Talk:Megan Meier suicide controversy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Name of woman

We do not have a reliable source for the name of the adult who allegedly incited the harassment. Jezebel.com is a fine blog, but it is not a reliable source. Per our policy on writing about living persons, which includes people who are not the subject of articles, we cannot include this name. Do not add this name unless you have a rock solid source such as a newspaper or wire service. Do not even add it on the talk page; it will be reverted, and you will be warned.

There are notability concerns with the article as well but given this was just on CNN and there may be legislation that is probably something that will be overcome. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Riverfront Times has named the woman in their blog, but not their news section. Is that considered an acceptable source? Jeffpw (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave it out unless its in real news sources (if the article survives AfD). • Lawrence Cohen 12:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer to wait for a more credible source. If the furor continues it probably won't be long. Depends maybe on whatever the woman decides to do about being harassed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding the name triggers WP:BLP, so we need a valid source.ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Weblog with screencap of CNN news video showing her last name here. Can't find the video on CNN's website, could be a whitewash on their part, though there are apparently some Fox affiliates in the area showing the report. John Nevard (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon- video now here [1] John Nevard (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that sufficient for the name to be added here? • Lawrence Cohen 08:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I would like to add the name, I don't think this source satisfies the criterion for inclusion. CNN doesn't mention the person's name in either the text version or the video. Only an astute viewer would see that the name was in the report. CNN could well argue that it was not their intention to show the name, or even pull the video. This just doesn't seem stable enough to me to include, as much as I would like to. Jeffpw (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But their intention to show the name doesn't mean that info is any less accurate. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP, you know and I know that the information is entirely accurate. However, it still doesn;t satisfy Wiki's stringent requirement for BLP material. I sympathize with your frustration, and encourage you to find a source that can be used. Jeffpw (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, CNN and Fox affiliates have shown that police report. The police report is a primary source, although I can't find an official copy of it, or a full copy from thesmokinggun or whatever. Is there anything in WP:BLP that prevents a primary source shown in multiple news reports from being considered reliable? Only so far as to name the woman involved as a '<name removed by Jeffpw>', perhaps, but that much at least is well-supported. John Nevard (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My IP is actually less anonymous than a Wikipedia username. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't sure based on that material and wanted to wait. • Lawrence Cohen 08:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS and see why "accuracy" is not our standard. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I read it and didn't see anything included that would indicate that CNN is not a reliable source. In my opinion CNN is one of the most well known news sources. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The source is not CNN. The source is a blog publishing what it claims is a CNN screen capture, which it admits to using photo processing on. WP:BLP is about protecting the Wikipedia project, so please don't spend energy looking for loopholes. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The source is CNN showing a police report. If you don't think a police report is a reliable source, then, well, that's your problem. John Nevard (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The source that John Nevard posted above was a video on CNN's page. How in the world is that source not CNN?68.45.106.216 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly correct, Jeffpw. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checked for RS on the alleged name, doing some fancy Google searches. Not one print source yet that I can see that mentions the mother by name, in any RS. Everyone should give it a few days. It will be certainly newsworthy, and heavily covered, for the names, if we decide to list them. • Lawrence Cohen 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A psychologist has identified the person from the police report. Would this qualify as a source? [2] --KimChee (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kim, that source looks good to me. Oops, it's listed as a blog, so we can't use it, especially for a BLP. At least that's my take. Maybe someone else wants to weigh in? Jeffpw (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - We should wait until print news sources reveal the names. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The names have been revealed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which is now cited in the article. The online version is cited in the article's references and is available here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/77D27634D36233968625739800167159?OpenDocument --Neurophyre(talk) 08:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a police report acquired by TSG -- name? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html 66.190.170.172 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Her name is Lori Drew according to the police report. --RucasHost (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Book

Were these works (a book of 12 pages and two photos) created by the Megan Meier described here? --80.129.114.237 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. Apart from the other considerations, the middle names are different. John Nevard (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Source for rumours seems to have been some particularly stupid article here. This is why we shouldn't put publicity-grabbing weblog posts on Wikipedia- as for well-researched and supported names of people involved, well... John Nevard (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that article has been updated. It's contents are now "This article was deleted by the author." • Lawrence Cohen 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, did notice that. Google cache shows the author of the 'newsvine' article (another lulu.com self-publishing client) claimed to have checked the name, but the first Journal article gave a middle name different from both middle names given by the account owner on lulu.com. John Nevard (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Further source

[3]. Article on actions neighbors have been taking against Mr & Mrs (names in advance redacted for convenience). John Nevard (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From the source, the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH:
"Then they were told that Josh Evans didn't exist — that the Drews had concocted him to get back at Megan for quarreling with their daughter. According to a police report, Lori Drew said she wanted to know what Megan was saying online about her daughter and had "instigated and monitored" the fake account."
I would say that qualifies. Anyone disagree? • Lawrence Cohen 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks good. Jeffpw (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Lori Drew now redirects here, now that this concern is resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As part of this article, it may be appealing to add a video of a vigil held in honor of Megan Meier. It is available at sccworlds.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.220.46 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite an edit war...

I think we're all tripping over each other with the reverts by mistake. The listed source from the section directly above this one names Drew. • Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus of article

Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that while the incident of her death is noteworthy as well as the background behind it, the focus should have been on the incident and not the victim itself? For example, we have several pages on Wikipedia which are focused on the incident and not the victim. For example, the Jamil Hussein article redirects to the article on his controversy and Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research an organization founded by him. Similarly, I feel that this article should be renamed Suicide of Megan Meier, Megan Meier suicicide controversy etc. rather than provide too much of a biographical focus on the victim itself. Does anyone here concur? Ethereal (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, this page should not be a biography of this girl, her extra-curricular activities and whatnot are, with all due respect, irrelevant. Rather, the article should be about the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an excellent point. I've renamed the article to Megan Meier suicide controversy and updated all the relevant redirects. • Lawrence Cohen 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I am ambivalent about the article's name (provided that Megan Meier properly redirects, which it does), I got the impression that the concensus at AfD was against a move to a topic such as "Death of Megan Meier", at least in the near term. I would hope that any editors who disagree with the move discuss it here rather than attempting to undo it. It's an emotional article for some, as we've seen. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should do the same thing with Anne Frank - write up an article about the "diary and death of Anne Frank", since that is what she happens to be notable for - those two things. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's probably what should be done. Anne Frank really is mostly notable for her diary. Can you name any other famous young girls who had a similar situation as her during WWII? Probably not, becuase their diaries weren't published and studied for generations. Take away that diary, and she was just another poor, unfortunate person swept up in the awfulness. Her biography is only notable when taken into account her historic diary. That's why every single person affected by WWII isn't listed as a notable person in wikipedia, they didn't have published accounts. I realize you were trying to make a point, but you really just made a point against your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is blatantly false. Anne Frank is a notable writer. Her notability is evidenced by the length of the bibliography/references list about her (see Anne_Frank#References). Had she been merely a victim of the Holocaust we would probably never had heard of her. --kingboyk (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't like the idea? well, maybe we shouldn't have just gone for the suicide controversy ahead of the girl, but you did what you did and I reheaded the page to follow suit. (note: I am talking here of Megan Meier, not Anne Frank.) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Balanced article

