Talk:Murder of Anna Svidersky

message: The current AfD contains suggestions for a change of title. There is a line of thought that an article with a person's name should be one that contains a full biography of that person.  However, the rest of the world will come to such a title in this case expecting primarily an account of the murder and the resultant internet phenomenon with enough information about Svidersky's life to give them a sense of who she was, but not exhaustive details. Murder of Anna Svidersky has been suggested but misses the point, as the murder in itself is not the potent issue.  Murder of Anna Svidersky and subsequent internet phenomenon of world-wide mourning by people who only knew her through the internet, but mostly by people who never previously knew her at all is perhaps accurate, but hardly succinct.  Anna Svidersky is what most people will look for and expect. Tyrenius 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, per KISS principle. Crum375 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, it's a coatrack article. That's not good. >Radiant< 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in a very pedantic interpretation of that concept, and certainly not in the spirit of it. The lead section makes it perfectly clear why the article has been named as it has, which is simply the most common sense, simple way of titling the subject and which will not cause a problem for the great majority of people who encounter it.  You made your points in the AfD and the consensus was to keep as a valid article. Tyrenius 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I'd like to invite the editors of this page to the Talk:Mourning sickness page to discuss which items and details from this article would be best served in the Anna Svidersky section of the Mourning sickness article. Thanks! AgneCheese/Wine 09:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Svidersky section of [[Mourning sickness]]

message: I have a note on Radiant's talk page asking for any redirect to be discussed on this talk page and a consensus achieved before that is done. The result of the AfD was for keep. Tyrenius 18:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Please note this policy does not exist, despite being referred to authoritatively in the above discussions. The three non-negotiable policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created the redirect to the obvious target: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  That page describes all the things that Wikipedia, and encyclopedias, are not.  This action isn't intended to support the bizarre implication that the existence of a page in mainspace with a title in all capitals and starting with the characters "WP:" implies anything about Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC]]

message: The idea here, as I understand it, is not to give details of Svidersky's life per se, but to show how the media reported details. A suggestion then is to start that section along the lines of:
:The Columbian News used a headline of "Family: Fallen teen was beautiful, funny, caring" and included details of Svidersky's life. 
Then carry on with the details, the emphasis being on the fact that these details were the ones the press reported about her. Tyrenius 20:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, and I would emphasize the online aspects. Crum375 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is progress and thank you for trying.  Readers would find it odd to see such a specific wording and, I'm sure, wonder why The Columbian News is being chosen over others.  I honestly think that the sentences are not required at all, but I'll think about how to reword them.  violet/riga (t) 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Svidersky was described in the press as a... might be a good start, then use several citations to show that (at least three) separate agencies described her as such.  violet/riga (t) 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably because it was still a work in progress. Both you and Crum have made clear your preferences for the article so I was solicitating the input of users who have expressed a concern over the article. Once I had gotten some constructive feedback then I would have presented the article for wider input from the editors of this page.AgneCheese/Wine 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's a good starting point, but I think it's missing the why – what was so different about this particular murder as compared to the many others – why did this one result in the mass grieving by strangers world wide, whereas the others end up as a footnote. I think that by highlighting Anna's personality, as described by the media, we give the readers an idea as to a possible (or likely) explanation. Crum375 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the why is complete OR-synthesis. As we went over in the GA review process there is no reliable sources that explicitedly state that these trivial details are why people had such an emotional response and triggered the Mourning Sickness. This article is making the assumption that A.) Since these details were published about her then B.) this must be the "Why". That is pure synthesis. For all we know it could have been the color of the background on her MySpace page or the fact that she was murdered on a Thursday that contributed or triggered the Mourning Sickness. Absurd? Yes but with the complete and utter absence of any reliable sources making or disproving those links it just as much OR as the fact that Svidersky cut her hair for charity or got an elementary school reprimand.AgneCheese/Wine 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not hiding behind it: it's respecting it, which you've not done, having failed to win community consensus for your viewpoint. You should know better. (1) Regular editing of the article includes discussion to reach a consensus where there are differences.  You've not done this either. (2) It's not a vote and if that was the consensus, then the admin would have made that the conclusion, which was actually, "The result was keep. Please defer merge related comments to article talk." (3) Irrelevant. Both articles can co-exist.  (4) You've yet to come up with several policies it violates. (5) The AfD was a much bigger forum than this one and agreed to keep: uninvolved outside opinion actually disagreed with you. Currently, there is negotiation with Violetriga and a rewrite by Agne27. Tyrenius 10:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) false, (2) false, (3) false, (4) false (see above - NOT memorial, BLP1E, COATRACK), (5) also false. Wow, your arguments score zero out of five. Please try again with anything that's not a misrepresentation. >Radiant< 10:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiant, please stay on focus. WP:COATRACK is only an essay that reflects the views of some individuals, and WP:BLP stands for living people and clearly not applicable here. The relevant policies here are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I would also mention the WP:CIV policy, to address the tone of your messages above. Crum375 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *You're again confusing the letter of policy with the spirit of policy. Also, you're making a straw man, since you omitted my point about WP:NOT. And also, WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 08:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: In looking at the results of the two previous AfDs, I have compiled a breakdown of the sentiments in regards to this article and what is the encyclopedic or notable elements. The most glaring element is the repeated assertion by the "Keep editors" that Svidersky and her murder are not notable. I think looking at the two AfD it is established beyond any realm of doubt that it is the reaction to her death that is the single notable element. There is clearly full consensus on that. The second question then become editorial. In what fashion can we best present an encyclopedic article on that single notable element of the reaction to her death. So far on this page there is only two editors who believe that this article best presents that while there appears to be 4-5 editors who take a different editorial view on that.AgneCheese/Wine 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you are confusing the distinct differences between journalism and encyclopedic writing. A newspaper or magazine article will sometimes strive to provoke an emotional response in the reader and would deem it appropriate to include trivial personal details that are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. A newspaper that needs to fill up word space for a day before it moves onto the next article does not care about lasting encyclopedic relevance. In the paper yesterday there was a comment that Karl Rove and George W. Bush use the same deodorant after Rove let Bush borrow his once on the campaign trail.  Even though a major national newspaper thought it was "important enough" to mention in an article I doubt you will ever see that in either subject's encyclopedia article. AgneCheese/Wine 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that it's a very well known example of the rise of online connection and support doesn't mean that it's unique to her story.  There have been online funerals in various MMORPG's for years, new ways of building lead to new ways of grieving.    In March of 2005 a friend of mine killed himself after posting his Suicide note on his Live Journal.   He got several hundred comments, and there have even been a couple of people who just knew of him on line that visited his grave.   Obviously this isn't on the scale of Anna's story (he only gets a couple hundred Google hits), but this aspect of the grieving phenomenon has been around for a while.  --- The Bethling(Talk) 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD consensus

