Talk:Murder of Anna Svidersky

Title

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)

Agreed, per KISS principle. Crum375 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it's a coatrack article. That's not good. >Radiant< 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Anna Svidersky section of Mourning sickness

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! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

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)

fun loving/school report

Anna was known since an early age as fun loving and caring among her family and friends.

This does not need to be said: it is POV and the remainder of the paragraph deals with it in a less POV way. All (mostly!) children would be described as such by their friends and family, making it redundant. violet/riga (t) 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At elementary school a written reprimand (which was discovered only after Anna's death by her mother) shows her as "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work."

This in no way adds to the article. Again many children have something similar to this in their report and I fail to see how this gives the reader necessary information. It actually detracts from the article because it is focussing on such a minor thing. violet/riga (t) 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your final statement shows you are missing the main point of this article. This article is about how the online peer community ended up mourning a total stranger whom they had never met, simply because of the power of the Internet. The question is then, how? or why?

And the apparent answer is that the subject's personality as depicted on her MySpace page, combined with what you call 'minor' but endearing things from her past, as reported online by the mainstream press, very likely caused the online peers to feel they did know her, that she was not a total stranger, but someone they had always known. To suppress these reliably reported tidbits, would do our readers a disservice, as they would be left wondering what caused that mass outpouring of grief by total strangers from around the world, for someone they had never met or heard of. We are not saying that we know for certain that these minor facts actually and directly caused the mass grief by strangers, but there is a fair chance they did, and we need to present these reliably sourced facts to our readers so they can reach their own conclusions. Crum375 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "missing the main point of this article" at all. You may wish to try and reword it so that it is more directly related though. You have not, however, responded to the fact that it is written in a POV way. It is not encyclopedic as it stands. violet/riga (t) 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You say the article is 'POV', in which way? I don't think any of the editors who wrote it are related to her, or have ever heard of her before – we are all total strangers, just like the rest of the online community. The point is that we trying to explain the massive and unprecedented outpouring of grief to a total stranger, and those tidbits were considered important enough for the mainstream press to mention, presumably to give her character 'color', and thereby to help explain that effect. These reliably sourced minor facts are what very likely caused the effect and should be available to our readers. Crum375 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to have been written by them to be POV. You may as well say "Hitler was an evil man" on Hitler, and "Stallone once missed an art class". The sentences add nothing that is written better later in the same paragraph. violet/riga (t) 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't quite the same. We are trying to describe who she was, based on the media reports, so as to try to explain the mass grieving by strangers that followed her death, strangers who had access to the online information about her character. If all we had in the article were a few dry facts, we would not be able to convey to the readers (unless they did their own research) what could have caused the mass grieving by strangers. Take a step back and think for a moment: how many young people her age are murdered every month? How many of them are grieved by thousands of strangers around the world, with mainstream press articles, with 26,000 Google hits, and with over 3,000,000 views of their videos? That should give you the framework, and we need to try to explain what happened in this case that is clearly so unique. I think it is reasonable to assume that having all those little tidbits about her life, both in her MySpace page and the published articles, all available online, caused the strangers to feel they 'knew' her. But since we don't have a direct source stating that the extra published color was the cause, it would be OR to directly say so – all we can do is present the facts to our readers and let them reach their own conclusions. Crum375 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to help improve the article after several people have wanted it deleted. This is the kind of stuff that adds to their dislike of the article. Removing that material actually adds to the encyclopedic tone of the article without removing information. The remainder of that paragraph gives the facts that are needed in an NPOV way. violet/riga (t) 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Violet, I am sure your motives are good, that you are trying to improve this article specifically and Wikipedia in general, and I appreciate your efforts, so that's not the issue. The issue is how to get this article to be as informative as possible, while following our content rules. We have a very unique and unprecedented case of a mass grieving for a seemingly (and unfortunately) routine murder of a teenager. The question is why? why are there 26,000 Google hits, 3,000,000 plus video views, etc. – what makes this case so special? We have sources that tell us about the murder itself and the aftermath, but we have no source that directly answers the above question. So what we are doing is simply presenting the facts as they were available to the online peer community, letting the readers reach their own conclusions. If we were to suppress these published facts, it would be censorship. If we start explaining that we believe these are the reasons for the mass grieving, that would be WP:OR. So we walk a fine line – we present the facts, hoping the readers will have the same picture the online mourning strangers had, letting them decide on their own. Crum375 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But the point is that the lines stated are written in a POV way and the same messages are better written in subsequent sentences. There's simply no need to say that her parents (etc.) thought her "fun loving and caring" - that's usually the case and there's no need to say it. violet/riga (t) 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please show how the article fails to follow the source [1] from a NPOV. You are suggesting a POV to not follow the source. You cannot assume the nature of any parent-child relationships: some are negative. Tyrenius 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

News agencies will always report using such terminology and talk about them being fun-loving and happy, but encyclopedias do not. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Some young people are reported as delinquents, moody, aggressive, loners, quick tempered, always getting into fights or whatever. This gives context for the reader. This encyclopedia reports from NPOV. It does not censor what is then said. Tyrenius 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No more context than is given in the following sentences that are written in a more encyclopedic tone. There is no need for us to explicitly state that she was so when quotes and examples can be used to better effect.violet/riga (t) 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(continued in new section "background" below) Tyrenius 20:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has in fact been rewritten from scratch to be more encyclopedic (and not suffering from WP:NOT a memorial, WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK); the result is Mourning sickness. There appears to be no valid reason (other than article ownership) why this page isn't a redirect at the moment. >Radiant< 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We had an AfD discussion where you presented your points, and the consensus was to keep this article. To me it is clear that this case is about a specific event, and per Google this specific person is much more notable than the 'mourning sickness' phenomenon. Crum375 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky and Mourning sickness

