Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sources

Where are the sources to everything it states? All of the information is taken directly from her video and can't be proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbananaking (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that almost every single source references a news story that ALSO links to the video, I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that any of this happened besides the video. Can anyone get some real sources in here, or actual proof that any of this happened? Carobu (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of Royal Canadian Mounted Police press release references I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Date

The date should probably say 13 October 2012 not August. All the best,--134.126.193.65 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Piandcompany (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012

My edit request is: I found Amanda Todd's Birthdate for the article. Source: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/579233_439036662809022_1569536641_n.jpg ToastGuy1 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to try and find a reliable source for this. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Added the birth date, didn't see it in any news sources but the facebook pages (account and groups) satisfies me. I suggest we wait to add it outside of the infobox until we can find another source. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
added [citation needed] to DoB section. Piandcompany (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The D.O.B. has been removed - those pictures; groups; pages, are not reliable sources. This article is on someone who has recently died - so BLP rules still apply, (per WP:BDP). If Todd had a Facebook page/account or any other website that was hers or run-by herself, which mentions her birth date, it may be added per WP:ABOUTSELF. Thanks -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I added the D.O.B. per WP:ABOUTSELF as her facebook account states her birth date but I did not feel it was necessary to add a reference but I will now. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Her d.o.b. is not evident on the stated Facebook page. WWGB (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Under the title "Amanda Todd" it states "Born on November 27, 1996", please revert your edit. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Riley, are you perhaps friends with Todd? or have mutuals with her? Because due to her privacy settings, it's not visible to those who are not friends/have no mutuals, with her. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 07:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no connection with the subject of matter, nor am I [mutual] friends with the subject. Would you like a screen shot? Try this modified link (still the same account.)[1] -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Mhmm. The only "Basic Information" that is visible, is her sex, not birthdate, or anything else. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 08:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, just looked again *facepalm* a friend of a friend of a friend of a family member that I added (goes on and on) is a facebook friend with the subject. I don't know the ways of going around this.. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Her date of birth is actually not that relevant. The article is about an event, not a biography. The date of the event, and her age, is significant, the actual d.o.b. is not. WWGB (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't that significant then, I hope you don't mind me re-adding the birth date as the subjects age is not mentioned anywhere. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, I would still think twice on adding the birthdate per the Facebook account - because as it stands, it cannot be verified, when there is no access to it. Perhaps, we wait a while longer, and see if a media outlet picks up on her age? They are bound to at some stage - plus, has there been any news article that has stated she's 15 years of age (born in 1996?) - because if so, "born in 1996" can be added - a step closer to her birthdate. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 08:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External media

When I added the infobox image I forgot to remove the ext media template. A thousand pardons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

DJ Datts D credited this girl on his song Angel in the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dffdffddfdfdf (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So? WWGB (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Other side to the story

First, I'll say that the link I am posting is censored so don't revert this post because this a serious comment worthy of discussion.

If you see here: [redacted per policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)]

You will see that there are reports of her doing way more than the media are currently reporting.

It's sad she died and it's sad she was bullied, [redacted per policy -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)] She isn't as 'innocent' as people want to make her out to be and this makes this article a lot less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.43.66 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First, censored or not, the picture you posted a link to can be seen as child pornography. I removed your link. Second, it's not a proof of anything. Third, it's not relevant in this article. There is no "other side of the story" : a girl posted a video about how she was bullied then killed herself and the media and public reaction was considerable. Period. The notability of the event, as discussed in the Articles for deletion page, is not about the girl herself, or her innocence or lack thereof, but the coverage it recieved, and the consequences it had and will have (a soon-to-come discussion about new laws on bullying being probably the most notable consequence).88.138.207.159 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
You say "there are reports of her doing way more than the media are currently reporting." All Wikipedia can use are reports from reputable media sources. Not blogs, Twitter, comments on YouTube, opinions of Wipedia editors, etc. BashBrannigan (talk)<

Does Wiki have a process to report to Police people posting child pornography / links; which underage pics of Amanda are? Or is it simply up to alert citizens? EDIT REQUEST Also I'm not familiar with how to contribute but I request an edit to add the following info to investigation section with the sources below  ; The Online Police Child Exploitation Across New Zealand (OCEANZ) team received more than 20 complaints regarding a teenagers "inappropriate and disturbing’ posting to facebook after the death and are investigating the teenagers role in her death. Detective Senior Sergeant John Michael, of OCEANZ, said the child exploitation team had received complaints from within New Zealand and overseas. Police have removed the images and shut down his Facebook profile as well as taking other preventative steps to minimise further reproduction of the (illegal) images. Facebook had ignored numerous complaints of illegal posting over several days by the accused. Police would not say whether charges were likely. Despite this swift response to ongoing child exploitation being publicised it does not appear to have had a dampening effect as breaches of the law continue with people continuing to post child pornography relating to Amanda (no source for ongoing pornography offending / cyber harrassment but the above posts are one of many 'proofs' a quick whirl round cyber town will show). Source http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7841362/Teenager-questioned-over-international-cyber-bullying http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-probe-NZ-teen-link-to-Amanda-Todd/tabid/423/articleID/273396/Default.aspx RFord

The image

File:Amanda Todd - 01.jpg may be deleted. We need to find the source, or find another image. Can anyone help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an image of her at her Facebook page? Can we use that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There's this, which is the one created by the family unless I'm mistaken (which I may very well be... I get things confused sometimes ), which we could theoretically crop down... what's the policy on using Facebook photos? We just have to provide the URL as a source (in the non-free template), do we not? Theopolisme 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Transcript of Youtube message

Shall I present it in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I created a transcript at pastebin, and added a summary of it to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not a reliable source. Simply reference the video. --Errant (chat!) 09:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube message section

Regarding the removal of most of the section in this edit:

I restored it. And I agree. It reads horribly. I added it as a verbose summary so that it could be trimmed. Instead of removing all but the last paragraph, which tells a different story by omission, I suggest reducing the summary in stages to a couple of paragraphs.

Further, it is indeed referenced with the transcript. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, distilling the summary is making me nuts. I think Giants27 had the right idea. Could others please take a crack at providing the gist of the YouTube if far fewer words? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Background information

How about more details as to the background information as to why/how the bullying culminated (i.e. her sharing inappropriate photographs and her contact information with strangers)? I see inclusion of this as absolutely imperative to the article, it puts the whole incident into context. Without it, this article is not really notable, more sensationalism than anything.
Just my 2 cents. Amp71 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I restored the summary section which says exactly that. Her statements from the YouTube are very important I think, because of what you say about background info.
Better would be media sources reporting what the police find, i.e. evidence proving what she said to be true. Right now the section says that this is "what she said" not "what is fact".
But, right now, what we need is to distill it down to encyclopedic prose, otherwise it should be removed. Can you help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to contribute but I probably won't get a chance to in the next 20 hours. One thing I'd like to do is split the YouTube message section in two, with a preceding section containing the relevant background information (in a well-referenced encyclopedic writing style as you said), and the second section elaborating on the content, impact, and relevance of the YouTube campaign. Amp71 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

I fail to see the point of this incident being an article on wikipedia, only because it got some media coverage. Would someone please explain why it is of overall value and shouldn't be deleted? Thank you. 217.86.185.221 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See the article for deletion nomination. It has people stating reasons on why and why not the page should exist. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This has been mentioned in the House of Commons in Canada, resulting in the proposal of Bill C-420. Not to mention the heavy news coverage etc99.248.120.93 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube message section - Redux

Remove it? Modify it? Leave it? Qualify it with a better preamble?