Well done to the editors concerned. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Law to enforce in this case?

I had recalled a law related to internet harrassment that stirred up quite a bit of debate. These were provisions that covered Cyberstalking in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Sections outlined here: Sections 113 to 115

To get to the specific information that I'm referring to, click on "Text of Legislation", and then "6 . Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.3402.ENR]"

Any opinions regarding this and if this could impact the case (preferably legal opinions)? Even though the heading says "(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)", I'm not sure of if this means that the law was actually passed and I am not sure if the law was passed before the Megan Meier suicide. I'm also not sure to which degree if any that amendments may have changed this law.

I'm sure if this law was effective before the incident, that it could potentially play a big part in a possible prosecution.

Zirconic (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, if passed by Senate and House, a law goes to conference committee, which generates a joint resolution that combines amendments from the house and the senate. That joint resolution is voted on again by both houses, and passes with a majority of each. The number listed is a House Resolution number, so that makes me think it never made it to conference, or it died in conference. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, it's definitely law. Not sure whether Thomas links are temporal, but here:
1/5/2006:
Signed by President.
1/5/2006:
Became Public Law No: 109-162.
At any rate, this is off-topic; talk pages are for discussing the article, and this doesn't have anything to do with the article unless reported on by a reliable source. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

I've added an image to this article, after noticing that the copyright is held by the family and they have been providing it free of charge to the media. --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it relevant and helpful to the article, though? The subject is the circumstances and surrounding controversy, not Ms. Meier herself. Not sure I see how the image contributes to the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we post the drew's email/home phone/address/cell phone and other personal information?

I personally think they deserve it. What do you think?76.113.129.216 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and any attempts to enter such information will 1) Get the person who entered it blocked from Wikipedia access in all likelihood, 2) Will be removed immediately and then probably cleared from the article history. • Lawrence Cohen 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone with google can find it - so why put it here at all? It's not encyclopedic and adds nothing to the article. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree, no way, no how. It's not up to you, me or anyone else to say she is guilty or deserves some punishment. (even though I believe if Mrs Drew did do this, she needs to be put behind bars). But, they have not had their day in court. I read somewhere that the mother may be protecting her daughter by taking the blame. This can be or not, until the whole story is told, if ever, we will not know. Vigilante justice is not much different than lynching. - Jeeny (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting the Drew's information really has no place in this article. I do disagree with the comment by Jeeny that it is "not up to you, me or anyone else to say she is guilty or deserves some punishment". Actually, it is. As a member of this society we have the right to act as the determining body to decided guilt. It is called a court of law.

I only posted the address of the Drews because that particular property was vandalized. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I removed it. Stating the property was vandalized is fine. Posting the address is inviting more vandalism. Even though it is all over the internet anyway. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia should not have addresses listed, unless they are %100 important to the story. Which it is not, and should not be in the article at all. Also, we have to be careful of WP:BLP issues. Even though Megan is not alive, the others are. - Jeeny (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, the Drews are now public figures, so the bit about public figures applies to them. Even though they were notable for one event, I see other events (possible legal action, (maybe) possible criminal charges, drama, etc.) resulting from this.

So, that does not give a free pass in terms of addresses, though. The policy says: "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability."

The thing is, does the fact that a newspaper repeat the street name (but not the house number) count as a "reliable secondary source" ? WhisperToMe 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also this source stated that people become "involuntary public figures" (an example is "For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.") WhisperToMe 15:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: The contact information for Mrs. Drew should not be readded to this article. It is a violation of of the biography of living persons policy and can have serious consequences, not only for the subject, but for the editor who posts it. Please read BLP and blocking policies for more details. Jeffpw 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What I decided to do is start this: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Voluntary_public_figures_vs._involuntary_public_figures

There may need to be a distinction between voluntary public figures (Paris Hilton) and involuntary public figures (criminals, people accused of crimes (even if they are cleared), AND people like the Drews) - More restrictions could be placed on involuntary public figures. WhisperToMe 16:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone tried posting the actual addresses of the Drews on O'Fallon and Dardenne Prairie articles - I reverted them and reported the edits for BLP violations. WhisperToMe 20:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware

There are now postings on the internet, blogs, etc., linked to this Wikipedia article. Please make sure that any additions are backed by reliable sources and not the sentiments of those who post to the blogs, etc. This "case" has not gone before a court of law, so we do not have all the facts. We cannot try this case in the press, on blogs, and especially not on Wikipedia. While this tragedy is very sad indeed, we are an encyclopedia first and foremost. - Jeeny (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

FDA and the drugs Megan Meier was prescribed

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/default.htm


This page shows the drugs that have been black box labeled by the FDA. It is the FDA's website. The drugs noted are mood altering drugs...i.e. Antidepressants. They should be noted on the megan meier page, as she had been prescribed antidepressants.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/antidepressants-trigger-suicide-impulses-in-teens

This magazine article states the studies had shown that chldren 7-18 years of age, using antidepressants, have a higher risk of suicide than those not taking antidepressants.