Radiant has left me a message regarding the redirection of this article to Mourning sickness, citing WP:BLP1E, subjects known solely for one event. The Mourning sickness article does look rather comprehensive, what do we gain by keeping two articles on the same subject, and what reasons are there, if any, to oppose a redirect? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously BLP1E does not apply here in letter, but the spirit may do. violet/riga (t) 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Google gives 27,200 hits for "Anna Svidersky", vs. 10,400 for "mourning sickness". So AS is almost three times more notable. In addition, the current Mourning sickness WP article is mostly built around the AS case. Also, the AS case is much more than just one neologism or catch phrase, which covers all kinds of mass grieving. It is about a specific murder that was unique and unprecedented in history, where thousands of total strangers world wide mourned the murder of a person they had never heard of before. It highlights the growing communication power of the Internet, that turns us into a tightly knit community, and given the mainstream press coverage, 3,000,000 views of one of the videos, and other clear signs of notability, makes this specific subject well sourced and highly notable, deserving its own article. WP is not paper. Crum375 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the AfD was to discuss this article and whether it was appropriate to keep. The consensus was "keep". Radiant should respect that consensus and not try to achieve his intent through the backdoor, as it were. The reasons why this should be a stand alone article and not merged to Mourning sickness were made clear in the AfD discussion. The Svidersky phenomenon is not just one that relates to mourning sickness. Equally important are the nature of online communities, the communicative power of the internet and teen culture. None of these are intrinsic to mourning sickness as such. Tyrenius 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, because the main focus of this article is not on the phenomen but on the person. And this person is of no encyclopedical relevance! So, please, redirect this article to "mourning sickness". Of course, it was a tragedy for this girl and her family and friends, but this does not result in encyclopedical relevance! Every single day, there are thousands of people who get killed. Should they all be mentioned in Wikipedia? I think, the answer is of course 'no'! The Anna Svidersky example is mentioned in the mourning sickness article. So, this article is completely obselete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.72.166 (talk • contribs)

A consensus of "keep" at AfD means only that we don't delete the article. It has zero binding effect on editors who may wish to redirect or merge the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When it is quite clear this would be a contentious action, it needs to be discussed. Tyrenius 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact nearly everyone in the AFD supports merging, renaming or re-focusing the article, with curiously the two people who wrote most of it being the vehement objectors. >Radiant< 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Please show where this article has not followed the sources referenced from a NPOV and where undue weight has been given. Otherwise remove the tag. If anything, the personal content has been underplayed: the headline in the Columbian News was "Family: Fallen teen was beautiful, funny, caring".[2] There seems to be a line of thought that we should not follow the sources, but impose our own unilateral interpretation because that would be more "encyclopedic" - that is not how wiki works and is in fact biased editing. We take our lead from the secondary source, which is exactly what has been done. Tyrenius 18:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We really should not be writing articles like this on Wikipedia, because it's tabloid journalism and not encyclopedic writing. In this recent revision, details about the deceased person's living relatives, including her very young sister, are given. Moreover there is a large synthesis from primary sources (directly quoting bloggers who responded to the tragedy) A school reprimand which is utterly unrelated to the tragedy is reproduced verbatim.

I think we should have every respect for this tragically slaughtered young woman. Showing such respect requires that we remember to follow our policies, even though we may feel (as I certainly do) that her murder was a tragedy that cries out for recognition and a memorial. Those people who were moved by the tragedy tp make online tributes were, I think, doing something very human: empathizing with a situation they didn't know personally but felt strongly about. They must have felt that their public prayers and condolences would help the family, and I've no reason to doubt that they were right. As a father of children of about the same age I do not doubt that public support for the grief over the death of a child is both well-meant and well received.

But one consequence of the information society is that now we can easily grab lots of public records of such grief from blogs. We used to send flowers, now we post on a blog. We used to put an announcement in The Times, now we write a Wikipedia article.

And that isn't what Wikipedia articles are for, really. Look at the reasons and the results. It's rather difficult to write a good article about a congenital condition that kills newborns, easier to write a dozen articles about children who beat the odds by surviving it. It's difficult to write a good article about aspects of the information glut, much easier to write an article memorializing every young person whose death is widely memorialized on websites. And thus our overall goal of neutral writing is sacrificed to convenience.

Such articles dilute our purpose and give new editors (since 2005 anyway) the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is. It's probably better to admit that we made a mistake with this article, and concentrate instead on articles that cover the subject appropriately. By this I don't mean that Anna Svidersky should not be written about at all, just that the obvious problems with this attempt to memorialize her in an article demonstrate the pitfalls of ignoring our Biographics of living persons policy just because the person is (recently) no longer a living person. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no intent to memorialize her, only to cover what has achieved notability. You are quite right that WP:BLP has moved on quite a way since this article was written, and therefore it needs looking at again. Constructive input of this kind would be very useful for the article, as is the suggestion at User:Agne27/Anna_Svidersky_"Non-memorial", except no one on this page was told about it. What is not useful is a full AfD discussion resulting in a consensus of keep, which the nom of the AfD then completely ignores, because he's determined to get his own way, come what may. There have been only two main editors attending to this article, and we have reverted many tribute posts. Violetriga has now come along and we are in dialogue about what needs to be done; This is constructive and I am sure it can be resolved without arbitrary unilateral action, which just gets people's backs up. Tyrenius 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC

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)

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)

Background

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)

Sounds good to me, and I would emphasize the online aspects. Crum375 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maybe you could come up with a draft, either on this page or a sub page of this, which might resolve the problems. Tyrenius 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered User:Agne27/Anna Svidersky "Non-memorial". It would have been helpful if a link had been posted on this page. It seems like a good starting point. Tyrenius 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you keep hiding behind the statement that "the AFD was closed as a keep", despite the facts that (1) AFDs do not preclude regular editing of the article, which includes merging/redirecting; (2) most people in AFD appear to be in favor of precisely that; (3) the article mourning sickness was only written as a result of the AFD with the intent to fix the problems with this article; (4) this article violates several policies, and you have yet to come up with a plausible reason why that should be considered a good idea; and (5) uninvolved outside opinion disagrees with you. >Radiant< 09:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

• 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)

AfD consensus

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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, that summarizes it well. >Radiant< 08:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A 5 day AfD is of necessity more cursory than the analysis that can take place over months in an article talk page, and often tends, as has happened here, to focus on one aspect of a subject, in this case the "mourning sickness" effect. The only value of the AfD discussion was to establish that there was sufficient notability, for whatever reason, to keep the article. A reason was found, but this is not a substitute for writing the article in the normal way. This event is more complex than just being a "mourning sickness" phenomenon.

