Talk:Ashley Smith inquest

The initial article creator chose to use {{Infobox War on Terror detainee}} in this article. I switched to {{Infobox person}}, since no evidence was provided that she was involved in the War on Terror.--Auric (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I made some edits for this article, feel free to comment this article if this is much wrong or not simple. It may not match to its deletion policy. --Mohamed Aden Ighe 04:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not pitching any aluminum foil hats here, but after watching the first documentary I was interested in watching both. I can't see it because I'm not a loyal maple leaf (though a red maple does grow in sight of this keyboard). Anybody above the timberline like to view this? Please feel invited to add to the section on the The Fifth Estate's second film on this subject, "Behind the Wall."(link). Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've removed a sentence from the article telling us that the documentary is not available outside Canada. I don't think it's particularly relevant to the article.

Excellent work, Buster & Vulcam btw. It's looking much better; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to make some substantive changes to this article, but I thought it best to discuss them first. My starting point is this (and it could be my residual thoughts from the AfD, so feel free to tell me off :) ): this article is about the Ashley Smith inquest versus Ashley Smith's life. Therefore, depending on what objections there are, I plan on making the following changes:

1. Significantly reduce the section about Smith's early life
2. See if I can add a bit more about the death (although right now, most of it is in the lead)
3. Reduce (or possibly eliminate) the sections on the documentaries about Smith's life - again, the focus is on the inquest (and to some extent, the death that led to the inquest), but the focus of the article is not Smith's life).

I know a lot of people put a lot of work into those sections, so I don't want to go all ogre/dragon-like and not discuss it first. Singularity42 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking a rest and working on other pagespace. Happy with my start and very happy with the changes made since my last edit. I, for one, have no difficulty with the suggestions you've made. This seems like natural progression. My work was a rough draft, done in one editing session. The documentary sections could easily be tightened, and the quotes reduced or put in quote boxes. Sure would like to see that second documentary. Sorry that frustration made it onto pagespace. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I should add one caveat: I'm not sure there would be an inquest except for the public exposure the two documentaries have brought to bear. The documentary section might be truncated, but not removed. That's my position. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually working on a proposed revision in my userpace. I should have it done in an hour or two, and will link to it from here. I think I've managed to do some trimming, while perserving a lot, re-ordering the content, and adding a lot more about what is actually going on with the inquest (since that's what the article is supposed to be about). Expect the link soon... Singularity42 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's my first proposed new version. The main changes are as follows:

• The early life of Smith has been trimmed.
• The early life and death have been combined into one section.
• Details of Smith's death have been moved from the lead into the relevant section.
• Since the article is about the inquest, it didn't make sense to then have a section titled "Inquest". It should really be one section about what led to the inquest, one section about other fallout from the death, various sections about what has happened at the inquest, and one section about media attention. Therefore, I have pretty much redone the content about the inquest itself.
• I agree that the documentaries were probably the fire that led to the inquest. However, I don't think there's a reliable source that confirms that. So while I agree that we should include mentions of them, I don't think we should be devoting so much of the article to them. Therefore, I have substantially reduced the content regarding those documentaries, and moved them to the new "media attention" section.

Suggestions? Like it? Hate it? Comments? Singularity42 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've got pretty big problems with the drastic reduction, though I'll confess you were largely editing my writing, so perhaps I'm protective. However, I think a reasonable search for sources would have turned up this. The award was for both documentaries in the arena of public service to the community. The Canadian Association of Journalists seems to agree. So it's pretty important and directly related. Cetainly notable enough for its own pagespace. BusterD (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I should have added: thanks for doing this in sandbox space. It always seems so much easier to discuss disagreements civilly when we're not on a live page. BusterD (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know the documentaries won awards (and I should have included mention it), but I'm wondering if there's a reliable source which links the Coroner's decision to do an inquest with the broadcasting of the first documentary? Otherwise, what I would propose is that we leave it as part of the "Media attention" in my proposed new version, and then add more substantive content to the fifth estate] and link to that. Although after thinking of that proposal, I looked at the fifth estate article, and I'm not sure it could be added there given the article's format. I'll have to think on that more. Singularity42 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I've pointed out, the series has won sufficient resonance in the Canadian journalist community for it to stand alone as it's own page. I'd be glad to start that pagespace and source it. It would make a nice co-article to this more narrow procedural structure. This is why Death of... made so much sense. IMHO, it's the resonance of the death which is important, as expressed in the firings, the charges filed and dropped, the lawsuit, the documentaries, the press reaction to those, and finally the inquest and bizarre turns taken so far. To me this makes more sense inside one article, and the limited scope you're willing to concede forces a multi-page solution. At this point, I'd prefer a combined single article, but as a solution I'm still open to several, including a stub article on the victim, (meets WP:VICTIM, because of the persistent award-winning press coverage). BusterD (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The joys of there being no consensus at the AfD. Let's see what the other contributers think. Obviously, I like my version, but equal to your comment above, I could be easily biased because it is what I wrote. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look at the proposed changes. I think the summary of the early life and death is better in the proposed article, but I think too much has been trimmed out of the lead and I'm not sure I like how much the information on the inquest is split up. I agree with BusterD; a Death of... article would be a much better means of covering all of this (although that's hardly surprising, since I'm the one who suggested it in the first place), for the reasons noted above. For comparison, see Death of Christopher Alder as an example - similar, though not the same, circumstances, with a subsequent investigation and inquest. I will admit to being uncomfortable with the size of current article section on the Out of Control documentary - but I also have to say that I'm not sure what, if anything, I'd be able to trim from it.

