Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd

RfC: Date of Birth

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

---

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

• Amanda Todd's date of birth 27 November, 1996, is multiply sourced in hundreds (if not thousands) of 'remembrance' pages, including her own family's, on YouTube, Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites. There is also a Find a Grave record for her. It is simply not sensible to challenge it, and consequently there is no need for a citation as is the case at Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Tyler Clementi, and Suicide of Megan Meier (i.e. to say uncited dates are given here), three directly comparable cases in the Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, while similar examples are legion.

Presently the month and year are noted. There would seem to be no rational reason for excluding the day, especially as newspaper ciations will no doubt become available later in the month as her birthday is remembered by her foundation and others. In addition I know of at least one forthcoming book that will presumbly cite it. It seems a somewhat futile exercise to repress it because there is presently no good secondary source citing it. The only challenge comes from the Huffington Post, where a blog suggests her birthday was in fact in October, in which case logically one should only cite the year of birth.

By way of another comparision, I can mention that the date of birth of James Blunt, noted province of User:Risker of Arbcom, is only supported by a single blog.

Why these ridculously high standards here. What can it possibly achieve? FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess you did not like this response to your earlier request about the same issue? WWGB (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Only include what is cited in reliable sources. The actual date of birth has been, so far, impossible to verify in reliable sources, though it appears in social media and self edited sources. Once a fully cited date is found it can and should be added to the article. While the article is not of itself a biography, the biographical details are relevant to the subject matter, and a full date of birth shows the complete article that members of the reading public expect from us. Equally they expect us to cite the facts that we include in articles. The lack of a complete date of birth does not harm the article, the inclusion of the fully cited date completes that aspect of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well I certainly welcome that one of the established editors here accepts that a date of birth should be added. Where I differ is your assertion that we should only include what is reliably sourced (which presently means in practice that it appears in MSM or in published books and journals). Not only does this go against the spirit of the age as far as MSM is concerned, but it is actually not (as I have twice pointed out) what Wikipedia's verifiability policy actually is as set out in WP:VERIFY:

"All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

i.e. to say broadly speaking it is only contentious material that needs to be cited (otherwise the model would be unworkable). In this case the date of birth is verifiable (for example from the family remembrance page) and it cannot be credibly challenged. That the family remembrance page is not an RS, or that it is properly speaking a primary source and discouraged, is not relevant at this stage. All that only becomes relevant when material is challenged. Once again, I challenge the editors here: are they challenging the date November 27, 1996, for Amanda Todd's date of birth as seen in hundreds (perhaps thousands) of social media web pages? Why are they demanding such high standards which are simply not repeated elsewhere, as in the James Blunt example I mention?