One of the main sources was an article in The Guardian[3] (also printed in the Sydney Morning Herald[4]). It is noteworthy that the first aspect to be highlighted is her "profile on MySpace, the web's most popular social networking site", where "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". These otherwise trivial details are immediately stressed as being of significance, and a NPOV following of the source needs to acknowledge that.

The next point is the murder and then the tribute posted to her, again on MySpace, followed by the spread of this story through the MySpace community. Thus the role of MySpace is a major factor and then "Just a few days after Anna's death, the story had reached much of the online world" — as this had spread to other sites also, e.g. particularly with video tributes on YouTube. The role of old media and new media is addressed: "Anna's death had once again showed the power of the internet to spread information across the world almost immediately: while few, if any, British news sources have covered the story, tens of thousands of British web users know about Anna." Please note the confirmation that this is centered on a specific person. It shows the intimacy that new media can create for its users; one user is quoted, "somehow it seems worse when you hear about it over MySpace".

It is only at this stage that another aspect of this event is examined, namely "mourning sickness". This is something that has previously been limited to celebrities, because the details of their life are known through the media, so that "people 'grieve' over celebrities because they 'think they know the person'". MySpace affords the same accessibility to everyone's life, and in this case to Svidersky's: "reading Anna's page seems to show her life exactly as it was up to the moment she died ... it is still full of risque comments and goofy phrases ... 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." It should again be noted that it is the source that has chosen to give emphasis to such details, which have been included in the article from a NPOV following of that source.

Another aspect, which is not in the article but which probably should be, is the "tensions between those who know Anna and those who think they do" (again emphasising this particular person) and the fact that complete strangers attended her funeral through the online news. Again the emphasis returns to the role of the internet: "chat rooms and 'virtual' friends are replacing traditional support structures such as religion and the family. The conclusion to the Guardian article emphasises the internet, "with 29 video tributes currently hosted on You Tube alone." It also mentions "There is already a 200-word entry on Anna's life at Wikipedia, complete with a picture from her high-school yearbook."

A New York Times article [5], citing Svidersky as an example, emphasises the role of the internet in changing social paterns: "Just as the Web has changed long-established rituals of romance and socializing, personal Web pages on social networking sites that include MySpace, Xanga.com and Facebook.com are altering the rituals of mourning." (It does not specifically allude to "mourning sickness".)

Other coverage has been for a random killing by a mentally-ill registered sex offender: King5[6], Katu[7], The Columbian[8], and crime library[9]. A year after the event, Governor Gregoire, in her speech at the Labor and Industries' Annual Worker Memorial Day Ceremony, mentioned Svidersky first out of only six examples from 112 work-related deaths.[10] This is a small, but additional, factor.

Any individual only becomes notable because of circumstances that attach to them. Sometimes they have been proactive in creating these circumstances and sometimes, as in this case, it has happened to them. Many murder victims were previously unknown. A quick glance at Category:American murder victims will show that it is only the subsequent media attention that has created notability. It is no different in this case: the subsequent media attention (for whatever specific reason) has made her a known person; the details of her life and personality have been cited by sources as particularly relevant to this, much more so in fact than most people who are associated with some kind of "phenomenon".

Tyrenius 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Redirect

It doesn't actually work. Kamryn · Talk 10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Mourning Sickness

As an FYI, an editor has suggested merging Mourning Sickness (I assume Svidersky section and all) into Mourning. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep this as a discrete article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Unprotect

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)

The talk shows consensus hasn't been achieved for this. Tyrenius 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

AfD

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)

• I'd suggest you stop wikilawyering about this. As discussed earlier on this page, (1) AFD does not preclude regular editing, (2) consensus on both AFDs as well as on this talk page was obviously not for the version you prefer, and (3) you don't WP:OWN this article. >Radiant< 07:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky > Mourning sickness

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)

• Incorrect. See the MS talk page. >Radiant< 10:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to Anna Svidersky

Please leave this article alone, with the correct post AfD Keep name, until consensus is reached on this talk page. If any uninvolved admin feels that my reversion to the post AfD Keep version is improper, feel free to explain and revert me. Thanks, Crum375 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest you stop wikilawyering about this. As discussed earlier on this page, (1) AFD does not preclude regular editing, (2) consensus on both AFDs as well as on this talk page was obviously not for the version you prefer, and (3) you don't WP:OWN this article. >Radiant< 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Tell me something, Crum. Do you seriously believe that, after an AFD, the article must remain locked in the state it was in when the AFD closed? Despite thousands of precedents to the contrary, and despite arguments in that AFD that suggest this is not actually what people want? If so, could you please point out any policy that suggests that, or did you make that up? If not, I suggest you re-think your motives. >Radiant< 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I'm confused about why people feel so strongly that this page shouldn't exist. She did become notable because of the violent and random nature of her death, and because of the response to it. There are no BLP issues, because she's not living and the family doesn't seem to mind the publicity, based on the fact that they haven't asked for her MySpace page to be removed. She was discussed by the New York Times and the Guardian, among others.