message: It doesn't actually work. Kamryn · Talk 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a kind of "soft redirect" for now. You have to click on the link.  That's because the protection notice comes before the redirect directive.  --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: As an FYI, an editor has suggested merging Mourning Sickness (I assume Svidersky section and all) into Mourning. AgneCheese/Wine 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the more reason to keep this as a discrete article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't agree on that.  If even the general subject of mourning sickness is considered borderline, then this article's raison d'etre looks even more flimsy. --Tony Sidaway 13:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mourning Sickness]]

message: While it's nice to see the article unprotected, I hardly think that the dispute has been "resolved," as the optimistic admin claims in the unprotecting edit summary.  Can someone who has been following the discussion closer than me I say with confidence that consensus has been achieved to redirect to Mourning sickness (a redirect that I find kind of silly)?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk shows consensus hasn't been achieved for this. Tyrenius 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First, see Agne's excellent summary a few points up. Second, note that consensus is neither unanimity nor a vote count. And third, note that one side here has an opinion backed by policy, whereas the other has not. >Radiant< 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: The result of the AfD was: "The result was keep. Please defer merge related comments to article talk."  It was not "merge and redirect", so can we now follow that consensus and discuss this proposal or suggestions for rewrite per Agne above. Tyrenius 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: The redirect is lame, and the heavy-handed hist merge that one admin performed (with good intentions, I'm sure) is weird, misleading and, from what I can tell, defies AfD and talk page consensus.  "Mourning sickness," whatever that goofy neologism means, is hardly the only or primary encylopedic aspect of this notable person. The old Svidersky article can be edited further to resolve policy or style concerns you might have.  I'm also pasting this comment on the Mourning sickness talk page, since this page is currently kind of hard to access.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Svidersky > Mourning sickness

