Talk:Suicide of Megan Meier/Archive 1

message: We do not have a reliable source for the name of the adult who allegedly incited the harassment. Jezebel.com is a fine blog, but it is not a reliable source. Per our policy on writing about living persons, which includes people who are not the subject of articles, we cannot include this name. Do not add this name unless you have a rock solid source such as a newspaper or wire service. Do not even add it on the talk page; it will be reverted, and you will be warned.
There are notability concerns with the article as well but given this was just on CNN and there may be legislation that is probably something that will be overcome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Riverfront Times has named the woman in their blog, but not their news section. Is that considered an acceptable source? Jeffpw (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave it out unless its in real news sources (if the article survives AfD). • Lawrence Cohen 12:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to wait for a more credible source. If the furor continues it probably won't be long. Depends maybe on whatever the woman decides to do about being harassed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Spoke too soon- video now here  John Nevard (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sufficient for the name to be added here? • Lawrence Cohen 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I would like to add the name, I don't think this source satisfies the criterion for inclusion. CNN doesn't mention the person's name in either the text version or the video. Only an astute viewer would see that the name was in the report. CNN could well argue that it was not their intention to show the name, or even pull the video. This just doesn't seem stable enough to me to include, as much as I would like to. Jeffpw (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But their intention to show the name doesn't mean that info is any less accurate.  68.45.106.216 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon IP, you know and I know that the information is entirely accurate. However, it still doesn;t satisfy Wiki's stringent requirement for BLP material. I sympathize with your frustration, and encourage you to find a source that can be used. Jeffpw (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, CNN and Fox affiliates have shown that police report. The police report is a primary source, although  I can't find an official copy of it, or a full copy from thesmokinggun or whatever. Is there anything in WP:BLP that prevents a primary source shown in multiple news reports from being considered reliable? Only so far as to name the woman involved as a '<name removed by Jeffpw>', perhaps, but that much at least is well-supported. John Nevard (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My IP is actually less anonymous than a Wikipedia username. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, I wasn't sure based on that material and wanted to wait. • Lawrence Cohen 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:RS and see why "accuracy" is not our standard. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it and didn't see anything included that would indicate that CNN is not a reliable source.  In my opinion CNN is one of the most well known news sources.  68.45.106.216 (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not CNN. The source is a blog publishing what it claims is a CNN screen capture, which it admits to using photo processing on. WP:BLP is about protecting the Wikipedia project, so please don't spend energy looking for loopholes. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is CNN showing a police report. If you don't think a police report is a reliable source, then, well, that's your problem. John Nevard (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The source that John Nevard posted above was a video on CNN's page.  How in the world is that source not CNN?68.45.106.216 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly correct, Jeffpw. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A psychologist has identified the person from the police report. Would this qualify as a source?  --KimChee (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kim, that source looks good to me. Oops, it's listed as a blog, so we can't use it, especially for a BLP. At least that's my take. Maybe someone else wants to weigh in?  Jeffpw (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Her name is Lori Drew according to the police report. --RucasHost (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of woman 

message: Were these works (a book of 12 pages and two photos) created by the Megan Meier described here? --80.129.114.237 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so. Apart from the other considerations, the middle names are different. John Nevard (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for rumours seems to have been some particularly stupid article here. This is why we shouldn't put publicity-grabbing weblog posts on Wikipedia- as for well-researched and supported names of people involved, well... John Nevard (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, that article has been updated. It's contents are now "This article was deleted by the author." • Lawrence Cohen 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, did notice that. Google cache shows the author of the 'newsvine' article (another lulu.com self-publishing client) claimed to have checked the name, but the first Journal article gave a middle name different from both middle names given by the account owner on lulu.com. John Nevard (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: I think we're all tripping over each other with the reverts by mistake. The listed source from the section directly above this one names Drew. • Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite an edit war... 