No the link should not be re-added. There are no reliable sources stating that 'she' was on anti-depressants. She could have been on ADD meds. Like I said, there is a difference. Many know the adverse affects of anti-depressants prescribed to adolesents, it's all over the news. But not Megan's meds, because we don't KNOW what meds she was on. You are speculating that because it's been reported that she was depressed that the meds she was on were anti-depressants. No one knows that for sure right now, except the doctor and parents perhaps. That information has not been released to the public. - Jeeny (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Although you could add the link between anti-depressants and suicide as an example on the Correlation does not imply causation and Spurious relationship. But that's beside the point, as adding irrelevant 'information' to this article is. John Nevard (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You just bit your foot off, the news has stated that she was prescribed antidepressants, so the FDA wbesite should be noted that antidepressants have been labeled as such. —Preceding The fact that she was prescribed antidepressants makes the information relevant. She had also been in the hands of the psychiatric system, which has also been stated on the news.

Therefore, I don't see a problem with adding the information about antidepressants. unsigned comment added by 70.130.153.12 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include a fact that Megan Meier was on a specific drug, then please provide us the exact specific source that says so. Link? • Lawrence Cohen 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the fact that it was reported she was on antidepressants, and since they have not reported what drugs, then put a link up to all the antidepressants like I did already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.153.12 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to that report? We just can't put a link to the FDA website. The reliable source needs to have said she was on anti-depressants. Even so, I don't feel that we should use our original research by adding that anti-depressants have adverse affects in children. We still don't know what anti-depressant she was on. News reports are unreliable in that respect; Think of the Anna Nicole case. Some call medications anti-depressants when they are actually something else. Also doctors prescribe certain meds for a symptom like depression, that are not actually in the class of anti-depressants. We have to be sure, as this is an encyclopedia. - Jeeny (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Jeeny said, we need a source (such as a newspaper article) that says, "Megan was on medicine X", and then we can use it if its relevant. Do you have such a source? Where did you hear this fact and learn of it? • Lawrence Cohen 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the controversy?

I think it would be better to call this article Suicide of Megan Meier or Megan Meier suicide. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The controversy (and the reason I renamed it to that) is that the notability surrounds all the massive brouhaha and calls for new laws that came about after Meier's suicide. • Lawrence Cohen 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus we try to focus on the incident, rather than the individual, if they're not known for other things.Merkinsmum (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats exactly why I renamed it, yes. • Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these arguments make much sense. (1) The article's primary focus is what happened, not the calls for legislation (I count three sentences about this alleged "controversy") and (2) Suicide of Megan Meier also concentrates on the incident, rather than the individual. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC

Give me a break with all this BS about neutrality. How about The Murder of Meghan Meyer. Disgusting. WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacatosias (talk • contribs) 07:00, November 26, 2007

"Megan Meier suicide controversy" or "Suicide of Megan Meier" sounds like a news headline not a encyclopedia entry, I think the article should be called Megan Meier with the conditions surrounding her suicide outlined in her article, the controversy has made her notable posthumously so I don't see why not just name the article Megan Meier.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry See Also

Have any of the sources referred to this as sockpuppetry? I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm just wondering if including that in See Also might fall under Original Research. Lawrence Cohen 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does. See Slate --Pleasantville 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also terms

This isn't a big deal one way or another, but here is a source for the relevance of Helicopter parent and Wanda Holloway: Helicopter Parenting Turns Deadly by Judith Warner, New York Times, November 29, 2007, a discussion of the Megan Meier case. While this is an OP-ED rather than a news report, it does establish relevance of the comparison.

Regarding, Online predator, while the Wikipedia entry on the subject leaves a bit to be desired, sex and money are not the only motivations for predatory behavoir on the Internet, and as reported by the sources for the article, Mrs. Drew's Internet behavior was definitely predatory.

I suggest that these items be restored, but suggest that we try for consensus. What do other people think? --Pleasantville 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed, since there's nothing on those pages to indicate relevance to the subject. "See also" is meant to link to articles that a general reader could derive more information about the main subject from. Beyond an op-ed comparison, there really isn't any here. When I clicked "Wanda Holloway", I was left thinking "what the heck" since it appeared totally unrelated. --Haemo 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should instead be handled as "media comparisons" or some such in the main article? --Pleasantville 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how that would — can you give an example? --Haemo 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My thought is that it could/should be an additional paragraph in Reaction to the news story. An OP-Ed contributor to the New York Times compared Lori Drew Wanda Holloway the mother who went to jail for attempting to arrange a contract hit on her daughter's cheerleading rival; the author analyzed this type of behavior in terms of the phenomenon known as helicopter parenting. (use the above NYT ref) The story has also raised the profile of public discussion of the phenomenon of online predators (could use How Lori Drew became America's most reviled mother from the Sydney Morning Herald, 12/1/07 as a ref. The general idea is that public reaction hasn't been just outrage at the Drew family, but certain hot-button issues are raised. I think this could work. --Pleasantville 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I agree with Haemo. I don't think there needs to be a comparison at all. This pretty much speaks for itself. The see also section with "cyber bullying" and other "terms" related to this act. And I don't even believe "online or cyber predators" should be in that section either. The woman did not set out to kill the poor girl. Even though I think she's an evil person for doing what she did. - Jeeny (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that online predators set out to kill people? Be that as it may, perhaps these other topics should lead to this page rather than the other way around? Usually See Also items are pretty uncontroversial. Is there a set of guidelines for them? --Pleasantville 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When I clicked on this link: Online predator, that was in there before. It's really mostly sexual or financial scams, though. I think you're right about the others leading here, as this one is all over the national news... now. In a few months though, it will be something else. :/ - Jeeny (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a serious stretch to say this girl was "exploited" here — at most, she was manipulated, but saying this was a "predatory" activity is really stretching it. --Haemo 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

n. 1. An organism that lives by preying on other organisms. 2. One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.