message: With only 4-5 editors commenting here, I'd like to try and get a broader spectrum of views about what is the best route to take with this article/redirect. I'm going to put in a request for comment as well as personally invite the editors from the previous AfDs on both sides to maybe clarify what outcome they desired from the previous AfDs. My overriding priority is to try and find some common ground for consensus and compromise so I would like to put forth some key questions for everyone to consider. At best I think it will help both sides better understand the other and at worst it will provide some organization for comments. For editors that wish to "tinker" with a new draft of the Svidersky article, I will gladly offer up my userpage "non-memorial" draft for anyone to edit. We also have a link to the previous Anna Svidersky article for anyone wishing to work from that. We can also easily draft a sandbox version of the Svidersky section on the Mourning Sickness article. Above all I kindly ask for all parties to keep an open mind and assume good faith for all comments. Deep down we all simply want what is best for the encyclopedia. We just have some differing views on how to achieve that with this article. AgneCheese/Wine 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sophistry. You can't have a notable reaction to someone's death without that person becoming notable at the same time. It's like saying a singer is not notable, but only the reaction to the songs they sing.  The two aspects are inextricably linked.  Otherwise there would be no articles on murdered people if they weren't already notable before they were murdered, whereas that is not the case.  None of Jack the Ripper's victims were in the slightest notable before he murdered them, but they have become notable because he did and because of the reaction to those murders. In Svidersky's case, the biographical details (especially those on MySpace) are highlighted in The Guardian — "reading Anna's page seems to show her life exactly as it was up to the moment she died ... we find a portrait ... being able to pore over the details of Anna's life" etc. — with particular details cited. Tyrenius 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What would you recommend, then?  Would you prefer the article to be titled "Death of Anna Svidersky?" VisitorTalk 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could hypothetically be: The reaction to the death of Anna Svidersky, which was influenced by her life, her murder and the online information about them. Per the KISS Principle, and the way we normally handle articles about people who became notable for whatever reason, a much shorter and logical title is Anna Svidersky, which someone interested in the case is likely to google for. Crum375 15:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *See my response in previous section, Question 0.  Tyrenius 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *We are all in agreement on your last point – if you read the article you will not find us stating what exactly caused the unique mass grieving, since we have no reliable source for it. All we can do is present the known facts to the reader: what was available to the online grievers (i.e. the online information on her MySpace page, and the online reports about her life and the murder), and let the readers reach their own conclusions. This is neither OR nor SYNT. It would be OR if we made unsourced statements which we don't, and it would be SYNT if we brought in sourced statements that do not directly relate to her, which we also don't. You may want to read up on WP:NOR and WP:SYNT. Crum375 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No but your reason for including these non-notable, trivial details is the synthesis that you are making that these details must be what caused the reaction. Otherwise, why include them? AgneCheese/Wine 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because it's following the source, which highlights them, from a NPOV. Basic stuff really. The MySpace and internet phenomenon, including YouTube, is stated as an important and integral part of this whole event. Tyrenius 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. Agne, you seem to be introducing a new definition of SYNT, which is not in the current policy, so perhaps you should try to argue for modifying the policy on WT:NOR if you feel strongly about it. What we are doing here is presenting information that was published on reliable mainstream media – they clearly considered these "non-notable, trivial details" relevant enough to publish, and we may also, per WP:V and WP:NOR. We need to allow the readers to decide what caused this unique unprecedented phenomenon, based on reliable sources, and clearly her life details are viable candidates. We don't want to censor this well sourced information. Crum375 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Quick question, does the fact that USA Today published an article noted that Karl Rove and George W. Bush use the same deodorant automatically make that tidbit "notable and relevant" for inclusion in their respective biography? Again I see a grave confusion between the difference of journalism and writing an encyclopedia. In one area you have deadlines and word space that you need to "fill up" as well as a audience of paid subscribers and advertisers. In the other arena you have a commitment to current and future readership of using editorial discretion to try and craft articles of lasting encyclopedic relevance. There is a big and very distinct difference between the two. As for the synthesis, thankfully other editors have already had the foresight to include the relevant passage in WP:NOR...
A.) There are reliable sources noting that Anna Svidersky's death triggered a case of mass grieving by strangers throughout the world. B.) Some of these reliable sources printed trivial details about the girls life such as the fact she got a reprimand in elementary school or cut her hair for charity. C.) Even though none of these sources link A+B, since this article is meant to document the encyclopedic and relevant topic of the mass grieving the two simply must be connected and therefore the notability of (A) is transmuted to make the trivial and non-notable details of (B) notable. Simply put, the only merit for inclusion of these items is if they relate to item A. Your steadfast stance of including them is based upon an assumption that they are connected when none of the reliable sources make that connection. As you clearly say earlier in this talk page
In the absence of reliable sources stating there is a connection between A & B, you are making one. This is just purely assumption on your part but you seem to think that you are doing a "service" to the reader by connecting A+B to equal C. To compound the unfortunate circumstance of this is the fact that majority of "issues" that make this article sound like a memorial are the trivial and non-notable details that make up item B. AgneCheese/Wine 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no assertion that A+B=C.  There is an assertion that the source says A and the source says B. Full stop. That is all the article asserts. It is up to the reader if they want to add them up to C or anything else they choose. Otherwise, point to the article where any conclusion not in the sources is reached.  As for deodorant - does the source indicate this is an integral part of a larger phenomenon? Tyrenius 04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deodorant part was mentioned as a tidbit about Rove's influence on Bush. If anything that rather weak connection is stronger then the non-existant one in the Svidersky article between her elementary school reprimand and the mass grieving. But I ask what is the purpose of including the details of (B) at all? What is the reason for not including that Harry Truman stay faithful to his wife his whole life , or why does Jessica Lunsford not even have her own article when there are laws passed in her name? If she did have an article would be worth mentioning that she liked karoke and to dress up her dog corky . That information was first published before Jessica's Law was passed. Now there are no reliable sources directly linking the two but similar to the Anna Svidersky article could it be that knowledge about this little girl's affinity for karoke and dressing up Corky is what triggered the public outrage to get Jessica's Law passed? It's as strong of a connection as the non-existent one that the trivial details about her elementary school reprimand or cutting her hair for charity is what triggered the mass grieving. But is is clear that the reason why none of those above mentioned details are in those respective articles is because the editors on those page are utilizing some editorial discretion and focusing on the encyclopedic relevance of the subject and not letting the abundance of trivial details available in reliable sources bog the article down. Just because it is printed online, in a magazine or in a newspaper does not mean it has merit for an encyclopedia article. I think once we can get over that hurdle then there can be real progress on the improvement of this article.AgneCheese/Wine 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agne, the current WP:SYNT would only apply if you bring in sourced items that do not directly mention the article's subject and are used to advance a position. We have no such items here, so SYNT does not apply. We do discuss, here on the talk page, the logical plausibility of the mass grieving caused by the online information, including the trivial life details, in order to justify their relevance for inclusion, which is what is expected for virtually any WP article. Crum375 04:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "logical plausibility" is your own creation when there are no reliable sources making the link that these trivial details are what caused the mass grieving. That is plain and simple fact of the matter. The only justification for their inclusion would be a link but there is none (at least by the sources) and it is improper for use to make such a link and give an appearance in the article that there is one. It is creating a phantom equation of A+B=C when none of the sources put forth that equation. AgneCheese/Wine 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly point to where in the article this connection is explicitly made and it says A+B=C.  Otherwise, please don't keep on going on about it. Take the reliable source of The Guardian (which is an "intellectual" paper, not a tabloid); it starts the report: "Take a glance at Anna Svidersky's profile on MySpace, the web's most popular social networking site, and you get an insight into the life of a typical American teenager, from her love of The OC to the request that you "make me smile"."  Thus the source justifies details being included.  It emphasises MySpace much more than "mourning sickness" which occurs much further on. The New York Times connects MySpace with a changed mode of mourning (but doesn't mention "mourning sickness" as such) and quotes a MySpace message: ""Anna, you were a great girl and someone very special," one person wrote. "I enjoyed having you at our shows and running into you at the mall. You will be missed greatly ... rest in peace." As SlimVirgin has pointed out above: "We're allowed to include details from her MySpace page too (per WP:V) because she's the author ... stick to reporting what reliable sources reported, whether we agree with their reporting or not ... We should include material from reliable, third-party sources: biography insofar as it's available, including her online life". Tyrenius 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think some people have claimed there are BLP problems, and though my first instinct is to scoff at that claim as paradoxical, I would like to understand what the problems are.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agne, I think you are missing the essential point of this article. You are comparing it to run-of-the-mill events, where someone popular dies and there is a huge public reaction, or where there is a large massacre followed by a public outcry. This case is very different. There are thousands of murders every year, and yet this case is unique and unprecedented in that it is the only one ever (that we know of) where a murder of a simple, previously unknown teenager causes mass grief around the world by strangers, virtually all of whom pointing to the online information as the source of their information about the deceased person. This case was not on national or international TV or Radio, yet caused this mass phenomenon. So we can't "ask the editors of [other articles]" for help here - their cases are the straightforward kinds, ours is the unique one. We have done our best to try to present the reliably sourced data objectively and neutrally without OR, that will still allow the readers to reach a conclusion as to what caused the mass grieving. If you can think of improvements, feel free to suggest them. Thanks, Crum375 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is the reaction to her death that makes them more then "run of the mill" but that still doesn't excuse this article from deviating from focusing on the encyclopedic element of that reaction and instead become a memorial tribute to a slain young girl. Any reader can click on the sources or external links and learn all the trivial details about the reprimand at school or that she cut her hair for trivia-that information is not lost just because it is not memorialized in her article. It's the same way that an editor can follow the link from the Saddam Hussein article to the NSA source book and read about the atrocities that he did. The article doesn't need to state "Saddam was a bad, bad man" because the reader can follow the links and come to their own conclusion. It seems that you want the reader to come to the conclusion that these trivial and non-notable details are what triggered the mass grieving---even though no reliable sources made that link. That is not a fair determination to make and it really not our place as editors to make it. AgneCheese/Wine 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is not made, regardless of what Crum375 might or might not want. Tyrenius 04:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you would agree that there is no merit for the trivial, memorial-like details like her cutting her hair for charity of getting an elementary school reprimand?AgneCheese/Wine 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 'trivial' details were mentioned by reliable publications in relation to her case, and the mass grieving ensued. We cannot prove that they actually caused the phenomenon, but we can't prove they didn't. So we include this well sourced information, which was determined to be notable and relevant by the media, and let the readers decide. Crum375 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can't prove a negative but you are still discounting the fact that scores of trivial information can be reliably source but that doesn't mean it merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. The information has to have some bearing and relevance to the encyclopedic topic-i.e. the reaction to her death. To that extent you need to prove a positive--that they do have some bearing and relevance on what triggered the mass grieving. All you have now is an absence of reliable sources with only assumption and conjuncture in its place.AgneCheese/Wine 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we don't know, though we can guess, what caused the grieving. So, relying on the fact that WP is not paper, we include the details which were selected as relevant and important enough for inclusion by the media, to allow our readers to decide what made this case so unique. We don't need to 'prove' anything - positive or negative - only provide the well sourced facts, which were considered relevant by our sources. Crum375 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I find Mourning sickness a nauseating pun, a forgettable neologism and a highly POV redirect.  At least one other editor finds the ridirect unsuitable.  However, that editor is commenting on the mourning sickness talk page.  When Radiant finally gets around to undoing the history merge and restoring the Anna aritcle, as I've asked him to do, it will be  much easier to find this talk page and keep the discussion in one place.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fallacy: notability is not demonstrated by counting google hits. >Radiant< 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good article?  Let's not get carried away.  I'm sure the last version of the Svidersky article could use a certain amount of improvement or expansion.  Perhaps there really are BDP and WP:NOT concerns to be resolved.  You might think not.  But if there are problems, I don't see how the goofy redirect solves them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, when the article is restored to its rightful state, the first thing I would suggest is cleaning up the MySpace section, which lists a lot of goofy and unnecessary specifics.  It's sourced, but it's not encylopedic, and it reminds me of a trivia section of a less controversial article.  This can potentially be a good article, but I don't think it was quite to that point when it was obliterated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think we are all in agreement on your final point. Crum375 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's quite obvious that the consensus is that there isn't a major problem with this article, and that collaborative editing in the accepted way can take place. Perhaps an open mind would be helpful to accept that. Tyrenius 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **That is a blatant misrepresentation of almost every opinion given on this page and on the AFD, and also a personal attack. >Radiant< 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Will you kindly stop accusing me of personal attacks when there is no such thing. I notice you have no problem with Agne saying exactly the same thing in the post I was responding to. Your repetitive accusations are a personal attack. Per WP:NPA: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." If there was a major problem with the article, people wouldn't want it kept, would they? There are suggestions for editing it. Tyrenius 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment-Key questions