message: Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that while the incident of her death is noteworthy as well as the background behind it, the focus should have been on the incident and not the victim itself?  For example, we have several pages on Wikipedia which are focused on the incident and not the victim.  For example, the Jamil Hussein article redirects to the article on his controversy and Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research an organization founded by him.  Similarly, I feel that this article should be renamed Suicide of Megan Meier, Megan Meier suicicide controversy etc. rather than provide too much of a biographical focus on the victim itself. Does anyone here concur? Ethereal (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point, this page should not be a biography of this girl, her extra-curricular activities and whatnot are, with all due respect, irrelevant. Rather, the article should be about the incident.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an excellent point. I've renamed the article to Megan Meier suicide controversy and updated all the relevant redirects. • Lawrence Cohen 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am ambivalent about the article's name (provided that Megan Meier properly redirects, which it does), I got the impression that the concensus at AfD was against a move to a topic such as "Death of Megan Meier", at least in the near term. I would hope that any editors who disagree with the move discuss it here rather than attempting to undo it. It's an emotional article for some, as we've seen. Best, ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should do the same thing with Anne Frank - write up an article about the "diary and death of Anne Frank", since that is what she happens to be notable for - those two things. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that's probably what should be done. Anne Frank really is mostly notable for her diary. Can you name any other famous young girls who had a similar situation as her during WWII? Probably not, becuase their diaries weren't published and studied for generations. Take away that diary, and she was just another poor, unfortunate person swept up in the awfulness. Her biography is only notable when taken into account her historic diary. That's why every single person affected by WWII isn't listed as a notable person in wikipedia, they didn't have published accounts. I realize you were trying to make a point, but you really just made a point against your argument.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is blatantly false. Anne Frank is a notable writer. Her notability is evidenced by the length of the bibliography/references list about her (see Anne_Frank#References). Had she been merely a victim of the Holocaust we would probably never had heard of her. --kingboyk (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like the idea? well, maybe we shouldn't have just gone for the suicide controversy ahead of the girl, but you did what you did and I reheaded the page to follow suit. (note: I am talking here of Megan Meier, not Anne Frank.) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of article 

message: Well done to the editors concerned. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced article 

message: I've added an image to this article, after noticing that the copyright is held by the family and they have been providing it free of charge to the media.  --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it relevant and helpful to the article, though?  The subject is the circumstances and surrounding controversy, not Ms. Meier herself.  Not sure I see how the image contributes to the article.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I personally think they deserve it. What do you think?76.113.129.216 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, and any attempts to enter such information will 1) Get the person who entered it blocked from Wikipedia access in all likelihood, 2) Will be removed immediately and then probably cleared from the article history. • Lawrence Cohen 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Anyone with google can find it - so why put it here at all? It's not encyclopedic and adds nothing to the article. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, no way, no how. It's not up to you, me or anyone else to say she is guilty or deserves some punishment. (even though I believe if Mrs Drew did do this, she needs to be put behind bars). But, they have not had their day in court. I read somewhere that the mother may be protecting her daughter by taking the blame. This can be or not, until the whole story is told, if ever, we will not know. Vigilante justice is not much different than lynching. - Jeeny (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And I removed it. Stating the property was vandalized is fine. Posting the address is inviting more vandalism. Even though it is all over the internet anyway. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia should not have addresses listed, unless they are %100 important to the story. Which it is not, and should not be in the article at all. Also, we have to be careful of WP:BLP issues. Even though Megan is not alive, the others are. - Jeeny (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me state this in no uncertain terms: The contact information for Mrs. Drew should not be readded to this article. It is a violation of of the biography of living persons policy and can have serious consequences, not only for the subject, but for the editor who posts it. Please read BLP and blocking policies for more details. Jeffpw 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we post the drew's email/home phone/address/cell phone and other personal information?  

