Talk:Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons/Archive 1

Comparison with Delhi rape incident
In comparison with the 2012 Delhi gang rape case hasn't this case seen US politicians fishing in troubled waters? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Canadian politicians, not U.S. politicians. This happened in Canada. Ss6j81avz (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * YK, please confine use of the talk page to discussing improvements to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder Fiddle Faddle, and Ss6j81avz, I know what I was talking about, US politicians fishing in Canadian troubled waters just as they did in Indian troubled waters. It is a small world, I just wanted someone more more informed to contribute all aspects of the incident. (Fiddle Faddle that is discussing improvements to the article.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is. If it proves to be as you state then I think there are more important items to work upon and to discuss first. It feels to me as if a political point is being made out of the unfortunate young lady;s experiences and death. In the wider world it may be the case, but WIkipedia's article talk pages are not the place, as we all know. At least adjourn this discussion until other and far more useful aspects of the article are complete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand a lot of what you've written except the adjourn part which I'm happy to do. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful. I think expanding my message here would be counter-productive, but I am happy to continue on your or my talk pages if you wish. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reports regarding Anonymous
--Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * anonymous 1st statement
 * anonymous 2nd statement


 * Statements by or about the group known as Anonymous are not grist to the mill unless and until they have been reported in reliable sources. We need to exercise care from the Wikipedia perspective, however attractive such statements may appear, to handle information attributed to them in the same manner that we handle information attributed to others. The cornerstone is verifiability. So, while these links are interesting they are not useful in the creation of this article. Since they are not useful there is no need to bring them here, to the article talk page, because they can add nothing to the article, nor to the discussion about the article. Once reliable sources report on these statements then those sources may be used to cite such statements if they are deemed to add value to the article itself. Until that point all that exists is speculation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reporting of Anonymous needs to be flat. I have taken the material dded to the article earlier and flattened it. IT shodul be noted that the existence of Anonymous itself is not a provable item.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 24.91.50.90 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Buzzfeed
I'm not entirely sure that Buzzfeed passes scrutiny as WP:RS and would appreciate thoughts. It seems to be a sensationalist news aggregation and commentary site rather than a reliable media source. It seems to me that it can be replaced easily with one of the other current sources and that such replacement would be to the article's benefit, the more so since Buzzfeed appears to simple rehash other sources in a tabloid manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, Buzzfeed is not remotely an RS - it simply recycles other organisations' content. There are plenty of better sources that could and should be used instead, feel free to replace it. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Huffington Post citation is an adequate replacement, certainly for the present. Buzzfeed has been replaced. Thank you for your thoughts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a biography
Details like date of birth are not necessarily relevant, nor is infobox person. There is a temptation with articles about suicides to stray into elements of biography. Its understandable, but must not happen. The young lady herself was not notable (except to those who surrounded her), save for her suicide and the circumstances leading to her suicide. It is the suicide that is the notable subject of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fiddle Faddle. I think we should be discussing relevant information like the suicide. I propose that we should remove the infobox or the date of birth, which is irrelevant to the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the infobox I think must stay out. The date of birth, provided it is cited properly, has a relevance to the suicide since it demonstrates her youth. But we must take care not to allow the article to become a biography by including it, and also not to become a memorial by in some manner memorialising the young lady. And we should, in all our dealings with this article, be aware that the young lady's family will see it and also this talk page. This is a difficult path to walk because our role is to create an encyclopaedia, not to be unduly sensitive to the needs of those who loved the victim, but I believe that our acts are important and the manner in which we conduct ourselves is important. Those surrounding the young lady should not feel in the least demeaned by our creation of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. I was only trying to help, but as a user who has been involved with Wikipedia for over 6 years with over 49,000 edits, 12 featured articles and over 10 good articles, I understand all of the policies and guidelines quite clearly and I have built up a reputation for being fair and honest. We must be careful not to out anyone. This article is a particuarly sensitive one. Her family must also be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. Outings are never acceptable on Wikipedia. I guess I made a mistake in one of my comments. Sorry! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not being critical of you. I can see with hindsight how it might have been read, though. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are absolutely no hard feelings. It always helps when an uninvolved user gives their 2 cents to the discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Some specific questions
Why use the term, "alleged rape"/ The woman was obviously raped. Only someone with an agenda would pretend there is a question of whether or not she was raped. Even though the perpetrators managed to escape being charged and convicted for the rape, and those individuals can not can not be publicly identified as the rapists, rapists, it is inaccurate and dishonest to represent that the crime itself is in question. As an analogy, on 9/11, we did not say "an alleged terrorist attack". It was clearly known there was a terrorist attack even before any terrorist was charged and/or convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.240.106 (talk • contribs) I'm attempting to recover my username, so IP it is until I figure that out. I had a couple questions. Generally, at least for the last six or seven years, I've only edited articles to correct blatant and bothersome spelling errors. I, for personal reasons, identify strongly with this particular subject and am on the fence as to whether or not I want to devote time to contributing to Wikipedia. I already spend time on what I call "Wiki rants", when I click on a search results, find an article and find myself with a couple dozen tabs opened and several hours later I've gone from a search for what size soccer shin guards my daughter needs to somehow reading about eucalyptus trees.

Feel free to ignore or respond. As text is harder to interpret than spoken word, I'll try to define my intention/inflection. I genuinely am curious about the following and am not trying to sound whiny or shrewish or argumentative in anyway.

One, the attempt I'd made to link to her dads blog post about her death in the "reaction to events" section. I understand why a blog isn't considered to be a source for news, but wouldn't it still be valid to include in that section as a verifiable reaction to the event by her father? Would the "external links" section have been more appropriate for the fathers blog post regarding her suicide?


 * Neither at the moment, I'm afraid. When the blog is reported in reliable sources then it may be referred to, and cited in those sources. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the fact that the fathers blog wasn't reported in news articles while the mothers FB page was, that was the difference between referring/linking to it? I'd only found the blog due a link in a news article.....gah, I'm having difficulty putting my thoughts together.  If I'd cited the news article when linking to the blog, would that have been appropriate?  It seems, IMHO, to be completely relevant as both a "reaction to events" and "external link".