message: Does Anna Svidersky meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability? Relevant sources can be found here.
* Yes She clearly meets and exceeds our notability and sourcing requirements, with mainstream sources including KATU/ABC News, The New York Times, The Guardian and The Columbian. She is the first and only known case in history where thousands of strangers world wide have been reported to have mourned her death, due to strictly online notification of her murder. Her YouTube video has been viewed more than 3,000,000 times and counting. Her name comes up with over 26,000 google hits (vs. less than 1,000 for "Mourning Sickness" which was mentioned in some of her articles). Crum375 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sophistry. You can't have a notable reaction to someone's death without that person becoming notable at the same time. It's like saying a singer is not notable, but only the reaction to the songs they sing.  The two aspects are inextricably linked.  Otherwise there would be no articles on murdered people if they weren't already notable before they were murdered, whereas that is not the case.  None of Jack the Ripper's victims were in the slightest notable before he murdered them, but they have become notable because he did and because of the reaction to those murders. In Svidersky's case, the biographical details (especially those on MySpace) are highlighted in The Guardian — "reading Anna's page seems to show her life exactly as it was up to the moment she died ... we find a portrait ... being able to pore over the details of Anna's life" etc. — with particular details cited. Tyrenius 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What would you recommend, then?  Would you prefer the article to be titled "Death of Anna Svidersky?" VisitorTalk 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could hypothetically be: The reaction to the death of Anna Svidersky, which was influenced by her life, her murder and the online information about them. Per the KISS Principle, and the way we normally handle articles about people who became notable for whatever reason, a much shorter and logical title is Anna Svidersky, which someone interested in the case is likely to google for. Crum375 15:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 0: Is Anna Svidersky notable?