This is a tricky one. What she expressed is central, but is not necessarily exactly what happened. It's tough to present a summary in an encyclopedic way because of the nature of the source (the flash cards). Remove it an visitors miss a big part of the story. Some community input, please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourced facts section

There is no section stating facts prior to Todd's death. So, visitors may be viewing the YouTube message section as an account of what happened. Should we start a section stating what we know, that is actually sourced? This could help show that the YouTube message section is her account, and not necessarily true. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason not to, assuming we can find adequate WP:RS. It's a bit tricky, though -- considering all the falsities out there -- but I think it can be done. Theopolisme 10:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

biased or one sided

A very large part if this story is one sided. A large part must be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.26.4 (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC) '

Please be bold and please suggest these changes! We can't help fix it unless we know what to fix (and how to do so ). Your suggestions (be they additions, removals, references, or more) are always welcome. Theopolisme 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Background section

So, I've condensed and copyedited what was there. Getting the "right" level of detail for such things are hard - especially as it all comes (ultimately) from her own video. For that reason I have used the CNN source (which has the most description of the content) to identify the items to describe (as CNN have editorial oversight and so we can assume they have good judgement on what is worth reporting). I've also removed the transcript as a source because it is not "reliable" - the video works perfectly well for that sort of sourcing and is included in several of the source articles. --Errant (chat!) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :) You found the magic solution. This has now resolved several posts above. I am very grateful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspected tormentor

Apparently, the hacker group Anonymous has taken up the mantle to track down the tormentor. There may be rules in Wikipedia about publishing such information, but a quick search on Youtube will reveal the information as well as a news video from the RCMP stating that they are looking into it. These may help with sourcing. For the purpose of respecting Wikipedia's biography of living persons policies, I am not outing the person here (who hasn't been charged). Tragicfame (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Guess I should read the article first... You're just too fast for me. Tragicfame (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The name given by Anonymous as the "tormentor" can not be in the article or talk page simply from an accusation. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

it says wikipedia wants to delete the page? dont delete it

Here's why, if there is an article that is accurate on wikipedia, and it shows how cyber bullying can KILL people, why delete it? Leave it up so people don't do things like this again. So the internet becomes safer --muqman_52 | talk 19:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An article about a suicide does not actually show that cyber-bullying can kill. Anyone can commit suicide and blame it on Cyber-bullying for attention. Also Cyberbullying#Harmful_effects talks about the effects in more details that suicide-oriented articles do. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be deleted. If the Anonymous group, a controversial and well-known group, thinks that this topic requires immediate and strongly proactive intervention then that alone indicates that this topic is pertinent. Perhaps it could be moved to the Anonymous page, or the cyber-bullying page, but deletion seems completely unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.229.203 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have not already, you might want to visit the discussion on whether to delete the article and share your opinion there. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information

Recommend adding a "See Also" Section as is in Megan Meier such as:

==See also==

Tragicfame (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that See also sections should not repeat links already present in the article text, infoboxes, or navigation templates such as the Cyberbullying template at the bottom of the article. Only links not already listed in one of these places should be added. Yworo (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX's edits did not improve this article

He has replaced a lot of important details with what he describes as a summary. It really upsets me a lot to see this happening on Wikipedia, even just a few days after she has passed away. Summarizing is not necessary; this is a very short article. Please, could someone review and revert while keeping any good edits?Nota493 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, ErrantX replaced what I'd written, which was frankly, rubbish. So, I call that an improvement. If you think there's a better presentation, please edit the article. But, going back to what I wrote would be immediately reverted I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Anna; I didn't totally replace it, and I wouldn't call your work rubbish in the slightest!
Nota493; Wikipedia is entirely written in summary style, that is the point :) Blow by blow accounts are discouraged. And when we have sensitive topics like this it is often better to go with secondary sources to identify significant items to write about. If you think there are specific details that should be in that section or that I missed, and that are important, please do point them out here (I am aware you can't edit the article directly). --Errant (chat!) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that you replaced it with a version that incorporates what I'd written into a proper background/YouTube summary. I think it's a dandy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Youtube

Why, there not are a link to the youtubevideo she make?--80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is, see YouTube Channel in the userbox. Piandcompany (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah and when you want to see it from Germany you only get the YouTube Message saying "This video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country". WTF!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.14.44.115 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Related arrests

Is this too far removed?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Mtking (edits) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

correct this

her facebook memorial page has 244k (not 1 million) likes

http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/AmandaToddTeam?ref=stream&__user=100004565525086 0kq (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct. The Facebook memorial page you cite is not the one referenced in the article, which has more than 1 mil likes. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Larger Context and Reactions: Cyber Stalking, Pedophilia, Sextortion, Anonymous

Appropriate to include discussions or references to the stalking by alleged pedophiles, the sextortion, and the "outing" of the alleged perpetrators by Anonymous? Also, they have started taking actions to shut down web sites that they (or someone acting under their name) feel/s promulgate CP...see recent posts on pastebin. MrMe1223 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately pastebin is not a reliable source, and those accusations are only rumors (and thus should not be included) at this time. Police earlier said the accusations were unfounded. But I did add a reference today to a New Zealand teen who is being questioned by police after posting images of Amanda.Michael5046 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nb Police were not specific about which accusations were unfounded and have not ruled out the man anonymous fingered as a suspect nor the man that the first person fingered by anonymous has fingered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.216 (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't really follow that sentence. Theopolisme 11:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
They were specific. To quote the RCMP's press release: "One unfounded allegation involved the release of information that spread quickly online identifying a man as Amanda's tormenter."Michael5046 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Could you please change the use of "Todd" to "Amanda". Using her last name is reminiscent of criminal behaviour, as often read in criminal reports. Amanda was not a criminal, she was a 15 year old victim of cyber bullying. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to have adopted such a harsh mode of address for a young girl. Is it not part of the bullying culture to call victims by their last names, thus stripping them of their OWN identities? By referring to her as "Todd", it seems to me to perpetuate the chain of events which unfortunately led to her death.

Emel54 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In general WIkipedia reports things using people's surnames, whatever their status in life. Your sentiment is understood, but I doubt your thoughts will prevail. It is a global stye thing and very few, if any, exceptions are made. It's likely that, even of one were made, another editor would override it. In the same manner, while I choose to decline your request, another editor may form a different view. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As FF said, I'm afraid that it would go against Wikipedia's general guidelines, specifically:

"After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only..."

— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Subsequent_use

Theopolisme 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fiddle Faddle. All subjects are referred to by their surnames on Wikipedia. Use of surname does not corelate with criminality. It is simply formal, which is the correct style for an encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one....but I can understand the 'Global' concept of FF's reply, even though it goes against the grain, and I noticed that even 5 year old April Jones (in an earlier child abduction page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Jones) is referred to as 'Jones'. Sad world. Maybe equally relevant is whether this page should be a primary search page at all? I feel there should be a sub page for these highly personal pages, only accessible through a main theme page, eg. cyber bullying. Yworo Yworo states that the impersonal mode of address is right for encyclopaedias (English spelling), but come on, is y'all Yanks in here? This is Wikipaedia, all for one and one for all, quit the stuffiness, be more human! Mezerais Mezerais (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The challenge facing the compilers of an encyclopaedia is that it is impersonal, not chatty, not even friendly. It is based upon cold (I choose the word for a reason) facts. Your sentiment on naming is understood, as is the original requestor's sentiment. Understanding it, empathising with it, and recognising is fine, but it does not alter the required style of Wikipedia, which is 'impersonal, third party'. Even if we lightened the tone here and there others would, rightly, revert that lightening, or edit it, or criticise it roundly. In years to come, when the very reasonable passions about the young lady's untimely death have cooled, a lighter style would be criticised anyway.
Your point about indexing is interesting. This is not the place to write a treatise on indexing and that search engines do not always exclude that which we desire to exclude, making your request impractical at best, but I do not see this page as a personal page in need of any form of protection from the public gaze. If it were it should be, could be and would be deleted and then expunged by a mechanism available to some, perhaps all, administrators. If you feel that this is appropriate I suggest you ask for administrative help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the criteria, as in the Madeleine McCann case ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann ... The first names are repeatedly mentioned there, and the "victims" are treated with a lot more sympathy. The article frequenly refers to Madeleine, Jerry, Kate ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emel54 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because more than one McCann is involved in the topic. First names are used to avoid confusion. In Todd's case there is no confusion. WWGB (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
^^What WWGB said. First names aren't inherently "incorrect"; rather, they're just scorned upon unless absolutely necessary—which in this case, they aren't. Theopolisme Boo! 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation

When adding this article to categories it is important to make the distinction between categories only relevant to the person (such as the year of birth) and categories relevant to the death (such as the year of the death, since the article is about the death). Other categories should be considered carefully in the same manner.

The article is not about the person, save only for the incidents leading up to and immediately beyond the suicide. This is because the article is, with precision, entitled Suicide of Amanda Todd. It is not about any other aspects of the unfortunate young lady's brief and latterly troubled life. It is absolutely not her biography. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Camtodd (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Please include that donations to Amanda's Legacy/Memorial Trust Fund has also been set up the Vancouver Foundation which will take interntional donations online. Also, that Elise Estrada (with her producer/manager) Adam H have written, produced and dedicated a song for Amanda Todd. All proceeds of the song from iTunes will go into Amanada's Trust Fund.

