Talk:Murder of Anna Svidersky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biased statement

Unfortunately, the line that reads "Anna was a beautiful person" is NOT an unbiased statement, rather, an opinionated one. Therefore, it should be deleted from this article.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.179.186 (talk • contribs) .

--- I do not know how to make comments but I'll say this ---

If it stirs enough enough controversy, and the users WANT to know about her, create the page.

If you ARE for the people, and not your personal policies, then let the page prosper.

The demand is here, people WANT the wiki up, they WANT to know more about her, and that's what WikiPedia sole purpose serves as. (mostly) unbiased information for what people WANT to know about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.173.222.70 (talk) 14:25:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal commentary regarding Anna

Assertions on Wikipedia should be purely factual. This is not the place to render personal tribute to Anna, no matter how wonderful she may have been, or how deeply her death affected you.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.250.126 (talk • contribs) .

No article on the murderer

I've noticed that as tragic as this event is, this is quite possibly the only article of a murder victim where no article of the actual murderer exists on Wiki.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) .

So start one if you feel it's necessary. Tyrenius 03:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel this article to be biased in and of itself. Thousands of murders have gon on unsolved, and yet a completely solved one has managed to yield what could be considered useless information.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.94.18.187 (talk • contribs) .

of the thousands of murders that take place every week in this country how many of them get the attention this this particulas tradegy has? the converage that this event has gotten is almost unparelled —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njhorvath (talk • contribs) .

Prod

Prod tag (i.e. proposed deletion) was put on the article today. I have left the following on the talk page of User:74.65.167.98 who placed the tag:

You have put a prod tag on this article (i.e. for deletion). Please note it was put forward as a AFD on May 27, 2006. See discussion. In the light of this, you might like to discuss your objections on the article talk page before proceeding further.

Tyrenius 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a similar message to Alphachimp's Talk page. Crum375 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

McMurder Link

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

Per your arguments, I've deleted the reference. There is already a reference anyway at that place in the article. Strictly speaking, wiki should not link to a site that contains a copyvio. It would be better to link to the original articles. Tyrenius 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was able to find better links for the articles. For the Google cache version, I found this link that addresses the possible copy-vio. The other link is direct, with no copy-vio issues. I hope to be able to get rid of the blogged version of the Kelly Adams article. Crum375 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Found link for the blogged Kelly Adams article online now, so replaced blogged version with direct online version. Crum375 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

References at start of article

There are now three references occurring after the name and birth/death dates. This seems excessive. I would have thought one reliable source would be more than adequate. Also it is better if the link occurs at the end of the sentence after the full stop. There is no reference cited at the moment after the first sentence or even after the first paragraph, so maybe these 3 references could be placed more strategically. Tyrenius 00:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I moved the 3 to the end of the 1st sentence for now. They do not relate to the subsequent 'spread of notability' so they can't be at the end of the paragraph. Each reference adds a slightly different and useful perspective - it's hard to spread them out or to eliminate one - we do want to paint a complete picture and they are just neutral articles. The fundraising amount mentioned in one is re-referenced later. If anyone has an idea on a better 'strategic placement' - sure, it would be great. Crum375 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A reference is only needed in the article to verify a statement, and one is enough. If something's there just to add a different perspective, it would be better in external links. The fund-raising one could be moved to where it is most relevant, or kept as the initial reference (and subsequent re-reference), and the other two put in external links.Tyrenius 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Reference dates

I suggest we use June 24, 2006, rather than 2006-06-24, as the latter can get very confusing with UK and US usage putting days and months in different order to each other. It doesn't apply in this case, but 2006-11-12, for example, could be 11 December or 12 November. Putting the name of the month is the usual practice, e.g. current featured article Uma Thurman. Tyrenius 01:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something. The only place I used yyyy-mm-dd format (which is universal ISO standard for all countries, btw) is inside the cite template, which is invisible externally, where it must be used to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Crum375 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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

My recent references have not used the template cites, because I haven't quite mastered them as yet (to tell you the truth, I prefer the "old fashioned" mode). Tyrenius 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevance

Several things in this article are still irrelevant. We don't need to know how charitable Anna was or how she did at school, nor need to know the names of people from other countries who left tributes. I do not think this article is historically significant as there is still no article on the murderer, who himself is not a multiple murderer and commited an essentially random crime with little bearing on the study of criminology or criminal psychology. The article is still essentially a tribute page disguised as a legitimate entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.134.186 (talk • contribs) .

As noted at the top of this page, this article was nominated for deletion on the premise that it was an obit. It was then fixed up and re-written almost from scratch, with the premise that the notability of this case is the unique and unprecedented way that the news of Anna's death spread out over the Internet from Anna's MySpace page, and caused a mass effect of mourning by total strangers, dubbed 'mourning sickness'. The AfD discussion's consensus was a 'Keep', based on this premise. Once you assume that she is notable for that reason, there is nothing to prevent inclusion of some more of her life's story, especially the items that were noted in the online newspaper articles that covered her murder. If she was a charitable person, just because that specific aspect does not justify her notability per se, it does not mean it should be excluded either, as it builds up a picture of who she was as a person, and that could have been part of the reason for the mass mourning phenomenon. The 'names of people from other countries who left tributes' that you mention, was part of the basic rationale for inclusion during the AfD discussion, as it was showing, quoting from a reliable source, that her notability spread very quickly among her age group via the Internet and caused mourning by strangers world wide. Crum375 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Crum375. The community consensus was that the subject has achieved sufficient notability as stated above to merit an article. This has already been discussed and decided only 5 weeks ago. If you would take the time to read the AfD discussion you would see your points have already been answered. The notability is not established through its bearing on criminology: it is established through its relevance to internet phenomena. That is, presumably, why there is no article on the murderer, though I think there could be something more about him in this article. It's not "a tribute page disguised as a legitimate entry". It is a legitimate entry and conforms to wiki requirements for such and is written and referenced as such. Personal tributes have at times been inserted in the article, and have been removed. Once the subject has been validated as sufficiently notable, then it is quite legitimate to give further information about the subject for readers who are interested in the background to gain a fuller understanding. I note this is your first contribution to wiki, at least under that IP address. You might care to look at other articles to gain a better insight into how they are written. One example is Douglas Adams. He is of course known as a science-fiction writer. One might then say, do we need to know that he acted in the play Julius Caesar at school, or is this paragraph relevant:

Adams held the job as a bodyguard in the mid-1970s. He was employed by an Arab family, which had made its fortune in oil (and were from Qatar, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica). [5] He had a couple of favourite anecdotes about the job: one story related that the family once ordered one of everything from a hotel's menu, tried all of the dishes, and sent out for hamburgers. Another story had to do with a prostitute, sent to the floor Adams was guarding one evening. They acknowledged each other as she entered, and an hour later, when she left, she is said to have remarked, "At least you can read while you're on the job."