message: Another way of phrasing this is what do you believe the reliable sources focus on?
* The most notable element is the well sourced and unprecedented grieving reaction by thousands of strangers worldwide, who found out about her murder strictly online. This grieving was based on the information available in her MySpace page as well as reports posted in the online media. The reliable sources describe her life, her death and the reaction to it – her WP article follows these sources. Crum375 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *See my response in previous section, Question 0.  Tyrenius 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *We are all in agreement on your last point – if you read the article you will not find us stating what exactly caused the unique mass grieving, since we have no reliable source for it. All we can do is present the known facts to the reader: what was available to the online grievers (i.e. the online information on her MySpace page, and the online reports about her life and the murder), and let the readers reach their own conclusions. This is neither OR nor SYNT. It would be OR if we made unsourced statements which we don't, and it would be SYNT if we brought in sourced statements that do not directly relate to her, which we also don't. You may want to read up on WP:NOR and WP:SYNT. Crum375 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No but your reason for including these non-notable, trivial details is the synthesis that you are making that these details must be what caused the reaction. Otherwise, why include them? AgneCheese/Wine 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because it's following the source, which highlights them, from a NPOV. Basic stuff really. The MySpace and internet phenomenon, including YouTube, is stated as an important and integral part of this whole event. Tyrenius 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. Agne, you seem to be introducing a new definition of SYNT, which is not in the current policy, so perhaps you should try to argue for modifying the policy on WT:NOR if you feel strongly about it. What we are doing here is presenting information that was published on reliable mainstream media – they clearly considered these "non-notable, trivial details" relevant enough to publish, and we may also, per WP:V and WP:NOR. We need to allow the readers to decide what caused this unique unprecedented phenomenon, based on reliable sources, and clearly her life details are viable candidates. We don't want to censor this well sourced information. Crum375 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Quick question, does the fact that USA Today published an article noted that Karl Rove and George W. Bush use the same deodorant automatically make that tidbit "notable and relevant" for inclusion in their respective biography? Again I see a grave confusion between the difference of journalism and writing an encyclopedia. In one area you have deadlines and word space that you need to "fill up" as well as a audience of paid subscribers and advertisers. In the other arena you have a commitment to current and future readership of using editorial discretion to try and craft articles of lasting encyclopedic relevance. There is a big and very distinct difference between the two. As for the synthesis, thankfully other editors have already had the foresight to include the relevant passage in WP:NOR...
A.) There are reliable sources noting that Anna Svidersky's death triggered a case of mass grieving by strangers throughout the world. B.) Some of these reliable sources printed trivial details about the girls life such as the fact she got a reprimand in elementary school or cut her hair for charity. C.) Even though none of these sources link A+B, since this article is meant to document the encyclopedic and relevant topic of the mass grieving the two simply must be connected and therefore the notability of (A) is transmuted to make the trivial and non-notable details of (B) notable. Simply put, the only merit for inclusion of these items is if they relate to item A. Your steadfast stance of including them is based upon an assumption that they are connected when none of the reliable sources make that connection. As you clearly say earlier in this talk page
In the absence of reliable sources stating there is a connection between A & B, you are making one. This is just purely assumption on your part but you seem to think that you are doing a "service" to the reader by connecting A+B to equal C. To compound the unfortunate circumstance of this is the fact that majority of "issues" that make this article sound like a memorial are the trivial and non-notable details that make up item B. AgneCheese/Wine 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no assertion that A+B=C.  There is an assertion that the source says A and the source says B. Full stop. That is all the article asserts. It is up to the reader if they want to add them up to C or anything else they choose. Otherwise, point to the article where any conclusion not in the sources is reached.  As for deodorant - does the source indicate this is an integral part of a larger phenomenon? Tyrenius 04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deodorant part was mentioned as a tidbit about Rove's influence on Bush. If anything that rather weak connection is stronger then the non-existant one in the Svidersky article between her elementary school reprimand and the mass grieving. But I ask what is the purpose of including the details of (B) at all? What is the reason for not including that Harry Truman stay faithful to his wife his whole life , or why does Jessica Lunsford not even have her own article when there are laws passed in her name? If she did have an article would be worth mentioning that she liked karoke and to dress up her dog corky . That information was first published before Jessica's Law was passed. Now there are no reliable sources directly linking the two but similar to the Anna Svidersky article could it be that knowledge about this little girl's affinity for karoke and dressing up Corky is what triggered the public outrage to get Jessica's Law passed? It's as strong of a connection as the non-existent one that the trivial details about her elementary school reprimand or cutting her hair for charity is what triggered the mass grieving. But is is clear that the reason why none of those above mentioned details are in those respective articles is because the editors on those page are utilizing some editorial discretion and focusing on the encyclopedic relevance of the subject and not letting the abundance of trivial details available in reliable sources bog the article down. Just because it is printed online, in a magazine or in a newspaper does not mean it has merit for an encyclopedia article. I think once we can get over that hurdle then there can be real progress on the improvement of this article.AgneCheese/Wine 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agne, the current WP:SYNT would only apply if you bring in sourced items that do not directly mention the article's subject and are used to advance a position. We have no such items here, so SYNT does not apply. We do discuss, here on the talk page, the logical plausibility of the mass grieving caused by the online information, including the trivial life details, in order to justify their relevance for inclusion, which is what is expected for virtually any WP article. Crum375 04:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "logical plausibility" is your own creation when there are no reliable sources making the link that these trivial details are what caused the mass grieving. That is plain and simple fact of the matter. The only justification for their inclusion would be a link but there is none (at least by the sources) and it is improper for use to make such a link and give an appearance in the article that there is one. It is creating a phantom equation of A+B=C when none of the sources put forth that equation. AgneCheese/Wine 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly point to where in the article this connection is explicitly made and it says A+B=C.  Otherwise, please don't keep on going on about it. Take the reliable source of The Guardian (which is an "intellectual" paper, not a tabloid); it starts the report: "Take a glance at Anna Svidersky's profile on MySpace, the web's most popular social networking site, and you get an insight into the life of a typical American teenager, from her love of The OC to the request that you "make me smile"."  Thus the source justifies details being included.  It emphasises MySpace much more than "mourning sickness" which occurs much further on. The New York Times connects MySpace with a changed mode of mourning (but doesn't mention "mourning sickness" as such) and quotes a MySpace message: ""Anna, you were a great girl and someone very special," one person wrote. "I enjoyed having you at our shows and running into you at the mall. You will be missed greatly ... rest in peace." As SlimVirgin has pointed out above: "We're allowed to include details from her MySpace page too (per WP:V) because she's the author ... stick to reporting what reliable sources reported, whether we agree with their reporting or not ... We should include material from reliable, third-party sources: biography insofar as it's available, including her online life". Tyrenius 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1: What is the notable element of Anna Svidersky's life/death/reaction?