message: There are now postings on the internet, blogs, etc., linked to this Wikipedia article. Please make sure that any additions are backed by reliable sources and not the sentiments of those who post to the blogs, etc. This "case" has not gone before a court of law, so we do not have all the facts. We cannot try this case in the press, on blogs, and especially not on Wikipedia. While this tragedy is very sad indeed, we are an encyclopedia first and foremost. - Jeeny (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please be aware

message: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/default.htm
This page shows the drugs that have been black box labeled by the FDA.  It is the FDA's website.  The drugs noted are mood altering drugs...i.e. Antidepressants.  They should be noted on the megan meier page, as she had been prescribed antidepressants.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/antidepressants-trigger-suicide-impulses-in-teens
This magazine article states the studies had shown that chldren 7-18 years of age, using antidepressants, have a higher risk of suicide than those not taking antidepressants.
:No the link should not be re-added. There are no reliable sources stating that 'she' was on anti-depressants. She could have been on ADD meds. Like I said, there is a difference. Many know the adverse affects of anti-depressants prescribed to adolesents, it's all over the news. But not Megan's meds, because we don't KNOW what meds she was on. You are speculating that because it's been reported that she was depressed that the meds she was on were anti-depressants. No one knows that for sure right now, except the doctor and parents perhaps. That information has not been released to the public. - Jeeny (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you could add the link between anti-depressants and suicide as an example on the Correlation does not imply causation and Spurious relationship. But that's beside the point, as adding irrelevant 'information' to this article is. John Nevard (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to include a fact that Megan Meier was on a specific drug, then please provide us the exact specific source that says so. Link? • Lawrence Cohen 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is the link to that report? We just can't put a link to the FDA website. The reliable source needs to have said she was on anti-depressants. Even so, I don't feel that we should use our original research by adding that anti-depressants have adverse affects in children. We still don't know what anti-depressant she was on. News reports are unreliable in that respect; Think of the Anna Nicole case. Some call medications anti-depressants when they are actually something else. Also doctors prescribe certain meds for a symptom like depression, that are not actually in the class of anti-depressants. We have to be sure, as this is an encyclopedia. - Jeeny (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Like Jeeny said, we need a source (such as a newspaper article) that says, "Megan was on medicine X", and then we can use it if its relevant. Do you have such a source? Where did you hear this fact and learn of it? • Lawrence Cohen 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA and the drugs Megan Meier was prescribed 

message: I think it would be better to call this article Suicide of Megan Meier or Megan Meier suicide. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy (and the reason I renamed it to that) is that the notability surrounds all the massive brouhaha and calls for new laws that came about after Meier's suicide. • Lawrence Cohen 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus we try to focus on the incident, rather than the individual, if they're not known for other things.Merkinsmum (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats exactly why I renamed it, yes. • Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Give me a break with all this BS about neutrality. How about The Murder of Meghan Meyer.  Disgusting. WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacatosias (talk • contribs)  07:00, November 26, 2007
"Megan Meier suicide controversy" or "Suicide of Megan Meier" sounds like a news headline not a encyclopedia entry, I think the article should be called Megan Meier with the conditions surrounding her suicide outlined in her article, the controversy has made her notable posthumously so I don't see why not just name the article Megan Meier.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the controversy? 

message: Have any of the sources referred to this as sockpuppetry? I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm just wondering if including that in See Also might fall under Original Research. Lawrence Cohen 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it does. See Slate --Pleasantville 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry See Also  

