Talk:Brett's law

From WikiProjectMed
(Redirected from Talk:Brett Chidester)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- 85.210.40.164 13:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this were a bio, it would be deleted on AfD for non-notability of the person. Fortunately it is not one, but an article about Brett’s law, and the notable information that is tangentially about him can be accommodated well under that title. The Rdr created in the course of the move will get users who are misguided enuf to search by his name to the article on the law -- which will need some adjustment to remedy the attempt to make it look like a bio.
    --Jerzy•t 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britbarb (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

--

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)[reply]

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)


Under the microscope or not. All drugs can be looked at as bad. Even something as simple as your tylenol PM could eventually be the death of you. I have used Salvia and continue to use marjiuana and I have not once brougt a charcoal grill into a closed tent with me. My sympothies to the family of Brett. But cmon, everyone is responsible for their own actions. If somebody shoots someone, they are to blame.. not the Manufacturer of the gun. In Bretts case, i think the guy smoked a little too much one day while having some bad thought/memories in his head. We can stop the brutal rampage across the world anti-drug this anti-drug that. If you are dumb enough to use drugs, then you are smart enough to understand that their could and will be consequences. --Anonymous 15 March, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.199.96 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


---

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.

- viewers comment on CNN’s story

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---
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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---
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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]


Recent edits

Alcohol

Deletion of memorial message

Sometime before the 7th September 2006, possibly on the 6th, the message on the Brett Chidester Memorial Group website to which the main article had referred in the context of Brett’s alcohol use was removed [2]. A copy of the message as it was originally posted on the memorial website a couple of days after Brett’s death can be found here. The memorial message deletion followed repeated deletion of reference made to it in the main Wikipedia article. The article deletions were made by user Britbarb - identifying herself as Brett’s aunt. A full history of previous edits to the main article and discussion pages currently remains as we would expect.

--SallyScot 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TMI?

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

Acne

I’ve removed the reference to British Medical Journal’s article [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

---

who said that minocycline has effects on making judgements and reactions?? This is the most retarded thing that i have ever heard. Minocycline is an ANTIBIOTIC and has no effect on anything that this article mentions. Seriously, whoever wrote that is obviosly on something that I would like to be on. I think that sentence needs to be deleted. While I will agree that acne might have had a *small* reason for him killing himself, it has nothing to do with minocycline. The only thing that medicine makes you more sensitive to is UV rays....

--67.41.63.82 07:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

It looks as if the reference for the part that says may impair thinking or reactions is cited well enough [4], but the visual disturbances and confusion part is only supported by another Wikipedia entry. I couldn’t find further corroboration so I’ve taken this reference out of the main article.

--SallyScot 09:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General objections from Brett's aunt (and replies)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britbarb (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Then I question whether these psychologists have the first clue what they're talking about. It is probably the most common thing I hear around suicide amongst young people -"But they seemed happy", "They were acting normal", and so on.

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britbarb (talk • contribs) 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Britbarb: even if we have different point of views, we share the same purpose, namely, documenting the case of Brett Chidester. Anyway, Wikipedia accepts only published sources, so even if you knew Brett directly you can't post here your views and opinions, regarderless if they are true or not. It may seem absurd but it is so (please check Wikipedia policy). The reason? Anyone can come here claiming to be a Brett's relative or friend and write falsities. Nonetheless I consider your contributions very valuable so I encourage you to write them in a more appropriate place, e.g. in a book or simply in a dedicated web site. It would be, by the way, a good tribute to Brett's memory. My interest in Brett's case does not have any obscure purpose but is founded simply on the seek for truth. I hold the belief that the reasons of Brett's suicide go beyond what has been reported by the sensationalistic media, so I am trying to document them the best I can. Sincerely, --Unsigned Char72 22:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This article concerns the only Salvia divinorum related death in recorded history. I don’t find it that amazing or puzzling that there is some controversy and dispute as to the details of the case. Given what we do know we should perhaps be asking more questions as to how one-sided reports in the media have otherwise been. Though I would like to hear more, I don’t really see how vague accusations of "untruths" or writing unduly "with such certainty" are justified so far. Indications were included as to Brett’s use of alcohol – which Britbarb’s own earlier contributions didn’t seem to contradict, but which now seem suitable for her straightforward deletion. I’d suggest to some this could look simply like censorship of anything that doesn’t match the family’s version of events. The reasons for this reaction may be understandable, but I feel ultimately unsustainable. Painful as it may be, I think it’s always best in the long-run to persist in moving toward greater truth. This may be further incorporating a multiplicity of perspectives, and considering that answers to certain aspects may always be unknowable as absolutes.

