Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi/Archive 1

Requested move
Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Tyler Clementi → Suicide of Tyler Clementi — For consistency with similar entries of cyber bully victims, see: Suicide_of_Megan_Meier, Suicide_of_Ryan_Halligan, and Death_of_Phoebe_Prince. CharwinBrussell (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support I don't think there's any reason, really to put this through a process. The standard in these cases is to make such a move. We can always move it back at a later date if Tyler becomes a notable symbol on his own. Kingturtle (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Though I suggest that any such move would only be done after the open AfD is concluded, possibly as part of a closure resolution. Fæ (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles in the midst of AfD proceedings aren't locked; they are not meant to be static documents locked in a snapshot of what the article was like at the beginning of the AfD. Improvements to such articles are encouraged. It is not some form of cheating against AfDs. Edits are welcome, and moves are welcome too. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by the word "suggest", I meant to be making a suggestion not requesting an edit lock. Thank you for making that clear. Fæ (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support if it survives AFD. Such an article should only exist if the event had long lasting societal effects, which might include new laws or new programs at colleges to discourage cyberbullying, discrimination, invasion of privacy, hate crimes, or illegal surveillance, or if it leads to books, movies, etc. Edison (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think anyone will disagree with moving this. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support it's a national news interest, which are always documented on wikipedia. We have a biographical article for Seung-Hui Cho, why can't we have an article for Tyler Clementi?

Other national and international news stories to be added
This list also serves as a preemptive note to those suggesting this story is not notable.
 * BBC Radio 1
 * Fox News
 * Daily Mail
 * Barcelona Reporter
 * Los Angeles Times
 * MTV
 * People Magazine
 * Boston Globe
 * NPR
 * Chicago Tribune

Kingturtle (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NB another article on the same subject (Tyler clementi) is at AfD here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tyler_clementi . I'm not quite sure of the protocol when a notability-focused AfD's started on a version of an article that I think would otherwise be a clearcut redirect to this title. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now resolved by migrating sources to this (correctly titled) version. Fæ (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability
It should be mentioned in this article that why this story is so notable is that charges have been filed. Nearly all such suicides of this nature never have any files charged. I am not sure how to phrase it in the article. Maybe someone can take a stab at it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that the reason charges can be filed in this case, as opposed to so many others, is because there was a concrete event that occurred, as opposed to generic "bullying." But at the same time, it's not as clear cut as other cases because we have no motives or intentions. I also think the fact that this case involved the Internet/technology has gotten the media more riled up than it would otherwise. There's been a slew of commentary on the tech aspect and how it's affected this generation of youth. I've no idea how any of this would find its way into the article though. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. You make good points. What I find most interesting about this case is that there was enough evidence to bring charges to individuals. It is unusual. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Claim unsupported by references
I believe the first sentence of the second paragraph is problematic, because the references cited do not make a claim that number of suicides by gay youth during the Fall of 2010 is "unusually high." Furthermore, the sentence links to the entry Suicide among LGBT youth, which states that "In 2004, 1,985 American adolescents under the age of 20 committed suicide, an increase of 18% from the previous year." Unless we are able to reliably source statistics that indicate that these suicides in Fall 2010 are in fact occurring with an "unusually high" frequency, then the sentence should be removed. It is also unusual that the sentence links to the Suicide among LGBT youth in two different places. I think the succeeding sentence about heightened media coverage is more appropriate and could stand alone with out the preceding sentence. CharwinBrussell (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph question
I note that the Facebook portrait photo of Clementi is available on Wikinews. Are there any thoughts on how a (possibly fair use) image could be used on this article? WP:NFCI is often interpreted rather firmly but the Facebook photograph itself might be considered iconic and historic under these guidelines considering how widely it is being used in the national and international press. Fæ (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - does anyone know how to do this? 12.177.104.148 (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair use could apply if specifically and only used to show Clementi in an article specifically about him. This should be acceptable here (I say should because it would actually be up to a court to decide if his benefactors decided to file a suit that claimed they believed fair use did not apply). The image is already small, so there should also be no issues with resolution or the like, as fair use requires small image size and reduced resolution. The image should not be used in other articles like Suicide or anywhere else, even if they reference the event, because the scope of such articles are too broad to apply fair use to them. I would recommend keeping the caption short and concise, maybe only naming him and, if possible, a date the image was taken.


 * Is it already on Wikipedia? It could use a crop, and get rid of the empty spaces on either side of him. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not find it uploaded yet, so I did. It is available at File:Tyler Clementi.jpg. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  04:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
edit protected Return to this version (with the pp-dispute also. Per unexplained removal of sourced content. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this edit request. Amongst other things the current version has an annoying floating ">" in the lead. Fæ (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅; quite a large amount of material was removed without explanation, and a stray mark was inserted. Otherwise, only a short quote was added, which was unsourced. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, see no reason to remove the text, and the added quote, besides being unsourced, doesn't really add anything. C628 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add back the introductory information
While it has not yet been determined if Ravi's actions were motivated by Clementi's sexuality, the case has been considered part of an unusually high stream of suicides in fall 2010 in the US relating to gay bullying or harassment leading to suicide among LGBT youth. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network stated "there has been heightened media attention surrounding the suicides in New Jersey, Texas, California, Indiana, and Minnesota." Asher Brown, 13, Billy Lucas, 15, and Seth Walsh, 13, are notable other suicides allegedly related to gay taunting in September 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.104.148 (talk • contribs)
 * This would be addressed by the reversion already requested above. Fæ (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fæ. Pity I commented on the request above or I'd make the edit myself, I think that motion (above) has consensus. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add back the response information

 * Judy Shepard, the mother of Matthew Shepard, stated "I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law," she said. "What they did was reckless, thoughtless and hateful." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.104.148 (talk • contribs)

Primary sources from twitter
I find it helpful to have the actual posts by the roommate listed. Please do not remove them as they are primary sources. 12.177.104.148 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you supply a diff to make it easier to work out which text and references you are asking for? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

7 days full edit block
Could someone explain why the edit warring was considered so extreme that 7 days of full protection were necessary rather than a block on the person edit-warring (the article was created less than 24 hours ago)? I seem to have missed something about the history here as it does not seem to be a content dispute as described by the admin on RPP. It appears that the only problematic edits were from anon IP contributors, a partial block might have resolved this and this was indeed the type of block requested.

The current lock states that it may be removed if "disputes have been resolved." Unfortunately I do not think there is any actual dispute here, if there is, perhaps someone could summarize it so that we can get a consensus on whether it is already resolved or if it requires further discussion? There would then be a basis on which to go back to WP:RPP and request an unlock. Fæ (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. This block is much too severe. A week with no editing? When new information is developing each day? I understand the concern regarding vandals and strange edits, but shouldn't a lesser protection involving only anon and new accounts be more appropriate here? Kingturtle (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree, I also am more than willing to make edits for changes below that I haven't commented on that have consensus. There are a couple such changes that I think that could demonstrate consensus if a few people were to take a look and actually add their opinions to.  Conversely, I'd love it if someone could find a sysop to take a look at the first editprotected request (above), I believe that it's demonstrated consensus, but since I'm part of that consensus, that isn't my call.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing the protection to semi. I believe all involved will act responsibly. Kingturtle (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tl'd all editprotected templates on the page since it's now only semi. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from C628, 2 October 2010
edit protected

Please change the second paragraph in the background section to the following; as it stands, I think it goes into too much detail and gives undue weight to that section. Also, there's a note in superscript that's rather ugly and work better as a hidden note IMO.

