Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd/Archive 3

incorrect information
it states in many in this article that Amanda Todd died from hanging herself. i am close friends with Amanda Todd's mother and i know that the source of this information is incorrect. the cause of Amanda's is only known by her mother. if needed, i can be contacted and i can provide Carol Todd's personal email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenck (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we have a peculiarity of Wikipedia. The truth often differs from authenticated facts. Wikipedia may only be interested in authenticated facts. Unfortunately it is not usual to use a primary source despite this being the mother of a subject here, however sad the circumstances. We may only use reliable sources, something which sounds offensive in this case, but is not when the link is followed. And then we move to privacy. Ms Todd's mother deserves privacy, and her personal email ought not to be granted to anyone except by the lady herself. Wikipedia must respectfully decline your generous offer. Fiddle   Faddle  22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * yes, but the media often makes false claims. i believe that it is wrong to use false claims, as you are giving away false information.
 * the facts that you are supplying in this article are not authentic facts, they are false claims made by media, not a "reliable source" i believe Amanda and Carol deserve to have false claims removed from this site. Haydenck (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we have absolutely no reason to believe that what you're claiming is true. An encyclopedia is not a creator or originator of content, but rather a summary of information found in other, reliable sources in the world.  We have every reason to believe what reliable sources have reported on this matter concerning the details of Todd's suicide.  We have absolutely no reason at all to believe another editor who claims to have personal connections to the family, and inside information that everyone else is apparently lying about.  Sorry if that sounds rude or harsh, but it is a simple matter of verification.  The other editors of this project have no way to verify your claims;as such, the claims presented cannot be used to make changes to this article. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * then why will no one accept my offer to provide contact information? Haydenck (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Click WP:OTRS and follow the instructions there, if you really intent to pursue this, there's nothing more that can be done at this page at this time. Tarc (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Haydenck is correct. The media reports are false information based on Amanda Todd's claim of being blackmailed and stalked online.  It is false due to the fact that she became a flasher after the initial incident and partnered with at least two other girls since then.  By not revealing the truth, this article makes it appear as though the falsely accused 19 yr old male was her stalker when in fact he was her blackmailer.  Todd's death then cannot be attributed to the person who stalked her but to the social isolation caused by her reckless act when she betrayed her best friend's trust by sleeping with that friend's boyfriend.  The truth is, she died due to her willful participation in flashing online, acts which caused her to be banned from tinychat.com.  The real reason why the police came to her door was because she wouldn't stop.  It is also why nobody has been charged with her suicide, because her actions that led to her social isolation led to that tragic end, not the stalking.  The narrative in this article is false information based on her online story which is the original false narrative.  In short, this article on Wikipedia is based on false information provided by the deceased.  Sageb1 (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2014 (PDT)
 * No, the narrative in this article is based on what is in reliable sources. Your allegations and aspersions are made without presenting reliable sources to match them.  And if you are going to accuse people of providing "false information", you damn well better bring some of those reliable sources to back your claims up. Resolute 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And your source for this is...? Tarc (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have send the sources through the correct method advised. It isn't necessary to expose it here since this Talk is associated with the article.   By stating that the articles given are verifiable, you actually are verifying the story Amanda Todd presented without searching further and thus biasing the wikipedia article towards the official version of events, which is validated by presenting only a part of the facts presented to align with the video Todd presented to us.  Hence these reliable sources will not mention Todd being a known attention seeker on blogtv and tinychat who consistently performed with her friends because it becomes "unreliable" with respect to the current verifiable story concocted to absolve Todd of her role in events leading to her demise.  The media have provided this verifiable chain of events while not disclosing why she continued to seek attention on blogtv and tinychat.  It is absurd to point fingers at a supposed cyberstalker and a dubitable online cyber harasser and blackmailer because full disclosure would benefit tinychat and blogtv once their role in this story is disclosed.  Therefore the reason for you following the official story is to prevent a clear understanding of how Todd's actions after the initial flashing incident 4 years ago played in the blackmail attempt and the blackmailer's follow through as well as the role of the student body of three schools who actually did the majority of the abuse and bullying of Todd.  Therefore the verifiable sources only confirm the narrative made in Todd's video, not the facts which have been suppressed, including r0ra-anon's role (which has been suppressed because it's not pertinent to the narrative).  You claim his role is not verifiable.  It is known on anon-pass that he had been a problem on blogtv and tinychat and had been outed in March of the same year Amanda Todd died.  This is six months before her suicide.  It is reasonable to assume that the RCMP was aware of r0ra-anon, only after Todd's death.  As well, very little mention is made of capping and its role on blogtv and tinychat. IMO this information is suppressed because of your reliance on verifiable news sources in mainstream media, as though it is the verifiable truth. As long as mainstream media does not expose capping and its role on blogtv and tinychat, then the real perpetrator and his clique will continue to do this to other vulnerable underaged girls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sageb1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014 - NEW INFORMATION AVAILIBLE
Just wanted the author of this article to see this information: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amanda-todd-bullying-leads-to-arrest-in-netherlands-1.2614034