Two, the usage of "reportedly" and "allegedly" - I'd swapped them, as "alleged" is the standard verbiage used when referring to criminal offenses which the perpetrators have yet to be convicted of, and "reportedly" fits better as a description, if any is needed at all, for the fact that she went to the house that night. As countless articles and statements have made clear, no one is denying she was in the home that night, the boys took pictures of her in the home, admitted to police to have had sex with her that night in the home, so I don't see how "alleged" is appropriate there. Basically, why was it reversed, just because I'm curious.


 * Where an incident is alleged, or perpetrators are alleged, the word alleged in its variations should be used. Where something is simply reported in media and we report those reports, then reported or its variations expresses the fact that something has been reported. It is the fact of the allegations and the fact of the reports that Wikipedia records, not the allegations or the content of the reports. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that one I really can't wrap my mind around. I guess a simpler question to ask is, do Wiki articles follow basic journalism rules, or are they not at all the same?


 * It is you, who is exhibiting an agenda (co-opted of course by pro(re)gressive outlets such as huffpost and buzzfeed). Rehtaeh was fine until the pictures were distributed. She was no more raped than the boys in the room with her, who were just as drunk. Take a step back. Nothing about the facts we know suggests she was raped, other than the drink. Although the story has a lot more impact when you say stuff like gang-rape, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.57.114.226 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd edited the name of "Audrey Potts" to the correct spelling "Audrie Pott" - did I need to cite the source for said correction? I'm not sure why that wasn't allowable.


 * I imagine that simply fell by the wayside when other items were reverted. The original typing error was my fault and I have corrected it. Thank you for drawing our attention to it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the only type of edit I've done for many years, perhaps I should stick to such edits.

Also, her family disconnected life support not only because she was in a coma, but because the coma had led to brain death and her organs were donated, is that irrelevant, I'd tried to cite a source and include it, and that too was removed. Her suicide led to organ donation which saved four other lives and her eyes were transplanted into a fifth person. ~shrugs~ I understand avoiding turning it into a biography, but the organ donation and brain death seem relevant to her suicide.


 * I'm afraid not. Her organs were donated after her death. The donation was assuredly a generous act, but has relevance only to the fact that her body was in a suitable condition for donation, not to the act of and the circumstances surrounding her suicide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Multiple articles point to the fact that the time left to donate was ticking away and that organ donation played a key role in when they removed life support. I've seen reference to her brain death being declared right before they 'pulled the plug'.  I do think there's a big difference between pulling plug on someone 'merely' comatose versus someone who's been declared brain dead.  People awaken from comas all the time, so to say she was in a coma and they pulled the plug misrepresents the circumstances, leaving out a key detail.

The method of her suicide, hanging, would seem relevant to include as well.


 * If it is reported in cited and reliable sources then it is. If not then it is not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't recall any article that doesn't mention that she'd locked herself in the bathroom & hung herself.

If you've spent time reading this, thanks, I like to learn and appreciate any information that helps me more competently navigate and/or contribute to Wiki.

96.44.161.200 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)ArielCNC {still waiting on the password reset email}


 * I have done my best to answer your questions individually above. I hope this clarifies things somewhat for you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to address my questions, it's appreciated.


 * Many of the points raised by ArielCNC are relevant, including "organ donation" which is notable, the father's blog which is also notable as long as we have no reason to suspect that it is a hoax, however it can be only as good as using the Microsoft website as a source for an article on Microsoft, we can use it for neutral data and not for exceptional claims. Coming back to "organ donation" does IP suggest that organs were donated while she was still on life support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Organ donation is only notable insofar as any recently dead body is suitable for organ donation. The request is usually made while on life support. But the donation of organs from her body is not a factor in her suicide, nor surrounding her suicide. It is a normal part of death. Her father's blog, while harrowing and deeply personal, is just that, harrowing and deeply personal. It is an absolute primary source. It is not a reliable source despite it being about his own daughter. It is not the type of source entertained here. I feel you need more familiarity with basic Wikipedia policies, so please read WP:RS with care. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that un-familiarity is assumed at the drop of a hat. Also since the father's statement is now carried by a third party source, the whole debate is now redundant. We may now carry the parents' views as are relevant to the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My personal understanding, from multiple sources, so I wouldn't necessarily include all information as fact, is this: Rehtaeh locked herself in the bathroom and hung herself, by the time her mother was able to break in, it was too late, however emergency services and the hospital were able to revive her body and her brain death was a gradual process. Family members visited with her and discussed donation and when it was said to be nearing the mark that donation would no longer be an option, after her parents had already accepted that they were going to proceed with the disconnection, she "let go" and, factual or fanciful, her family viewed the event as her approval/acceptance of their choice.   So, the short answer is, I believe they'd agreed to terminate life support prior to brain death and then brain death occurred as they prepared to actually pull the plug.  Therefore, she hung herself, was in a coma on life support, brain death happened, and my very limited knowledge would lead me to believe that they would not, in fact, have pulled the plug at that point, as they had a limited window to harvest her organs and it's preferred to harvest organs from live bodies rather than corpses.
 * Does it mean that the family decided that they would rather prolong the decision to take the girl off life support, regardless of whether her organs could be available for donation, and that donation was only possible because she died naturally? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2013 (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)

Why is there an article dedicated to one girls suicide? Thousands of people commit suicide every year. What is so unique about this one? A girl has sex with multiple boys, someone films it, she is harassed at school, and kills herself. We have heard it all before.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "a girl has sex with multiple boys" - when said girl is 15 and under the influence of so much alcohol that she's vomiting during the sexual acts being performed, those acts are Rape.