The fact is that it has been considered as of interest to augment the article. The fact that this is a featured article, and has therefore been subject to considerable scrutiny, should be noted.

Tyrenius 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed useless and unimportant fact

I removed the following: In elementary school Anna was given a written reprimand for "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work." Even though it is mentioned in the first referenced news article, that fact is of absolutely no pertinence as far as this encyclopedia is concerned. It only appears in that news article to help convey the mother's grief. Let's use some common sense here, ok? — GT 09:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I reverted the above by mistake. Thanks to Sarah Ewart for spotting it. Tyrenius 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I find the immediately preceding style of "discussion" a little heavy-handed, especially as the two editors (Crum375 and myself) who have been working on this article are in agreement that this point is valid. I reiterate the point that once a person is considered worth an article, then details of that person's life are valid, as it provides context and helps to show their character. This is, one might think only common-sense. The fact that it was used to convey the mother's grief makes it more important, not less. Anna Svidersky was a real person, and a good article will convey the texture of her life, with its humanity and foibles. The problem, if anything, is not that this point was included, but that other similar information about her has not been, and should be. It was only time limitation while I was editing that prevented this. I await other contributions to this discussion. Tyrenius 11:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, pointless minutiae do not belong in an article about anybody no matter how notable they are. A written reprimand in elementary school -- I wonder if there's a child in America who never got anything like that when they were young. But whatever -- I have little interest in following this article, so feel free to include this information as well as what brand of toothpaste she used and what color her bedsheets were. — GT 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I agree with Tyrenius, as I mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page. The addition of (reliably sourced) 'color' to a person's biographical page is acceptable as long as the person is otherwise notable. In this case, as I noted above, it is possible that this 'color', described in online news articles along with some of Anna's other humanizing traits and anecdotes, is at least partly responsible for the world wide 'mourning sickness' phenomenon, which is the main basis for inclusion of this article. Crum375 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally would chalk it all up to "pretty" and "randomly stabbed", but carry on. — GT 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That would have been accurate before the 'mourning after' phenomenon which is the primary justification and theme of this article. Crum375 14:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the business of personally chalking up. I'm in the business of NPOV and NOR both of which a personal interpretation fail. I'm not in the US, so I took it that a written reprimand in an elementary school was not the usual thing. If indeed most children receive this as a matter of course, then it is rendered redundant, I agree, but that would need to be confirmed. In this case, why did the newspaper mention it at all? I am open to discussion on any point, as I'm sure Crum375 is, but we would appreciate a respectful discourse in order to find out the best way ahead.Tyrenius 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you not attend school as a young child? Yes, kids misbehave in class and do things that anger their parents. Do I need to go on at length as to the severity of "singing", "dancing", "disrupting class", and "not doing work"? If the notion of such a "written reprimand" is completely foreign to you then please trust me that it is not a big deal in the least bit. And it should be apparent from reading the article that passage came from (you all did read it, right?) what is the point of its presence in the news article. The writer is describing how Anna's mother is going through her daughter's belongings and comes across the "written reprimand", and (here is the important part) in her grieving she is able to forgive her daughter for what previously she was driven to anger over. This is a totally standard part of the grieving process and just because it might have been appropriate to include that information as a device in a news article doesn't make it worthy of being included in the late young woman's biography under this silly notion that any last bit of minutiae that anybody can dig up belongs in this article. — GT 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, though I think we are going around in circles, I must respectfully disagree. Yes, it is a bit of trivia about the subject's life. But you agree that at least to the new reporter it was important enough to include in her news article. Why did the reporter do so? Sensationalism? Unlikely. In my opinion, the reporter did it to add a layer of humanity to Anna, to show the readers that this was not one more statistic, one more 'random stabbing victim' to use your words, but that this was a real, live, red-blooded, vibrant, caring human being that was snuffed out because the 'system' allowed a repeat sex offender back out on the street. The fact that Anna was reprimanded as a young child in class for 'disrupting the class by singing and dancing' very much adds to her character, that emphasized fun and happiness over formalities, and shows she was a real human being, and adds to the sense of loss we all share when these acts of senseless violence occur. This description in the news article, as I mentioned in my other message below, could have been part of the reason for the outpouring of support and the 'mourning after' phenomenon which is the primary reason for the article. Crum375 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, GT, your points are noted. Would it be possible for you to do some research and add to the article material that it should contain? That would be helpful and postitive. We seem to be expending a huge amount of time and energy needlessly over one sentence, which is after all substantiated from a verifiable source. Tyrenius 12:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I probably won't make it a priority to expand this article as I would have voted "delete" on its AfD if I had been around. To me internet phenomena are generally not encyclopedic topics.

Anyway my essential point, which maybe I'm not communicating well, is that even though a journalist who is writing what is basically a feature piece (judging by its content and since it was written over a week after her death) happens to include a bit of information in a particular, entirely appropriate context to convey her mother's grief, that information in a different context (in this case, a biography in an encyclopedia) could find itself completely out of place and irrelevant, and maybe even misleading. How can you say that one instance of getting in trouble as a youngster reveals important details about someone's character, when you have never even met the girl before her tragic death? Especially when the only character analyses we have of this girl seem to be those given to us immediately after her passing by her mourning friends and family, which makes them highly subject to exaggeration, euphemisms, and embellishment.— GT 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdent)