See #2. Also, this was not a totally asexual scam. One doesn't know where it was going if the victim had not killed herself. In any case, it is raised here not because it is my personal opinion, but rather because the Megan Meier situation has been portrayed as an Internet predator situation by at least some of the media. The general issue it seems to me is the extent to which the Wikipedia entry should cover how the media of the type which meets WP criteria of Reliable Source has framed the issues involved in the case or whether only the facts that the media reported are appropriate for inclusion. --Pleasantville 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
But Lori Drew didn't make a living preying on this girl, nor was there any "victimization" really going on here. At most, one could say that she falsely took advantage of this girl — I'm not really sure this a "predatory" activity, and without some really strong connection between the two I don't think we should be making this leap. Similarly, I've rewrote the section of the article referring to Ashley Grills, who had at best peripheral role in the harrassment — it doesn't seem reasonable, to me, to ruin an 18-year-old's life over something she was goaded into by an adult and her employer. --Haemo 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears we lack a consensus for including comparisons used by the press to frame the issue. --Pleasantville 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though I understand what you're saying. Again, I agree with Haemo. Sheesh, cut it out. My take on the predator issue; just because some media throw out the word "predator" while covering this case is a means to garner an audience, and tend to sensationalize. This case was a foolish, childish, harassing, mean prank that ended in a tragedy. Re: #2 up above, "One doesn't know where it was going...". True, we don't know were it was going. We can only guess, and everyone has their own opinion. I think "predator" is too strong a word for this case. It was definitely harassment -- a childish vendetta. These people knew each other for a long time. Just as a wife/lover/husband kills the husband/lover/wife is not the same as a serial killer (and would not be prosecuted the same, motive is the key), or a person who lies in wait for an unaware jogger in the park to rape/kill or rob them. - Jeeny (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the employee of Drew

I posted a sentence about Drew's employee, Ashley Grills. Haemo revised it, and he also removed her name.

I told him: "I'm fine with the rewording of the paragraph about Grills, except about the part about not needing her name; the name has been reported in reliable news media, and she was clearly involved in the incident. Why do you feel that the name is not that important?" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He explained above as a non-sequitor in the See Also discussion. His rationale was that she is only 18 and that there's no need to ruin her life over minor involvement in the impersonion/love fraud situation. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pleasantville, the age of 18 is considered legal adulthood in all aspects except alcohol. Please call her a woman and please refer to her as an adult. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just reporting what Haemo said. --Pleasantville (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I'm checking to see if Grills was 17 or 18 when the incident happened :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reposting this from my talk page. It's at best peripherally involved. As our guidelines indicated, we should "first, do no harm" when we write about real people. The subject in question here was an 18 year-old girl who was goaded into participating in something by an adult, and her employer, with no reasonable knowledge about what the ultimate outcome would be. The event in question was not even criminal — it seems perverse to bring a relatively unknown child to attention in an article about the suicide, because she was loosely involved in the situation, with extenuating circumstances. Let's not ruin this girl's life over this — keep the article focused on the main subjects. Look at, for an example, the Reena Virk murder — notice how the article only mentions the people actually convicted in the crime. There were more than two children beneath the bridge that night, and if you dig into the news records you can find the names — however, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not the place to focus on these minor aspects of an event. Write about the event, and avoid delving into side-notes which will ruin the lives of those associated with it. --Haemo (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Before we judge her involvement as "minor," (while referring to her as an adult, as we should - 18 is considered legal adulthood in all aspects except alcohol in the United States) let us determine what she did with the account. What did Grills say and do while using the account? EDIT: If Grills was 17 at the time, and she is 18 now, then it is okay to treat her as a minor. Grills apparently graduated from high school in 2008, so it is likely that she was 18 at the time. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As for Virk, it seems like the press withheld the names of the minors involved, so trying to put the names of the minors would be swatted down by Wikipedia:OR WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/crime/index.html - This story says most of the "Josh" messages written to Meier were, in fact, written by Grills. This does not look like minor involvement. I have to determine if a Wired staff member wrote this, though. I cannot use this if it was not written by a Wired staff member. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT 3: Kim Zetter seems to be the author, so this source may be okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT 3: Grills, as of December 3, 2007, is 19. It seems like she was 18 at the time, so she was an adult at the time. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please lets not get caught up in the sensation of the media. Wikipedia is first an encyclopedia, and we don't have to keep up with the "news" as this changes often. Firstly news sources are often wrong with names, dates of birth, etc. I again, agree with Haemo. Adding her name, whether she was 17 or 18 at the time, adding the girl's name does not benefit the encyclopedic aspect of this article. Especially since we do not know for sure. It's better to wait and be sure, before we add it, if at all. - Jeeny (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The press disclosed the names, originally in the Virk case — how do you think they would feel if they were indelibly associated with the murder on a Top 3 website — if the first Google Result for their name brought up the murder? Currently, I don't think there's enough reliable material tying her to the suicide, and I think we risk losing focus by throwing so many names into the mix. She's not a major consideration in the course of events, and is a private citizen — I think we should err on the side of privacy here. The article is not helped by the sensationalist witch-hunt the blogosphere has been engaged in over this event --Haemo (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll omit her name for now (this is pending more sources, more time, etc.) - I will try to find more and more details about the case. The Prosecuting attorney said that she wrote most of the messages and that she wrote the final message, so what I will do is see if I can get statements directly from his website. Keep in mind that the source says that prosecuting attorney is fingering her, not just some average joe. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) edit: http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2007/12/04/news/doc47543edb763a7031547461.txt - the source that says that Banas fingered Grills. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As that same newspaper article states, "Did he ever talk to me? No," Mr. Meier said. "Did he ever talk to Tina? No. Did he talk to the 18-year-old employee? No. The only ones he ever talked to were Curt and Lori Drew." The only people he interviewed were the Drews who (unsurprisingly) pointed the finger at their 18-year-old employee who is currently under psychiatric care as a result of her involvement in Megan’s death. Let's leave the sensationalism and fingerpointing for the media. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Actually, the article states that Banas didn't interview her, but it doesn't say that she was never interviewed.
"Banas said that he knows what role Grills played because she was interviewed a year ago as part of an FBI investigation into Megan’s death."
I'm new here, so maybe this isn't how things are supposed to work, but frankly, the more I read up on this story, the more I think that this article is incomplete in its portrayal of the major players in this event. By focusing ALL of the "bad guy" details on the mother, it's playing right into the media sensationalism that has been stirred up around this issue (i.e. "evil mother attacks helpless child"). I'm not (by any stretch) saying this to exonerate Lori Drew... I'm just saying that as a factual observer, I keep hearing "Lori Drew orchestrated and perpetrated a hoax on a Megan and maybe some employee of hers was involved", but that's not what all of the objective facts of the event tell me. The age and mental-health of the employee are (as harsh as it sounds) not the concern of an encyclopedia. Like someone else said, this isn't the news media... we're not here to spin the story (whether the "spin" be done for good or for bad reasons). Just document the facts of the case.
If the primary government spokesperson for this case says that Ashley Grills was a major player and cites investigations from the time of the event by the FBI, then that data should be included.
WATYF (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Haemo, from what I understand the Wikipedia NPOV style works by repeating the allegations AND attributing them to the people that said that. Then it will be clear to the readers that a lot of finger pointing is going on. This gives more reason to post everything in the article; we should first wait a while to check and see who actually said what and see the resolution of this. If this remains a case of "he said, she said," we may post everything; all we need to do is make it clear that they are allegations from various people pointing at each other. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what the paragraph currently states:

