Talk:Brett's law

Recent edits

Quality of sources

I've noticed some of the sources we are using seem really shaky. While people posting on message boards may be telling the truth, there is no way to verify this. Maybe we should leave out things people post on the internet and stick to more reliable sources. Gary 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Isn’t the shakiness or otherwise of sources largely a matter of opinion? – Hence what you’ve said largely just your POV? If you’re talking about the Brett Chidester Memorial Group and whether or not we should be able to quote something on there – then why shouldn’t we? The article's link is not pretending to be more authoritative or to be anything other than what it is. It’s clearly referenced as coming from MySpace. Hence surely readers can make their own determinations.

--SallyScot 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What sources are and aren't allowed are detailed at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm really not sure that myspace meets the criteria given there; we don't have any way to verify, for instance, that the things quoted come from somebody who actually even knew brett.

The same goes for britbarb's claims about absinthe use and anything else based on her personal knowledge of him. we are expressly forbid from putting anything in wikipedia that hasn't been published; WP:V has a pretty good explanation of all of that. perhaps britbarb's comments were correct; but it really makes little difference, as the Verifiability, not truth section of WP:V makes very clear. sorry, but it is necessary for this encyclopedia to function. WP:NOR has more on that as well.

And again, i'm really not all that sure that those myspace comments should be here . . .

--heah 23:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we keep the comments as long as we don't use them as a source but instead report that as a fact (I mean, that someone made that comment on that blog is a 'fact'). For this reason I've removed what looked like weasel word.

--Unsigned Char72 07:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree we should try and make the article’s own text as NPOV as possible and let references speak for themselves where we can. As such, in the context of Brett’s alcohol use, the article’s narrative is probably better if it doesn’t state something like “there is evidence that…” – By which I mean that the article’s narrative doesn’t really need such statements, as it stands on its own without them, not that my earlier edits were intended to mislead. Personally, I find the source (i.e. the Brett Chidester Memorial Group) quite compelling, not really dubious. I find it difficult to imagine likely scenarios for the source being substantially untrue. The MySpace group includes Brett’s girlfriend for example. It’s not simply a free-for-all for unidentified persons to add what they like. Bear in mind the date of the post too. If others feel differently about the reliability of the source then I would be interested to hear their justifications, but at the end of the day it’s their prerogative if they want to hold a different view. As it remains, the source is clearly referenced for what it is and makes no pretence. It’s my understanding that Wikipedia’s verifiability policy allows this

--SallyScot 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Acne

I’ve removed the reference to British Medical Journal’s article [1]. The actual quote from BMJ was: "We have had no deaths among patients taking minocycline, but five patients have committed suicide because of depression associated with acne; a further 51 patients have been admitted to hospital with a drug overdose due to depression." - Thus the original point about acne having a general association stands, but particular association with minocyline doesn’t.

--SallyScot 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to interpret that sentence; the problem with the BMJ study is that since majority of patients had been treated with minocycline, any statement valid for "acne" is also valid for "minocycline". What I mean is that the phrase "depression associated with acne" automatically implies "depression associated with minocycline". Anyway I'll investigate more, if I remember well, there was a comparative study between accutane, minocycline and other acne drugs. - Unsigned Char72 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Definitely worth some further investigation. I was reading Wikipedia’s own entry on minocycline and there’s a quote there, "One authority, Dr Neil McHugh of the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, in Bath, has noted that a number of patients, who had taken Minocycline, appeared to be suffering from a form of depression or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." - But I was wary of referring to this in the main Brett article because, (a) Wikipedia entries can change so quickly, and (b) I couldn’t find any other reference to it outside of Wikipedia’s own pages.

The Wikipedia minocycline article goes on to describe its potential for the treatment of neurological conditions though, which I thought was interesting as this does imply some effect on brain chemistry.

--SallyScot 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol

Do we really need so much information about his alcohol use? Alcohol doesn't cause people to commit suicide. People likely to commit suicide just drink alcohol.