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

• Small correction: I did not vote an initial Delete - just said that a cleanup was needed, which I then proceeded to help with. Crum375 18:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I have reorganized the page and moved the tidbit in question. Feel totally free to alter my revision in any way you please but according to the justification you have presented the only appropriate way to include this information is in the context of how strangers used it to connect with her, and since as you have agreed it is of no real practical relevance as far as being an important detail about her life it makes no sense to include it as "background" information. Personally I don't find it necessary to include every tiny detail we can glean from the news articles, as Wikipedia is not Wikinews (and the fact that this topic is so devoid of any other sources that we have to do so is, as far as I'm concerned, prima facie evidence that this article shouldn't exist in the first place), but if you all don't have any major problems with my most recent edit then I will leave it be at that. — GT 19:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me. Firstly I didn't say "the only appropriate way...etc", nor do I agree with it. I think background information is perfectly valid in its own right. You have completely ignored the comparison with the Douglas Adams article above. Could you please read it, consider it and answer that point. Secondly you have now introduced OR by stating that the spread of the mourning was connected with the newspaper coverage. Can you please cite your source for this? The source I have cited (The Guardian) attributed it to the internet, not to print media. I don't find the editing and suggestions are getting us anywhere very far. If you want to help the article, can you please add some good content. There's really no point quibbling over something like this with the end result that the article is now not accurate. We are trying to research this, not put in speculation. Thank you! Tyrenius 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize but I don't find the comparison between the employment history of one of the most famous authors of the 20th century and a child getting yelled at for disrupting class to hold any water. The latter is a fact that is simply not important, not even in the slightest bit. I understand the WP:OR concerns (although I too was describing an internet publication, not a print one) and invite you to rewrite my edit while keeping it in that section of the article, but if you can't find a way to do that then I invite you to remove the information altogether. It simply does not belong under the "Background" heading under any circumstances. The newspaper article did not include it because it was important. The writer mentioned it to show that the mother is grieving and can't bring herself to hold any anger towards her daughter anymore. Again, trust me on this -- a "written reprimand" in elementary school is not even remotely important, even in this young woman's short and, until the end, relatively uneventful life. — GT 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The next two post have become separated from their chronological sequence, because of the development of the discussion:
I think the issue is that if all we had was a random stabbing, it would most likely have failed notability, as there are unfortunately way too many such cases. The point here was the unique way that news of Anna's death was rapidly disseminated through the Internet, and the documented mass grief it caused to total strangers within her peer group. It is very likely that part of that grief was caused by reading about her personality in the online news reports. These news reports mentioned what was news-worthy or human interest in the judgment of a neutral news reporter - not a grieving relative. As such, these anecdotes merit inclusion in the article, IMO. Crum375 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that a very convincing argument. It would be good to get more about her background, activities and personality in the article. Tyrenius 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of GT's version

I have no doubt whatsoever that GT means well and wants to either delete or improve the article. Unfortunately, it is clear to me, as Tyrenius stated above, that actually stating in the article what we speculated on here in the Talk page, i.e. the exact grounds for the 'mourning after' effect, would become WP:OR. I also think the article is easier to read in its current form. While I admit that style is not a primary factor, overall presentation is also important. Thanks, Crum375 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think GT has picked up on something, which is that, as things stand, these two points seem a little gratuitous. However, that is because it needs more such background material at this place in the article. Once that is done, they will settle into proportion. Tyrenius 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and GT that as it stands the 'singing and dancing' bit seems a little bare on its own - it seems like it's missing some other pieces. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of material to work with since not a lot is on the online record. But it may make sense to review the published articles and see if we can add some meat to it with what we have. Crum375 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Let me approach this from a different angle. Anna's fifteen minutes of "fame" are long passed. The initial shock of knowing that a pretty girl on Myspace was stabbed to death has worn off. Sure, there will be news articles that say "It's been six months since young Anna was killed", and "The murderer was convicted of first degree murder", but those articles will not carry many new details that we don't already know. There will most likely never be a 300 page in depth biography published about Anna's life. My point is, what we have now is essentially all we will ever have, and there is a reason you guys are having difficulty filling up this article with useful information.

That said, to include such a minute and insignificant detail as a child getting in trouble occupying a substantial portion of her background information (and inevitibly so, as I explain above), is absolutely misleading and absolutely absurd. If you guys do not finally concede the point that a child getting yelled at for disrupting class is not a meaningful event in her life, I will open a "Request for Comment" where hopefully it will be shown that I am not crazy and that this really is beyond the point of absurdity that we even have to discuss this.

Finally, I'm glad to see that it has been conceded that using such details as support for the notion that they are responsible for her postmortem fame is original research, so I now ask for them to be eliminated from the article entirely. Them, along with all the other insignificant minutiae that seem to have made their way needlessly into the page, all in the name of expanding what is in my mind a hopelessly unencyclopedic article. — GT 00:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Background material

As we agree that this information doesn't sit comfortably on its own, I have removed it from the article and stored it below, until such time as more material is sourced to put it in a fuller context.

In elementary school Anna was given a written reprimand for "disrupting class, singing/dancing not doing her work." For the year before her death Anna had been sending $24 via the Christian Children's Fund to a Vietnamese girl every month. When Anna had her long hair shortened, she donated the shorn locks to a charity that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair from cancer treatment.

Tyrenius 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Though not perfect, I still feel this material belongs more in the article than here. In the article, it adds color to her character and potential justification to the 'mourning after' phenonmenon, mentioned later. Over here, it may sit and stagnate, and hides reliably sourced, relevant information from the readers. Just because it isn't perfect is no reason to kill it or hide it. We can always improve it in the article. I leave it to your judgment to revert it. Thanks, Crum375 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if it goes back in, what happens? GT goes hammer and tongs at it. We have an edit war. Over what? 2 sentences. If it's expanded, then the information will sit in context and will make more sense. I don't believe in reverts and quibbling over details like this. It's much more important to use the time constructively by adding content to the article, not to the talk page. Tyrenius 01:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure this article really needs so much more research - I think it's fairly close to optimal. I think if GT does come and revert this, he'll have to justify the reversion, but he seemed very reasonable in his prior discussions here. I would think it makes more sense to include it, and if GT or anyone protests or reverts or criticizes then we need to discuss it and deal with it, as we have up to now. Simply hiding under the bed is not WP policy, especially as I think we both believe this is useful content that we are keeping from the readers. You have to do what you believe is correct, and defend your position (or change your mind) if it's criticized. Crum375 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Background rewrite