Thanks

74.15.160.87 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Added, and then deleted, info about suspect
There was particular information added to the article about a suspect in this case who exploited Amanda sexually online, and which information has already been removed. Information about suspects is relevant to the case, and provides a more thorough understanding about the subject and topic. I believe it is important to include such information, and make a record of it here that it was included and then, deleted. I am for it being re-included. Said information is as follows: The suspect is Aydın Çoban, with reference information found at http://globalnews.ca/news/1277461/arrest-made-in-connection-with-online-bullying-of-amanda-todd/ "Arrest made in connection with online bullying of Amanda Todd" (April 17, 2014, retrieved April 19, 2014). The issue is not about being "first" with the news, but providing a thorough account of information related to this article. Not doing so detracts from the quality of the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a huge WP:BLP issue with adding this information. Please see BLP. Your opinion is interesting but is against the policy.


 * It is not necessary to add the same comment to my talk page, nor to any other oeditor's. Discussions about articles are held on aeticle talk pages. Fiddle   Faddle  16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In view of the importance of getting this correct I have made a request at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for experienced eyes to come here and comment. Fiddle   Faddle  16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle, This is why I posted my comments. The policy is obviously contradictory to the types of info boxes that Wikipedia provides about these issues, in which information regarding suspects and charges is included.  This is just another issue of a lack of consistency on policy on Wikipedia, and is good to bring attention to for improvement.  And, whether or not it is "necessary" to add information to your talk page, I certainly have the right to do so, and have taken the liberty of doing so.  There's nothing wrong with doing it, and it is actually good to provide editors involved with awareness about the issue, particularly yourself, as the concern informs you and relates to the delete that you made. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014
In the sentence "The following week, the boy's girlfriend and a group of about 50 others confronted Todd at school, shouting insults, with the boy's girlfriend punching her;[11][14] Todd fell to the ground, then lay in a ditch where her father found her", "50 others" should be changed to "15 others". In source 11, which is Amanda Todd's video, "My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm", at 5:17, it says "His girlfriend and 15 others came including hiself."

Chewie0905 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tutelary (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring note
Tutelary is edit-warring against consensus, and if he she reverts again, he'll be reported for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I am a woman. Second off, 'lack of consensus' is not a valid reason to revert. See this essay for my POV on why. More importantly, I have not seen the proper consensus on this page to revert my changes, all I see is the discussion between me and another edtior regarding the reliability of the sources. Tutelary (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sources have been shot down as unreliable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they have not. Look above, they are reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One editor described those sources as "crap", and that was being kind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly about it, bring it up at the reliable source noticeboard, or I will. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do what you want. Just don't revert the article again, or you'll find yourself on the edit-warring report page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No rebuttal at all to the large paragraph up ahead explaining why we go by the sources, and that the sources are reliable? You seem to be attempting to game me for a block. Tutelary (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been explained why those sources are garbage. And I don't want you blocked, I just want you to obey the current consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to omit the material. There is a discussion, however, on the sources that I brought up. And no, you haven't. I have explained why they are reliable, as they have editorial control and have been established as reliable. Tutelary (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the sources, so can't comment on them, but I will say this: Edit warring is not defensible, even if you believe you are right. Several editors have reverted your additions, so at this point it is incumbent on you to build a consensus on this talk page before re-inserting.  Also, there is no such thing as "no consensus to omit" material.  When contested, the burden is on the person adding material. Resolute 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have made comments on the sources, but people seem to be discussing other things, instead of that, including the supposed 'edit war' I was in. I am thinking that WP:DRN is the way to go. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems for the best in this case. Thank you! Resolute 19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact, yes, lack of consensus absolutely is a reason to exclude disputed content. The WP:ONUS is firmly on the person seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for it - otherwise it goes. This is especially true in articles like this. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your POV. I don't wish to continue this discussion here as it is evolving into trivialities in policy and aids the possibility of the DRN being closed due to 'main discussion continuing on talk page' (See other closes for proof of this) I am more than welcome to you adding yourself on the DRN. I can already see that there are strong opinions in this. Please add yourself to it. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN
The DRN discussion thread can be found here. Dispute_resolution_noticeboard I have added the amount of personally involved editors. If I missed out on one or two, please add yourself. Tutelary (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be disappointed. WP:BLP applies to "recently deceased" and also applies to those affected who are still living.  Thus Wikipedia policy requires the article be written conservatively, and not sensationalize a death.  The "gold standard"  in the US is likely The New York Times, which specifically does not add the gratuitous sensational details, thus making me suggest that this article ought to follow that lead here. Collect (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hanged vs 'found dead'
The vast majority of the reliable sources mention Hanging by name. By preluding and changing 'hanged' to 'dead' is providing undue weight to specifically that source. Here are the sources that mention hanging as the cause of death:
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/12/amanda-todd-bullied-youtube-suicide_n_1960406.html
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/amanda-todd-suicide-girls-mum-1379909 Self admission of not being reliable
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218532/Amanda-Todd-Anonymous-names-man-drove-teen-kill-spreading-nude-pictures.html (Albeit I know this one is not a reliable source, it stays conclusive with the other sources)
 * http://www.dailydot.com/news/rehtaeh-parsons-suicide-amanda-todd/
 * http://www.ibtimes.com/amanda-todd-suicide-doesnt-end-cyber-torment-ridiculed-teen-846827
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9612030/Amanda-Todd-case-highlights-issue-of-online-bullying.html
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/12/amanda-todd-bullied-youtube-suicide_n_1960406.html
 * http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/18/amanda-todd-suicide-man-arrested-in-topless-photos-blackmail-case-4702978/
 * http://digitaljournal.com/article/334807 Through investigation, not reliable.
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yingying-shang/teen-suicide_b_1973345.html

There has been previously an edit summary on the page that explicitly attempts to censor the material by not wanting to put the image in people who read this article's mind, clearly out of terms of WP:CENSORSHIP. We have the information, she was found hanged, not dead. To put 'dead' and to claim that it is unknown is putting too much undue weight onto that specific source. Wikipedia may contain content that may be offensive or incredibly triggering to some users. This is in the content disclaimer. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Huffpost and brit tabloids are sleazy and not reliable as more serious newspapers.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington post is reliable as they have editorial control, and appearing to be reporting it in a factual manner. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p/huffington-post.html

Which ones are you referring to as tabloids? I know Daily mail is one (and I was only using it to describe that even that tabloid mentions it by hanging, and not some other crazy act). Tutelary (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, would you care to elaborate on what part of that was not reliable as you claim? Tutelary (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * These are primarily tabloids, "scandal sheets". Your argument would be more impressive if you found some better sources, such as major news networks or non-tabloid newspapers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume that we will resume what was being said at the reference desk. I will defer from there to here from now on.

That leaves 7 reliable sources for the hanging remark. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/12/amanda-todd-bullied-youtube-suicide_n_1960406.html Reliable as they have editorial control seen here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/p/huffingtonpostcouk-about-us.html
 * Mirror is upon further investigation, a tabloid and will be dismissed.
 * http://www.dailydot.com/masthead/ Is reliable per http://www.dailydot.com/ethics-policy/ their editorial control
 * Ibtimes is reliable per editorial control http://www.ibtimes.com/corporate/leadership
 * Telegraph is reliable per editorial control http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/
 * Metro is reliable per editorial control http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/26/meet-the-team-2-4164988/
 * Huffington post is reliable, as said before
 * Digital journal is reliable per editorial control http://www.digitaljournal.com/corporate/about_us.php
 * Do not judge a source's reliability by whether it says it is reliable; anyone can write a policy. Judge it by what it does. Huffpost is not reliable: they frequently reprint tabloid crap uncritically. IB Times is hella unreliable; it's nothing but a SEO money-maker. Same with the Daily Dot, which is a joke. Digital Journal publishes user-submitted content with less "editorial control" than Wikipedia. The Metro is debatable. The Telegraph is reliable, of course. So you have one good source, one middling source, and a lot of utter crap. --NellieBly (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * More importantly, we have a Canadian victim and the only Canadian source you have suggested is one of the crap ones. Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight: I don't care what the article says. I care that sources like the Digital Journal don't lead us down the garden path to having errors in an article that has a lot of eyes on it. Why not check the archives of reliable Canadian news sources instead of trotting out this "citizen journalist" stuff that's possibly some kid in Kuala Lumpur earning a buck a day to reword the Daily Mail without giving credit? --NellieBly (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Daily dot considered reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_102#The_Daily_Dot
 * Huffington has received the pulitizer prize, the only online news paper to do so, has also been seen as reliable on the BLPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160#Huffington_Post.2FDaily_Mirror http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/huffington-post-pulitzer-prize-2012_n_1429169.html
 * IBtimes a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Times_and_IBTimes_RS.3F
 * Daily telegraph a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#The_Daily_Telegraph_and_badscience.net
 * Metro has been established on the RSN as a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158
 * Huffington post is reliable, as said before
 * Digital Journal is not a reliable source and I will cede that.

That leaves 6, not one. You can bring all this up to the reliable source noticeboard if you want. Tutelary (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're glossing over the point that the assertion of "hanging" as cause of death is hearsay, not a proven, verified fact. Hearsay repeated and reprinted infinite times doesn't outweigh the verifiable, published fact that no exact cause of death has been released by officials. No autopsy has been done. No coroner's report has been made public. All these reliable news sources you give are presenting an unproven speculation as fact, but that doesn't make it a fact. News outlets are more or less reliable on a spectrum--none of them should be accepted as absolute universal arbiters of 'Truth'. The article in its current form (specifically the contentious sentence that precedes the Investigation section) presents hearsay as fact, duplicating the fallacy presented by the news outlets. Presuming hearsay is fact, does not make it fact. OttawaAC (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We ultimately go by what the sources say. Anything else is original research. If the sources are wrong, we're wrong. That's how it goes. Verifiability, not truth. Ultimately, subjective morality is not what gets things introduced on Wikipedia, it's reliable sources. The sources say that she was found hanged, and that's what's going to be in the Wikipedia article. You do have a point on whether or not reliable sources can report inaccuracies, and that is true. However, current Wikipedia policy is that reliable sources dictating content is the way to go. You can attempt to change this, of course, by proposing a proposal and getting consensus on an RfC about it, and if it meets that, then go higher up to make it a policy. Also, as well, if you think I'm wrong and want a third opinion, or a casual mediation with a dispute resolution volunteer, I am open to both approaches. Tutelary (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a sad day when ethics are dismissed as "subjective morality" and require policy changes. I came across an interesting, and relevant, opinion piece on hearsay in the media today... food for thought.  OttawaAC (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OttawaAC, I am not attempting to dishearten you or discourage. Your concerns are warranted, as it appeared that on the reference board, a person close to Amanda Todd's family sought to entirely cleanse the article of any mention of 'hanging'. This is contrary to what the sources say, and that's what I was trying to argue for. What I was referring to you by the policy change is that Wikipedia fundamentally functions on reliable sources, but also by WP:CONSENSUS. That's how WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and a bunch of other Wikipedia policies got to be founded. They were originally proposals given by ordinary users, then people discussed them, found to make sense, and implemented them as rules across the Wiki, making it uniform and giving articles a standard to meet. You can propose a change, that for example, if someone close to a controversial suicide's family makes a special and emotional claim to a topic, that then claim is automatically accepted. That's just an example of what could be proposed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. People listen, take your claims seriously, and shouldn't outright dismiss them. Again, I am entirely open to third opinions (though the fact that Evergreen chimed in might disqualify that) or dispute resolution with a neutral mediator. Tutelary (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming in that HuffPo and other similar outlets tend to be avoided for more controversial info. I think it's been on RSN a few times. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to link to it, EvergreenFir? Tutelary (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's just mixed opinions on it and it appears to be not the "most reliable" source, especially for celebrity stuff. You're welcome to read the discussions here: 1, 2, and 3.  I'd just say that in general and in my opinion, HuffPo should not be the sole source for a controversial claim.
 * I can understand if it is the only news organization to report on the 'hanging' effect, but at least 5 others have, so it isn't very controversial to state in my opinion. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be this hard to figure out, just write to reflect the reality of the sources, e.g. "Several sources report that the cause of death was hanging, but the police have yet to release the official cause of death to the public." Tarc (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When there are at least 5+ (If Huffington post were to be excluded, which I'm not going to) sources say that she was found hanged, and only one saying 'that the death was unknown', it is undue weight given to that one source. Tutelary (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Look in google. There are countless sources that do not specify a cause of death. You're cherry-picking the ones that claim (without evidence) that they somehow know the cause. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Contradictions are good. If we say that some sources reported the death was by hanging, but one or more others said the cause was unknown, and the government did not release the cause, that is far better than any one of these alternatives by itself. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG, someone with some sense. Thank you .  This is exactly what I just expressed on the DRN. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Aydın Ç. instead of Aydin C.
The suspects name is Aydın Çoban, so it should be Aydın Ç. instead of Aydin C. Please change that. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia, so we use English sources whenever possible., and avoid diacritic usage. The source in the article, msn.com, used "C". Tarc (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Early life/Race?
Why no mention of her parents, where she was born, her life prior to the suicide attempts? It also might be worth mentioning her racial background (Chinese mother, caucasian father - don't know his background), as her death is frequently and erroneously reported as that of a "white girl." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.159.102 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any reliable sources that give this information? We would need those before we can add it to the article.  -- GB fan 13:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead image
It is scheduled for deletion. Please see. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015
Please change the language found anywhere in the article from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide." This change in language has become commonplace in the social work profession due to the stigmatization associated with the the word "committed" which can be associated with the commission of a crime

Ex. Amanda Michelle Todd (November 27, 1996 – October 10, 2012)[3][4] died by suicide at the age of 15 at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.

Chronus719 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The present wording is accurate. An encyclopedia is not a therapy session. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request of lead
From the lead:

At the time of her death, Todd was a grade 10 student[7] at CABE Secondary in Coquitlam,[8] a school that caters to students who have experienced social and behaviour issues in previous educational settings.[9]

This sentence is related to nothing in the body of the article, and needs to be placed in the body. It's hardly lead material. 50.27.61.236 (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I moved the sentence to the end of the "Background and suicide" section. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures
I reverted recent edit made on Diff 1 under the WP:BRD principle. The editor who made it has reverted my reversion where I gave the edit summary "The picture of HER makes this a bio, whereas the shot from the video reminds us that it is about the event.", leaving the portrait of the young lady at the head.