Do we have a source or citation for the claim that she was vomiting during the sex act? (I mean, apart from her father's blog post, in which he writes that he heard that somebody said that the boys involved had said this to somebody?) I'm not disputing it. I'm simply asking about the evidence that supports the claim. 24.244.95.87 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons → Death of Rehtaeh Parsons – She only had an attempted suicide, which she survived. Her actual death was caused by her family choosing to remove her from life support. I'm hesitant to suggest "murder of Rehtaeh Parsons" as an alt title but "death" would be more neutral. Ranze (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Absolutely, categorically not. It should be abundantly clear why not. It should also be abundantly clear that your nomination rationale is one of the most deeply offensive things her family could see. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia titles are decided by Wikipedia policy and not how offensive or otherwise they come across. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the nomination more carefully. The nominator is accusing those who authorised turning of the life support systems of murder in their wording. That is the deeply offensive element. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you mean. Nevertheless we should be calling it OR and not offensive. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Offensive Rubbish. I should have thought of that before. We do not shy away from calling something offensive when it is offensive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a terribly misguided proposal which could be needlessly hurtful to innocent parties who happen to see it. I'd hope it would either be reconsidered by the nominator and withdrawn or else subject to a WP:SNOW close and hatted very soon. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No, and please hat this discussion when finished.  Suppose that a person ("Jane Doe") has a legally valid living will that says she should be taken off life support in such-and-such conditions, and suppose they are *shot* by a murderer, and they are taken off life support as per their directive.  Would we change "Murder of Jane Doe" to "Death of Jane Doe" because it wasn't the murderer's "fault" somehow, that they only attempted murder?  No, of course not.  Now take the same situation but no living will signed, but a clear line of authority exists to someone with power of attorney - say a parent or guardian for a minor, and they make the same choice.  Still clearly it's the person who shot Jane Doe who's the murderer, not the parent or guardian exercising a perfectly legal option.  Now change the gunshot to an attempted suicide that lands the person in the same hospital in the same condition.  Again, it's the person themself who instigated the death - hence a suicide.  It doesn't matter if they also signed a living will in advance or if the parent / guardian makes the same choice. SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SnowFire and restore the categories that were absurdly removed. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article should be deleted. Or consolidated into a new article for "teen suicides"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have left a message at User_talk:203.184.41.226 for you to assist you with making this nomination. I disagree with you, but acknowledge your right to be heard. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Laws Under Consideration
The statement that "New laws are being considered after these events" seems to be factually inaccurate or poorly-sourced since the only sources provided quote a provincial justice minister and the Canadian provinces have no jurisdiction to create laws regarding criminal subject matters. Looks like the statement's contents have been taken as truth rather than as a part of a statement whose truth is not yet verifiable. 67.213.81.212 (talk) 03:41, 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) 07:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Forename
I have removed a reasonable speculation that her forename is the reverse spelling of Heather, after searching the Toronto Star for the alleged citation and finding no such article. Searches on the article title, stated as "Death by a thousand clicks" have revealed nothing, nor has a search on the byline. A number of articles about the young lady exist there, grouped under her name Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Source. It is worded wierd but hints that her mother chose the name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A consideration is whether it has real relevance for an article such as this. I am neutral on it, simply feeling that this is not a biography and care must be taken not to make it appear to be one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. When in doubt, leave it out. I am also wondering if we should change the picture to the one of her holding the puppy. The media and memorial seem to use that one so it may be the one preferred by the family. I will ask the uploader in case they have any insight.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and statements originating with family members
This case is tragic and easily raises emotional responses. I appreciate that the article attempts to maintain words like "alleged" in certain areas, but the overall point of view given seems to be the point of view of the victim's parents. It is natural, when a suicide occurs, for people close to the victim to want to assign blame on others (they are dealing with a crippling amount of feelings of guilt). Unpopular though it may be to say this, I feel like this article needs to be a lot more clear in indicating which elements are accusations of the victim's parents and the actual findings of law-enforcement officials. Here's an example of the subtle way in which a neutral point of view is being lost: the article currently states, "The police ... decided the photo was not criminal in spite of Parsons being a minor." However, if you check the citation, the source CBC article actually states, "The family said they were told the photographs were not a criminal issue even though Rehtaeh was underage" (emphasis mine). Do you see the difference? I'm not saying they are lying, just that statements originating solely from the family must be considered biased and non-neutral, and thus this article should make it more clear which statements originated from family members, and which statements came directly from the investigators or other sources. (It's worth noting that the CBC article is careful about this, and also makes it clear by appending ", says mom" to the very title of the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.98.192 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Legit point, I've adjusted that phrase. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally understandable. The thing with areas like this is that there is no urgency to flatten to a neutral point of view. It can be done quietly and peacefully and in a way not to cause further distress to the family and others close to them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

date of birth
My edit adding birth date was reverted because the page does not serve as a biography. As multiple other articles focusing on youth suicide feature a birth date, I'd like to ask why this one is different Beerest355 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see any harm in the article talking more about Rehtaeh Parsons, when referenced. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel wider consensus is required first. Other articles are not a precedent on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sans Audrie Pott, every other article in Category:Bullycide has a birth date. It would appear to me that this is a general consensus. --Beerest355 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Each article must stand independently. Wikipedia does not use one article as a precedent for another. If your proposal has merit other editors will back it, if not, then not. Either is fine. In the meantime Wikipedia will not burn down, there is no urgency. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose addition of date of birth, even if well referenced. The article is about the event, not the person, despite her being very much part of the event. Her age is relevant to the article and stated in it, but her precise date of birth, while interesting as a human detail, does not add to our understanding of the event of her suicide, nor to the events that surrounded that event. It is not that there is no harm in adding it, it is that there is no value in adding it. Human feeling means that people are inclined to add biographical details to articles about events. THat is understandable. But there is a danger of creating ether a biography, which the young lady cannot have here because she lacks the notability in WIkipedia terms, or a memorial, which is an item deprecated by Wikipedia and not included. These are the reasons why I reverted the addition of the cited date of birth. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth revisited, and sourcing
Although I agree with the general thrust of what Fiddle Faddle said above, I'm not especially bothered by the idea of the article's providing a date of birth. I suppose there is a slippery slope that could lead to a biography, but I don't think this one detail is likely to precipitate such a slide. I do feel strongly that all information provided in the article—including date of birth, if we're going to include it—must be reliably sourced. A new editor, Tieff, is edit warring to include a d.o.b. sourced to findagrave.com, a site that: I have left a message on Tieff's talk page in the hope of engaging him or her in a discussion. So far, there has been no response. I hope to see a response here soon. (Note: a similar situation is occurring at Suicide of Audrie Pott.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * fails WP:RS because it contains user-generated content with minimal editorial oversight,
 * has been discussed repeatedly at the reliable sources noticeboard12345 with no consensus that it's usable as a RS, and
 * even if it were reliable and there were consensus for its use, would pose certain ethical questions that have nothing to do with reliability.

