![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
The date should probably say 13 October 2012 not August. All the best,-- 134.126.193.65 ( talk) 18:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
citation needed
to DoB section.
Piandcompany (
talk)
01:40, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Does Wiki have a process to report to Police people posting child pornography / links; which underage pics of Amanda are? Or is it simply up to alert citizens? EDIT REQUEST Also I'm not familiar with how to contribute but I request an edit to add the following info to investigation section with the sources below ; The Online Police Child Exploitation Across New Zealand (OCEANZ) team received more than 20 complaints regarding a teenagers "inappropriate and disturbing’ posting to facebook after the death and are investigating the teenagers role in her death. Detective Senior Sergeant John Michael, of OCEANZ, said the child exploitation team had received complaints from within New Zealand and overseas. Police have removed the images and shut down his Facebook profile as well as taking other preventative steps to minimise further reproduction of the (illegal) images. Facebook had ignored numerous complaints of illegal posting over several days by the accused. Police would not say whether charges were likely. Despite this swift response to ongoing child exploitation being publicised it does not appear to have had a dampening effect as breaches of the law continue with people continuing to post child pornography relating to Amanda (no source for ongoing pornography offending / cyber harrassment but the above posts are one of many 'proofs' a quick whirl round cyber town will show). Source http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7841362/Teenager-questioned-over-international-cyber-bullying http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-probe-NZ-teen-link-to-Amanda-Todd/tabid/423/articleID/273396/Default.aspx RFord
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)
Shall I present it in the article? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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) '
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)
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)
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)
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)
Recommend adding a "See Also" Section as is in Megan Meier such as:
Tragicfame ( talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Why, there not are a link to the youtubevideo she make?-- 80.161.143.239 ( talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this too far removed?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
her facebook memorial page has 244k (not 1 million) likes
http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/AmandaToddTeam?ref=stream&__user=100004565525086 0kq ( talk) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Nb Police were not specific about which accusations were unfounded and have not ruled out the man anonymous fingered as a suspect nor the man that the first person fingered by anonymous has fingered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.216 ( talk) 06:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please change the use of "Todd" to "Amanda". Using her last name is reminiscent of criminal behaviour, as often read in criminal reports. Amanda was not a criminal, she was a 15 year old victim of cyber bullying. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to have adopted such a harsh mode of address for a young girl. Is it not part of the bullying culture to call victims by their last names, thus stripping them of their OWN identities? By referring to her as "Todd", it seems to me to perpetuate the chain of events which unfortunately led to her death.
Emel54 ( talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As FF said, I'm afraid that it would go against Wikipedia's general guidelines, specifically:
"After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only..."
Theo polisme 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting one....but I can understand the 'Global' concept of FF's reply, even though it goes against the grain, and I noticed that even 5 year old April Jones (in an earlier child abduction page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Jones) is referred to as 'Jones'. Sad world. Maybe equally relevant is whether this page should be a primary search page at all? I feel there should be a sub page for these highly personal pages, only accessible through a main theme page, eg. cyber bullying. Yworo Yworo states that the impersonal mode of address is right for encyclopaedias (English spelling), but come on, is y'all Yanks in here? This is Wikipaedia, all for one and one for all, quit the stuffiness, be more human! Mezerais Mezerais ( talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand the criteria, as in the Madeleine McCann case ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann ... The first names are repeatedly mentioned there, and the "victims" are treated with a lot more sympathy. The article frequenly refers to Madeleine, Jerry, Kate ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emel54 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
When adding this article to categories it is important to make the distinction between categories only relevant to the person (such as the year of birth) and categories relevant to the death (such as the year of the death, since the article is about the death). Other categories should be considered carefully in the same manner.
The article is not about the person, save only for the incidents leading up to and immediately beyond the suicide. This is because the article is, with precision, entitled Suicide of Amanda Todd. It is not about any other aspects of the unfortunate young lady's brief and latterly troubled life. It is absolutely not her biography. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Camtodd ( talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Please include that donations to Amanda's Legacy/Memorial Trust Fund has also been set up the Vancouver Foundation which will take interntional donations online. Also, that Elise Estrada (with her producer/manager) Adam H have written, produced and dedicated a song for Amanda Todd. All proceeds of the song from iTunes will go into Amanada's Trust Fund.