C628 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the revert as requested in above would resolve your issues. Do you agree? Fæ (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, unless I'm overlooking something painfully obvious; the revision that it's requested to be reverted to still contains the text I'd proposed replacing. I'm all in favor of the above request; I see this one as being a seperate matter, hence the seperate edit request. C628 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the change if you fix "seniot" to "senior". I'd also suggest "then discovering that Ravi" rather than "discovering Ravi", the sentence is already a little grammatically complex and I this (or some other rewording) might make it read more easily.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

two extra spaces after lead paragraph...
messing up formatting, please fix.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done --j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request to add portrait photograph
edit protected The photograph File:Tyler Clementi.jpg has been uploaded on reasonable fair use grounds explicitly for use in this article. Catch 22 logic applies here; if the photograph is not added to the article for which it was uploaded, then, as a fair use image, the photograph will be deleted due to not being used. I suggest adding the following text (or similar) to the lead: thumb|Webcam self portrait of Tyler Clementi. —Fæ (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this passes WP:NFCC. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been pondering this one as it is tricky to justify any NFCI. It can be argued that any article about a person would benefit from a photograph and this article is no different. Having a photograph in this particular article benefits the reader by providing the sense that this was a real person they could relate to appearing smart, confident and happy at the time his webcam self-shot was taken. Most readers would relate to having such self-taken photographs on their own social network profiles exactly as Clementi did and including the photo makes the story seem immediate and more shocking. Tacitly there are facts about Clementi apparent from a photograph not separately mentioned in the article, it would be pedantic to replace his photograph with a description of his appearance and from the photograph we can see he was a redhead, pale, had blue eyes, wore glasses, was neither effeminate or bullish in appearance and had a clean shaven presentation (i.e. no facial hair, no piercings). These aspects may weakly relate to the central issue of the article but they do add to the human interest of it. Fæ (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that the aim of an encyclopaedia article is not to make "the story seem immediate and more shocking", or to put a bias on the article by specifically choosing a picture which makes him appear "smart, confident and happy" (and in any case the individual apparently wasn't confident or happy at the time of the event). We're not looking to make readers of the article sympathise with the individual, we have a neutrality policy and we're here to give readers the facts of the event and other events surrounding it. We should only use images, and especially non-free images, in a way which contributes understanding to the article in a way which text alone cannot, and which cannot be replaced by a free image. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  09:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My rationale was not on the basis of sympathy, perhaps "surprising" would be better that "shocking". One of the issues of this case was that Clementi gave no indication of being suicidal or depressed in the days before his death. This particular photograph is the one he used in blogs and social networks right up until the time of his death. I do not intend my words above to be added to the article, my intention is to describe how the photograph provides emphasis to the facts already presented in the article, no more than that. I daresay that some may feel that non-free photographs could be eliminated from almost all articles by firmly questioning how much they truly add to the "understanding" of the article when they could be replaced by (lengthy and trivial) textual descriptions. As someone who works with OTRS I am quite familiar with the oddities of non-free content guidelines and as this portrait is not replaceable, happens to be non-commercial and adds distinct value to the article there seems little reason to debate it at length here. You are however free to raise the photograph itself for deletion and create an appropriate deletion discussion should you be concerned that this is a worrying copyright violation against the interest of the Clementi estate. Fæ (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying; I have no strong opinions one way or the other at this point. It seems unlikely that the image is replacable with a free one, the question is just to whether or not it contributes enough to the article to warrant fair use of a non-free image. If you feel that is what the image will contribute to the article though, it's probably worth adding that to the caption: for example, "Prior to his suicide, Clementi showed no indication of depression and was thought by his friends and family to be happy and healthy" (or something to that effect, assuming that that can be well-referenced). I haven't read the rapidly-growing article in any great detail so I don't know how much of that has been verified in reliable sources; I'll leave that up to others. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  10:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Suicides by jumping from a height
Please add "Category:Suicides by jumping from a height" when it us unlocked. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - PM800 (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on level of social networking detail justified for this article
After reading through the Slate Magazine: Bugged Naked article, there is a lot of detail published on what accounts Clementi used for social related networking, gay networking account details and the text of various posts by him and Ravi on Twitter, Facebook and justusboys.com. Some of these have already been added to the article. Personally I feel that it is unnecessary to add a lot of detail from these posts to the article as only a couple of quotes are needed to illustrate the issues. In particular Clementi's use of the cam4 website seems (in my opinion) a bit off-topic as there seems no evidence that Ravi was aware of it (though such information might become relevant at some future point to the prosecution case) and the opposite might be said of his justusboys posts as he did discuss Ravi's actions. I have absolutely no intention of encouraging censorship or suppressing information from published reliable sources, however it would probably be sensible to reach a consensus here as to the level of detail considered encyclopaedic and/or appropriate for the article context. Thoughts anyone? Fæ (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not a biography. We should limit information to that which is pertinent to the case and to the suicide. Just as details about his violin playing is not pertinent to this article, nor are details about these posts. Kingturtle (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should change the article name to 'Tyler Clementi' instead of 'Suicide of Tyler Clementi', although his suicide is probably more important than him himself, in terms of Wikipedia's Policy, but still... -71.225.89.57 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You just answered your own question... the event is what is notable, not the bio, so we are not going to include that much detail about him except for background.  Fletcher (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The more information, the more interesting the article. I have a thirst for knowledge. -71.225.89.57 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyler's Yahoo post
As well as posting on Justusboy.com, Tyler also posted on Yahoo asking for advice.

Here's his post:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100920214256AAvnUWg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpatter6 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty anonymous message; do you have any evidence that it was actually posted by Clementi? <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have direct evidence, but one of our sources says Clementi posted to Yahoo, and the Yahoo post is dated "two weeks ago" which seems to be about the time of the incident. That's good enough circumstantial evidence for me.  But if there's concern about WP:SYNTHESIS it's probably not necessary to include as it seems redundant with the Just Us Boys thread, which sources did tie to Clementi. Fletcher (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research, i.e. wikipedia editors cannot make the claim that the above yahoo post is clementi's. wikipedia editors cannot use primary sources or conjecture in their editing; if a reliable source claims the yahoo post is legit, then we quote the reliable source. that's how it works. Kingturtle (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Motive for Suicide Not Established
While numerous sources have posited and/or insinuated a link between the video streaming incident and Clementi's suicide, I am not aware of any reliable source that has established a motive for the suicide or conclusively determined that Ravi's actions were a factor in whatever drove Clementi to take his own life. Unlike the Megan Meier and Ryan Halligan cases, there was no communication of motive from Clementi, and unlike the Phoebe Prince case, there is no evidence of a pervasive pattern of harassment and violence leading up to the suicide. For all we know at this point, there were any number of extenuating factors in Clementi's life that were the primary or even sole motivation for the suicide.