I have opened a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not now, nor has it ever been a reliable source. Further, per WP:SUICIDES, this article is not a biography. Her date of birth is obviously of interest to her family and her friends, but they know it, appreciated her many virtues, and it had relevance to them. For the general Wikipedia reader it is interesting, but inessential. There is sufficient information in the article to show the young lady;s age in broad terms. The precise date is not required, the more so since it has not been substantiated. Fiddle   Faddle  06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the ages that evening were 17, 16, 16, 15 and finally, 14...does that mean she assaulted some of those underaged boys, as well ??? Sad story, indeed - -however, most of what you have heard and/or read is not quite true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.251.163 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What kind of law
What kind of law does not protect pictures of minors - whether they be proven or unproven rapes? Actually, in the US it would be rape automatically if she were a minor. Very sad story. Don't need the picture. I have it in my mind's eye. Also, "attempted" should be deleted from lead. Since she was legally brain dead, she succeeded in committing suicide. 69.183.55.83 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Canada most certainly does have laws against rape of minors and child pornography- the fact that they weren't enforced in this case is the disturbing part. And anyway, legally brain dead is not the same thing as dead. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same, both legally and medically. The questions was What kind of law? so, yes, there was a law that was not enforced.  That statement was not made as an offense to Canada.  We have had same problem in the US at times with unenforcement.
 * This is totally OT but actually a number of US states have a closeness in age exemption for age of consent laws. As does Canada. The age of the boys isn't given, but since they were apparently her school mates it is unlikely it is greater than the 5 years under the laws in Canada given her age at the time, see Ages of consent in North America so most likely the issue of consent would come in to play. Depending on the ages of the boys, this may also be the case in DC and Indiana, to use two random examples in the US or for that matter to use a less random example Connecticut where I believe the IP is from. Meanwhile if our article is correct, in California depending again on whether the boys were also minors, potentially both her and the boys would be guilty of a misdemeanour if the sex was consensual. The videos are of course a different matter and would be illegal in many places although there is some debate on how to handle the rise of sexting among teens even though this case doesn't seem to fit in to the normal areas of concern. I say this not to defend or debate the police actions (and definitely not the boys involved, whose actions whatever the other facts of the case I find disgusting) in this case, nor to claim that there was consent, but simply to point out this is fairly complicated and sweeping statements not supported by anything don't help matters. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The arrests
That it was poorly worded is not hugely material. Wording can be improved. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion or deletion of the material, but there are citations in two reliable sources, and it seems to me that adding it to the article now in a cited manner is better than it being added uncited as it was initially. I'm 64:40 in favour of inclusion. Fiddle  Faddle  15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We may wish to err on the side of caution. This will be a very busy article once any names are released. It will probably have many IP edits that will need reversion. We aren't in a hurry and we don't want to repeat the same false information fiasco as we, and others, did with the Sago Mine disaster. See:Breaking news sources. For now we should leave it out until there is a public announcement that charges have been laid in relation to our article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It must be left out per WP:BLPCRIME. Releasing the names won't change the policy application.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We may never learn the names from an RS. Since they may have been juveniles at the time of any crimes. We should be quick to remove any names that are not very well sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the names are reliably sourced. BLPCRIME prevents including any material about arrests, charges, etc., until and if there is a conviction.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. BLPCRIME is not absolute though. Should we seek consensus now to leave it out until there is a conviction? We could keep removing it, even claiming 3RR exemption, until consensus is reached. Three of may be enough. If no one chimes in for inclusion then done deal.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are parts of BLPCRIME that require some judgment and therefore may trigger reasonable disagreement. In this instance, I don't believe the policy leaves any wiggle room. I would probably keep out the material in my administrative capacity as a clear policy violation. I don't like to speculate about the future, which is why I use the word "probably". Of course, having a consensus never hurts. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus reached then, I would say. If anyone does want to include it then we should go the route of RfC then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd try WP:BLPN first, but during whatever discussion the material would stay out per WP:BLPREMOVE.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said at the head of this thread, I am pretty neutral about this. However, having read WP:BLPCRIME with care, I do not find that it applies to statements that two persons unknown have been arrested. Such a statement appears to meet the full needs of the policy. Naming those people is a totally different matter and doing so requires a conviction to avoid accusations of libel. Fiddle   Faddle  18:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't use legal terms like "libel" unless they actually apply, which they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am siding with 'not news'. I am happy waiting for a conviction before we even mention arrests. If readers think our article is out of date it wouldn't be the first time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The publication of the name of a person and linking it with the a criminal event in a manner that defames them is likely to be the uttering of a libel if that person is not convicted of the relevant crime. Please do not be over sensitive to legal terms. The entire BLP premise is designed and intended to seek to ensure that Wikipedia does not ever become a defendant in a libel case. It is wise to understand with precision why naming a person in such a context is a bad thing to do, not only to seek to protect Wikipedia, but to protect one's self, should one be the party who names a person incorrectly. Wikipedia is not a sanitised environment which protects individual editors, but we have policies to seek to do so.
 * Might we return to the matter at hand? Fiddle   Faddle  18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're flat out wrong about the libel. Saying someone is arrested is not libel if they were arrested. Saying someone is guilty might be libel. We're not protecting Wikimedia from lawsuits. We are protecting living people. What is the "matter at hand"? You still want to include the material? What on earth for?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you intend to misunderstand me. I said "As I said at the head of this thread, I am pretty neutral about this." As for the rest, perhaps I should have used much shorter sentences and words. I am, after all, a natural blond. Please try not to have a fight where no scope for one exists. Fiddle   Faddle  19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I may misunderstand you, but I certainly don't "intend" to do so. You said you were 60-40 in favor of inclusion. I wouldn't call that neutral. But if you don't care about whether it's included, then I still don't know what the "matter at hand" is. Shorter sentences and (better) words are a good idea. As long as we're ribbing each other, I could have lived without scope. And I reserve the right to fight with both nautral and unnatural blonds. It's so hard to know these days. I know a fellow who was born blond, and although his hair became brown by the time he was an adult and gray by the time he was a much older adult, he still clinged to blond. Enough rambling. Back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 60:40 is definitely biased in one direction, but not enough to care about, hence 'pretty neutral'. We natural blonds can be clingy. I am going blond for the second time after reaching 'mouse' at some stage. Fiddle   Faddle  20:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! So you're neither natural nor neutral. I can never trust you again. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WIth the advancing years that which was blond first darkens and then lightens. I will not prove the matching of the collar and cuffs, though. Returning to the article, the fact that a couple of people have been arrested, that is 60:40 worth adding, but as a passing mention. Their names, even if released in media seem to be unimportant. What seems to me to be material to the article is the fact that they have been arrested at all. Such things 'feel' rare in bullycides. It is not news, not exactly, but it is a notable event, linked to the original circumstances surrounding the young lady's death. BLP both protects Wikipedia a(and its editors) and those named. It is, in general, a good policy, but perhaps some of its wording needs enhancing for clarity. Fiddle   Faddle  20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia policies had clarity (or is that Clairolity?), we wouldn't have the fun of fighting. As for the substance, I have nothing new to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of getting into a discussion about WP:BLP, the overzealous application of which is one of my pet peeves, I'd like to weigh in briefly. I don't think there's anything in the recent history that is even close to a violation of that policy, although saying that arrests have occurred may not be appropriate for other reasons (for instance, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site for breaking news). If the name of someone who had been arrested were added, at this point that would be a WP:BLP violation, although that could change if the name were widely reported by mainstream sources. That has happened before, infrequently. Better safe than sorry at this stage, no doubt. Incidentally, FF initially said he was 64-40 in favor of inclusion, to which I can only say that I'd really like to see that on a pie chart. Blonds may have more fun, but it never occurred to me that their pies runneth over. Rivertorch (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should introduce yourself to User:Carolmooredc who believes the underzealous application of BLP policy will be the death of Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The best pies overflow :) Fiddle   Faddle  23:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

