Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Village Pump

I have posted on Village Pump at Wikipedia coverage of recent teenage suicides my concserns about this aticle in relation to copycat teenage suicides. JaniB (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a very sensible thing to do and the best way forward. I have replied there, - perhaps slightly over-bluntly after seeing your edit summary that you edited the article "in line with Canadian guidelines" :| --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Thank you for your input. I think it's a real issue and in all seriousness that there might be a real tragedy in the offing if Wikipedia continues in this vein. I do think these "Suicide of" articles involving teenagers especially should be renamed and edited in scrupulous observance of guidelines such as those published by the Canadian Psychiatric Assocaition.

I see that an editor called "Tarc" has reverted my edit. As far as I'm aware he hasn't edited here before and he has arrived here via my good faith Village Pump proposal, where he responded rather insensitively and not very cogently in my opinion. I see moreover that his User page carries a picture of pitbull terrier with the message "don't taunt the pitbull". His rationale is that Canadian guidelines don't apply on Wikipedia. I should imagine that American guidelines are somewhat similar if he is arguing that American jurisidiction applies (presumably he is not suggesting there is no justiciability in any jurisdiction whatsoever, that Wikipedia is above common mores) as these are where the Wikipedia servers are situated. I shall check.

I believe I have accomplished all I can reasonably expect here. I was impressed by Anna's start here, evidently a committed editor. I don't believe Errant is correct in his strictures about this article not being an biographical article. Rather I believe that is all that it can safely be. I am frankly sorry to see Amanda treated like this.

The Amanda Todd enquiry is likely to be a long and complicated affair. In my edit reverted by Tarc I repeated the Canadian coroner's court's caution to that effect. JaniB (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact I see that Tarc believes that Wikipedia is supranational:

• Canadian or ay other nationality guidelines do not apply to the Wikipedia

JaniB (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

These are the American guidelines prepared by the Surgeon General. They are very similar. In particular:

• Whenever possible, it is preferable to avoid referring to suicide in the headline. Unless the suicide death took place in public, the cause of death should be reported in the body of the story and not in the headline.

Not really relevant, either. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggested at the Village Pump that the article is renamed "Death of Amanda Todd". From a strictly legal point of view this really ought to be the title since a coroner's court has yet to rule it was a suicide, a remark I made ages ago to Anna. But more importantly it would conform to the guidelines published by the Canadian Psychiatric Association and observed by all the Canadian main stream media. JaniB (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Provide proof of your statement that the guidelines are "observed by all the Canadian main stream media". BashBrannigan (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Anna remarked that she could find no Canadian newspaper that mentioned how Amanda died. At Village Pump an editor suggested this was a breach of the guidelines, but I don't agree. The word 'suicide' is not in the headline, certainly the byline but not the headline. It doesn't detail the suicide method and there are no images of Amanda. The article is restrained and is not exclusively about Amanda and in fact Amanda is mentioned only incidentally. I dare say you might find breaches in the more sensational press, perhaps you might like to research, but I'm comfortable with my assertion. I'm not comfortable however with the brusqueness of your request and I shan't grant you the courtesy of a reply should you persist. What is your opinion of "Death of Amanda Todd"? Wouldn't that be sensible until at least the coroner rules it was suicide? JaniB (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

This article does have the appearance of a bio. Perhaps we could modify the lead to begin with, and focus on, the suicide, and then introduce Todd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The suicide of Amanda Todd occurred on October 10, 2012 in Canada. The event, and circumstances surrounding it received international media attention. Prior to her death, Todd posted a video on YouTube in which she used a series of flash cards to tell of her experience of being blackmailed, bullied, and physically assaulted. The video went viral....

Amanda Michelle Todd, a 15-year-old Canadian teenager...

Something like that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The effect could also be mentioned. " The event, and circumstances surrounding it received international media attention and prompted discussions of the effects of bullying among the public and Canadian governments.". And coukd be modified if actual laws coukd be attributed.. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support both of these modifications. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Of course, the way it is now is not so bad at all. I know others had issues with it seeming like a bio, and some sort of lead that focuses on the suicide may be an answer. I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I could be just me, but I'm uncertain of the meaning of the end of the first sentence. " whose suicide was attributed to cyber-bullying through the social networking website Facebook." I think I know what it means, but the word "through" seems ambiguous. It seems that it could be saying that it was on Facebook that there was speculation that her suicide was due to cyberbullying or it could be saying that Facebook is where the cyber-bullying occurred? BashBrannigan (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Drawing a blank on how to rephrase it to be clearer... I'll sleep on it. —Theopolisme 05:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

'through' → 'via' or 'by use of' Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support modifications. —Theopolisme 05:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft

Here is a very rough version to add to the article. Note that I've replaced the birth month references with two birth date references.

The suicide of Amanda Todd occurred on October 10, 2012 at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. Prior to her death, Todd posted a video on YouTube in which she used a series of flash cards to tell of her experience of being blackmailed, bullied, and physically assaulted. The video went viral, resulting in international media attention.

Amanda Michelle Todd was born in British Columbia on November 27, 1996, and was 15 years old at the time of her death. She was a grade 10 student at CABE Secondary in Coquitlam, a school that caters for students who have experienced social and behavior issues in previous educational settings.

Move this elsewhere: Shortly before 6:00 pm on October 10, 2012, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were called to her home in Port Coquitlam, to investigate what they referred to as a "sudden death". They have since launched a full investigation into Todd's death. They conducted interviews, reviewed content at social media sites, and monitored internet pages.

Christy Clark, the Premier of British Columbia, made an online statement of condolence suggesting a national discussion be made discussing criminalizing cyber-bullying.

Insert summaries of other sections here to complete lede...

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• With the finishing of fully fleshed out citations (ie not bare links) I see this as a substantially improved and totally non biographical and non memorial start to the article. Were there not so much current discussion about the article I would have expected a bold edit in the article itself to have made these changes. I support either this draft or a substantially similar draft. We then need to ensure that categories are article based, not person based, but that is a smaller matter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should boldly swap it in. The proposal has been here for 4 days with no opposes. What better place to knock it into shape than in the mainspace? More people will pay attention to it there, especially since there has been a resurgence in page visits [1] due to the memorial. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you from doing so. If consensus should go against it nothing is lost, changes can be undone easily. :) Your draft looks workmanlike and uncontentious. Far better to knock it into further shape inside the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I used WP:REFLINKS to flesh out the bare links automatically, and edited 10th grade to be grade 10. I would make the edit myself, but I think you have something in mind over the summaries. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the opening sentence of the lead into a more simple, less contorted form. --ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{admin help-helped}} Can an admin please remove this content [2] from the edit history as it unfairly names a person without reliable sourcing. --WWGB (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 02:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Material has been re-added, perhaps time to clean and lock the page? WWGB (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try discussing it rather than obliterating everything you don't like? 50.53.98.229 (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's three sources: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/anonymous-kody-maxson-amanda-todd-bully/, http://hypervocal.com/news/2012/kody-maxson-blackmail-victim-peyton/, http://www.vice.com/read/tracing-kody-maxson-the-online-blackmailer-alleged-to-have-tormented-amanda-todd

You shouldn't automatically reject everything you don't like, WWGB. That's the kind of reasoning that led to the crusades and 9/11. 50.53.98.229 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

None of them reliable sources, in breach of WP:BLP. Oh, you forgot to mention the Nazis! WWGB (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

50, until you provide a reliable source (please read WP:RS), you cannot have that info remain here or anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:BLP. When you think you have a source, put the source here without naming any names. Then, if the sources are legit, we can start a discussion on whether or not the info belongs in the article (note that just being sourced won't be a guarantee of inclusion, per some other parts of WP:BLP). But every time you attempt to add the info here w/o RS, the info will be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The point isn't to prove that he was Amanda Todd's bully, the point was to prove that he, or at least that name, was the one called out by Anonymous. A quick Google search will yield numerous results. You guys already mention him in the Wikipedia article, what the Internet made of him, and that there is no evidence to support Anonymous's claims--I'm just suggesting that you throw the name in there too. I kinda find it hard to believe that you guys would rather refer to your scripture with the vehemence of fundamentalist crazies than actively work to improve the article. 50.53.98.229 (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that adding his name does damage to him as a person. Wikipedia, essentially, holds itself to a higher standard with respect to living people than many sources do. But, again, if multiple reliable sources start naming him, then we can consider doing so as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But not even allowing it on the talk page as conjecture; as a subject to be talked about? Or even the history of the talk page? That's a bit anal. But whatever. 50.53.98.229 (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential libel is not restricted to articles alone, thus potential libels are removed wherever they appear. It is not a defence to restate what another person has said. All restating does is re-utters the same potential libel. There is nothing anal about it. It is prudence. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

bananas 50.53.98.229 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Google trending for 2012

