Talk:Susan Atkins

Motivations section

New to editing, but the Motivations section doesn't seem to be about Atkins at all. Is is appropriate? Katiedert (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Motivations section because it isn't about Atkins. Katiedert (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wildhartlivie: "motivations are for the crimes which she committed, whether it was specifically hers or the overall." Doesn't that mean it's more appropriate on the article about the crimes? This article is not about Atkins. That paragraph is about Manson and the trial. The information in the paragraph is good and appropriate - but not in this article. Katiedert (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly would you suggest be said about her motivations? This outlines the motivations for the crime. Under the circumstances, effectively, her hands were a stand-in for Manson. She was following the orders of Charles Manson, she was a devout follower at that time. Manson's reasons were the reasons for Atkins, Van Houten, Krenwinkel and Watson. It was a package deal. The Manson article explores this in depth, but as far as Atkins is concerned, these are the motivations. Manson's crimes were her crimes, Manson's trial was her trial. The other defendants in the trial, which includes Atkins, were all on equal footing legally as Manson was. What would you say? This is the motivation, this was what she did. When you cut out that section, the whole flow of the article is interrupted. This is a step in the process of what happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember to not bite the newcomer, please. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Death?

How can it be written that she died of Natural causes, when clearly she died because of Cancer?? that's not very accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless you're the medical examiner and want to issue a different cause of death to the press officially, all we can go on is what was given as her cause of death, which was, in fact, stated as being of natural causes. If you will look, the cause is cited to the announcement. We can't do original research and say it was clearly something else in face of the official cause given. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural Causes is all we can verify right now. Based on some letters her husband sent out to supportive websites, there is some doubt that she even still had cancer at the time of her death. He had stated she was in remission and that further treatment for the cancer had been cancelled as a result. This was in August. Sometimes when people have suffered a long illness, the cause of death is not the illness itself but something as simple as their heart stopped beating AKA Cardiac Arrest - that would be natural causes. All it means is that her death was not the result of trauma, acute illness, accident or homicide. She was in her 60's and had gone through some pretty physically demanding treatments for her cancer. Chemo and Radiation often leave the body in a weakened state. It would be speculation to say that the cancer was the cause of her death. If she was under the care of a doctor at the time of her death, and she was, they can simply write natural causes if they want to on the death certificate. let's not dramatize this. Her death was expected and anticipated. it is why she was pushing for compassionate release.LiPollis (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the actual medical information was so scant, I've never been clear on the reason her leg was amputated. I don't think it was ever explained. Have you heard anything definitive, Lisa? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ca is classed as natural death. Tumour growth had got going again since August and it was seen as unviable to continue on with another round of aggressive treatment per a source - perhaps the MDs weighted Susans debilitated poor quality of life, and the fact any reprieve would be hard won in discomfort terms and short lived - cancelling out any humane value. As a prior oncology nurse I'd guess the amputation (if related) was due to bone cancer, which had metastatised (seeded)to the brain. It seems the diagnosis was made too late given the leg and brain treatments began simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.106.243 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

whatever.. Cancer is what caused her to die, even if it wasnt' there when she died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

