Talk:Chris Mainwaring

Cause of death

He died of a drug overdose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.87.99 (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

removing reference to drug overdose until this is confirmed203.11.225.5 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to an ABC report listing this as a POSSIBLE cause of death that police are investigating. 211.26.1.39 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

fast

wow i was surprised to see how fast his death was posted on here. i only just heard about it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.91.2 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't take much to surprise you then. Ajayvius 06:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They say Wikipedia is the ultimate death predictor. Dyslexicbudgie 06:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you reference that? Ajayvius 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Theories, Gossip and Speculation

To Quote WP:BLP Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. this applies to speculation/theories about the cause of his death, be cautious about the use of sources that imply drug use in association with other living people. When the police have confirmed the cause of death then that should be included what ever its cause. Gnangarra 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I earlier removed the drug innuendo and a "theory" about low sodium levels, which had pointed to a Real Footy article as backing for it, but that article did not actually present it as a plausible theory. Here is what that article said:

"Australian Medical Association emergency medicine spokesman Dr David Mountain said seizures were often the result of low sodium, caused by poor hydration, which can follow exercise and ecstasy use. "If sodium levels get very low, then it can cause seizures," he said."

It is mostly irrelevant to this article because David Mountain's comments are not directed towards the cause of Mainwaring's death, rather they are uninformed speculation about what might have caused a death like Mainwaring's. I thought I made that clear enough in my edit summary ("Removing "theory" which is not actually supported as a theory by the article cited (it just has some random doctor talking about what sometimes causes seizures)...") but I was reverted with the edit summary "Mark you must not have read The Age article". Well, I did, and I stand by its removal. - Mark 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply, for obvious reasons. I too am upset about the death of a local hero and uncomfortable in including this stuff, but that is beside the point — it was referenced and we are an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. The Age is regarded as reliable and credible, by the standards of newspapers, and it acquired the story in question from The West Australian (which is local at least if not as credible or reliable). Another editor introduced the "drug theory" to the article and I rewrote it to make it more balanced, i.e. hyponatremia may have been the cause of death + use of ecstasy can contribute to this, but there is no evidence that Mainy took ecstasy. That is a balanced way of dealing with a persistent, growing and significant theory/rumour. Grant | Talk 03:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree that BLP obviously doesn't apply. There's plenty of speculation about the cause of his death, which should be confirmed or denied soon as they are doing a toxicology report, but if it has a reputable source then it should stay in the article. Every news report I've seen is now reporting it as a "suspected drug overdose".Ticklemygrits 04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I think we need to deal with it in some way.

Also, hyponatremia is not usually drug related, although there have been cases reported resulting indirectly from Ecstasy use. Grant | Talk 04:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the deleted edit. The most appropriate policy is WP:FAN. We shouldn't be looking to gloss over the circumstances of his death, if the coroner or police come out and refute it, then change the article to reflect that when it happens. Also the cause of his death is known, just not what contributed to that.Ticklemygrits 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed it. We are an encylopaedia and are here to report facts, not theories, regardless of who or what newspaper reported them. —Moondyne 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Encyclopedias often discuss theories, including some very "out-there" ones. It comes down to relevance and topicality, absolute proof either way is not the "acid test" for inclusion. Grant | Talk 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers are reporting along the lines of "...police are investigating whether drugs may have played a part in the death." and not much more, because they know that that's as far as they can go at this stage. Reporting theories as per the prev edit is speculative. —Moondyne 05:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I wouldn't have an objection to a sentence along those lines BTW, just not a discussion about hyponatremia and effects of excstacy and excercise etc. —Moondyne 05:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it a fact that drugs are suspected in his death? Yes it is. If you look at this quote "The Nine network reported that Mainwaring had told paramedics on their first visit that he had taken cannabis and ecstasy earlier in the night, but was now "feeling okay".", that is a statement of fact. I.e., Mainwaring told paramedics that he ingested cannabis and ecstacy on the night of his death. There is a source for it and it should be in the article.Ticklemygrits 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i gues it is a bit of a long bow, I'm not as concerned about the Hyponatremis stuff.Ticklemygrits 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We need a sentence stating that, with a newspaper article link. —Moondyne 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow — stating what? Grant | Talk 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)