More details may emerge in this case that conclusively link the video streaming incident and the suicide, but until they do, I think we need to be wary of BLP-related issues as they relate to where the blame is placed for Clementi's death. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and as this article encompasses active prosecutions of two students then BLP guidelines firmly apply. However I would emphasize your point that not only do many reliable sources propose a causal link between the suicide and the harassment of Clementi shortly before his suicide but that the prosecuting authorities are considering the evidence that the suicide is a consequence of the actions of Ravi and Wei and such an argument undoubtedly form a key part of the legal case. It is entirely proper that the article present these sources and their analysis of these events.
 * Certainly, as the facts of Clementi's life have been published by the sources, we can see that he was a sexually active and openly gay young man (certainly openly gay to his room-mate) who had been using gay social networks for at least three years before going to University (as per his membership records for justusboys.com). Consequently some of the headlines we have seen about "outing" are not strictly correct as Clementi was neither in the closet or confused about his sexuality. The issue is about invasion of privacy and loss of control over sexually explicit material and how this is likely to have disturbed Clementi (as summarized by Slate Magazine). Fæ (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment for Uncle Dick: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We go with the reliable media say. Save your personal opinion for your blog. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't take the media as gospel, and we should not be presenting media opinion as fact. Uncle Dick hasn't actually presented his personal opinion here, and comments such as "save your personal opinion for your blog" in such a situation are simply uncivil attempts to silence Uncle Dick because you don't like his argument. The fact is, regardless of how many media sources we find, we can't verify Clementi's motives in the suicide at this time. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We go with what the reliable media say. Some editors have a preternatural ability to discern the truth, but the rest of us just have to repeat what the reliable media write. See: "Cyberbullying: The new face of hate. ... For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after ..." "at ABC News: Tyler Clementi and Cyberbullying: What Should Have Been Done ..." "At CBS News Tyler Clementi: A Call to Act on Cyberbullying" "In WSJ: The Rutgers Student's Suicide: Cyberbullying Goes to College in ..." Anything contrary, is just original research, and personal opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard, you're repeating WP:V without actually listening to or attempting to address the concerns. The media outlets may be a reliable source of news, but we can hardly consider them a reliable source of insight into Clementi's reasons behind the suicide: the media may be right, he may have killed himself because of being humiliated by the publicisation of his personal affairs, or he may have had an entirely different reason; we don't know that, nor does the media. So it's not verifiable. Perhaps if we get some statements from those close to him, and/or psychologists, who might be able to produce some reliable information on Clementi's motivation, but why trust the media to give an accurate psychological profile? As it stands, the article even uses "apparent suicide" to indicate uncertainty that it was a suicide; the same is appropriate to indicate uncertainty as to the individual's motives. We can't claim it's a fact simply because the media says it. By all means, however, indicate that the media believes that Clementi commited suicide as a direct result of the incident in question. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I created the RFC below to avoid looping around on this one. On the one hand the category of "Suicides due to cyber-bullying" is simplistic when this scenario is more "Suspected suicides due to alleged cyber-bullying" but on the other hand our categories are supposed to be a simplistic taxonomy of use to the layman reader. Personally I will be happy to see an RFC consensus either way as there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Fæ (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of applicable federal hate crime laws
I'm a little surprised that no mention has been made of the applicable federal civil rights laws - which carry possible penalties of life in prison or the death penalty. Simesa (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the prosecutor's office (or any involved party) has not mentioned them then these federal laws are not currently relevant to this particular case. Fæ (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found Dhaurn's Twitter account, should we post a picture
I found his twitter account through Google Cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yud8DPiqULcJ:twitter.com/Dharun+dharun+ravi&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca Do you think we should take a screencap and post it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationViewer (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys misquoted Rhavi's twitter account...it actually said "Don't you dare video chat me for 9-12:30." It did NOT say "I dare you to video chat me from 9-12:30." Totally different meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.86.46 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The page you refer to is copyright and would not fall under the WP:NFCI guidelines as we can easily replace such an image by quoting the text from it. It would, however, be appropriate to include a link to the cache version or somewhere else where a verified version of the dialogue has been preserved. Fæ (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Americans, categories
Clementi's profile needs to be in the LGBT Americans category. Somebody please add him. (The artice is protected or I would myself.) --70.89.189.78 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mean Category:LGBT people from the United States, I've made that change. Drop me a line on my talk page if I've mucked that up.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Role of social media
The Role of social media section is disjointed, and a bit pointless. This information is already covered in other parts of the article. This section needs to be cleaned up, and written in a way to tell the reader why it is relevant and important to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Or it should simply be removed. The information can easily be integrated in the rest of the existing article. Kingturtle (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable deletion, however the various posts on Twitter, Facebook and quotes from justusboys have been fairly widely cited in the sources and the article would benefit by their inclusion rather than relying on second party interpretation. I would support an attempt to re-add the quotes (or similar quotes) but agree that they should be integrated; for that reason I'm not rushing to re-add them myself as this requires some thoughtful copy-editing. The guidelines of WP:QUOTE and specifically WP:QUOTEFARM seem to usefully apply. Fæ (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the quotations of the twitter and facebook activity. but to just list them is of no use. they should be used in the narrative of what happened. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With a Wikipedian hat on, one tends to treat the subject in perhaps an overly cold academic fashion. Making Clementi's private posts public feels personally disrespectful to me though I would have fewer qualms incorporating a post that has been either used and published by the prosecution or key messages already widely reposted in the media. I am aware that the trend is to be driven by the sources alone but a certain level of respect for privacy can and probably should be justified by the applicability of BLP guidelines for Clementi's family and others related to the case. Anyway, due to these personal qualms, for the moment I'll leave integrating Clementi's messages for the good judgement of other editors. Fæ (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, This article should never refer to Twitter caches as citations for these quotations. This article should only cite news articles that reveal the quotations. Kingturtle = (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the same rationale of SELFPUB (and TWITTER) applied to Twitter accounts as applied to self published blogs in that they can be used as sources about the person writing them so long as the source was verifiable (e.g. not just an account with a coincidentally similar name). I am aware of several celebrity Twitter accounts that are quoted as sources in their relevant BLPs.
 * As for using a cache, again so long as it is a version from a reliable provider, the same guidance as would apply to archive URLs applies here. Sorry if this appears a bit picky. Fæ (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Death
Could someone please add the recent death template to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.62.48 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See the guidelines at recent death. As the article is not having 'hundreds of edits a day' and the date of death was weeks rather than one or two days ago, the template is not appropriate. Fæ (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that, per the guidelines, the recent death template is not appropriate. Is there another tag that should be used to indicate that the article likely contains misinformation due to the recency of events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.62.48 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a template that gave such a vague warning would not be useful and could apply to any article including mention of events occurring within the last few weeks. If you see specific misinformation then it can be corrected or appropriately cited against a reliable source if you can explain exactly what the problem is. Fæ (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I am new to commenting on Wikipedia pages, so apologies if I have made an error. I am concerned whether this article adheres to the neutral point of view and verifiable requirements of Wikipedia. Most of this seems to be a reposting of media reports, which are not always neutral and is a poor source of proof. For example, if this article is to present a balanced point of view, then one would assume that something like the following quote would be relevant and included.

Henry Klingeman of Newark, N.J., a former federal prosecutor, questioned why Wei was charged in the first place. "There’s no evidence of Ms. Wei doing anything," he said on Monday. "I'm very curious as to why the prosecutor is holding her responsible in any way shape or form simply because Mr. Ravi was using her computer." http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20431857,00.html (accessed 6 October 2010).