I am taking a wikibreak until Wednesday evening. Thank you for your input. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see myself as an established editor, you know. My opinion is worth precisely as much as yours. We agree on many points here, but differ simply on the need to use a properly reliable citation. My belief is that the encyclopaedia is never harmed by the omission of facts that cannot be cited. Wikipedia is criticised often for lacking veracity. The only answer to that charge is citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I've come here from the RfC notice. I don't watchlist this page, but I've been heavily involved in editing some related pages, that are mentioned in talk above. I've read the discussion on this talk page, and I've read the source cited for the birthdate in the lead sentence. I've seen two arguments against including the birth date. The first is that this is a page about an event (the suicide), rather than a biographical page. That's a true statement, as it should be per WP:BLP1E, but it's a flawed reason to omit the date of birth. Once we establish that the page subject satisfies WP:N, which I think it does, there's no reason not to include encyclopedic information relevant to the page. (For example, if this were a biographical page, there would be certain information that establishes WP:BIO, but other information about the person could also be included on the page.) The other argument is about sourcing. That's a valid argument. We shouldn't include birth information if it's inadequately sourced. The source cited seems to me to minimally satisfy sourcing needs for the month and year. I accept that it would be more elegant to have sourcing for the day, but if we don't have that, it's acceptable to just have the month and year, as the page does now, when I write this comment. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. I'd leave the dates in the lead sentence as they are now, and add better sourcing if and when it becomes available. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Include - Adding this information would improve Wikipedia, as this should probably be the only page this cite should have about Amanda Todd, as I'm very sad to say that the event it describes appears to be the subject's only cause of notoriety. You should only cite it if editors dispute the info's verifiability, but you might as well use a citation just to be safe. Ender and Peter 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Ender and Peter. I had a bit of trouble understanding your comment, and I'd appreciate it if you could try to reword it -- I think the problem here is the verifiability, but regardless I still would really appreciate hearing your views -- thanks. —Theopolisme 23:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I interpret the words as "It should be included. It only needs to be cited if other editors form a consensus that it be cited", but I am happy to be corrected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I'll correct you by noting it probably means exactly what it says (and WP:VERIFY says), to wit "You should only cite it if editors dispute the info's verifiability" :). I see a consensus emerging here that d.o.b. should be included. I gather these things (RfCs) have a lifetime of a month or so and I'll let it run to 4 December 2012. We may have a good secondary source by then, without conceding my fundamental position that there can be no serious challenge to November 27, 1996, as Amanda Todd's d.o.b. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that is the type of correction I meant, though. I wanted to be corrected on my interpretation of the words used by Ender and Peter rather than have an interpretation of the verification policy. With regard to the slowly emerging consensus what I see is a consensus to have the full date of birth in the article. I also see an emerging consensus here in this section that it requires citation in reliable sources because editors require it to be sourced. It would be unusual to close your own RFC on 4 December, and I am sure that is not what you are suggesting. I believe we need an uninvolved editor, probably an experienced admin, to look at the arguments presented together with policy and to close it with rationale at that point. Closed in that manner it is considered to be above reproach and we should all take it as a consensus that binds us, whatever the outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that editor FrontBottomFracas, the source of this RFC, has consistently and continuously ignored and misinterpreted what other editors say on this RFC and elsewhere about the necessity of reliable sources in order to push having Nov 27th as d.o.b. The editor has stated disagreement with the fundamental Wikipedia principal that reliable sources are required. Thus this editor claiming above that there is a consensus to include the 27th when the consensus is actually against. BashBrannigan (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note to the eventual closer: There are two elements to this RFC:

1. That the full date of birth be a part of this article at all
2. If the full date of birth is agreed by consensus to be part of the article, whether explicit citation in full WP:RS sources is required for it. You need to be specific, especially about the day of the month.

Please do not close this RFC without considering and closing for both elements. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your "it would be unusual ..." see WP:Requests for comment#Ending_RfCs. The usual duration is 30 days, after which the thing is bot deleted and you can make requests for formal closure, i.e. independent adjudication, to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I just want the things to run its full term to attract as many responses as may be. I doubt there will be any need for a formal closure. There really aren't two issues here, except how you spin it. But clearly there's now a consensus that a full d.o.b. should be provided, just issues in construing WP:VERIFY and I don't think that's likely to remain an issue since I'm reasonably confident that a secondary source will have emerged by then, and if not then we can make a note of the date via Find a Grave in the manner suggested by Anna.

Concerning BashBrannigan his position was always that there should be no mention of the d.o.b. at all as that is a superfluous biographical detail with no place in the article in his eyes. For the last time I point out that he misunderstands WP:VERIFY, that you only need to cite material if it is likely to be challenged. There is no sensible challenge to the date 27 November 1996 that he says I am "pushing". In reality he is not challenging the date but challenging recording the date at all. For the last time, once again I ask him to say whether he's challenging the date. Is he saying Amanda Todd wasn't born on 27 November 1996?

Likely to be last from me here until beginning of December. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:VERIFY editors might like to look at this recent RfC Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC.

Admin User:ErrantX has commented in this article on d.o.b. here (he follows BashBrannigan in arguing that noting the d.o.b. itself is problematic in his opinion). In the verifiability RfC he comments on option D (which won the consensus and led to the presnt wording) as follows