Thanks. That sounds right to me. Tyrenius 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I hope GT can live with it. Crum375 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult but I still don't care for it. Using it to show that she was remembered as "fun loving and caring" seems like your personal interpretation of the little information we have. Certainly you must understand that what people do as children does not always serve to predict what they will be like when they are older, and it's not as though the "written reprimand" incident was ever used by her mother or anyone else as an example of her personality. As far as I'm concerned, the background section does not need to contain much more than basic facts like what school she attended, her family, moving from Russia, where she worked, and so forth. Although I have said I don't think this topic is encyclopedic I will for now accede to it, since it did pass an AfD, but we need to keep in mind that Anna's life before her murder was not notable by any stretch of the imagination and this article does not exist to serve as a memorial to her (or to otherwise serve as a window into the the life of a girl who died too young). To be encyclopedic this article should only provide enough background information to allow the reader to comprehend the real basis of the article, the aftermath part. I still hold that the childhood reprimand incident is so insignificant as to not even merit mentioning, and now further assert that any extraneous details of her life that aren't absolutely essential ought to be omitted. — GT 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not being difficult - every voice counts and you may represent many so we might as well address it now. To avoid WP:OR, I tried to use the reporter's own words, used in the title of the reference. The article's title is: "Family: Fallen teen was beautiful, funny, caring". Remember we are building a case, without explicitly saying so, to provide a possible explanation for the mass mourning effect. This is the online article a lot of the mourners saw, with this very title and those contents. I think the implicit message, that would be OR to state directly, is that the cause of the mass mourning was that Anna was beautiful, funny, caring. Crum375 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Understandable but if you think certain new articles (and their insights) had that effect we should mention the articles explicitly, not bypass them and go straight to the information that *we* think was responsible. What we should do is find the most popular articles and mention that within those articles were contained certain comments by her family and details about her life. Contrary to most articles, this does not just reference but is actually partially *about* the news stories and only indirectly in this case about their content. Whether Anna actually was so kind, funny, sweet, nice, etc. is not important and indeed almost impossible for us to know anyway (though I have no doubt she was) -- what matters is that she was portrayed as such, and we need to discuss the portrayal, not assume its total validity and refer to it as fact. — GT 07:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry GT, I don't think your argument holds water. The only reason for Douglas Adams being notable is that he was a writer. Therefore, according to your analysis, "To be encyclopedic this article should only provide enough background information to allow the reader to comprehend the real basis of the article," only things about his writing should be included and the anecdote I have cited previously should not be. However, if a reader comes to a subject it is only right that they should be given a fully-formed picture of it. Clearly people will be interested in what her personality was like, and, for that matter, what she got up to as a child. As it says in The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article ... acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject". Tyrenius 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1) It is irrelevant that Adams is "a famous author of the highest order". All that is relevant is that he is sufficiently notable, for whatever reason, for an article, as is Anna Svidersky. Likewise it is not relevant that his notability was achieved during his life. All that matters is that he is now notable, as is Svidersky, and, of course, neither is now living, as we know.

2) You say "readers will undoubtedly want to know the events that happened in Douglas Adams' life that influenced the works he created." According to this criterion, there is no place for events in his life that did not influence the works he created and they should not be in the article on him. At school for example "he stayed an extra term in a special seventh form class, customary in the school for those preparing for Oxbridge entrance exams." There is no suggestion that this extra term had any influence on his writing, and therefore, should not be mentioned. I could of course bring up other instances. The fact that it has been included indicates a principle that once a subject is notable then more generalised information (not necessarily notable in itself but providing a fuller picture) becomes eligible. I would take this to be a norm and am surprised you are questioning it.

3) Re. Svidersky, there is no need to adopt a limited approach that says "she became famous through the mourners and therefore only things they knew at that time are relevant." The equivalent is a famous film actor who is known as an attractive ladies man. That is what he is famous for at the time. Maybe 10 or 20 years after his death, it turns out that he is gay. He wasn't famous for that. That is not what his fans knew about him. According to your principle "The only aspects of her life that are relevant to that are those which the mourners had access to", then the only aspect of the actor's life are those which the fans had access to, and so there would be no place in the article for the later information. Clearly this is not the case, and it would be included.

4) As it happens, you define the relevant aspects of her life as "those which the mourners had access to -- her myspace page, the news reports, and the memorial pages that sprung up." Those are exactly the sources from which this information has been taken, so by your own words they are acceptable. We are simply trying to give a flavour of what was available.

5) The article doesn't say, "these exact facts are the things that caused the phenomenon." That case is not claimed, nor as far as I can see, even implied. What the article says is that this person was murdered, there was mass mourning and here is information about who she was — and furthermore information that was included in the contemporary news reports (but it would have been valid even if it had emerged later).

6) There is nothing in the approach to this article that is out of true with the standard wiki approach to writing articles, which is to compose a coherent and informative account of subject, paraphrasing and synthesising a number of verifiable sources and referencing them. All this has been done.

7) However, if you want to know what people knew about her, then according to The Guardian it is this: reading Anna's page seems to show her life exactly as it was up to the moment she died. Locked by a security password only she knew, it cannot be altered or airbrushed now that she is dead. Hence it 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.

8) There is patently a great emphasis on the details of her life. Far from omitting them, if we follow your own recommendations properly, then we are severely deficient, and should do our best to include more of these details known by the mourners through access to her MySpace site and other contemporary reports. It is in fact these "random bits and facts", as you term them, that seem to be key to catalysing this worldwide reaction, presumably because they make her human and accessible, thereby someone with whom other people could closely identify. To reduce her background to the bare bones of statistics of birth date, town etc. would be to miss the point completely, and fail to give any insight.

9) You make an observation, or rather a speculation, about "random bits and facts just for the sake of padding the article". I have the greatest respect for Crum375's intellect, judgement and editorial skills, and do not think for one moment that he would include anything unless he considered it to be a viable part of the text. I do not think he would include content for the sake of "padding the article". I also consider myself to be equally capable, have rarely had edits challenged and have succeeded, as in this case, with saving several articles from deletion by researching them and bringing them up to wiki standards, to which this article has scrupulously kept.

10) As you say The perfect article is a guideline, and for that reason should be given the greatest consideration. Guidelines are only arrived at by thorough consensus.

Tyrenius 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe too much detail?

I hate to say this, but the current version, with all the small details from MySpace seems to me to be overly detailed. In a way I now agree with GT that we really don't need to know all those minutiae. I think it was sufficient to make a case, as we did, that she was 'beautiful, funny, caring, hard working'. To actually go and list all the items from her MySpace page IMO does not add that much, and in fact detracts from the smooth flow and interest of the article (all important criteria for the 'perfect article' too) because it has excessive details of trivial importance (they are not really building a case beyond the basics that we already established). True, it is possible that some minor detail in the MySpace page catalyzed the mass mourning, but we do include the link to the page, so anyone can click on it and get all the nitty-gritty if they so wish. For those who just want to get the gist of it by reading the WP article, they can see the basic characteristics of Anna herself: her picture, her irreverence, her charity, her hard work. I would have chopped down all those excessive details myself, but I feel it makes more sense for Tyrenius to do it, if/when he buys my argument. Thanks, Crum375 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the flow gets bogged down and have moved the MySpace material to a separate section at the bottom where it follows on from info about MySpace at the end of the preceding section. I have also trimmed it a little. I hope this solution will be acceptable. I have taken on board GT's point that it is important to show what the mourners knew about her, and that would have been primarily from the MySpace page, so I think it's necessary to cover what this contains. Her words bring across very vividly the type of person she was, and is the only place in the article where her own words are used, in fact. An external link should not be used as a substitute for key material that belongs in the article. As in TPA: "A perfect Wikipedia article ... is nearly self-contained; i.e., it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." I think readers will want to know what was on that (now-)notable page and this gives them the essentials without having to go there directly. Tyrenius 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is an improvement, as those who want to skip the minute MySpace details can easily do so by skipping or skimming over the MySpace section. It would be good to hear what GT thinks about this version, if he hasn't given up on the article. Crum375 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with the rest of the article, the Myspace section goes into an unnecessary level of detail. It takes longer to read that paragraph than it would to click over and review the page. The first sentence of the section is completely sufficient in summarizing the content of the page. As I said this is a common theme throughout the entire article and I would be quite happy to see this article more resemble its counterparts such as Danielle Van Dam and Polly Klaas (especially when both of them are far more notable than Anna as far as the level of exposure their deaths received). However my motivation to continue debating this topic is totally spent, as I seem to be outnumbered, so unless my input is required for something further I will leave you to do as you wish with it, until its next AfD. — GT 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