message: This isn't a big deal one way or another, but here is a source for the relevance of Helicopter parent and Wanda Holloway: Helicopter Parenting Turns Deadly by Judith Warner, New York Times, November 29, 2007, a discussion of the Megan Meier case. While this is an OP-ED rather than a news report, it does establish relevance of the comparison.
Regarding, Online predator, while the Wikipedia entry on the subject leaves a bit to be desired, sex and money are not the only motivations for predatory behavoir on the Internet, and as reported by the sources for the article, Mrs. Drew's Internet behavior was definitely predatory. 
I suggest that these items be restored, but suggest that we try for consensus. What do other people think? --Pleasantville 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed, since there's nothing on those pages to indicate relevance to the subject.  "See also" is meant to link to articles that a general reader could derive more information about the main subject from.  Beyond an op-ed comparison, there really isn't any here.  When I clicked "Wanda Holloway", I was left thinking "what the heck" since it appeared totally unrelated. --Haemo 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should instead be handled as "media comparisons" or some such in the main article? --Pleasantville 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure how that would — can you give an example? --Haemo 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that it could/should be an additional paragraph in Reaction to the news story. An OP-Ed contributor to the New York Times compared Lori Drew Wanda Holloway the mother who went to jail for attempting to arrange a contract hit on her daughter's cheerleading rival; the author analyzed this type of behavior in terms of the phenomenon known as helicopter parenting. (use the above NYT ref) The story has also raised the profile of public discussion of the phenomenon of online predators (could use How Lori Drew became America's most reviled mother from the Sydney Morning Herald, 12/1/07 as a ref.  The general idea is that public reaction hasn't been just outrage at the Drew family, but certain hot-button issues are raised. I think this could work. --Pleasantville 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I agree with Haemo. I don't think there needs to be a comparison at all. This pretty much speaks for itself. The see also section with "cyber bullying" and other "terms" related to this act. And I don't even believe "online or cyber predators" should be in that section either. The woman did not set out to kill the poor girl. Even though I think she's an evil person for doing what she did. - Jeeny (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When I clicked on this link: Online predator, that was in there before. It's really mostly sexual or financial scams, though. I think you're right about the others leading here, as this one is all over the national news... now. In a few months though, it will be something else. :/ - Jeeny (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a serious stretch to say this girl was "exploited" here — at most, she was manipulated, but saying this was a "predatory" activity is really stretching it. --Haemo 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See #2. Also, this was not a totally asexual scam. One doesn't know where it was going if the victim had not killed herself. In any case, it is raised here not because it is my personal opinion, but rather because the Megan Meier situation has been portrayed as an Internet predator situation by at least some of the media. The general issue it seems to me is the extent to which the Wikipedia entry should cover how the media of the type which meets WP criteria of Reliable Source has framed the issues involved in the case or whether only the facts that the media reported are appropriate for inclusion. --Pleasantville 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Lori Drew didn't make a living preying on this girl, nor was there any "victimization" really going on here.  At most, one could say that she falsely took advantage of this girl — I'm not really sure this a "predatory" activity, and without some really strong connection between the two I don't think we should be making this leap.  Similarly, I've rewrote the section of the article referring to Ashley Grills, who had at best peripheral role in the harrassment — it doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to ruin an 18-year-old's life over something she was goaded into by an adult and her employer. --Haemo 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, though I understand what you're saying. Again, I agree with Haemo. Sheesh, cut it out. My take on the predator issue; just because some media throw out the word "predator" while covering this case is a means to garner an audience, and tend to sensationalize. This case was a foolish, childish, harassing, mean prank that ended in a tragedy. Re: #2 up above, "One doesn't know where it was going...". True, we don't know were it was going. We can only guess, and everyone has their own opinion. I think "predator" is too strong a word for this case. It was definitely  harassment -- a childish vendetta. These people knew each other for a long time. Just as a wife/lover/husband kills the husband/lover/wife is not the same as a serial killer (and would not be prosecuted the same, motive is the key), or a person who lies in wait for an unaware jogger in the park to rape/kill or rob them. - Jeeny (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also terms 