I think the real problem here is that, taken individually, neither the person, her death, the inquest (because it's incomplete), or the media coverage including the documentaries, have clear and uncontestable notability. Taken together the whole sequence of events is clearly notable, now.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a free picture of Smith out there somewhere? Could include it in either the "Early life" section of the current version or the "Background and death" version of my proposed new version.

I've also seen some of the media outlets use still shots like this one. If there's a free version of that around, that would also be useful for the article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I changed Ashley's death from a suicide to auto-asphyxiation. It's a form of self-harm that causes the person to get a high from losing consciousness. She had done this very same thing hundreds a times before. This wasn't a suicide. She wasn't suicidal. She wasn't on a suicide watch. (A suicide watch is ordered by a psychologist and the inmate is placed on 15 minute rounds.) Any reports calling this a suicide is strictly media sensationalism.

UCCO-SACC-CSN Press Release: http://www.ucco-sacc.csn.qc.ca/Documents/UCCO-SACC/Ontario/documents/ARushToJudgment/UCCO_SACC_CSN_PressRelease_oct23_2008.pdf

A Rush to Judgment - Union report on the death of Ashley Smith: http://www.ucco-sacc.csn.qc.ca/Documents/UCCO-SACC/Ontario/documents/ARushToJudgment/Full%20Report%20-%20A%20Rush%20to%20Judgment.pdf PrisonBull69 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

While I'd consider UCCO-SAC-CSN a reliable source of information, it would be hard to accept these reports as being completely independent and unbiased. These are compelling sources, however, and they belong linked in mainspace, not just here on the talkpage. I've been reading them with great interest, so thanks for linking them. They humanize the deceased in ways the documentaries fail to do. The assertion of euphoric auto-asphyxiation (as opposed to suicide) makes sense, and might be accurate, but I'm not seeing reliable secondary sources which seem to concur with the union's conclusions in the matter. Are there RSs which do so? I'd be interested in hearing what other editors think. BusterD (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Um. I disagree with this change. The CBC timeline source linked from the main article clearly states that Smith was placed on a formal suicide watch on 18 October 2007; and a guard is quoted as having a conversation with her that evening in which she stated "I want to die" in the same timeline article. (Whether or not she actually meant this is speculation.) I would not characterize that as media sensationalism. I don't know if there has been further testimony to this effect since the new inquiry started last week. In my opinion, this change should be reverted - at least the part removing reference to suicide.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Only Wikipedia is still calling this a suicide. It was originally media sensationalism. Had the original story come out truthfully, it wouldn't have legs. The original story leads people to think that this was a singular occasion, that officers happened to be watching an inmate commit suicide while standing around and doing nothing. A formal suicide watch is when a psychologist orders 15 minute rounds. It's a CYA. This was way above and beyond that. She had a team at the ready, everyday videotaping her. She had self-harmed hundreds of times before. She was quoted as saying, "I want to get high." This officer had personally wrote 50 use-of-force reports on her: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/author/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/29/christie-blatchford-senior-managers-at-ashley-smiths-prison-more-interested-in-careers-than-inmates-inquest-told&pubdate=2013-01-29&t=cblatchford PrisonBull69 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Wikipedia has long been classifying this incident as suicide, based on sources available at the time the page was written and edited. The Fifth Estate documentaries use the term, and like many other sources report that Smith was on "suicide watch." She strangled herself; she died as a result. But it appears that none of the most recent media sources use the term "suicide." All sources seem to agree that Smith strangled herself and that she had harmed herself in a similar manner numerous times before. A reader of sources might easily conclude the subject was suicidal and committed suicide, but the most recent sources don't so conclude. However, I have yet to see a single source (outside UCCO-SACC-CSN) conclude the incident was auto-asphyxiation, for euphoric purposes. This seems to be the assertion of the union and the family, and may in the future be the finding of the inquest, but we have zero RS which have so concluded as of this datestamp. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