Redirecting to Mourning sickness seems POV and disrespectful. One of the claims made by the New York Times is that people who knew her (and other young people with an online presence who have died) feel comforted when they see the new comments added to the memorial pages, which is perfectly understandable — yet Wikipedia is attributing it to a sickness. We should either use her name or find a neutral title. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the reliable sources used in the article are.[11], [12], as well as the creator of the Anna Svidersky article while advocating Keep in the last AfD [13]. I don't think anyone (and certainly not the journalist covering the event of the editors who created the Anna Svidersky) mean any disrespect. It is just covering the subject matter. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Agne, I meant that redirecting her name to Mourning sickness is POV and almost disrespectful, not the pre-redirect article. Again, I'm wondering how someone whose death was discussed by the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times, and the Guardian can be regarded as non-notable. Whether she's notable for her death or her life isn't an issue for Wikipedia. The key questions are: is her name notable in the sense of having been discussed by multiple reliable sources, and do we violate the BLP policy by writing an article about her? The answers are yes and no. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article as a whole it is a composition of 3 parts-a biography of Anna Svidersky, details of her death, and details on the reaction to her death. Looking at those sources you mention it is clear that the focus of those articles is the reaction to her death. If you separate all three parts-the reaction is the only one that can really stand up on its own with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I agree that there is some merit to the article but I don't think that merit lies in the pseudo biography of a girl who got a reprimand in elementary school, cut off her hair for charity or even that she was tragically murdered at work. I think the main interest of the article lies in the unique reaction that happened following her death and I would like to retain that focus and present it in the most encyclopedic fashion. I took my cue to create the morning sickness article from the sources used in the Anna Svidersky article and in how they termed that reaction as well as Crum's own comment about what is notable about Svidersky from the AfD. Again the objective is not to be POV or to vanquish Svidersky from Wikipedia but rather to hone in on what is really worthwhile here.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Perhaps we could simply go through the article and keep only those biographical details that were mentioned by third-party reliable sources. I think the point of the biographical detail — why reliable sources mention them and why we should mention them too — is twofold: first, to flesh out the person we're discussing, so that we're not disrepectfully discussing them entirely in terms of their death as though they otherwise had no existence; and secondly, in this case, to explain why there was such an outpouring of affection for her. Her projected personality, her age, and the pointlessness of her death were all factors in that, so our article needs to cover them.

As for the title, I do feel that to name the title after a catchphrase probably invented by some journalist trying to be clever is POV. That source felt it is a sickness; others disagree, and Wikipedia can't take sides. It seems to me to make much more sense to stick with her name as the title (which is what the outcome of the AfD seemed to be), and then to include only the details that were mentioned by reliable sources. We're allowed to include details from her MySpace page too (per WP:V) because she's the author, but we should perhaps try to limit it as far as possible. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just looked to see where the expression "mourning sickness" comes from. It was invented by Patrick West, a British freelance journalist and columnist for Spiked, in an article published by a British think tank called Civitas. [14] West argues that mourning sickness is a feature of a "culture of ostentatious caring which is about feeling good, not doing good." He includes two-minute silences, leaving flowers for victims of accidents, and so on. This is a very particular POV, and the phrase doesn't seem to have been picked up by other reliable sources, except by newspapers reporting West's views. I don't see it as an appropriate title. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I found a couple mentions of a sociologist named Frank Furedi coining the term [15] but I wanted to try and find his original use before I add it to the article. While West usage is negative, Furedi's doesn't appear to be [16]. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of the phrase in Furedi's article, except in the headline, which means he didn't write it. Also, I don't agree that Furedi's article isn't negative. He writes about "national carnivals for a community that can only define itself through suffering." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my main consideration, especially after reviewing the AfDs, is that article really isn't a biography or an article about a murder and the details here are essentially undue weight and very clearly across the Memorial line. Crum and Ty can rightfully say that they are all details mentioned in reliable sources but then the motivation for a journalist writing a "people piece" is far different from our motivation to write an encyclopedia entry. I don't believe the longest lasting legacy that Anna left will be her Myspace page. Instead I think the unique response to her death due to the power of the internet and awareness in the strange sense of community that we, as humans, seem to have in mourning someone we don't know will be what she is most remembered for and the mark she leaves. To that extent I think the Svidersky section in the Mourning Sickness article is the best place to note this event. I guess you could say that I feel this is being more respectful because instead of just paying tribute to the person with pretty details and feel good sentiments, we are being diligent stewards of what she truly left behind that can most benefit the knowledge of our future readers.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We have to stick to what reliable sources have said. "Mourning sickness" is a neologism that isn't widely used. When used, it is always used negatively, so we can't adopt it as a title to describe the response to these deaths. By far the most neutral approach is simply to use her name, and then stick to reporting what reliable sources reported, whether we agree with their reporting or not. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone else feels that Mourning sickness is a poor redirect choice--its an odd term that is awkwardly and haphazardly coupled with the subject of this (currently aborted) article. Unlike me, Radiant is a respected and established editor, but I still can't help but perceive his/her choice to merge the history of these two articles as a mildly disruptive way of circumventing a couple failed deletion attempts--or, at the very least, a case of bold editing lapsing into poor judgment. Radiant uses "policy" as justification for the extreme decisions, but not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions about how policy should be interpreted and applied; therefore, one has to achieve some sort of consensus before making such a radical move.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Slim - you're kind of missing the point here. Nobody is arguing that this article shouldn't exist. People are arguing that the article should focus on the phenomenon and the internet hype, rather than on the person. Note WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial. Note furthermore that "mourning sickness" was never a separate article to begin with, but was a rewritten fork created during the AFD, specifically to deal with issues mentioned in that AFD (which in fact it does pretty well). >Radiant< 08:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant, as I see it, the title and the content are separate issues. I think we should move the title back to her name, for the reasons I outlined above, then we can make sure the content sticks to issues discussed by third-party sources. That should take care of the WP:NOT concerns. Would that work for you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are separate issues, but to my knowledge Anna is not the only person who was the subject of this "mourning sickness" (which, yes, is a neologism and not the best article name either). Wouldn't it be more informative to have an article about the phenomenon and then describe a number of examples, starting with hers? >Radiant< 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as they were all sourced, I think it would be a great idea to list more examples of deaths that spurred some sort of public, collective grieving phenomena. Why, then, would the most notable and historically important of these incidents not have links to their separate articles? A neutral article about a historically notable object of such a phenomena does not inherenetly contribute to "memorializing" or encourage the phenomena itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• First, that depends on if there is any non-trivial information on the individual incidents that is not covered by the phenomenon as a whole (which does not, so far, appear to be the case). Second, assuming there was, the article you allude to would actually be about David Barton Sullivan, or perhaps Andreson Road McDonalds murder. We should not confuse the (inadvertent) subject of a phenomenon with the phenomenon itself. >Radiant< 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anderson Road McDonalds murder"????? Now you're treating Svidersky as She Whose Name Mustn't be Uttered. Who would even know what the Anderson Road McDonalds is or how to search for it? I think Anna Svidersky murder or Anna Svidersky Myspace murder would be a much more elucidating title... that is, if consensus decreed the article should be about the murder as opposed to about the girl or about, er, "mourning sickness."--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that is a reasonable solution. I should point out that the present article is about the murder (regardless of what people say it should be about). I'm not too happy with the neologism / bad pun "mourning sickness" either. >Radiant< 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment-Key questions

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 0: Is Anna Svidersky notable?