New editor's request to make changes
some of the statements listed and written about this particular article are not quite correct. she ATTEMPTED suicide...she was ALLEDGEDLY assaulted...one of her partners that evening was 14 years old at the time...there are many, many more but I've been told to not edit the article, anymore. I'm not trying to be mean or vandalize this website, but there is a LOT of inaccurate or missing information. My apologies to the website guru, Fiddle Faddle ! ((Please refer to the wording contained in BACKGROUND and INVESTIGATION paragraphs, to see the UN-clarity I am referring to.)) I am new to this web site..please forgive my ignorance to any rules broken.


 * I;ve attempted to explain matters to this new editor on their own talk page. Guru? Not I. I have just reverted these edits to the status quo pending a discussion. I am hoping our new anonymous friend will contribute here and gibve us a rationale for the proposed changes. I've moved this here to the correct place onthe page. Fiddle   Faddle  15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you've attempted to sign your comment as "Dad"- what is your relationship to the case, anyway? Ribbet32 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.251.163 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I'd say it's a major conflict of interest for you to be editing the article, and suggest you move on. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool - -thanks for your input Ribbet but because this version of the story is so way off of the truth, I am trying to have some facts and proper wording included. It is the internet, after all and it probably will never be 100% but there are quite a few things here that are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.251.163 (talk • contribs)

Tattoo on image likely Photoshopped in
As much as I sympathize with this girl, and think her image is rad, that tattoo there is likely Photoshopped onto the image. The characters translate into "Strength and courage" in Mandarin. She likely never had that tattoo herself. 1) The edges of the characters are too straight to really have been on a real, three-dimensional body and 2) aren't properly foreshortened. 3) Also, if you zoom in to the image there are copy and paste artifacts around the characters. This is Wikipedia, not a memorial page. thanks--38.105.132.130 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per your request on my talk page, I've looked at the image, and I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a determination as to whether the tattoo was in the original photo.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked around, and I found that tattoos are visible on a couple of the images on the compilation video made by the family and posted on the Huffington Post. The tattoos could have been temporary tattoos from the dollar store, or drawn on with a felt pen. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This video from above seems to have a "tattoo" with similar (probably the same) characters at 2:54, but it also has a bird which should be visible so unless everything else came off which is possible but probably unlikely it's apparently not the same "tattoo". I'm not sure the position is quite the same either. I admit the tattoo does look a little odd in this photo (and I think you're right, if it's real it's probably either a temporary tattoo or drawn on), but it doesn't seem a big deal to me, particularly since the on one 2:54 looks real (by which I mean it was on her skin, not added later, whatever it was) so it's not like she never had something like that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a henna tattoo. I have quite a few tats, even colorless ones and no tattoo heals like that. Second Skin (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Libel
It is highly likely this girl was not raped. If people are going to libel fine young men who have done nothing wrong, they should proceed very, very carefully. If there is libel involved, the boys should sue for everything they have less a dollar. If she decided to perform oral sex on someone, that is not rape. That is oral copulation. If she was asked to bare her breasts and did, that is not pornography. Clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The "fine young men" aren't named by the article and it doesn't take a stance on whether there was a rape. Also, if they took a sexualized nude photo of a minor and distributed it, it is child pornography, regardless of whether taking the photo in the first place was consensual. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only people saying such libelous accusations are the dead girl's mother on an Internet site of dubious value. See what you even said? "IF THEY TOOK..." It is a violation of NPOV and BLP to put uncited accusations from Internet news sources of questionable reliability and low value in an article. Unless Wikipedia wants to be sued for libel, it best tread very carefully. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Dude... the photograph is of her being penetrated from behind while she vomits, drunk, out a window, with her top on but naked from the waist down. To paraphrase Anonymous: 15 year old girls who are so drunk they are vomiting out a window are not capable of consenting to intercourse.