COD

As has been widely discussed above, Atkins' released cause of death was by natural causes. There is no supporting documentation to change it to terminal brain cancer. That was changed back. Also, that her husband had embarked on a sympathy campaign to raise support for her release, he made many postings on his website regarding her current condition, including saying she was paralyzed and bedridden. It is important to include that prior to her last parole hearing because it was part of his grassroots effort to win that parole. Switching it to the end implies she was denied parole and then he posted the blurb about her condition. This has been discussed quite extensively above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the article was changed to state she died of brain cancer. Sources given for this include this one, which only says "Atkins, California's longest-serving female inmate, was suffering from terminal brain cancer." This one which states natural causes, and this one, which says it goes to her obituary but redirects to a summary page with a list of links including one that only says she was being treated for brain cancer. No cause of death was cited. The edits also include a mention of a pending autopsy, which is not present in the references given. So what's more important, the last edit or accuracy based on reliable sources? There isn't a source present that alleges that the cause of death as released was not natural causes but brain cancer. Also mentioning that 22 days elapsed between parole denial and death is self-evident as one sentence gives parole denial date and the next on gives death date. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that an *official* COD isn't given by a prison spokesperson - and what a prison spokesperson says the cause of death is should never be considered *official*. Official COD's are given by the doctor who signs the death certificate and/or a coroner after performing an autopsy. No matter what the spokesperson stated publically, that is not the *official* COD - period. Currently, the article is reflecting an unoffical COD and calling it official - that's dishonest and it's not accurate. Maybe we should go for "consensus" on this?  ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no wording that says natural causes is the "official" cause of death. It says natural causes and the reference at least supports saying that. We can only report what reliable sources say, and none of them say "cause of death was given as brain cancer", so changing the wording to say that with references that do not support it is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. All we have is the released cause of death. I can find no mention of the release of a death certificate. I have already written the editors who weighed in above to look at this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What's in the article - "died of natural causes" - gives the impression that is the official cause of death. That's wrong, that's dishonest, and it should be either removed completely or worded differently (which is exactly what I did and you then reverted it). A statement to the press by a prison spokesperson isn't a "released cause of death", it's a prison spokesperson talking to reporters so they will get their story and go away. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already written the editors who weighed in above to look at this. She likely did die as the result of brain cancer, however no sources exist to support that. Meanwhile, it isn't correct in any way to add references claiming her death was the result of cancer when they do not say that. Claiming that we cannot use the cause of death released at the time because it isn't "official" is basically splitting hairs. Also, bearing in mind the points made by Lisapollison that her husband had currently been stating that treatment was no longer necessary and had been stopped. We are obliged to reflect what references report, not what someone *thinks* it should say. Her death was not unattended, there were medical personnel present to state the cause. Your wording claimed a cause of death of cancer. That is not supported, even in the references you added. I doubt that prison spokespersons made up what they said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Medical personnel at an attended death can only pronounce the person dead, they can't give a definitive cause of death. That is a fact anyone working in even the lowest levels of medicine knows. The prison spokesperson was speaking on behalf of the prison, not on behalf of the Madera County Coroner. The prison spokesperson did *not* give an official COD - it was impossible for him to do so, because an autopsy had not yet been performed. Beyond all of that, death certificates of those with the kind of co-morbidity Atkins had going on wouldn't list the phrase "natural causes" as an offical COD - they give a medical diagnosis (or diagnoses) as the cause of death as determined by either the deceased's physician or the medical examiner. The wording in the article needs to be changed to not make it seem as if "natural causes" is the COD - and that's where it is right now. This is an encylopedia, and passing something as lame as "natural causes" off as the official cause of death by default is wrong in an encyclopedia article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And the absence of a released death certificate from the coroner leaves us only to include what can be reliably cited, which is what is being done. Citing the statement given at her death is much less lame than adding references falsely claiming to say her cause of death was brain cancer when they don't come near saying that. I won't reply anymore here. Other opinions have been invited and there's nothing else to say outside of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough. As it stands, the statment that she died of natural causes gives the impression that is the official COD. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, and the material in it needs to be encyclopedic. The statement needs to be reworded regardless of what can be cited - period. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "of natural causes" as it is unknown what the official COD listed on the death certificate is. As it was before the change, the statement took on the appearance of being the determined and official COD. Leaving it as it was would be irresponsible. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that you could determine what was good enough or what defined irresponsibility. We can only cite what sources give us, and despite having added two sources claiming that cause of death was brain cancer, they did not state that. As I said, other opinions were requested on this. The references states natural causes, unless you're holding the death certificate in your hands, you are not in a position to overrule reliable sources or argue legalities. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just edit warring - plain and simple. The fact that there is nothing available showing what the official cause of death was is proof enough that it can't be cited. Not putting in a disclaimer that states the prison spokesperson's statement isn't the official word on her COD (as I have tried to do several times over now) is irresponsible. I have tried patiently to work with you on this, but it is clear you're not interested. That's unfortunate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your false accusations to yourself. I am including what the source says. I did not attempt to insert references to support your claim of brain cancer that clearly did not support that contention. At least admit that much, since it's clearly what happened. You cannot state with any confidence or certainty that "natural causes" is not the cause of death and anything that attempts to lessen the statement released at her death is unsupported, nor can you provide sourcing to support your contention that the prison statement is not definitive. You can only state what the source says. Anything else is synthesis, to add any "disclaimer" to it is unsupported and dishonest. Follow what the sources say, that is all that is available to you to say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are priceless, really. If we all got on as well as you ladies did, WP would be a distant memory. This is about semantics, it seems.