message: For those that believe it does violate policy please provide details of what is objectionable for the benefits of any drafts/revisions.
* No This is not a memorial – it describes her life, death and unprecedented worldwide reaction to it by thousands of strangers, all well sourced by mainstream news media. Crum375 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people have claimed there are BLP problems, and though my first instinct is to scoff at that claim as paradoxical, I would like to understand what the problems are.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agne, I think you are missing the essential point of this article. You are comparing it to run-of-the-mill events, where someone popular dies and there is a huge public reaction, or where there is a large massacre followed by a public outcry. This case is very different. There are thousands of murders every year, and yet this case is unique and unprecedented in that it is the only one ever (that we know of) where a murder of a simple, previously unknown teenager causes mass grief around the world by strangers, virtually all of whom pointing to the online information as the source of their information about the deceased person. This case was not on national or international TV or Radio, yet caused this mass phenomenon. So we can't "ask the editors of [other articles]" for help here - their cases are the straightforward kinds, ours is the unique one. We have done our best to try to present the reliably sourced data objectively and neutrally without OR, that will still allow the readers to reach a conclusion as to what caused the mass grieving. If you can think of improvements, feel free to suggest them. Thanks, Crum375 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is the reaction to her death that makes them more then "run of the mill" but that still doesn't excuse this article from deviating from focusing on the encyclopedic element of that reaction and instead become a memorial tribute to a slain young girl. Any reader can click on the sources or external links and learn all the trivial details about the reprimand at school or that she cut her hair for trivia-that information is not lost just because it is not memorialized in her article. It's the same way that an editor can follow the link from the Saddam Hussein article to the NSA source book and read about the atrocities that he did. The article doesn't need to state "Saddam was a bad, bad man" because the reader can follow the links and come to their own conclusion. It seems that you want the reader to come to the conclusion that these trivial and non-notable details are what triggered the mass grieving---even though no reliable sources made that link. That is not a fair determination to make and it really not our place as editors to make it. AgneCheese/Wine 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is not made, regardless of what Crum375 might or might not want. Tyrenius 04:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you would agree that there is no merit for the trivial, memorial-like details like her cutting her hair for charity of getting an elementary school reprimand?AgneCheese/Wine 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 'trivial' details were mentioned by reliable publications in relation to her case, and the mass grieving ensued. We cannot prove that they actually caused the phenomenon, but we can't prove they didn't. So we include this well sourced information, which was determined to be notable and relevant by the media, and let the readers decide. Crum375 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can't prove a negative but you are still discounting the fact that scores of trivial information can be reliably source but that doesn't mean it merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. The information has to have some bearing and relevance to the encyclopedic topic-i.e. the reaction to her death. To that extent you need to prove a positive--that they do have some bearing and relevance on what triggered the mass grieving. All you have now is an absence of reliable sources with only assumption and conjuncture in its place.AgneCheese/Wine 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that we don't know, though we can guess, what caused the grieving. So, relying on the fact that WP is not paper, we include the details which were selected as relevant and important enough for inclusion by the media, to allow our readers to decide what made this case so unique. We don't need to 'prove' anything - positive or negative - only provide the well sourced facts, which were considered relevant by our sources. Crum375 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2: As a biography does the Svidersky article violate [[WP:NOT|WP:NOT a memorial]]?

message: Please consider this question as if the title Anna Svidersky was serving as a redirect to this section. In regards to weakness, again provide details for possible improvements.
* Per Google, "Anna Svidersky" is by far more notable than "Mourning Sickness" (26,000 g-hits vs. 1000). Therefore, assuming Mourning Sickness survives AfD, it should refer the reader to Anna Svidersky for details. Crum375 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I find Mourning sickness a nauseating pun, a forgettable neologism and a highly POV redirect.  At least one other editor finds the ridirect unsuitable.  However, that editor is commenting on the mourning sickness talk page.  When Radiant finally gets around to undoing the history merge and restoring the Anna aritcle, as I've asked him to do, it will be  much easier to find this talk page and keep the discussion in one place.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fallacy: notability is not demonstrated by counting google hits. >Radiant< 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Svidersky section in the Mourning Sickness article?

message: I've asked that Mourning sickness be unprotected.  The RfC is far from over, but people appear to agree on one thing: the redirect to Mourning sickness is far from ideal.  I think once Mourning sickness is unprotected, the Svidersky content should be unmerged.  Then editors can try to achieve consensus on whether we continue to improve the Svidersky article, or redirect/merge it to something more appropriate. Edit warring will likely cease while discussion is taking place.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting Mourning sickness

message: Please consider waiting to answer this question till there has been some discussion on the above three questions and any potential drafts or revisions have been presented.
*Keep I don't see a reason to wait – the Anna Svidersky article is notable, well sourced by multiple mainstream sources, has 26,000 g-hits (vs. just 1,000 for "Mourning Sickness"), and describes a person whose death caused a unique and unprecedented grieving by thousands of strangers world wide. The grieving was based on online information which was her life and death as described on her MySpace page and by the media, all of which are described in the article. There is no 'situation' - only a good article that underwent scrutiny of numerous editors on this talk page and in 2 AfDs that ended in a Keep, and which deserves to exist on its own. Crum375 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good article?  Let's not get carried away.  I'm sure the last version of the Svidersky article could use a certain amount of improvement or expansion.  Perhaps there really are BDP and WP:NOT concerns to be resolved.  You might think not.  But if there are problems, I don't see how the goofy redirect solves them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, when the article is restored to its rightful state, the first thing I would suggest is cleaning up the MySpace section, which lists a lot of goofy and unnecessary specifics.  It's sourced, but it's not encylopedic, and it reminds me of a trivia section of a less controversial article.  This can potentially be a good article, but I don't think it was quite to that point when it was obliterated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think we are all in agreement on your final point. Crum375 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's quite obvious that the consensus is that there isn't a major problem with this article, and that collaborative editing in the accepted way can take place. Perhaps an open mind would be helpful to accept that. Tyrenius 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **That is a blatant misrepresentation of almost every opinion given on this page and on the AFD, and also a personal attack. >Radiant< 10:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Will you kindly stop accusing me of personal attacks when there is no such thing. I notice you have no problem with Agne saying exactly the same thing in the post I was responding to. Your repetitive accusations are a personal attack. Per WP:NPA: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." If there was a major problem with the article, people wouldn't want it kept, would they? There are suggestions for editing it. Tyrenius 12:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 4: What is your preferred resolution to this situation?