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)
• Yes, tragically and unfortunately this is true. From news accounts and from media spread. Modernist 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, she has been discussed by multiple, mainstream, reliable sources in three countries that I'm aware of (U.S, Australia, UK). There are no BLP issues. Her family appears not to mind the publicity, given they've not asked for her MySpace page to be taken down, which MySpace reportedly offered to do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I don't believe notability was ever disputed, but rather or not the article was "encyclopedic." --JayHenry 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the response to her death was covered in respectable media globally. Rockpocket 07:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to break with above, and say No, the reaction to her death is notable, but she isn't. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but there really was nothing about her life or death that merits a biographical article of its own. The Bethling^(Talk) 11:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

What would you recommend, then? Would you prefer the article to be titled "Death of Anna Svidersky?" VisitorTalk 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• No As an individual and as a biography she is not notability. The reaction to her death is notability. As said as her death was, it is an event that is played out across the world many times over and the one single element that distinguishes this from all the other teen murders is not ...

“ Anna was known since an early age as fun loving and caring among her family and friends. At elementary school a written reprimand (which was discovered only after Anna's death by her mother) shows her as "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work."[5] She then attended Fort Vancouver High School in Vancouver, where the principal called her "a smart, hard-working, cheerful student" in a press release issued after her death. She had intended to go on to college after her senior year, and was due to graduate in June.[4] For the year before her death, she worked at up to three different jobs at a time, in addition to her school studies. During this period, she sent $24 every month to a Vietnamese girl via the Christian Children's Fund. When she had her long hair shortened, she donated the shorn locks to a charity that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair from cancer treatment. ”

or

“ The knife penetrated her side and reached her heart. Michael Block, a friend and co-worker, witnessed the event. He stated she "screamed and kinda jumped out of her seat" and that she also "didn't see him coming". Block ran after the killer and dialed 9-1-1 with his cell phone as he chased him. Svidersky remained conscious and one of her fellow workers reported her last words as "Tell my family that I love them. Tell Christina that everything will be all right." She died that night in Portland's Legacy Emanuel Hospital. ”

or

Her mother reached the McDonald's after 9 p.m. to pick up Svidersky from her shift, only finding out about the attack when she arrived there. The last time she had spoken to her daughter was an hour before it, when Svidersky had phoned her to ask for a lift.

But rather

“ Anna Esther Svidersky (April 26, 1988 – April 20, 2006) was a teenager who lived in the U.S. city of Vancouver, Washington, and was murdered while working in a McDonald's restaurant, by schizophrenic sex offender David Barton Sullivan.[1] News of her death quickly spread worldwide, initially through the Internet friends site MySpace, where she had a personal page, and then through other similar sites. This created an effect of mass grief and mourning for her around the world, dubbed "mourning sickness" by the news media. ”

I think the current version of the article sadly confuses this matter and tries to make this a biography article when it really has no place according to Wikipedia's policy and standards to be one. There is topic of encyclopedic merit but that encyclopedic info is being buried in a memorial tribute article that unfortunately doesn't encourage further expansion and exploration of the noteworthy and encyclopedic info.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Question 1: What is the notable element of Anna Svidersky's life/death/reaction?

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)
• We should include material from reliable, third-party sources: biography insofar as it's available, including her online life; circumstances of her death; reaction to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree fully with Slim. --JayHenry 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly what made her more notable that the average murder of a young woman (inasmuch as there is such as thing) is the response to her death. However, there is no reasons we should not add other verifiable information on her life, also. Rockpocket 07:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• The response and reaction of complete strangers to her death is really the only thing that is truly notable. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• I agree with Crum that "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. however I would change "most" to "only". I don't agree with OR synthesis that the mass grieving was triggered by the info on her My Space page. None of the reliable sources make that connect and neither should Wikipedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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...

“ Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. ”

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

“ And the apparent answer is that the subject's personality as depicted on her MySpace page, combined with what you call 'minor' but endearing things from her past, as reported online by the mainstream press, very likely caused the online peers to feel they did know her, that she was not a total stranger, but someone they had always known. To suppress these reliably reported tidbits, would do our readers a disservice, as they would be left wondering what caused that mass outpouring of grief by total strangers from around the world, for someone they had never met or heard of. We are not saying that we know for certain that these minor facts actually and directly caused the mass grief by strangers, but there is a fair chance they did, and we need to present these reliably sourced facts to our readers so they can reach their own conclusions. Crum375 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) ”

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 [17], 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 [18]. 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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Question 2: As a biography does the Svidersky article violate WP:NOT a memorial?

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)
• To some extent it memorializes a life cut short, and an extraordinary response, so what's wrong with that? Recognizing a particularly strange, well documented and out of the ordinary occurrence, makes articles. Modernist 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• So long as we stick to good, third-party sources, and write in an encyclopedic tone, we won't be violating any Wikipedia policy. The important point here is that there are no BLP issues. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• The article had a strangely hagiographic tone, I thought. This is easily fixed by editing. --JayHenry 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• No, part of the story regarding her death is regarding online memorializing. Recording that is not a memorial in itself. Rockpocket 07:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• The article, as it was written was essentially a memorial, though could be fixed by removing a lot of the extraneous details. I don't think the existence of a biography inherently violates WP:NOT, but I'm just not sure that she merits a biographical article based of the events of her life/death. - The Bethling^(Talk) 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree with JayHendry about the "strangely hagiographic" tone. After she was killed, a natural question is whether she in some way was responsible, and another question is whether her life would have had the potential to make a positive difference in the world. The biographical information is that even at a young age, she was already seeking to make the world a better place, and certainly didn't deserve to be killed. Her fun-loving side is described as not fully in control, to the point that she was sometimes considered disruptive at school. This all seems like an appropriate amount of information about a short life ended so poorly. Would you prefer to undo the "hagiography" by looking up everything negative about her and adding that to the article? VisitorTalk 14:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Overwhelmingly so The three quotes I have above in answer to Question: 0 shows some of it as well as the "examples" listed in the Aftermath section which include....