Further more, the article infers guilt that has not be proven before the legal system. There needs to be more care how this article is being presented, especially given that the charges are still before the courts. Annak123 (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article seems well expressed to me, perhaps you could point out exactly where you feel the phrasing implies guilt? I considered the quote from Klingeman, his opinion has not otherwise been widely reported and he has no connection to the case so inclusion in the article seems a little arbitrary though I personally would not object to it being added. The (very brief) statement from Wei's lawyer is more relevant in the link you have provided, though undoubtedly such information will be added as the legal case evolves. Fæ (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My position relates to the Responses section, which does not present a neutral point of view. All those responses imply (at least) that there is a casual link of guilt between the Prosecutions and Responses section. To claim that Klingeman's response is not connected with this case is illogical - it is directly related, given his reference to Wei. Such a response would provide a more balanced point of view for this article as it fairly questions whether one of the prosecutions is actually safe.  It is up to the readers to deduce whether this, or any other responses, is reasonable. Annak123 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, as mentioned above, I see no objection to it being added on the grounds of balance; apart from it not being as widely cited in comparison to all the other response quotes. To clarify, I did not say his statement was unconnected with the case, I said that he was unconnected to the case. Perhaps you would like to be bold and add it yourself if nobody else does? Fæ (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, been bold. Response added. My intention here is simply to add balance, especially around the issue of presumption of innocence (which Wikipedia needs to be careful about) and not to mitigate the charges that have been laid. Annak123 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording such as 'the crime' indicates that they have been found guilty. Whilst I appreciate to some sections of society this is a very important issue, we need to remember that cornerstone of justice 'innocent till proven guilty'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.222.82 (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "alleged crime". Fæ (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks for the change. Annak123 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubling up of References
Is there the need to state so many references? For example, references 2 through 8 (inclusive), essentially say the same thing? One or two references, from the more reliable sources, should be sufficent for this article. Comments welcome before editing. Annak123 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple references provide different perspectives, unless the text of citations is identical and one is also a more authoritative version than the other, there is no accepted rationale to remove reliable sources. Contentious material frequently has many multiple sources as can be found in many featured articles. Fæ (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to state so many references. This article was nominated for deletion, partially on the question of whether or not it was a notable story. By showing in the first section that there were stories in the NY Times, the Guardian, CNN, AOL News, CBS News and ABC News provides evidence that the coverage of this story is broad. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have bundled one set of single-use references in the lead text as per WP:CITEKILL to avoid it looking unwieldy. Fæ (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Inherent Bias
It is disappointing that this article continues to show inherent bias and lack of balance. (I have no linkage with any person involved in this case or idealogical agendas, my interest is in aspects of law). The editing out of alternative responses, and clarification in law, is not aligned with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. It is very sad that people are clearly using Wikipedia to advance personal agendas and ideology. That brings into question the integrity of Wikipedia as a source of balanced information. While I cannot do much about that, I feel this point needs to be made here. Annak123 (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sentences do you think are biased? Kingturtle = (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the article itself only comes from perspective, essentially repeating what media, social networks and lobby groups have stated (one just has to review the references to show that). In my understanding of a balanced and neutral point of view, having a single view represents a bias. Secondly, the responses section solely deals with one point of view and and valid (and referencable) commentary to this case has been removed. Why? I can only conclude that they were removed to maintain a specific bias on the article.  Surely, Wikipedai readers should be given the ability to determine their views, based on a balanced article rather than one that is forced on them?  Consider the example of the article on the Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard.  That article provides a degree of balance, around the offender's statement - even though I personally do not agree with them. I would love to see this article have the same level of maturity. It is what one should expect from Wikipedia - otherwise this site will just become the home of those who can shout the loudest and/or have the most time to waste online. If that is the situation, then the neutral point of view policy is impotent. Annak123 (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless your complaint is specific or you can recommend an alternative reliable source, there is little to be done here and your claim of bias must be rejected. Your accusation of "personal agendas" appears generally offensive (see AGF) for any and all contributors to this article unless you can explain which edits demonstrate lobbying or otherwise inappropriate editing and you are prepared to pursue a case following one of the dispute resolution processes.
 * My apologies regarding if any offense was taken at personal agendas. My wording was poor and all I was intending to state was that we all agendas, whether good or bad, and hence need to be careful in order to ensure maintaining a NPVand AGF. Annak123 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no history of rejecting sources with alternative views, in fact the discussions on this talk page show the opposite is true. Once the defence cases are under way, there may be more views expressed about how to interpret Wei's and Ravi's actions but it is not the role of a Wikipedia article to speculate about these interpretations when there are no sources to support them. You have used the word "maturity" and I agree that it is likely that more sources will become available over time and the article can then evolve to reflect the facts as they become apparent and verifiable, not before. Fæ (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In a previous viewing of the article, it seemed an addition to the article was removed without any discussion. However, I see that most of it is still there. I'm not sure if this was my oversight or a re-edit later. (I'm still learning here - thanks for being patient with me). I agree with you as more details emerge, the article will converge more and more towards a balanced (and accurate) treatment. Annak123 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Annak123, I appreciate the effort to make this article more neutral. Discussing specifics is most helpful. It is only through conversation that we can successfully work toward less bias. In terms of the article's perspective, because Wikipedia can have no original research, we are limited to using reliable sources to drive the content. What may come across as repeating what the media has stated, really is a representation of available news, the article cites CBS News, the New York Times, The Daily News, The Observer, CNN, AOL News, ABC News, Warner Brothers, The Daily Mail, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, MTV, the AP, the Star-Ledger, Fox News, People magazine, rutgers.edu. That seems broad to me. What other sources do you suggest? Also, what sentences in the article do you think need work? And what POVs are pushed, and which are missing? In terms of the Responses section, it is my personal opinion that such sections should be removed from all Wikipedia articles, that they are not encyclopedic, but the norm of Wikipedia is to include such sections. With that said, I think you're right that we should remove the responses that imply that those accused are guilty. As for the Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard article offering "a degree of balance, around the offender's statement", we don't yet have any statements from either of the people being charged. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I appreciate your discussion on these points. I agree that having responses section is a tricky one, especially if Wikipedia s to be an treated as a valid encyclopedic source. In regards to the POVs, I am still uneasy with the introduction to the article. At this point in time, we actually have no chain of evidence that specifically links the offences for which Ravi and Wei have been charged with to the actual decision for Tyler to commit suicide. While, I agree, that this maybe a seemingly reasonable assumption to make, it is possible other factors are also involved which we do not know about. Given that, I feel the article needs to more cautious about inferring it is a direct case of cause and effect. Annak123 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles rely on sources. An article should best represent the broad sources available. A) Tyler Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University in Piscataway Township, New Jersey. B) He jumped from the George Washington Bridge in an apparent suicide on September 22, 2010. C) This occurred after his sexual encounter with a man in his dorm room was allegedly video streamed over the internet without Clementi's knowledge, by his roommate Dharun Ravi and a fellow hallmate Molly Wei, and after a second attempt was made by Ravi to record Clementi's sexual encounters. D) Ravi and Wei were charged with invasion of privacy.
 * There are reliable sources provided that substantiate these claims. Are the reliable sources that refute any of these claims? Kingturtle = (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead, at least, seems pretty well written and from a NPOV. What specific agenda do you feel is being promoted there? When people claim bias, I never know what "side" there are talking about unless they specifically spell it out. Also, if you would like to propose any rewrite/copy edit, I am sure the folks who have commented above would welcome it. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Kaplan
Could someone explain why Bruce Kaplan is notable enough for his quote to be specially listed? I understand the above argument about balance, however inclusion here of the personal (and presumably unofficial) opinions of a unconnected prosecutor seems to be undue weight when the defence lawyer statements are available to quote. Fæ (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kaplan is no more related to the actual incident than Degeneres is really. Degeneres is advocating from a particular POV, as is Kaplan. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, however my question was specifically about notability rather than the relationship. Every other quote on the page from people not connected directly to the case are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Fæ (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Kaplan is the Middlesex County Prosecutor who originally charged Ravi and Wei with invasion of privacy. That would seem to make him directly connected to the case. 98.232.62.48 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be an excellent clarification in the article (if true). Could we point to a source for that or remove it. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article seems to imply it, to me: -- but maybe there's something more explicit?  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I agree with you that it's okay but a little weak. I would not remove the quote with this relationship clarified. Fæ (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my take on it too. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Nevermind, irrelevant.) Uhhhh--I need to read this more, but check out the correction on the bottom of this article: --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do folks think about the Klingeman quote (now) in that same section?  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe Kaplan actually did not say there "would not" be enough evidence, he said there "may not" be enough evidence. 98.232.62.48 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the People reference says he didn't think there would be enough, which is (to my ears) in between those two statements, but it's not a direct quote. Do you have a direct quote?  I'll certainly try and fix it, the current wording doesn't match the source.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 21:02,

Kaplan, direct quotes
A bit of research finds these direct quotes from Kaplan that may be of more use than the current indirect one: —Fæ (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote 1
 * Quote 2
 * (Possibly Attorney General Paula Dow)
 * (Possibly Attorney General Paula Dow)
 * (Possibly Attorney General Paula Dow)
 * (Possibly Attorney General Paula Dow)


 * A recent edit to the page uses "didn't" instead of "did not". Unless that's a direct quote, I'd suggest changing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see "don't" but not "didn't". Since that isn't a direct quote, I'm going to change it, but please correct me if I missed something. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for local consensus on categories for redirect page
There seems to be a bit of a tussle over whether to add categories to the redirect page or move them to this article. Could we reach a consensus on this talk page please, rather than just going back and forth? Comments below being either in support or against adding categories to the redirect page would be appreciated. Fæ (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see it as much less than a tussle, but I think I was the editor who most recently moved them back here. The way I see it, placing categories on a redirect page is not very useful to readers or to anyone else in most cases. Also, I think that the categories that are now on this page seem appropriate to have here (ie, there are currently none that would apply only to a bio page as opposed to an "event" page such as this one). The relevant guideline is at Categorizing redirects, which can probably be interpreted to support doing this either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support moving one category ( LGBT people from the United States ) back to the redirect. From the perspective of someone looking through that category (and doing that well seems to be part of the goal of the policy you linked), "Tyler Clementi" is less likely to look out of place (and possibly get removed from the category by a well-meaning editor) than "Suicide of Tyler Clementi"). I wouldn't move back any categories about death or suicides in particular, nor Rutgers University, so as I see the article right now it'd only be that one cat that I'd move back.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, it might be best to simply delete that category from this page. As a matter of information, one does not remove a page from a category by editing the category page. The appearance of a page within a category is determined by whether the link is included on the page itself. No one will delete the redirect page because it lacks categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably misspoke. What I was suggesting was that in viewing the category page, an editor might say "Suicide of Tyler Clementi" "that's not a person, that's an event", go to this article, and remove the category here. I was arguing that this was less likely to happen by placing the category "LGBT people..." on the redirect.  (I also argue that "Tyler Clementi" looks better than "Suicide of Tyler Clementi" when reading through that category page.) This is in keeping with the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" in the policy you linked. Sorry if I didn't explain myself well.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I'd still be alright with deleting the category from this page, and leaving it at that. It probably is a case where we need a new category along the lines of "LGBT suicides". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea (that new category), and in either case the LGBT people... category ends up not being on this page. I think the only place we differ is our preference of whether or not to also include the category on the redirect, maybe some other people can chime in about that?  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, other opinions would be good. And I don't feel strongly at all, if we are just talking about this single category. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, not a strong feeling, just trying to do right by the encyclopedia. Always great to work with you, it's so easy.  :)  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I'm blushing profusely! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Listing other suicide cases
The list of names for other cases seems a little off-topic in the lead, would anyone have strong views on it being integrated to, say, the background section? Fæ (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections here. I don't think I'd like to lose it entirely, the spike in reporting of LGBT teen suicides was part of the dynamic that created such a big public response to Clementi's death), but it's also not the focus of the article.  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 14:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