She was third. Not sure if that fact should be in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no simply because - I don't really know, it doesn't seem very important to the actual death of Amanda Todd or the circumstances around it. That said, it's a relatively small piece of info that sort of makes sense as far as the social media/media aspect goes so I wouldn't get upset if it was there. L.cash.m (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My first inclination was to agree, but the linked story does go into some detail about the discussion created by Todd's video and suicide. In the context of a discussion about the reaction, I can see where this would be appropriate. Resolute 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I will say that I think it should be included as it is important that a case of this matter gets the most Google search of the year. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it should go in as having cultural significance. Maybe boldly toss it in as see if it sticks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do that.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not do that, please. It is trivia. 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. I don't know anymore. I'm terrible at these sorts of decisions. Others can decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The challenge we face is "article creep". There are many things that are genuinely encyclopaedic about the young lady's death, and we have to sift through a great deal of extraneous clutter to ensure we only record those that are directly relevant. THat this particular item has been discussed here means it is 'on record' as is the presumed decision that it does not form part of the article. Thus it need not form part of the article. We need to ensure we reserve the article itself for what one might term 'hard facts' about and surrounding her death. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This caused Todd to experience...

In the "Background and Suicide" section, there's a statement that reads "This caused Todd to experience anxiety, major depression and panic disorder." Can we really say that she experienced anxiety, major depression, and a panic disorder? As far as I can see, the article referenced only quotes Todd herself. Does that qualify as a reference? CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think Todd is as far as we're going to get as a reference, unless there's some sort of doctors statement or what-have-you (sounds quite unlikely). We could do something like "Todd claimed she experienced anxiety, major depression and panic disorder as a result." —Theopolisme 01:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers, who aren't restricted to Wikipedia's self-regulatory regime of only reporting reliable sources, are reporting that she had problems with depression and other related conditions. Part of that could be based on her own assertions, but also very likely on off-the -record interviews with family and friends. If the article is scrupulous about the matter, then it could adopt Theopolisme's suggestion above. It's certainly part of the guidelines that mental health issues such as depression be reported, but it won't really be possible to do that until the inquest has been published. JaniB (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Theopolisme's thought is the best for now. The comment is based on Todd's words and she obviously isn't able to clinically diagnose herself with any of those afflictions. Unless we discover she was clinically diagnosed, we should clarify that it was her opinion. Ryan Vesey 02:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. The next bit about her beginning to use drugs and alcohol could be called into question as well, but I'll leave that up to someone else to look into. CharmlessCoin (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Done again. Noticed that the following alcohol and drug statement hadn't been changed, I went on a limb and changed it. Feel free to bring it up if you want to change it back. CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked this a bit, mostly to avoid repetition. (Actually, the second "claimed" that I've left in, might be better as "later stated" or somesuch.)

It's also worth keeping in mind that the girl's problems were not a short-lived thing; she had moved schools due to bullying etc., the police and parents were well aware of various issues, so it's entirely likely she underwent various forms of counselling at various points. So there may have been some actual medical diagnosis that may or may not be reported somewhere already, or may or may not be reported at some point in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Her mother has also been quoted in the press with regards to Amanda's mental health problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to Delete

Can someone please add the deletion tag --> subst:afdx|3rd

Now that the emotional uproar has died down, it's time to look at this page through the lens of Wikipedia policy and this single event is not noteable at all. 184.145.118.96 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This request will only be acceded to if sufficient rationale is given. I am content to accede to it if you will give us a detailed rationale here, one based upon policy. So please formulate your rationale fully. If I accept it as a valid rationale, whether I agree with it or not, I will accede to your request. I am not the only arbiter. Others may have different views. However, any one person is entitled to nominate an article for deletion at any time. I agree that you are entitled to do so, but require a proper rationale to do this on your behalf. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the article be a launch pad for an expanded article, maybe titled Deaths caused by social media, or something of that nature. I am sure there are other tragedies, (for instance I believe there has been at least 2 suicides caused by social media bullying here in the UK). I dont really follow these stories, like the media sites themselves, they depress me badly. I suggest some kind of task group be set up to investigate the possibilities. This could be a very effective article, taken within the context of this being probably a worldwide issue, with perhaps even published studies on the problem for citation. Irondome (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This article should stay as it is. Amanda Todds death and aftermath has recieved never seen before coverage around the world for a suicide and her death has sparked discussions about bullying etc. She also was amongst the most Google-searched people in 2012. May I also remind the IP and everyone else that WP:NOTTEMPORARY (notability is not temporary)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two different topics here. A "Deaths occasioned by the use of social media" article may be valid. If so create it. It is not a topic for this talk page. The deletion or otherwise of the article is also not really a talk page discussion. As I have said, any editor may nominate any article at any time. Given a substantive rationale, even if I do not agree with it, I am content as before to make a procedural nomination. Once nominated that becomes the venue for discussion. a pre-deletion discussion on the article's talk page is out of place and rather pointless. Indeed I have only responded to the IP editor to gain sufficient clarity, and not to discuss the article's existence per se. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

These outgrowths almost always develop from a brief article talkpage discussion. I see nothing wrong with that. I am also unable at this time to even dream of creating such a sophisticated article, due to inexperience. I dont know where else to float these ideas except on the talk page, and I have no idea how to float the idea of a group being set up, consensus etc.Irondome (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given Irondome some ideas on their own talk page of how this might go forward. I really don't want to dilute this talk page with the discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, and I would give it three hours before any such AFD was closed as keep per WP:SNOW. Resolute 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Even so, they have the right to propose it. If they come up with a valid rationale I will do the procedural thing. I shall also lodge a !vote to keep the article immediately afterwards. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to hold out for what you consider a 'valid rationale' if it is obvious that you're going to vote against it. I was going to add the tag for 184.145 but became completely lost on how to reopen it tagged as second nomination and how to create a new discussion page. Reasons for deletion: wp:notability WP:EFFECT WP:GEOSCOPE WP:PERSISTENCE. As I see it, this article maintains significance in the long term based upon the results of the suicide/bullying. A quick review of the current news regarding this subject shows that the main discussion is in the context of how it was covered earlier this year. Until such as time as there is a law passed as a result of this event or the charity created as a result of it becomes significant in its own right, this article lacks notability. L.cash.m (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly fair to do so. I uphold the IP editor's right to nominate it for deletion and I uphold my right to do as I have done before and give my opinion that it should be kept. There is no problem with doing both things. My opinion is that it will survive all future deletion discussions, but that does not prevent valid nominations from being made. If you are lost regarding opening a further discussion I suggest you deploy Twinkle in your user preferences. It will handle the entire process for you, usually reliably from a drop down menu in your tab rack. Please go ahead and make the nomination on their behalf. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an IP has any "right" to nominate the article for deletion. It is often the case that editors are willing to initiate the process by proxy; however, it takes less than a minute for the IP to create an account to make it himself. Ryan Vesey 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And now we're veering into a question of enfranchisement. :) Also, this page is semi-protected so they actually couldn't nominate it. Nomination done. L.cash.m (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So now that everyone has wasted a few hours of time doing yet another speedy keep AfD discussion concerning this article could we just move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

58 minutes :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm really surprised 184.145 didn't weigh in on the argument :P L.cash.m (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Seem like the IP oly commented to cause some kind of stir.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion per request, article kept

Nominated per request, applied what rationale I could to the request, speedy kept. Will probably be reopened eventually by someone else and closed again until larger measures are taken as a result of the event in question. Thank you to all the editors, hopefully this won't come up again for a few months. L.cash.m (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets hope so! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on a video of alleged named abuser

A paragraph and a citation has been added and the alleged abuser named in this set of diffs I fleshed out the bare url into a citation. What I am less clear about is whether this material should be in the article. I pose it here for opinions while I think about that myself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