Here's how I see it: To quote the prison announcement with the cause of death being "natural causes" is not incorrect, because that it what the prison announced, and the statement is there for the record. Was it actually natural causes and not brain cancer? I don't know (but, in my opinion, probably not). What does the death certificate say the cause of death was? We don't know, and we can't speculate on it because it's not on the record (like the prison announcement was). A cited source vs. speculation on what the official COD on the death certificate (which isn't as yet available)... it's a no-brainer. If the death certificate COD can be unearthed, then it should be added and referenced. Until then, it is fine to quote the official prison source, because that's all we have so far.

Now, that was all about the content of the edit; period. No "false accusations", no "edit warring". Neither one of you is going to get banned from WP, so (& I hate to beat a dead horse) you're going to have to co-exist, and even edit together (shudder ;.) Responses? Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's okay to quote the prison official. That was never the issue. The issue is that the article as it stands give the impression that what the spokesperson stated as the cause of death was the official cause of death. And it isn't the official cause of death because that's impossible. The prison official couldn't have known the official cause of death because (a) the death certificate hadn't been completed yet because (B) an autopsy hadn't been performed yet. All I insist on is that the article no longer gives the impression that "natural causes" was the official cause of death. Which, BTW - it never would be because of the co-morbidity issues Atkins had going on. Allowing the statement to stay as is, is *not* in the best interest of WP *or* the readers of the article. Regardless...I've taken this to mediation and am hoping for it to all get sorted out there. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is "natural causes"? Everybody dies of something, not just "because". To have the official, death certificate COD listed here (or any and all articles) seems like a lot to commit to. "Official cause of death" on every bio page? Come on now... Doc9871 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, uh...hmmm...that isn't even close to what I said. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But it is what you've implied. There is no "official" autopsy released. There is no definitive proof that one was ever done. I would point anyone to the comments made above in the Talk:Susan Atkins#Death? section on this by Lisapollison. She states "Natural Causes is all we can verify right now. Based on some letters her husband sent out to supportive websites, there is some doubt that she even still had cancer at the time of her death. He had stated she was in remission and that further treatment for the cancer had been cancelled as a result. This was in August. Sometimes when people have suffered a long illness, the cause of death is not the illness itself but something as simple as their heart stopped beating AKA Cardiac Arrest - that would be natural causes. All it means is that her death was not the result of trauma, acute illness, accident or homicide. She was in her 60's and had gone through some pretty physically demanding treatments for her cancer. Chemo and Radiation often leave the body in a weakened state. It would be speculation to say that the cancer was the cause of her death. If she was under the care of a doctor at the time of her death, and she was, they can simply write natural causes if they want to on the death certificate. let's not dramatize this. Her death was expected and anticipated. it is why she was pushing for compassionate release." There is no proof that her body didn't just stop functioning, which is what natural death means. There is no reference to support that Atkins' death was not attended by a physician. Considering that death was expected, there is nothing to say that the physician who attended her death did not sign a death certificate. Meanwhile, my issue remains inserting what amounts to opinion or editor-assessment on what the prison statement said. In the absence of conflicting sourcing, we only have that. There is nothing that I can find in Wikipedia that says we are obligated to supply our own interpretation of what an announcement means. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can be added within the sourced sentence that wasn't in the source to begin with, which I see as another issue. To even make the statement about the official cause of death would necessitate being on its own, and with a , as it is original research... Doc9871 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not the point... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the point - I'm specifically talking about this. Editors are not allowed to enter, e.g. "the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public" when that is simply not in the source. This makes the source invalid, and is totally inappropriate. If this were proper, any editor could add anything they wanted to within a cited passage in WP and not have to support it, because it "just became cited". No, ma'am... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just did a search to see if any sources at all stated that cancer was the cause of death. I could not find even one. It is considered original research to say anything else right now. We are not supposed to be here to report truth. We are supposed to go by what the references tell us. Right now all we have is the announcement that she died from natural causes. So we have to state that. When and if we can find a reliable source saying otherwise we can add it. Until that time we have to go with what we have which is she died of natural causes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this comment says it all.; 'Sorry, but that's not good enough. As it stands, the statment that she died of natural causes gives the impression that is the official COD. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, and the material in it needs to be encyclopedic. The statement needs to be reworded regardless of what can be cited - period". (Bolding by me) That is a wrong way to look at things here. We go by what is cited, not by what we think the truth is. The article says she was dealing with brain cancer. We shouldn't believe that our readers will not consider this as part of the possible reasons for the death. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I agree. Reducing the sentence to "A prison spokesperson announced to reporters that her death was due to natural causes" is sufficient and based on the source material currently available it's the most that can be said. There is no claim that it is anything more than someone from the correctional profession, rather than the medical or legal profession, making a general press statement. If anyone gets the impression that it's an "official" COD based on that, it is their misinterpretation, and there's only so much that can be done to avoid readers from misinterpreting this point. Crohnie, I also agree with your comment about "truth". Verifiability is the first aim, and truth is the second. If both can be achieved simultaneously, that's wonderful. If not, we don't step beyond what we can verify. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, there are already all kinds of things in WP articles that aren't verifiable. It's just as wrong here as it is wrong in the Bundy article to leave the impression that the Rule version of Cowart's statement is the actual version *just because the Rule version is verifiable*. I don't need to be lectured about truth vs. verifiability in SP - I know all that (I've been here longer than a number of you, after all). And it is not the problem of the reader to be able to understand that what they are reading isn't the official COD - the statement as it is in the article is misleading, therefore, it is up to the editors of this article to make sure it is not misleading. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who read WP articles do it to get information right now, not so they have to look up all the references to see what a statement in the article *really* means. At this point, I think it would be best to just leave out "natural causes", leave it that she died, and keep the statement from the husband (which I tried already to do last night, but it was reverted). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to come comment on this. Seems the question is whether or not to somehow state the fact that we can't find an announcement of the official cause of death, and if so, how it should be worded. Two facts bear on this in my mind: 1) That an official death certificate COD isn't always available in the press for all notable individuals who have died, and we often have to rely on whoever the press is relying on to tell us what happened; and 2) that, in reference to the specific wording being pushed: whether or not the official death certificate COD has been "released to the public" isn't something we can determine based on our own inability to find sources for it. The explanation all the available sources seem to rely on is the prison spokesperson's, so it seems like we can rely on that too. Qualifying the cause as being according to that spokesperson seems perfectly legit for a Wikipedia article. No source found thus far includes any disqualifier saying that "no official COD has been released", so this indicates to me that we don't need to either. The level of officiality of the information we report, if that's a word, isn't always to the level of a legally-binding document. That's not the standard of verifiability on Wikipedia. Our standard is reliable sources, so we can and do simply use the information they report. If they think their source is acceptable then so do we. Finally, on my #2 point, the fact that we can't find a source that states a possible release of the official COD doesn't mean it wasn't released at all. Maybe it was, but the press never reported it, and we don't really know that for sure either. All we know is that we can't find it, and to say in the article that it must not exist, just because we can't find it, seems like WP:SYN, or something similar. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:00, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen - It's common, and usually desirable, to support statements by referring to policies and guidelines, otherwise it reads only as someone's opinion. There is nothing new in that approach so it should not be taken personally or construed as lecturing. It's also irrelevant how long you have been editing here, so please keep such comments out of any replies you may make to me. Equazcion: I think you've summed it up better than I could have, so I'll just say I endorse your comments above. Rossrs (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! What on earth makes you think I was addressing you specifically, Rossrs? (that really made me chuckle, thanks for the comic relief - seriously ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment directly followed mine and addressed a point that several editors, including myself, had made about truth/verifiability, so I'll take it as a given that I was one of the editors that you feel was lecturing you. I replied on that basis. The second part of my comment was preemptive, but you seem to have missed that, probably while you were "LOL"ing. I didn't and don't suppose you were talking specifically to me, or only to me, and so I used the words "replies you may make to me". I didn't anticipate that you'd misread it so badly, which only makes the tone of your reply even more hilarious. Your comment about how long you've been editing, was irrelevant and inappropriate regardless of who it was aimed at, and it was your choice to throw it out for anyone to see. You shouldn't try to bolster your own case by attempting to diminish the opinions of other editors simply because they may not have racked up the same number of editing hours that you have. It serves no useful purpose to flavour your comments with little asides like that. So, we've both had a good laugh and should move on. My initial comment was solely about the article, you responded with a personal reaction, and I commented on that. We're now off-topic and it's time to steer it back. We should be discussing how to improve the Susan Atkins article. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to mitigate the drama I can see starting here, I'm going to answer for SRQ in the manner she would: "You're misinterpreting everything I've said and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making unfounded assumptions. They border on personal attacks and incivility." There, now that we've gotten that out of the way, it would be great if we could all stick to discussing the content of this article rather than commenting on each others' comments, whether to call them "comic relief" or "hilarious" or unwarranted in some other way. If there's nothing left to say about the article then let's all just keep quiet. Silence is golden. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:13, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