The foundation is a relevant outcome of the suicide, and I agree it should be included. What would be helpful, please, is for you to supply chapter and verse in order that the editor who chooses to fulfil this request has little research work to do in order to answer you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now: I am setting this to "answered" for now in light of the above response; if the requesting user can provide some specific words to insert I might be amenable to inserting them. Please set the "answered" parameter above to "no" to re-activate the request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Media

There is a section labeled "Social Media" in the "Reactions" subheading -- I'm not sure how well that works considering that the events that caused Amanda's suicide were also social media related. More importantly, there is the line that states: "On October 15, 2012, her message was featured on YouTube's homepage." The way that statement is currently worded, it leaves open the possibility that either the message from someone claiming to be her former classmate that "I'm so happy she's dead now" or that Todd's YouTube video was featured... or some other unspecified message from a female. L.cash.m (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Language

The article should use RCMP instead, as this is what they're always called, and anyway it would link to an article giving the full name. Todd should be referred to as a Grade 10 student not 10th Grade as the latter is American and she was Canadian. 69.158.165.42 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have an authoritative source for the use of 'Grade 10' instead of '10th Grade' in Canada then we should make this small change. Does anyone know where to confirm this small piece of information? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Here might be one: [2] which is from Ontario govt curriculum website. BashBrannigan (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Biography, not suicide

I challenge the current titling. I believe that this article strongly correlates to a more holistic exploration of Amanda Todd's life than one dedicated merely to the day that she died. As the events leading up to her suicide were a daily and ongoing part of her life, and as the events have been the focus of media attention -- not her suicide itself -- we should acknowledge that it is not her death that has attained notability; if anything it is the way that her life unfolded prior to, and including the moment of, her death. Thus I propose that this article be returned to one that is biographical in nature.L.cash.m (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one might entitle it Events leading up to and including the suicide of Amanda Todd and there are arguments for it, but a title is in general the short handle by which one knows the article. Everything else should be covered in summary in the lead paragraph or paragraphs. Otherwise, for an article entitles Suicide of [this person], the only content would "This is how [this person] killed him/herself" in every case.
The article as it stands contains a limited biography, sufficient to identify the young lady and to allow others to consider the issues that surrounded her and led up to her suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's really an event article, like Schoharie Creek Bridge collapse. Better to have a collapse article with a section on the bridge, than the other way around because the event is more important than the subject. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
@L.cash.m; no, this is not something that will happen because, broadly, her life is not of encyclopaedic interest. A small and public portion of it, the events leading up (and contributing) to her suicide are relevant, and build the context. But this is an article about an incident, not a person and mundane biographical details with no relevance to the event should be kept out. --Errant (chat!) 09:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning but you are not correct. While those events are now part of the media focus, they would not have been if she had not committed suicide. All the events being discussed eventually led to her suicide, which is the subject of this article.Michael5046 (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

I have deleted Todd's alleged date of birth on two grounds.

1. It is not supported by a reliable source
2. The article is about an event (Todd's death) and NOT a biography, so her d.o.b. is not significant other than establishing her age, which is available from other reliable sources anyway. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Her d.o.b. is multiply sourced, including what I take is her family's bereavement page. I really can't understand your objection to publishing her d.o.b. It seems to me that you really shouldn't have interceded unless you wished to challenge its veracity.
However I'm content to leave the issue to the established editors here, whose efforts I applaud. Hazing on Wikipedia might be a useful next stop :). FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I can see no reason for not having her verified date of birth here (with citation for it). While I understand that the article is about her death and not about her life, the fact that she was very young (and that age is documented), is a part of the circumstances surrounding her suicide. It seems to me to be unpleasant to squabble over the poor girl's date of birth. If it's cited, put it in. If not then not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Where is it cited to? --Errant (chat!) 16:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Could we source it to the Vancouver Sun with a birth month of "November", at least? We can agree upon that much, at least. Theopolisme 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No-one has yet answered why her date of birth is significant. This article is NOT a biography, it is about a news event: her death. In that regard, her d.o.b. is irrelevant. It is sufficient to know that she died at 15. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with WWGB. It's not a bio and therefore birthdate is unnecessary. The only possible significance of her exact birthdate is that her parents chose her burial date as being near her birthday. But it is a separate question whether that is important enough to include in the article. Regardless, her birthdate is not required. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Why eliminate it simply because the article is about her death? Almost every other article titled "Death/Suicide of X" (Suicide of Tyler Clementi, Death of Caylee Anthony, etc) has both dates (to the extent of how precise we can get) given for the person in question. Canuck89 (converse with me) 03:09, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
It's not a question off "eliminating" it. If we had the exact date then we could include it. But to put only an approximate date looks sloppy and unecyclopedic. Her age at time is death is of signicant importace, but dob serves no purpose that I know of. If it serves no purpose, then why add something inexact, unnecessary and sloppy? 05:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons the DOB and other biographical bits are troublesome is that it encourages this article to be a biography (which it shouldn't be) rather than about the event of her suicide. That's why the infobox isn't really appropriate either. --Errant (chat!) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I suppose the question remains, as Canuck said, why do we include the DOB on articles like a and b? Theopolisme 13:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
That is, with respect, just a variant of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. WWGB (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we may take it as a given that the article is (a) not a memorial, (b) not a biography and (c) solely about the suicide. That means that a date of birth is not important, but, especially where the death is of a young person and this the death is the more significant and notable because of it, it is useful in the article provided it is properly referenced. In this young lady's case it might be argued by a reasonable person that, had she been a different age, she might have reacted differently to the various unpleasantnesses that followed her and beset her.
WIth regard to an infobox I am marginally in favour of having it unless the article is in danger of becoming either a memorial or a biography. Then I am marginally against having it. It does provide the clarity of a glimpse view of the article: "Young lady, normal looking, presentable, suicide, Oh my, that is upsetting." This makes the rest of the article more likely to be read in some detail.
While I realise that Wikipedia is built upon consensus, and thus upon discussion, might we adjourn the discussion for a period following her death to allow the various feelings to cool somewhat. It feels unseemly to see all of this while the hurt to those who loved her is raw. A short period of reflection will not do the article, nor Wikipedia any harm. It might even help to create a better article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem with including content that will obviously enhance the article by providing a fuller picture that is also supported by a reliable source? I just can't see a convincing rationale not to include it. Theopolisme 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The compromise reached just to display her month of birth is ridiculous, as if there was some uncertainty about her exact date of birth and faintly stigmatising. Really it's ridiculous. A close parallel would be Mohamed Bouazizi, the Libyan fruit vendor whose suicide sparked the "Arab Spring" and who is likewise remembered just for the suicide and whose date of birth is certainly noted (and I can cite other less well known examples of the same sort in Wikipedia). To be sure Amanda Todd is unlikely to become quite as celebrated, but she is likely to be remembered as sparking a debate on the phenomenon of internet bullying that is attracting increasing attention from law and security agencies as an increasingly significant social problem of our age. I ask the established editors here to restore her date of birth. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no "compromise". Those who think her date of birth is somehow relevant to a news item cannot find a reliable source to support it. 02:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
@WWGB above:It is a compromise if you read through the thread. You originally deleted giving reasons 1 not RS cited 2 not a biography. But 1 in fact it's multiply sourced and only needs to be cited if challenged (unlikely given that her remembrance page http://www.forevermissed.com/amanda-michelle-todd/ states it). Mohamed Bouazizi's dates are not cited. While 2 just because the article is properly not a biography but rather about an event doesn't mean that biographical details are inappropiate, just as at Mohamed Bouazizi. I'm restoring per WP:BOLD because the present situation is quite unsatifactory. Please take your further issues to the Talk Page first. Thank you.FrontBottomFracas (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You can't add unsourced or poorly sourced info. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not unsourced or poorly sourced. On the coontrary it is multiply sourced. Googling on Amanda Todd November 27 1996 gives hundreds of confirmations of her birth date of which her family Remembrance Page is the first. Your confident assertion that you can't add unsourced information is also misguided. Of course you can. Wikipedia's verifiability policy merely requires that material whose verifiability has been challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced
  • "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
Mohamed Bouazizi's dates for example are not cited because no-one has challenged them. Are you seriously challenging Amanda's dates in the face of her Rembrance Page and hundreds of internet pages that support her dates?
I am restoring my WP:BOLD edit and will you now please follow the procedure (i.e. to bring your issues to the Talk page here) before reverting in such a cavalier fashion again. If you would like to enter a dispute resolution process then I would be happy to participate. Thank you for your cooperation. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You're not making any argument worth discussing. What happens on another article is irrelevant. Sourcing is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In the space of ten minutes of my making my edit you reverted my WP:BOLD edit, attacked me on my Talk Page and here decline to argue the indeed valid points I make.
Assuming good faith is another fundamental policy of Wikipedia. I ask you to assume it of me and to demonstrate you yourself are worthy of it by discussing your issues per the established bold revert, discuss cycle.
Of course it matters what goes on in other articles. As noted by the moderator when the article went up for deletion, this article is of a type that commonly occurs in Wikipedia. Another example would be Malala Yousafzai whose date of birth is supplied.
Indeed sourcing is a fundamnental policy of Wikipedia, but you plainly misunderstand it. I corrected you above with a direct quote from WP:VERIFY, which sets out Wikipedia's sourcing policy.
  • "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
Can you in good faith tell we the Wikipedia community that this is a statement not worth discussing. Really?
Baseball defines the game as "Baseball is a bat-and-ball sport played between two teams of nine players". It doesn't cite this staement beceause it's not likely to be challenged. Likewise basic biographical information such as dates of birth are not normally cited. When they are, it is generally because it has been misreported, as happened in Malala Yousafzai, or simply because it is contentious. One of the difficulties of citing only the month of the date is that it implies the precise date of birth is contentious or unknown, which is not so and mildly stigmatising to boot.
Will you please do we the Wikipedia community the courtesy of advising us whether you challenge Amanda Todd's given date of birth, and what your grounds are. Plainly you feel passionately about the matter given your instant responses. If you would care to make those known as well (I cannot imagine what they might be) I can reciprocate by taking time out to tell you why in this particular case I also feel it's important. If we still can't reach agreement then I am open to a dispute resolution process as I have already made clear.
I am restoring my edit and if you revert it again in the same cavalier fashion I shall immediately move to dispute resolution. Thank you. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Consistent with WP:RELIABLE, Todd's date of birth cannot be attributed to any reliable, independent source. Find one if you can. Then in accordance with WP:RELEVANCE you might indicate why it is relevant to a non-biographical article about one event, a suicide. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You still don't get it. WP:RELIABLE isn't relevant (though we do have an impeccable primary source in the form of her family's remembrance page) because her date of birth is not contentious, is not challenged, and therefore does not need a citation. Your other "issue" is not the issue you raised. No consensus was reached about the status of this article and dates of birth are in any case routinely incorporated in similar articles such as I have noted. Even were this article "non-biographical" as you claim, that would not preclude noting her date of birth as a matter of record. Why not also not note her exact date of passing? It's absurd. Equally, one can enquire why you are recording the month of and year of her birth if you have "biographical" issues? I'm restoring the date of birth (i.e. the day of the month and year presently recorded) and will continue to do so until you directly challenge it. If it is not 27 November 1996 as her remembrance page says, what is it, or why do you think her remembrance page is at fault? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether the memorial site can be taken as reliable or not, there is still the issue that this is an event article and not a biography. Only her age is relevant. Editor FrontBottomFracas unfortunately presents arguments which go fundamentally against Wikipedia policy which makes it difficult to debate since you end up debating fundamentals which should already be understood. The birthdate should never have been entered and should still not been entered. Are we really faced with creating an RFC over this simple issue??? BashBrannigan (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
How do we know it is "her family's remembrance page"? Anyone can set up a website and publish whatever they like. Here is a reliable source that reports she died "less than a month before her 16th birthday" [3]. So, yes, the date is contentious. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
We know because it talks about "our loved one" and because that date November 27, 1996 is multiply referenced on the internet by literally hudndreds of sources. Regarding the Huffington Post, see WP:Objective regarding its status as an RS but I'm prepared to accept it as a legitimate challenge and will accordingly cite the remembrance page. I note however that it in fact challenges the month November as well, so that we cannot use November either.FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