GT, I understand you have exhausted your motivation and/or patience with this article, but I would like to address your latest points for the record anyway. I think the 2 cases you mention as reference are very different from this one. Your examples are both typical high profile child abduction/rape/murders, that captured the (U.S.) nation's attention and headlines as they unfolded. This case is about an almost-legal (18 yo minus 6 days) adult, who was not kidnapped, nor sexually assaulted, simply randomly stabbed and murdered in her workplace. As such, it would merit no WP article, as that unfortunately is all too common. The original news accounts were all local, as would be expected. What makes this case unique and different from all similar stabbings and murders is the way the news of this specific murder spread out via the Internet and caused a 'mass mourning by strengers' effect. So if we return to your examples of the 2 very famous child abduction/sexual assaults/murders, all under high profile news coverage, their cases for WP inclusion are already made by the high level of national and international news coverage. All you need in those cases are the basic facts and the WP article is technically complete. In our case here, we are trying to provide a background that could answer the question, to which we have no clear answer: What caused the mass mourning effect? The details we provide should be sufficient to make a case, e.g. show "beautiful, funny, caring, hard working" - items that we think reasonably catalyzed the mass mourning effect. This is definitely more that would be needed in the cases you cite. Thanks, Crum375 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More on details

I'd just like to add that I agree with most of what GT has said in this discussion. Details such as "For the year before her death, she worked at up to three different jobs at a time, in addition to her school studies. During this period, she sent $24 every month to a Vietnamese girl via the Christian Children's Fund. When she had her long hair shortened, she donated the shorn locks to a charity that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair from cancer treatment." Are blatantly just included in the article for added 'aww' factor. Crum and Tyrenius obviously seem to have been personally affected by this on some level and while that is understandable (personally, I don't care about the murder; if Anna Svidersky was fat and ugly the case would never have made it out of local radio) I think it is clouding your judgement on what makes some of the material relevant. If the section was changed to say 'possible reasons for mourning...' then perhaps that would be more acceptable, but that is of course, original research. If you must include details about what a nice, beautiful and wonderful person Anna Svidersky was (and these are still all opinions) then why not include details about the times they she wasn't so nice - no one is perfect, unless they are seen through the rose tinted glasses that death brings. Sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean to sound insensitive, but a reality check is needed.--Xzamuel 02:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We have been thru this discussion with GT, but here is again a brief summary: the reason this article about a murder survived AfD is because of the unique way it caused a mass mourning effect on total strangers, via the Internet. We are not aware of any similar case, but in any event it is very unusual and hence notable. The case and the mass mourning were described on mainstream media and received notability. Our goal in the article is to emphasize the aspects of Anna's life that were described online and are likely to have caused the mass mourning. We are not allowed to specifically say or speculate that these are the reasons for the mass mourning, but we are allowed to present the items that were noted by the media, available to the mourners, and are likely, collectively, to have caused the effect. Our goal is not to present a perfect person, or an imperfect one, only the list of items mentioned by the media, that build up her character and that were the possible reasons for the mass mourning. If you feel we missed any, please let us know. Thanks, Crum375 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xzamuel, welcome to Wikipedia, as you seem to be new to the project.[1] We don't expect you to be familiar with all the Wiki customs, but a difference from the outside world is that we generally steer away from guessing at editors' motivations and look instead at the material. It's an official policy called assume good faith. Crum375 has worked on many different articles [2] and I have every respect for his ability to edit from a neutral point of view. I've also worked on many and I can put your fears at rest, because my only interest is to write a proper article according to Wiki policy in exactly the same way as any other biography I've worked on. This means giving a full picture of that person's life. I come from a slightly different angle to Crum375, but we have arrived at the same conclusion, although, of course, GT did not. Nevertheless, the input of his ideas did lead to considerable changes. The details that have been included are those that presented themselves in the different sources that we had access to. The section beginning, ""For the year before her death..." was included because that is what she did for the year before her death. Had she spent her time trashing telephone boxes, then that would have been there instead. The aim is to present the true picture: there is no need to censor it, if it happens to contain commendable attributes. You say, "If you must include details about what a nice, beautiful and wonderful person Anna Svidersky was (and these are still all opinions)." It is not an opinion that she did the things mentioned: it is referenced from verifiable sources. There is no opinion expressed by either Crum375 or myself about Svidersky. The article does mention that she misbehaved in elementary school and her MySpace page was "full of risque comments and goofy phrases", as described by The Guardian. From my research, which has been fairly thorough, I have no reason to conclude that she is other than shown. If you have any verifiable facts to back your assertion of a reality check, then I would be pleased to find them out to increase the content of the article. Tyrenius 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I understand where you are coming from, and yes I've not been signed up to Wikipedia for very long but prior to that have been scooting around the project here and there making various contributions (mostly on a minor scale) for quite some time until I decided to sign up. I noticed your comment about marking edits as minor and that was a problem with them being set to on by default and me just not looking properly, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. As for assuming good faith, I do try to assume good faith, but good faith can always be misguided. However, after looking around wikipedia further I have come to a couple of conclusions. Firstly, this case bears many marks similar to 'missing white girl syndrome' occurences, which could explain the snowball of public sympathy. I also noticed that many of the girls on that article have their own articles which are in many cases equally as or even more syrupy than this one, so I guess the details seem to be a given on wikipedia. However, I think that a link to the Anna Svidersky article should perhaps be put on the 'missing white girl syndrome' page, and maybe even the articles could be mutually linked? See what you guys think anyway, I think it's a good example of the phenomenon. --Xzamuel 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the comparison to the missing girls. In this case, Anna was confirmed dead by the time strangers heard of her. While it may well be that had she been non-white, non-young-female, non-pretty, her death would not have resulted in the same mass mourning effect, the spread of the news via the Internet and the mass reaction to it, world wide by strangers, is the crux of this article. I suspect that many of the famous missing young white girls are hardly known outside of the national borders where they went missing. So this case and article are very different from most other famous murders, kidnappings or disappearances. Crum375 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I put a link under the "See also" section of the MWGS article. Tyrenius 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Surprisingly this has been one of the more difficult articles to review. It teeters so much with the Not a memorial but the ardent attempt to write a serious biography is evident (and appreciated). Unfortunately, at this time I have to decline the nomination for GA status for reasons listed below. However, I do feel this article has the potential to be GA material and I hope that the suggestions I give below will help the editors get it to that point. The article is unique in that it's "notability and encyclopedic merit" is tied into the subject being a crime victim and the reaction to her death. As far I can tell there is not really anything among current feature articles and Good articles to compare it to (The closest I could find is James Bulger but that has drastically different circumstances and maybe Amanda Dowler). That is part of the reason why I am striving to be very thorough in this review because once this article passes GA it will set a precedent of sorts. Now onto the Good Article Criteria
1. It is well written - Needs Improvement