"I'm going to answer for SRQ in the manner she would". Wow. And that's sticking to dicussing the content, how? Exactly how is inflaming things more by saying something I wasn't going to say and in a manner I wasn't going to answer at all helpful? I suggest you look at your own comments above as completely "unwarranted" and not presume to speak for anyone - especially when you speak for someone in the negative manner you did. Not cool and completely out of line. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I said what I wanted to say to SkagitRiverQueen and she replied to me and said what she wanted to say. If we disagree, we disagree. Answering "in the manner she would", what can I say? I wouldn't ever want anyone to "answer in the manner that I would", regardless of their intentions. Not a good approach. I hope that SkagitRiverQueen and I have both said what we thought needed saying and are moving on. As I said in my most recent comment, back to Susan Atkins. Rossrs (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Who? Is that what this is all about? Oh, right, Susan Atkins... gotcha! Doc9871 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A-T-K-I-N-S. Repeat after me : "Su.... san At..... kins". With us now, Doc? (Heaven help us when we get to "Pat...ric...ia Kren-win...kel" or eeek, "Les...lie Van Hou...ten" ) Rossrs (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would (gulp!) Bobby Beausoleil create such a stir on his page? "Bow-suh-lay", or "Bhew-sohlie"? "Bow-silly"? Egads! Doc9871 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bow-sill-lay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, mademoiselle... Doc9871 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Vous êtes la bienvenue, Monsieur. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation requested

FYI, a request for mediation has been initiated (not by me) at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-25/Susan Atkins. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:08, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It can certainly be filed, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree to it. The opinions expressed here today convince me that there is no need. I do not need a lecture on what goes on a death certificate, nor who signs it. The mediation request states that this article needs to say "however, the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public." There is no need to escalate this to mediation when opinions have said that this sort of "disclaimer" qualifies as synthesis. No one mentioned my points that it is highly likely her death was attended by a physician, who could possibly have signed a death certificate. If that is the case, the cause given is official. There is no demand to autopsy in an attended death of someone expected to die. There have been no references presented that any of the facts being touted are true - no reference to an autopsy, no reference to "official cause of death", no reference to a released death certificate. I won't waste my time being dragged to mediation to try and force me to agree to including synthesis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the family, and have been told some circumstances. I believe (though have not been advised either way) that an autopsy is certain to have been ordered, due to some issues. According to the next of kin Susans' brain tumour, which had been in remission following treatment, rapidly grew again shortly prior to her decease, as indicated by worsening neurological symptoms. They believe this cancer was the cause of death. They used to monitor or participate in this page, but apparently found it a challenge, so I'm sure they won't mind that in the interests of accuracy I have attempted to clarify the matter. I realise I am not an official source, but hope this info may be considered by any mediator or useful. [[Aileen]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.59.119 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No one has stated she died of old age. We can only report what is carried in reliable sources, and the only source we have that approaches that says "natural causes", which can certainly apply when a death is expected. There is no reliable source that supports including an authopsy mention and none that states cancer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tate/LaBianca

I think all of the "citation needed" bits at the end of the Tate/LaBianca section can be sourced through the Bugliosi/Gentry book "Helter Skelter." PurpleChez (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that book, but if you do, all you have to do is find the page numbers the "citation needed" tags correspond to and insert the references. You seem to have been around WP for awhile, no? Doc9871 (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)