There is a section labeled "Social Media" in the "Reactions" subheading -- I'm not sure how well that works considering that the events that caused Amanda's suicide were also social media related. More importantly, there is the line that states: "On October 15, 2012, her message was featured on YouTube's homepage." The way that statement is currently worded, it leaves open the possibility that either the message from someone claiming to be her former classmate that "I'm so happy she's dead now" or that Todd's YouTube video was featured... or some other unspecified message from a female. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The article should use RCMP instead, as this is what they're always called, and anyway it would link to an article giving the full name. Todd should be referred to as a Grade 10 student not 10th Grade as the latter is American and she was Canadian. 69.158.165.42 ( talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I challenge the current titling. I believe that this article strongly correlates to a more holistic exploration of Amanda Todd's life than one dedicated merely to the day that she died. As the events leading up to her suicide were a daily and ongoing part of her life, and as the events have been the focus of media attention -- not her suicide itself -- we should acknowledge that it is not her death that has attained notability; if anything it is the way that her life unfolded prior to, and including the moment of, her death. Thus I propose that this article be returned to one that is biographical in nature. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted Todd's alleged date of birth on two grounds.
One of the reasons the DOB and other biographical bits are troublesome is that it encourages this article to be a biography (which it shouldn't be) rather than about the event of her suicide. That's why the infobox isn't really appropriate either. -- Errant ( chat!) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think saying her birthday is November is safe per these sources. I can't find an exact date:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
FBF: I don't understand your edit summary "...Dates restored with impeccable secondary RS (cited elsewhere several times in the article). I do hope this now finally settles this issue. ..." That webpage doesn't show the date other than in the video, where it shows a screenshot of some other website. Where does it say her birth date? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Others: I'm just scanning the above. Sorry to restore "November". If you want to remove it, fine. I won't complain. Adding November with good sources makes the difference between her being just 15 or almost 16. Am I getting that right? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record: I support any and all d.o.b. information that's well-sourced. Although this is not a bio, background info on the subject of the event (Todd) should be included. Birth year nails down her age to within a year's span of how old she actually was. If we can improve upon that, good. That's an important difference. If we suddenly got a bunch of other background information on her, we would surely add it. D.o.b. is rudimentary info on her and there are more reasons to add it than not. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of this article? She's not only victim of cyber-bullying nor only girl who killed herself. She wasn't even famous, just regular teenager. So, every teenager who suicided deserves an article here? I have razor on my desk, I can cut my throat for decent article.
I wanted to nominate this article for AFD, but article's semi protected, so can anybody do this for me?
And for all of you, please, consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness deserve an article on Wikipedia, encyclopaedia.
Sincerely, 83.28.130.30 ( talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 — Theo polisme 01:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry for the bit of delay in replying here. Fiddle Faddle-- if you believe that the article should be re-AfD'ed, then I obviously have no authority to say 'no, stop!'. However, let's look at the nominator (IP): an editor who said something that would violate WP:BLP if Todd were alive — consider [...] her suicide, stupidity and weakness. Alright, fine. Great. Fantastic. WP:NPA aside, this AfD — just 16 days after the original one was closed as no consensus with a "wait a month" suggestion...suggestion, yes — was simply a place for the crows to gather and...troll. Just like in the first AfD, undoubtedly the nomination would receive plenty of traffic from meatpuppets/clueless new editors...inhibiting us from accomplishing our main goal: to build an encyclopedia. Nominating articles like this one for AfD? Not helping. — Theo polisme 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
While I know that a keep outcome is not a protection against future nomination for deletion I think we now have a stronger consensus that this is a valid article here. From my perspective it proves to me that accepting the opportunity given by the rather offensive IP editor was the correct thing to do in that it has strengthened consensus for the article. Your mileage may vary of course. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 sort of just buried my own edits just now. These three:
This is just an FYI. Please comment at those threads. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Was there only one blackmailer? Were there several? Simplicius ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The statements has two refs, but only one says hanged: [8]
Such an important fact should have more. I don't know how credible this www.telegraph.co.uk really is. The only other sources that ever said she hung herself are the two british unreliable tabloids www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mirror.co.uk I really think it's strange that I can't find an Canadian sources that say this, and then this other British paper makes the claim. Should we remove that bit of dubious info unless better sourced? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
The date should probably say 13 October 2012 not August. All the best,-- 134.126.193.65 ( talk) 18:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
citation needed
to DoB section.