• Verifiability is a concept that has evolved over 11 years to be a broad brush of incomprehension. Who cares whether the word "truth" is used in the lead, or indeed anywhere in the policy, the mass of argument over it - and the bazillions of slightly reworded alternatives - overlook the fact that the concept is a mess and we need to rethink ways to express community norms in a clear, understandable and renewed fashion. Kill the old hydra. --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this view. There is a common-sense way in which information can be said to be trustworthy and Amanda Todd's date of birth, given the (literally) hundreds of web pages supportig it (all satisfying Wikipedia:Published incidentally), is trustworthy and does not need citing unless there is a credible challenge. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for formal closure of this RFC at the right time. By requesting it, whoever requests it, you will be protected from possible accusations of going against consensus, some of which have already been levelled at you. By you or another editor requesting formal closure, that risk is removed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Briefly, before it is closed, I wish to state again here that birthdate should not be included as this is an event not a bio. It serves to blur the distinction between the two and encourage editors turning this into a bio. If the article survives the coming months it will be because the suicide affected the culture in some way, but not because of a notable accomplishment by this unfortunate girl. I will not comment on the need to cite reliable sources because this isn't the place to debate cornerstone Wikipedia policy. BashBrannigan (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yes. Thank you for confirming I have your position correctly. @FiddleFaddle - let's see what the end of November brings before worrying about formal closure. Obviously if we can't agree on what the consensus is then we shall have to ask for formal closure. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the difference between "cite" and "verify". All material should be verifiable from a reliable source. Adding an inline citation material (with footnote link) is important, but only required for contentious material. Whether or not this counts as contentious (meh..) you would still need an explicit, reliable source for the day of the month. Memorial pages are not likely sufficient for that - are any other sources available? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that the official birth records would be reliable confirmation, as they will. Since Wikipedia is concerned with facts not with truth this becomes an interesting area. Were this a biographical article where inclusion of date of birth is automatic, paradoxically that problem seems to go away, but biographical data tends to include the birthdate as a matter of course, too, and can be verified with reasonable ease. Since it is an article about the death then the birth date is seen by many to be "Interesting but inessential". The date is assuredly verifiable, but we cannot, ourselves, verify it. This makes the RFC a valid engine for consensus building in this rather pedantic case. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• If in a WP:RS. Quite simply, this is where we fallback on policy, if it's found in a reliable source, obituary notice in a paper, funeral home obituary notice, newspaper article, that kind of thing, someone's Facebook or some other online rubbish is NOT a reliable source. — raekyt 04:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like most of us agree that the November 27 birth date should be included if the sources are good. These two sources look pretty good: [1][2] Should we now add the date? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources are good which was my primary objection. I would not fight its inclusion, it is, however, a completely trivial and meaningless fact in what is not a bio. BashBrannigan (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement in this RfC. The full date is not necessary, but the presentation of it, correctly cited, is what the wikipedia readership expects. It does the article no harm. The purist might argue, as you have, against it, and be correct, as I think you are. But adding it does not turn the article into a biography, nor into a memorial, and does no harm. With either or both of those citations, for me the date may go in and the matter be closed. That part of the article becomes complete and we can, I hope, get on with improving other aspects of it, such as the suggestion for enhancing the lead discussed elsewhere on this page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well put. I completely agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• RFC Closed - Rock on. Well, it looks like this is settled, for now... And so I'll specify the day of the month for the birthdate from The Province article and close this RFC. Ender and Peter 18:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your desire to close this discussion, and it does appear to have been solved amicably. In view of the depth of feeling expressed by the participants I support your bold edit, but not (on a technicality) your closure. The technicality is that you have been involved. May I suggest you simply ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for a formal closure, explaining that it seems to have reached a consensus and may be closed early? By doing so we remove the risk of any editor claiming that consensus was not reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I assure you, I've had nothing to do with this article until I saw an RfC notice about it on my talk page. You've definitely got a fresh set of eyes looking at this. But if there's some other way you'd prefer the RfC to be closed, then please proceed :-). But in all honesty, it's already closed and you've agreed that closing it makes sense, so we may not need a random admin to simply revert this page back a few comments only to return it to this state. Ender and Peter 05:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not calling your integrity into question at all. It is simply that you took part in the discussion. I have made a simple request for closure. I do not expect that anyone needs to revert anything when closing the matter formally. I believe we should defer to your de facto closure which represents the discussion well. My concern is simply to perform the wikipedia equivalent of locking this decision into place. Until someone overturns it, of course :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

ERASE Bullying

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

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

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

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

Re: link 1 — Could be referenced and given a brief mention. Don't see a reason not to include...it's definitely 'connected', or at least 'affected', by Todd. —Theopolisme 23:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoid any link or reference that does not specifically deal with Todd or does not arise from Todd with regard to bullying on the simple basis of WP:SYNTH Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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 [3] 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)