• The second paragraph of the Background section really tips this into the area of being a memorial. While the article is titled "Anna Svidersky" and is classified as a biography, we can't lose sight of the fact that it is the reaction to her death and subsequent memorials that warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. The focus of the article should be on the reaction and memorials without delving into a memorial itself. I think this is probably where a comparison to the Jamie Bulger and Amanda Dowler articles serves best. Both of those articles are "biographies" in classification but have the focus of the article more centered on what makes the individual notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
• I think the "last words" and the mother's last interactions go into the memorial area as well but overall that section is done well.
• I don't know how needed the My Space section is. I would also re-examine the "examples" given in the article under the Aftermath section. I would evaluate them on the basis of "Was this particular reaction/memorial notable?" and explain how in the article. Like I can see the McDonald's fundraiser being notable because this was a major corporation taking notice and the memorial with 2 million views because of the sheer numbers. But I'm not so certain that Alex Milnes or Selby quotes are needed.
• As a side note, I think there 2 or 3 too many external links in light of the recommendations of WP:EL. I would try to prioritize and trim them down to the 4-5 most relevant links to minimize repeated information.
• While I don't think it would be a make or break issue for GA status, I would think about a few Wikipedia related articles that could be included in a See Also section. One that springs to mind would be Internet meme

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Pass

• It's a weak pass in light of how well it could have been referenced (in particular comparison to the Amanda Dowler article). I'm not the biggest fan of Youtube and My space being used as actual references. If the content on those sites support a particular claim in the article then it passes WP:EL for inclusion as an external link but is still not in the best of shape for WP:RS.
• A major contention that needs a site (for benefit of not being WP:OR) is in the lead where it starts "Her death has taken on a particular significance..." You need an external, reliable source to essentially say "Hey this is significant" or else it is basically an OR assumption that her death was significant because *blank*. I didn't fail in this section on that account because in reading the article, I do see newspaper sources where this is essentially conveyed. We just need to get a tag up in that lead.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

• An area that needs to be clear is that Anna's notability is tied into the reaction following her death. I apologize if this sounds cold but I need to be frank. As wonderful of a person that I'm sure Anna was and how tragically her shorten life ended, she is not (in that alone) notable. The matter that distinguishes her story from that of countless other tragic young death is the reaction it got and the uniqueness of that matter.
• I think a key missing area is an explanation of the reactions and how the rest of the world viewed that reaction. It is touched upon scantly in the Guardian quote comparing it to Princess Diana's death. I would take the ideas from that article and run with it. I would also go a little bit into how the actual medium of the Internet made this possible. As a reader, the fact that one girl's death could provoke such reaction worldwide is frankly astounding when you think of it in that broad context. That phenomenon should be tackled in this article with the ole "Who/What/When/Where/Why/How" approach. You have the first four but it's those last two that need to be explored more.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

• This streams mostly from the "memorial nature" of the article, again in particular with the background section. I can not stress enough how fine of a line it is between establishing the notability of the memorials without becoming one. Anna's death is deeply tragic but a key point of WP:NPOV is that (as editors) we are dispassionate observers noting this person's life and encyclopedic relevance.

5. It is stable - VERY Weak Pass

• Looking at the article's history from when it was nominated in late August to now, I'm concerned at the number of fairly significant edits being made to the article (and then subsequently changed and reverted back to essentially the same original article.) The edits (for the most part) are not clear cut vandalism and as I mention, the end product of the article doesn't seem to change much. I think part of this is an inherent uphill battle with Anna still being a notable MySpace topic which draws anon and new editors to the article. That is the ultimate reason why I decided not to hold this facet against the article's editors. It is very clear that they are vigilant in maintaining the integrity of the article and I appreciate that.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• This article is not the easiest one to get images for and I appreciate the effort. Ideally, there is room for more (if they can be procured). I see a reader being interested in maybe seeing what David Barton Sullivan looks like (mug shot perhaps?) or if there was a photo taken from one of the memorials at McDonalds. Again, not the easiest things to get I know.

Again, I do feel that this article has the potential to be a Good Article listing and I wholeheartedly encourage the editors here to continue to strive and improve the article for resubmition. I am available if anyone has any questions. Agne 17:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Review points

From comments by Tyrenius on my talk page

For (hopefully) ease of readability, I will bullet point Tyrenius comments in bold with my response in plain print below it.

• From the outset it is recognised that only the phenomenon of the reaction to her death makes it encyclopedic. I have taken the view that the curious reader will then want to know more things about this person, which do not seem necessarily strictly applicable to the notability, but are either something that will interest the reader, or, in fact, do actually have a relevance.
  

At it's core is the assumption that these particular traits is what happen to cause this particular reaction. As I stated above the notability in the article is the reaction, not the person. Everything that is "relevant" to the article needs to be firmly tied into that reaction. What is missing is a reliable source link that explictedly says that "these particular traits" is what provoked the reaction. In reading the news paper articles provided as sources, I can not see that link being explictedly connected. In the absence of that link, we are left with what WP:OR describes as "synthesis". Consider this later statement...

• If we do not show aspects of her character which would be the thing that the mourners responded to (and which the press highlighted) then it will not allow the understanding of how this came about.
  

Currently the article is working from the premise that because A.) Anna was *blank, blank, and blank* (all reliable sourced) and B.) Her death provoked this reaction. (again sourced) that the reader should come to the understanding that these background traits is what provoked this reaction. But the problem with OR synthesis is that we can not verify that is the correct understanding that the reader should come to. For all we know there could be other factors that produced this particular reaction to her death. Now your contention that her background is what contributed to this reaction may very well be the truth but in the article's current state that can not be verified. Remember, Wikipedia is about verification not truth. (This reply also sums up my view on the relevance of the My Space section)

• Again "last words" and the mother's interaction are also items the press reported. This is a difficult decision, as normally such material might be indulgent editing, but in this case, such information is key to understanding the phenomenon. Perhaps it could be reformulated, but it is such details and circumstances that were presented in the public domain that provided the mass mourning catalyst.
  