Rather than get into a reversion tennis match I have brought it here for true consensus forming. My case is made in my edit summary. The editor who made the changes has not given us a summary, so we have no idea what is in their mind. Fiddle  Faddle  19:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's get this agreed upon because File:Amanda Todd - 01.jpg is non-free. If we're not using it, it must go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because this is an article about the event, the untimely and unpleasant death by suicide of the young lady, my view is that a picture of her looking at the camera, while it identifies her, and may be pleasant to have, is inessential, whereas her video is absolutely germane to the event of her suicide. My preference is to remove the portrait, the unfree file, completely. If consensus says it should remain I feel it should then not be given prominence at the head of the article. I feel there is a risk, even at this remove from her suicide, of turning this into a memorial by accident. Fiddle   Faddle  00:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well put. That makes sense. I'm fine with whatever everyone wants to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see the discussion before I restored your revert. I'll add my two cents, then, that your edit summary makes sense. I especially agree that the picture from the video should remain the prominent one. Willondon (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Horrible new title for article
This should be moved back ASAP..this new title is not the norm at all e.g. Suicide of Megan Meier, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans etc... -- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Asking for RM now.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit just asked at Requested moves/Technical requests O well. -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems one of them worked. :)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2016
Amanda Todd (died of suicide) → Suicide of Amanda Todd – Recent move is controversial and undiscussed. Cannot move back on own, so requesting admin assistance. Please move back to original title.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved back to original title. -- GB fan 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence that contradicts remarks in the Amanda Todd article
Regarding ' According to the CBC news program, The Fifth Estate, the RCMP were contacted repeatedly that the juvenile was being sexually extorted by an adult male, and in response the RCMP told the family there was "nothing that could be done" about it.' This is untrue. The full RCMP email text is: To: Todd, Carol; Todd, Norm Subject: RE: Amanda Todd October 12th 2011 To you both, After our meeting with Norm yesterday we have been informed steps have been taken to keep Amanda off the Internet while in your homes. At this time Norm has stated that he has taken away Amanda's internet access as well as her phone. We believe that the photo's and video that have recently appeared is new material Amanda has posted of herself since last year. We identified twelve Facebook profiles Amanda currently has running. The main account still has 1100 subscribers on it. Constable Schadeck with our section will be continuing with this investigation. As my colleague and I said yesterday and last week, if Amanda does not stay off the internet and/or take steps to protect herself online there is only so much we as the police can do. Part of this is also attributable to her ability to have access to camera facilities. We suggest that Amanda ceases all further online communication and that she closes down all of her email accounts and her accounts on YouTube and elsewhere. If Amanda cannot be prevented from further use of the internet we will have to meet again to discuss further action such as temporary protective supervision.

The text can be found by freezing the frame in the documentary. I have done that here: https://philipjrose.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/evidence-for-the-lazy-2/ and the full text is here https://philipjrose.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/the-rcmp-emails-to-the-todds-2/

Regarding 'A stranger convinced Todd to bare her breasts on camera, following one year of attempts at having her do so' this is also untrue. Amanda was online a 'cutiielover' as reported here http://hypervocal.com/news/2012/amanda-todd-kody-maxson-daily-capper/ However, I have the original chatlogs of cutiielover here https://philipjrose.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/amanda-todd-one-step-closer-to-the-truth/ in which (as the 5th Estate doc says) she had over 150 viewers and she clearly says that her friends found her pictures. I also have the instant that Amanda was banned from BlogTV that supposedly contains the infamous one picture that was used: https://philipjrose.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/amandas-last-appearance-as-cutiielover/

This article should be rewritten to include these amendments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip J Rose (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Suicide of Amanda Todd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019141549/http://www.theprovince.com:80/news/Premier+tells+kids+stand+change+against+bullying/7410549/story.html to http://www.theprovince.com/news/Premier+tells+kids+stand+change+against+bullying/7410549/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016
my request is that instead of calling it suicide if amanda todd you should make it the story of amanda todd 17:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Youdontknow22 (talk)

Youdontknow22 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Title is more descriptive as is. GABHello! 17:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of pictures
I’ve posted this as a place to revive previous discussions, if necessary. I recently reverted a rearrangement of the pictures used in the article (the Facebook portrait, and the still from her YouTube video). There are some relevant discussions already in Archive 1, and most recently in Archive 3. There’s also relevant discussion in the archives about the name of the article. Differing viewpoints seem to focus on whether or not the article is or should be about Amanda Todd as a person, or about her suicide. Put me down as regarding the topic as the suicide, not the person, and for preferring the still from her video to the portrait. Willondon (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016
The fact that the person is not identified by his last name is a common practice in Dutch media, but that's not defined in any law. The parenthesis "in accordance with Dutch privacy laws" is factually incorrect. Instead of correcting it, I'd suggest to remove that bit completely, as it's hardly relevant in context of the article.

Here's one link (in Dutch, could not find an English reference) to one newspaper that discusses the custom: http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/gebruik-van-initialen-moet-steeds-worden-afgewogen~a476655/

Guusdk (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The source already in the article indicates a basis in Dutch privacy laws.  The link provided in this request does not appear to address Dutch privacy laws, nor explain how the existing text would be incorrect, although I am reading it translated into English.   B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The first reference that I linked ( http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/gebruik-van-initialen-moet-steeds-worden-afgewogen~a476655/ ) reads: "Naar goed journalistiek gebruik worden verdachten van een misdrijf in principe met hun initialen aangeduid.", which translates into "as is good/common journalistic practice, suspects of a crime shall, in principle, be identified by their initials".


 * It's somewhat difficult to find sources that explicitly specify that something is not defined in a law, but is common practice instead. Not using a surname in Dutch media is an unwritten rule, which by definition makes it hard to find an example of it being... well, written. This can, however, be deduced by the fact that the subject of using full surnames or abbreviations only, is a topic that's commented on/discussed/debated in main-stream media (when a law exists, there would be less need to discuss the subject).


 * Here are some more examples - again, all in Dutch:
 * http://static.nos.nl/assets/ombudsman/columns/071207_initialen.html
 * http://sargasso.nl/criminelen_en_achternamen_1/
 * https://vkredactieblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/ombudsvrouw-volkskrant-privacy/
 * Guusdk (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: See above message VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am curious as to why we (i.e. Wikipedia) would give a shit about Dutch privacy laws? This is an American website hosted in the United States of America. The dude is 38 years old, FYI. And his name can easily be found in numerous Canadian news articles (such as this one here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amanda-todd-coban-extradition-1.3655619).

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016
The last sentence of the section titled "written an open letter protesting his innocence." where "protesting" should be "professing" or "proclaiming."

Spthomp (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Done.--TMCk (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous use of "synecdoche"
The first paragraph contains the following:

"an exploitive phenomenon known as "capping," a synecdoche of screen capture"

"Capping" isn't a synecdoche, it's just an abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.211 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice to know some people can still read. You are correct. I've fixed it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Page visits
Why does this page continue to get such a large amount of page visits? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How does that relate to improving the article? (That's what this page is for.)  Why do you care how many visits it gets, you sound like you disapprove?  If you read the article you will find she was at one point the third most Googled person because her story achieved that much notoriety. The investigation is ongoing, more than one kind of crime/criminal involved, so the story resurfaces from time to time with trials, anniversaries and so on, and people want to know, so they come here.  Is this really so hard to fathom? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Article update
Can someone edit the article to add this newest newes article about the guy, Aydin Coban? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amanda-todd-coban-extradition-1.3655619 and   http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/28/aydin-coban-extradition_n_10713834.html

And here is one about how his lawyer quit because of not getting enough time to prepare: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/03/dutch-court-recants-refusal-to-delay-trial-of-accused-in-amanda-todd-case_n_9823264.html