[redacted] The additional information about him should stay in references, since it's not relevant to this article, but I think there's nothing wrong with putting the name out as long as we maintain NPOV and let the readers decide for themselves.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that he appears to be an unpleasant character but that "Nothing definitely links him to Amanda yet" so believe the item must be deleted from the article. Mere suspicion and conjecture is surely insufficient in a case of BLP? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Miyamoto - Be aware that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages as well. I have redacted your unsubstantiated accusations for this reason. And to that end, lets keep this on point. The only question that matters is whether the name of the person accused by Anonymous should be named in this article. Resolute 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to the belief that the person's name and the paragraph in the diffs (ie not just his name) including the citation should be removed. If it is ever the case that his guilt is proven such things can be reinstated. There is nothing urgent about the name appearing here. We are an encyclopaedia, not a news medium. We record hard facts, not speculation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia records hard facts, and it's a fact that anonymous named the alleged abuser as (name redacted}. To remove this is self imposed censorship and wikipedia is not censored. For the record, the article states that {redacted} admitted to knowing Amanda Todd, so it's a fact that he's connected to Amanda Todd. ScienceApe (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did agree with ScienceApe that it should stay the way with the caveat that it should be reworded so that the reader from the beginning is aware that Anonymous was mistaken. The way it reads now sounds as though it was a correct identification. On the other hand -- is 'the alleged' himself really relevant, or is it the accusation by Anonymous and subsequent refutation by the police that is important? In the latter case, I'd recommend removing 'the alleged' and simply placing 'a man' or 'a resident'. While Wikipedia is not censored, it does attempt to retain relevant information only. I'd say that, barring police action against either him or Anonymous, his name could be removed. L.cash.m (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only mistake made was the age, but it's not clear if anonymous or the media were incorrect in reporting this. There is another man whose age is 32. The 19 year old is the one ID'd in the article as knowing Amanda Todd. This is cited in reputable 3rd party sources. I would also like to ask the admins to stop censoring my posts. ScienceApe (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read and pay heed to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME where it states, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." and "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." FurrySings (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ScienceApe, if there were ever a risk of admins "censoring" your posts on this topic, trust me, I would be all over them like a bad rash. In the meantime, I recommend re-reading what FurrySings just posted about WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. If you keep posting things that have to be redacted, someone will probably block you just to avoid having to keep doing that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First, yes, pay attention to the BLP rules; following those rules allows Wikipedia to stay afloat as it is a non-profit organization - and it's also just nice not to say unfounded things about people. Also, I believe that according to the legal system you are wrong when you say "The only mistake made was the age, but it's not clear if anonymous or the media were incorrect in reporting this." The man in question has been declared a "person of no interest" by the Vancouver police (or whatever the appropriate term is) - the declination to press any charges against he who shall not be named in the related article makes it very clear that the Anonymous accusation was a mistake. Knowing Amanda Todd does not vindicate the Anonymous accusation, and it certainly doesn't warrant including his name in the article. L.cash.m (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it does. A man who was named by Anonymous admitted that he knew Amanda Todd. He just denied blackmailing her, and he fled Canada even though there's a warrant out for his arrest on unrelated charges. It's all there in the article that I cited but was redacted. When you redact citations, that is censorship. There are plenty of credible 3rd party citations that state his name, what he has done, the charges against him, and his admission that he is connected to Amanda Todd. I read the BLP rules and they do not apply here because the article is not stating that he's guilty nor is it insinuating it. ScienceApe (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

His unrelated charges and fleeing Canada are of no relevance to this article. Being connected to Todd is likewise trivial. What is meaningful is that Anonymous accused him of being the tormenter, and that the police consider that to be false. And yes, BLP applies. Your intention seems to be to name and shame a man whom the police consider innocent of Anonymous' charge. Resolute 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes him fleeing Canada and having unrelated charges (but directly related to sexual assault on a minor) are not directly relevant to the article but it's those reasons along with him admitting that he knows Amanda Todd, that make people suspicious about him, and that's why there's so many 3rd party articles on him. I'm explaining why people are suspicious, and believe that he is indeed the bully involved with Amanda Todd. His name is the same as the one put forth by Anonymous, the age was merely misreported. The police do NOT believe he is innocent. They simply do not have evidence to hold him on charges related to Amanda Todd. However he is connected to Amanda Todd, and the suspicion surrounding him is well documented by numerous and credible 3rd party sources that have been redacted. Your last remark is presumptuous, I'd ask you not assume my intentions. The inclusion of his name and his admission to knowing Amanda Todd are notable, and cited. ScienceApe (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're doing everything you can to convict a man on the basis of circumstantial evidence and logical leaps, and you accuse me of being presumptuous? What people speculate is not relevant to this article, nor does policy allow for it. "Police in British Columbia have confirmed that the man Anonymous publicly named as Todd’s tormentor had no involvement in the bullying that preceded her suicide." Also, Anonymous changed its mind about who the tormentor was. People are free to be suspicious all they want. They are not free to use Wikipedia as a platform to press their suspicions. Resolute 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You're again being presumptuous, I'm explaining why the material is relevant to the article, and is notable. It doesn't matter if Anonymous changed its mind about the man they fingered first. What matters is the facts. That man who has an arrest warrant out for him in B.C for sexual assault, knew Amanda Todd and admitted to knowing her. People are not always convicted for crimes that they have committed but are convicted for other crimes for which they have evidence that is admissible in court. Drew Peterson for example was only convicted for the murder of his 3rd wife, even though his 4th wife was murdered as well, and there was legitimate reason to be suspicious of his involvement. That's the point, people have reason to suspect the individual in question and it's well documented in credible 3rd party sources. But I'm willing to concede that the consensus is against me, and I'll drop the matter (for now). But I do not believe that I'm wrong, and I do believe this is a violation of Wikipedia_is_not_censored ScienceApe (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that you are correct there is every reason for you to discuss this (I recommend without naming the accused gentleman) at WP:BLPN where you will have a useful discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We can take it there if you wish. I'll participate and make my case. ScienceApe (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's something weird about how some people are editing this article. Reliable sources should never be omitted on the basis that they tell something you don't want people to hear - I don't care if you think it's irrelevant, nasty, etc. - either they're a source worth citing or they're not. And when someone is wrongly labelled by an "Anonymous" hacker and persecuted as a result of the case, it's still relevant. That's not a rumor, but a noteworthy event related to this article. We do the man himself a service by helping inform the world that he wasn't really the one, and we certainly do our part educationally to remind people that - just as with Spike Lee and the home address of George Zimmerman - online lynch mobs do nothing if not go after the wrong people. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But all of the citations have been redacted. Removing citations is a complete violation of policy. At least the citations should be in the references. We can talk more about what should be in the article's body. ScienceApe (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Excluding citations gives the article a bias

"After investigating the tip, police determined that the allegations were unfounded,[29] and said that "false information that is being spread by people who appear to be trying to use Amanda’s story to do harm or make a profit" was one of the challenges they faced.[30]"

This is completely biased. It's insinuating that the person in question is innocent, and that people are purposefully trying to harm or make money from the Amanda Todd story by fingering the wrong person. But the citation I cited has the person fingered by anonymous admitting that he knew Amanda Todd. The article appears to presume that there was zero connection between the man id'd by Anonymous and Amanda Todd. It's simply not true, and not allowing the citation or mention of what it reported just because it has the person's name, is in fact censorship. It's cherry picking citations. This is a NPOVviolation. ScienceApe (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If we included this person based upon his interaction w/ Todd, the only way to maintain a NPOV would be to include a list of every single person who knew Amanda Todd. However, I'd be willing to -- as long as he is unnamed due to WP:BLP standards -- mention that police did acknowledge that the person was familiar with Amanda Todd. What I'm curious about, though, is your personal investment in this; why is it so important to you? I recognize that you're trying to argue it using WP rules, and I respect that, but I don't think that you're doing this in order to simply maintain an objective and inclusive article. L.cash.m (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

wait -- I have changed my mind based upon this line: "It's insinuating that the person in question is innocent, and that people are purposefully trying to harm or make money from the Amanda Todd story by fingering the wrong person" in your argument. A situation such as this must be based upon legitimate law enforcement decisions -- not upon arguments from 'citizen police'. The statement by the police is directly quoted from the article. We are not in a position to act as judge, jury, and executioner; we report the facts, and only the facts. I do want to see this article you're insisting on citing -- can you link it on my talk page? L.cash.m (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you're being presumptuous again, and I already asked for that to stop. You don't argue based upon making bad faith assumptions, you argue based on Wikipedia policy. I believe censoring citations that give an opposing view point is a violation of NPOV. I sent you the article to your talk page. ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

One, I'm not the one you've been complaining about being presumptuous. Second, I don't think that the article should be discarded based on the theory that you're operating in bad faith. However, I don't feel like the article provides anything of note that legitimizes calling out the unnamed person; rather, it reports a conversation between the person and an unrelated party where the unrelated party intentionally baits the unnamed. It then looks up conversations between the 19 year old and a girl who is underage regarding her password, and discusses some other online problems with this person. However, here is the definitive statement for me:

"While it’s impossible to definitively state that [redacted] was Amanda’s blackmailer, it is clear that he had two well-documented and sexually extortive online relationships with teenage girls [redacted], he was “friends with” Amanda Todd, lived in B.C. at the same time as Amanda, and is up on sexual assault charges against a [unrelated - ed.] minor, which he appears to be avoiding in Cuba." Here the author clearly admits that there is no proof of anything insofar as Todd being blackmailed by =redacted=.

