance. I hope GT can live with it. Crum375 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be difficult but I still don't care for it. Using it to show that she was remembered as "fun loving and caring" seems like your personal interpretation of the little information we have. Certainly you must understand that what people do as children does not always serve to predict what they will be like when they are older, and it's not as though the "written reprimand" incident was ever used by her mother or anyone else as an example of her personality. As far as I'm concerned, the background section does not need to contain much more than basic facts like what school she attended, her family, moving from Russia, where she worked, and so forth. Although I have said I don't think this topic is encyclopedic I will for now accede to it, since it did pass an AfD, but we need to keep in mind that Anna's life before her murder was not notable by any stretch of the imagination and this article does not exist to serve as a memorial to her (or to otherwise serve as a window into the the life of a girl who died too young). To be encyclopedic this article should only provide enough background information to allow the reader to comprehend the real basis of the article, the aftermath part. I still hold that the childhood reprimand incident is so insignificant as to not even merit mentioning, and now further assert that any extraneous details of her life that aren't absolutely essential ought to be omitted. — GT 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not being difficult - every voice counts and you may represent many so we might as well address it now. To avoid WP:OR, I tried to use the reporter's own words, used in the title of the reference. The article's title is: "Family: Fallen teen was beautiful, funny, caring". Remember we are building a case, without explicitly saying so, to provide a possible explanation for the mass mourning effect. This is the online article a lot of the mourners saw, with this very title and those contents. I think the implicit message, that would be OR to state directly, is that the cause of the mass mourning was that Anna was beautiful, funny, caring. Crum375 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable but if you think certain new articles (and their insights) had that effect we should mention the articles explicitly, not bypass them and go straight to the information that *we* think was responsible. What we should do is find the most popular articles and mention that within those articles were contained certain comments by her family and details about her life. Contrary to most articles, this does not just reference but is actually partially *about* the news stories and only indirectly in this case about their content. Whether Anna actually was so kind, funny, sweet, nice, etc. is not important and indeed almost impossible for us to know anyway (though I have no doubt she was) -- what matters is that she was portrayed as such, and we need to discuss the portrayal, not assume its total validity and refer to it as fact. — GT 07:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a famous author of the highest order and someone who rose to fame while he was actually living, readers will undoubtedly want to know the events that happened in Douglas Adams' life that influenced the works he created. On the other hand Anna obviously only achieved notability in death, when hundreds of people she had never met took notice and mourned for her. The only aspects of her life that are relevant to that are those which the mourners had access to -- her myspace page, the news reports, and the memorial pages that sprung up. As I have said to Crum375, there is no reason to rip the information from these sources without discussing them, and it is far easier to say "this news article was one of several that led mourners to post on her Myspace tribute page" than to attempt to determine which individual facts may have had that effect, which is totally speculative. — GT 07:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way The perfect article is guideline, not policy, and obviously I do not believe the part you quoted is universally true, for the reasons I've gone into great detail about. Furthermore the part you left off, "i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject", does preclude us from including random bits and facts just for the sake of padding the article. — GT 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background rewrite

message: I hate to say this, but the current version, with all the small details from MySpace seems to me to be overly detailed. In a way I now agree with GT that we really don't need to know all those minutiae. I think it was sufficient to make a case, as we did, that she was 'beautiful, funny, caring, hard working'. To actually go and list all the items from her MySpace page IMO does not add that much, and in fact detracts from the smooth flow and interest of the article (all important criteria for the 'perfect article' too) because it has excessive details of trivial importance (they are not really building a case beyond the basics that we already established). True, it is possible that some minor detail in the MySpace page catalyzed the mass mourning, but we do include the link to the page, so anyone can click on it and get all the nitty-gritty if they so wish. For those who just want to get the gist of it by reading the WP article, they can see the basic characteristics of Anna herself: her picture, her irreverence, her charity, her hard work. I would have chopped down all those excessive details myself, but I feel it makes more sense for Tyrenius to do it, if/when he buys my argument. Thanks, Crum375 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the flow gets bogged down and have moved the MySpace material to a separate section at the bottom where it follows on from info about MySpace at the end of the preceding section. I have also trimmed it a little. I hope this solution will be acceptable. I have taken on board GT's point that it is important to show what the mourners knew about her, and that would have been primarily from the MySpace page, so I think it's necessary to cover what this contains. Her words bring across very vividly the type of person she was, and is the only place in the article where her own words are used, in fact.  