Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-25/Susan Atkins

Where is the dispute?
In the "Death" section of the Susan Atkins article.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:SkagitRiverQueen
 * User:Wildhartlivie

What is the dispute?
I have been trying for a couple of hours now to work with Wildhartlivie on one point in the Susan Atkins article - discussing the situation at the article's talk page. She keeps insisting on leaving a statement in the "Death" section of the article that gives a false impression to whoever reads that statement. I contend this is dishonest and unencyclopedic. Wildhartlivie keeps rejecting my compromising edits and either reverting back to what was already there, what she writes as a change, or completely removes what I have written. I have tried to reason with her, giving her facts about Cause of Death and how it is determined and by whom it is determined. She refuses to listen to reason and I am at the end of my rope.

What would you like to change about this?
The article needs to clearly state, "Susan Atkins died on September 24, 2009, at the Central California Women's facility in Chowchilla. A prison spokesperson announced to reporters that her death was due to natural causes, however, the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public." As the previous has been reverted, the article now reads "Susan Atkins died on September 24, 2009, at the Central California Women's facility in Chowchilla. A prison spokesperson announced to reporters that her death was due to natural causes." The statement as it is now isn't incorrect, but it's definitely misleading. Prison spokespersons, medical personnel or not, do not determine official cause of death - that is done by either the deceased's physician or the coroner (or both) and it is listed on the death certificate as such (usually after an autopsy). The prison spokesperson was giving a statement to the press not long after the deceased's death, he was *not* giving the official COD as an autopsy could not have yet been performed. As it stands, the article is giving a false impression and it needs to be changed.

How do you think we can help?
Whatever can be done to make the article correctly reflect that "natural causes" was not the official COD so that the article doesn't give a false impression to anyone reading it is the optimum result here, in my opinion. I have tried to get the other editor to see this, but nothing has worked.

Discussion
Noting that the cause of death in our reliable sources is not the official cause of death would be a disclaimer. Just because we can't find a source stating the official cause of death doesn't mean none exist, or that the official cause of death was never made available to the public, so saying that within the article would qualify as WP:SYN -- though in this case, we would be using the lack of sources to draw a conclusion. If it were acceptable to make references to the editing process from within an article, I'd be alright with saying "no reliable sources could be found stating an official cause of death", but that's not done on Wikipedia. It's up to the reader to be skeptical of the information we provide from our reliable sources (in this case the prison spokesperson's explanation) if they so choose. Equazcion ( talk ) 18:13, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)


 * That's how I see this issue too. To add a disclaimer "the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public." is not necessarily true.   It may be that we haven't found a source.  It also could imply that there is something being intentionally withheld which is a different thing to "not disclosed".   To say that a prison spokesperson made a statement is factually true and verifiable.    The words are attributed to that person and we're making no claim as to the truth of the statement, only that the statement was made.   The statement is clear and unambiguous.   It does not say "Susan Atkins died of natural causes".  It says only that a "prison spokesperson" said that she died of natural causes.   If that's good enough for the news sources reporting the event, I don't see why it's not good enough for us, and that we have to add a disclaimer that can't currently be supported.   This seems like such a minor point to bring to this venue just because one editor has failed to sway several others on the article talk page and considering how new the discussion on the talk page is, it also seems premature to me.  Rossrs (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that the article stating a prison spokesperson is misleading and gives the appearance of saying she officially died of nothing more than "natural cuases". If you want to get exact here, *everyone* dies of "natural causes" - everyone dies when their heart stops beating and they stop breathing and their brain ceases to function - IOW, the systems needed to keep the body alive all cease to function naturally, ergo, everyone dies from "natural causes".  To then state Atkins died of natural causes as content in an encyclopedia article that will be taken by readers as the sole cause of death is either misleading or redundant (or maybe both).  At this point, I think it would be safer to completely leave out "natural causes" and not include *any* reason why she died at all.  As far as bringing the issue here, Rossrs - would you have rather WHL and I duke it out elsewhere in a non-civilized fashion or have others who work as mediators in WP help out with this disagreement?  To me, the alternative to coming here is unadvisable, at best.  And then...there *is* the issue of WHL engaging in edit warring and 3RR on the article - rather than reporting and having a showdown about that, I opted for a more peaceable solution here.  Considering her recent choices of behavior in Wikipedia and out, I think I did her a favor, actually.  No - I don't think coming here is "premature" at all.  And just for the record, one person's "minor point" is another persons not-so-minor point.


 * OK, my minor point is not a minor point to you. I was wrong on that score, and should have respected that you consider it important.   I do question why it had to come here, and so quickly, simply because it was not only you and Wildhartlivie involved in the discussion, but if there's an agreement,  I'm happy to leave it at that.   Rossrs (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to be duking it out with pretty much everyone else participating at the article, SRQ, not just Wild. Also: "natural causes" means something specific -- that there was a natural disease or other medical condition at work, not having been caused by the intervention of another human -- and I added a link just to make sure that was clear to people. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:19, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)


 * Your impression of me "duking it out with pretty much everyone else participating at the article" is incorrect. There's nothing wrong with standing firm on something you feel strongly about.  Moving on...I do think that putting a redirect link on "natural causes" is a great solution and that it should take care of the possibility of any misinterpretation of the use of the term.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. So this request for mediation can be closed? Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:29, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to be effective solution. Rossrs (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I absolutely did not edit war or violate 3RR on this article. Each and every edit I made was constructive, and was in no way a violation of any guidelines. That's the whole thing here, isn't it? Someone has to be doing something wrong in order to bolster a stance with which everyone else disagrees. My first change was to return content to its chronological order, which had been arbitrarily moved, my second edit was to remove the unsupported contention that the COD was "terminal brain cancer" and again to put the website contentions in their proper chronological order, my third edit was to remove falsified supporting references wherein the editor claimed they said brain cancer and did not, and my last edit was to make the sentence reflect the source. If that is edit warring and 3RR, please show where that occurred. Then explain to those reading this why you inserted two different sources that you claimed referenced a cause of death of "terminal brain cancer" when they absolutely did not say that. And just sayin', if edit warring was occurring, that does not happen in a vaccuum. Whose username was the other editor and what was that editor's action? Repeatedly removing changes that corrected the text to the sources, putting in false references to support a fact that was not in the sourcess and undoing changes to put things back in chronological order. For the mediation committee, I will not accept mediation on this issue. On the article talk page, every editor who responded (four or five others) disagreed with the stance taken by SkagitRiverQueen, none agreed with her. And she should please explain for administrators how her comment of "Considering her recent choices of behavior in Wikipedia and out, I think I did her a favor, actually." is in any way not a trolling comment. I'm certain I know of at least two admins who are reading this. Give it a friggin' rest, SRQ. "Consensus" disagrees with you here. Bad faith dropping of "doing me a favor" is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)