I ardently want anything that is key to understanding the phenomenon to be included in the article but we need to be vigilant in having a reliable source do that linking for us. If there is a source that shows that those last words and mother's reaction had an effect, then by all means cite and include it.

• In Aftermath, the "Shelby" tribute is merely an example of the typical reaction. If we are saying there is a reaction, it seems to me the best way to show that reaction is to quote the exact raw nature of it, rather than a remote interpretation into abstract nouns. Alex Milnes appears purely courtesy of The Guardian. They reported his reaction. The article simply reflects their choice of what is notable to cite, not the wiki editor's choice as such.
  

Now keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between what is appropriate for a newspaper (or even magazine) article and what is desirable for an encyclopedic entry. As I said in my review, I feel the examples should be evaluated on the basis of "Was this particular reaction/memorial notable?" because that is what is most appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. For "examples", a reader can click on any of the sources you provided. Even if the article only had the inclusion "There was worldwide response to her death [cite]" that cite would be serving it's purpose in providing examples and verifying this type of response. In keeping the focus on the encyclopedic merit and notability of this response you should strive to include the examples that most signify this notability.

• Re. broad coverage - why/how. I think that was where there was a fear of OR that stopped interpretation of the available data to make such explanations! Guidance would be useful here.

It is only OR if you as an editor introduce this. If reliable sources are commenting on the how and why then they need to be included with the appropriate cite. However, if we fall into the tricky situation that there are no reliable sources discussing or commenting on such things then (in all honesty) the notability of the subject needs to be re-evaulated. Maybe it really isn't that notable? Remember, the whole basis of encyclopedic inclusion is the apparent notability that reaction to her death had. If that reaction is truly notable then there will be reliable sources commenting on the HOW and WHY of this reaction. My personally belief is that there is which is why I am encouraging the editors to go down this path to produce a "Good Article" on this subject matter. If I didn't believe that then I might as well have nominated the article for AfD.
Of course you are free to disagree with me on any and all of these points. If you do then I encourage you to consider asking for other reviewers view on WP:GA/R. Sometimes different sets of eyes see different things. Agne 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to clarification

Agne, I think there is a common thread to the above discussion, which we have actually debated in this Talk page at some length in the past. We have a tricky balance here not to do OR, while trying to provide information to the reader to do that OR in his/her own head. Yes, it would have been easier to just quote an external source saying this, and then all the background material would be instantly admissible. But short of that, all we can do is tread carefully. On the one hand, we can outright say that the mourning after (MA) effect was caused because of Anna's character and background, but that would be OR. On the other hand, because we (all or most) suspect so, and have no alternative explanation, we simply provide to the reader the same online evidence that was available to the mourning strangers. We then let the reader decide. We do not say 'this is the reason for the MA' (since we have no RS for it), nor do we hide the available online info that we suspect was the cause - we simply present it, as a way to expand on Anna's character and background, while hoping it will be useful to the reader to reach his/her own conclusions. During a prior discussion Tyrenius brought up a bio FA where there was some expansion on 'trivial' events in the character's life, and the rationale for inclusion was to paint a 3D image of the person, that gives deeper insight into more notable actions and events. As Tyrenius said, I think a similar case can be made here - the added 'color' serves a purpose, it is not the grieving relatives erecting a memorial for their loved one. Sorry for the length - but hopefully this will get our point across. Thanks, Crum375 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 'mourning sickness' = MS, not 'after' ;^) Crum375 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond Agne. However, I content that the one thing we have not done is synthesis. See NOR:Synthesis. If we had presented material about her personality and info about the mass mourning, then said the former was the catalyst for the latter, that would have been a synthesis. However, great care has been done not to make this link ourselves, i.e. not to synthesise the two aspects, but merely to state their existence from a NPOV — something we were compelled to do if we were to respond objectively to the data available in reliable secondary sources. To not respond thus to the sources would have been a POV decision that certain aspects (e.g. details of her personality, generosity etc) should be excluded.

You state:

notability in the article is the reaction, not the person. Everything that is "relevant" to the article needs to be firmly tied into that reaction.

There is unqualified agreement with the first part of the statement, but not with the second sentence. Once a subject becomes notable, then other aspects of that subject, which would otherwise not be notable in themselves, become permissable in order to provide background, context, colour and general interest and information which the enquiring reader would wish to know. Douglas Adams is notable for his writing. However, there are anecdotes and information about aspects of his life which are not directly related to his writing. Otherwise the article becomes artificially limited and stilted.

Currently the article is working from the premise that because A.) Anna was *blank, blank, and blank* (all reliable sourced) and B.) Her death provoked this reaction. (again sourced) thatthe reader should come to the understanding that these background traits is what provoked this reaction.

No. It is working from the premise that sources said A, and sources said B, and that is all the article says. The reader may come to that understanding. I am simply stating the understanding that I have come to from reading the information available, and I believe most people would also come to a similar understanding. That is up to them. However, they certainly need to be able to survey the data, and not have it witheld from them because of our view that it is not related, or that we cannot prove it is related. We are not trying to prove it. I think you are confusing what is said on talk pages with what is actually then stated in the article. Great care has been taken not to draw conclusions, and you will not find anywhere in the article the synthesis you warn about.

If there is a source that shows that those last words and mother's reaction had an effect,

It is not necessary to have a source that shows they had an effect. It is only necessary to have a source that stated they were part of the narrative, again to give the reader the full picture, so they can make their own conclusions. We don't need a source to show they had an effect, because the article does not say they had an effect. It just says they happened. The only way to understand the phenomenon is to know the things that happened in the course of it, and those things should be presented through an objective scrutiny of the appropriate sources, which is exactly what has been done.

For "examples", a reader can click on any of the sources you provided.

A wiki article should aim to be complete in itself and not send readers elsewhere to find essential information. I think a reader is likely to want to know exactly what sort of tributes were made, and it does a service to select a typical one to satisfy such natural curiosity.

you should strive to include the examples that most signify this notability.