  • "Jack Banas, the prosecuting attorney of St. Charles County, said that an 18 year-old temporary employee wrote most of the messages addressed to Meier and that she wrote the final "Josh Evans" message addressed to Meier. Banas stated that he did not interview the employee because, at the time, the employee received psychiatric treatment for the involvement in the Meier case. Banas stated that he does not plan to interview her at a later date. The Meiers criticized the attorney's statements, saying that the Banas did not interview any party other than the Drews and that the Banas are solely relying on the testimony of the Drews." - It should be very clear that the people who made the statements are clearly credited; this is a W said X, Y said Z type of statement to let the readers know that the facts of the case have not been set in stone. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see my talk. I can't type it again. This is wrong to add to the article. We are not reporters. This is an encylopedia. - Jeeny (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The article itself says that the conclusions reported in the article have been questioned by other people in the case. We have a presumption of privacy here — until it's clear who said what, we should just stay mum. It doesn't add anything to the article other than speculation. --Haemo (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This position articulated by Haemo & Jeeny seems to me to go considerably beyond BLP standards. Are there other similar articles you can point to where BLP was interpreted in this way? --Pleasantville (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
How is that? Please.... again, this is an encyclopedia. Who is supposed to be qualified to contribute to one? Even though this is one where "anyone can edit", we cannot let the basic noble principle get to our heads. We need to be responsible, much more so. Even the media requires this. An encyclopedia goes, and should be, well beyond the media. This is a scholarly endeavor, not just to be the first to report, like the tabloids! Please think about this. - Jeeny (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I support Haemo's and Jeeny's view on this. Given the fact that the attorney only interviewed the Drews, and that the girl is under psychiatric care, I would think it is better, and more in line with BLP, to leave her name out of this unless some major source can demonstrate that she did, in fact, write the messages the Drews claim she did. Why on earth would anyone believe them? They're in hot water. Also, I wonder about coercion. An older person and boss of the girl told her to do it. Am I the only one who sees the power imbalance in that situation? Jeffpw (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I would totally agree with you if Banas was the only person involved in the investigation(s). There have obviously been multiple investigations into this case. We know of at least two: Once, when it first happened (purportedly by the FBI) and again when the story made national news and put the heat on the authorities to find some kind of "crime" to prosecute. The Suburban Journal article that cites Banas says that he did not interview Ashley, but it does say that she was interviewed as a part of the initial FBI investigation. So we're not talking about the word of an accused couple against the word of an 18 year old girl. We're talking about a prosecuting attorney using an FBI investigation as his source for information.
At this point, I'm of the opinion that it's derelict to leave details of Lori's accomplice (including the sources that state her position in the matter, per the original investigations) out of the details of this event. It would be prudent to point out the aspects which are being disputed by one or more parties (such as whose idea it was to create the account). But just because those specific details are disputed among those involved, it doesn't mean that we should dismiss the results of the original investigation outright. WATYF (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I will adhere to the consensus of the majority, but I disagree. It seems from the reports I see that Ashley Grill is a key player in this story, Lorio Drew is suggesting that she is the one to suggest the fake internet ID, and may have been the one to spur on that final day of attack messages. She is an adult now and when it happened, and been named in numerous newspaper accounts. Someone above stated "she is only 18 and that there's no need to ruin her life over minor involvement in the impersonion (SIC)/love fraud". I for one don't believe that has anything to do with what is put in the article. The article should represent the truth of this event as best we can without bias towards or for a person regardless of personal sympathy's. Thats my two cents. Hardnfast (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the statement about Banas only interviewing the Drews (and not the employee) was misleading, so I added a clarifying statement after it. I hope that's OK. Keep in mind that this event didn't just happen and Banas is not the person who investigated it. The event happened over a year ago and there was an investigation by the FBI. Just because Banas didn't talk to everyone doesn't mean everyone wasn't interviewed during the original investigation. WATYF (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems like Grills is definitely involved somehow, we should put her name in - Obviously we should not get into conclusions about who has more involvement - but the damage regarding Grills has been done, so our concern is now BLP with her name. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we're talking about a very young adult, who was a mere 18 years old at the time of the incident, and who was asked to assist by a much older adult in a position of authority over her. There appears to be significant doubt and dispute about the nature of her involvement between people involved in the case, and the media has reported as much. Stating "an employee assisted her" is enough — her name is immaterial, and the extent of her involvement is disputed. Since this is a private person, we should err on the side of privacy and remove salacious and disputed material until they are confirmed more solidly. Calling her an "accomplice" is a leading statement; no one was charged with a crime, and the people involved will never get a chance to defend themselves, and their actions, in a court of law. --Haemo (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV way to do it is to simply quote the different sides to show the differences in opinion. The users will realize that there is "significant doubt and dispute about the nature of her involvement between people involved in the case" - After a certain point there is no more privacy to protect (i.e. when the major media sources get a hold of the name, as happened here) - The BLP issue is NOT shielding her name. The BLP issue is making sure that the audiences know that her involvement is disputed. I already provided for that my stating who (as in attribution) said that she was involved, and who (as in attribution) disputes the prosecutor's statements. If there are any other significant parties that discuss Ashley Grills and/or have opinions, I would include them too. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It was on the national news last night and the sheriff did not mention the 18 year old's name. This was regarding the fake "This is Lori Drew" blog, as a hoax and the family is suffering because of it, not unlike what happened to Megan. The Drew's daughter has been taken out of school, and is not living with her parents because of the local harassment, and the jobs of the parents are at stake too. It's a shame, really all the way around. - Jeeny (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WhisperToMe, the article should address her involvement, pointing out the inconsistencies between the accounts. The job of the contributors here is not to protect Grills from further publicity because you may feel sympathy because she was only 18 at the time of this event. She was involved in this event, she was a legal adult when she did, and has been named in several newspaper accounts. Hardnfast (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Map link for O'Fallon