message: The reason why the map link is there is because O'Fallon and Dardenne Prairie have screwy boundaries. Looking at the map will prove this... IMO a map citation needed to be there in order to prove that the school is in O'Fallon... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reiterating my note below, I agree with Jeeny that the map is unnecessary and incompatible with BLP, as cutting dangerously close to providing contact information. The location of her school seems to offer nothing of material value to the article, since the school is uninvolved and none of the incidents described in the article took place there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except Jeeny later reverted herself - it wasn't BLP. She just felt upset at the time. Also I disagree that it is "completely uneeded" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why a map is necessary to "prove" that the school is within a particular city... is there any serious doubt where the school is, and if there was, would it be relevant in any possible way?  If there is really a doubt, just link to the school's website — linking to a map requires interpretation and lies dangerously close to original research relating to a primary source — for something that is entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the article at hand.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If Jeeny has changed her opinion, that does not change mine. I believe it is unnecessary and provides too much detail to compromise the privacy of a living person in violation of WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bbatsell, American postal addresses do NOT necessarily reflect the actual city. Many areas in the O'Fallon/Dardenne Prairie area can be expressed with an "O'Fallon, MO" address *or* a "Dardenne Prairie, MO" address. To be fair, I haven't seen the Fort Zumwalt West MS expressed with "Dardenne Prairie, MO" (Only O'Fallon) - I wonder if it would meet the standard for a creation of a school article, as that could be used to sidestep the issue. Also, should I make this more clear? Drew said her daughter no longer goes to the same school (presumably Fort Zumwalt West), so I do not see how this will compromise anything related to her daughter. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I ask, how is any of this relevant to the article?!?  If this were an article about the school, then okay, we'd need to discuss it.  It's not, and it's completely and entirely irrelevant.  Can we focus on the subject of the article, please?  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not want to focus on this, I would advise against challenging the edit. Per Wikipedia:Cite your sources, any information that is not obviously apparent should be sourced. See, the map is intended to be a reference, not a link. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT: I just created the article about the school. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need to cite a source if the information is disputed or likely to be disputed, not if it is not "obviously apparent" (who determines that?).  As you yourself have said, "To be fair, I haven't seen the Fort Zumwalt West MS expressed with 'Dardenne Prairie, MO' (Only O'Fallon)..."  No one is disputing the location of the school, not even yourself.  Linking to a map is, as I've said, very close to interpretation of a primary source rather than a simple presentation of a primary source.  Link to the school's website or a reliable secondary source if you feel you need a cite (and you have not in any way demonstrated that you do), but a map is not the best choice.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that a separate article is established, I don't mind what happens to the map link :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map link for O'Fallon

message: Because of the addition of detailed information on the harassment of the Drews, the section breaks no longer are where the should be. This material should perhaps be in the Reaction to the news story section or perhaps it should have its own section after the Reaction section. As it stands, undue weight is given to the harassment of the Drews because of its placement in the section entitled Death. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sectioned it. I have no particular attachment to the title and will not squawk if something better is produced. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section breaks and titles 

message: Per this edit, I've taken out this mention of the street addresses for now. What town they "render" in doesn't matter for the purposes of this story, and this encylopediac topic on Megan's death and the fallout. It's not relevant whether they can get postal mail to one or the other. Its the equivalent of saying, "They live in Brooklyn, but can get mail address to New York City as well.". Additionally, per BLP, I've removed the links to the Smoking Gun police report. There is no absolutely no reason to link to or provide the Drews or Meiers home addresses. Posting this to the BLP noticeboard also. Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If there isn't precedent, and there is no value to readers to link to that specific document that lists the home address of crime victims one click away, I guess I'm setting precedent now. Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly implied by the section on privacy of contact information, which notes specifically that "links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted". The Smoking Gun isn't maintained by the subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the encyclopediac point of listing their past, present, or future home address at all, or providing a link to a source that does, if other sources cover all of our needs without that information? Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The addresses are only icing - the meat of the Smoking Gun is that it contains the actual reports regarding the discovery of the fatally injured Meier, the police reports regarding the reporting, etc. In history primary sources are considered to be gold, and those documents *are* primary sources regarding the incident. Let us not forget that. I can understand omitting them due to the BLP concerns right now. *Once* a slew of reliable sources say that the Drews left, then the BLP concerns will die down, and the question will be the value of The Smoking Gun. See, if the documents consisted of nothing but the addresses of the Drews and the Meiers, then your point would be correct. Yet, this is not the case. Now, I thought about the idea a bit more and I think the part about "O'Fallon address" does not have to be put back, BUT I feel that the Smoking Gun should be placed in external links again once the Drews move. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In terms of the actual sentence, it can go. In terms of the Smoking Gun link; did you read the material? It is not the address listed over and over and over again. Now, it is OKAY if it stays out for now, since that it contains the address of the Drew home. Once the Drews move, the concerns should fade regarding that. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking Gun reference, addresses 

