Talk:Johnny Lewis

Taylor Negron on Catherine Davis

Not sure if Taylor Negron counts as a citable source, but this article has some rather interesting biographical information on Catherine Davis, the woman Lewis is believed to have killed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a great source and should be included in the article. Thanks for providing it. 87.164.110.60 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree, to a point. The Negron article reads more like a blog or even a eulogy calling her a "saint" and such. I've no doubt she was a very nice lady but not sure what relevance anything from the article has to the crime or M. Lewis. About the only thing that might be worth mentioning in the Wiki is that she had a history of renting to actors. Just one guys opinion. Sector001 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Some additional facts about Johnny Lewis that may not have been documented

I am Johnny's Dad, so admittedly I am close to the subject. When I mentioned at the tea house that the media was operating on mostly incorrect data, and that I had the correct data albeit not properly credentialed, it was suggested to me that I post it here, at least to start with. So here it is -- the documentation for the following is mainly medical, psychiatric and police reports, and court documents -- most of which are not readily publishable or available to the public.

On October 30, 2011, Johhny Lewis suffered head injuries from a high-speed motorcycle accident. Though an MRI was indicated, none was done. He started manifesting bizarre and illogical behavior from that point. On January 3rd 2012 he wandered into a neighbor's property. The neighbor called over another neighbor, a large man, who according to his own testimony in court several weeks later, sat on Lewis and pounded him in the face and head "15-17 times.” Lewis spent about a week at the Twin Towers Correctional facility where he sustained additional head injuries from unclear causes. His medical discharge summary dated January 11, 2012, states that Lewis was suffering from "Ecchymosis, periorbital," or basal skull fracture, with likely internal hemorrhaging. This data, on medical record, was known about by each psychiatrist and mental health evaluator, yet the diagnosis persisted as "drug-induced psychosis," despite the fact that Lewis never once during the final year of his life tested positive for drugs Symptoms of brain injury include sensitivity to light, unfocused eyes, illogical, sometimes violent behavior, inability to make decisions, all of which Lewis manifested. His sensitivity to light was such that he would prefer to sit in a room with all the lights out, illuminated by one candle. The Lewis family repeatedly pointed to this evidence, yet the drug abuse diagnosis and treatment persisted. Though he may have in the past experimented with drugs, they were not a factor in his troubles during his final year. Treated mistakenly for “drug-induced psychosis,” , Lewis was released from psychiatric custody on three different occasions from January through March 2012 on the grounds of "not being a threat to self or others" (Northridge Hospital, Santa Monica PD Mental Health Evaluator, and UCLA psychiatric unit in Culver City) each time over the protests of his family that he was still not well. In each case Lewis got into legal trouble within the next few days or week. The treatment for brain injury is complete and total rest for several months.Lewis was not afforded this during most of his final year. There was a time, however, when he was able to mainly rest for a month or so, at Ridgeview Ranch, in the hills of Altadena, California. His health, vision and reasoning abilities were coming back. He was seeing friends, speaking to directors, writing and making plans for a return to show business through stage acting. A journal entry from this period reads, "Felt more whole today, more real, more complete, like parts of myself had been stolen in my sleep and scattered all over the world and now they've begun to return. So I think better, my thoughts aren't being sent off on their own." In early August 2012 he was well enough to be granted provisional out-patient status. He made a deal with the District Attorney of the San Fernando Court -- his freedom for "time served." He was assured that he would likely simply just spend a couple more days in jail, no more. The couple days turned into nearly two more months during which he suffered a severe downturn in health and spirits. Released from jail September 21rst, he determined to make his own way and get his life together. Negative toxicology reports, negative drug tests throughout the year, significant medical evidence of brain injury and head trauma ignored for the most part by those in authority point to the actual scene with Lewis: a medical condition which should have been treated medically; not a psychiatric condition nor a drug-induced psychosis.