message: The word has been bandied around, but as yet remains undefined. Wiktionary is a good start:
:A structure, such as a monument, intended to celebrate the memory of a person or event
This article is not written with that intention, and, if it were, it would be written very differently.  It is not therefore a memorial article.  As Rockpocket succinctly pointed out above:
:part of the story regarding her death is regarding online memorializing. Recording that is not a memorial in itself.
Tyrenius 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To which I would again point out to the Virginia Tech Massacre article as well as quite a few other articles that made note of memorials and public reaction to tragic events. Obviously those items are important to the overall article but there are ways of presenting that information without becoming a memorial itself. It's a line that I believe this article can get on the right side of but it will take a spirit of commitment and compromise to do so. AgneCheese/Wine 04:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still missing the point, Agne. You seem to ignore the fact that our goal is to provide sufficient well sourced information for the readers to try to understand the reason for the unprecedented reaction. We cannot say "the reaction was caused by the online information about the subject's life", because we don't have a source saying so. So instead, we simply present the reliably published information that was available to the grievers, and let the readers decide. This is different from the typical murder article where the considerations are to try to present the most relevant dry facts. Crum375 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your providing a "phantom link" between these trivial details. A link that the reliable sources do not make. The best service for the reader is to provide the details that such a mass mourning occurred and that the sources have made no explanation "WHY" and allow the readers to follow the links to the sources and make up their own mind as to what caused it. Again the inclusion of these trivial details serves 1 of 3 purposes. 1.) To memorialize Anna, 2.) To create a phantom link, in absence of reliable sources, that these details are what triggered the mass mourning 3.) They really serve no purpose at all. For all three reasons they should be trimmed. AgneCheese/Wine 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We provide no 'link', phantom or otherwise. We simply report what our reliable sources have said, and considered relevant enough to publish, and let the readers decide what made this case unique. Crum375 05:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorial

message: This article is clearly sentimental, mourning, hyperbole over this person, and has no relevance here.  The arguments arguments for it staying are ultimately arguments for the creation of an article on the process of grieving online.Nickflavor 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Flavour, I see your proposed deletion request has already been reverted (without explanation, which I don't find very polite).  You could list this on AfD, but the discussion might be speedily closed because this article was just up for deletion a couple weeks ago.  I'd advise waiting awhile.  However, please contriubte your two cents to the discussion above; your opinion is valued.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page probably should go to WP:AFD again, first because people keep misrepresenting the discussion in the former AFD, and second because the people who think they own this article persist in reverting every attempt to e.g. remove the excessive hagiography and trivia from this article. >Radiant< 10:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide diffs to the two recent AFDs.  You seem to be saying, I know best and I am going to keep AFDing until I get the result I want.  That seems like WP:OWN to me.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherever did you get that idea? What you just said bears no resemblance at all to what I said. >Radiant< 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant, that's absolutely not true.  I just removed a bunch of stuff I thought was excessive, an no one fought me on it.  People are being cooperative.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, you have edited the article recently. And you've been persistently attacking people who disagree with you. >Radiant< 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "since it's been restored to this page".  Your diff is just to the history split for GFDL after someone else restored the article - to reverse the hasty and unnecessary history merge that you did.  "Persistently attacking people" - that's a serious charge. Perhaps you'd like to substantiate that one. I warned you not to edit war, which you immediately reverted with improper use of the admin rollback button. Tyrenius 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for Deletion

message: No. 2 and no. 9 have been messed up.  Please take care when editing. Tyrenius 11:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References messed up

message: Radiant has been the cause of a lot of upheaval in this article, and clearly has an extreme position on it (wanting to delete it entirely). I suggest he does not directly edit the article, but, as I have done, restricts himself to discussion on this page, and leaves it to other neutral editors to change the article. Tyrenius 11:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiant

message: Since Tyrenius has contributed nothing at all to any of the discussions here other than by vigorously attacking everyone who disagrees with him, and is now trying to get people who hold different opinions banned from editing the topic, I suggest we ignore his disruptive name-calling and tendentious editing and focus on the actual article at hand. Oh wait, we were already doing that. >Radiant< 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyrenius

message: I've restored the "Background" which Radiant deleted but I've started to reword and delete some sentimental details that may contribute to an excessively elegiac feel.  Later today, I'm going to see if I can work with some text from Agne's "Non memorial" version within his user space--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that principal line sounds a bit funny.  I think some of the stuff that sounds trivial (if "reported" by, us, Wikipedia, who are not journalists) can be included if we place it in proper context.  I won't have time until much later today, but I would propose including some of the "hagiographic" details as examples of how the media responded to her death.  We could say that, after she died, a number of articles came out with these over-the-top descriptions claiming what a sweet, selfless and promising girl she was and then give a few examples.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable.  I'll try my hand at rewriting some of the bio (not my strong suit) later on.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not similar, because it doesn't have the components of MySpace, the Internet and YouTube (all of which highlighted personal details, as given in sources), plus the mass grief effect.  Tyrenius 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background section