That admission is where I get my opinion that the article is not worthy for inclusion; the author himself admits that he doesn't have any evidence to back up any of his claims. This does not seem to be the time or place to add in a contentious piece about someone who has been cleared by the RCMP that violated WP:BLP. Also, claims of censorship seem uncalled for; what is happening is that, generally speaking, there is a consensus that the information you want to add will not serve to improve the article -- rather, it will simply serve to assault a private citizen who has been cleared of wrongdoing as of now.L.cash.m (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Erm, yes, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty. That is something of an important aspect of our code of laws. Your statement continues to insinuate that he is guilty, and it becomes more obvious by the comment that this is the position you expect this article to push. Resolute 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Considered innocent until proven guilty really has nothing to do with the point I'm making. The article isn't NPOV when you exclude citations that give an opposing view point. I'm not trying to push a position, I'm asking for citations not to be censored. When you censor citations, it's a NPOV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The things written in this sentence appear to match the source plainly (29 and 30 are the same thing, so I've merged these citations). I don't understand what difference it makes if an innocent party knew the girl. From this I assume that the name wasn't picked out of the phone book, but if it was an assumption made based on a subset of the girl's phone records or some such contact information, it could easily be wrong yet point to someone she knew, right? (I was asked to comment by ScienceApe; this is just a quick opinion looking at the quote) Wnt (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the censored reference is if it is from the huge redacted period, but searching for "amanda todd" and "anonymous" pulls up a Slate article. I find that article very perplexing, however - it puts a lot of things in a question form which is not "presented as true" for purposes of WP:BLP. I mean, there were two different people doxed, a wrong address given, a wrong age given (elsewhere a wrong phone number) ... what can I do with this? And then Vice Magazine did an investigation which leads me to ... more running around in circles. [3] Though this seems a little more interesting. [4] Still... it's all so damned tentative, nobody saying anything for sure, sources on the borderline of credibility. I suppose we should tack on the Slate article as an extra reference, without making any major claims from it. Wnt (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

consult my talk page; i'll leave the link up for a few days unless someone feels it necessary to kill it, i'm uncertain on matters such as that. L.cash.m (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

nvm, it's your #2 L.cash.m (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it to WP:BLPN and thus add further editors to the equation. That way a good consensus will emerge. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

ScienceApe is pushing hard on a link that can, in no possible way, be considered a reliable source in this case. I can't make a judgment on the site itself, but he article he is up in arms about states very clearly that the author has no way to verify the identity of the person whose online history he is running down. He's basically trying to connect the dots and create a narrative that makes the man seem guilty in the Amanda Todd case. ScienceApe appears to be attempting to further that agenda on Wikipedia. Resolute 15:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to lambast ScienceApe - I don't think he's being moved by any strong COI here, I think he's just trying to summarize what the sources are trying to say, emphasis on the trying. The current version does have the problem that it takes as authoritative that Anonymous is wrong, which isn't absolutely clear either. Yeah, I think it's a lot more likely that the police are telling the truth in their statement than that they'd be deliberately covering for a sex offender just because they're pissed off at amateur vigilantes or don't like Anonymous, but it's not inconceivable. Still, Anonymous is (at most) an organization, not a "person" as in BLP, and so the Wikipedia policy on balance provides better protection to the person named than to the Anonymous accuser. (whether we should have a BLP if it leads us away from perfect NPOV is left as an exercise for the reader - but this just does not seem like the test case I'd choose to fight that battle!). I agree a BLP/N might be appropriate but I don't want to make the effort myself. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll do it, I might need some help though. I'm not too familiar with the process. ScienceApe (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure if this is the right place. It says, "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." My contention is that leaving out citations is a violation of NPOV ScienceApe (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are unsure, place a {{helpme}} in an appropriate location and ask for the assistance you need. Proabbly youir own talk page would be best. It ought to be straightforward of the process is poor. They will tell you if it is the wrong venue. No-one can know everything. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're the one that suggested it. I don't really care where we get more opinions, just want to reach a consensus and for bad faith accusations against me to stop. I also want to point out that this particular discussion isn't about naming the one accused by Anonymous (that's a separate issue, but one I still believe is correct), but rather allowing verifiable 3rd party citations that differ with what the article is saying about the accused. ScienceApe (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mis-reading this debate, but aren't we missing a major point? Does Anonymous have serious credibility? The issue for this article is more what affect Todd's suicide has on society ( probably Canadian, primarily) not on who Anonymous happens to have thought was guilty. So, who they name is unimportant, but only what affect, if any, their naming someone may have had. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is with Anonymous itself, then it stands to reason that NO mention of who Anonymous claimed was responsible should be mentioned nor how the police reacted to its claim. Quite obviously that's not the case. Anonymous isn't what's important, it's what they did, and what happened afterwards and that also includes the citation by Vice magazine which is being redacted. ScienceApe (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In order to help move this discussion along more, I have to list the citations here. If consensus is against these citations, they can be redacted later, but they are necessary to list here for the purposes of establishing consensus. Should these two citations, [5] [6] be included in the reference section of the article. Why or why not? Obviously I do think they should be included for the reasons I stated before. I'd like to know where everyone stands on this. ScienceApe (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Never heard of "Vice" and not impressed by these citations. However, I'm unconvinced of the relevancy for mentioning the name period. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Where I stand can be described as follows - no, I do not think those two citations should be used in the article, and no I do not think the name of the person (or persons) should be mentioned in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Anonymous got involved should be reported. Normally, we should detail how they got involved, but the "avoid victimization" part of BLP may apply where the name is involved. I'm not sure about that though - with all the stuff that comes up on an Internet search I think we'd actually do him more justice if we named him, had a redirect here from his name, so that we could tell people that Anonymous pointed at him but he's been declared "not a person of interest" in this case. (I know a lot of people in these discussions don't think the way I do about that, however) Appropriate references supporting the involvement of Anonymous should be reported. Meanwhile ... these Vice articles are more about what this kid did and said, and he's not made clearly relevant to the Amanda Todd, and they're not all that good. (Actually, Vice is an edgy publication that I've seen do good reporting, and it has good primary information, but they only had so much to work with here). The bottom line is that we shouldn't incorporate random information about non-notable people; he's apparently still a BLP1E not eligible for an article; and the information isn't obviously relevant to Amanda Todd, which leaves us with potentially usable sources that lie outside the purview of all notable articles on Wikipedia. At some point there might be a revolution about shucking notability and drafting articles about anything we run across, but I doubt it's today. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem in a situation like this is that by simply connecting the person's name to the article, we are creating the argument of guilt that Vice (and its proponents) are trying to manufacture. There is no denial we can make that would be strong enough to overcome the accusation. That is, incidentally, why the mainstream media has absolutely refused to name him since the police said Anonymous' accusation was false. Resolute 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You never heard of Vice? Well we have an article on them, so obviously they are notable, Vice (magazine). ScienceApe (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I vote no to inclusion in any form. Poorly researched op-ed article disguised as reporting, IMHO. (others' opinions on quality and nature of article may differ). L.cash.m (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And can you explain why you think it's poorly researched? ScienceApe (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, read the article. It's a mishmash of hearsay and personal opinion. The author watches an online video of someone else trying to bait the unnamed, then reads some chatlogs that have nothing to do with Amanda Todd, communicates with someone claiming to be a member of a specific group within Anonymous (questionable in all cases; the purpose of anonymous is to be anonymous -- for all you know, I am a member of anonymous), omits the fact that Anonymous has switched tactics to point @ Viper and then says Unnamed did things with unrelated underage girl -- then just says "it's obvious that he should be a person of interest." Watching a video online and reading chatlogs that, based upon the sections he chose to quote, prove that ?? is a jealous boyfriend of an underaged girl does not qualify as substantial arguments for the claim made at the end of the article that you claim is being censored. There may be some 'research' done but it would not be enough to vet the article being published at a serious source of news journalism. Anyway, let us retire to the BLP noticeboard below for discussion of the issue -- which is not censorship but rather whether the article should be used despite the questionable nature of it in relationship to BLP. I'm not going to explain anything related to the article again, by the way. I've stated my opinion; you've made yours. We disagree. It's okay, it's Wikipedia. L.cash.m (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions don't matter, what matters is if this meets wikipedia policy. Your reason for exclusion of those citations just seems to be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Your opinion of the article isn't really important, what matters if the source meets, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Vice (magazine) is a independent source and fits [[7]]. ScienceApe (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi ScienceApe! It's lovely to meet you. The consensus here, as Wikipedia editors, is that we believe this material does not meet WP:BLP requirements for inclusion in the article. Thank you for raising the issue! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Civility, your condescending tone disguised as being friendly is not appreciated and is passive aggression. The inclusion of those citations does not violate WP:BLP. The point raised before was that naming the accused was a violation of WP:BLP, however this discussion is not about naming the accused, but allowing those citations in the reference section which do in fact meet wikipedia's criteria for [sources]. ScienceApe (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an article whose author says he spoke to an "online activist" who in turn spoke to someone who claims to be the (ex-)girlfriend of a fourth person, whom is claimed to be our subject - none of which can be definitively confirmed (even the article author admits it) certainly screams "reliable source". As I said above, Wikipedia is not a place for online activism. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Resolute 16:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the 3rd or 4th time you've accused me of bad faith. These constant accusations are disruptive so I'm going to give you a fair warning. Wikipedia:Assume good faith, if you do it again I'll take it up with another administrator. As I told L.cash your objection to the citations are your opinion, Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Vice (magazine) is a independent source and fits [[8]]. ScienceApe (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, this thread started with you being concerned that we are "insinuating he is innocent" despite the fact that the police are saying he is innocent. The Vice stories are clear examples of online activism, even admitted as such, based on third and fourth hand, uncollaborated and unprovable assumptions. They are using guesses and leaps of faith to build a case for guilt. Even if it is not your direct intention, you are unwittingly acting to further their activism. And you have yet to explain how third and fourth hand information gleaned from an interview with people whose identities are unconfirmed counts as an RS. Nor have you explained how this is relevant given the police have stated the man is not a person of interest. Resolute 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