message: This is a recent development. I'm leaving it up to others to rephrase this as needed. I think it is an interesting piece of the story. It remains to be seen if the author of the blog really is Lori Drew. CClio333 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, it's a random blog, not proven to be an authority, and not a reliable source in any way. If a few RS said it was Drew, then maybe. As it is, absolutely not in any way. Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source for the existence of the MHIC blog: MO Town Makes Internet Harassment A Crime by Teresa Woodard, KTVI-myFOXstl.com, 21 Nov 2007, 10:19 PM. I wouldn't call it random exactly. Whether it's really LD is certainly open to question. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being unusually slow today... it doesn't say that blog is actually Lori Drew? Lawrence Cohen 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction. The news source doesn't say the blog is by Drew. The Lori Drew ID on the blog did not announce itself until 12/3. But my sense is that whatever ghost of BADSITES still exists would prohibit linking to that blog. I'm amazed that the ISP hasn't yanked the cord on it. It has got to be a ToS violation: either the blogger is impersonating LD or  . . . let's not go there. Nevermind that we SHOULDN'T link to it, Google Legal should pull it off the netwaves. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HOWEVER, perhaps we should link to this to balance (or augment???) the lengthy discussion of harassment of the Drews: Investigation Into Who Is Behind Megan Meier Blog by Andy Banker, KTVI - myFOXstl.com, Tuesday, 04 Dec 2007, 11:30 PM CST.  --Pleasantville (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's another source on the blog issue: MySpace Bully Talks Back (Maybe)] by Chad Garrison, The Riverfront Times, December 5, 2007 3:44 PM. The source is an alternative St. Louis newsweekly, est. 1977. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's wait until something actually comes of it.  It could just be a prank — the whole situation is very recent-ist. --Haemo (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was also on the national news last night saying it was a hoax, and not unlike the one she and others did to Megan. Plus, the sheriff said that Drew's daughter had to be taken out of school, even the local people are shunning/harassing them, and, I think, something about Lori losing her job, or damage to her business? It's all a terrible mess, and tragedy. There is much more involved. Not one thing made that girl choose to kill herself. People don't understand suicide and so make judgements, or try to make sense of it, when there is none, really. - Jeeny (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this website implied that it was actually a man from Oregon who did the deed.  75.175.30.112 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Megan Had It Coming" Blog 

message: An interesting note in this is that the news reported in the links above that the police are actually investigating "I am Lori Drew" one, because of the apparent accuracy (despite her family stating it is not her). Would a one-line sentence with the source to the news article mentioning that is being investigated in connection with Meier's death be too much? We certainly wouldn't want to link to the blog, though... Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait until something actually comes of it.  It could just be a prank — the whole situation is very recent-ist. --Haemo (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was also on the national news last night saying it was a hoax, and not unlike the one she and others did to Megan. Plus, the sheriff said that Drew's daughter had to be taken out of school, even the local people are shunning/harassing them, and, I think, something about Lori losing her job, or damage to her business? It's all a terrible mess, and tragedy. There is much more involved. Not one thing made that girl choose to kill herself. People don't understand suicide and so make judgements, or try to make sense of it, when there is none, really. - Jeeny (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this website implied that it was actually a man from Oregon who did the deed.  75.175.30.112 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other facets to the blog

message: Cut the rhetoric. Please. Deal with substance rather than second-guessing people's fantasy lives. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but frankly tracking every dubiously credible blog which claims to be written by a subject of an article is the province of news reporters, not encyclopedia editors.  I think that last section clearly demonstrates this; we should not be covering "recent developments", especially when every source that discusses them can't confirm their credibility or relevance.  Some joker making a blog that said "I am Lori Drew" is not encyclopedic — it's just another example of the lynch-mob mentality the internet has developed over this issue, and we should not be playing into it. --Haemo (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Playing Reporter" 