Thanks for reading this. Gershtenblurber (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting read - I believe ever word - however we would need references backing all this up. Have you ever written a book about this that has been publisher by an independent (third party) publisher with editorial and credibility input?Moxy (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that, but as Moxy pointed out, we realy can't incorporate any of it into the article without a reliable, neutral source. As someone who suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury myself 21 yrs ago, I know too well about post-concussive syndrome and the sometimes violent mood swings in can bring on. If there is some newspaper article or other media report that can be a verified source for then please post a link to it here so someone can add the information to the Johnny Lewis article. Thanks! Sector001 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Horribly wrong info

Wikipedia allows for self-sourcing. In this case, starting a blog can be of help. Google offers free blog space where information about your son can be corrected and documented accordingly. Your blog about your son should include the documentation, such as medical, psychiatric and police reports, and court documents. Your published documentation can be used according to the guidelines below by any interested editor (like myself). To be told that Wikipedia is not about the "truth", is to be lead incorrectly by individuals who would like to rigidly and dogmatically apply rules rather than promote the accuracy of subject matter on Wikipedia. According to WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." I hope this offers a little clarity and encouragement.--DezDeMonaaa (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) DezDeMonaaa, your advise to Gershtenblurber is wholly incorrect and your interpretation of WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:TRUTH is severely flawed (and clearly contradicts the advise you're doling out). By your logic, anyone that starts a blog and makes a claim has somehow legitimized themselves as a reliable source by virtue of making that information available to other readers. In that case, we could accept information from someone who started a blog claiming aliens assassinated JFK or that President Obama is the anti-Christ because they think that to be the truth. Wikipedia certainly can not accept information published on a blog unless that blog is written by an authorized authority (ie recognized historian, scholar, etc.). In this case, a blog written by the subject's father probably would not qualify as a reliable source. Also, we also cannot accept content sourced from social networking sites like Twitter, etc. unless that content is verified by another reliable, third party source. People create fake Facebook, Twitter and social networking sites for famous people ALL THE TIME. To say we accept information from those sources is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The bottom line: Wikipedia only re-reports what reliable sources do. If the reliable sources are "wrong", then we're wrong. We can only correct information when reliable sources do. I strongly discourage Gershtenblurber from taking DezDeMonaaa's advise to start a blog about his son in an effort to establish that the information he is seeking to add is reliable. While I don't doubt the information Gershtenblurber has shared above, that is not going to help his efforts to get the information corrected or added on Wikipedia. I also think advising a grieving father to basically publish private information about his deceased son for the amusement of virtual strangers and internet trolls to be completely and totally irresponsible. That is an invitation for trouble and hurt feelings. My advise to Gershtenblurber - follow the advise you were given by the first two established editors who have more than 22 edits and have been around for a few years. Their interpretation and understanding of policy is correct. The "clarity and encouragement" you were given by DezDeMonaaa is likely what you want to hear but if followed, will only end up disastrously and will not help you in any way, shape or form. I also suggest that you go to a reliable media outlet and give an interview about your son. Use them as a platform to correct the misinformation they're reporting that you're wishing to correct here. Any editor that understands policy would not have a problem re-reporting an interview you gave that contradicts or sheds like on the official version that police have given to reporters - we just have to have a reliable source to support your information. No one here is trying to smear your son or "rigidly and dogmatically apply rules" - Wikipedia has policies in place to protect public figures from libelous statements (even if they are deceased). We want correct information but that information has to be supported for verification purposes. 24.72.173.203 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. I appreciate the inputGershtenblurber (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Death

For some reason (and I don’t know why, because the editor in question hasn’t bothered with the courtesy of an explanation when edit warring), but the cause of death keeps being removed from the IB. The template documentation says it should be included “when the cause of death has significance for the subject’s notability”, and James Dean and John Lennon are given as examples. Given this is the unusual death of someone young, it fits with the documentation and should not have been deleted, particularly not without an explanation - that’s extremely poor practice. 213.205.194.214 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Leave me alone. I removed it per the template documentation, and per BRD, do not re-add this until there's consensus to keep it. You don't even like infoboxes, in fact you seem to despise them, so I don't understand why you're wasting your time warring on this one. Or maybe I do. You were following my edits around, and that's how you found this article. You don't really care, you just want to bother me. Please go away. For someone "retired" you sure seem to keep coming back. Sro23 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

At least try and retain a veneer of civility when you talk to others. I don’t “despise” IBs, so please drop the untruths (you don’t know me, you don’t know what I think about things, so drop the comments on me and try and discuss the matter in hand). This information is in line with the template documentation, so if you want to use a policy or guideline reason for deleting it, then say so, but until then, leave it in place. (And as for following people around, it’s astonishing just how you’ve tracked some of my edits, even though legitimate - and just how you made it to Fleming for your !vote there. How about you go away from following me? I have just as much right as you to make legitimate edits, so don’t try ordering people around just because you don’t like them. I am under no constraints and am allowed to edit: WP is not a cult that people are either never allowed to leave or are barred for life, so back off). - 213.205.194.214 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)