May I remind those discussing this matter here that the banner above this message, and above which they are consistently placing there arguments, states that the discussion location is not here now, but is at the BLP Noticeboard. Oddly, you are all disregarding this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For myself, I am not sure that us moving our argument there will help. I would rather people there form their views independent of our debate before weighing in at the BLPN. Resolute 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is all about Anonymous mistakenly naming that man, then I'm astonished it has gone so far.

What's the difference between "...Anonymous incorrectly named John Doe..." and "...Anonymous incorrectly named a British Columbia man..."?

Weigh it out: Stating his name offers no benefit to visitors. It's just a name to them. But, stating the name renders harm to a person whose only involvement is that he was falsely named. This matter should be closed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Anna. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating the name of a person judged to have no case to answer is a libel, especially in this context "Brutus is an honurable man!" applies . It fails all BLP policies and endangers Wikipedia. Kill this "must name him at all costs" idea and close thsi enture thread. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding Child Pornography category

One is a category and the other is a link to child porn from the statement about the photograph she was tricked into being taken. We need to reach a consensus on matters like this. I have now reverted it twice and made the very strong request to take it to the talk page. I oppose such additions to an article which is about the suicide Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, I removed your libel about me adding child pornography to the article. Second, she was underage and not only produced child pornography, but also distributed it. This led to her death. The child pornography played a major role in her death. And seeing as how Amanda Todd also redirects here, I fail to see your point. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the child's suicide. She was tricked into making an unwise picture. Now as for your word "Libel" I find that to be a legal threat and require you to withdraw it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we not go into that, Eminence2012 made no indication that they threatened any legal action, and it just opens up another unnecessary can of worms. Ryan Vesey 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I shall do no such thing. I made no threat, I simply said that you were accusing me of posting child pornography. (Libel: "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.") This article is about a child's suicide. A suicide brought on by her underage pornographic pictures being distributed, among other things. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Eminence, please note that being bold involves the original addition of material, not edit warring to keep it on. Ryan Vesey 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the category should exist on the redirect Amanda Todd, not on this article. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. I have no problem with including the Child pornography wikilink. Ryan Vesey 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added the category, per your suggestion. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that call the picture child pornography or is this an interpretation by editors here? GB fan 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There are. Second, I don't see how a clearly pornographic image of a minor needs a "source" for one to call it child pornography. That is mincing words and ignoring common sense. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the reiliable sources that call that image child pornography? GB fan 21:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

[9], [10], and [11], amongst a myriad of others. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. GB fan 21:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm rather surprised that this became such an issue. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This deliberately provocative designation (by wikilink or by category) has no place in the article, and I've provided Eminence2012 with a final warning on their talk page, per WP:BLP. I've also removed it from the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A rather rude first warning, actually. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is indeed rather rude - in many cases, it permits no third chances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How is any of this deliberately provocative? It's a fact that child pornography was involved. I see no BLP issues here. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not even that, the addition of a category can hardly be called "provocative". I think someone is trying to make an issue out of nothing... Eminence2012 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the category issue is solved for the most part, can anyone give a good reason why "topless photo" shouldn't be linked to Child pornography in the statement "The individual later blackmailed her with threats to expose the topless photo to her friends unless she gave a 'show'"? The only compelling reason I could think of, is that it might be better to wikilink to blackmail or extortion. Ryan Vesey 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that "blackmail" should be linked to blackmail. The topless photo should link to child pornography, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminence2012 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Ryan and that it should be linked... a nude picture of a minor is child pornography. You don't need to cite it imo, just like you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. — - dain- talk    21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If it is challenged it must be cited. GB fan 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And it was. (But really, if I asked you to cite the color of the sky...) Eminence2012 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you asked me to cite the color of the sky I would. If it is asked for it should be cited. Also linking topless photo to childporn should be done. The sentence should be rewritten to use the word child porn and then link that word. GB fan 22:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I would do it myself, but *someone* would choose to use it as an excuse to slap me with a WP:3RR violation instead. Eminence2012 (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone is playing games here, and it's not me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

@ GB Fan. Sorry, I should have clarified my statement better. The statement saying "she was blackmailed with her topless photo" has to be cited. However, saying that her topless photo has to be cited to be called child pornography does not. Any media format of the exposed breasts of a minor is child pornography. I agree that it should be rewritten to better express that a topless photo of a minor is child pornography. — - dain- talk    22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Child pornography laws in Canada says that only pictures of sexual organs and anal regions or images of sexual activity of people under 18 constitute child pornography. So yes we need to cite that an image of a topless minor constitutes child pornography in Canada. GB fan 02:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Killer would disagree with that assessment. At any rate, what is missing here is nuance. Does linking "topless photo" to "child pornography" actually add anything to the article? I can't say either way, which is to say that I am not convinced it does. Mostly, I don't think that is a great tag to hang on a silly kids doing silly things - which is pretty much all Todd was guilty of there. That is, of course, just my POV, so not a policy backed concern. Resolute 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Killer also wasn't a sexual picture. Naked pictures exchanged by children and teenagers are. Additionally, "silly kids doing silly things", really? These "silly things" led to her ending her own life! Eminence2012 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the consequence was far out of proportion to the act does not change my view that the act itself was (or should have been) anything more than than that of a child unaware of the potential ramifications. Resolute 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The context of an album cover and the context of a topless photo used for blackmail for more sexual acts is two entirely separate things. Taking the stance of severely depressed teenagers "silly kids" committing suicide as a "silly thing" is certainly an interesting stance to back up.— - dain- talk    23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Of course, I expressed no such stance, so I will thank you to not attribute opinions to me that I did not make. But kids doing questionable things in what they assume are private chats is something I would consider "silly kids". Or if you prefer, naivety. The issue here was that the permanence of the internet allowed that naive act to grow into something malicious. Resolute 00:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is not called The photo of Amanda Todd. The category is too far removed. The subject of the article is the suicide. The object of the suicide is Todd. Part, and only part of the story involved a photo. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why the category belongs on Amanda Todd, the redirect, as I mentioned above. The topic of the article has no impact on whether or not we should use a wikilink. Ryan Vesey 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're completely avoiding the issue at hand. She killed herself as a result of her pornographic images getting out. It is completely relevant. Eminence2012 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