timeline
I do not see the advantage of including a timeline here. Moreover, I think it gets in the way of the article. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it as the timing of events was confusing. Newspaper articles poorly explain when the two video events happened in relation to the death, the date of Clementi's complaints to authorities in relation to the events and the fact that criminal charges were brought before a body was found (and before suicide is confirmed) is also complex to piece together correctly. If you wish to think of a different way of formatting then please try it out, but a timeline of some sort, particularly dates of when the charges go to court, gives a clarifying summary of events. Fæ (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you format it to be a small column along the right side instead of taking up the width of the article? That might work better visually. Just an idea. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, but with reliance on use of style settings. If someone knows a standard table class that would do something similar please upgrade the code to fit better with the MOS guidance. Fæ (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Jack Merridew has decided to take the guidelines literally and delete the styles rather than suggesting a formatting solution himself. I have complied with the guidelines in a rather convoluted fashion using templates in every table cell to avoid any dependency on the css style options. The table has quite unreadable wiki code as a result. If someone would care to suggest a better format solution that does not overwhelm the page layout, they are welcome to propose it. Fæ (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As my attempt at compromise formatting has been quickly reverted leaving the time-line to unnecessarily dominate the page, I have taken this article off my watchlist rather than wasting my time. Should Merridew be prepared to discuss the matter to reach a consensus or it otherwise naturally resolves itself I would appreciate a note on my talk page. Hopefully Merridew will spend a little time to the benefit of the article rather than only enforcing recommended style guidelines as if they were mandatory. Fæ (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this will help or not, but I'm going to move it, in its large form, to the bottom of the page. Feel free to revert me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Do we really need to do it as an infobox at all? (On my screen, it looks odd at the right side of the view.) How about making it a section of its own, in regular font? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, this version looks just fine on my screen. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spirit Day-related events
In this edit, a chunk of properly sourced material on the Arkansas school board member's homophobic rant about Spirit Day was removed. Given that Spirit Day was inspired in part by Clementi's suicide, and he was the subject of bullying and homophobia (which this rant illustrates perfectly), I think this material was relevant. That was why I added it in the first place. I am inviting the comments of others on its appropriateness. I also wonder if an editor removing material saying it belongs in the Spirit Day article is expected to then add it, or is just removal of material considered acceptable? EdChem (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That deletion bothered me too, and I'd probably support reverting it. It seems to me that there was no argument made that everything pertaining to Spirit Day needed to be deleted, since only the part about the person from Arkansas was deleted, and I think the deleted part actually helps round out that part of the account of the reaction to the suicide. After all, this page is about the event, the suicide (and its aftermath), rather than about Tyler Clementi as a person, and the deleted material is directly related to the aftermath of the event. As for your last question, I think anyone should be free to make edits without having to worry about whether they are also obligated to edit another page as well, so that's not worth pursuing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E applies here. McCance is only known for this one event. In addition, he never referred directly to Clementi, so putting the information here is WP:COATRACKish. It stays out for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to talk about this, although I'd prefer that you would employ a less imperial style of commenting. I guess BLP1E is something to consider, although I can see it both ways, and I don't really see it as being worth fighting about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Cyber-bullying categorization
Should the Suicide of Tyler Clementi be categorized in Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying based on the commentary of current published sources but before any legal investigation is complete? Fæ (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an easy one. When I saw this, I wondered the same thing but couldn't decide, so I didn't edit it. As an editor points out above, what do reliable sources say rather than the "truth"? These current events are tricky. It seems like an ok category, but I can also see the arguement for leaving it out until more is known/sourced/written/discovered,ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the category. Per: "Cyberbullying: The new face of hate. ... For example, take the case of Tyler Clementi. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University who jumped from the George Washington Bridge after ..." "ABC News: Tyler Clementi and Cyberbullying: What Should Have Been Done ..." "Tyler Clementi: A Call to Act on Cyberbullying - CBS News" "WSJ: The Rutgers Student's Suicide: Cyberbullying Goes to College in ..."

As the editor who removed the category, I should probably explain myself here. I think we need to answer the following two questions in the affirmative before the category is re-posted to the page: <ol> <li> Did Ravi's actions constitute "cyber-bullying"? Legally speaking, Ravi is charged with "invasion of privacy." The NYTimes characterizes it as "the online posting of hurtful material". The Chicago Tribune calls it "internet voyeurism". Granted, a number of editorials and opinion pieces have explicitly called Ravi's actions "cyber-bullying", but I'm not convinced that statements of opinion are sufficient to establish this claim. Cyber-bullying is such a nebulous and ill-defined term anyway. The (largely unsourced) Wikipedia article on cyber-bullying makes the claim that "cyberstalking" and "cyberharassment" are more appropriate terminology when the perpetrator and victim are adults.