-- Gary 23:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

As a drug, alcohol “has a depressing effect that decreases the responses of the central nervous system” – source: Wikipedia

Suicide and alcohol: - much research available on this, further links could be added, but as a starter for those who might simply state “Alcohol doesn't cause people to commit suicide” here’s an example consultation document Alcohol Concern’s National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England

--195.92.40.49 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

It still looks like you're mixing correlation with causation. Billions of people drink alcohol and very few of them commit suicide. Also, from that document you posted,

The relationship between alcohol, suicide and mental disorders is complex. A Northern Ireland study found, for example, that 89% of suicides with alcohol dependence had at least one other co-morbid mental disorder (Foster et al. 1997, cited in Foster 2001). This suggests that, in such cases, several mental health factors may influence suicide.

This seems to indicate that the link between alcohol and suicide is too complex to blame Brett Chidester's suicide on alcohol. He probably had other mental disorders besides alcoholism, if he was even alcoholic in the first place. It looks to me like people likely to commit suicide drink alcohol to drown their sorrows.

I think that people see a tragedy like Chidester's suicide and immediately search for an explanation, an answer for why it happened. They jump to all sorts of conclusions - whether it is Salvia, alcohol, or something else. The truth is that so many people have used alcohol and Salvia that you have to ignore reality to say that either one was the direct cause of his death. --Gary 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here’s a link to a better ‘presentation’ version of Alcohol Concern’s suicide briefing.

Document's summary points previously listed here now posted against the main article.

Don’t get me wrong. I actually agree with you about people tending to jump to conclusions. Reality is more complex, and I’m not saying that alcohol was the direct cause of Brett’s death. I’m just presenting evidence suggesting that there may be a relationship. - One that’s been largely overlooked so far in Brett’s case.

--SallyScot 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization and neutral POV

I think the article needs a reorganization because it looks too much pro-Salvia. Ideally, some of the "summary points" should migrate under a specific paragraph citing all pro-salvia statements. The othe points should be moved to another paragraph citing the probable causes/concauses of the suicide (alchool, absinthe, acne treatment, ...). I've also requested an "history-only" undeletion of the past article so to retrieve BritBarb's statement about absinthe.

--Unsigned Char72 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

It would be a good idea to bring back the history. I think BritBarb's statement about absinthe was that Chidester's "drug of choice" was absinthe. The source was probably some post on an Internet forum though, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. While he may have drank absinthe, it is unlikely that he drank it often because it is hard to come by in the United States. I explained in a post, closer to the top of the page, why I feel alcohol was not a major factor in his suicide.

I find the mention of suicides and drug overdoses in relation to monocycline interesting. It would be a good idea, however, to show how these rates compare to the suicide rates in the general population in Britain, the country where the study was done. Up until now I knew of no link between monocycline and suicide attempts, only a connection between acne and depression.

I don't think the article should be pro- or anti-Salvia, its just that I want it to be free of the usual conclusions people jump to whenever drugs are mentioned. It is important to review everything carefully before saying that one thing or another caused him to commit suicide.

--Gary 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The article should aim to be evidenced based, not pro or anti anything per-se. The problem with breaking it into ‘arguments for’ and ‘arguments against’ sections I think is that this tends to discourage the production of evidence. Speculative arguments would creep in on both sides and get justified as being, well, arguments – just beliefs which are held, regardless of their supportability (e.g. see Arguments for and against drug prohibition). By and large I think an evidence based approach has been achieved so far.

An earlier edit introduced the subject of alcohol, following which Gary soon raised his concerns. I can maybe see how that earlier edit could’ve been interpreted simply as a shifting of blame from Salvia to alcohol, because at the time there were no other possible contributory factors included at that level of detail (though some were mentioned at a summary level), so it may have read like a direct comparison (one versus the other). But even so, I think some of Gary’s discussion comments, e.g. “It is important to review everything carefully before saying that one thing or another caused him to commit suicide” have been something of an overreaction, suggesting things that were never said, and in effect setting up a straw man argument. The main article at no point said alcohol was exclusively to blame. In any case, with the recent inclusion of other possible factors (acne, general depression, etc), more real-life complexities will be better reflected.

--SallyScot 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I’ve reorganised the article after edit of 08:21, 3 September 2006 to re-include Salvia divinorum under ‘Possible contributory factors’ section so that readers can make their own determinations and it doesn’t look as if it has pre-defined editorial status (i.e. outside of possible contributory factors). I’ve included it after Alcohol, in the same position as it was originally, but otherwise not done too much rewording, so it’s not a complete revert.

