Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd

Transcript of Youtube message

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

Never mind. I created a transcript at pastebin, and added a summary of it to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not a reliable source. Simply reference the video. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

Date

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

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

Youtube

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

It is, see YouTube Channel in the userbox. Piandcompany (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube message section

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Background information

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

Indeed. I restored the summary section which says exactly that. Her statements from the YouTube are very important I think, because of what you say about background info.

Better would be media sources reporting what the police find, i.e. evidence proving what she said to be true. Right now the section says that this is "what she said" not "what is fact".

But, right now, what we need is to distill it down to encyclopedic prose, otherwise it should be removed. Can you help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

Edit request on 14 October 2012

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

I am going to try and find a reliable source for this. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Added the birth date, didn't see it in any news sources but the facebook pages (account and groups) satisfies me. I suggest we wait to add it outside of the infobox until we can find another source. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

added to DoB section. Piandcompany (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The D.O.B. has been removed - those pictures; groups; pages, are not reliable sources. This article is on someone who has recently died - so BLP rules still apply, (per WP:BDP). If Todd had a Facebook page/account or any other website that was hers or run-by herself, which mentions her birth date, it may be added per WP:ABOUTSELF. Thanks -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the D.O.B. per WP:ABOUTSELF as her facebook account states her birth date but I did not feel it was necessary to add a reference but I will now. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Her d.o.b. is not evident on the stated Facebook page. WWGB (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Riley, are you perhaps friends with Todd? or have mutuals with her? Because due to her privacy settings, it's not visible to those who are not friends/have no mutuals, with her. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no connection with the subject of matter, nor am I [mutual] friends with the subject. Would you like a screen shot? Try this modified link (still the same account.)[1] -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mhmm. The only "Basic Information" that is visible, is her sex, not birthdate, or anything else. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just looked again *facepalm* a friend of a friend of a friend of a family member that I added (goes on and on) is a facebook friend with the subject. I don't know the ways of going around this.. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Her date of birth is actually not that relevant. The article is about an event, not a biography. The date of the event, and her age, is significant, the actual d.o.b. is not. WWGB (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't that significant then, I hope you don't mind me re-adding the birth date as the subjects age is not mentioned anywhere. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I would still think twice on adding the birthdate per the Facebook account - because as it stands, it cannot be verified, when there is no access to it. Perhaps, we wait a while longer, and see if a media outlet picks up on her age? They are bound to at some stage - plus, has there been any news article that has stated she's 15 years of age (born in 1996?) - because if so, "born in 1996" can be added - a step closer to her birthdate. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

External media

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

Relevance

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

See the article for deletion nomination. It has people stating reasons on why and why not the page should exist. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 22:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep. This has been mentioned in the House of Commons in Canada, resulting in the proposal of Bill C-420. Not to mention the heavy news coverage etc99.248.120.93 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

YouTube message section - Redux

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

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

Resolved

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

The image

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

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

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

Edit Request

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

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

Other side to the story

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

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

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

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

First, censored or not, the picture you posted a link to can be seen as child pornography. I removed your link. Second, it's not a proof of anything. Third, it's not relevant in this article. There is no "other side of the story" : a girl posted a video about how she was bullied then killed herself and the media and public reaction was considerable. Period. The notability of the event, as discussed in the Articles for deletion page, is not about the girl herself, or her innocence or lack thereof, but the coverage it recieved, and the consequences it had and will have (a soon-to-come discussion about new laws on bullying being probably the most notable consequence).88.138.207.159 (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "there are reports of her doing way more than the media are currently reporting." All Wikipedia can use are reports from reputable media sources. Not blogs, Twitter, comments on YouTube, opinions of Wipedia editors, etc. BashBrannigan (talk)<

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

Sourced facts section

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

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

Resolved

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

Additional Information

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

==See also==

• Cyberstalking legislation
• Harassment by computer
• Suicide of Megan Meier
• Suicide of Tyler Clementi
• Suicide of Ryan Halligan
• Suicide of Phoebe Prince
• Cyberbully

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

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

biased or one sided

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

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

Background section

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

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

Suspected tormentor

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

Guess I should read the article first... You're just too fast for me. Tragicfame (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The name given by Anonymous as the "tormentor" can not be in the article or talk page simply from an accusation. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ErrantX's edits did not improve this article

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

Well, ErrantX replaced what I'd written, which was frankly, rubbish. So, I call that an improvement. If you think there's a better presentation, please edit the article. But, going back to what I wrote would be immediately reverted I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Anna; I didn't totally replace it, and I wouldn't call your work rubbish in the slightest!

Nota493; Wikipedia is entirely written in summary style, that is the point :) Blow by blow accounts are discouraged. And when we have sensitive topics like this it is often better to go with secondary sources to identify significant items to write about. If you think there are specific details that should be in that section or that I missed, and that are important, please do point them out here (I am aware you can't edit the article directly). --Errant ^(chat!) 19:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that you replaced it with a version that incorporates what I'd written into a proper background/YouTube summary. I think it's a dandy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

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

1. It is not supported by a reliable source

2. The article is about an event (Todd's death) and NOT a biography, so her d.o.b. is not significant other than establishing her age, which is available from other reliable sources anyway. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Her d.o.b. is multiply sourced, including what I take is her family's bereavement page. I really can't understand your objection to publishing her d.o.b. It seems to me that you really shouldn't have interceded unless you wished to challenge its veracity.

However I'm content to leave the issue to the established editors here, whose efforts I applaud. Hazing on Wikipedia might be a useful next stop :). FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see no reason for not having her verified date of birth here (with citation for it). While I understand that the article is about her death and not about her life, the fact that she was very young (and that age is documented), is a part of the circumstances surrounding her suicide. It seems to me to be unpleasant to squabble over the poor girl's date of birth. If it's cited, put it in. If not then not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is it cited to? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Could we source it to the Vancouver Sun with a birth month of "November", at least? We can agree upon that much, at least. Theopolisme 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No-one has yet answered why her date of birth is significant. This article is NOT a biography, it is about a news event: her death. In that regard, her d.o.b. is irrelevant. It is sufficient to know that she died at 15. WWGB (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB. It's not a bio and therefore birthdate is unnecessary. The only possible significance of her exact birthdate is that her parents chose her burial date as being near her birthday. But it is a separate question whether that is important enough to include in the article. Regardless, her birthdate is not required. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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