Cultural impact

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

• Further to my comment above, it looks like the Kids Help Phone has done a whole campaign on this theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CFON8VVeBRg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.234.172 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The connection to the Todd video appears obvious. But can you find the connection stated explicitly in the media or on kids help phone website or literature? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The key word is 'appears', because this technique has often been used on self made videos on Youtube. There is a timing link, yes, but there is, unless stated in media, no causative link. Our making such a link would by WP:SYNTH and is to be avoided. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle beat me here — but yes, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. —Theopolisme 01:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The song is now #3 on iTunes Canada. Here is a link to the Montreal Gazette which connects the song to Todd. [4]. However, the video so closely resembles the Todd video it can't be a coincidence. I'm trying to find a reliable source that will confirm it. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you find a direct attribution of this video to Todd's that removes WP:SYNTH. Even so I am concerned that, unless the link is very specific, we will get into topic creep. The first time I saw this technique on Youtube was some years ago. Then the It Gets Better Project started and many, many videos arrived with it deployed. I submit that the only videos we might consider for any form of inclusion, and each needs to be treated on its own individual merits, are those which have an absolute causative link established to Todd's video. I will need more that "We created a video after Todd's death" or "We liked Tdd's technique" to allow me to consider these in a positive light for inclusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's a source that says "We liked Todd's technique" or "we created this after Todd's death", then I'd say that would be appropriate to list as part of the reaction to her death. Sure, she didn't create or invent the video technique, but it would prove that this video was influenced and/or part of the reaction to her death. ColtsScore (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Burial

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

I'm not an expert, but I've not heard anything in Canada like this. And nothing specific to Todd and nothing to make it into the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this, if her family is confirmed to have not entered difficulty in finding an accepting Christian cemetery, together with a reliable Christian and Brazilian/Latin American/from-traditionally-Roman-Catholic-influenced-cultures source about how it is prohibited here, would be useful in articles on suicide itself, or more specifically the taboo that surrounds it and how different cultures deal with the practicers. But you are right, I don't really have a good point to why it should be mentioned here, if said prohibition is not commonplace in Canada. Lguipontes (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This topic is outside the remit of the article on Suicide. It strays too deeply into biography, and is topic creep. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But what exactly is topic creep? I didn't get it by searching Wikipedia archives, English is not my native language, and creep gives a lot of translations to Portuguese in Google Translate, though none of them is exact (and translating all of them literally as '~example~ [de/no] tópico' gives an expression that I fully am not used to). Lguipontes (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

'topic creep' may be defined as the extension of a topic by small increments beyond the true boundary of the topic. The best translation is literal. It is that the topic has 'crept outside its boundaries'. For a non native speaker I am struggling to find the smallest number of words to define it. Let me try these: "By adding this to the article the article will have extended beyond its natural scope." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have the concept (topics that start centering completely unrelated information around themselves) but not just two words to describe. Thank you, I got it. :D One last thing, biography information really shouldn't be added, but is it a topic creep in the article(s) covering suicide, that of Amanda Todd, or all of them? Lguipontes (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sufficient biographical detail to identify the context is valid. Additional material that is not relevant to the article's topic is not. As you can see we are discussing the matter of her accurate and full date of birth elsewhere on this page (where you should direct any thoughts you have on the matter and can see my own views). Some consider this to be on the border of inclusion, others see it as essential, others see it as to be avoided. Other areas are more clear cut. Were she to have pursued the hobby of birdwatching this is biographical and to be omitted, unless she killed herself as a result, at least in part, of her hobby. Thus the article is only biographical to the extent that the biographical details are both necessary and agreed to be necessary to the actual topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I did a badly formed sentence, I think. Two years editing here and my English still puts me in a mess, oh well... I didn't ask why detailed biographical shouldn't be added here. I already understand why. I asked where it is a topic creep – if such information is too much for articles on suicide, or more specifically, how certain cultures had or have cetemery discrimination against suicidals (what I still think is a valid topic for Wikipedia, though I admit to be too n00b to work on it to be decent at some point), if such information on how there is still cemetery discrimination against suicidals somewhere in the world is really unnecessary here (what I already agreed), or if you meant both of them. Lguipontes (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I mean that both have no place in this article. There is certainly scope for an article on the treatment of suicides by cemeteries and church burial fields in nations and religions (etc) around the world. Such an article almost certainly has value. Others my disagree about a Todd specific issue, of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death

The statements has two refs, but only one says hanged: [5]