<li> Did Clementi's suicide directly result from cyber-bullying? I mentioned above my reservations about an implied causal link between the webcam incident and Clementi's suicide, and I think Fæ's response is right on the mark. Ultimately, we have to let reliable sources inform our approach to the article. </ol> If and when we can gather two or three reliable sources for an affirmative response to the each of the questions above, I think we can proceed with the addition of the category. In the body of the article, I think we need to make it clear precisely who has defined Ravi's actions as "cyber-bullying" and made a causal link between the bullying and the suicide (Police? University officials? The chief editor for the Podunk Times?). Uncle Dick (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ with Uncle Dick on all counts; "cyber-bullying" is clearly a WP:LABEL; describe the individuals' actions neutrally and let the reader decide for themselves what to call it. As for the suicide, the media aren't qualified to conjecture as to the reasons for Clementi's suicide; we need reliable sources which can provide a reliable source for his motives and/or his psychological state prior to the suicide. Richard has been arguing above that notable media outlets are automatically reliable sources, but who would you ask for help if you were having a heart attack, a journalist or a doctor? It's important to consider a source's reliability in context: yes, a series of notable newspapers are extremely reliable for indicating what happened, when it happens, who was involved, and most of the other fundamentals of the event. But they're not more qualified to assess the individual's mental state than we are; we need accounts from either those who knew him intimately, or psychologists who have had access to sufficient details of the case to make a professional judgement. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So would a blog posting from someone who "knew him intimately, or [a] psychologists who [has] access to sufficient details" trump all the reliable media? Then we would be in an area of excessive weight from a minority opinion. Anyone could pick and choose the theory that matched their preconceived notion, and use that as "the truth" because their source is the most reliable. While "cause of death" by a medical examiner is a science, "state of mind" by a psychologist is an art. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about a blog? Blogs are inherently unreliable. But have any media sources had either statements from those close to Clementi about his state of mind, or expert opinions from psychologist(s)? If so, those statements should be weighted above that of the media as a whole: they are qualified to comment, making them more reliable. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not inherently unreliable, they are a format, not a measure of reliability. Some blog authors are unreliable, but an expert's blog is. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal each have a half dozen blogs by their own reporters to write on smaller topics. All used as references here in Wikipedia unchallenged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid semantics and focus on improving the article; it's fairly clear that an "official" blog for a reliable newspaper is of a different calibre to Joe Blogg's blog about his life, and it's at least primarily the latter which springs to mind when you say "blog": a single individual's unreviewed opinions with little or no reliable factual content, and where the blogger's actual identity is often uncertain or difficult to verify. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment. Keep the category for now, and change it if facts develop to contradict it. Given sourcing so far, it is unlikely that such a change is coming. Given that casual readers do not obsess about our categories, we don't have to be unduly worried about misleading readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have reliable sources that indicate Ravi's webcam spying was "cyber-bullying"? That's my primary concern with this category. I'm not convinced that we have the facts to assert even this much. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Clementi's own posts (as quoted in various sources and in particular the thread discussion at justusboys.com) make it clear that he considered it spying and harassment which was in turn the basis of his complaint to his RA. For example the Daily Mail quotes Clementi: "the fact that people he was with saw my making out with a guy as the scandal, whereas I mean come on ... he was SPYING ON ME ... do they see nothing wrong with this?" It is hard to object to a classification of cyber-bullying with such first person evidence. Fæ (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFC is not about classifying this as a case of cyberbullying, but classifying it as a suicide due to cyberbullying - not the same thing. I don't think we have the full story about why he jumped.  Fletcher (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think User:Uncle Dick makes a valid point. The term is vague and I don't think it is found in the law. Nevertheless it is well understood in the community. It doesn't hurt to wait before classifying it either way. I would simply encourage editors not to be too dogmatic about its use or non-use. JodyBtalk 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not watching this page closely, but I notice Uncle Dick's question to me, and I'm (a bit belatedly) replying now. I guess I would make two points. First, I think I've heard from the most recent news reports that the prosecutor has been referring to the incident as being cyber-bullying, which would constitute sourcing (but you'll need to track down the specific cites). The second point is that there is a difference between applying a category and making a declarative statement in the text of a page. It very well may be that the page should not, at this time, call this suicide an incidence of cyber-bullying; I don't know. But using the category is not equivalent to that. Please see Category:Antisemitism. The category page has, very appropriately, a big notice box at the top, saying that it includes pages whose subjects are not necessarily antisemites. A category simply means these pages are sufficiently related that you might want to find them, nothing more. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold Discuss, Revert? Reorg of response
The responses section was (and is) kinda difficult to sort through because of the way it's organized--what do folks think about trying to arrange it a bit more topically? I've taken a kind of first step in that direction by separating out the lawmaker/government official responses from the rest, which I think does help the reader assimilate the information a little better, and might eventually lead to reorganizing the former section in a more textual, less list-like manner. What do people think? Feel free to revert/correct/suggest alternatives. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, a definite improvement. I tweaked it very slightly by making it two subheadings. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your tweak. :)  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

LGBT suicide?
Currently this article has a category LGBT suicides, but I am not sure of the purpose of it. Is the category for LGBT people who committed suicide? If it is, the category should be renamed to LGBT people who committed suicide. This article, however, should not have any categories identifying him as LGBT because Clementi never publicly declared his sexual orientation. Guideline for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality should be followed. Karppinen (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For previous discussion, please also see Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi/Archive 1. I'm the editor who reverted you and asked for discussion, but I'm actually quite amenable to some of what you suggest. However, I think that prior consensus has been against putting this page (about an event) into a category about persons. What the sources say about what he declared publicly seems to be a complex issue. I'd like to hear what other editors at this page think about these issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Karppinen, you are factually incorrect. Clementi was open about his sexuality and this is documented in the reports that discuss the months before his suicide which include several people (including his room-mate) that Clementi openly informed that he was gay. Some sensationalist newspaper reports claim that his suicide was because he was outed as gay, but there is no evidence that this was the case and it is more likely that he was distressed by the breach of privacy rather than being labelled as gay. Fæ (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

article cleanup
the point of tags is to improcve and generate discussion not to reomove and do nothing, consensus is needed for removal.
 * that said if "the story is almost identical to reports in many quality newspapers" that it is either a copy vio or in fact a story and not encylcopaedic material. This is not a weblog that every facet of information need bere here. Its already been question for notability and possible deletion, hence to improve it the info needs to be based on fact. As explained information jumps out of nowhere (and this is possible "idential" to newspapers where t would then be copyvio) without explaining anything. Just as the who tags explain in detail those sections can be clarified not removed.
 * Synthesis tag is on because of editoralising. " the case has been considered illustrative " by who? notable? I've removed it as the part about others having done so is irrelevant and OR without an explicist connection being drawn (a see also page to the relevant person maybe more noteworthy). And the part about it being "considered illustrative " preceded by "while it has not been..." is again synthesis and editoralising as explicitly said that no connection has been drawn. (Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * To be frank, I have no idea why you have removed this text on the basis of WP:OR. You appear to be objecting to the prose style rather than either pointing out specific claims were unsourced or that any particular text was a real copyvio. Could you be a bit clearer please as unless you can explain your point I see little reason not to restore the deleted citations? As for repeatedly tagging "Ravi" with who this seems singularly pedantic as it is explained in the lead text. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose style tag is for the upper section. In the removal section i dont see the relevance, unless you were to point out its connection. The copyvio part is what you suggested, if that were to be the case then it would possibly be so. I put the requisite tags and hidden inline queries as to what i think needs citations/improvement, though a general review/clean would be needed to.
 * For the deletions of the 2 parts (where the 3rd was moved to another section) i think i already explained why both are not relevant. It doesn't show much encyclopaedic content.(Lihaas (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

Okay, taking your edit given in this diff one step at a time: Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In the Background section you have added the template story which states on its template page "The decision to tag with this template should be supported by a discussion on the article's talk page citing examples of how the article inappropriately and/or excessively employs storylike elements, outside of properly quoted material." You failed to follow this guidance as you did not discuss on this page in advance of tagging. The section appears quite factual with every fact supported by citations. Please spell out exactly what you would like to see changed or remove this tag.
 * 2) You have re-added who? against the name "Ravi" in the background section. What exactly do you want to see here, it still seems blatantly obvious to me who is meant.
 * 3) You have added who? to the "dorm adviser" in the same paragraph. Again, what do you want to see explained, this is clearly cited.
 * 4) Why have you added "<!RA-->" in the middle of the paragraph, this appears to be an attempt to add a hidden comment which should be avoided. As you have re-added the exact same text I am puzzled as to why you could not see this as a wikicode error and consequently your edits appear at best sloppy and at worst might be misread as vandalism.
 * 5) You have blanked the Consequences section, this is a perfectly well sourced section which summarizes a number of authoritative sources putting the significance of this event in context. Claiming that this is "unencyclopedic" is not meaningful, please explain your objection to this section that relates to policy and is detailed enough to be understood by others. Your current objection is about as meaningful as saying "I don't like it".
 * 6) You changed the section "Response" to "Reaction" which appears arbitrary.
 * 1. okay, fair enough to generate discussion. The section doesnt become viable just because it can be cited. As such encyclopaedic article dont need all details as if an investigative report. Therein lies by how it apears as a story. Minor details dont need to be.
 * 2. to clarify who the person is. when the section of the story starts it just says "ravi." to follow on the lead is wrong, because the lead refelcts the article, it is not a follow up story
 * 3/4. the RA part is also preceded by a tag to clarify who is being refered to, which is not obvious. Is it the same as the RA? Is it the RA or someone else, later on there is mention and clarification so its not clear who this refers to. if not the latter, then perhaps add "uni staff" (i meant "RA?")
 * 5. Again, as mentioned before 1 part relevant was moved elsewhere. and just because it is sourced doesnt make it viable. the relation to others is not shown, its just mentioned that others did so? So? Add it to 2010 in lgbt rights if need be. The other part is self--contradicting in saying "though nothing has been clarified..." and then goes on to mention somethign that is editorialising and just because its sourced doesnt mean WP:UNDUE.
 * 6. largely similar words, although not everything is a response. Some people simply said stuff, nothing was done which would be indicative of a response.
 * Seems like were making progresss here in a civil manner, so good show.(Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Your replies are either unenlightening (possibly due to English not being your first language), appear to be possible rehashes of issues covered in earlier talk page discussions or somehow related to your problematic edits at 2010 in LGBT rights (as you mentioned above) and I have no intention of duplicating. As you seem determined to keep sections of this article blanked and revert my changes rather than restore the text and then discuss, I shall ask for a third party opinion to suggest the best way forward. Fæ (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have quite clearly twice discussed, and for the second time did so piece-by-piece for each of your points. your red herring strategy is not going to help. the who tags are quite explicit in what is sought, how do you dont understand i dint know, but you can certainly ask. Ive also elucidated on each of the 3 points in that section, where one is relevant more as a reaction and the other 2 dont further this edit. You can keep harping to the 2010 page instead of wanting to discuss but that will not garner any consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Hmm, you were the first to mention "2010 in lgbt rights", I quoted it once in reply to your comment, so to say I keep "harping" about it is an unfounded exaggeration and possibly plain argumentative. I find your use of English hard to interpret due to poor spelling and grammar. Your claim to have "elucidated" or having "clearly discussed" is hardly the case here and you do not appear to understand the points I originally made. I suggest you revert your edits and instead make a good faith request for improvements you would like to see on this talk page rather than disrupting this article about a recently deceased person that should be treated sensitively. Please refer to Competence is required. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i've tried to be WP:Bold and clarify things. See this version instead of going to ANI first and resorting to WP:NPA on incomptence and language.
 * I was in the process of a copy edit for a wikiproject until an edot conflict. Ill redo it to clear out.(Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

