Talk:Suicide of Audrie Pott

Items which are alleged have been stated as fact.
Allegations must remain allegations until proven. I am in process of ensuring that they are stated as allegations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While I accept that using words such as 'alleged' make the text unwieldy, I believe I have now completed the task of (re)introducing the word and sense. Once the allegations are proven that may change provided there are correct citations to show the proof. Usually in such cases a court of law is the place that grants proof by convicting someone of a crime. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It made sense to have these listed as allegations in 2013, but the three boys pled guilty and served time since then. It's not accurate to keep these listed as allegations. User:TygerBright3 (talk) 04:25, 02 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just edited the signature of TygerBright to remove the attempt at impersonating me. Fiddle   Faddle  07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies, wasn't trying to impersonate you; still learning how this all works - honest mistake. User:TygerBright3 (talk) 15:49, 04 April 2015 (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 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

New Laws under Consideration
The statement that "New laws are being considered after these events" seems be directly lifted out of the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons article and does not source anything supporting the same assertion in regards to the United States or events following Audrie Pott's suicide. Also see the [|other concerns under Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons] put forward about the accuracy of this statement. 67.213.81.212 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This may seem perplexing to you, but Wikipedia is less concerned with truth than with matters recorded in what are termed reliable sources. In due time, when your statement is proven in such sources to be correct, then this aspect of the article will likely be edited. If it is not then it remains that it was stated at the time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Names
Both registered and unregistered editors have repeatedly added the names of the three then-juveniles, which do not appear in the cited reliable sources. This is against Wikipedia's policy on living people and those edits have been removed from the visible history. I've placed hidden notes at two places in the article in case anyone else tries in good faith to re-add the names. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference 4 has now become a dead link

Reference 9 as it is used in the article seems to suggest that it will provide insight into the identity of the three individuals who committed the crime however it makes no reference of them. As this is now public knowledge, thanks to the very law named after the victim, does this not constitute the ability to add the names of the offenders in the article itself? Is that not in compliance with wikipedia as this is now public fact and not biased opinion or vandalism? This is just an honest inquiry not intended to be an attack on you or wikipedia regulations. Thanks! Axa181 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)