As most sources are now calling it just a 'death', can we agree to call her passing just that? There is a huge difference. When the results of the inquest are released, we can call it how it is. PrisonBull69 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Time to remove any mention of suicide? The National Post is calling this, "she asphyxiated herself" and "a 19-year-old who died". This article starts to get it right: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/18/christie-blatchford-on-ashley-smith-how-does-an-18-year-old-end-up-doing-serious-time-in-a-federal-prison-for-throwing-crab-apples-at-a-postman/ PrisonBull69 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't scrub the term from the article. There's no argument that sources originally concluded or inferred suicide, given the circumstances. I'd rather see a statement saying that early reports called the repeated incidents "suicide attempts" and as information has been added and evolved, such characterization has ceased. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say before any such changes are made. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

More reports from the inquest. Nothing mentioning suicide:

"Making matters worse was the fact that a special trainer named Ken Allan, brought in the week before Ashley died by regional HQ to re-educate the guards, predicted, according to Ms. Lombardo, that, “She would die by death by misadventure.”

Ms. Lombardo had never heard the term before, but took it to mean that “should something happen to inmate Smith, this is what the incident would be deemed.”

“Was he suggesting this [Ashley’s death] would be acceptable?” Julian Roy, one of the lawyers who represents Ashley’s family, asked.

“That’s what it appeared,” Ms. Lombardo said. “It would be acceptable. If she were to take her own life, it would go back on her.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/19/christie-blatchford-corrections-official-seemed-to-suggest-that-ashley-smith-death-by-her-own-hand-would-be-acceptable-guard-testifies/ PrisonBull69 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

^[1] "Ashley repeatedly used ligatures to strangle herself at great risk to her life and ultimately with the result that she died. She secreted these on her person in her vagina and rectum and correctional officers did not or could not remove these from her. The institutions did sometimes send her to general hospitals with the request that the hospital staff remove them. These aspects of the circumstances of the death are in contrast to what would happen in a health care setting where the first question would be whether she consented to the removal of these objects from her body and whether she was capable, by virtue of her mental health challenges to consent or refuse such consent. In the event that she were assessed by a legally authorized mental health care professional as incompetent to make those decisions in a health care setting, a substitute decision maker (most often a family member) would be appointed in the manner prescribed by law and steps deemed necessary by that decision maker, with the advice of her treatment team, would be available to be consented to on her behalf to protect her life. In view of the tragedy in this death the jury may wish to consider recommendations which would address these circumstances of this death to prevent similar deaths in the future." PrisonBull69 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Smith was transferred to the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener in late August 2007. She died Oct. 19, 2007, in her segregation cell after tying a ligature around her neck and asphyxiating." ^[2] PrisonBull69 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Throughout the near-year she spent in the federal system, Ashley “tied up” with alarming frequency and was considered a high risk for suicide, though suicide was not what she appears to have intended. Rather, her ligature use was designed to get staff rushing into her cell, both to give her the human contact she craved and the feeling of power she savoured." I'm not really sure how much more journalistic 'proof' one needs to correct this entry to no longer say this was a suicide as it is clear that it wasn't? The issue with calling it a suicide is that it incorrectly leads the uninformed public to assume that this girl killed herself while officers watched and did nothing to prevent it. Nothing could be further from the truth.^[3] PrisonBull69 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can see you have a passion for this subject matter. Thank you for your illumination. However, for my part, I need to see reliable sources make clear statements saying the death wasn't a suicide. I have seen several that state the death was in fact a suicide. Until the inquest is over, I'm holding fire. BTW, it doesn't help your case that the title of the article you linked was "Aversion to female cavity searches contributed to Ashley Smith’s suicide." Inferences don't help us. Using our own analysis is original synthesis and is not allowed to wikipedians. According to WP:IRS, we may only repeat what other RSs say. As always I'm interested in the viewpoints of other contributors. BusterD (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's taken awhile but I feel vindicated. I understand you need a RS to make changes. What the ruling of 'homicide' means is that the death was preventable. This can be somewhat misleading as every death is 'preventable'. To clarify, the purpose of a Coroner’s Inquest is to determine a cause of death, and not to find fault or assign blame. The means by which the death occurred can only be found as one of the following: accidental, natural causes, suicide, undetermined, or homicide. The verdict of homicide is not the same as that under the Criminal Code of Canada. A finding of homicide, in this context, is not a finding of criminal or legal responsibility but an indication that Ashley’s death was preventable.PrisonBull69 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have any reliable sources suggested evidence there is a question of the preparedness of corrections workers? In the video of Ashley Smith's death, one worker is heard to say, "Jesus Christ, I haven't had fucking CPR training in 11 years. Give me a break." The quote can be seen at 1:33 of a LiveLeak video URL: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=213_1358477025 *WARNING* The video is graphic, and is cited only to establish statements concerning the capabilities of corrections officers as regards this inquiry.