She killed herself. There was a photo. She was depressed. She was being bullied. She was being stalked. She was addicted to Facebook. You are very close to WP:SYNTH here, if not already over the line. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the fact that the man stalking her was in possession of child pornography. Ryan Vesey 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not. But you are synthesising original research over this if you are not very careful. I also failed to mention sky colour, weather states, and what she had for breakfast. And ye gods, it was only a picture of a 12 year old;s chest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

...and that picture constitutes child pornography.— - dain- talk    00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Establish consensus that it should be described as that in the article... then we're talking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vehemently opposed to inclusion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vehemently support inclusion — - dain- talk    00:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vehemently confused But Demiurge makes a good point. Not even the word pornography is mentioned in the article. If there's content on that, then maybe the cat would be appropriate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) But maybe I'm confused about what Demiurge was saying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the category because it seems to be "defining" this event for no good reason at all, in a way that was certainly not the main focus of media coverage. The focus of media coverage was the bullying, not whether some images or other may or may not have been illegal in one or other jurisdictions at the times they were taken. Just like the apparent argument that the girl was "guilty" of "distributing" such illegal material when she was tricked into doing so. It's loathsome spin, and not worthy of a college rag, much less an encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the article Child pornography laws in Canada it does not appear that the topless picture of a minor is child pornography in Canada. GB fan 02:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Vehemently support inclusion Eminence2012 (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Of the three sources used to cite above that the image being child pornography, only one reads as unambiguous to me: [12]. One thing that comes out of all the Wikipedia discussions about images on Commons is that child pornography is a whole lot more vague of a concept than you'd ever imagine! There are some prosecutors who will pursue little kids for sexting like they get some kind of private pleasure out of it, but then again, most don't, recognizing that the children are the ones they're supposed to be protecting. It is certainly appropriate to cite that one source (note that it does not say that Amanda broke the law, but only weighed in on those redistributing the image) - it would also be good to cite any sources that turn up with the opposite opinion. Tacking a category onto the article based on this ... it's hard to say. I think that given the family's efforts to expunge the images from the Internet, they wouldn't feel like we're doing them any favors by leaving it out, though. Please ... just go by whatever you think the sources say and don't try to spin this either way. Wnt (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Really GB??

DEFINITION OF "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY"

... / Making child pornography / distribution or sale of child pornography / Possession of child pornography / Defence / Defences / Other provisions apply.
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

Source: Canadian Justice Laws Website. "Act current to 2013-01-27 and last amended on 2013-01-13." — - dain- talk    03:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Are the breasts a sexual organ? because the dominant characteristic of the image must be a sexual organ or the anal region. According to Sexual organ#Human genitals they are not. GB fan 03:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're talking sense, not law... who knows if they consider breasts to be a sexual organ? And after all, they'll be motivated by the outraged family and their opinion of what might happen. It would be one thing if a Canadian doctor posts a photo series to Commons documenting the changes in the developing breast of an anonymous patient over several years - another when someone is posting the photos for "prurient purposes". (I'd think - but I can't predict the law in the U.S. let alone Canada!) Avoid WP:OR and just go by the sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it can't be any more accurate than the information available to it. Wnt (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the photo was of a child doesn't make child pornography a part of this story. This is not a story of child pornography it is about bullying. The Todd story has influenced the government to make changes to Canadian law about bullying not pornography laws. If this continues, I'm thinking we may need administrator intervention to end it. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk law then, The Supreme Court of British Columbia stated "Adopting as representative of these definitions that "of or relating to the sphere of behaviour associated with libidinal gratification", one must conclude that female breasts are "organs" related to the sphere of behaviour associated with libidinal gratification. To say otherwise, is indeed to deny reality." It is stated more explicitly a bit later " I have concluded that the result which appeals to our common sense is supported by a traditional legal (some would say an overly technical, or tortured) analysis: the bare breasts of a pubescent female are sexual organs for the purpose of s. 163.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code of Canada." See [13] Ryan Vesey 04:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was child porn. Eminence2012 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

None of these links support child pornography as a part of this article or the Amanda Todd story. These links, and all the other arguments for inclusion, are at most about the possibility, not the fact, that someone could be, not was, charged with child pornography. Again... the Amanda Todd suicide has directly affected Canadian laws regarding bullying not child pornography. BashBrannigan (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Todd photographed her own breasts. She was not a "child pornographer". FFS, show some respect to the dead girl. WWGB (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're the one focusing this on Todd. It was the man who stalked her who made child pornography an issue. Ryan Vesey 13:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that anyone who is a subject of child pornography is "part of its manufacture", by participating in a sex act, by posing for the cameraman, and indeed, if directed, by holding the camera. Obviously prosecuting children involved is always a grave injustice, though as I said, sometimes in the context of "sexting" it has been known to happen and continues to happen at the hands of heartless prosecutors. But our emotional reaction is not at issue here, nor is justice; the facts such as we obtain them are what matter. If we were to leave out that source saying that distribution of the photos may be prosecutable, and a future editor working on the article looks up the photos and ends up being prosecuted, what would we have to say for ourselves and our ethics then? Obviously we should not call the girl a "child pornographer", but we should faithfully follow the sources. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, if an image of a topless Amanda Todd is "child pornography", are the images in Commons category Category:Topless adolescent girls also child pornography? Some of them are used here on Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I find this comment to be absolutely relevant and have reinstated it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's 'original research' to decide on our own whether something is or isn't - on Commons, of course, they are doing so because they have to. I would not be surprised if there is a source out there that says that the photos are not child pornography in Canada and if there is then by all means we should cite it. Contradictions are good, because Wikipedia indexes the world - it doesn't judge it. My opinion is that Commons indeed hosts child pornography - for example, photographs by Guglielmo Plüschow of boys he was convicted of having sexual relations with - but it has genuine artistic, political, and historic importance. It should be covered by the Miller Test in the United States, but not even the ACLU has had the balls to argue that. Maybe they would if Commons ended up in a court case. The FBI looked at the situation when Sanger complained and they never prosecuted anyone and the photos were never removed, if that tells us anything. But all it tells us here, for purposes of this article, is that we're not here to try to make sense out of ideas that don't make any sense - we're here to report the facts from the reliable sources. And so we should. All we're doing here is picking oranges and tossing them in a bushel; we're not here to decide if the tree needs to be pruned. (I'm not even going to look at that Commons category: it's off topic, probably it's OK, if not you can tell somebody else, and just in case ... why take the risk?) Wnt (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The nail whose head you have hit seems to me to be as follows. We have a duty to report/catalogue what WP:RS says about things. Consider these two sentences:

1. Jane Doe published child pornography by publishing a self made picture of her breats when she was 12
2. Jane doe published a self made picture of her breasts when she was 12. Some sources have stated that this was publishing child pornography. {citations for sources]

Sentence 1 is sensational, and arguably either original research or synthesised original research. Sentence 2 reports the facts as reported in RS, is neutral, and is thus correct. My view is that sentence 2 does not harm WIkipedia nor the integrity of the article because it reports the facts as reported by RS. Further, it is specific about whose opinion it is that this is child pornography. It leaves easy scope for the further sentence "This was contradicted by other sources{citing those RS sources}.