The reason why the map link is there is because O'Fallon and Dardenne Prairie have screwy boundaries. Looking at the map will prove this... IMO a map citation needed to be there in order to prove that the school is in O'Fallon... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reiterating my note below, I agree with Jeeny that the map is unnecessary and incompatible with BLP, as cutting dangerously close to providing contact information. The location of her school seems to offer nothing of material value to the article, since the school is uninvolved and none of the incidents described in the article took place there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose. Completely unneeded in this case. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Except Jeeny later reverted herself - it wasn't BLP. She just felt upset at the time. Also I disagree that it is "completely uneeded" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why a map is necessary to "prove" that the school is within a particular city... is there any serious doubt where the school is, and if there was, would it be relevant in any possible way? If there is really a doubt, just link to the school's website — linking to a map requires interpretation and lies dangerously close to original research relating to a primary source — for something that is entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the article at hand. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If Jeeny has changed her opinion, that does not change mine. I believe it is unnecessary and provides too much detail to compromise the privacy of a living person in violation of WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Bbatsell, American postal addresses do NOT necessarily reflect the actual city. Many areas in the O'Fallon/Dardenne Prairie area can be expressed with an "O'Fallon, MO" address *or* a "Dardenne Prairie, MO" address. To be fair, I haven't seen the Fort Zumwalt West MS expressed with "Dardenne Prairie, MO" (Only O'Fallon) - I wonder if it would meet the standard for a creation of a school article, as that could be used to sidestep the issue. Also, should I make this more clear? Drew said her daughter no longer goes to the same school (presumably Fort Zumwalt West), so I do not see how this will compromise anything related to her daughter. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Again I ask, how is any of this relevant to the article?!? If this were an article about the school, then okay, we'd need to discuss it. It's not, and it's completely and entirely irrelevant. Can we focus on the subject of the article, please? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you do not want to focus on this, I would advise against challenging the edit. Per Wikipedia:Cite your sources, any information that is not obviously apparent should be sourced. See, the map is intended to be a reference, not a link. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: I just created the article about the school. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You only need to cite a source if the information is disputed or likely to be disputed, not if it is not "obviously apparent" (who determines that?). As you yourself have said, "To be fair, I haven't seen the Fort Zumwalt West MS expressed with 'Dardenne Prairie, MO' (Only O'Fallon)..." No one is disputing the location of the school, not even yourself. Linking to a map is, as I've said, very close to interpretation of a primary source rather than a simple presentation of a primary source. Link to the school's website or a reliable secondary source if you feel you need a cite (and you have not in any way demonstrated that you do), but a map is not the best choice. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that a separate article is established, I don't mind what happens to the map link :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a BLP where we illustrate how to get to or find a person's house, barring exceptional cases where its not a secret, or their home itself is well known locally (Stephen King), or obvious (George W. Bush). Just stating now that if anyone tries to even put in, in a roundabout way, directions on how to get to the Meiers' or Drew's homes it should be removed as a BLP violation, and the person who inserts it more than once blocked from editing. I'll personally remove any I see. Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make Wikipedia party to online harassment

This article has become basically the same sensationalizing that has been all over blogs and the internet already. I've added information from the update links that described the Drews as upset, have been harassed THEMSELVES, are afraid for their daughter's safety...etc. etc. Also there was a map link posted in the article. Why!? Please be responsible. The Drews have been harassed too. They've had their property vandalize, phone calls at all hours of the night, death threats, etc. This is not the place to make them pay. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a newspaper. Please be neutral -- one of the very core policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. - Jeeny (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about sourced edits rather than the occasional drive-by attempt to add the Drew's personal information. I have asked for monitoring of this article by an admin from the BLP noticeboard. I think it is inappropriate for you to ask editors to refrain from making sourced edits out of respect for your personal feelings and opinions, which is what I understand you to be requesting here. If it feels bad to be involved with a collaboratively edited article which represents the actual press coverage of this situation, perhaps you should find a different article to work on. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the map link is likely to violate WP:BLP, which specifies that "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted". The need to prove the location of the school does not seem to me sufficient demand to include this map, given that the history of Meier's residence and the location of her school are immaterial to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The daughter of Lori Drew no longer goes there, and Jeeny conceded that the revert was not intended. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Was that your concern, Jeeny? My interpretation is that your remarks were intended much more broadly to cover a number of other issues under discussion here. Am I incorrect? Can you clarify? --Pleasantville (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As somebody who has been watching this article, I, too have conmcerns that it is turning into a weapon of revenge against some sunjects of the article. There have been more than "drive-by" attempts to add contact information. Established editors have done it and were spoken to about it. The addition of the map is another attempt (in my eyes) to see how close we can come to a line without crossing it. This seems to me to violate the spirit, if not the actual directive of WP:BLP. I would urge people to take a long view of the article subject, and remember that actual people are involved and could be damaged by what is written. As Jeeny said, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Jeffpw (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we cut the hyperbole and talk specifics? That is what is needed. Please assume good faith. Emotional attempts to claim moral high ground are not helpful in sorting out the issues.--Pleasantville (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no "emotional attempts" to claim a moral high ground on my part. Not on this case, nor the media coverage, but the writing of an encyclopedia. That's the issue I have, as I see that's exactly what is being done here jumping on the media blitz. That's where my frustration is because it seems as if people don't understand that. I will step away though, and let the junior "reporters" continue writing this article as if Wikipedia is just another news blog or publication.
After all, there is sister project called Wikinews, and that's where this belongs, IMNSHO. But remember, even journalist have a certain integrity to project, yet they often get it wrong or miss the "whole" of it by trying to be the first to get a "story" out. For personal and financial gain. - Jeeny (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Section breaks and titles

Because of the addition of detailed information on the harassment of the Drews, the section breaks no longer are where the should be. This material should perhaps be in the Reaction to the news story section or perhaps it should have its own section after the Reaction section. As it stands, undue weight is given to the harassment of the Drews because of its placement in the section entitled Death. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sectioned it. I have no particular attachment to the title and will not squawk if something better is produced. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Smoking Gun reference, addresses