CSC Correctional Officers get mandatory re-training in CPR every three years. It's a manager's responsibility to ensure it happens. PrisonBull69 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

it is given to every other person whose passage through this life has a pronounced effect on people, society, or its constructs. this article should document the progression of insults to this young person's equilibrium.

as it stands you have a rather mixed-up mess, the ashley smith inquest and its "early life"; great emphasis on certain aspects but lack of information on others, the two documentaries and the two inquests. the documentaries should be added to a biographical article or have their own entries. the inquests should remain with the original (inquest) article.184.148.67.99 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article was converted to an event article based on the previous deletion discussion, where User:Singularity42 asserted (and others seemed to agree) the subject was only notable for one event: her death. The stronger case can be made that the inquest is notable, but only an impoverished case might be made the subject deserves a biography. If you'd like to find and add biographical material, this would be most helpful and appropriate. BusterD (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashley Smith inquest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please keep in mind that this is my first review. Judging against the criteria I see the following issues:

• 2b: Many paragraphs rely on a single citation, despite having several sentences. This is most evident in the 'Early Life' section. I understand in many cases (including the first paragraph in the early life section) the reference at the end of paragraph backs up the entire paragraph, however, I am not sure whether that is sufficient. Can someone please clarify for me? The sentence "On 30 September 2011, the Ontario Coroner's Office formally terminated the inquest and dismissed the jury" most certainly needs a citation.

Action: found an appropriate reference link for this last point and added it.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• 6: Article lacks any images, which is disappointing, but unfortunately sometimes unavoidable

Action: I'm choosing not to address this; there are numerous images of Ashley Smith out there, but I'm not sure of their copyright status and don't know enough about Wikipedia images and copyright to safely add one. If anyone else wishes to tackle this, please feel free to do so.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Considering how small both the 'Death' and 'Aftermath' sections are, I believe these should be combined. I'm also not convinced 'Aftermath' is the most appropriate word to use here, as I would expect an 'Aftermath' section to cover any inquests, whereas the inquests have their own section.

Action: merged the 2 sections; this seems appropriate.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The inquest section is the largest in the article, yet contains the fewest number of wikilinks (2). Consider adding more. At least one wikilink added somewhere in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th paragraph of the 'Out of Control' sub-section wouldn't go astray either.

Action: added a few additional wikilinks to both sections. This was hard to do because I was under the impression that if something is linked higher in the article page it does not need to be linked again.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Also search tool finds a dozen redirects: [1]. Considering that some of the references were retrieved in 2011, this is not surprising. These need to be updated to prevent WP:LINKROT.

Action: started correcting these, but there's about a dozen, so it'll take me a few days. Update: all links corrected.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Other than that I see no issues. Article is well-written, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable. Freikorp (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

As this is my first review, I contacted a Good article mentor as recommended, to look at my review. The reviewer stated the only thing I missed was a check for close-paraphrasing and copyright-violations. After a comprehensive duplicates check, I find no major issues, and only two things I think could be reworded. 11 word match: 11 million wrongful death lawsuit against the correctional service of canada [2], consider reversing/rewording. Eight word match: agreed to voluntarily give evidence at the inquest [3]. Consider minor rewording. Once this is done we're good to go. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Changed the wording around a little (and fixed a split infinitive while I was at it).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good work. I'm passing it now. Also the mentor confirmed that so long as the citation at the end of the paragraph backs up the entire paragraph, using it only once is fine. It may cause issues for expansion in the future, but it is not a concern for GA review. Freikorp (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is young offender really an occupation?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat power11 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is been changed and reverted several times, so opening discussion here. While the final verdict of the inquest was homicide without findings of specific guilt on the part of any member of the corrections staff, the actual title of the inquest was "An Inquest touching the Death of Ashley Smith". The final lead paragraph indicates the results of the inquest (finding of homicide), so I would argue that changing the opening sentence to "inquest into the homicide of Ashley Smith" is unnecessary and logically and grammatically incorrect. (One does not hold an inquest into a homicide; stating homicide indicates that the cause of death is already known.) Please discuss here before further changing the article opening sentence.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. 'Death' is the most appropriate word to use at the beginning of the lead. Freikorp (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

For further reference, the formal report of the inquest is located here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/192573171/AshleySmith-Verdict. This clearly states the title of the inquest as "An Inquest touching the death of Ashley Smith" ,emphasis mine>.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply