Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

RfC: How best to represent sources?

How should we best summarize these sources, so as to present them accurately and fairly? Please, first, read the linked sources (all short, only about a minute each to read). Then please give us any advice that you can as to how to avoid any mischaracterizations. Please also do not feel that you have to review all of the sources. Any advice about even one point would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Where the questions about sources are. The principal discussion is in the long thread about #POV Tag. There are other discussions at #Savage, #Cuomo Quote in Reactions to Verdict, #Other issues with summaries of commentary, and #Characterizations of Two Sources. Again, please don't feel that you have to evaluate them all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note: the discussions can still be found there, but some of the content to which those discussions refer has been moved to the newly-created New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi, so you may have to look at the content there. The questions about sources remain the same. Sorry about the complication. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Statement by involved Tryptofish. I'm going to say something non-neutral here, and I invite other involved editors (especially LedRush) to add statements of their own. I want to make it clear that I think everyone at this page understands WP:BLP and supports applying it to Dharun Ravi, the defendant in the court case. That's not the issue, although it might appear to be at first glance. (Nor is there any issue about any editors being homophobic, so please let's stay away from that.) Rather, as I see it, it is an issue about presenting information in a manner that systematically adopts the POV of Ravi's defense lawyers, even when it is blatantly at odds with what the preponderance of reliable sources actually say, cherry-picking material to support that POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Statement by involved LedRush. I agree with the issue, though I believe that certain editors are introducing information to the article (and keeping information out of the article) based on whether it comports with their personal views on the subject. I have generally refrained from making these accusations above, despite the fact that Tryptofish and others have accused me of bias on numerous occasions, because I believe it is better to discuss edits and not editors. As two examples of the selective editing, in a section in which legal experts discuss hate crimes in general, we had a few articles in which commentators would argue against the use of hate crime laws. The entire article would be about that topic (as our section in the WP article was), but there would be a part of a sentence or a sentence in which the commentator would say they disagreed with Ravi's actions in invading Clementi's privacy. Editors here would refuse to allow the commentator's opinion on hate crimes in a section about hate crimes unless that fragment of a sentence criticizing Ravi was quoted, putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on an opinion outside the scope of the subject matter. Therefore, in a section devoted merely to legal experts opinions on hate crimes, we had a sentence like this "Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen called Ravi's actions a "revolting invasion of privacy and ... hideous bullying", but argued that hate crime laws unfairly punish an individual for thought or speech, and therefore erode civil liberties." There are several similar examples. Additionally, even though this is an article about the suicide, and not the trial, editors resisted any evidence presented in reliable sources which indicated that Ravi was not solely responsible for the death of Clementi. When information finally came in, it had to be attributed to the defense even though they were from documents released by the prosecution! Then, when the same sources had some dirt on Ravi, it got to come immediately into the article, without being attributed, of course.
At the end of the day, the article now is far, far better than it was when I first started editing, both in the quality of the text and in terms of not presenting a POV. But, as indicated by his notes above, a WP:Battleground mentality has set in where certain editors view all information as either for the prosecution or against it, and resist anything in that second category. Even though I have proven with many diffs above that based on Wikipedia policy I have introduced edits into the article that Ravi probably wouldn't like, and that I have taken information out of the article that he'd definitely want here, editors like Tryptofish still makes the demonstrably false accusation above against me.LedRush (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Closed, but of course editors are always welcome to give input on improving the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

General advice

I'm going to say this, aimed at no one in particular. Although it's very important to engage with other editors in productive discussion about improving the page, there are times when it isn't so productive to feel that one has to answer every comment that someone else makes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a tendency to do this, and I can see that I have done so here. I keep thinking "if only I explain it better, all the wrong thinking will evaporate..." I am going to stop responding and go read Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave instead. Thank you for the word to the wise, my piscatory friend. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a red herring, but that's another story. Anyway, you're not the only one. And thank you for making me aware of that essay, that I hadn't seen before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Savage summary

Sorry to interfere with a lovefest, but just for the record, I dissent on the phrasing of the Savage article. There is nothing in the present summary that suggests that Savage blames Ravi and Wei, except for the phrase "stupid teenagers." And in fact the phrase "stupid teenagers" is taken out of context because Savage says we should be bringing "not just criminal charges against a couple of stupid teenagers" but charges against larger elements of society. Savage makes clear that one should not "pin all the blame" on the teenagers; that is to say, he does blame the teenagers, quite harshly in fact. He says we should not shift "all the responsibility." There were "others involved,"--"accomplices" he calls them. The present phrasing of "instead focus" is a distortion; nowhere does he say we should instead focus, but he says that we should also look at the broader societal context and he strongly implies a cause/effect relationship ("accomplices") that the present phrasing tries to expunge. From the present summary, one would get the idea that Savage is dismissing the actions of Ravi and Wei as something merely foolish and childish (sounds familiar) and that instead we should be focusing on where real blame lies (anti-gay prejudice in society). Granted, opinion articles are often highly nuanced, but the ending (and development as a whole) of Savage's article minces no words in calling the teens' actions "criminal" and blameworthy. Just for the record, I think the present phrasing is a gross distortion.Profspeak (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I also object to the phrase "Clementi's guest did not commit suicide." In actuality, he says the "other boy" did not harm himself, but of course, MB was not a boy. At the time, Savage did not have all the facts. He also speculates about homophobic parents bullying the victim; that too was not the case. We should not be including a phrase of Savage's when his comparison was based in errors. I suspect that Savage, with more information, would have changed the phrasing; he would not have compared the actions of a thirty-something with those of an 18-year-old Profspeak (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Other than the MB reference just mentioned, here is how I would summarize my view that the present phrasing seeks to sanitize (more like "expunge") Savage's ideas that society and the youths are linked and that the youths are blameworthy. 1)The article now says that "additional factors" contributed to the suicide, but of course, Savage says "other people contributed to the suicide." We must not say that, though, because that would too clearly implicate the youths. 2)The article presently says "focuses on a couple of stupid teenagers," when Savage actually says we should be bringing "not just criminal charges against a couple of stupid teenagers..." but also ethical charges against society (a nicely turned phrase, which would have been used, except that "criminal" would not be acceptable). We must not say (what Savage said) that the actions were criminal. 3)The article presently says that "attention should, instead, be directed" when Savage actually says that attention should also be given to something else (that hasn't been given enough attention), namely, the larger societal context. We must not clearly say, though, as Savage does, that this larger societal context is an accomplice that has shaped the youths' attitudes, that society and the youths are linked, that the youths "did not act alone," since that would be too negative for the youths. 4)The present phrasing says that "the focus {once again, we are 'focusing'} on Ravi and Wei amounts to a coverup." That could mean, of course, that Ravi and Wei aren't deserving of much blame; it is sufficiently vague to mitigate their involvement. We must not say, of course, what Savage actually said, namely, that "to pin all the blame" on the youths is a coverup, because that would remove all vagueness and clearly state what Savage said--that the youths are to blame, as well as their accomplices in society that perpetuate prejudice. And we certainly don't want to use Savage's phrase that others were involved in "destroying"; that would be too much like the way Dan Savage expresses himself.Profspeak (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Savage thought his first statement was being misinterpreted:

Ten years and deportation—which the judge could've ordered—seemed excessive to me, like overkill and blame-shifting. I was one of the "gay rights advocates" quoted in a NYT piece this morning who expressed misgivings about the severity of the sentence that Ravi faced. But 30 day sentence is far, far too lenient—a slap on the wrist

— May 21, 2012[1]
Savage said the act was criminal and deserving of a longer sentence but not 10 years. In his previous remarks, he was asking why not one of the 150 people notified by Ravi told him it was wrong[2] and there is a much wider problem than just Ravi.--Javaweb (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
  1. ^ Dan Savage (May 21, 2012). "Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days". Slog.
  2. ^ In Savage's opinion. Actually, one person twittered posted “@Dharun you perv!” when told of the first event.
Very interesting.Profspeak (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, I strongly disagree with the sentiments above. I think the current wording indicts Ravi/Wei far more strongly than the actual article does. However, I was willing to live with this inbalance in the spirit of compromise, in order to make the language less inaccurate than it was. My first choice would be use my initial summary, as it properly places Savage's comment in context. Taking Profspeak's points in order: 1. Savage says "So there had to be something else going on, some other contributing factors, that drove Tyler to such a point of despair and hopelessness that he took his own life. " The language of other factors is taken directly from his article. Also, the idea that saying other people instead of factors implicates Ravi and Wei is false. If anything, the opposite is true. 2. Of course, the main point of the article is that there is too much focus on Ravi/Wei and not enough on the other factors. The attempt to extrapolate and enlarge every negative thing that Savage said about Ravi/Wei is disturbing, and it doesn't suit the article. 3. I'm fine with saying "also" instead of "instead". That is indeed an improvement over the current wording. 4. My original language was an accurate summary of the closing statement of Savage's article. You objected to my language. I'd be fine to going back to my language: "saying the efforts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively for Clementi's suicide are a "cover-up"". This makes clear that Savage blames Ravi/Wei, but also has some blame for others. 5. "Clementi's guest did not commit suicide." is stated three times by Savage. I don't understand this criticism at all. Also, Savage merely speculates about what other factors may have contributed to the death. Just because you may think he was wrong doesn't mean that we can change what he said.
I also want people to remember, we already bring in the quote explicitly condemning Ravi/Wei calling their actions the last straw, despite this being a throwaway thought by Savage. We already quote Savage as saying that Ravi and Wei were "stupid teenagers who should have known better but didn't" even though this phrase is used not to blame Ravi/Wei but to set up his opinion that other ethical charges should be brought against others. Savage clearly believes these things, but they aren't the focus of the article. The focus is how the attention on Ravi/Wei takes away from other important issues. Every time we stray from that point and focus his article on Ravi/Wei, we are doing to his article exactly what he felt society was doing: we are obscuring his point that there are others to blame.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I don't believe anyone is deliberately distorting or misrepresenting Savage's views. I would hope others could give me the same assumption of good faith.LedRush (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so the following is my next proposal:

Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions as both criminal and "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, he notes that Clementi's guest did not commit suicide, and concludes that there must have been additional factors, preceding the webcam incidents, contributing to the suicide. Savage says that he deplores the "mob mentality" that focuses on "a couple of stupid teenagers who should've known better but didn't." He argues that attention should also be directed toward the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and says that the exclusive focus on Ravi and Wei amounts to "a coverup".

LedRush (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I actually got quite a laugh out of "sorry to interfere with a lovefest"! And I'm pleased to be in the middle position here, rather than at one "side" or another.
Part of the problem is that, as Profspeak correctly notes, Savage thought at the time of the source that MB was another student the same age as Clementi. There's a limit to how far we can go in correcting what he said without committing WP:SYNTH. Profspeak suggests, and LedRush agrees, changing "instead" to "also", and I think that this is a very good approach: it gets away from implying that Savage thought that Ravi and Wei had no role. But please don't forget that we already quote what Savage says about the webcam incidents being the last straw. No one can misconstrue that to infer that Savage didn't blame Ravi and Wei for something. But beyond that, I think it would be a mistake to over-refine what we quote from Savage from that article, because it was an early opinion of his. Instead, I'd suggest expanding what he said later, when he knew more facts, around the time of the sentencing. That way, we can give WP:DUE weight, without doing WP:SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What again was your objection to using "pin all the blame" instead of "exclusive focus"? Those are, after all, Savage's words, and I don't see any murkiness in their meaning. "Blame," whether ethical or criminal, is quite clear, but it is broad enough not to be that negative. In regard to the MB part, this article was written in early October 2010. Why focus on a point (Clementi's guest not having committed suicide) that was probably made without full knowledge of details? I have no interest in defending Dan Savage, but an intelligent reader will respond, "Well, MB was considerably older and wasn't known in the dorm, so the comparison is strange." The point is better made by simply stating the "additional factors" idea, and "additional factors" implies that the factors are outside of the youths' actions. What about this:
Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, there must have been additional factors that contributed to the suicide. Savage says that he deplores the "mob mentality" that has focused on "a couple of stupid teenagers who should've known better but didn't." He argues that attention should also be directed towards the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and he concludes that to "pin all the blame" on the youths is a coverup.Profspeak (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who you were asking, but I have no objection to that at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the Profspeak's language still places too much emphasis on Ravi/Wei and not enough on Savage's actual beliefs as expressed in his article and as described by reliable secondary sources. However, Profspeak's version is not appreciably worse than what I agreed to above, and is indeed an improvement over earlier revisions. As such, I'm as fine with this.LedRush (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Savage spends four paragraphs explaining just who are the "adults and institutions" that he deems culpable--religious leaders and traditions, politicians who pander to prejudice against gays, indifferent school administrators, bullying classmates shaped by parental and cultural values. If we want to develop the substance of the article, that is what we should be including. Savage's idea that the "other boy" didn't commit suicide is given less space than his explanation of these societal forces.Profspeak (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we could end up parsing this single article by Savage forever, and never come to consensus. Let me please repeat, more emphatically, a suggestion that I made above. Instead of looking further at that particular source, let's turn instead to sources that Savage wrote later, such as what he wrote after the sentence was announced by the judge. Savage has more recent opinions, and it would make better sense to present those, rather than to dwell on an earlier opinion that he has, to some extent, reconsidered. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Resource: Mother Finds Blame in Herself and in Her Church

--Javaweb (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

That's a riveting article, indeed. I agree that we need to add it to the page. Actually, I think that enough time has passed that we can look at the page more dispassionately now. Having read the article, what strikes me as important from an NPOV perspective is to include both the main news, in the title, as well as the part about "The Clementis continue to blame the bad luck of a roommate lottery and the cowardice of students who failed to step up and say that the spying was wrong." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Blaming the "bad luck of a roommate lottery" is essentially blaming the actions of Ravi, since the bad luck resulted in their son getting as a roommate someone who even his friends said could be a jerk. As the Clementis made clear in their impact statements, they believe that their son's "turmoil" and "frustration" must have grown "faster than the speed of light" as the spying intrigue unfolded. In the impact statement, the parents also faulted the reactions of fellow students. According to the truce reached about this article, we must be reticent to broach any claims about cause/effect, but we are not really consistent in that matter. There is a lot of discussion of cause/effect in the section of reactions by "gay activists." Is there any reason why the parents' speculation about their son's psychology is any less valid than that of select gay activists? The most obvious cause/effect is the common sense idea not clearly articulated, namely that when one confidently takes a fresh step in coming out (and Tyler had taken only slight recent steps in coming out), to be greeted by hostility can be unhinging. A recent case of an Iowa teen followed the same pattern of a suicide occurring right after a coming out was greeted with hostility.Profspeak (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This information has been known and reported for a long time, but, for whatever motivations, has been actively kept out of this article. While it is great that some information that actually addresses the suicide of Clementi would finally get into the article, we should make sure that we uphold WP policies and accurately portray what RSs say and how they said, not try and make any information fit any existing narrative.LedRush (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been almost a month since I said that to Javaweb, and I don't think anyone actually made any edits based on it. I'm surprised by the tone of your (LedRush's) comment, and I'm guessing that it's in reaction to the part of the article that I quoted. What I was trying to say, at the time, was that we should consider adding both what the article says, reflected in the article title, about the ways in which the mother says that she partially blames herself (and it is new information, going beyond what had been in the Parker piece) – and also that we should include what the article also says, regarding what I quoted. In other words, both aspects of the article's content, instead of just one part or the other. I think you'll find if you read the article, that what I'm saying reflects what it says, without skewing it. Beyond that, I need you to explain to me more clearly what you would find objectionable, because I'm not really sure what you mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Use of the quote in question would be another example of WP:UNDUE that we've seen here many times. If simple, NPOV clarification in WP's voice about how this doesn't mean that she doesn't still blame Ravi is inserted, that's fine.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, and please understand that I, Javaweb, and the rest of us are just trying to edit in good faith. But your clarification seems to me to be entirely reasonable, and I'm happy to agree with it – assuming you mean that she doesn't blame Ravi for the suicide, because she clearly is saying that she thinks the roommate assignment worked out badly, that there was spying and that it was wrong, and that other students should have been more supportive of her son. When I made that comment last month, I wasn't even advocating that exact quote, only that the information that it contains be reflected in any edit. And I'm in no hurry about any of this, as you can see from the amount of time that passed after I made that comment. If/when I or someone else gets around to drafting such an edit, I'd like to see it posted here in talk first, so you or anyone else can check it before putting it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Zernike article is important, but I believe the title is misleading. Nowhere in the text do I find a statement that Jane Clementi blames herself or even finds "blame in herself", if that is different. Instead, she emphasized the difficulty of the "coming out" process for parents of gays and the conflict she felt with her religious beliefs. In the text of the article, the emphasis is on the turmoil she felt because of her religious context. Zernike is placing in the headline a content that is not explicit in the text. What I find interesting in the text is that Jane Clementi said that her son seemed "comfortable" and "confident" in his coming out and in his initial Rutgers experience (planning a trip with friends). I believe that our present text needs some altering to include some of this information. Also, the present text is misleading when it says "she said that Clementi's use of the word 'rejected' hurt her." It sounds as though Clementi used the word "rejected" in his conversation with her; of course, Jane was responding to her much-later discovery that Tyler had used that phrase in a conversation with a friend. In short, I don't find anything in the article that suggests that Jane C partly blames herself for her son's suicide. She says she was supportive and communicative with her son, but was reluctant to come out to family and friends as the parent of a gay son. She now regrets that reluctance to come out, as well as the weight of religious prejudice, but that doesn't mean she blames herself for her son's death. Profspeak (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you make a number of interesting points, and it disappoints me that the discussion of these things seems (if I understand LedRush correctly, which I might not) to continue to be contentious. I hope that we can come to consensus on all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The article edits I made are mild and don't seem to have been controversial. They simply clarify Jane Clementi's view of the discussion she had with Tyler and their relationship after the discussion. All we basically have is Tyler's single statement about being "basically rejected" (which his father interprets as teenage exaggeration) and Jane's comments. I stopped short of any other use of the Zernike article because I am bothered by Zernike's use of "blame," a word that usually suggests responsibility for something. So I was not really ignoring your suggestion to first discuss the article before making full use of it. Perhaps at some place, the parents' view of the student actors in the spycam situation (as stated in their impact statements and reiterated in Zernike) warrants being mentioned, perhaps in the section of "Parents' Statements". But that inclusion, I suspect, would be controversial.Profspeak (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I waited a while, and not seeing any further reaction, I made some minor copyedits to it. But I think that you handled the material very well, and I agree with your approach to it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Resource: Aftermath at Rutgers

I saw that too, and I also think it would be a good thing to add. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this whole article wrong?

Tyler Clementi was a human being who, obviously, played a part in the Suicide of Tyler Clementi. The articles of Tyler Clementi and the Suicide of Tyler Clementi have both merged, blurring the lines of Tyler as a person and the actual suicide. I recommend this article is revised and another article written for Tyler Clementi, the person, himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The question that you raise is one that comes up frequently about pages of this sort. There is a well-established consensus at Wikipedia that is given at WP:BLP1E. For a person such as Tyler Clementi, whose notability rests entirely on the event of his death, we do not have biographical articles about the person. Instead, the policy is to "write about the event, not the person". This is consistently the case in pages of the form "Suicide of...", that discuss suicides of young people. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Tryptofish. Sadly, Tyler Clementi did not live to become notable (in Wikipedia parlance) on account of his talents or abilities. (Regarding the trousers revert, I think it's an ENGVAR thing. See here.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point about ENGVAR. I'm going to change it to "trousers" (clearer than "pants" or "pants/trousers"). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. MIllions of people kill themselves every year and don't get notability because of it. This individual is either notable enough for an article, with his own name, or he is not. After all, many people on WP are notable for only one thing: Lee Harvey Oswald for example. There is a misinterpretation of BIO1E going on here; that is a threshold to write the article in the first place. The example there was George Holliday (witness), which was redirected to Rodney King. This article is not suibable for a redirect, thus, it is a biography and needs to be named after the person. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to rebut some of that. It's telling that you cite WP:BIO1E, when the rationale here is actually WP:BLP1E. They're two different things. If you look at all of the articles that are titled like this one, and there are multiple such pages about young persons who committed suicide, the system of titling is a consistent convention, so it's not just about this page. And once you start shifting the emphasis from the notable event to the life of the person, you get into all sorts of trivial biographical details that simply are not encyclopedic. This page really devotes very little text to Clementi's life prior to the events surrounding the suicide, and it's very logical that it does. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's still a guideline on whether to create an article in the first place, not what to name it. It still seems demeaning to a person to be nothing more than the sum of a single event. Either they meet the notability threshold or they do not -- and many BLPs here are for people who "only" did one thing. (Honey Boo Boo anyone?)I guess my question is how many of these "Death of..." articles are out there? Seems like if they are about women or gay men, they don't deserve their own name on an article, but if they are about a white straight male, then he's notable. I'm interested in seeing if I am wrong here, but AM quite curious. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The quickest way to look is to put "Suicide of" into the search box, and see what comes up. It's heavily skewed to young people/students, of both genders and not limited by sexual orientation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia editors who create and defend these articles are influenced by the media fascination in such cases. Very few articles on the suicide of old, fat or ugly non-WASPs. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, speaking for myself, the only thing that I'm defending is what reliable sources cover, and what complies with policy and guidelines. If there were extensive media coverage of someone fitting that description, we'd have a page on it. If the media are biased in whose suicides they devote news coverage to, and the legal system is biased in whose suicides they investigate and generate newsworthy prosecutions, then it's not Wikipedia's job to redress those biases. We follow the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my point is that I think that articles titled in this way are completely demeaning to the memory of the person and to his family, and I see nothing in the guidelines that says they should be titled this way. But I also lack the time and mental energy to fight this across multiple articles, so I guess these people are going to be reduced to nothing but their deaths. And that is really quite sad, particularly when Lawnchair Larry has his own article, simply for surviving... Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do think that a change in consensus (and it's not just me) would indeed be a drain of time and mental energy, with doubtful outcome. But maybe (?) it will help if I note this: Wikipedia has all kinds of cruft, so comparisons with other pages (like Mr. Lawnchair) really can only lead to more drainage of mental energy. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing demeaning about this or related pages. (Indeed, see also User talk:ClementiJ.) The pages are very respectful, and this one gives extensive coverage to the ways that reactions to the suicide led to positive advances. On the other hand, making the pages into bio pages would require balancing emphasis on the suicide with more material about the various young persons' lives – and, as with most young people, there just isn't that much that is nontrivial to write about. Pages that go on about trivial stuff just to flesh out a biography would, it seems to me, be genuinely demeaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I was quite clear; I don't favor adding cruft and trivia, but I think that an article about a person needs to be titled with their name, and their name only. The only reason I can see for a "death of" type article is something where the person already has an article, and their death is a big deal. If the only thing someone is notable for was their death, if they deserve an article at all, then they deserve an article with just their name. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Montanabw, I think I see what you're saying. The problem is that article subjects (whether living, deceased, human, nonhuman, concrete or abstract) "deserve" whatever the Wikipedia community deems they deserve—nothing more, nothing less. It's not always pleasant, but we need to be completely dispassionate in our titling of articles, just as we need to be the same way in our articles' content. Doing anything else is the first step down a path strewn with innumerable threats to maintaining a neutral point of view. Having said that, I'll also say that if you initiate a proposal to change "Suicide of . . ." articles to name-only articles, I'd probably endorse it; I don't much like the "Suicide of" construction either. However, I think Tryptofish is right: such a proposal is very unlikely to gain consensus. Lots of people who have committed suicide have articles titled with only their names, but in those cases the subjects are notable for other reasons. With young people whose notability rests entirely on their suicides (and, in some cases, the events leading up to their suicides), titling the articles the way we do is pretty consistent with Wikipedia's dispassionate, tell-it-like-it-is approach. It's not pretty—in fact, it's kind of ugly—but it is reflective of the (often ugly) reality of the world. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Montanabw, I really did understand you. It's just that other editors would be likely to add what I called trivia. (Someone recently tried to rewrite the lead sentence of this page to make it about him being a violinist.) But I remain very firm in my sincere belief that there is nothing disrespectful about the way we are titling pages. Ugly, perhaps, but only to the extent that what really happened was, sadly, ugly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Having come to this discussion late, what seems to me to be a bone of contention is that the unfortunate Mr Clementi and others who die in circumstances deemed notable obviously 'deserve' respect. I've put it in quotes because this is an emotional reaction, not an intellectual one. It is a given that the young gentleman died untimely young and for difficult reasons. He had many attributes that made up his life, perhaps the least of which was the manner of his death.
The article is about the manner of his death, though. Mr Clementi might have gone on in his life to perform great feats; or he might not have, but it is for his death and the manner of it that he came to public notice. His death was notable, verifiably so. His life was not. He had no time to become a notable person except to those who loved him and, it seems, to those who appear to have created the circumstances leading to his death.
Those who loved him have, I hope, the wisdom to try to avoid encyclopaedias. Those mighty and august organs have to report the neutral, not the deserving, aspects of Mr Clementi's life surrounding his demise. They may not celebrate his life, nor, unless germane to the event that ended it, may they celebrate his many achievements.
So it is not the article that is wrong, nor is it the topic area as a whole. If anything is wrong it is the terms of engagement that WIkipedia's editors have created over the years and within which they we, insist on working. While I do not believe them to be wrong I would happily support and participate in a wider discussion about this topic area. That shoudl be in a venue distanced from the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I see your argument, and maybe a different venue discussing overall policy is best. To me, if a person, for ANY reason, meets WP:NOTABILITY to get an article at all, it should just be titled with their name. It's the most NPOV approach and avoids making judgements in the very title about their life and how meaningful it is; we can hash it out in the content as to what is relevant and notable and what is not. (e.g. Is it "trivia" that Thomas Jefferson was also a violinist??) The argument over at Chandra Levy is illustrative of the fuzziness of the line. If we don't have these "actions of" titles, we wouldn't be having these discussions. Perhaps we are done here as it is a broader question. Where is the most suitable forum? Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest a Village Pump page as a decent starting place? A good discussion may convince me (and others), or you (and others) may be convinced differently yourself. We have reached the point where further discussion here apart from suggestions of venue does genuinely show a lack of consideration for those affected by Mr Clementi's death. Or perhaps you might set up the discussion and invite those who have something to contribute, and those who may not :). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need to be dispassionate when choosing titles. Someone might be notable for writing only one book, but that's often enough to make the person notable, and we title the article about the person accordingly. Similarly, someone else might become notable only because of the circumstances of their death, but they still become notable, and we should title the article about that person accordingly as well, for the same reasons.

The issue is whether the person is notable or not, as determined by coverage in reliable sources. The reason or reasons for the person's notability should be irrelevant to the question of whether the person is sufficiently notable to have an article in WP. If the answer to that is yes, then the article should be titled like all other articles about people - with the person's name (disambiguated as necessary, of course). --B2C 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to a broader venue at the Village pump, see Technical13's page for the link, I believe... you might want to weigh in over there too. Montanabw(talk) 19:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Social Autopsy and Removal of Talk Page Comments

Overlong post with no clear bearing on improving article
  • Syndicated to the Tyler Clementi Foundation page as it applies to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSH PR0MPT (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that an editor has removed my previous submission on this talk page. Talk page edits are not to be reverted irrespective of if you disagree with them, dislike them, or have some other predisposition that would otherwise compel you to think you have the right to remove them. Arguably the author of the discussion text themselves should not even do so for the sake of transparency. Censoring dissenting opinions is corruption at it's most base definition.

The Tyler Clementi foundation, a registered charity backed--to some degree they have not / will not clarify--a failed kickstarter to raise funds to provide a professional doxing service through a website called Social Autopsy. To most of the world the only reason this article, the foundation, or Tyler Clementi is now known is for a charity being involved in an morally ambiguous plot such as Social Autopsy, especially given the fallout of such a thing will include abuse, and lead to real world consequences.

The purpose of Social Autopsy is to doxx targets who are arbitrarily decided, by a secret panel of judges, to be 'cyber bullies' and publish their information online for exposure, harassment, persecution and inevitable brigading. This is one of the most evil Orwellian acts I have personally witnessed a registered charity being involved with. It's notability is unarguably compelling enough, and there are thousands of media articles on the subject to source from.

As the website is still live and still bears this foundation's logo in it's footer, and no clarification has been raised by the foundation explaining its involvement, nor explaining whether the people involved in the project have been dismissed or still are involved with / work for the foundation I see no reason to ignore Social Autopsy and not address it.

Originally I asked that perhaps one of the editors present address Social Autopsy on the article. But now I have misgivings of the neutrality that would yield and instead I suggest that for neutrality sake that a third party editor be brought in to be able to address the issue. In 7 days I will proceed with this if no one has any compelling reason that Social Autopsy should not be included and if the Clementi Foundation chooses to continue to ignore the matter and not address it publicly. Removing this comment is not a viable option, this issue will not just go away if ignored.

As an aside, and for clarity; my interest in this stems solely from the academic / legal aspect which is quite compelling an example of criminal negligence. In law, specifically dealing with the tort of negligence, we often use the term 'reasonably foreseeable,' and it is reasonably foreseeable that such a service would be abused, would cause brigading etc., and would lead to bullying campaigns and even further suicides. ESSkull principle and wilful ignorance not mitigating slams that point home. The Clementi Foundation and whoever else is behind Social Autopsy would be unquestionably held to be criminally negligent for a suicide or other real world consequence occurring from their 'service.' It is so black and white I've actually used it as a clear and concise example of criminal negligence in my law classes for my students. Given that the Clementi Foundation is born from the suicide of an individual the fact that one of the primary consequences of their plot is that it will cause extreme bullying and probable suicides beg's belief. I find this entire thing remarkably ironic, and feel that it is the most notable thing to come from the Clementi Foundation in it's short history. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • In one brief sentence, please say what you would like to see done to improve the article. I've collapsed your comments as highly inappropriate. EEng 08:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with EEng. I read all of the above twice and have no idea what you're talking about, let alone its relevance here. A talk page exists for one purpose—to facilitate discussing improvements to its associated article—and various policies and guidelines allow collapsing or even removal of certain irrelevant posts. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I agree too. See also here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You ain't see nuttin'. [1] EEng 03:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Tyler Clementi Foundation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge Tyler Clementi Foundation into Suicide of Tyler Clementi. I'm going ahead and performing the merge after closing this.(non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This foundation is already mentioned on this article, and doesn't seem notable on its own especially given the existence of this page. The Foundation page seems mildly promotional(though not enough to delete it IMO) 331dot (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree, that's a very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the rationale provided by the proposer. TheBlinkster (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the merest of stubs now, and its content doesn't even suggest notability. If events warrant, it can always be broken back out into a separate article later on. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see why not. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (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.