I think saying her birthday is November is safe per these sources. I can't find an exact date:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

FBF: I don't understand your edit summary "...Dates restored with impeccable secondary RS (cited elsewhere several times in the article). I do hope this now finally settles this issue. ..." That webpage doesn't show the date other than in the video, where it shows a screenshot of some other website. Where does it say her birth date? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Others: I'm just scanning the above. Sorry to restore "November". If you want to remove it, fine. I won't complain. Adding November with good sources makes the difference between her being just 15 or almost 16. Am I getting that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, none of the citations give the date. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Anna, I just commented on your Talk Page. In an abundance of caution I accepted the challenge from Huffinton Post and provided in quick succession what I thought were two acceptable RS, but you reverted both. However if we do accept the Huff challenge then we have to accept that November is also not safe. The real issue here is whether the date November 27, 1996 is challenged or not. Are you in fact challenging it? A secondary issue resuscitated by BashBrannigan is whther fundamentally the full date of birth ought to be noted even if it can be impecaably cited. As start editor I would appreciate your input there.
RS for d.o.b. are often difficult to provide. In practice they are generally left uncited, as in Barack Obama (which note has an entire conspiracy theory attached to it) or a primary (public records) or tertiary reference (ODNB for example) is provied. In the case of James Blunt we have a blog and a primary source.
I'm seeking guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (here) and once I have clarification from you as start editor will proceed to RfC as suggested by BashBrannigan. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I know, but they give the month, and that's the fact that the refs support. We have nothing on the date. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I support any and all d.o.b. information that's well-sourced. Although this is not a bio, background info on the subject of the event (Todd) should be included. Birth year nails down her age to within a year's span of how old she actually was. If we can improve upon that, good. That's an important difference. If we suddenly got a bunch of other background information on her, we would surely add it. D.o.b. is rudimentary info on her and there are more reasons to add it than not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification, Anna. I'm sorry to have taken up your time like this. I can assure you that I am acting in good faith and that the issue is very much within the parameters I was tasked with when I opened this account. I have now been supplied with an impeccable RS from Find a Grave (here) and I shall make the relevant edit forwith. I really do hope this now settles this issue. I was the second person to post in this thread and I did not attempt to edit the article, merely expressing my reservations. Likewise my second post this thread. It was only when it was quite clear that I was on a hiding to nothing and not having my legitimate issues tended to, that I began my WP:BOLD edits in the article as I am entirely justified, and indeed encouraged by the community, in doing. Thank you. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Where did Find A Grave get the information? Maybe Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"...Take care when adding information from Find-A-Grave to articles; Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source, since anyone can edit information there. ..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The only challenge here is from a blog in the Huffington Post, also not a reliable source as it happens but which I accept in the spirit of cooperation and an abundance of caution, and the Find a Grave entry clarifies the discrepancy. Are you seriously challenging November 27, 1996? Why not email the Find a Grave contributor? :::However I gather a book is due out soon and no doubt that will carry her date of birth, and I will cite it when it appears (assuming the article is still here). Meanwhile I have despatched subordiantes to the four corners of the earth in search of a source :). FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I note that Suicide of Ryan Halligan, an entirely parallel article, has uncited dates. I'm extremely busy at the moment winning the American presidential election but I'll look through its archive and see what issues were raised then. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Likewise Suicide of Tyler Clementi, Suicide of Megan Meier. In the case of Suicide of Phoebe Prince we have citation in the main text, but of these the first only mnetions the month and the second doesn't reference her d.o.b. at all. FrontBottomFracas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Likewise Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael has uncited dates. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Pointing out uncited dates in other articles should compel us to remove that uncited material, not justify adding uncited material to this article.
  • No Anna. Only if they're challenged. I took an entire module on Wikipedia's verifiability model! Trust me, trust the community, trust WP:VERIFY.
As for Find A Grave in external links, we could do it per the rather confusing: "...If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source....", but I think ought not to. Chances are the contributor to that site just got it from a facebook or memorial page. I con't consider it reliable. Besides, what's the big deal about leaving out the date? When in doubt, leave it out. That's a good rule of thumb. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not in doubt? I certainly think the reliability of Find A Grave is indoubt. Let's find out. Who here things the Find A Grave birthdate is reliable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I will let others remove it. I would like it gone. Maybe the contributor physically went to the grave and saw the stone, or maybe he got it from the memorial webpage. We don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, f.a.g is SOOO professional and reliable, like this one [4]. Just steal a few copyright photos, draw some sad faces and you are an instant reliable source. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, Find A Grave is not reliable. It may be tolerated for a laugh if there's a photo of a headstone, but it can NOT be used as a primary source for information. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the point?

What's the point of this article? She's not only victim of cyber-bullying nor only girl who killed herself. She wasn't even famous, just regular teenager. So, every teenager who suicided deserves an article here? I have razor on my desk, I can cut my throat for decent article.

I wanted to nominate this article for AFD, but article's semi protected, so can anybody do this for me?

And for all of you, please, consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness deserve an article on Wikipedia, encyclopaedia.

Sincerely, 83.28.130.30 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont see a point in nominating it for AfD as I am pretty sure it would be kept. But sure if someone feel like you then please nominate it, just for the sake of discussion. I think your reasoning above are offensive to say the least though IP and your comment consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness is totally unacceptable. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If anything should deleted, it's probably 83.28.130.3's comment. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The IP editor has made a valid request. One does not have to agree with it, but the request is valid. So I will make a procedural nomination quoting their words above. It's most unlikely to be closed as anything except 'keep' after all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No, there is something to be said about how a request is put and this was offensive. Do what you want, but I would never assist anyone's request put in this manner. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with BashBrannigan and I believe there is a clear COI issue with the IP here based on the language toward the subject of the article. This AFD request should not have been honoured. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 22:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with BashBrannigan. IP is clearly a troll. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 —Theopolisme 01:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your (plural) reactions to honouring the IP editor's request, but respect your right to react that way. Even if the requestor is deeply unpleasant or deeply weird, the requestor has the right to be heard. It is how we react to them that shows who and what we are. My own feelings are simply that the request was mistaken. Even so the request, however awkward the wording, was a valid request, and one to be considered with calmness and in the proper manner. I believe that we were doing so until the (rather pointless) discussion was closed early, and, bizarrely, closed as 'No consensus' as well at 'too soon'. The problems with this closure are threefold:
  1. The closure was made by an involved editor
  2. The closure, even if it was 'too soon', was clearly against the brief consensus that had built prior to closure.
  3. The 'month or so' advice in the closure of the prior discussion was simply advice. It is not in any way binding upon future nominators, upon discussion participants or those who close discussions
It would have been wiser for closure to be done by an uninvolved editor if it was to be closed as 'too soon'. Indeed, are not involved editors either formally or informally excluded from closing such discussions? It's not as if the article was in actual danger of being deleted as a result of the discussion.
The motives, real or imputed, of the requestor are irrelevant to the way we should conduct ourselves. We all have opinions and the AfD process is one way of our building consensus over an articles importance, notability and verifiability base upon those opinions and in a formal manner. So I ask that this discussion be reopened and allowed to run its course. As it stands it appears that the article's existence is somehow special and being protected.
Perhaps it was a mistake to request deletion in this manner. I know you consider I committed a faux pas in nominating it in the requestors behalf, but, were the article not semi-protected, it woudl have arrived at AfD anyway. We should not compound the mistaken request by making errors of our own. We are above that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that the steps at WP:AFDHOW were not followed, so this second AfD should not have commenced as it did. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That is wikilawyering, I fear. The IP editor was clear in the desire to nominate it and asked for it to be done. Is there an inherent problem with running this to normal completion? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The request was a rant disguised as request. The clue was that it was unnecessary for the requester to add "her suicide, stupidity and weakness" to have made the request. Not only should it not have been acted upon, but it should have been deleted. In fact, I was preparing to delete it when BabbaQ responded vehemently against it here and on the IPs talk page, so I left it. I respect your seriously considered opinion FiddleFaddle, but strongly disagree. The request should have not been honoured, but deleted. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand with precision your point. I found the request to be distasteful in the extreme, too. Even so I see that the wider community should be the body (if there is such a body) to decide on such requests, even if they appear to us to be pseudo-requests. It is wrong in my opinion for involved editors to be the final arbiters of whether a request such as this be allowed, and, when it has been allowed, for involved editors to close the discussion. I believe the discussion should be reopened, or if too much time has passed, to be relisted. There is little danger of consensus suggesting that the article, well referenced, notable, and verifiable, be deleted. And, even if there were such a danger, if consensus says it should be deleted, then deleted it should be. Sad as this incident was, the article is just an article in Wikipedia. It does not actually matter if it is here or not. So I call upon the closer of the discussion to reconsider and to reopen the discussion, please. Full consensus needs to prevail. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry for the bit of delay in replying here. Fiddle Faddle-- if you believe that the article should be re-AfD'ed, then I obviously have no authority to say 'no, stop!'. However, let's look at the nominator (IP): an editor who said something that would violate WP:BLP if Todd were alive — consider [...] her suicide, stupidity and weakness. Alright, fine. Great. Fantastic. WP:NPA aside, this AfD — just 16 days after the original one was closed as no consensus with a "wait a month" suggestion...suggestion, yes — was simply a place for the crows to gather and...troll. Just like in the first AfD, undoubtedly the nomination would receive plenty of traffic from meatpuppets/clueless new editors...inhibiting us from accomplishing our main goal: to build an encyclopedia. Nominating articles like this one for AfD? Not helping. —Theopolisme 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you did say "no, stop". We do not make judgments about not holding discussions because of presumed future action by other editors. We rely on the judgment of the closer to disregard irrelevant !votes. I do not believe that you are a valid closer of this discussion for two reasons:
  1. You are an involved editor in the article
  2. You are an involved editor in the deletion discussion
Whatever your personal opinions on the IP editor, you need to undo your premature close, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to reopen it. I, however, shall not, for reasons stated above. (see also) —Theopolisme 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your closure per the discussion above. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

While I know that a keep outcome is not a protection against future nomination for deletion I think we now have a stronger consensus that this is a valid article here. From my perspective it proves to me that accepting the opportunity given by the rather offensive IP editor was the correct thing to do in that it has strengthened consensus for the article. Your mileage may vary of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes — most definitely. —Theopolisme 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

ERASE Bullying

This story gives some followup to the parliamentary motion. I'm not sure it should be included.

This press release says the program began in 2012 12, I think, but am not sure. No google news from that month.

Site: http://www.erasebullying.ca/

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: link 1 — Could be referenced and given a brief mention. Don't see a reason not to include...it's definitely 'connected', or at least 'affected', by Todd. —Theopolisme 23:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Avoid any link or reference that does not specifically deal with Todd or does not arise from Todd with regard to bullying on the simple basis of WP:SYNTH Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cultural impact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzfYL51e3HI is very reminiscent of Amanda Todd's video. It would be original content to add it into the article, but it certainly looks inspired by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.234.172 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The connection to the Todd video appears obvious. But can you find the connection stated explicitly in the media or on kids help phone website or literature? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The key word is 'appears', because this technique has often been used on self made videos on Youtube. There is a timing link, yes, but there is, unless stated in media, no causative link. Our making such a link would by WP:SYNTH and is to be avoided. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle beat me here — but yes, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. —Theopolisme 01:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The song is now #3 on iTunes Canada. Here is a link to the Montreal Gazette which connects the song to Todd. [5]. However, the video so closely resembles the Todd video it can't be a coincidence. I'm trying to find a reliable source that will confirm it. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
If you find a direct attribution of this video to Todd's that removes WP:SYNTH. Even so I am concerned that, unless the link is very specific, we will get into topic creep. The first time I saw this technique on Youtube was some years ago. Then the It Gets Better Project started and many, many videos arrived with it deployed. I submit that the only videos we might consider for any form of inclusion, and each needs to be treated on its own individual merits, are those which have an absolute causative link established to Todd's video. I will need more that "We created a video after Todd's death" or "We liked Tdd's technique" to allow me to consider these in a positive light for inclusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
If there's a source that says "We liked Todd's technique" or "we created this after Todd's death", then I'd say that would be appropriate to list as part of the reaction to her death. Sure, she didn't create or invent the video technique, but it would prove that this video was influenced and/or part of the reaction to her death. ColtsScore (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Burial