His extradition to Canada has been authorized by a Dutch court, but only after he finishes his trial their first. I honestly do not see what he big deal is here. You can barely even see a nipple in that photo and you certainly cannot tell that it is her nipple and not some other random person's nipple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.172.138 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Using a Youtube Screenshot
As the lead picture is absurd. The event is her killing herself, not making a video. The article is not "the youtube video of amanda todd" so arguing that the picture shows it is about an event doesn't make sense. It's a disturbing picture, if nothing else, and should be shown lower in the article by the text. Revert my edits, sure, but it doesn't make sense. El cid, el campeador (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The video played a central role in the suicide. It's a disturbing picture – Wikipedia is not censored. Still, I think it might be better to switch the two pictures, with the Facebook photo in the infobox and the screen grab in the Facebook photo's current position. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suicide of Amanda Todd. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419101916/http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2614034 to http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2614034

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017
In the Reaction section of the article, it could be noted that Paul O'Neill, composer and producer of Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Savatage, wrote a song inspired by the events of Todd's suicide and released it in his 2015 Trans-Siberian Orchestra album "Letters from the Labyrinth" titled "Not The Same". The source is an interview with O'Neill by an avid fan of the band.

O'Neill: I wrote "Not the Same" because the fact that Amanda Todd had moved three times and kids had watched her get beat up and nobody moved. It's amazing how bullying has gotten so out of control. All these songs have a purpose and as we've discussed before, Brad, the arts have an unbelievable power. I hate bullying. There is no need for it. The guy who bullied Amanda Todd had a mental illness, but the fact that fifty kids could stand around and watch as they see this girl who they know is hurting and see kids beat her into a pulp and leave her in a ditch. And no one stood up for her and no one went back for her blows my mind. Nbrown317 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. The interview is hosted on social media. That's a bit of a problem. The bigger issue is the fact that, since it wasn't conducted by a working journalist, there was probably no professional editorial oversight. (And since you correctly called Brad Parmenter "an avid fan of the band," he'd be biased although that probably wouldn't be a big deal since we'd emphasize O'Neill's words.) See our policy on reliable sourcing because I wouldn't be surprised if there were a media outlet that wrote about this. These concerns would have probably been easier to address had the song been a hit but from what I can tell, it wasn't released as a single.  City O f  Silver  05:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed cause of death
I'm not editing it because I'm STILL not sure, but it's a well-known fact her cause of death was never revealed.-K-popguardian (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
I would like to add category "Canada-Netherlands relations" due to the charges of Child Pornography in the Netherlands 50.34.116.109 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Done by someone else, and by me.  There's nothing in the article discussing discussing relations between the two countries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
PLEASE MOVE THIS SECTION -- "Mainstream media Michelle Dean of The New Yorker compared Todd's death to the suicide of Tyler Clementi, an LGBT student at Rutgers University who jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge after his roommate encouraged friends to watch a live stream of Clementi kissing another man. In an early piece questioning the assumptions of perpetrators of nonconsensual pornography, she quotes Mary Anne Franks: Women have become, as Franks put it, "unwilling avatars", unable to control their own images online, and then told to put up with it for the sake of "freedom", for the good of the community. And then they are incorrectly told, even if the public is behind them, that they have no remedies in the law. They are shouted down by people with a view of freedom of speech more literal than that held by any judge. and concludes:[54] ...[But] whatever Amanda Todd might have been thinking, whatever else might be true, she did get one thing out of this: Amanda Todd did manage to, just once, tell her own story. She got to drown out the version of her that strangers had put out on the Web. It's a small comfort. But it was perhaps the only one she had left."

TO ITS PROPER PAGE ON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi AS IT IS A COMPARISON TO AND NOT OF THIS PERSON IT IS INCORRECTLY INCLUDED IN THIS PAGE (AMANDA TODD) SubsectionMergingBot (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source discusses Amanda Todd, and although there is a comparison to the other case it is relevant to this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)