I have no objection to phrasing it as in sentence 2. Doing so is good practice. It may not be to everyone' taste, but taste is not an arbiter here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

She didn't take a photo of her breasts. She flashed someone on the internet (it appears to be a sight at least similar to Chatroulette). A year later, they turn up with a photo of her breasts. Being stupid on the internet isn't engaging in child pornography, taking a screenshot of the image, holding on to that, and threatening to disseminate it is. Ryan Vesey 23:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Facebook memorial page(s)

We have a statement that Amanda Todd's memorial page on Facebook attracted more than 1 million "likes". Sourced to one that says 475k and one that says 700k, and a "Page Not Found" [14]. Meanwhile, I find a page with 375k "likes". [15] Now, reading about this case I get the sense that Facebook has never been benign in its interactions with her, but were they really so petty as to delete the memorial and have it restart from a low number of likes? Wnt (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternative explanation could be that there are multiple pages, each with different totals? Resolute 17:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well as I said, the Facebook page we list in our References for that is a "Page Not Found". If you know where it went... Wnt (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged it with {{Dead link}}. It is the way of Facebook. Things spring up and are cut down. The actual page is not important. It is Facebook. What remains of significance are any citations to the numbers of people who 'liked' it/them. Those are WP:N and WP:V things where the actual page is not really either. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why the heck is a page with that many likes 'cut down'? If it were a company with its own site with that kind of numbers, they'd be floating an IPO based on them... Wnt (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I adore that comment. :) More please! They are a law unto themselves. It's why we love having links to them here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See also revert

Additions to See also were reverted,[16] the edit summary is undecipherable. What is the rationale? Links to a similar suicide and a similar US case were removed, why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The suicides may be related, but the one removed is in the template at the foot. We do not put in "see also"" things that are in templates.

The second item reverted was to an unpleasant rape and had no relevance to the See Also section. It was so dissimialr to this article as to be entirely unrelated.

I apologise if you felt my shorthand was undecipherable Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't rude, didn't mean to be. Having said that isn't the US school case similar to Todd's in that social media and technology were used as a tool in abuse and denigration. There is a clear connection, that the girl didn't succumb to the stress and commit suicide attests to her perseverance. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The young lady in Halifax's case is, indeed, similar. But it is in the template at the foot of the page. Thus it is not appropriate for the See Also section. This is a technical objection only. Were it not in the template then it could and should be in the See Also section (I think that is not the one we are discussing through?). If I ever feel you have been rude I promise to tell you quietly, directly, and on your talk page :) The Steubenville High School rape case is not, in my view, at all similar. It involved a very unpleasant crime being perpetrated against a girl rendered helpless, and the later glorification of that by use of social media. There are substantial differences with that and the case of Todd. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally I didn't remember that Timtrent and Fiddle Faddle were one person. They two cases are similar in that the perpetrators used technology and social media, to distribute images that caused grave harm to the victim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right about Halifax. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Timtrent. The use of social media is only tangental. The cases themselves are quite different, one being a rape case and the other being cyberbullying. There is a bit of an association fallacy going on here, I think. The Halifax case involved both rape and bullying, so while one could argue that the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons could be linked via template/see also to both Amanda Todd and Steubenville, that does not create a link between Amanda Todd and Steubenville themselves. Resolute 18:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for putting is so succinctly. It is the "All dogs have 4 legs. My cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog" fallacy. Or that is what I understand from your explanation. By having the Steub article in a Todd See Also we start to synthesise a relationship between the two, perhaps creating original research. I was struggling top phrase that before. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually the role of social media marks them as one of a type.[17] It isn't just the physical act but the subsequent humiliation that was caused by the use of social media images and videos.[18] there were messages like "some people deserve to be peed on:[19], the complaint followed the cyber-abuse of the girl.[20]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am in considerable disagreement with your opinion on this. The usage of social media is not a defining link at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. It would be like putting Calgary Flames into the see also of Manchester United because both use social media to disseminate information to their fans. Resolute 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it as far fetched as that? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just me who see a common thread. Check these.[21][22][23] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. Please desist. If you wish to create a separate article that discusses the linkage of suicides, please go ahead. At present you are pushing original research. Wikipedia is not a place to fuel and rehash journalist speculation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are strong words. Is it original research or is it what a reliable source states? The connection is so obvious and notable that it is mentioned thousands of km away in Australia, by Sydney Morning Herald a 180 year old conservative newspaper. "...the story is an awful parallel to the facts in Steubenville that recently led to convictions of two high-school football players for the sexual assault of a 16-year-old. And it's eerily analogous to the story of another Canadian girl, Amanda Todd, who took her own life after pictures of her flashing a webcam circulated online and she was stalked and blackmailed."[24] Actually we can have this as a comment in the article too. (emphasis added) Remember consensus isn't a head count. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I stand by them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You are again arguing an association fallacy with those links. The common thread in the first story is Anonymous. If you wanted to extend that point, then you'd be looking to add the article on Scientology to the see also section of these articles. The second and third links present the narrative from the POV of the Halifax case. Yes, you can draw parallels between it and the Ohio case. And yes, you can draw parrallels between it and Amanda Todd. But if A is like B and A is like C, that does not automatically mean that B is like C. Resolute 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you wish to communicate, SMH says Parsons' case is like Todd's and Parsons' case is like Steubenville. But we don't have an explicit "Todd's is like Steubenville", agreed. Now if the rest of this article or another has an explicit statement to the effect, "Todd's, Parsons' and Steubenville are symptoms of the the same malady would you be happy to withdraw opposition to the "see also"? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think if it was felt that there were stronger links between the case, it would go into the template rather than see also. Resolute 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy with that too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"... attitude that blames the victim..." "...As social lives span both real life and cyberspace... world gets smaller and smaller, and [the victims] feel powerless..." "The Steubenville and Todd stories indicate that the ability to record, view and comment on the details of others’ lives has become common." [25] "A pattern Rehtaeh Parsons in Cole Habour, N.S., or Amanda Todd in Vancouver – The pattern has been high in the public consciousness both inside and outside Canada, with the gang-rape and digital-bullying case in Steubenville, Ohio, and the death of California teen Audrie Pott..."[26]

The pattern all these deaths all these cases, the Steubenville Jane Doe was stronger, luckier that she didn't commit suicide, despite half the town ganging up against her.[27] Why pretend that the cases have nothing in common? Calgary Flames and MU did I hear said??? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing some sort of agenda to link these suicides by something that they do not have in common. When the logical fallacy has been explained to you in detail you simply bang your OR drum again and seek to push your POV. No-one is supporting you despite your repeated drum banging. If you keep doing the same thing and getting the same result it is time to realise that you are wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Insinuations are never helpful. As I said before, consensus isn't a vote, Resolute was very reasonable above in pointing the apparent flaws in the previous argument, I didn't put the ejusdem generis plea as there were other more direct associations discussed and thus they have presented above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything. I am telling you directly. I believe you have some sort of agenda and are using these articles to push it. Your absolute insistence in doing so bears me out. I am not about to check out your latin tag. If it is relevant then doubtless you will explain it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It as is Latin as et cetra, you're right those aren't insinuations they are accusations. Accusations aren't ever helpful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Her facebook page

Why is it relevant if people are posting derogatory comments on her facebook memorial page? The fact that it has a million likes is of dubious relevance, but why is it needed for an encyclopedia page about her suicide to mention that "oh no, there are some jerks trolling her memorial page". This isn't yahoo news and we don't need to include pointless stuff like that just because there are sources. 71.95.64.57 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If it did not show that the bullying went on after death, I would agree with you, but it does, and therefore is relevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

for a different viewpoint, I think it is important because it demonstrates public reactions to her suicide -- which is essentially the purpose of this article as opposed to her simple suicide. Noting that there were some whose reaction to this young lady's suicide remained negative provides an alternative viewpoint and we can not simply ignore that. L.cash.m (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I essentially agree that it's not practical or even desirable to remove all mention of it, much as I would like to. I have trimmed the specific quote, as it seemed a little odd to pick a single one out of what was certainly a collection of hundreds, and we don't need to be in the business of offering internet trolls a chance at some sort of publicity. The surrounding prose gets the point across well enough without any quotes. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Test of replacement template for Template:Bullying