Just to clarify for anyone else reading this, I did make a two-line comment in a current ANI thread about Lihaas' edits but I have not raised a request on ANI about Lihaas. It should also be made clear that though Lihaas has made allegations of a personal attack above against me and on ANI against myself and another editor, s/he has not raised this through any recognised dispute resolution process or supplied any supporting evidence. Fæ (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, again) to recap now: ive cleared the tags (big ones), with just some minor ones left that i dont know the answer to so someone can clean it (and its pretty clear now). The only thing we have a discussion left for is the "consequences" that i have restored in the itnerim.
 * On the other side, the "allegations" are waht i just showed that you said. and secondly the deliberate mispelling of my name on multiple occassions certainly comes off as such.
 * Furthermore, wikipedia is not a WP:Memorial as you seem to indicate the interest in this page is "recently deceased person that should be treated sensitively." This is an encyclopaedia not an Obituary
 * Also the passage imtrying to add back is now blocked as "opposingviews.com" is on the wikipedia blacklist. adding it back without the link.(Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Refer to WP:BDP which states "material about dead people may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, so anything questionable should be removed promptly." As for misspelling your name, please feel free to make corrections, though I suggest you make sure your own text is correctly spelt before criticising others. Fæ (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Consequnces
As the only subject of debate now we can ignore the top and debate this:
 * My view: "I've removed it as the part about others having done so is irrelevant and OR without an explicist connection being drawn (a see also page to the relevant person maybe more noteworthy). And the part about it being "considered illustrative " preceded by "while it has not been..." is again synthesis and editoralising as explicitly said that no connection has been drawn." and "Again, as mentioned before 1 part relevant was moved elsewhere. and just because it is sourced doesnt make it viable. the relation to others is not shown, its just mentioned that others did so? So? Add it to 2010 in lgbt rights if need be. The other part is self--contradicting in saying "though nothing has been clarified..." and then goes on to mention somethign that is editorialising and just because its sourced doesnt mean WP:UNDUE."(Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

Proposal to revert
I propose that the article is reverted to this version before Lihaas' disruptive edits which include hidden comments embedded in the text, arbitrary rewording rather than necessary corrections (some of which may now deviate from the sources cited and would need careful re-checking), re-writing the lead text (which underwent significant discussion before reaching a prior consensus) and changes to the article layout, again previously much discussed and debated the background of which Lihaas appears unaware of having not gone through the talk page archives and failed to discuss in advance. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make an allegation that back it up. Tell me what "may" deviate from the original that needs review (also considering what you said above is a copyvio). I have explained eveyrthing again and again and proposed a further discussion your continual red herring statements of "arbitrary" and "disruptive" is a WP:BOOMERANG because you have not discussed changed which is part and parcel of how wikipedia works and you dont WP:OWN the articles. WP:Consensus can change so resorting to some ancient arguement is not valid. As i already suggested the WP:LEAD reflects the article, it is not a prerequisite to be followed on upon. NO content is removed whatsoever, except for the 1 section where i suggested a discussion AND tailored to your whim and restored in the interim.
 * If inspite of this you refure to want discuss matters then you are free to go edit something else (perhaps a new encyclopaedia). Ive been perfectly polite in asking you, nicely on your talk page, to come and discuss, reverted as you asked to discuss and you still abjectly refuse. The onus is now on you.(Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Making unfounded accusations of personal attacks is not normally considered being perfectly polite and neither is repeatedly reverting and applying your arbitrary edits after they have been challenged and without reaching a consensus in direct contravention of the WP:BOLD guidelines, the same guidelines that you previously quoted in justification. As for expecting me to check the sources to "prove" your changes are problematic, I suggest you consider the policy of WP:BURDEN and take some time to read the sources yourself. Fæ (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been previously involved with this page, so I don't know if I really count as a 3O, but here is what I suggest. Like Fae, I have found Lihaas' tags and edits difficult to understand, and sometimes, they appear to have arisen from misunderstanding. But that doesn't mean that we cannot improve the page by considering thoughtfully the things that concern Lihaas. Therefore, I think that we should (1) adopt Fae's proposal of reverting back to before those edits, and (2) ask Lihaas to list in this talk, with explanation, each proposed change (some of that has already happened). That way, we can calmly and constructively assess and reach consensus on each proposed change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have duly corrected his additions and asked for the 1 issue we now have to be discussed (and i have also restored that section. Conversely, there seems to be no attempt to discuss what i have repeatedly asked for. The inline tags have questions right beside them for easy understanding. Doesnt really get complex. Tags are there for a reason, and taht reason is to answer them NOT to revert. The other edits in the review of the WHOLE page and throughly minor and not controversial in the least. Why should they be removed? We started to discuss this (and even said above it is in a civil manner, then one editor doesnt want to discuss so he should have his way DESPITE him already having so. To quote himself Competence is required! I have said it time and time again im willing to answer each and ANY query you provide but no one seems to want to to discuss!! We cant lost an entire copy edit based on his whim that something was inexplicable. Why should his "work" be restored and other legitiamte work be removed. He had a problem with the tags i removed them, he had a problem with not understanding the inline tags i put question as to why they are in there. He has a problem with the remove i restored AND then gave my opinion. He certainly cant have his whim word for word for himself, wikipedia is collobarative, he doesnt own it!
 * That said if you want to discuss anything im more than willing to discuss with you. What part was i not getting through it? (Lihaas (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Your continued ad-hominem arguments are unwelcome and will undermine any proposal for change you make. If you wish to complain about me or any other editor then use a Dispute resolution process. Fæ (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have STILL not discussed the issue even after having your revert
 * you also dont WP:OWN the article that editors should wait for your grace and approval that heaven-forbid you only discuss when you see something on the page you dont like.(Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * At any rate, if tryptofish is ready to discuss i guess i discuss with him. If none of you then WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG would turn the onus to you.(Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