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

The Daily Telegraph is assuredly reliable. We cannot judge if their article is speculative or hard fact. One might say "Cause of death was reported by [list of cited papers] to be hanging." and thus meet our duty to report but not offer opinions. At some future time the cause of death may be released through formal Canadian channels. At that point we may report that cause with confidence. If we have used the technique I'd suggest, that may be left in, and a caluse on the true cause of death be added and cited as (eg) "subsequently confirmed [as different cause if different] by the [official channel]{citation}". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The cause of death is reported in numerous additional reliable sources, including The Independent, International Business Times, news.com.au and The Huffington Post. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added this to the article in the format I suggested, choosing a maximum of 3 of the references with varied geographic/demographic spread. Your mileage may vary on quantity required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly I see after my edit that, apart from the infobox the death by hanging statement appears in two sections, phrased differently, and with different citations. I am not averse to this treatment, but will not object to an editor consolidating this into one section. I am however, against our representing the death by hanging as an absolute fact until that fact is confirmed by official channels, preferring it to be stated as media reporting in whichever section it is deemed appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the other refs. I am using google.hk, which still doesn't find matches for her name and hanging. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

See this

In Canada and increasingly in the United States, news media may not report the cause of death; or officials may not release information on the cause or manner of death, citing respect for the privacy of families.

See also this from the same source and this for Hong Kong

I don't know what the situation is in the UK. These here are general guides on safe reporting of suicides. The problem is especially acute regarding teenagers because teenage depression need not be characterised by feelings of inadequacy, hopelessness or loss as it typically is in adult cases. Rather 'crankiness' is the typical symptom. Nevertheless the risk of suicide is just as high, and there have been some dreadful epidemics of copy-cat epidemics of teenage suicide in the UK. One would hope and trust that Wikipedia editors were aware of their responsibilities in reporting these things. Needless to say they are individually liable for what they publish.

Of course the fact only becomes 'important' when the article is focussed on the suicide, rather than the individual. I would have hoped not to see it mentioned out of deference for her privacy until at least a coroner's court had established the cause of death and it is reported (if ever) by the Canadian MSM. JaniB (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Added: I have now made an appropiate edit deleting the casue of death and stressing the investigation would be long and complex, in line with Canadian media guidelines on the reporting of suicides. JaniB (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Buried edits

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

• Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#RfC: Date of Birth: Birth date references found
• Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#Draft: Draft lead replacement
• Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#Cause of death: Cause of death

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

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

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

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

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

• I opened the discussion in what I hope is a neutral manner. I now want to express my opinion. I believe that the article having the picture of Todd herself, File:Amanda_Todd_-_01.jpg, in the infobox is incorrect for an article about her suicide. I believe that a suitable still from the video could be chosen to replace the portrait we have at present. This will help to emphasise that the article is about the suicide rather than a biographical article on the young lady. The portrait seems to be to be far more appropriate to a biography than to an article on a suicide.

Anticipating the response "Other articles on suicides have portraits of the person" my response is that they are using what they have to illustrate what they have. Todd left behind a very public display of her state of mind and a carefully chosen still from it will illustrate that and the aticle better than any plain portrait can. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• AI certainly believe that an image from the YouTube video is highly appropriate since the YouTube video is the central component of her notability. If not for that, this is just another unreported suicide. Not only is the video discussed significantly in the article, but I noted that text alone cannot come close to conveying Todd's emotional state the way even that single image does.

  As to the infobox image, I disagree with the argument that this isn't a biographical article. As a rule, we give descriptive titles to most articles on people noted for BIO1E events, but it is what it is. With that in mind, I would like to keep the image as it is a visual representation of who she was. I do realize, however, that this is a much weaker argument than the one made for the YouTube still. Resolute 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

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

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

RfC on date of birth I started

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

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

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

Things close early sometimes. As for the other edits, provided they are cited and they refer to the article's basis which is the suicide, and are not simply gratuitous biographical details, then they seem to be useful. if not then they are unwelcome.

You are always at liberty of open a request for comment at any time, as are we all. But please use that tool with wisdom and restraint, not as a cudgel. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Suicide of ..." title

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

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

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

Have put in a request for a username change. If all goes well I shall eventually be "JaniB". FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The comparable case is "Murder of...", of which we also have a few.

It may be because cyberbullying victims are often the target of "that person wasn't notable before they died!" arguments, and the articles get moved for that reason.

I wonder how the article is named for that south-east Asian monk who became famous mainly (solely?) through his suicide? I think there was a North African person who also committed suicide as a protest, that would be interesting as an example too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The self-immolations of Thich Quang Duc and Mohamed Bouazizi were a tad more notable than the suicide of Amanda Todd. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability is determined solely by public interest. If there was significant public interest in someone for their thumb-twiddling they could be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't say what is notable or is not notable only that it must be notable. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

School grade

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

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

Number of blackmailers

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

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

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)

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)