message: The last thing I want is for this article to become a maudlin eulogy to innocence and beauty lost.  Certain specifics, taken on their own, can lend an informality and sentimentality to what I believe has the potential to be a strong and detailed encylopedic work. 
I believe, however, that there's a proper place and context for a certain amount of biographical details (yes, details, not generalities) that emerged after Svidersky's death.  The most encylopedic, notable aspect of the Svidersky case is the publicity and mass grieving that emerged in the popular media.  Why not objectively describe that response with a certain level of detail?  My idea is to talk about how journalists tended to laud her and portray her as kind, generous, beautiful, full of promise, etc.  We should include a few choice quotes about what was written about her life after she died her.  Don't present it as fact... but do mention it.  The fact that the media (not Wikipedians, don't conflate the intentions of the two groups) wanted to portray her as some kind of angellic martyr is one of the most notable aspects of the whole affair!  Then, if we can find an alternate source--perhaps an essay published by a reliable source about the Svidersky phenomenon--that deconstructs or criticizes the human's need to irrationally venerate departed figures who we didn't even know, by all means cite that essay too.  I think that citing diametrically inclined sources would make this a great article.  The "mourning sickness" guy is cited several times; pehaps we can find some other more critical viewpoints as well.  
So if we were to reintroduce the deleted biographical info under the context I proposed, it might not be under a "Biography" or "Background" title.  It might be a subsection of a "Media Response" heading.  I'll try at some point to compose a sample of the sort approriate context I'm imagining.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't include material on mass mourning or mourning sickness unless it specifically mentions Svidersky, or it would be synthesis.  What you want to achieve otherwise is exactly what The Guardian has already stated.  It doesn't "laud" her etc.  It points out the contrast between her MySpace page and what one would normally expect to find, namely that her MySpace page "is still full of risque comments and goofy phrases. Instead of assurances from heartbroken family members that the victim was a sweet young girl who would "do anything for anyone", we find a portrait in which Anna boasts of being "legal in six days" and chooses as a theme song a coarse little number by the band Hollywood Undead." So again I say let us simply follow the sources from a NPOV.  Maybe this could be included along with the tributes printed in e.g. The Columbian.  Then readers could come to their own conclusion.  This is a basic premise of wikipedia. Tyrenius 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I sorry if you thought I was suggesting any kind of novel synthesis or analysis.  What I actually suggested (perhaps none too clearly) was that we source some kind of analytical essay or op-ed piece that was a specific reaction to the Svidersky affair, not an article about mourning sickness in general.  What I'm looking for is to re-incoporate (via citation) some of the laudatory (or "hagiographic," if you will) details about Anna that would help paint a picture, not of what a angelic human being Svidersky herself was, but rather of precisely what sorts of pieces were written about and what kinds of statements were quoted after her death.  I would like to present this alongside a citation to a reasoned critique of this kind of coverage--as it specifically relates to the Svidersky case.  I think some of the articles that Jreferee dug up might be great for this purpose.  Does this make any sense?  I don't want to connect any dots for the reader; I just want to describe the reaction to her death (with a few maudlin details included), then describe the reaction to the reaction.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one thing to do, which is to find the sources and then represent them with due weight per WP:NPOV. That is what the article in its pre-AfD state was attempting to do.  I believe that intention has since been over-ridden by editors' personal ideas of what is and isn't appropriate, regardless of what sources consider to be relevant. I suggest you have a go at whatever you think will work, either in the article or posting here for discussion. Tyrenius 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *For a start, the sources have not been followed from NPOV, which would mandate more personal information being included, particularly material posted on MySpace. However, even so, :Category:Murdered American children shows the use of a person's name in the great majority of cases.  This also applies to internet phenomenon such as Gary Brolsma and Star Wars kid. I disagree with the use of "Murder of X" as a title, when an article on a murderer inevitably uses just their name, rather than "Murderer of X".  There is an inequality which is particularly invidious when a google search on the person, with the usual high position of the wiki article, thrusts "Murder of" in people's faces, the implication being that this is the only value of that individual on the face of the planet.  Some dignity deserves to be bestowed by at least using their name with relation to their unfortunate fate. There is a BLP consideration here for the effect on family and people close to that person.  Please do not start a move revert war.  Let this be discussed first by other editors to gain a consensus. Tyrenius 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **What on earth are you talking about? That is some very shaky speculation and jumping to conclusions. >Radiant< 11:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper context for biographical details

message: hi all - just a bit more explanation on my removal of the 'mourning sickness' ref. from the lead. My feeling is that the spread of anna's death via. myspace etc. is covered properly in the lead without specific reference to 'mourning sickness', which is a detail elaborated upon in the body of the text.
It doesn't seem to set an appropriate tone, nor does it seem necessary for us to include that ref. specifically in the lead - and that's why i removed it! - sorry for not dropping this note immediately (and thanks for the prod, tyrenius....) - Purples 07:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro / lead concerns.... 

message: Svidersky is mentioned on page 54 in the book Totally Wired: What Teens and Tweens Are Really Doing Online (published 2007). Amazon.com has look inside, but that page is not available. A pop up snippet mentions the report of her death in the New York Times. Ty 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Wired

message: Hi there, randomly checked in to find the identifying photo deleted because... well, I'm not sure exactly. My guess is that the primary cause is processitis of image policy.
Previous discussions:
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 17#File:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_7#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg
and my favorite candidate for WTF closure of the year...
Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_November_21#File:Anna-Svidersky-2.jpg
There's a substantial history of similar editorial claims of fair use of copyrighted photographs of deceased persons of interest, both here at Wikipedia and in journalism elsewhere. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Why would this person be notable enough to be on Wikipedia?  Granted it is unfortunate that this happened, but to be fair, we would then need to include everyone who has been murdered in any establishment in the world. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: The article was rated C-class, for lack of Coverage. This is a pretty good article as far as the "Aftermath", but the description of the murder is unclear. Sullivan stabbed Svidersky with a "kitchen knife". Where did he get the knife from? Did he just leap across the counter at Svidersky? Stabbed her once? Did she die instantly or later? The article is more about the MySpace phenomenon than the crime.Boneyard90 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Death Assessment Commentary 

message: I've removed the citation that refers to Stephen Coleman. Mr. Coleman contacted OTRS to challenge the claim that he made those comments about the subject of the article. As it was given as an offline source, and I cannot find a backing secondary one (every search combination I tried returns mirrors of this article), we should keep it off until it can be verified independently of the original citation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Coleman quote in Aftermath section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Anna Svidersky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615094540/http://www.mcmurder.com/2000/2006-04-20.html to http://www.mcmurder.com/2000/2006-04-20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615094540/http://www.mcmurder.com/2000/2006-04-20.html to http://www.mcmurder.com/2000/2006-04-20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823091802/http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_042106WABvancouverstabbingJM.5a2edf44.html to http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_042106WABvancouverstabbingJM.5a2edf44.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)