At least in some traditionally Christian countries, such as where I live (Brazil), suicidals are explicitly prohibited to be buried in Christian cemeteries, as they are regarded to have committed "the biggest crime" (obviously I don't agree with this, not to say that I am irreligious). The cultural impact of this event has led to some criticism to the said rule in Portuguese-speaking social media. Was Amanda Todd (or her family) Christian, and if so, there was prohibition to her being buried in a Christian cemetery? Lguipontes (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I've not heard anything in Canada like this. And nothing specific to Todd and nothing to make it into the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this, if her family is confirmed to have not entered difficulty in finding an accepting Christian cemetery, together with a reliable Christian and Brazilian/Latin American/from-traditionally-Roman-Catholic-influenced-cultures source about how it is prohibited here, would be useful in articles on suicide itself, or more specifically the taboo that surrounds it and how different cultures deal with the practicers. But you are right, I don't really have a good point to why it should be mentioned here, if said prohibition is not commonplace in Canada. Lguipontes (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This topic is outside the remit of the article on Suicide. It strays too deeply into biography, and is topic creep. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay. But what exactly is topic creep? I didn't get it by searching Wikipedia archives, English is not my native language, and creep gives a lot of translations to Portuguese in Google Translate, though none of them is exact (and translating all of them literally as '~example~ [de/no] tópico' gives an expression that I fully am not used to). Lguipontes (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
'topic creep' may be defined as the extension of a topic by small increments beyond the true boundary of the topic. The best translation is literal. It is that the topic has 'crept outside its boundaries'. For a non native speaker I am struggling to find the smallest number of words to define it. Let me try these: "By adding this to the article the article will have extended beyond its natural scope." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We have the concept (topics that start centering completely unrelated information around themselves) but not just two words to describe. Thank you, I got it. :D One last thing, biography information really shouldn't be added, but is it a topic creep in the article(s) covering suicide, that of Amanda Todd, or all of them? Lguipontes (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sufficient biographical detail to identify the context is valid. Additional material that is not relevant to the article's topic is not. As you can see we are discussing the matter of her accurate and full date of birth elsewhere on this page (where you should direct any thoughts you have on the matter and can see my own views). Some consider this to be on the border of inclusion, others see it as essential, others see it as to be avoided. Other areas are more clear cut. Were she to have pursued the hobby of birdwatching this is biographical and to be omitted, unless she killed herself as a result, at least in part, of her hobby. Thus the article is only biographical to the extent that the biographical details are both necessary and agreed to be necessary to the actual topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I did a badly formed sentence, I think. Two years editing here and my English still puts me in a mess, oh well... I didn't ask why detailed biographical shouldn't be added here. I already understand why. I asked where it is a topic creep – if such information is too much for articles on suicide, or more specifically, how certain cultures had or have cetemery discrimination against suicidals (what I still think is a valid topic for Wikipedia, though I admit to be too n00b to work on it to be decent at some point), if such information on how there is still cemetery discrimination against suicidals somewhere in the world is really unnecessary here (what I already agreed), or if you meant both of them. Lguipontes (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I mean that both have no place in this article. There is certainly scope for an article on the treatment of suicides by cemeteries and church burial fields in nations and religions (etc) around the world. Such an article almost certainly has value. Others my disagree about a Todd specific issue, of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Buried edits

I sort of just buried my own edits just now. These three:

This is just an FYI. Please comment at those threads. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I see what you mean Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The current, or any replacement, still picture from the video

As you see from the article in its current state there is a still picture culled from Todd's video. Since it was uploaded under an imperfect licence I flagged it for deletion. The emerging consensus is that the file be kept under a different licence. That is fine if that is what the community wishes.

I believe we need to discuss whether any still picture at all from the video is appropriate in this article. If it is agreed that a still should exist we have the opportunity to choose which still and to upload it with a correct licence if it is a different still from the one in current use. I want to open this area for full discussion here, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I opened the discussion in what I hope is a neutral manner. I now want to express my opinion. I believe that the article having the picture of Todd herself, File:Amanda_Todd_-_01.jpg, in the infobox is incorrect for an article about her suicide. I believe that a suitable still from the video could be chosen to replace the portrait we have at present. This will help to emphasise that the article is about the suicide rather than a biographical article on the young lady. The portrait seems to be to be far more appropriate to a biography than to an article on a suicide.
Anticipating the response "Other articles on suicides have portraits of the person" my response is that they are using what they have to illustrate what they have. Todd left behind a very public display of her state of mind and a carefully chosen still from it will illustrate that and the aticle better than any plain portrait can. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • AI certainly believe that an image from the YouTube video is highly appropriate since the YouTube video is the central component of her notability. If not for that, this is just another unreported suicide. Not only is the video discussed significantly in the article, but I noted that text alone cannot come close to conveying Todd's emotional state the way even that single image does.
    As to the infobox image, I disagree with the argument that this isn't a biographical article. As a rule, we give descriptive titles to most articles on people noted for BIO1E events, but it is what it is. With that in mind, I would like to keep the image as it is a visual representation of who she was. I do realize, however, that this is a much weaker argument than the one made for the YouTube still. Resolute 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Date of Birth

There is general support for the inclusion of a specific birth date. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Amanda Todd's day of birth be noted as well as the month and year? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Amanda Todd's date of birth 27 November, 1996, is multiply sourced in hundreds (if not thousands) of 'remembrance' pages, including her own family's, on YouTube, Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites. There is also a Find a Grave record for her. It is simply not sensible to challenge it, and consequently there is no need for a citation as is the case at Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Tyler Clementi, and Suicide of Megan Meier (i.e. to say uncited dates are given here), three directly comparable cases in the Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, while similar examples are legion.
Presently the month and year are noted. There would seem to be no rational reason for excluding the day, especially as newspaper ciations will no doubt become available later in the month as her birthday is remembered by her foundation and others. In addition I know of at least one forthcoming book that will presumbly cite it. It seems a somewhat futile exercise to repress it because there is presently no good secondary source citing it. The only challenge comes from the Huffington Post, where a blog suggests her birthday was in fact in October, in which case logically one should only cite the year of birth.
By way of another comparision, I can mention that the date of birth of James Blunt, noted province of User:Risker of Arbcom, is only supported by a single blog.
Why these ridculously high standards here. What can it possibly achieve? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess you did not like this response to your earlier request about the same issue? WWGB (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Only include what is cited in reliable sources. The actual date of birth has been, so far, impossible to verify in reliable sources, though it appears in social media and self edited sources. Once a fully cited date is found it can and should be added to the article. While the article is not of itself a biography, the biographical details are relevant to the subject matter, and a full date of birth shows the complete article that members of the reading public expect from us. Equally they expect us to cite the facts that we include in articles. The lack of a complete date of birth does not harm the article, the inclusion of the fully cited date completes that aspect of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Well I certainly welcome that one of the established editors here accepts that a date of birth should be added. Where I differ is your assertion that we should only include what is reliably sourced (which presently means in practice that it appears in MSM or in published books and journals). Not only does this go against the spirit of the age as far as MSM is concerned, but it is actually not (as I have twice pointed out) what Wikipedia's verifiability policy actually is as set out in WP:VERIFY:
"All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
i.e. to say broadly speaking it is only contentious material that needs to be cited (otherwise the model would be unworkable). In this case the date of birth is verifiable (for example from the family remembrance page) and it cannot be credibly challenged. That the family remembrance page is not an RS, or that it is properly speaking a primary source and discouraged, is not relevant at this stage. All that only becomes relevant when material is challenged. Once again, I challenge the editors here: are they challenging the date November 27, 1996, for Amanda Todd's date of birth as seen in hundreds (perhaps thousands) of social media web pages? Why are they demanding such high standards which are simply not repeated elsewhere, as in the James Blunt example I mention?
I am taking a wikibreak until Wednesday evening. Thank you for your input. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see myself as an established editor, you know. My opinion is worth precisely as much as yours. We agree on many points here, but differ simply on the need to use a properly reliable citation. My belief is that the encyclopaedia is never harmed by the omission of facts that cannot be cited. Wikipedia is criticised often for lacking veracity. The only answer to that charge is citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • RfC comment. I've come here from the RfC notice. I don't watchlist this page, but I've been heavily involved in editing some related pages, that are mentioned in talk above. I've read the discussion on this talk page, and I've read the source cited for the birthdate in the lead sentence. I've seen two arguments against including the birth date. The first is that this is a page about an event (the suicide), rather than a biographical page. That's a true statement, as it should be per WP:BLP1E, but it's a flawed reason to omit the date of birth. Once we establish that the page subject satisfies WP:N, which I think it does, there's no reason not to include encyclopedic information relevant to the page. (For example, if this were a biographical page, there would be certain information that establishes WP:BIO, but other information about the person could also be included on the page.) The other argument is about sourcing. That's a valid argument. We shouldn't include birth information if it's inadequately sourced. The source cited seems to me to minimally satisfy sourcing needs for the month and year. I accept that it would be more elegant to have sourcing for the day, but if we don't have that, it's acceptable to just have the month and year, as the page does now, when I write this comment. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. I'd leave the dates in the lead sentence as they are now, and add better sourcing if and when it becomes available. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - Adding this information would improve Wikipedia, as this should probably be the only page this cite should have about Amanda Todd, as I'm very sad to say that the event it describes appears to be the subject's only cause of notoriety. You should only cite it if editors dispute the info's verifiability, but you might as well use a citation just to be safe. Ender and Peter 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Ender and Peter. I had a bit of trouble understanding your comment, and I'd appreciate it if you could try to reword it -- I think the problem here is the verifiability, but regardless I still would really appreciate hearing your views -- thanks. —Theopolisme 23:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I interpret the words as "It should be included. It only needs to be cited if other editors form a consensus that it be cited", but I am happy to be corrected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll correct you by noting it probably means exactly what it says (and WP:VERIFY says), to wit "You should only cite it if editors dispute the info's verifiability" :). I see a consensus emerging here that d.o.b. should be included. I gather these things (RfCs) have a lifetime of a month or so and I'll let it run to 4 December 2012. We may have a good secondary source by then, without conceding my fundamental position that there can be no serious challenge to November 27, 1996, as Amanda Todd's d.o.b. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is the type of correction I meant, though. I wanted to be corrected on my interpretation of the words used by Ender and Peter rather than have an interpretation of the verification policy. With regard to the slowly emerging consensus what I see is a consensus to have the full date of birth in the article. I also see an emerging consensus here in this section that it requires citation in reliable sources because editors require it to be sourced. It would be unusual to close your own RFC on 4 December, and I am sure that is not what you are suggesting. I believe we need an uninvolved editor, probably an experienced admin, to look at the arguments presented together with policy and to close it with rationale at that point. Closed in that manner it is considered to be above reproach and we should all take it as a consensus that binds us, whatever the outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Please be aware that editor FrontBottomFracas, the source of this RFC, has consistently and continuously ignored and misinterpreted what other editors say on this RFC and elsewhere about the necessity of reliable sources in order to push having Nov 27th as d.o.b. The editor has stated disagreement with the fundamental Wikipedia principal that reliable sources are required. Thus this editor claiming above that there is a consensus to include the 27th when the consensus is actually against. BashBrannigan (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to the eventual closer: There are two elements to this RFC:
  1. That the full date of birth be a part of this article at all
  2. If the full date of birth is agreed by consensus to be part of the article, whether explicit citation in full WP:RS sources is required for it. You need to be specific, especially about the day of the month.
Please do not close this RFC without considering and closing for both elements. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your "it would be unusual ..." see WP:Requests for comment#Ending_RfCs. The usual duration is 30 days, after which the thing is bot deleted and you can make requests for formal closure, i.e. independent adjudication, to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I just want the things to run its full term to attract as many responses as may be. I doubt there will be any need for a formal closure. There really aren't two issues here, except how you spin it. But clearly there's now a consensus that a full d.o.b. should be provided, just issues in construing WP:VERIFY and I don't think that's likely to remain an issue since I'm reasonably confident that a secondary source will have emerged by then, and if not then we can make a note of the date via Find a Grave in the manner suggested by Anna.
Concerning BashBrannigan his position was always that there should be no mention of the d.o.b. at all as that is a superfluous biographical detail with no place in the article in his eyes. For the last time I point out that he misunderstands WP:VERIFY, that you only need to cite material if it is likely to be challenged. There is no sensible challenge to the date 27 November 1996 that he says I am "pushing". In reality he is not challenging the date but challenging recording the date at all. For the last time, once again I ask him to say whether he's challenging the date. Is he saying Amanda Todd wasn't born on 27 November 1996?
Likely to be last from me here until beginning of December. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding WP:VERIFY editors might like to look at this recent RfC Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC.
Admin User:ErrantX has commented in this article on d.o.b. here (he follows BashBrannigan in arguing that noting the d.o.b. itself is problematic in his opinion). In the verifiability RfC he comments on option D (which won the consensus and led to the presnt wording) as follows
  • Verifiability is a concept that has evolved over 11 years to be a broad brush of incomprehension. Who cares whether the word "truth" is used in the lead, or indeed anywhere in the policy, the mass of argument over it - and the bazillions of slightly reworded alternatives - overlook the fact that the concept is a mess and we need to rethink ways to express community norms in a clear, understandable and renewed fashion. Kill the old hydra. --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this view. There is a common-sense way in which information can be said to be trustworthy and Amanda Todd's date of birth, given the (literally) hundreds of web pages supportig it (all satisfying Wikipedia:Published incidentally), is trustworthy and does not need citing unless there is a credible challenge. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a need for formal closure of this RFC at the right time. By requesting it, whoever requests it, you will be protected from possible accusations of going against consensus, some of which have already been levelled at you. By you or another editor requesting formal closure, that risk is removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Briefly, before it is closed, I wish to state again here that birthdate should not be included as this is an event not a bio. It serves to blur the distinction between the two and encourage editors turning this into a bio. If the article survives the coming months it will be because the suicide affected the culture in some way, but not because of a notable accomplishment by this unfortunate girl. I will not comment on the need to cite reliable sources because this isn't the place to debate cornerstone Wikipedia policy. BashBrannigan (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Well yes. Thank you for confirming I have your position correctly. @FiddleFaddle - let's see what the end of November brings before worrying about formal closure. Obviously if we can't agree on what the consensus is then we shall have to ask for formal closure. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the difference between "cite" and "verify". All material should be verifiable from a reliable source. Adding an inline citation material (with footnote link) is important, but only required for contentious material. Whether or not this counts as contentious (meh..) you would still need an explicit, reliable source for the day of the month. Memorial pages are not likely sufficient for that - are any other sources available? --Errant (chat!) 08:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
One could argue that the official birth records would be reliable confirmation, as they will. Since Wikipedia is concerned with facts not with truth this becomes an interesting area. Were this a biographical article where inclusion of date of birth is automatic, paradoxically that problem seems to go away, but biographical data tends to include the birthdate as a matter of course, too, and can be verified with reasonable ease. Since it is an article about the death then the birth date is seen by many to be "Interesting but inessential". The date is assuredly verifiable, but we cannot, ourselves, verify it. This makes the RFC a valid engine for consensus building in this rather pedantic case. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Well, first of all, I hope that there's more input from uninvolved editors. That would help us better gauge the community's opinion.

It would appear that the real issue here is whether or not the DOB should be mentioned at all. So I think I might focus on that question primarily.

Is it appropriate to include a subject's DOB in an article that is not their biography? The best reason provided for not including this information is that this article is not a formal biography. I can understand this. However, mentioning the DOB here is not inappropriate because this article is about their life and death. Even though this article is far short of containing the type of chronology one would expect in a biography, it directly deals with their life and death. As I look at the other articles about suicides, I must admit that seeing the date of birth and death does improve this encyclopedia. In general, the "Suicide of..." articles give a very light overview of the subject's life (place/date of birth, growing up, etc.) and the circumstances that led up to their suicide. For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the following lead for the Background section in Suicide of Tyler Clementi:

"Clementi was born on December 19, 1991,[2] in Ridgewood, New Jersey. A graduate of Ridgewood High School, he was a talented violinist; he played with the Ridgewood Symphony Orchestra and participated in the Bergen Youth Orchestra as concertmaster.[8]"

There is no good reason why this article can't start with something like that. The above example does not contain too much or irrelevant information. It contains info that most people reading this encyclopedia would be interested in. At the moment, the DOB is briefly mentioned in the lead, and I am not convinced this is a problem. A more accurate date would be even better. Ender and Peter 21:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the birthdate in whole should be included when we can find a reliable source for it: a legitimate obituary notice (not a vague online "remembrance page" that could have been created by anyone), an interview with the family where they state the birthdate, etc. The sources currently suggested are not adequate; if Wikipedia allowed Facebook fan and other similar pages to serve as definitive proof then we'd have to notate Obama as a Muslim. In short -- all for adding it IF and WHEN a more reliable source becomes available. Also, if you have a concern about poor citations being allowed for James Blunt's birthdate, I'd toss a citations need work tag on the page. L.cash.m (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems no argument for including Todd's date of birth in this news event article, other than "it's nice to know such things". It is sufficient to report that she died (far too young) at 15 years of age. Her d.o.b., or any birthday, has no importance, significant or notability in this article.
If, on the other hand, there is consensus to include her d.o.b., then it must be reliably sourced consistent with Wikipedia policy, which does not extend to Facebook and memorial sites. WWGB (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • If in a WP:RS. Quite simply, this is where we fallback on policy, if it's found in a reliable source, obituary notice in a paper, funeral home obituary notice, newspaper article, that kind of thing, someone's Facebook or some other online rubbish is NOT a reliable source. — raekyt 04:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like most of us agree that the November 27 birth date should be included if the sources are good. These two sources look pretty good: [6][7] Should we now add the date? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources are good which was my primary objection. I would not fight its inclusion, it is, however, a completely trivial and meaningless fact in what is not a bio. BashBrannigan (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I stand by my original statement in this RfC. The full date is not necessary, but the presentation of it, correctly cited, is what the wikipedia readership expects. It does the article no harm. The purist might argue, as you have, against it, and be correct, as I think you are. But adding it does not turn the article into a biography, nor into a memorial, and does no harm. With either or both of those citations, for me the date may go in and the matter be closed. That part of the article becomes complete and we can, I hope, get on with improving other aspects of it, such as the suggestion for enhancing the lead discussed elsewhere on this page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well put. I completely agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • RFC Closed - Rock on. Well, it looks like this is settled, for now... And so I'll specify the day of the month for the birthdate from The Province article and close this RFC. Ender and Peter 18:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your desire to close this discussion, and it does appear to have been solved amicably. In view of the depth of feeling expressed by the participants I support your bold edit, but not (on a technicality) your closure. The technicality is that you have been involved. May I suggest you simply ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for a formal closure, explaining that it seems to have reached a consensus and may be closed early? By doing so we remove the risk of any editor claiming that consensus was not reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I assure you, I've had nothing to do with this article until I saw an RfC notice about it on my talk page. You've definitely got a fresh set of eyes looking at this. But if there's some other way you'd prefer the RfC to be closed, then please proceed :-). But in all honesty, it's already closed and you've agreed that closing it makes sense, so we may not need a random admin to simply revert this page back a few comments only to return it to this state. Ender and Peter 05:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not calling your integrity into question at all. It is simply that you took part in the discussion. I have made a simple request for closure. I do not expect that anyone needs to revert anything when closing the matter formally. I believe we should defer to your de facto closure which represents the discussion well. My concern is simply to perform the wikipedia equivalent of locking this decision into place. Until someone overturns it, of course :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead Image

I came across this image and another image of Todd that she likely took herself, and they may not be under a copyrighted licence, unlike the current lead photo that looks professionally taken. Should it be changed? --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 19:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Any photograph is copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise. If Todd took those photographs, their copyright would now be held by her family. Resolute 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on date of birth I started

I was expecting this to run to December 4th given the month long lifetime of these things, but I see it's been closed early and that the consensus was to include the day of birth when it became available in an RS and, as I predicted, one did become available as her birthday this month neared. I see Anna has incorporated the date in the main text.

I'm busy with other stuff at the moment but I will be returning when I have time and I shall be restoring a number of other edits I made at the time that were reverted.

I do hope those won't have to go to an RfC as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontBottomFracas (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Things close early sometimes. As for the other edits, provided they are cited and they refer to the article's basis which is the suicide, and are not simply gratuitous biographical details, then they seem to be useful. if not then they are unwelcome.
You are always at liberty of open a request for comment at any time, as are we all. But please use that tool with wisdom and restraint, not as a cudgel. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a moment until now to look through the RfC and I thank all who contributed, especially the outside editor who contributed. All that work for Amanda's day of birth! I am grateful.

In response to Errant's contribution that I'm confusing "verify" with "cite", of course I'm not. Wikipedia's policy document about verifiability entitled Wikipedia:Verifiability is in fact about "citing" and not "verifiability" per se, which after all is a contentious matters for philosophers. When it says

  • All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable

that word "verifiable" is not some kind of impossibly self-referential definition but rather an undefined term of the sort you find in any such document (for example, the word "indecent" in UK legislation protecting children or the word "national" in EU legislation on immigration). By "verifiable" here is meant its common sense significance as something that can be checked to be the case or at least reliably claimed to be the case. And of course in the real world that was precisely so with Amanda's date of birth, attested on hundreds of tribute sites. It was never contentious, never sensibly challenged (except on the basis of a non-RS blog from the Huffington Post, whose effect was in any case not logically carried through because then her month of birth was contested) and really never needed a RS citation, which is not the same as saying it shouldn't have one now that one is forthcoming. JaniB (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Suicide of ..." title

Using {{search link|intitle:suicide of}} I find some 12 Wikipedia articles entitled "Suicide of [a named individual]". Of these 12, all but 3 appear to be related in some way to cyber-bullying.

My question, where in Wikipedia policy documents is it stipulated that single event individuals notable only or mainly for their suicide should be treated in this way i.e. not as biographical notices, and why does it seem to apply overwhelmingly to victims of cyber-bullying? There are surely many examples of such individuals (i.e. individuals notable only or mainly for their suicide, often as a protest) not treated in the same way? I have mentioned a few in my comments elsewhere here.

Off to find out how to change my user name, Anna. Thanks for your remarks. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Have put in a request for a username change. If all goes well I shall eventually be "JaniB". FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The comparable case is "Murder of...", of which we also have a few.
It may be because cyberbullying victims are often the target of "that person wasn't notable before they died!" arguments, and the articles get moved for that reason.
I wonder how the article is named for that south-east Asian monk who became famous mainly (solely?) through his suicide? I think there was a North African person who also committed suicide as a protest, that would be interesting as an example too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The self-immolations of Thich Quang Duc and Mohamed Bouazizi were a tad more notable than the suicide of Amanda Todd. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Notability is determined solely by public interest. If there was significant public interest in someone for their thumb-twiddling they could be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't say what is notable or is not notable only that it must be notable. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@Demiurge: In many ways Jan Palach would be the paradigm here. This happened in my own student days. It followed on the heels of the French student protests the year before and it caught the imagination of the student body throughout the word. In my own university there was candle-lit vigil and a book of condolences offred at the university library, rather like all the tribute sites that Amanda Todd has inspired (and replying to another editor here, the essence of her notability just as in Jan Palach's case).

I think you're right to remark that cyber-bullying suicides attract single event attention, but that still doesn't explain why they are more or less exclusively singled out for this treatment or why they should be. It worries me that there might be a kind of tropism at work here, "bullied in life, bullied in death". And I would like to see a policy document, or some other considered and coherent argument, making the case for this kind of posthumous depersonalization by proxy. There is also the issue of the sensitivities of Amanda's family to consider. Amanda's passing is, after all, less than two months past. It strikes me as tasteless and not a little suspect. The same, agreeing with another editor early on this Talk page, with the clinical repetition of "Todd". Certainly that's not appropiate at this early time and no one out there in Wikipedia's celebrated Real life presently treats Amanda like that. I've already praised Anna's start here, but left to myself I would have used "Amanda Todd" as the first mention in each paragraph and then used "Amanda" in subsequent references in the paragraph as here, to choose the first newspaper hit on a Google search. JaniB (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

School grade

I was wondering if it was possible to include a link of "Grade 10" in the intro para to an article describing what this means for those of us not Canadian or American? It would help with the readability. Cheers. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of blackmailers

Was there only one blackmailer? Were there several? Simplicius (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that reliable sources quoted in the article show there to be one, and that is what is stated in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

The statements has two refs, but only one says hanged: [8]

Such an important fact should have more. I don't know how credible this www.telegraph.co.uk really is. The only other sources that ever said she hung herself are the two british unreliable tabloids www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mirror.co.uk I really think it's strange that I can't find an Canadian sources that say this, and then this other British paper makes the claim. Should we remove that bit of dubious info unless better sourced? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is assuredly reliable. We cannot judge if their article is speculative or hard fact. One might say "Cause of death was reported by [list of cited papers] to be hanging." and thus meet our duty to report but not offer opinions. At some future time the cause of death may be released through formal Canadian channels. At that point we may report that cause with confidence. If we have used the technique I'd suggest, that may be left in, and a caluse on the true cause of death be added and cited as (eg) "subsequently confirmed [as different cause if different] by the [official channel]{citation}". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The cause of death is reported in numerous additional reliable sources, including The Independent, International Business Times, news.com.au and The Huffington Post. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done I added this to the article in the format I suggested, choosing a maximum of 3 of the references with varied geographic/demographic spread. Your mileage may vary on quantity required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly I see after my edit that, apart from the infobox the death by hanging statement appears in two sections, phrased differently, and with different citations. I am not averse to this treatment, but will not object to an editor consolidating this into one section. I am however, against our representing the death by hanging as an absolute fact until that fact is confirmed by official channels, preferring it to be stated as media reporting in whichever section it is deemed appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for digging up the other refs. I am using google.hk, which still doesn't find matches for her name and hanging. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
See this
In Canada and increasingly in the United States, news media may not report the cause of death; or officials may not release information on the cause or manner of death, citing respect for the privacy of families.
See also this from the same source and this for Hong Kong
I don't know what the situation is in the UK. These here are general guides on safe reporting of suicides. The problem is especially acute regarding teenagers because teenage depression need not be characterised by feelings of inadequacy, hopelessness or loss as it typically is in adult cases. Rather 'crankiness' is the typical symptom. Nevertheless the risk of suicide is just as high, and there have been some dreadful epidemics of copy-cat epidemics of teenage suicide in the UK. One would hope and trust that Wikipedia editors were aware of their responsibilities in reporting these things. Needless to say they are individually liable for what they publish.
Of course the fact only becomes 'important' when the article is focussed on the suicide, rather than the individual. I would have hoped not to see it mentioned out of deference for her privacy until at least a coroner's court had established the cause of death and it is reported (if ever) by the Canadian MSM. JaniB (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Added: I have now made an appropiate edit deleting the casue of death and stressing the investigation would be long and complex, in line with Canadian media guidelines on the reporting of suicides. JaniB (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd/Archive_1&oldid=1136382881"