message: Greetings all. In the article it states that this young lady commited suiced shortly after having an argument with her mother. Is it not possible that this argument played a role in her decision to end her life? I'm sure that suicide has been commited for much less, so why hasn't this argument been suggested as a possible contribution to the suicide? No flaming necessary, just asking a serious question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.108.139 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Wikipedia's place to suggest new theories, but to document what's out there. If there are reputable sources commenting on the above, please feel free to present those. Though care would need to be made regarding weighting the information, it would be appropriate to incorporate the theory in that case. While talk pages are for discussing page development rather than the incidents documented on the page, I must say that I truly hope that suicide is not often committed for "much less" than a teenager's argument with her mother. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, fair enough. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I suspect that if this case were to ever go to trial that there would be some credible reference to this theory as a defense tool, but we will have to wait an see. Thanks to almost everyone for not flaming my input.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Theories 

message: I just rearranged the ordering and structure (without adding or removing anything) to try to make it flow better and make more sense. Let me know if it's not working. Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: According to news reports e.g. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg5xCtQtLBF6vJqWXStItGEOsJfwD8TD3BA80: "someone on the Internet is posing as her and blogging about the case". This omits relevant facts and is therefore not in neutral viewpoint.
This section should read:
On November 18, 2007, someone claiming to be Lori Drew created another Internet account, this time a blog titled Megan Had It Coming. The persona adopted for the blog was a "sort of friend" of Megan Meier who called herself Kristen "because [she didn't] want to give out her real name." The blog's 2,929-word third entry, "I'm Lori Drew," was posted on December 3, 2007. Jim Briscoe, Lori Drew's attorney, says that Lori Drew is not the writer of the blog. The blog, written as "Lori Drew," pleaded for people to stop attacking "her daughter" and vilified the media. The blog also included a claimed account of Drew's distrust of Ron and Tina Meier, her motivation for setting up a MySpace account to monitor and interact with Megan, and her reasons for keeping her relationship with Megan as "Josh Evans" a secret after Megan's death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.33.56 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section has been removed as poorly sourced, misleading, and potentially libelous. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all the geniuses who failed to notice that a link to the blog concerned was added on encyclopedia dramatica before anyone ever went there look a bit dumb. John Nevard (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support removal. Lets let the other sources pick up and report on this stuff before we go wild with it. Lawrence Cohen 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding: On November 18, 2007, Lori Drew created another fake Internet account, this time a blog titled Megan Had It Coming 

message: Just a note that the guidelines on biographies recommends referring to subjects by last name because "The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant". The exception listed is royalty and people known by a pseudonym. Megan's parents do not feature in the article often enough to fear confusion on that count, and they are properly referred to by first & last name to disambiguate them from the subject. The use of Megan's first name is too informal for an encyclopedia article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of first names 

message: There is a new New Yorker article that has many specific details of the events leading up to Megan's suicide, specifically the myspace events, including quotes.
The article notes that Megan's parents are planning a divorce and no longer live together. Is this info appropriate to be included in the aftermath section of this page? I think it is definitely notable, and it comes from a very strong source in The New Yorker.Gwynand (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker article 

message: In the New Yorker article posted above, Ashley Grills name is listed several times. If it matters at all, this is currently the most read current article from the New Yorker. It is clear that she is an integral part of the story but not neccesarily at fault for anything. The article notes that the Meiers' attribute no blame to Grills. I think her name should now be included and also the bit about the Meiers' parents opinion of her as "innocent". Gwynand (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New public info on Drew's employee 

message: I made some changes to the federal charges section, and the outcome of the trial.
Previously, the information stated that Drew was charged with four felony counts to commit conspiracy, and that the jury reduced the felony counts to misdemeanors. This is not exactly accurate.
Lori Drew was charged with several felony counts of unauthorized access to computers in order to inflict emotional distress, and one felony count of conspiracy. She also was charged with misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization, the jury acquitted Drew of all but one of the felony charges; they deadlocked on the charge of conspiracy. They did find her guilty on all misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. The jury did not reduce the felony charges to misdemeanors; juries can't reduce criminal charges. Rather, the misdemeanor charges were included separately as instructions, as were the felony charges. 
Drew's Defense Attorney made a request or motion to have the jury's finding or guilty verdict of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization, to be overturned. The term is called judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The federal district trial judge took the motion under review, and delayed Drew's May 2009, scheduled sentencing. On July 3, 2009, federal district trial judge, George Wu stated that he would be overturning the jury's verdict, thus, fully acquitting Drew of the charges. He stated, until he issues his ruling in writing, it is tentative. Here is why he granted the JNOV, or overruled the verdict: He stated he originally allowed the trial to proceed when Drew was charged with felonies, but she was convicted only of the misdemeanors and that presented constitutional problems. He stated if Drew's guilty verdict of the misdemeanor of illegally accessing computers, were to stand, anyone who has ever violated the terms of service of any social networking site, too would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That would be unconstitutional, he said.
--irshgrl500 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Charges 