For now it should be noted that groups concerned with alcohol issues report that the suicide rate for teenage drinkers is nearly twice as high as that for non-drinkers [5] [6] [7]. Bearing this in mind, it may come to look increasingly irresponsible to continue concealing and suppressing such information.

--SallyScot 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never met him, but because of him, other people's rights are being infringed upon. I'm sure he wasn't his desire but his parents are using him as an excuse to try to deny other people who would use it responsibly, that right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming Alcohol Where No Blame Is Due

Bottom line on these recent edits is the users/sellers of Salvia want the focus of Brett's death to be taken off Salvia and put on his alleged alcohol use, and his depression over acne. As far as acne goes check the various pictures of Brett on the web. You won't see acne due to the fact that both his parents spent countless dollars and hours seeing to it that he wouldn't suffer from acne as many teens do. He had beautiful skin and was very much the envy of all his friends because of his looks. Acne and minocycline played no part in his decision to take his life. This really is a ludicrious conclusion. Someone as strong as Brett would not take his life over something so easily curable. Acne was a total "non-issue" for Brett. As for his alleged drinking he did no more or no less than the rest of the teens in his school and his peer group. Considering what goes on in schools nowadays it was pretty minimal. It certainly wasn't an issue with any of us or his parents. His family, which is a large, very closeknit one, and one that Brett was central to, will continue to maintain: It would not be possible for Brett to continue to be a straight A student, a National Honor Society member and a new addition to his schools "Principals List" right before his death, if he was doing the quantity of drinking that's indicated on his profile. He wouldn't have be able to keep his job, drive to school, and be an integral part of his family if he was under the influence 24/7 as these contributors would like us to believe. What he was experimenting with frequently, and what was found with him, at the death scene, was a bag of salvia, matches and a pipe. His note, dated 12/08/05, said people will have a problem with this, but that Salvia made him see that our existence here on earth was pointless. If he believed what Salvia made him feel then why bother to stay here on this earth?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britbarb (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You can't know he was not drinking a lot. Really it will never cease to amaze me how oblivious adults can be. In my experience parents are usually the last to know, even in a close family.

---

In 1984 a 19-year old shot himself in the head while listening to Ozzy Osbourne's ‘Suicide Solution’ (a song, ironically, about the dangers of alcohol)[8]. The teenager’s father described him as a “perfectly normal kid who didn’t show any sign of depression at all. Then six hours later, he's dead. Nobody can explain it. The only thing we know is that he was listening to this music”. The parents’ following lawsuit against Ozzy Osbourne (which became national news and a first amendment issue) was dismissed in 1986.

The sincerity of the family’s belief and the degree of closeness to their loved and lost isn’t really the issue of doubt in situations like these. What’s more questionable is their capacity for objectivity in seeking some kind of closure on the case, and here making edits and deletions to articles simply to suit their own preferred version of the story.

As far acne goes, if Britbarb wants to make the discussion point that it was a total “non-issue”, because both his parents spent countless dollars and countless hours seeing to it that he wouldn’t suffer and had beautiful skin, then that’s fine. It’s not really my definition of a non-issue (countless dollars and hours suggests some kind of issue to me) but never mind for now.

With regard to booze, despite the ongoing protestations, the article at no point explicitly blames (/blamed) alcohol for Brett’s suicide either. Britbarb continues to make accusations which are simply not borne out – suggesting that it would not be possible for Brett to have functioned well - “He wouldn't have be able to keep his job, drive to school, and be an integral part of his family if he was under the influence 24/7 as these contributors would like us to believe.” ... “if he was doing the quantity of drinking that's indicated on his profile.” ... Indicated on his profile? - What profile does Britbarb mean exactly? Are you referring to the Brett Chidester Memorial Group quote made a couple of days after his death, but which has now mysteriously disappeared?

Well, for some readers, I still think the fact that original quote was so quickly and conveniently removed after it became a point of contention is going increase suspicions rather than reduce them. As one of the previous discussion references says[9] many parents see teenage drinking as simply a “rite of passage”, but some others may recognise alcohol as by “far and away the top drug of abuse by America’s teens” and would not be so reassured by remarks such as “he did no more or no less than the rest of the teens in his school and his peer group”.

I also note Britbarb trying to beef up the case against Salvia by suggesting that it was found “at the death scene”. This is either breaking news (it’s been reported nowhere else) or a crafty piece of misdirection. - The death scene being where exactly? - Inside the tent? - The garage? - The whole house (and therefore inclusive of Brett’s bedroom)?

I’d suggest that it’s going to look increasingly desperate to continue pushing the idea of Brett being under Salvia’s influence at the time of his death. It’s well known that the immediate effects of smoking Salvia are short-lived, the experience lasting some 10-15 minutes (and being somewhat incapacitating at that). Yet the details of his suicide would have required time-consuming research, planning and set-up; all of which, along with the slow method itself (and the writing of a suicide note), allowing plenty of scope for a change of mind and coming back to one’s senses, and suggesting that the whole thing was much more thought through and premeditated than simply a brief moment of Salvia induced madness.

The Salvia divinorum section remains in the article under possible contributory factors, and, as yet, no Salvia enthusiast has tried to edit out Brett’s alleged “our existence is general is pointless” quote (if they do, I’ll put it back in myself). It’s not my fault if, apart from some isolated jottings found in notebooks, the evidence against Salvia is otherwise looking pretty thin.

It is for the most part quite unreasonable to insist upon Salvia’s influence in an isolated case without also weighing up other evidence and looking for a more compelling degree of correlation. Although the Internet is still a growing phenomenon it is by no means new. It’s been well established for well over a decade. And, regardless of whether parents (or aunties) had generally heard of it before, Salvia divinorum has been widely available in the US during all that time too.

In total about 30,000 people commit suicide each year in the US (31,484 is the latest available figure from National Center for Health Statistics for the year 2003). Of the year 2003 cases, 4,238 were under the age of 25. As well as the figures for actual suicides, it’s also worth noting the much higher number of attempted suicides. According the Samaritans there are about 750,000 suicide attempts each year. In addition, many more will people experience depression without going as far as making an attempt on their own lives.

If Salvia divinorum contributes to depression (and/or subsequent suicide) in any significant way then, to put it bluntly, I would expect to be hearing about this with many more ‘survivors’ tales from some of the seven and a half million or so US suicide attempts of the last decade. For example, more retrospective accounts of what Salvia can do to ‘mess up your life’ like we have with more believable accounts of other substances (for example, like we have with alcohol).

I would also expect to be able to draw inference from other cultures having long-established relationships with Salvia divinorum. And the evidence here, from perhaps centuries of indigenous Mexican use, again does not generally support the allegations of those who would intentionally or otherwise have us instead succumb to the politics of fear.

--SallyScot 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

A reply of sorts was made by Britbarb on 17:28, 19 September 2006. – It’s possible to see this in full in the discussion history of course – but it’s been otherwise reverted here as it sabotaged rather than responded to the above points. In amongst the ranting of that post there were perhaps two points of note.

Britbarb strongly denied “beefing up” the case against Salvia claiming instead to be “just telling the truth exactly at it occurred” and claiming that the fact of Salvia being found “at the death scene” would be confirmed by the police report. She avoided answering the question of what that constituted though. – Whether it meant in the tent, in the garage, or just generally in the house (e.g. in Brett’s bedroom).

Britbarb also questioned Salvia’s safety stating: “on countless website regarding Salvia users many say "It's a crazy thing that I'll never touch again."”

--SallyScot 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation for bias

INTERESTING INFO FROM SALLYSCOT'S WEBSITE. NO WONDER HE'S SO INTERESTED IN THE FIRST KNOWN CASE OF SALVIA RELATED SUICIDE. THANKS TO BRETT'S BEST BUDDY MIKE FOR FORWARDING THIS TO COUSIN D.

... Salvia Divinorum Scotland ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Britbarb (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

An excessively long quote from a UK based website that provides historical, political, and botanical information on Salvia Divinorum has been removed; a web-link is sufficient. The quote implied bias in SallyScot's argument due to his small scale commercial interest in Salvia Divinorum. The quote was taken from a promotional page selling Salvia Divinorum cuttings and dried leaf. It is worth noting that SallyScot does not sell enhanced leaf and gives links to independent scientific information on Salvia Divinorum from the website.

Fluidhomefront 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I’m not sure it’s entirely appropriate (a simple link would have sufficed), but anyway, thanks Britbarb for the original advert. A close working relationship with Salvia for over seven years, helping propagate perhaps thousands of these fascinating plants, and inviting feedback and comment from all. The reader may conclude that I do indeed know my subject. – Which might not be the point Britbarb was trying to infer of course. However, if satisfied with regard to my level of expertise, please feel free to ask any pertinent questions. There’s lots of information on the site and readers are generally encouraged to investigate further for themselves.

--SallyScot 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

The issue of commerical bias is one that is present in many respected scientific journals, especially those with a pharmaceutical topic. Many journals now require authors to declare the source of their funding so as to make any motivation for bias clear. It is clear that if SallyScot's main source of income comes from the sale of Salvia Divinorum cuttings and dried leaf, there is motivation for bias in his argument. However, commerical interest does not directly imply bias. Can SallyScot clarify if his main source of income comes from the sale of Salvia Divinorum?

SallyScot has provided both pro- and anti- Salvia D. information in this article and in this discussion. However, strong bias is shown in the arguments of BritBarb. The motivation for bias in the comments from BritBarb is much stronger than minor commercial interest; the motivation is emotional and her argument has potential for bias caused by the grieving process.

I will declare my possible motivations for bias: I am an occasional user of Salvia Divinorum as I subjectively find it improves my creativity, productivity and mood. I have no associated commerical interests and receive all of my income from EPSRC.

Fluidhomefront 02:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks to Fluidhomefront for replacing the inappropriate copy-paste taken from my webpage without my permission - yet another violation of Wikipedia's editorial policy from the Chidester family. I perhaps should've removed it myself earlier, but Britbarb's discussion points ceased after my post of 18:43, 29 September 2006, and, in the absence of any other forthcoming comments, I left it without further response.

To be honest, I have been trying to cut the Chidester family some slack - given their loss and their quite understandable grief. I was hoping that time would calm things down somewhat and we could move on more sensibly perhaps using our heads as well as our hearts. Unfortunately, you only need to look at the recent surge of media stories about Salvia divinorum to see that, well over a year after Brett's suicide now, they are still actively campaigning for Salvia prohibition across the US.

While emotionally understandable on some level, this still ultimately makes no sense to me. Support for 'Schedule I' classification is tantamount to arguing that the most appropriate place for all Salvia users is serving a lengthy jail term. Is this really to be Brett's legacy? Is it how they would wish their son could have been dealt with in the event that he'd transgressed such law?

Thank you also for the invite and opportunity to deal with the question of motivation for bias. I guess I'd thought that it was more the substance of the arguments being put forward that should count, that these should be judged on their own merits (on factors such as verifiability for example) rather than trying to second guess motives or using other fallacious arguments.

In any case, for the record, my particular focus, specialising in the live plants as I do, effectively means that I run my Salvia venture at a financial loss. The effort involved in cultivating the plants, the time and care which needs to be taken over the packing and the like, is all very labour intensive. The only way I've found the time to do this is by cutting my regular office-job work hours down to a four day week. I work in IT as a senior systems builder - which is salaried much higher than the plants compensate for - financially speaking at least.

I sell Salvia plants because I think it's important. If I felt passionately about something else, like orchids, or absinthe for example - then I'd doubtless be into them as different hobbies instead.

To reiterate, I don't sell Salvia extracts, tinctures or enhanced strength products of any kind. I've never even sold untreated leaf. - When I do have surplus dry leaf available I give away free samples on request. I sell live Salvia divinorum plants (though incidentally not to the US), and, in purely monetary terms, since September 2000 when I started, I have been running at an overall loss.

Even so, I would still emphasise that it's the veracity of the arguments which should really count. I don't seek to undermine Brett's family purely on account of their emotional involvement. All I ask is they clearly demonstrate that they can also be reasonable.

Oh, and ironically enough, in the State of Delaware, the knee-jerk legislation they rushed through, now known as "Brett’s law" (SB259), makes no mention of Salvia extracts or the plant's active constituent salvinorin A. This means that salvinorin A remains perfectly legal there. Any enhanced extract such as Salvia tincture, or Salvia extract applied to a neutral leaf such as oregano, or blotting paper even, could no more be considered Salvia divinorum than could aspirin be thought the same thing as White willow (Salix alba).

--SallyScot 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate advocacy

I find the article to be vastly inappropriate in terms of its advocacy, even though it maintains a nominally even-handed approach.

The article should just stay away from anything remotely resembling any kind of advocacy. Yet every fact about the suicide is accompanied by a treatise on why that may be irrelevant to drawing conclusions about the plant.

It may well be irrelevant to drawing conclusions about the plant, but that is not the role of an encyclopedia article.

Rather, the article should report facts, and facts alone, and stay away from debating anything.Daqu (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check

Could someone uninvolved POV check the article? I'm not going to say what I think is a problem, so that any check is undisturbed by my opinions. Thanks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note the above discussions - apparently there have been problems with this before. Given that there are a lot of users with a potential conflict of interest here, on both sides, I've added a COI tag too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

I've removed the POV-Check and COI tags. I'm sorry, but this looks like 'drive by' tagging of the article. Nominated concerns should be articulated in discussion. I don't think it's enough to say "I'm not going to say".

Earlier discussions relate to markedly different versions of the article. For example the Inappropriate advocacy comment above relates to this version - the Possible contributory factors section of which looks like it was written by a representative of the Chidester family. This section, and other sections in earlier versions, have since been removed.

Bearing in mind that NPOV should not be aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints and that content should represent disputes within topics I think what remains is pretty minimal actually.

There should at least be an effort made to resolve remaining concerns through discussion, certainly in preference to the 'tag and run' approach anyway.

--SallyScot (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to resolve the issues by discussion, because I don't know anything about Salvia or Brett's Law. However, I'm concerned about the neutrality of this article, and that it may lend undue support towards the drug. There doesn't seem to be anything 'balancing' the article in support of the law, which is odd considering it's been passed by the US Government.
Furthermore, I added the CoI tag because SallyScot has a conflict of interest in the subject. No offence Sally, but I just want a third opinion on whether this is a neutral article. I'm not 'drive-by-tagging', but I do want reassurance from another editor that this article shows all appropriate viewpoints. As such, I'd appreciate it if you left the tags in place. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--

Both tags suggest supporting discussion on the talk page. If this isn't forthcoming then the tags, which are otherwise overbearing and off-putting to the reader, are not well justified.

Contributors who know the subject shouldn't be discouraged. I would include Brett's mom with this. As long references are appropriately sourced, the article as a whole should represent disputes within the subject. NPOV should not be aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

I think the article is reasonably balanced. It says "Chidester’s parents have argued that the herb played a major role in the teenager’s death" and mentions their intended suing of the suppliers. It counters with a comment that "only Chidester's parents, continue to be cited over and over again by the mainstream media", in the context of an estimated 750,000 salvia users for the year of Brett's death.

Concerns raised in earlier discussion posts relate to vastly different versions of the article, and all that remains is a fairly minimal lead section, for which the tags are inappropriate I feel, though I am of course happy to engage in further discussion.

--SallyScot (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of that SNL skit...

"People who ruin it for everyone".

Because one kid who committed suicide also happened to use salvia, and his parents have to find someone/something to blame(other than the people actually responsible for the child's safety and well-being of course) other people who would/do use it responsibly now cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article

Unless I'm mistaken, curly apostrophes shouldn't be used in article titles (or anywhere, really) unless absolutely necessary, so the title of this article is wrong.. --96.54.228.29 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brett's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brett's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brett's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Brett%27s_law"