Per this edit, I've taken out this mention of the street addresses for now. What town they "render" in doesn't matter for the purposes of this story, and this encylopediac topic on Megan's death and the fallout. It's not relevant whether they can get postal mail to one or the other. Its the equivalent of saying, "They live in Brooklyn, but can get mail address to New York City as well.". Additionally, per BLP, I've removed the links to the Smoking Gun police report. There is no absolutely no reason to link to or provide the Drews or Meiers home addresses. Posting this to the BLP noticeboard also. Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Cohen, does BLP state that links may not be made either? The whole reason why it was there is because some sources may say that they live in O'Fallon, and some may say they live in Dardenne Prairie - the point is that they live in Dardenne Prairie but their addresses may say either city (as U.S. addresses do not necessairly reflect the municipal status of the area) - it's there to clear up "which city do they live in?" - Is there a precedent to avoid linking to sources that happen to have such information, Cohen? I'll look at the citation for what is there now and see if it adequately explains the municipal situation (hopefully so another source that claims "O'Fallon" cannot confuse the matter) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If there isn't precedent, and there is no value to readers to link to that specific document that lists the home address of crime victims one click away, I guess I'm setting precedent now. Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clearly implied by the section on privacy of contact information, which notes specifically that "links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted". The Smoking Gun isn't maintained by the subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, once the Drews move (one of the sources stated that they plan to, but haven't yet), will the Dardenne Prairie addresses stil fall under BLP (the Meiers already left)? If so, in which ways? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the encyclopediac point of listing their past, present, or future home address at all, or providing a link to a source that does, if other sources cover all of our needs without that information? Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The addresses are only icing - the meat of the Smoking Gun is that it contains the actual reports regarding the discovery of the fatally injured Meier, the police reports regarding the reporting, etc. In history primary sources are considered to be gold, and those documents *are* primary sources regarding the incident. Let us not forget that. I can understand omitting them due to the BLP concerns right now. *Once* a slew of reliable sources say that the Drews left, then the BLP concerns will die down, and the question will be the value of The Smoking Gun. See, if the documents consisted of nothing but the addresses of the Drews and the Meiers, then your point would be correct. Yet, this is not the case. Now, I thought about the idea a bit more and I think the part about "O'Fallon address" does not have to be put back, BUT I feel that the Smoking Gun should be placed in external links again once the Drews move. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This material does not substantially add to the article and is potentially privacy violating, so it stays out. It way or may not violate BLP technically, but we simply avoid anything that's problematic and not directly relevant.--Docg 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the actual sentence, it can go. In terms of the Smoking Gun link; did you read the material? It is not the address listed over and over and over again. Now, it is OKAY if it stays out for now, since that it contains the address of the Drew home. Once the Drews move, the concerns should fade regarding that. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Megan Had It Coming" Blog

This is a recent development. I'm leaving it up to others to rephrase this as needed. I think it is an interesting piece of the story. It remains to be seen if the author of the blog really is Lori Drew. CClio333 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed, it's a random blog, not proven to be an authority, and not a reliable source in any way. If a few RS said it was Drew, then maybe. As it is, absolutely not in any way. Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source for the existence of the MHIC blog: MO Town Makes Internet Harassment A Crime by Teresa Woodard, KTVI-myFOXstl.com, 21 Nov 2007, 10:19 PM. I wouldn't call it random exactly. Whether it's really LD is certainly open to question. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm being unusually slow today... it doesn't say that blog is actually Lori Drew? Lawrence Cohen 22:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Similar Drew-oriented "damage control" has been posted in comment sections of other blogs discussing the matter and emailed to webmasters of sites critical of Drew. It does say it's Drew.--Pleasantville (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction. The news source doesn't say the blog is by Drew. The Lori Drew ID on the blog did not announce itself until 12/3. But my sense is that whatever ghost of BADSITES still exists would prohibit linking to that blog. I'm amazed that the ISP hasn't yanked the cord on it. It has got to be a ToS violation: either the blogger is impersonating LD or . . . let's not go there. Nevermind that we SHOULDN'T link to it, Google Legal should pull it off the netwaves. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
HOWEVER, perhaps we should link to this to balance (or augment???) the lengthy discussion of harassment of the Drews: Investigation Into Who Is Behind Megan Meier Blog by Andy Banker, KTVI - myFOXstl.com, Tuesday, 04 Dec 2007, 11:30 PM CST. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And here's another source on the blog issue: MySpace Bully Talks Back (Maybe)] by Chad Garrison, The Riverfront Times, December 5, 2007 3:44 PM. The source is an alternative St. Louis newsweekly, est. 1977. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, before anyone links to sites like "Megan Had it Coming", please read WP:PROBLEMLINKS. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Can we avoid playing the news reporter here? We don't report every single action in a trial, even if the news reports it, so I don't see any compelling reason for us to include every action that occurs in any of the innumerable blogs or columns following this story. Keep it focused on the broad strokes of the story, and avoid making it more than what it is. Linking to a blog which may or may not be written by one of the subjects of the article, and is (quite frankly) really nasty is a big no-no. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just any blog. Read the sources please. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other facets to the blog

An interesting note in this is that the news reported in the links above that the police are actually investigating "I am Lori Drew" one, because of the apparent accuracy (despite her family stating it is not her). Would a one-line sentence with the source to the news article mentioning that is being investigated in connection with Meier's death be too much? We certainly wouldn't want to link to the blog, though... Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until something actually comes of it. It could just be a prank — the whole situation is very recent-ist. --Haemo (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is now a news story that says that the blog is NOT by Lori Drews and that she is being unfairly represented. I think that this issue deserves inclusion in the main article. [4] CClio333 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was also on the national news last night saying it was a hoax, and not unlike the one she and others did to Megan. Plus, the sheriff said that Drew's daughter had to be taken out of school, even the local people are shunning/harassing them, and, I think, something about Lori losing her job, or damage to her business? It's all a terrible mess, and tragedy. There is much more involved. Not one thing made that girl choose to kill herself. People don't understand suicide and so make judgements, or try to make sense of it, when there is none, really. - Jeeny (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this website implied that it was actually a man from Oregon who did the deed. [5] 75.175.30.112 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Playing Reporter"