message: Has there ever been any discussion or explanation as to why the government chose to indict Drew on the conspiracy charges? In my opinion, this was the wrong tactic to take, essentially unprovable, as it has turned out to be apparently. I believe, given the text of the statements that "Josh" made, e.g. that MM was "sexi" and that "he" "loved her so much", that a charge of sexual abuse should have been laid against her. Whether or not Drew wanted to establish a sexual relationship with the girl is irrelevant, her tactics of abuse used the girls gender and sexuality in order to trick her and in the end sexually humiliated her (in that a "boy" mistreated her in the way Drew et al wrote to her in the end.) I think this would have been entirely provable and that it would have also branded Drew as a sexual criminal which is more accurate than a "fraudster."
Tre.fire (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The nature of the charges

message: I knew I had heard of this story somewhere, and then I thought of Law and Order: SVU, which had an episode extremely similar to this suicide. Apparently, I was right (Ep6: Babes). This would probably be worth mentioning in a Popular Culture section, or placed into the existing Reaction section. Ericleb01 (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Law And Order: SVU reference

message: I added this notable AP link since this will be a major source citation and support of the above events. If you like to put it as external link, well then. But I placed it in See also. *Key events in the Megan Meier case - By The Associated Press --Florentino floro (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually according to the sources she was acquitted of three felonies. The jury was only deadlocked on one. I've clarified the article Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification after reading the sources more carefully. She was cleared on the three charges as felonies but convicted on the same charges as misdemeanors. The jury was deadlocked on the fourth conspiracy charge which I guess was only a felony Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Key Events

message: I moved all of the details of United States v. Lori Drew over to that page and did some other restructuring. Now the article focuses properly on the suicide and the reactions, rather than as much on the criminal proceedings.--Qluah (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major delegation 

message: MySpace TOS clearly states the minimum age is 14. This girl wasn't 14. Shouldn't the article mention the TOS violation committed by Megan Meier? It's also curious her mother didn't face charges for permitting her daughter to use a service in violation of its TOS 98.234.189.161 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a horrible troll. --64.180.245.119 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  98.234.189.161, do you expect parents to be control freaks and supervise their teenage children all the time? Many parents can't know if their children commit crimes or take drugs when not at home. Also, any child wants privacy and a spying mother or father is an abuse of confidence. You can't hold parents accountable for that. 85.4.231.181 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace TOS states minimum age is 
14
 13 

message: Could someone please semi-protect this page, to prevent vandalism? Thanks, Iamkylekatarn (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What vandalism? There hasn't been any for the last two weeks; for that matter, there's only been a change of a link to an archived URL and a self-reverted censorship of a quotation in the last two weeks. Protection should only be used when a page is subject to frequent vandalism, and the recent edits don't support that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually Fred, this page has had more unnecessary edits than most. Also, there was vandalism by a User back in 2009 or 2010, who was later banned. I too, am interested in semi-protecting this page. This is an article about a 13 year who committed suicide over cyber bullying. Now it seems as though her or Wikipedia biography regard her suicide, alone, is being subject to the same sort of hype and opining, which she herself was subjected to, when alive. Not OK.Irshgrl500   14:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the protection, there has been more of the childish vandalism latelyNirame (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody needs to make a request here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection --Penbat (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Protect This Page 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Flyer 2 final.pdf Nominated for Deletion

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress