Talk:Suicide of Megan Meier

No discussion of the Link between antipsychotic and antidepressant use in children and increased rates of suicides
The article seems to omit the well established link between antipsychotic and antidepressant use in children and greatly increased rates of suicide. This child was a likely victim of over prescribing drugs known to increase thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts and actual suicides in children. It is also likely that she was already suicidal while on these drugs. It is extremely possible she may have committed suicide regardless of the cyber bullying. The link between suicide in children and these drugs is strongly supported by clinical evidence and there use in children is dangerous if not adequately monitored by the prescribing physician. These well known side effects may have been a deciding factor in the parents decision to not proceed with a lawsuit against Lori Drew. One wonders why they did not pursue a law suit against the psychiatrist and pharmaceutical industry but it would be difficult to determine who to ultimately hold responsible and a very tough battle against the vast pharmaceutical industrial complex. 208.54.38.177 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to add anything about this to the article, you're going to need a reliable source that also discusses this. Otherwise it's original research, which is not allowed here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The New Yorker article says "In the third grade, Megan told Tina that she wanted to kill herself. The Meiers took her to see a psychiatrist." so I made this edit to clarify that she had expressed suicidal thoughts already at that point in time. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * About this edit, I removed the details about the drugs because the sources don't talk about it. If people want to know what the FDA thinks, they can click the wikilink and read all about it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The concise drug descriptions were summarized from the relevant article leades and I felt they would quickly give a reader some information about the type of drugs that the young girl was prescribed from third grade on. Many readers do not link to many links due to limited free time and the article seems somewhat vague in describing the level of medication this young person was prescribed. It would be useful to an encyclopedic article to give a concise description of the drugs in the article as they are briefly mentioned. I have never edited the article before but I am well aware of the controversial use of these antipsychotics in children and was amazed at how brief their mention was in the article. One of my sisters is a professor of medicine, another earned a PhD in cognitive science and myself as a school teacher, we have all read and studied the known side effects of these drugs on children. My concern is people are reading this article and thinking her suicide was solely about bullying which is very unlikely considering the evidence. It is likely more related the use of these powerful drugs on children. The fact that one adult in the neighborhood chose to bully/harass a child is disturbing but there is much more to the story of this little girls life. 208.54.38.177 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
 * Additionally, please understand that hyperlinks are what Wikipedia is run on and designed for. People may draw their own conclusions, we may not draw conclusions for them. Fiddle   Faddle  19:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Knowing terms and properly applying them is two different things. The hyper link argument is a straw man and we all know Wikipedia uses hyper links. No one has recently included original research in the article and bringing it up is off topic. The discussion I started here is about the effects of these drugs on children of which there is hoards of research and how that applies in this case. Faddle, I am not sure what your post is trying to accomplish??? Jeraphine has contributed some material from a documented source that addressed some of my concerns and that is the purpose of this discussion although I believe the mention of these drugs is way to brief and the article would be improved by a concise description as well. 208.54.38.177 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "The article seems to omit the well established link between antipsychotic and antidepressant use in children and greatly increased rates of suicide." -- that was the first thing you said here and that's the part that would be original research. No straw men here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a talk page and discussing the link is not original research and it has already been documented as a simple google search demonstrates. The discussion is about the lack of depth in the article and poorly executed rapid fire accusations are unhelpful and disruptive. Please verify your accusation has merit before making it. I have studied the link of the use of these drugs to her suicide and was surprised very little mention was made here. Nothing is conclusive including the effect bullying had on her ultimate decision. The case is well studied and Wikipedia again fails to cover the article adequately. Interesting no one has commented on this talk page for two years and all of a sudden accusers of intention show up which makes me wonder if I am being trolled. 208.54.38.177 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If there are sources out there that discuss Meier's case and the drugs (both in one source), then we can use those sources to expand this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Put plain, IP editor, referring to the drug in one link and to the event in another is WP:SYNTH when they are linked together the manner you describe. In addition consensus is against your including the material in the article unless you have a reference in WP:RS, independent of both the drug and the event, that also speaks of both topics and demonstrates a genuine linkage between them. Then and only then may this material be added. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, no more and no less.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Using that line of reasoning and impossible standard of a vague "genuine linkage" the whole article falls into unverifiable. No court, doctor or any recognized researcher has ever stated that her suicide was definitively the result of cyber harassment. Matter of fact no reliable medical source has ever come close to making such an assertion. What you have is a bunch of journalists reporting on the dramatic events leading up to her suicide which include the off label use of very potent antipsychotics not approved by the FDA for use on children. It seems there is some manipulating of the information to present a story that pleases the vast pharmaceutical industrial complex as well as those who have hijacked her tragic suicide to promote their own political agenda. Strange bed fellows indeed. 172.56.9.31 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cite it or forget it. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own hypotheses, however reasonable they may be. Please see WP:TRUTH and recognise this site for what it is and is not. Fiddle   Faddle  07:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You have valid concerns, please express them somewhere where you can have some effect. It's not here. Advocacy: "Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda."
 * If you want to help improve the article, you could search for sources. I added this to the article just now, any comments/objections? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Suicide of Megan Meier. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709154447/http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/stevepokin/2007/10/something-more-disturbing-than-litter.html to http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/stevepokin/2007/10/something-more-disturbing-than-litter.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/12/07/suicide.shunning.ap/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120020237/http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C22783456-5014108%2C00.html?from=mostpop to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C22783456-5014108%2C00.html?from=mostpop
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222014832/http://www.sccworlds.com/worlds/index_files/dardenne_prairie/meierwalk.htm to http://www.sccworlds.com/worlds/index_files/dardenne_prairie/meierwalk.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange tone
The "Suicide" section of the article is written like prose. I have never seen phrases like, "Megan was sobbing hysterically" and, "Tina suddenly froze in mid-sentence, and ran up to Megan's room" in any other article on Wikipedia.

That said, I'm new to editing and this page and section are so emotionally charged that I don't want to just jump in here and start carving away at them. I'm hoping that by adding this section to the talk page it might flag someone more qualified to take a look at this page and make it a bit more professional. Grhmhmltn (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a strange description. The sentences you quoted probably originated from the Megan Meier Foundation website. IMO it is a credible and first hand source, but the sentences read more like a story, which is fine for news articles, but less so for Wiki articles. 202.73.1.89 (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Cats
Cat are the best 45.59.91.203 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the lost
Rest in pice 45.59.91.203 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)