Cut the rhetoric. Please. Deal with substance rather than second-guessing people's fantasy lives. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but frankly tracking every dubiously credible blog which claims to be written by a subject of an article is the province of news reporters, not encyclopedia editors. I think that last section clearly demonstrates this; we should not be covering "recent developments", especially when every source that discusses them can't confirm their credibility or relevance. Some joker making a blog that said "I am Lori Drew" is not encyclopedic — it's just another example of the lynch-mob mentality the internet has developed over this issue, and we should not be playing into it. --Haemo (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Theories

Greetings all. In the article it states that this young lady commited suiced shortly after having an argument with her mother. Is it not possible that this argument played a role in her decision to end her life? I'm sure that suicide has been commited for much less, so why hasn't this argument been suggested as a possible contribution to the suicide? No flaming necessary, just asking a serious question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.108.139 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to suggest new theories, but to document what's out there. If there are reputable sources commenting on the above, please feel free to present those. Though care would need to be made regarding weighting the information, it would be appropriate to incorporate the theory in that case. While talk pages are for discussing page development rather than the incidents documented on the page, I must say that I truly hope that suicide is not often committed for "much less" than a teenager's argument with her mother. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And to add, I don't think there are any "alternate theories" that are in wide circulation. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. I suspect that if this case were to ever go to trial that there would be some credible reference to this theory as a defense tool, but we will have to wait an see. Thanks to almost everyone for not flaming my input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained delay in reporting and origins of the story....

Hi there. I've never edited a wikipedia page before, so maybe someone can help me out with this. Anyway, one of the things that struck me about this case when I first started reading about it was that it was so old. The girl committed suicide in Oct of 2006 (more than a year before the first news article appeared about it). I found that pretty odd, but none of the stories I read mentioned why there was such a huge gap between the time the incident occurred and the time it was finally reported on.

I think I found the reason in an article from the New York Times webiste (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28hoax.html):

"On the advice of F.B.I. agents who did not want the Drews to learn of their investigation of the hoax, Ms. Meier said, her family said nothing publicly about the case for a year. Today, the Meier and the Drew families continue to live four houses from one another on a winding suburban street."

Another aspect of the origins of how it finally came to light is that the victim's aunt saw a local article about MySpace harrassment (http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/stevepokin/2007/10/something-more-disturbing-than-litter.html) and contacted the author of the article to tell him Megan's story. The source for this can be found in the interview from this website:

http://www.gelfmagazine.com/gelflog/archives/who_deserves_anonymity.php

"GM: How did you come across this story?

SP: Megan's mother has an aunt named Vicki Dunn. She called me after she saw a story I had written that appeared in October that also involved MySpace and involved a young woman who had received 500-1,000 unwanted messages. She said she had read that story and that she had a story about MySpace that I might be interested in."


Is that something that should be added to the article?


WATYF (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't read the articles myself, I do think it is important that we document why it took so long for the media to break the story. If you want to add the information, please do, and use the articles as references. If you don't know how to format the refs, feel free to hit me up for help. Jeffpw (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm gonna try and take a stab at it, and just let the editors clean up my mistakes. :o)
WATYF (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You left one reference tag broken here, that made all the other references vanish, but I got it for you. Lawrence Cohen 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Either I did something wrong (extremely likely) or you did, because everything I added is gone. Does it take time for an edit to show up or do I have to re-add it (or am I not supposed to re-add it)? WATYF (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
here you can see the difference. The material was merged into the article. Jeffpw (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


OOOHHHHHH... I see what he did there. :o) Man, I really suck at this. Fortunately, this will probably be the only time in my life that I'll edit a wikipedia article. Man, those tags are jacked up. :oP WATYF (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It gets easier, really. You don't have to stop contributing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

structure

I just rearranged the ordering and structure (without adding or removing anything) to try to make it flow better and make more sense. Let me know if it's not working. Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding: On November 18, 2007, Lori Drew created another fake Internet account, this time a blog titled Megan Had It Coming

According to news reports e.g. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg5xCtQtLBF6vJqWXStItGEOsJfwD8TD3BA80: "someone on the Internet is posing as her and blogging about the case". This omits relevant facts and is therefore not in neutral viewpoint.

This section should read:

On November 18, 2007, someone claiming to be Lori Drew created another Internet account, this time a blog titled Megan Had It Coming. The persona adopted for the blog was a "sort of friend" of Megan Meier who called herself Kristen "because [she didn't] want to give out her real name." The blog's 2,929-word third entry, "I'm Lori Drew," was posted on December 3, 2007. Jim Briscoe, Lori Drew's attorney, says that Lori Drew is not the writer of the blog.[1] The blog, written as "Lori Drew," pleaded for people to stop attacking "her daughter" and vilified the media. The blog also included a claimed account of Drew's distrust of Ron and Tina Meier, her motivation for setting up a MySpace account to monitor and interact with Megan, and her reasons for keeping her relationship with Megan as "Josh Evans" a secret after Megan's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.33.56 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole section has been removed as poorly sourced, misleading, and potentially libelous. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, all the geniuses who failed to notice that a link to the blog concerned was added on encyclopedia dramatica before anyone ever went there look a bit dumb. John Nevard (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Support removal. Lets let the other sources pick up and report on this stuff before we go wild with it. Lawrence Cohen 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of first names

Just a note that the guidelines on biographies recommends referring to subjects by last name because "The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant". The exception listed is royalty and people known by a pseudonym. Megan's parents do not feature in the article often enough to fear confusion on that count, and they are properly referred to by first & last name to disambiguate them from the subject. The use of Megan's first name is too informal for an encyclopedia article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New Yorker article

There is a new New Yorker article that has many specific details of the events leading up to Megan's suicide, specifically the myspace events, including quotes.

The article notes that Megan's parents are planning a divorce and no longer live together. Is this info appropriate to be included in the aftermath section of this page? I think it is definitely notable, and it comes from a very strong source in The New Yorker.Gwynand (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New public info on Drew's employee

In the New Yorker article posted above, Ashley Grills name is listed several times. If it matters at all, this is currently the most read current article from the New Yorker. It is clear that she is an integral part of the story but not neccesarily at fault for anything. The article notes that the Meiers' attribute no blame to Grills. I think her name should now be included and also the bit about the Meiers' parents opinion of her as "innocent". Gwynand (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)