Infobox

If, Tryptofish, the "infobox event" template can't be used for this article, why do some or many other articles about deaths of individual persons use "infobox event" instead of "infobox person"? Why not changing "infobox person" to "infobox event"? --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic, but the consensus at Talk:Noel Coward to omit an infobox... actually, there was "no consensus" on an infobox, so the version that lacks an infobox is used by default. Can that be used as a precedent? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd welcome hearing from other editors about this question, but the way that I see it, the choice of template is subject to editorial judgment, page-by-page. I do, of course, understand that the page is about the event and not the person. But as I indicated in my edit summary, I think that it is important to retain a certain amount of personal information: [2]. I felt that the way the infobox was presented after your edit left out too much information. I don't care what the template is called. If the event template can provide the same information, then I don't mind using it instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's see All pages with titles beginning with suicide of for comparison. Otherwise, let's compare. Suicide of Audrie Pott lacks an infobox for unknown reason. Suicide of Amanda Todd currently uses infobox event. If comparison is not enough, I shall say this. The "infobox person" doesn't add much substantial information; a reader can see birth dates in the lead without looking at an infobox. It discusses education profile but not adequately substantial. "Infobox event" tells readers who is or are directly and indirectly involved with the event. I added "charges" parameter and "arrests" parameter. But this is getting tricky if two of us can't agree which infobox shall be used. Call for RfC? George Ho (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There are other editors who watch this page, so I'd like to just give a few days for them to comment if they want, before turning to an RfC. This issue certainly isn't an urgent one. But looking around, I quickly found these pages that use the person infobox: Suicide of Phoebe Prince, Suicide of Dawn-Marie Wesley, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, Suicide of Jadin Bell, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Megan Meier, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, and Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Those pages aren't biography, yet "infobox person" is used. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infobox should be used to "summarize, not supplant, 'key' facts". I'm not confident that the usage of "infobox person" was reasonable, but you might interpret differently. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I think these are summaries of what is in the text. If an editor wanted to rename this page "Tyler Clementi" instead of "Suicide of...", I'd oppose that on the basis of it being about the event and not the person (and in fact this was a long-ago discussion that actually took place). But that pertains to notability and pagename, not the name of a template. Our readers do not even know what the names of templates are, and they don't care. What matters is what information we provide them with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What is a "key fact"? I always thought that key fact is anything relevant. Can a key fact be also less important? Does adding "cause" and "arrests" qualify as key facts? George Ho (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. The "infobox person" contains just birth date, death date, education, cause of death, and occupation. My version of "infobox event" contains "location", "arrest(s)", "charges", "trial". I wish I would have fleshed it out by adding "verdict", "convictions", "sentence", and "notes" before the revert back to "infobox person", which doesn't allow further improvement as the infobox of the article. The "event" one has more well-known summarized facts than "person" does... unless you can counter what I was saying? George Ho (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd want to add parameters such as "verdict", "convictions", and "sentence". "Arrests", "charges", and "trial" (found in the version you saved before Tryptofish reverted) are already problematic, imo, because their connection to the event is an indirect one. Those would be appropriate for an article about a homicide. In an article about a suicide, they are potentially confusing. This may be a case of "if it ain't broke . . ." Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
And now that I see George Ho's answer, my own response is very much the same as what Rivertorch has said. It really ain't broke. It sounds to me like the argument for changing to the event template is something like: the suicide was an event, so we must rigidly use the event template, and because we are using that template, we should look for parameters to fill in that are associated with it. In my opinion, that's the wrong approach. The right approach, I think, is to ask "what best serves the improvement of this page?". Our readers don't care what we name our templates. They care about the information that we provide. A change in infobox would have to be justified by showing that the information would be more useful to our readers. Here, it appears that it would actually be less useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

I invite the IP user who is edit warring today to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. The "lol" in their edit summary and the content of their edits are clear indications that they are simply trolling, and they've already been answered in a section above this one. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford: Thanks for the clarification; I had posted this because to report them as an edit warrior they need to be given an opportunity to discuss the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi/Archive_4&oldid=1083536097"