Piandcompany (
talk)
01:40, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Does Wiki have a process to report to Police people posting child pornography / links; which underage pics of Amanda are? Or is it simply up to alert citizens? EDIT REQUEST Also I'm not familiar with how to contribute but I request an edit to add the following info to investigation section with the sources below ; The Online Police Child Exploitation Across New Zealand (OCEANZ) team received more than 20 complaints regarding a teenagers "inappropriate and disturbing’ posting to facebook after the death and are investigating the teenagers role in her death. Detective Senior Sergeant John Michael, of OCEANZ, said the child exploitation team had received complaints from within New Zealand and overseas. Police have removed the images and shut down his Facebook profile as well as taking other preventative steps to minimise further reproduction of the (illegal) images. Facebook had ignored numerous complaints of illegal posting over several days by the accused. Police would not say whether charges were likely. Despite this swift response to ongoing child exploitation being publicised it does not appear to have had a dampening effect as breaches of the law continue with people continuing to post child pornography relating to Amanda (no source for ongoing pornography offending / cyber harrassment but the above posts are one of many 'proofs' a quick whirl round cyber town will show). Source http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7841362/Teenager-questioned-over-international-cyber-bullying http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-probe-NZ-teen-link-to-Amanda-Todd/tabid/423/articleID/273396/Default.aspx RFord
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)
Shall I present it in the article? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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) '
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)
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)
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)
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)
Recommend adding a "See Also" Section as is in Megan Meier such as:
Tragicfame ( talk) 16:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Why, there not are a link to the youtubevideo she make?-- 80.161.143.239 ( talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this too far removed?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
her facebook memorial page has 244k (not 1 million) likes
http://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/AmandaToddTeam?ref=stream&__user=100004565525086 0kq ( talk) 03:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Nb Police were not specific about which accusations were unfounded and have not ruled out the man anonymous fingered as a suspect nor the man that the first person fingered by anonymous has fingered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.216 ( talk) 06:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please change the use of "Todd" to "Amanda". Using her last name is reminiscent of criminal behaviour, as often read in criminal reports. Amanda was not a criminal, she was a 15 year old victim of cyber bullying. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to have adopted such a harsh mode of address for a young girl. Is it not part of the bullying culture to call victims by their last names, thus stripping them of their OWN identities? By referring to her as "Todd", it seems to me to perpetuate the chain of events which unfortunately led to her death.
Emel54 ( talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As FF said, I'm afraid that it would go against Wikipedia's general guidelines, specifically:
"After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only..."
Theo polisme 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting one....but I can understand the 'Global' concept of FF's reply, even though it goes against the grain, and I noticed that even 5 year old April Jones (in an earlier child abduction page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Jones) is referred to as 'Jones'. Sad world. Maybe equally relevant is whether this page should be a primary search page at all? I feel there should be a sub page for these highly personal pages, only accessible through a main theme page, eg. cyber bullying. Yworo Yworo states that the impersonal mode of address is right for encyclopaedias (English spelling), but come on, is y'all Yanks in here? This is Wikipaedia, all for one and one for all, quit the stuffiness, be more human! Mezerais Mezerais ( talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand the criteria, as in the Madeleine McCann case ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann ... The first names are repeatedly mentioned there, and the "victims" are treated with a lot more sympathy. The article frequenly refers to Madeleine, Jerry, Kate ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emel54 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
When adding this article to categories it is important to make the distinction between categories only relevant to the person (such as the year of birth) and categories relevant to the death (such as the year of the death, since the article is about the death). Other categories should be considered carefully in the same manner.
The article is not about the person, save only for the incidents leading up to and immediately beyond the suicide. This is because the article is, with precision, entitled Suicide of Amanda Todd. It is not about any other aspects of the unfortunate young lady's brief and latterly troubled life. It is absolutely not her biography. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Camtodd ( talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Please include that donations to Amanda's Legacy/Memorial Trust Fund has also been set up the Vancouver Foundation which will take interntional donations online. Also, that Elise Estrada (with her producer/manager) Adam H have written, produced and dedicated a song for Amanda Todd. All proceeds of the song from iTunes will go into Amanada's Trust Fund.