What does everyone think of the above template as opposed to the current template below? Technical 13 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, I have a strong dislike for what I term "open ended" navboxes - templates such as this that can grow rapidly and flood an article with irrelevant links. While your sandbox version does a nice job compartmentalizing the different aspects of this template, it also makes the open ended nature of the template stand out in big, bold letters. I believe there is a law of diminishing returns in the value of a navbox as the number of links increases. And at 125 links, this template is well beyond that point. I actually think that this template should be broken up. The "Types" section would actually make a good sidebar template for those articles, as with only a few exceptions (such as passive aggression), they form a "closed loop" of closely related topics. The elements section needs some cleanup. Links like moving the goalposts have no obvious connection, thus hurt navigation. The rest is a mismash of links with only a tangental relationship. Gaslighting isn't really bullying, while embarrassment may be an effect of bullying, but the article itself makes no mention. Concepts like yelling and betrayal likewise have little value. My view is that these templates should only link to concepts directly related to the subject of bullying. As soon as you start adding degrees of separation or force the reader to guess at context, it should be removed. (Or to put a simpler way, if you wouldn't put this template on one of the articles it links to, it shouldn't be in the template.) Organizations, groups and actions I would break into its own template. They form a good set. Same with the incidents parts. "Related topics" I would probably prune 90% out, moving only the truly relevant links to elements (such as victim blaming).

tl;dr: Irregardless of my concerns about the template makeup itself, I think your change is fine. Though I would autocollapse the entire thing by default. Resolute 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is great feedback, there are being some links removed and the complete discussion is located at Template talk:Bullying. I would love to get some more comments from you there! Technical 13 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

In the "Background and suicide" section, at the end of the 4th paragraph, (Following the attack, Todd attempted suicide by drinking bleach, but she but she survived after being rushed to hospital to have her stomach pumped.) It says, "but she" twice. Simple mistake and my first time submitting a edit. Mikeamorey (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done good catch, thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that was my fault. Thanks, both of you! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Please change Amanda Michelle Todd (born November 27, 1996 in British Columbia)[2][3] committed suicide on October 10, 2012, at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. to Amanda Michelle Todd (born November 27, 1996 in British Columbia)[2][3] died by suicide on October 10, 2012, at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. because the sucide prevention community are seeking to change the language on suicide. In earlier times in certain jurisdictions it was a crime to 'commit' suicide...the associations remain and so if you could change this opening sentence it would be appreciated. Thank you. If you are also able to include my organization in the resources in the footer that would be great - www.yourlifecounts.org Rory Butler; Founder & CEO Your Life Counts! International Inc CRA Charity # 13589-1257-RR0001 Established in 2000 HQ: 289.820.5675 Cell: 905.321.2771 rbutler@yourlifecounts.org www.yourlifecounts.org @yourlifecounts Mission: "Helping Youth & Families Nurture, Protect & Sustain Their Will To Live..." We count on your support - experience the joy of helping YLC save lives - give now - thank you!

• The Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention - President's National Award Recipient for "outstanding service to the people of Canada"
• PREVNet National Award Recipient for excellence in our work to stop bullying and suicide & National Partner
• Founder member of the Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education & Living, NY, USA
• 2010 Institute of Communication Agencies Advertising Week Charity of Focus
• CBC "Champion of Change" National Nominee
• Official Partner of the 'Be A STAR' Alliance - a major anti-bullying initiative of the WWE & The Creative Coalition, NY, USA

Wryteon (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Committed suicide" is the proper and widely-used terminology used when describing the act. This is an encyclopedia, and while the aims of the "suicide prevention community" are noble, dumbing-down or softening language in this matter is not aligned with what an encyclopedia is actually for. And no, we do not provide advertising for organizations in Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusing dates?

This is my first time using wikipedia, so apologies if this is in the wrong place.

Original article says:

After two years, Todd returned to live with her mother in March 2012.[11] Todd wrote that during the next Christmas break, police informed her...

At first I read that to mean police informed her during Christmas 2012.... even though she died the previous October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.155.88 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 July 2013‎

Agreed, and I have marked it in the article as unclear. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the name of her attacker listed?

So, if Miss Todd was punched to the ground by this guy's girlfriend and people were filming it on cell phones, etc., why isn't the name of the other high school girl who did this included? It would seem to be a documented fact (?) For that matter, why isn't the name of the boyfriend listed in the article, as well? Do both these people deny anything happened? Codenamemary (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, none of the names have been made public. No one has been charged with a crime. The bullies may be underage. These may be reasons there are no names. There is also the question of relevance. The significance of the article is the effect her suicide has had on Canadian education and the law. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as relevance goes...it's not going overboard in an entry to detail WHO was specifically involved in a climactic event. I can follow your proposed theories RE: this content in this particular article (and we're both just guessing), but in general, it seems there would be no relevance to adding a name to something mundane like "The Lincolns were driven to Ford's Theater by carriage (driven by __________)," yet we would add a name to pivotal events - - "where he was shot by an actor (John Wilkes Booth)." Codenamemary (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Relevance" is really a poor argument. Booth's culpability in Lincoln's murder is verified fact, whereas the person or persons who allegedly bullied Todd have not been named by a reliable source. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The post I was responding to mentions several possible complications. I was merely addressing the issue of relevance...which can, at the same time, be at odds with the issue of verifiability. Codenamemary (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

Please change "committed suicide on October 10, 2012 at the age of 15" at the beginning of the Amanda Todd page to "took her own life on October 10, 2012 at the age of 15" or "died by suicide on October 10, 2012 at the age of 15", or "killed herself on October 10, 2012 at the age of 15".

I am requesting this because to say the phrase "committed suicide" is to imply that suicide is a crime. In Canada, suicide has not been a crime since 1972, as stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation . For reference, you can see that the Canadian Mental Health web page, http://www.cmha.bc.ca/get-informed/mental-health-information/suicide , refers to suicide as "completing suicide" or the afore mentioned phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnordstewart (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Bnordstewart (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Moxy (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This nomenclature was discussed at Talk:Suicide and discussed to death, almost literally. The term is universally understood and no quantity of euphemisms will replace it. To where does one 'take one's life?'. I disagree profoundly with this sentiment and am reversing this edit. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message on the requesting user's talk page, explaining my actions and the background, suggesting that the right venue to discuss this is at Talk:Suicide. This time consensus may alter. If it alters there then it is likey to trickle down to every article concerning Suicide. These edits have been made pursuant to WP:BRD. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You linked the article Suicide that says noting about this article... am I missing something? Why would we talk about this article over there? This is not a big deal to me but see nothing about these being tlaked about before?-- Moxy (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the talk page Talk:Suicide has this as a perennial question, and has direct relevance. It does not need to discuss this article, but it discusses the verb 'commit' in the archives. You will need to search for it. We can, of course, discuss anything here, but the topic is generic and not specific to this article. We must accept generic ite,s inthe same way that we accept ourt policies, guidelines and all other items. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

OMG I hope you have not been telling people this much...as its completely the wrong approach on how we do things here. Please dont ever send our new editors on a wild goose chase or claim that what is ok for one article is the norm for all. As i am sure your aware of the wording for each article may be different like at Dorothy Hale. I have no problem with the current wording but the reason for the reversal is false and clearly misleading to a new editor - as we never discus wording of one article over at another article or have wording norms. That said... I dont care about this article ..but will need you to make sure your not misleading our editors in the future. -- Moxy (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with telling editors that we should have a consistent approach here, across multiple articles. "Commit suicide" is the common verbiage to describe this subject matter; the IP asked for a change based upon his/her own interpretation of Canadian law, but the project is not obliged to follow that. All in all, I think this edit request should remain rejected. Tarc (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Got no problem with consistent approach....but what was said was go to the other article if you want a word change here. Thats simply not how we do things here and something we should never see again - never send editors on a wild chase when we know that it will not help the editor in-question solve the problem they have raised. -- Moxy (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

I am Amanda Todd's mother and there are edits needed on this wikipedia page in order to make it truthful and reliable. There is information here which is no longer accurate or has never been accurate. I need to find out how I can be added to this page so that I can edit and add.

Todd cat (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Carol Todd

I have removed your e-mail address to reduce the risk of your being spammed. Wikipedia does not contact individuals in this way.
If you wish to request a change, please make that request here in the format "Please change XXXX to YYYY" and provide a reliable, third party, source to support your request.
It may seem counter-intuitive but your "knowledge" is not acceptable to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable in a reliable, third party, source. This is to allow people to check the facts, at any time of day or night, for many years into the future.

As for your editing this page yourself, you have a clear conflict of interest, which would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to edit the article from an entirely neutral point of view. As explained above, you can certainly request changes, but these must be specific, and supported by a reliable source.
Arjayay (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)