In any event, now that there's been a guilty plea to this, any claim that its "libel" should be gone. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything about a guilty plea to rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.58.23 (talk • contribs)
 * You appear to be correct but I'm not sure this discussion is helping anything. Djcheburashka may have been a little unclear, but I presume they were referring to the guilty plea on the photo since 66.67.32.161 said "There is no valid evidence that has been presented that such an image even exists, let alone who took it" but the guilty plea seems to establish that both of these. Also as Ribbet32 has said, the article doesn't say anyone was a rapist or anything similar. It simply reports the reliably sourced accusations and commentary surrounding the case. It appears to me to be WP:BLP compliant. If anyone has any specific complaints about the article, they should highlight the specific parts and explain why. Blanket commentary on libel or claims of questionable internet sites are unhelpful. As far as possible, people should refrain from personal commentary (as opposed to discussion on how to improve this article) on anyone involved in this case for BLP and related reasons as they always should. This includes the various people accused, the girl who took her own life (even if she's not technically covered by BLP), her parents and friends (who are) etc. I would note part of 66.67.32.161's commentary seems to be as bad BLP wise as the problem they are complaining about. I could delete it, but if I wanted to be strict on BLP there's probably much more on this talk page I should delete, so I'll just let it be but remind people to avoid such commentary. (While I did leave some OT commentary above, I felt it might be helpful to understand the case and attempted to as far as I felt possible, to refrain from commentary about the specifics of this while still explaining my point.) Nil Einne (talk)

The court case
Two boys both 18 were charged with Child Pornography. National Post article here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soelas (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One of them has now pled guilty. I'll update the article. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite what's written here, it's not all unusual for this boys record to be kept on file for five years. In fact it's the norm: www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/yj-jj/ycja-lsjpa/sheets-feuillets/recor-dossi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.63.248 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The eleventh line under the "Investigation" heading in the article needs to be amended. There is no such thing as a " national sex offender DNA database" in Canada. The National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) and the National DNA Databank are two different data banks, neither of which is linked to the other. The first is authorized by Canada's Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), while the second is authorized by the DNA Identification Act. If one of the offenders charged in this matter received a Conditional Discharge as their sentence, this does not qualify as a "conviction" in Canadian law. Absolute Discharges and Conditional Discharges are not considered "convictions" and no criminal record results. To be ordered by the court to register for the NSOR, a sex offender must be "convicted" (sec. 4(1)(a) SOIRA), and the only provisions for placing an offender on the NSOR who receives an Absolute or Conditional Discharge is when they've been found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (sec. 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(b.1) SOIRA), which was not the case here. I note that another online news source reported that he was ordered to provide DNA, while there was no mention of the NSOR whatsoever. In this Wiki article, however, someone has linked the errant words to the Wiki article about the NSOR, thereby giving the impression that the accused was ordered to register for same. Canuck55 (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything about this in the sources listed (the second said "a DNA database") so per BLP I nuked it. Please, whoever adds material like that, put inline sources for everything said close at hand, or else we have to throw it out. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy preventing discussion of the trial and guilty pleas?
I'm wondering why this stuff isn't in here, we aren't bound by Canada's gag order. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/09/29/rehtaeh_parsons_canadian_journalists_can_t_print_her_name_as_a_suspect_pleads.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs)
 * I can only guess it might have had something to do with a difficulty obtaining reliable, verifiable information about the case. Any official court records in the case were, and still remain, sealed.  Journalists who had actually been present in the courtroom were presumably filing their reports with local media outlets, which would have been required to hide Rehtaeh's name.  I guarantee you, everybody in Nova Scotia was perfectly aware of who the newspapers were talking about when they published reports about "a high-profile case of child pornography".  But because the articles were not able to name the victim directly, any conclusions to be drawn from those articles required the reader to make certain unstated assumptions.  Most published reports from outside the jurisdiction likely cited the reports published inside the jurisdiction, and made just such assumptions to connect the case back to Rehtaeh.  Unstated assumptions yield poor verifiability.  The whole point, of course, is moot now that first-hand news reports are permitted to report her name without fear of retribution.24.222.2.222 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw some edits in the history claiming that Wikipedia should follow the court orders, but that's bunk. We're with the American press here --- with the caveat that Canadian editors are at their own risk.  As there is therefore a one-sided problem here, that Canadian editors are allowed by their government to edit with one POV but not another, it would be good for non-Canadians to help make sure that what is known so far stays in. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Media coverage regarding this Wikipedia article
The CBC radio program As It Happens interviewed Glen Canning on 2015-02-09; he said that edits to this Wikipedia article came from an IP address associated with Department of National Defence (Canada): Mathew5000 (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As It Happens story
 * audio (streaming, 7 minutes)
 * podcast (MP3 format, 73 minutes)
 * Since this has become an item of both national and international attention, can we identify here which edits are suspect and from what editor or IP? It strikes me that the purpose of this article is not to debate the particulars of what happened to her, but the wider implications for society. Some sensitivity to the feelings of the family would also be appropriate. What actions have been taken against suspect editors? Instances like this severely damage WP's credibility --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 131.137.245.207 (talk) is registered to the Department of National Defence, and appears to have had a troubled history here at WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * whois 131.137.1.1
 * Department of National Defence DRE-LAN3 (NET-131-137-0-0-1) 131.137.0.0 - 131.137.255.255
 * Department of National Defence DRE-LAN2 (NET-131-134-0-0-1) 131.134.0.0 - 131.141.255.255
 * 189.188.6.25 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) badenk.


 * The article history is available for viewing, as usual. If you want to identify "those" edits for the sake of knowing them for yourself, I understand the impulse, but I would prefer we not publicly repeat, or even directly link to, "here are horrible things someone wrote about someone who died". We're doing our best to be sensitive to the family - notice that the article is now long-term semi-protected - but the way to do that is by keeping the article and talk page clean of poor/unsourced/unduly insulting information (and links to the same, imho), not by rehashing what the bad content was so we can all take a look. Responsibility for investigating the information behind the IP(s) in question belongs to, and is apparently already being handled by, the owner of the IP(s) in question (which, incidentally, appear to be have used by multiple people to make constructive edits, as well as a small number to make bad ones, and would not be, again imho, best handled by placing the type of block that would be necessary to keep the bad-faith editor entirely away from editing). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification - I certainly have no wish to see what should never have been posted - just that we are alerted to suspect editors/IPs, and maintain a watching brief for them, and take whatever action is appropriate to curtail their activities. I understand the DND have the IP information and are investigating. I am not sure what other unpleasant sources there are to keep an eye on. As I am sure you know, this whole story has been the subject of much unpleasantness from the start, and one should not be surprised that it has spilled over into our pages. However that unpleasantness is also part of the larger picture of sexualised violence and abuse of the internet. I am not not sure which IPs you are referring to as constructive, but the one I identified above has mainly been problematic, although I cannot speak for every single contribution from that IP over many languages. Incidentally it is not blocked. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , did you really mean to recommend that we leave any investigation into the IP contributor to the Department of National Defence? And how, exactly, would that help us trace, and revert, vandalism they committed in other articles?