I agree and that is the intent. However, the phenomenon is one of mass, rather than individual distinction. A good article brings the subject alive and communicates essential aspects as clearly as possible. There are thousands of tributes in a very similar tone, and it is obviously impossible to print them all. I think some leeway should be allowed that at least one is selected to serve as a typical example (I have modified the text now to show it is included as such). Doing this communicates much more clearly than an attempt to describe them in an abstract way.

why/how

I am not sure that anyone has adequately explained "why" this happened. Something can be notable because it is known about, but that doesn't necessarily mean all aspects of it have been explained. Indeed, in this case, part of the notability seems to be that is happened without there being, as yet, a proper explanation of exactly "why" it happened in quite the way it did. "How" it happened is covered by the fact that it spread across the internet from MySpace initially and then posted elsewhere.

I was pleasantly surprised that the article has been so well rated, as I do think there is room for more to be included. I have spent more time on it than I ever intended, to get it to the current standard (in collaboration particularly with Crum375) and don't wish to do much more on it in the near future. However, I hope you will see that we have thought this through quite thoroughly, and have taken into account some of the points you raise. I am beginning to think the problem is my explanation stated previously, as that has now coloured an objective scrutiny of the article by giving it a particular reading.

The points you made which I have not commented on, I accept need attention (e.g. more in the "See also" section).

Tyrenius 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You both make very valid points. For me, personally, the lack of a source making the direct connection that those background traits and details is what produced the reaction, is troubling and what seems to cast this article in the light of a memorial and OR sythensis. However, I know that reasonable people can disagree. I am going to take the initative and invite some other reviewers to take an objective look via WP:GA/R because I want to ensure this article is given a fair shake. Agne 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a very civilised dialogue. What I am getting from the post above is that you think the article should be able to make the "direct connection" in order to validate it. I've said above (I hope/think) but I will emphasise again, that I have deliberately made no attempt at synthesis, i.e. overtly making any connection, and that this is in accord with the relevant section of NOR. Nor do I think it necessary for this connection to be made in order to validate the article, or to validate it being written in the way it has. My only procedure has been to adopt a NPOV by following whatever was presented by sources (mainly newspapers). I have assessed the "data" in the same way as I would with any other data. The fact that it contained "data" about sentiment or personality should not in itself prejudice us against its inclusion any more than it should prejudice us for its inclusion. The reader should be merely presented with the facts and left to assess them as they see fit. If they wish to make a synthesis themselves, then they are able to, but if they do not wish to do so, there is nothing in the article to compel them. Tyrenius 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agne, I fully agree with Tyrenius here. First, I also want to thank you for your detailed review, as well as your civil and constructive attitude. Second, I would like to emphasize that I also do not see any critical need to 'discover' the reason for the mass mourning effect. Obviously this effect was a rare and unusual phenonmenon, we have reliable sources saying so, so notability and hence WP inclusion per se are assured. Now given that we accept that we have an unusual phenomenon, we do not necessarily have to come up with an explanation for it, unless it is properly sourced. In fact, we should stay away from explaining it ourselves as WP editors, since that would be original work, or synthesis. All we can do is present well sourced evidence. What we can't do is form a conclusion on our own, and we don't. Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be saying that unless the 'connection' between the mass mourning and the subject's personality and background is made, we may have some dark cloud hanging over the article or its WP inclusion. I respectfully disagree - I think the article per se is notable and well sourced, and the subject's background adds color and is also well sourced, and may possibly be the reason for the mass mourning effect, hence we cannot hide it from the readers. Again, I appreciate your effort, and am looking forward to any further review of these issues. Thanks, Crum375 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have worked with Crum375 on the article I endorse the use of "we", and my own remarks were not intended to communicate any solo effort on my part. Tyrenius 01:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

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

Last Login change

This comment was moved from the article:

On 1/29/2007 Anna's last login date changed from 4/20/2006 to 1/29/2007. In Anna's comments her friends are wondering why.

Tyrenius 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing white girl syndrome?

Possibly? Wikifried 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR unless you have a citation making a link. --kingboyk 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How was this article kept though an AFD?

This article violates the longest list of policies I have EVER seen.

WP:NOT a tribute. Nor is it Wikinews.

WP:Notability In a few weeks, the media hype will die off and people will forget about this girl.

WP:BIO Last time I checked, at least 98% of people who are born evenutally die. *sarcasm*

WP:NPOV similar to WP:NOT a tribute

I will list under deletion review if there is any support for my position. W1k13rh3nry 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions in this matter, that covered your points at some depth. Here are my responses:

WP:NOT a tribute. Nor is it Wikinews.

• Nothing to do with a tribute or news - this has to do with a unique phenomenon of 'mourning after' - mass grief by strangers spread by internet - no known precedent, per our sources

• I posted a MySpace bulletin attacking the "onling grieving". They all seem to agree with me. W1k13rh3nry 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Notability In a few weeks, the media hype will die off and people will forget about this girl.

• This is now more than a year later, what could change in a few more weeks? And there hasn't been that much 'media hype'.

• wha..what? Her MySpace page says Last login: 1/29/07... My fault. Anyways, if my bulletin is spread like I think its being, a lot can change in a few weeks. W1k13rh3nry 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO Last time I checked, at least 98% of people who are born evenutally die. *sarcasm*

• Sarcasm is not helpful.

• I was trying to make a point. What I meant is that you don't make a page for every death. W1k13rh3nry 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV similar to WP:NOT a tribute

• This has nothing to do with NPOV. There are no conflicting POVs here. The only significant issue is notability, and that is established by our sources that refer to the 'mourning after' phenomenon.

Crum375 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• This page looks like it was written by her friends. A few "weasel words": "It has led to the creation of memorial web pages and memorial online videos, one of which has been viewed over 2,750,000 times." "a smart, hard-working, cheerful student" "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." This may be true, but there has to be SOMETHING bad about someone who looks emo... also "The news of Svidersky's murder spread worldwide within days through internet sites" etc. etc. W1k13rh3nry 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

W1k13rh3nry, I suggest you review our policies, by starting at WP:5 and focusing on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Then, please show me where in the article we use statements that are not backed up by published reliable sources. Our mission here is to summarize what published reliable sources say about the subject, in a balanced and neutral fashion, and this is what we tried to do. If you can find unsourced statements, or where we misrepresent the published information in any way, we'll be glad to fix it, or you can do so yourself. As far as a 'bulletin' you posted on MySpace, I fail to see how that is relevant here. Crum375 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Crum375. There has been a lot of intense work by experienced editors to make sure this article did conform to wikipedia standards. I would seriously suggest that you act a bit more cautiously. You are a new editor and have done very few article edits. Get the hang of that before you start deleting them. Tyrenius 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

if someone with a user name or an administrator could please change the "has been viewed over 2,750,000 times" to 3 million. As right now it has been viewed 3,039,386 times. just an update :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.182.14 (talk • contribs).

Done. I think the next milestone will be 3,500,000 so no need to update till then. Tyrenius 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)