“ an example which captures the tone of these is by "Shelby", aged 17, who put a video tribute on the site and said, "Me and my friends were crying". ”

and

“ Alex Milnes, an 18-year-old living in Oxfordshire, England, was one of tens of thousands of British online users to receive the news. Following a MySpace bulletin of her death, he posted his own tribute. He said, "Although we hear about murders every day, somehow it seems worse when you hear about it over MySpace. Something that feels quite safe to teenagers has made people realise that life isn't all about how many 'friends' you have on your page."[2] ”

And I find it curious that while David Burton Sullivan is not notable enough for his article, it is deemed relevant to include commentary from Svidersky's mother and himself...

“ Her mother, Esther, has said about Sullivan, "He's not healthy ... You can't change anything. I'm very sad. I'm not angry at him."[5] Sullivan was reported as saying, "I should have stayed home with my stuffed animals instead of doing what I did. This is all evil stuff that I've done. This is too much."[9] ”

.

In contrast to how this article is being treated as a memorial, I direct my fellow editor's attention to the Virginia_Tech_Massacre#Other_responses and the simple straight forward mention of the reaction to this tragic event. Several of the 100+ reliable sources in used in that article included tributes and sentiments to the victims such as the note that found here talking about various tidbits from the victims life. All of these can be reliable sourced, for sure, but that does not mean they are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Another example article is Death of Diana, Princess of Wales which, while not perfect, does show considerable restraint in the Funeral and public reaction section considering the legions of reliable sources that contained memorial sentiments following Diana's death. The editors of this page would be well served to follow the examples or maybe even ask the editors of those two pages for some assistances with this article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And it is not made, regardless of what Crum375 might or might not want. Tyrenius 04:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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?Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Question 3: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Svidersky section in the Mourning Sickness article?

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)

• 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)

• Strangely I've no opinion about mourning sickness, although it makes me uneasy. Modernist 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fallacy: notability is not demonstrated by counting google hits. >Radiant< 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of Anna Svidersky being included in any detail in an article called "mourning sickness," which is a neologism coined by one freelance journalist who was very contemptuous of these kinds of responses. It's a POV title, and not a widely used term. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That article should probably be renamed. What would you suggest? >Radiant< 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• There's probably some better title than "mourning sickness" for this sort of collective grieving. It's not really clear if "mourning sickness" was intended as anything other than a turn of phrase, even by the journalist who initially used it. --JayHenry 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not a fan of the mourning sickness article, myself, for the reasons described above. Svidersky should not direct there. Rockpocket 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• The strength of the section is that it is focused on the sole aspect of the Svidersky article that really does deserve a mention. The weakness, I think is perhaps the title is more a pun than something that a typical user might search for. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that "mourning sickness" should not redirect to Anna Svidersky. I will also comment on the talk page for that article disputing its inclusion in Wikipedia. I recommend that the term be removed from the article about Anna, as it is nothing more than a pop culture neologism expressing a POV of denigration. VisitorTalk 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting Mourning sickness

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)

Question 4: What is your preferred resolution to this situation?

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)

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)

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)

• Keep - As I said previously. - Modernist 03:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the Anna Svidersky title. Make sure it includes only material in reliable, third-party sources, and that the tone of the writing is appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit, like Slim said. As an aside, I think that if you nominate an article for AFD you should probably avoid being the person to merge and redirect the article in question a week or two later. I know Radiant! meant no harm and was simply being bold. But it looks a lot like something of a refusal to accept the consensus of the discussion. This is why, in general, it's best practice to let neutral parties make these sort of potentially controversial follow-ups. --JayHenry 06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  And, as such, I should note that I'm hardly an uninvolved party, having voted keep in the AFD a couple of weeks ago. --JayHenry 06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and edit. This redirect/title does not elucidate the subject at all. I consider myself neutral to this debate, as I have just encountered this article and have not participated in either AFD. I simply do not see how this article that passed AFD was unilatertally redirected. After all, many biographical articles are about people that are notable for only one thing (See: Jimbo Wales). As there seems to be only one dissenting editor, I feel like being bold and restoring the article so it can be edited. Ursasapien (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Either Rename the article to something that reflects the notable aspect and remove the extraneous biographical details to ensure that the article doesn't read as a memorial and stays focused on the reaction. Or Redirect to an article on Mass Grieving with the relevant information about the reaction merged in. ---- 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethling (talk • contribs)
• Responding to the RFC, today's version of the article (25 August 2007) doesn't seem to me to have major issues other than inclusion of the phrase "mourning sickness." VisitorTalk 14:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that so many editors wouldn't wish for the RfC and discussion to go beyond a day or two before submitting their final conclusion. It is clear that this article needs help and for the sake and benefit of the article, I sincerely hope that a more open mind will be taking towards improving the article then in having an open discussion on this RfC. If you start from the base that you are right, then every other suggestion will always be wrong and we will never have progress. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think we are all in agreement on your final point. Crum375 04:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

Memorial

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[19]

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)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Nomination for Deletion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So who are these people that apparently WP:OWN this article? During the AfD, it was supposedly Crum375 and myself as the main editors, but we haven't edited since it's been restored to this page, and the only people who have are new editors to the article, so how can they WP:OWN it? Ursasapien has put it rather well. Tyrenius 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.[20] Tyrenius 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

References messed up

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

Radiant

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)

Tyrenius

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)

Background section

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)