An external link should not be used as a substitute for key material that belongs in the article. As in TPA: "A perfect Wikipedia article ... is nearly self-contained; i.e., it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." I think readers will want to know what was on that (now-)notable page and this gives them the essentials without having to go there directly. Tyrenius 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this is an improvement, as those who want to skip the minute MySpace details can easily do so by skipping or skimming over the MySpace section. It would be good to hear what GT thinks about this version, if he hasn't given up on the article. Crum375 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In keeping with the rest of the article, the Myspace section goes into an unnecessary level of detail. It takes longer to read that paragraph than it would to click over and review the page. The first sentence of the section is completely sufficient in summarizing the content of the page. As I said this is a common theme throughout the entire article and I would be quite happy to see this article more resemble its counterparts such as Danielle Van Dam and Polly Klaas (especially when both of them are far more notable than Anna as far as the level of exposure their deaths received). However my motivation to continue debating this topic is totally spent, as I seem to be outnumbered, so unless my input is required for something further I will leave you to do as you wish with it, until its next AfD. — GT 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GT, I understand you have exhausted your motivation and/or patience with this article, but I would like to address your latest points for the record anyway. I think the 2 cases you mention as reference are very different from this one. Your examples are both typical high profile child abduction/rape/murders, that captured the (U.S.) nation's attention and headlines as they unfolded. This case is about an almost-legal (18 yo minus 6 days) adult, who was not kidnapped, nor sexually assaulted, simply randomly stabbed and murdered in her workplace. As such, it would merit no WP article, as that unfortunately is all too common. The original news accounts were all local, as would be expected. What makes this case unique and different from all similar stabbings and murders is the way the news of this specific murder spread out via the Internet and caused a 'mass mourning by strengers' effect. So if we return to your examples of the 2 very famous child abduction/sexual assaults/murders, all under high profile news coverage, their cases for WP inclusion are already made by the high level of national and international news coverage. All you need in those cases are the basic facts and the WP article is technically complete. In our case here, we are trying to provide a background that could answer the question, to which we have no clear answer: What caused the mass mourning effect? The details we provide should be sufficient to make a case, e.g. show "beautiful, funny, caring, hard working" -  items that we think reasonably catalyzed the mass mourning effect. This is definitely more that would be needed in the cases you cite. Thanks, Crum375 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe too much detail?

message: I'd just like to add that I agree with most of what GT has said in this discussion. Details such as "For the year before her death, she worked at up to three different jobs at a time, in addition to her school studies. During this period, she sent $24 every month to a Vietnamese girl via the Christian Children's Fund. When she had her long hair shortened, she donated the shorn locks to a charity that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair from cancer treatment." Are blatantly just included in the article for added 'aww' factor. Crum and Tyrenius obviously seem to have been personally affected by this on some level and while that is understandable (personally, I don't care about the murder; if Anna Svidersky was fat and ugly the case would never have made it out of local radio) I think it is clouding your judgement on what makes some of the material relevant. If the section was changed to say 'possible reasons for mourning...' then perhaps that would be more acceptable, but that is of course, original research. If you must include details about what a nice, beautiful and wonderful person Anna Svidersky was (and these are still all opinions) then why not include details about the times they she wasn't so nice - no one is perfect, unless they are seen through the rose tinted glasses that death brings. Sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but a reality check is needed.--Xzamuel 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been thru this discussion with GT, but here is again a brief summary: the reason this article about a murder survived AfD is because of the unique way it caused a mass mourning effect on total strangers, via the Internet. We are not aware of any similar case, but in any event it is very unusual and hence notable. The case and the mass mourning were described on mainstream media and received notability. Our goal in the article is to emphasize the aspects of Anna's life that were described online and are likely to have caused the mass mourning. We are not allowed to specifically say or speculate that these are the reasons for the mass mourning, but we are allowed to present the items that were noted by the media, available to the mourners, and are likely, collectively, to have caused the effect. Our goal is not to present a perfect person, or an imperfect one, only the list of items mentioned by the media, that build up her character and that were the possible reasons for the mass mourning. If you feel we missed any, please let us know. Thanks, Crum375 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Xzamuel, welcome to Wikipedia, as you seem to be new to the project. We don't expect you to be familiar with all the Wiki customs, but a difference from the outside world is that we generally steer away from guessing at editors' motivations and look instead at the material. It's an official policy called assume good faith. Crum375 has worked on many different articles  and I have every respect for his ability to edit from a neutral point of view. I've also worked on many and I can put your fears at rest, because my only interest is to write a proper article according to Wiki policy in exactly the same way as any other biography I've worked on. This means giving a full picture of that person's life. I come from a slightly different angle to Crum375, but we have arrived at the same conclusion, although, of course, GT did not. Nevertheless, the input of his ideas did lead to considerable changes. The details that have been included are those that presented themselves in the different sources that we had access to. The section beginning, ""For the year before her death..." was included because that is what she did for the year before her death. Had she spent her time trashing telephone boxes, then that would have been there instead. The aim is to present the true picture: there is no need to censor it, if it happens to contain commendable attributes. You say, "If you must include details about what a nice, beautiful and wonderful person Anna Svidersky was (and these are still all opinions)." It is not an opinion that she did the things mentioned: it is referenced from verifiable sources. There is no opinion expressed by either Crum375 or myself about Svidersky. The article does mention that she misbehaved in elementary school and her MySpace page was "full of risque comments and goofy phrases", as described by The Guardian. From my research, which has been fairly thorough, I have no reason to conclude that she is other than shown. If you have any verifiable facts to back your assertion of a reality check, then I would be pleased to find them out to increase the content of the article. Tyrenius 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I understand where you are coming from, and yes I've not been signed up to Wikipedia for very long but prior to that have been scooting around the project here and there making various contributions (mostly on a minor scale) for quite some time until I decided to sign up. I noticed your comment about marking edits as minor and that was a problem with them being set to on by default and me just not looking properly, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. As for assuming good faith, I do try to assume good faith, but good faith can always be misguided. However, after looking around wikipedia further I have come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly, this case bears many marks similar to 'missing white girl syndrome' occurences, which could explain the snowball of public sympathy. I also noticed that many of the girls on that article have their own articles which are in many cases equally as or even more syrupy than this one, so I guess the details seem to be a given on wikipedia. However, I think that a link to the Anna Svidersky article should perhaps be put on the 'missing white girl syndrome' page, and maybe even the articles could be mutually linked? See what you guys think anyway, I think it's a good example of the phenomenon. --Xzamuel 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm aware that she was dead when found, however, so were some of the victims on the list and mentioned in that article - I doubt many people knew about the JonBenét Ramsey case until after she was confirmed dead. I also believe that apart from the period of time and lack of an abduction, many of the symptoms correlate, such as general public outcry dispite the case being a (relatively) common occurance, the questioning of existing laws and legislation by the public, and the creation of a website which aims to further promote the case... then of course the loss of public interest. I think that it deserves a mention. I also live in the UK and have heard of most of these American cases. The article also mentions Steven Lawrence and Damilola Taylor of examples of non-pretty white girls who also caused the same effects, both of whom were dead before the news broke... and while these were not pretty white girls, Damilola definately had 'cute' factor and Steven Lawrence had the good samaritan portrayal. Oh, and I forgot to add that the internet is just another form of mass media. While there may not be a previous precedent for this (though I'm not even sure if that's true) it still applies as an example of said phenomenon and could also perhaps to point to how this spread might happen in the future. --Xzamuel 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a link under the "See also" section of the MWGS article. Tyrenius 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on details

message: From comments by Tyrenius on my talk page
For (hopefully) ease of readability, I will bullet point Tyrenius comments in bold with my response in plain print below it.
* From the outset it is recognised that only the phenomenon of the reaction to her death makes it encyclopedic. I have taken the view that the curious reader will then want to know more things about this person, which do not seem necessarily strictly applicable to the notability, but are either something that will interest the reader, or, in fact, do actually have a relevance. 
At it's core is the assumption that these particular traits is what happen to cause this particular reaction. As I stated above the notability in the article is the reaction, not the person. Everything that is "relevant" to the article needs to be firmly tied into that reaction. What is missing is a reliable source link that explictedly says that "these particular traits" is what provoked the reaction. In reading the news paper articles provided as sources, I can not see that link being explictedly connected. In the absence of that link, we are left with what WP:OR describes as "synthesis". Consider this later statement...
* If we do not show aspects of her character which would be the thing that the mourners responded to (and which the press highlighted) then it will not allow the understanding of how this came about.
Currently the article is working from the premise that because A.) Anna was *blank, blank, and blank* (all reliable sourced) and B.) Her death provoked this reaction. (again sourced) that the reader should come to the understanding that these background traits is what provoked this reaction. But the problem with OR synthesis is that we can not verify that is the correct understanding that the reader should come to. For all we know there could be other factors that produced this particular reaction to her death. Now your contention that her background is what contributed to this reaction may very well be the truth but in the article's current state that can not be verified. Remember, Wikipedia is about verification not truth. (This reply also sums up my view on the relevance of the My Space section)
* Again "last words" and the mother's interaction are also items the press reported. This is a difficult decision, as normally such material might be indulgent editing, but in this case, such information is key to understanding the phenomenon. Perhaps it could be reformulated, but it is such details and circumstances that were presented in the public domain that provided the mass mourning catalyst.
I ardently want anything that is key to understanding the phenomenon to be included in the article but we need to be vigilant in having a reliable source do that linking for us. If there is a source that shows that those last words and mother's reaction had an effect, then by all means cite and include it.
* In Aftermath, the "Shelby" tribute is merely an example of the typical reaction. If we are saying there is a reaction, it seems to me the best way to show that reaction is to quote the exact raw nature of it, rather than a remote interpretation into abstract nouns. Alex Milnes appears purely courtesy of The Guardian. They reported his reaction. The article simply reflects their choice of what is notable to cite, not the wiki editor's choice as such. 
Now keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between what is appropriate for a newspaper (or even magazine) article and what is desirable for an encyclopedic entry. As I said in my review, I feel the examples should be evaluated on the basis of "Was this particular reaction/memorial notable?" because that is what is most appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. For "examples", a reader can click on any of the sources you provided. Even if the article only had the inclusion "There was worldwide response to her death [cite]" that cite would be serving it's purpose in providing examples and verifying this type of response. In keeping the focus on the encyclopedic merit and notability of this response you should strive to include the examples that most signify this notability.
* Re. broad coverage - why/how. I think that was where there was a fear of OR that stopped interpretation of the available data to make such explanations! Guidance would be useful here.
It is only OR if you as an editor introduce this. If reliable sources are commenting on the how and why then they need to be included with the appropriate cite. However, if we fall into the tricky situation that there are no reliable sources discussing or commenting on such things then (in all honesty) the notability of the subject needs to be re-evaulated. Maybe it really isn't that notable? Remember, the whole basis of encyclopedic inclusion is the apparent notability that reaction to her death had. If that reaction is truly notable then there will be reliable sources commenting on the HOW and WHY of this reaction. My personally belief is that there is which is why I am encouraging the editors to go down this path to produce a "Good Article" on this subject matter. If I didn't believe that then I might as well have nominated the article for AfD.
Of course you are free to disagree with me on any and all of these points. If you do then I encourage you to consider asking for other reviewers view on WP:GA/R. Sometimes different sets of eyes see different things. Agne 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Review points 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: This comment was moved from the article:
:On 1/29/2007 Anna's last login date changed from 4/20/2006 to 1/29/2007. In Anna's comments her friends are wondering why.
Tyrenius 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Login change

message: Possibly?
Wikifried 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR unless you have a citation making a link. --kingboyk 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Missing_white_woman|Missing white girl syndrome?]]

message: if someone with a user name or an administrator could please change the "has been viewed over 2,750,000 times" to 3 million. As right now it has been viewed 3,039,386 times. just an update :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.182.14 (talk • contribs).
:Done. I think the next milestone will be 3,500,000 so no need to update till then. Tyrenius 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request