There is a section labeled "Social Media" in the "Reactions" subheading -- I'm not sure how well that works considering that the events that caused Amanda's suicide were also social media related. More importantly, there is the line that states: "On October 15, 2012, her message was featured on YouTube's homepage." The way that statement is currently worded, it leaves open the possibility that either the message from someone claiming to be her former classmate that "I'm so happy she's dead now" or that Todd's YouTube video was featured... or some other unspecified message from a female. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The article should use RCMP instead, as this is what they're always called, and anyway it would link to an article giving the full name. Todd should be referred to as a Grade 10 student not 10th Grade as the latter is American and she was Canadian. 69.158.165.42 ( talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I challenge the current titling. I believe that this article strongly correlates to a more holistic exploration of Amanda Todd's life than one dedicated merely to the day that she died. As the events leading up to her suicide were a daily and ongoing part of her life, and as the events have been the focus of media attention -- not her suicide itself -- we should acknowledge that it is not her death that has attained notability; if anything it is the way that her life unfolded prior to, and including the moment of, her death. Thus I propose that this article be returned to one that is biographical in nature. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted Todd's alleged date of birth on two grounds.
One of the reasons the DOB and other biographical bits are troublesome is that it encourages this article to be a biography (which it shouldn't be) rather than about the event of her suicide. That's why the infobox isn't really appropriate either. -- Errant ( chat!) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I think saying her birthday is November is safe per these sources. I can't find an exact date:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
FBF: I don't understand your edit summary "...Dates restored with impeccable secondary RS (cited elsewhere several times in the article). I do hope this now finally settles this issue. ..." That webpage doesn't show the date other than in the video, where it shows a screenshot of some other website. Where does it say her birth date? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Others: I'm just scanning the above. Sorry to restore "November". If you want to remove it, fine. I won't complain. Adding November with good sources makes the difference between her being just 15 or almost 16. Am I getting that right? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record: I support any and all d.o.b. information that's well-sourced. Although this is not a bio, background info on the subject of the event (Todd) should be included. Birth year nails down her age to within a year's span of how old she actually was. If we can improve upon that, good. That's an important difference. If we suddenly got a bunch of other background information on her, we would surely add it. D.o.b. is rudimentary info on her and there are more reasons to add it than not. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the point of this article? She's not only victim of cyber-bullying nor only girl who killed herself. She wasn't even famous, just regular teenager. So, every teenager who suicided deserves an article here? I have razor on my desk, I can cut my throat for decent article.
I wanted to nominate this article for AFD, but article's semi protected, so can anybody do this for me?
And for all of you, please, consider if Amanda, her suicide, stupidity and weakness deserve an article on Wikipedia, encyclopaedia.
Sincerely, 83.28.130.30 ( talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 — Theo polisme 01:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry for the bit of delay in replying here. Fiddle Faddle-- if you believe that the article should be re-AfD'ed, then I obviously have no authority to say 'no, stop!'. However, let's look at the nominator (IP): an editor who said something that would violate WP:BLP if Todd were alive — consider [...] her suicide, stupidity and weakness. Alright, fine. Great. Fantastic. WP:NPA aside, this AfD — just 16 days after the original one was closed as no consensus with a "wait a month" suggestion...suggestion, yes — was simply a place for the crows to gather and...troll. Just like in the first AfD, undoubtedly the nomination would receive plenty of traffic from meatpuppets/clueless new editors...inhibiting us from accomplishing our main goal: to build an encyclopedia. Nominating articles like this one for AfD? Not helping. — Theo polisme 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
While I know that a keep outcome is not a protection against future nomination for deletion I think we now have a stronger consensus that this is a valid article here. From my perspective it proves to me that accepting the opportunity given by the rather offensive IP editor was the correct thing to do in that it has strengthened consensus for the article. Your mileage may vary of course. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 sort of just buried my own edits just now. These three:
This is just an FYI. Please comment at those threads. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Was there only one blackmailer? Were there several? Simplicius ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The statements has two refs, but only one says hanged: [8]
Such an important fact should have more. I don't know how credible this www.telegraph.co.uk really is. The only other sources that ever said she hung herself are the two british unreliable tabloids www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mirror.co.uk I really think it's strange that I can't find an Canadian sources that say this, and then this other British paper makes the claim. Should we remove that bit of dubious info unless better sourced? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)