 * I think project contributors need to be aware of the actual IP addresses if anonymous contributors are accused of vandalizing the project. In general, we might disagree and think reports are a tempest in a teapot.  A few years ago there were alarming reports that individuals at the Guantanamo Naval Base were editing wikipedia articles about Guantanamo, and Cuba.


 * Well, I checked, and the edits I came across were harmless schoolboy vandalism, not a concerted campaign of disinformation, as had been reported. It was a tempest in a teapot, probably made by Privates, when Sarge was on a lunchbreak.


 * The CBC News Network has been updating this story every hour. Parsons's dad had found that the rogue contributors had made subtle alterations to where the article directly quoted something he told reporters.  The CBC showed the diff in its broadcast, something I have never seen before, and directly circled the before part of the diff, showing the excised passages clearly to viewers.


 * In the quoted material her dad said "...she had not given her consent. That is called rape.", and the anonymous contributor had removed the part I put in bold, so the article appeared to quote dad saying Rehtaeh had give her consent.  Altering a quote like that was vile.


 * Personally, I have no problem if the decision is made to block all anonymous contributors from all blocks of IP addresses used by the DND. I have contributed to other wikis that do not allow IP contributors.  The level of civility is much higher there, and the level of vandalism lower.  The decision to allow anonymous contributors was made out of concern for contributors trapped behind the Great Firewall of China, or reasonable equivalent.  But, the number of freedom loving people, trying to get out the truth, is dwarfed by contributors who abuse anonymity for vandalism, or just so they can't be held responsible for their edits.


 * Freedomlovers behind the Great Firewall(s) should probably be using wikileaks. Encouraging them to contribute details from their personal experience does not comply with WP:NOR, anyhow.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, . I was responding to Michael Goodyear's asking "What actions have been taken against suspect editors?", which I interpreted as "how are we going to find the person doing this and make them stop?" The answer to that is, indeed, that we need to leave it to the ISP, which has already been alerted to this. We have no business trying to identity the real-world identities of people behind IPs - even when the IPs are vandalizing. Instead, we have the ability to report abuse to the WMF and/or ISPs, both of which are more able to do the meatspace end of things. There's nothing stopping us from following the edits of or blocking any destructive IPs here if it's called for, however, and I didn't mean to imply there was. As far as handing the IPs' edits on Wikipedia in general, I spotchecked one of the IPs that had done edits of the type described in the news, and found that it was contributing a mix of good and bad edits, including good edits today. I generally wouldn't block an IP that was also doing good edits if the bad editing was stale (in this case, the latest seems to be a little more than a week ago) because we have no way of knowing if it is still being used by the bad editor(s) as opposed to the good one(s). I'm certainly open to blocking any IP making these edits if it is either currently making these edits (say, within a day or two) or that is solely (or almost solely) contributing these type of edits; if you notice one of those, feel free to drop me a line, or report it to AIV or another admin. The main points I was trying to make in my reply to Michael were that 1) if we react to notably bad edits by repeating them or conspicuously linking to them, we're part of the problem because we're publicizing their content, and 2) that there's nothing in the standard admin repertoire that we would usually do to make the person behind that computer stop making these edits as long as they have access to multiple IPS that are also being used for good editing. If it was really, really bad, and continuous, we could hardblock the IP/range, but I'm hesitant to create that level of collateral damage given that the vandalism is not currently ongoing and we know the range is also being used for good edits. The best we can do for the moment, to my mind, is semiprotection plus playing whac-a-mole with those particular IPs/ranges if bad IP edits pop up elsewhere. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Instances like this severely damage WP's credibility" - that's pretty rich, coming in the same conversation as an anonymous contributor with the handle "fluffernutter." I think you're flattering yourself, and Wikipedia. Put another way, the CBC also reports on celebrity Twitter feeds as if they are hard news.96.51.16.28 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * More coverage, Bazj (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen anything with relevance to this article. Somehow the Canadian DOD figured out someone was using one of their computers to make dubious Wikipedia edits, and they're investigating their own person as a conduct issue. But it could have been any article on Wikipedia about anybody. We should resist the temptation to add anything about this to the article, except in the highly unlikely circumstance the person making the edits had a connection to the case as reported by reliable sources. It might be suitable for some article about Canadian DOD internet policy. Wnt (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bzzzt. There is no "Canadian DOD".  The acronym for the Canadian Department of National Defence is DND, not DoD.  Note the non-American spelling of Defence.  Geo Swan (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More media coverage:

Use of 'rape' and 'rapists'
The article states 'alleged gang rape', 'allegedly raped'. However, it also uses the terms: 'accused rapists' and 'photograph of the rape'. 'accused rapists' is misleading. Though it could imply that it was the public who were accusing them, it could also be read as meaning that there were legal accusations. 'alleged rapists' might be better. 'photograph of the rape' should be changed to 'photograph of the alleged rape'. However, there is another problem to consider here. Is it still valid to refer to rape? Legally, there is no talk of rape. The boys haven't been charged with rape, and legally they have not been accused of rape. The public view is that a rape occurred, but the legal view is that it is impossible to ever know. It is important to be careful here. In theory, the boys could have a case for libel. It is not enough to write as if they are rapists because everyone says so - in the eyes of the law, no rape has been proven. It's not enough to say that the photo is proof, or that her intoxication makes it rape. The Canadian Criminal Code is incredibly lenient when it comes to cases like these. When does an alleged rapist stop being an alleged rapist? Normally, police investigations take place, a person is found guilty or not guilty, and therefore either changes from 'alleged rapist' to 'not a rapist' or 'definite rapist'. If no case has been brought and there is insufficient evidence is it justifiable to still use the term? Philip Rose123 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Philip Rose


 * The perpetrators of this heinous crime have no case to cry libel as no one has dared jeopardise their precious self esteem by actually mentioning them by name here. Furthermore, if the victim is unable to give informed consent (and we are talking about a vomiting, underaged teen here) then yes, it's rape - even if the Criminal Code no longer uses that term anywhere. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:609 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To write 'perpetrators of this heinous crime' is wrong. Wikipedia should concern itself with facts as much as possible. It is not good enough to say that this crime took place if there is no action in Court. Even though everyone may have an opinion that it was a crime, this remains opinion only - not a legal fact. The Canadian Criminal Code is complex when it comes to the area of drugs and drink. If there have been no charges of rape in a Court, if the authorities have decided that there is no case, even though they might be wrong, the perpetrators cannot be legally called rapists. Note that, simply for accuracy, I have only suggested minor changes. Philip Rose123 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Philip Rose

Also both offenders are guilty of either creating or disseminating child pornography by taking a semi-nude photo of Rehtaeh. So I don't think it would be inaccurate to describe them as pornographers because they have essentially admitted it by pleading guilty. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits to this article from government computers
This is what happens when one gets caught defacing this article: http://n:ews.nationalpost.com/2015/02/09/dnd-investigating-after-its-own-staff-edited-rehtaeh-parsons-wikipedia-page-suggesting-death-wasnt-suicide/ and http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/25/canadian-forces-member-arrested-over-edits-to-rehtaeh-parsons-wiki-page-report

The perpetrator is alleged to be a relative of one of the boys charged in her case, so again no names. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/rehtaeh-parsons-wiki-page-serial-appeal-dental-crowding-study-and-more-1.2953497/father-of-rehtaeh-parsons-says-he-knows-who-made-wikipedia-edits-1.2953498

Vandalise a wiki page, go to jail. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:609 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if we should include this as a section in this article. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/rehtaeh-parsons-wikipedia-page-edits-121610574.html It would appear as if "Dad of guilty man arrested in Wikipedia edits probe". Is this notable, or is vandalism on a page (which is quite frequent) not important enough? -- Kndimov (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole article should be scrubbed. It oozes fiction and everyone who comments could be subject to prosecution for disobeying a court order. The corrections are one sided and the cops are called when something disagreeable to certain individuals is posted. Kill the whole damn thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.30.213 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comment about "Everyone who comments," (whatever that's supposed to mean) please note Wikipedia allows no legal threats. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write Criminal Code (Section 486. (1)) - In the case of sexual offences, the Code (Section 486 (1.1)) says a judge must order a publication ban to protect the identity of all victims of sexual offences and witnesses of sexual offences who are less than 18 years old. And I certainly wasn't threatening anyone. I was however pointing out that others are using this site as a sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.30.213 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The attempt to edit this article was an act of idiocy, but not worthy of a jail sentence. The Wiki procedures soon corrected it. This article has become part of the feud between Glen Canning and the family of the boys. Weight has been given to Glen Canning's opinion - slightly balanced by Blatchford's article. The argument will go on forever due to the lack of a Court case. The article might benefit from a complete revision but - given all the emotions involved - it is unlikely that any agreement will be found. Philip Rose123 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Philip Rose

2 years difference?
Why was she raped in 2011 and then killed herself in 2013 because of it? I mean, I'm not saying it's not a big deal to get raped - it definitely is and it's disgusting what happened to her, but I'm sure many people visiting this article would wonder why it took so long for her to want to do it. Nothing on the article mentions why. Second Skin (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the answer just read the second sentence of the article: "Her death has been attributed to online distribution of photos of .." --Túrelio (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016
I would like to ask that the word "Sex" be removed from this page as it was not sex, it was rape. There is no such thing as non consented sex. Only sex and rape.People need to understand this. Thank you

101.162.2.127 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

corrections to the article
I have made some precisions that help to clarify the statements that have been made. They do not change the tone nor to they affect the veracity (or non veracity) of the statements that are made in the article. Systematically undoing them is tantamount to depriving me of the same right that you have to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescarid (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In exercising what you refer to as the "right to edit the article," we are all still bound by policies like WP:NPOV. You are bound by these policies too. What you call corrections or precisions are in fact highly contentious point of view. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you believe that Rehtaeh Parsons' death was not (or might not have been) a suicide, you need to seek a consensus to make the kinds of changes you are trying to make. You cannot make controversial edits and then complain that you are being unfairly dealt with when other editors object to your changes.  If you continue to try to "correct" the article in this way, without seeking a consensus in support of your view (and/or in defiance of a consensus against your viewpoint), you are likely to be blocked for edit warring.  See the warning about this matter which I placed on your talk page.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is untrue, the editions that I have made are carefully thought out attempts to clarify the point of the article, there is no reason to object to saying the incident  instead of  repeating again the terms that are cited numerous times in the article. It seems that we have a difference of opinion. I am not breaking any of the rules as you suggest. Thescarid (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

unwanted revisions
Hello, I would like to extend my sincere apologies to the wiki community and to those who are involved in editing this page. I sincerely believed that my editions were helpful in clarifying some of the details included on this page. I believe that I followed the rules and policies that are in effect. It was not my intention to upset or harm anyone’s sensibilities and I reiterate my apologies to those who have been upset by my editions. With very best regards Thescarid (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thescarid. You are very forgiven and you are very welcome here. :) I am sure we can all work together to help the article be the best it can be. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Honest apologies are always acceptable here. I just need to make sure you understand, though, that even if you are convinced that you are obviously in the right, and that other editors (who disagree with your contributions) are just as obviously in the wrong, this does not justify edit warring.  There are some extremely narrow exceptions for cases involving obvious vandalism and the like, but aside from that, if you have a disagreement with other editors, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and engage in calm discussion of the issues in question with a view to achieving a consensus.  Additionally, we need to focus on what is said in reliable sources; avoid original research (including our own interpretations of what sources seem to be saying); and if reliable sources disagree on a point, seek to present a neutral point of view that acknowledges the conflict between sources.  In this particular situation, if there exist reliable mainstream sources that question whether Rehtaeh Parsons' death was in fact a suicide, it is OK to acknowledge such sources and include a neutral discussion of the controversy.  But if (as I understand is the case) a consensus of reliable mainstream sources agree on calling her death a suicide, then that is what the article needs to say.  These broad principles are applicable, not only here, but in other Wikipedia articles as well.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)