--SallyScot 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I like the direction the article is taking after your edit. The salvia paragraph still needs to be made more "wikipedian" IMO though. My major concern is that we can't use BritBarb previous statements, particularly about Brett being tested monthly, Brett and pot, Brett and Czech abisnthe and Salvia being found on the crime scene.

-- Unsigned Char72 13:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Although it’s self-referential, now we’ve got the full history back, I think some material in previous edits can be referred to. Though I would say ideally it needs to be supported by other references when this is done. For example, Britbarb’s quote about Brett’s “drug of choice” being absinthe is now independently supported by the MySpace quote in the main article.

In both cases the quotes are apparently from sources quite close to Brett, and, importantly, it’s difficult to imagine a likely scenario as to how and why they would’ve been completely made up if they had no basis.

I’ve just made such a reference in the main article. Hopefully it’s okay.

I think this is quite different, for example, from the allegation that appeared on a forum about Brett’s cocaine use, perhaps of questionable source, which could, arguably, have been written by anyone, and which anyway it was felt wasn’t sufficiently backed up by any other similar posts.

I also think it’s a different matter than simply re-including any previous edit information that may have been in the first place inappropriate. I’d suggest that we still can’t refer to the likes of Brett’s alleged monthly drug testing for example – not without further independent corroboration anyway.

--SallyScot 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion of 30 July 2006

The entire Brett Chidester article was deleted without discussion by User: UninvitedCompany on 02:53, 30 July 2006. Uninvited Company alleged “all versions of article contain nothing more than unsubstantiated claims”.

I’ve reinstated it from an older version retrieved from Google cache and tried to update it again as best I could.

I’ve removed the reference to Brett’s alleged use of cocaine from the main article in case that was the real bone of contention, although it has to be said it wasn’t originally presented as fact. It was clearly referenced as someone else’s claim [2] In my view this was simply an example illustrating the controversy. It could have been followed by a denying counterclaim from the group claiming to be “his close friends, family” (i.e. Wikipedia user Britbarb).

Wikipedia does not shy away from other controversial subjects, for example Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, or from contrasting points of view in an article – as long as they are clearly presented as such (rather than FACTS).

I’m not claiming it was (or is) perfect but I feel the Brett Chidester article was making progress in the right direction, hence I’m reinstating it as best I can.

I think it’s a shame that UninvitedCompany deletion has removed the article’s prior history though. My retrieval from Google cache has picked up an earlier version, but Britbarb had included some following information about Brett’s use of Absinthe, describing it as his “drug of choice” – which I thought was an interesting development.

--SallyScot 10:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I received a message from UninvitedCompany which read as follows:

I have deleted this article upon request of Chidester's survivors. The article contained numerous allegations that lacked references. Please be careful to cite sources particularly when making claims about individuals' drug abuse. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess Britbarb contacted UninvitedCompany and asked that the article be deleted. UninvitedCompany must have thought I was the one making various claims about his use of drugs besides salvia.

--Gary 13:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

--

It’s ironic that the majority of unsubstantiated claims in the article before its deletion were Britbarb’s own additions. I think UninvitedCompany was rather duped (spooked? bullied?) into censorship here. As I say, it’s a shame the history’s gone. Despite being ‘unwikipedian’ in spirit Britbarb’s edits were otherwise quite revealing. A lot of readers might have found them telling in their own way actually because of the nature of the reaction.

--SallyScot 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Britbarb as Brett’s aunt

Britbarb replies: Sorry I was so "unwikipedian" in my quest to make sure the truth is known of Brett's life. I am Brett's aunt and knew him as well as anyone. I find it very sad, and quite self serving, that Scotland Salvia "SallyScot" is only worried about his own monetary gains, or lack thereof, since Salvia D. is now under the microscope.

--Britbarb 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

SallyScot replies: It may be surmised that being ‘Wikipedian’ is questing for the truth. Since this is at odds with unsubstantiated and somewhat defamatory opinions about other contributors - "only worried about his own monetary gains" - the expression of such rather suggests bias. In this emotive case, while not too helpful, this prejudice may at least be understandable. Readers may have sympathy with those who cared for Brett, yet at the same time also suspect that the overall picture is not as straightforward as his family would like to make out.

