Talk:Brett's law

Britbarb’s edits

25+26 July 2006

I took the extreme step of completely reverting Britbarb’s edits of 17:57, 25 July 2006 and 18:42, 26 July 2006. There may be some merit in some of the points made, but overall it seems rather thinly disguised POV. - No objection in principle to the addition of more supporting the argument that Salvia divinorum perhaps did have something to do with Brett Chidester’s death, but Britbarb’s entries are not cited, do not seem Wikipedian in spirit, - and in some places seem to contradict themselves.

Some examples:

Britbarb took the initial bullet point starting “It has not been alleged…” and switched it to say “It has been alleged…” (my italics) - reversing its meaning without including any citation or further reference. The point as it originally stood did not require citation as it’s effectively claiming that there haven’t been any reports. If this is not true and it’s to be reversed then there needs to be a link to something that backs that reversal up (e.g. a report). I’ve read many news stories about the Brett Chidester case and find it hard to believe if Salvia divinorum had been found on or about his person at the time of his death that this would not have been picked up and reported (many times over) in stories following his death.

Britbarb claimed that Brett tested negative in monthly drug tests required by his work in a retirement home. - And claimed that one of these tests was done without Brett’s knowledge or consent. - How would Britbarb be aware of this? Where is the source? Is this original research?

Contradicting the above point was Britbarb’s added claim - “He was smoking pot occasionally and this in now known to cause depression in teens.” - How did Brett pass his alleged drug tests in this case?

Other points were made, again, perhaps some with some merit, but not a single one was cited. Claims such as those suggesting Brett’s writings were analysed by “medical experts” and concluding that his death was probably Salvia inspired need to be referenced.

These were Britbarb’s first ever Wikipedia contributions, - understood, it’s an emotive subject, but suggest perhaps a read of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines would be in order before further submissions.

--SallyScot 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, I think Britbarb has good intentions but should definitely cite where the "FACTS" come from. It seems to be a biased source, at the very least. Gary 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

27 July 2006

Despite the discussion entry above, Britbarb did pretty much the same thing again on 17:11 and 19:12, 27 July 2006. Some minor differences to their previous edit, this time choosing not to include the point about Brett smoking pot with their contradictory claim about his negative drug tests, but still without a single citation.

Gary followed the first of these Britbarb edits with requests for citation, but I’ve chosen instead to basically revert again, then to allow some less contentious wording changes, making them myself on top of the reversion.

In summary these are:

Changed the initial bulleted point “It has not been alleged…” to “It has not been reported”. – If Britbarb wants to reverse this to “It has been reported...” then it needs a link to at least one report. I don’t think it’s acceptable just to reverse the meaning, especially given that Britbarb’s hasn’t responded to the original discussion (or even included an edit summary) to justify their point.

“Contrary to some news reports, Brett’s suicide note did not mention Salvia...” - To this I’ve left Britbarb’s addition “In his earlier writings he wrote that Salvia made him realize our existence here on earth is pointless.” I also added “Further context is lacking however as his journals have not been fully published.”

“Brett's parents have conceded that he had anyway been suffering from depression.” Britbarb’s rewording of “had anyway” to “may have” seems reasonable.

I added a new point...

There have been no other reported cases of Salvia related suicides anywhere else in the world.

Apologies once again if I’ve removed points which turn out to be of value, but they do really require further reference. I think they should be added in a more considered manner, maybe one or two cited points at a time so it does not look like sabotage.

Britbarb’s claims are suggestive of inside knowledge, from sources close to the family. In fact, their edit of 19:12, 27 July 2006 closed with the comment “His close friends, family, and girlfriend […] continue to mourn his loss. This composite group will continue to monitor this listing and will make corrections that state the actual facts, not suppositions, conjectures, falsehoods, and detrimental information regarding the life and death of Brett Chidester.”

While such points of view may otherwise be of interest, Wikipedia is not the place to announce them.

The following is quoted from Wikipedia:No original research “The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.”

If Brett Chidester’s close friends, family, and girlfriend want to create a memorial website in honour of their loved and lost then I honestly wish them all the best with that, but it should be clear what it is and who it’s by, and somewhere else first please, not Wikipedia. --SallyScot 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC) They already have done so, but they will continue to make the truth known of Brett's illustrious life. They will not allow half-truths, suppositions and falsehoods to be written about him. He, and this has been confirmed, did NOT experiment with either cocaine or ecstasy. The person writing that they attended his funeral did not do so, neither did they confirm with his friends that he was doing cocaine or ecstasy. We believe that Wikipedia readers like facts, not sour grapes! Sally D is now illegal in Delaware. Get over it!

General points of view

Sounds like he belongs on the Darwin awards site. -- 125.254.2.244 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)