• I think that "what the principal called her" is trivia, as is the family tree given. I wonder if the "dedicated page that got 1200 posts" is all that important; 1200 posts sounds hardly like a lot (as opposed to 3M video views, which is). >Radiant< 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Suggest changing "She has an older brother, Peter, by one year, and sisters, Christina, one year younger, and Elizabeth, seven years younger" to "She has an older brother and two younger sisters" - to leave out names, as Tony Sidaway suggested. Tyrenius 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Okay, sounds good. >Radiant< 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some components of the background are excessive - especially the principle's comment - and I would suggest if a compromise can't be reached it should just be scratched. You'll notice that a similar article, Michelle Gardner-Quinn, is without a background section.--danielfolsom 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Progress towards compromise

I think we're definitely making some progress in a positive direction. The help and input of outside of editors have been of great help. For the most part we have collectively avoided revert waring and I applaud the restraint because that has allowed us to go forward and try to draft a compromise. I, for one, am currently content with the current version and would drop my objections to wanting to redirect Svidersky to Mourning Sickness. I would also probably advocate "Keep" if this article, in this state, came up for AfD. So again, thank you to all the editors involved because your hard work has allowed us to go forward and meet at some common ground. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The present version does not follow the sources in emphasising MySpace. The main text doesn't even mention she had a MySpace page. It does not give any idea of her character, which The Guardian brought into focus as part of the phenomenon - the typical teenager, the "risque comments and goofy phrases". Therefore the source is not followed from NPOV, because an editorial decision has been made that this is not relevant. That is not up to us to decide. There is no proper communication about the page she created that was the jumping off point for all of this. As SlimVirgin has pointed out, it is legitimate to include some of this material, as she wrote it. It needs a sample tribute, either the one quoted in The Guardian or the New York Times. This again is factual information. Tyrenius 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think those additions and fixes should be made Modernist 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Tyrenius and Modernist – as it stands the current version does not follow the sources, violates WP:NPOV and censors out useful, relevant and well sourced information that could help the reader understand the reason for the mass grieving, which is the essence of the article. Crum375 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  For the article to meet WP:NPOV, the article should proportionately reflect all available reliable source information. Wikipedia:What is a good article? gives ideas on how to proportionately reflect all available reliable source information and may assist in determining what information should be included and what information should be excluded (e.g., stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the main problem here is that the article is not a written account of another person's life (e.g., a biography). The main topic is about the events after her death. If this event received as much press coverage as claimed in the Wikipedia article, then at least one or more of the newspaper sources would have given a name to the event. It is that name in this article should be titled. The article name should be changed and the article restructured to focus on the events from the perspective of the people participating in them and the chronological order of those events rather than focus on those events from Svidersky's perspective. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is better to follow wiki policy per NPOV and focus on what the sources have to say, namely the importance of this person's MySpace page (and what it communicated about her as a personality), which, following her murder, was the starting point for a world-wide reaction of grief spread via the internet. The sources unanimously associate a name with the event, namely "Anna Svidersky", which is the most obvious one to use, as it is what people wanting to find out about the subject would expect to find, having seen it widely mentioned. Tyrenius 22:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the title of the article is dignified, basic and should stay as is. If the press had a name - that everyone instantly recognized like Zodiac to describe this, but it doesn't. Modernist 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Online mourning would seem to best fit the topic (or Cyber-mourning or Cybermourning. See, for example, ((1) Snyder, Steven (Newsday); Kohler, Jeremy. (April 29, 2007) St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The Internet is becoming a place to mourn. Section: Newswatch; Page B4 (reprint of Living Forever on a Place at MySpace: MySpace Mourners Find Comfort in Visiting Online Profiles of Departed Loved Ones) (2) Iggulden, Caroline. (May 17, 2006) The Sun Cybermourning; How thousands worldwide are grieving for a waitress of 17 they have never met. Section: Overseas news.; Page 6. (3) Adams, Kelly. (July 3, 2006) The Columbian Remembering Anna Svidersky - Public still standing behind slain teen's family. Section: Front Page; Page A1. (4) Knutson, Ryan. (August 14, 2007) The Oregonian. Grave site to Web site, now mourners can grieve online. Section: Local News; Page B01. A related article MyDeathSpace.com could use some clean up. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your research, which you should also post at Talk:Mourning sickness (that seems to be what you're referring to at the beginning of the post - or some variant thereof), as some of it does not mention Svidersky, so is not relevant to this particular article per synthesis. This article is not about the phenomenon; it is about a particular individual who has attained notability following her death. I note the last one "Grave site to web site" begins:

At least once each day, Anna Svidersky's mother, Esther, visits her daughter's gravestone in a quiet field surrounded by pines just off Interstate 205. There, she kneels and tends the roses that she and many others still bring.

But that number doesn't compare with the hundreds of thousands worldwide who have visited the online grave of the 17-year-old, who was stabbed to death by a mentally ill man at a McDonald's where she was working in April 2006. There her images and own words show the bright young girl she was. Instead of flowers, her virtual visitors leave notes, pictures and sometimes videos.