‘Wikipedian’ or not, Britbarb’s entries, both here in the discussion pages and against previous edits of the article, have been revealing. Society’s comparatively complacent attitude to the dangers of alcohol, despite the compelling evidence of all the harm it can do - and its links with depression and suicide - are commonly overlooked in contrast to other apparently more ‘scary’ but actually less dangerous substances, those to which we are less culturally ‘institutionalised’. If it is a wider issue then Brett’s family should not be held especially culpable in underestimating these dangers and focusing instead on the ‘unknown quantity’ (Salvia divinorum).

However, seeing that sources close to Brett have since suggested that absinthe was actually his “drug of choice”, any quest for the truth must also bring this into the mix.

With the intention of researching detail further... The production and sale of absinthe is, as I understand it, banned in the US, - though it can be imported from other countries (such as Czechoslovakia). It is a strongly alcoholic drink (most absinthes contain between 55% and 75% alcohol – generally stronger than whisky). Concerns about absinthe’s thujone content may be overstated, again something with which modern western culture is (or has become) less familiar with and hence more fearful of. In any case, absinthe was (and still is) banned or strictly controlled in many countries because of it supposedly deleterious health effects. These fears, particularly about it causing delirium, may be exaggerated, but Vincent van Gogh reportedly cut off his ear while drunk on absinthe. Another famous user was Ernest Hemingway, who also committed suicide.

Apologies for continuing at such length with this discussion, and understandable how some may not be comfortable with it, but the intention is to eventually bring forward some of the points to the main article (with suitable further verification of course). If that ‘Wikipedian’ spirit can be borne in mind, balanced points from those close to Brett’s family are also encouraged and invited. However, it should be hoped for and expected that a good Wikipedia article will not end up presenting as an emotive and one-sided a view of the story as have traditional (and less democratic) media, for example, CNN's 'LEGAL BUT LETHAL' news coverage.

• CNN's 'LEGAL BUT LETHAL' broadcast ('asx' video file, - save then open with media player)

- viewers comment on CNN’s story

--SallyScot 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

History only undeletion

Thanks to Xoloz we now have the old history prior to Jul, 30 2006 which had been lost after the article deletion. - Unsigned Char72 10:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Older 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!

--Britbarb 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

You don't have to refer to yourself as "they". We know it's you. The comment about the ecstacy and cocaine appears to have come from a shaky source of information, so it probably should never have been included in the article in the first place. Thank you for removing it.

Ideally, we want to be as careful as possible when adding information to the article, so we generally try to cite sources for our information. It is especially important to do so here, because drugs are a sensitive issue for many people and there is a tremendous amount of misinformation circulating about them. We want to avoid hearsay, as well, like the cocaine and ecstacy comment. So how about we remove the whole bulleted list and replace it with paragraphs containing information that comes from reputable sources? If we can't find information at the level of detail the article currently has, we can leave it a little bit vague and put some links at the bottom of the page where people can find more information. Britbarb can even include a link to the memorial website.

--Gary 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual more untruths about the life of Brett Chidester. I will continue to edit this article for untruths, suppositions, hearsays, or possibilities. We, as his family, want the FACTS of his life published. Once again, as stated before, Brett had several drug tests performed in the last 6 months of his life. ALL, repeat ALL, came back negative for drugs. As for depression, his family assumes he must have suffered from some type of depression in order to take his life. Did he show signs of depression? Absolutely not. Two psychologists who have reviewed his suicide note, medical records and notes found with his schoolwork (he kept no journal as stated in this article) have stated that his death was drug related, not depression related. They have both concurred that depression severe enough to cause suicide WOULD not be possible to be hidden from his family, his friends, his teachers, his co-workers or most importantly, his girlfriend. He had never been treated for any medical condition, in his life, other than measles and acne. He was NEVER treated for depression because there was no evidence of depression. He was a normal, happy teenager, with many devoted friends and family. He started exploring things that he read about that interested him, including absinthe and salvia. Exploration in the teen years is normal and no one ever expected his love of life and zest for knowledge to be his demise.

We have no problem with the facts, as hurtful as they sometimes may be, being profiled on this article. We do take issue with people who obviously did not know or care about Brett Chidester, posting untruths about him. Brett was very much a believer in truths and he deserves so much better than the fiction that is being posted here.

You know Brett Chidester? I doubt it.

I find it amazing, and frankly quite puzzling, that all of you, who did not actually know Brett, write with such certainty on his personality, the way he died and why he died. Even more puzzling is why you are so interested in daily monitoring of an article of someone you never met.