This reinforces the point I have previously made that Anna Svidersky is highlighted in reports, reinforcing notability, especially as she is still written about a year after her death. That would doubtless be useful in the article. There are other mentions a year after also, as in this piece on the Association of Washington Business (he got "shooting" wrong) where Svidersky is mentioned first. This follows a speech by Washington Governor Gregoire, where again Svidersky is mentioned first.[21] These are nothing to do with mass mourning or the internet, but a prominent death in the work place. Other reports treat it as a crime story, and don't mention the mass grieving,[22][23] — or else as a family/work-related one.[24] — or the impact on the community.[25] Patently Anna Svidersky passes WP:BIO per number of sources and over a period of time.Tyrenius 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who had the fortune of hearing Gov.Gregoire deliver that speech I have to chuckle at the fact the Svidersky article not only completely misses the point that Gregoire was using her as an example of but also the fact that Greogoire "name dropping" of other victims doesn't grant them anymore credibility to have a wikipedia article either-Travis Watts, Joshua Patterson, Warren Thompson, Steven Mattson, Jami Hensley, Eric Miller, etc. In fact, in another context, Gov. Gregoire mentioned my name in a speech but I don't see an article on me popping up anytime soon. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your post. Obviously these other people have not received wider coverage that Svidersky has. Maybe you should make sure the article does include the point that Gregoire was making. That would be a constructive response. Are you hinting that you may have a COI in some way? Tyrenius 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A COI? Whatever would give you that absurd idea. Because I live in Washington State? Or met the governor? That's a pretty far stretch and outlandish comment. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a comment. It's a (cautious) question, since it is unusual that you would be present at that speech where Svidersky was mentioned. I wondered if you had any further connection with the subject. Tyrenius 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of reason for people to attend various speeches of the governor (and no, this is not the only speech of hers that I happened to attend). It's a silly question to begin with. My original post was in response to the humor that I had at your repeated mention of this speech when it was so clear that you didn't understand the context of it and how it fails to support any of your points. My general point was that casual mention in a politician speech gives no extra significance or notability to anyone-not to the other names of individuals who tragically died at work and certainly not to myself. But still the fact that you are trying to "hint" or cautiously question a COI is outlandish. You don't see anyone "hinting" at possibly bias views for editors who happen to have a Myspace page or are within a certain age group. No, because it's a silly red herring. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have no wish to offend and apologise if if this is the case, but it came as something of a surprise that you were present at this speech, so could you please be specific that you have no other connection with the subject. That will settle the matter. I dispute your writing it off as a "casual mention". It was not the first of only six examples out of over 100 deaths for no reason. It supports the point that she was cited a year after her death. That is all. Tyrenius 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think such ad hominems are at all relevant. We're discussing content here, not editors. >Radiant< 14:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree but to make clear, outside of living in the same state as the girl, I have no connection to Anna Svidersky. In fact, the first I ever heard of her was the GA Review but I don't use Myspace at all and get most of my news from mainstream sources. To be perfectly honest, the mention of Svidersky in Gregoire's speech was so low key that I didn't immediately make the connection to her. The biggest response from the crowd came from mention of one of the asbestos victims who apparently had family near Tumwater where the speech was given.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It is not ad hominem, pace Radiant, as it does not use the matter to make any argument. Tyrenius 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proper context for biographical details

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I think the article reads much better now than it used to, but the initial point remains that the article isn't really about Anna (the person), but about the murder (the event) and results thereof. I believe the simplest solution would be to rename the article to Murder of Anna Svidersky or Anna Svidersky murder or something like that. Note that (from allpages) we have quite a lot of such pages. >Radiant< 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
  • What on earth are you talking about? That is some very shaky speculation and jumping to conclusions. >Radiant< 11:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

intro / lead concerns....

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)

Citations / Notability

It is time to revisit this article. First off, about half of the citations are invalid as of now and I will be deleting them. Without many sources on this topic, the question of notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia is an issue that needs to be discussed. I will leave that to others to debate, but in the meantime know that there need to be substantial reliable secondary sources to establish notability here. This page may have become a mere perpetual obituary. WP:MEMORIAL 24.124.109.67 (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't delete refs that become inaccessible. Per WP:DEADREF, we try to find replacements. If they deal with living subjects or are contentious, then we may remove them if no alternative location can be found. In this case, this is not a contentious topic, and the subject is deceased, so the old references may stay. Still, it's a good idea to find live online references. Crum375 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008

(UTC)

WP:PROVEIT is policy, while WP:DEADREF is merely a guideline. Thus, WP:PROVEIT controls. Until a verifiable source is found, the citations must be kept out. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:PROVEIT is policy, but there is no conflict with WP:DEADREF. PROVEIT does not say that references must be online — a book or a printed newspaper article are perfectly good sources. Once there is a cited reference, online or offline, there is no PROVEIT issue. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the "Wayback Machine" internet archive? I have found it to be a good way to use internet resources that have moved or changed. Ursasapien (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally Wired

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)

Photo

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Notable

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)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

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) I accidentally visited the McDonalds in question, less than 20 hours after this occurred. All I can say about that, everyone inside looked hollow, angry, and as if they were all collectively about to cry, this was truly chilling. Initial local reports noted, Thu Apr 20, 2006 just after 8PM, Anna was on a "break", "sitting" in the lobby, "drinking" coffee or hot chocolate. She had been, moments before the attack, "talking" with a friend whom walked out the same door Sullivan entered, which I believe the friend held the door open for him. Sullivan walked straight to Anna, whom had her "back" to him, and he, simply put, stabbed her. Anna jumped up, screamed, "trampled" over the static table and the 4.5 foot condiment divider, which separates the ordering counter from the seating area, landing on the floor in "front" of the ordering counter. Her friend, whom she had just spoken with, realized something was going on, started to re-enter the same door, though Sullivan, simply walked out of it as if nothing happened and left the scene, he was quickly followed by people in and around the restaurant. All of this occurred in about "30 seconds or less". It was reported, Anna died at the McDonalds, in the spot where she landed, given death must be recorded by a doctor, and she was reported DOA at Emanuel Legacy Hospital in Portland OR off 60th ave., sometime after 9PM. After the attack, Sullivan walked with an increasing pace and stumbled a couple of blocks. Upon seeing the police, he calmly placed the knife behind a public road sign and continued to walk. Police with at least one dog, stopped and arrested Sullivan, then checked where Sullivan reached behind the sign, finding the knife, which was reported as an 8 inch kitchen knife, nondescript. Sullivan was living with his mother at the time and the knife was from their respective kitchen. I am writing this, because I had just left Dick Hannas, which is just up the road, and the night before I had partially read an article about a girl being stabbed in a McDonalds in Vancouver. I didn't pay too much mind to this, until I tragically realized I was in the restaurant where this occurred, much worse, after the food order was placed. Horrified and out of respect, I left as quickly as possible. I will never forget this encounter and cannot believe the restaurant was open the next day. Once I got home, I read ((all)) of the initial coverage, which collectively stated the above, though has been lost over time. I'm unconcerned with grammar at this moment and I am somewhat writing in haste. Feel free to paraphrase and clean this up, if it is helpful. I wanted to share this, given the current reports are vastly incorrect, and this has bothered me over the years. I will check back here periodically, in case more questions come up. If you would like further correspondence, please leave your contact info requesting more info from "lasing", given the traffic on this subject, I'm not looking for any type of unwarranted attention. I just want to pass along any info, which may be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.15.210 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Coleman quote in Aftermath section

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)