Sure, I'm happy to discuss. Lihaas, I also got your message to me on my talk page, thanks. Due to holiday-related travel, I'm not going to be able to give this article as much attention as I would like to for a couple of days, and actually, I think that it would be a very good thing to take a few days and have everyone here take a deep breath, and then maybe it will be easier to come to an agreement. For now, here is what I think I see. It's not just Fae, but also me and also the 3O editor, who all agree that we do not see what good was coming from Lihaas's edits. We've all asked Lihaas for some further clarification, and Lihaas has said that he thought that most of it was already clear. Taking it as good faith that Lihaas means well about improving the page, I think that the most helpful thing I can do is to think hard about what Lihaas has been proposing, and then to craft some specific questions for Lihaas that I will ask in this talk. In that way, I'll try to help Lihaas better understand what the objections are, and try to help myself and the rest of us better understand what Lihaas is trying to get across. I promise I'll do that in the near future, so please be patient with me for a few days. In the mean time, I ask Lihaas to accept that the three of us who disagree with you are doing so in good faith, and that includes Fae, and that you should consider that we simply do not understand what you are trying to get across. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. But i posit you ask the questions here instead in a new section, just post on my page when youre ready. actually ill be off in about 12 huors and return on sunday.
 * Also note the other user has a vested interest and possibly a WP:COI in this. As noted this evidence does suggest WP:OWN issues in the lack of his discussion to maintain his version.(Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * Your continued allegations against me do you no credit as they are not supported by facts and you have been advised by several independent and experienced editors to start assuming good faith. The deletion review you point to shows I am prepared to change my opinion based on the presentation of new sources and then improve articles that I have previously raised for deletion, this is the opposite of your claim that I have problem with "ownership". You are unwilling to use any of the formal dispute resolution processes as suggested previously to make a real complaint about me, if you believe I have a conflict of interest then do go ahead and raise a request for review on WP:COIN. Fæ (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well i did respond to your queries and you havent answered that, instead even after the 2 of us agreed to discuss you still maintained some other position instead of discussions on content. if you are willing then you can ask the queries you didnt understand above and we can get back to content issues instead of foriking the matter.Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, your comments about Fae are unhelpful, and you need to stop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * Ive answered each of his queries above point-by-point and still asked what he queries, you will then note that after HIS initial round of explanation he abrubtly stops discussing and then starts making demands to have it his way. Im simply following HIS format of point-by-point discussion. What is so hard about it? Should I break it up into another section if he needs molly-coodling despite his own assertion taht WP:Competence is required(Lihaas (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * At any rate, as the 4thO, i still accepted your view to go that version while we can discuss changes.(Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

Point-by-point
As promised, I'm going to attempt to break this down, point-by-point, in hopes that we can happily and peacefully come to an understanding. I'll try, at some length, to list every issue that I think has been raised. However, I might easily miss some, so please feel free to correct me! Then, I'll try to suggest what to do, and/or ask some questions (mainly to Lihaas, but also to other editors) in cases where I find things unclear. (I think it best to discuss all of this on the article talk page, and not in user talk.)

I also see, on reviewing all the edits, some straightforward copyedits that I reverted when I made the BRD rollback, so I am going to restore those myself after making these comments. Nothing controversial, just things that I'm pretty sure we all agree about.


 * 1) Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei are two other students, who are identified by name in what is now the lead. Where their names appear again, there was concern that it might not be clear who they were. It seems to me that they are appropriately identified the first time, and it is not too much to ask of readers that they scan back up on the page if they need to refresh their memory, so there is no need for further, repeated, identification. Am I missing anything?
 * 2) Before the copyedits in question, the page was organized as: Background, Prosecutions, and Response (Government, Other). That had been changed to: Biography, Incident, Consequences, Prosecutions, and Reaction (Government, Other). Let me suggest, first, that we not have a Biography header, on the principle that this page is about the incident, not the person. I'm fine with Reaction, on the grounds that some reactions were speech rather that actions. Let me also suggest that Consequences should not be a separate section, but, rather, be combined as appropriate into either Prosecutions or Reaction, since "consequences" are likely one or the other of those. Any thoughts on that? As for Incident, it does seem to me to make sense to have a section for that, since otherwise we seem to jump from background to aftermath. How should we go about that?
 * 3) The word "talented", before "violinist", was deleted. I'm ambivalent about that. I do note that there is sourcing for the adjective.
 * 4) Somewhat as with Ravi and Wei, there were questions about identifying the RA. I recognize that an RA is generally a grad student, whereas a dorm adviser might sometimes be a faculty member, and we might want to make the wording more precise in that regard. Otherwise, though, I see no point in belaboring whether it was always the same RA each time.
 * 5) In the timeline, there are references to "sexual encounter"s. Do the sources support the use of the word "sexual", or should we, as a compromise, just say "encounter"?
 * 6) There are some places where the word gay is used, and the question was raised whether it is necessary to clarify that this refers to LGBT. Personally, I think it is obvious, and does not require clarification.
 * 7) As discussed higher in this talk, there were sections where, I think, Lihaas had concerns about sourcing or about being "encyclopedic". No one else reading this discussion, including me, understands what the problem was. If Lihaas still wants to pursue this issue, let me suggest that you list in this talk, one-by-one, the sentences or sources that you think are problems, and we can see whether we can figure this out.

I've numbered my comments, so I would suggest that everyone respond below using the same numbering. I sure hope we can work this out! Happy editing, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * General agreement on all points. A couple comments, by point.
 * 2: Are you suggesting removing the title for what's now the bio section altogether, or giving it a name like "background"? The latter seems better, but I do agree with the desire to change it (and the other points made.)
 * 3: It is possible that I deleted "talented" some time back. If it's sourced it's not a huge deal to me, although I generally prefer to "show, not tell" with adjectives like that in biographies so as to communicate "how talented?" and "in who's opinion?". The concern is that "talented" is a fairly vague statement, and comes off POVish as a result.
 * 5: I favor "encounter" rather than "sexual encounter", even if some sources use it. I don't doubt that, as I understand the videotaping incidient, that many people would argue against the characterization as "sexual", in large part because of just how slippery what is and isn't sex is linguistically. I've no problem being more specific if we have more sourced specifics, I just think "sexual encounter" isn't the clearest way to communicate what happened (as I understand it.)
 * 6: I agree that gay is sufficiently unambiguous here. If the question arose because of the desire to add/remove a wikilink, I don't really care either way. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. It's "background" now, which I support.
 * 3. I was referring to the deletion by Lihaas, more recently. That's what this whole thread is about.
 * 5. Yes, I do too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. :)  --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 23:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I only have observations about 4 & 5 above. (4) Sources exist that use either "RA" and "dorm advisor" and some use both terms in the same article. As Clementi used the term "RA" in his own posts on JustUsBoys, this would seem to be the more accurate term to use. (5) Most sources are clear that the spied on encounters were sexual in nature and Clementi refers to "making out with a guy", it would seem odd to suppress the word "sexual" making the description of events less accurate by leaving the layman reader to wonder if these were just two guys meeting in Clementi's bedroom for a game of scrabble or a nice cup of tea. Fæ (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4. OK, for that reason, I suggest that we consistently say "RA" (or "resident advisor") in favor of "dorm advisor" (and not worry about whether or not it was always the same RA).
 * 5. I keep changing my mind about this one. I suppose that "making out" is in a gray area between a nice cup of tea, on the one hand, and intercourse, on the other. Can "encounter" by itself get the idea across, in context? I don't know.


 * At this point, I think we have a feel for what most of us think (aside from some details that will work out in due time), and the major questions rest on hearing back from Lihaas. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations
I believe that the inclusion of the table draws an inference of causation between the events. Of course, no causation has been proven, though certain media outlets have speculated that there is causation. It is a violation of BLP to imply or indicate causation between Ravi's actions and Clementi's suicide.

Apart from this, the table adds nothing that cannot be easily described in the text. Furthermore, the lack of certain information in the table brings up strong POV issues. Why is Clementi's rejection of lifestyle at the hands of his mother not included? As stated above, why would Wikipedia infer something as fact that is not accepted as fact?

Finally, it looks and reads as unencylcopedic. Per WP policy, the information should be integrated into the text of the article, without violating BLP and NPOV of course.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep my reply in one place, I'll reply to all of this below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejection of lifestyle by Clementi's mother
Why is this sourced information, which is clearly related to the issue of the self-esteem of an individual who committed suicide and is widely reported in the press, contested for inclusion in the "Events" section? Why would mention of the webcam be mentioned but not the Clementi's self-professed views of his mother on this issue? This seems highly biased to me.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On another related note, the removal of Clementi's stated view of the Webcam incident seems to be pushing a POV. The entire section of "background and incident" infer that the information stated therein lead to the incident. This is a BLP violation. As an impartial encyclopedia, we should not make judgments and merely reflect what RSs say about the issue while being mindful of BLP concerns. If we are to infer that Clementi killed himself because of the Webcam incident (as prosecutors assert), why would other events be excluded (like Clementi's own views)? Is this article being written by prosecutors?LedRush (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A slight clarification, if the text relates to Clementi then WP:BDP applies rather than the rest of BLP (in the context that his death can no longer be considered recent) and issues of appropriate weight and NPOV may be more important to consider. Obviously, when it comes to current legal cases, information about the living will fall under BLP. Fæ (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good reminder. My concerns have been as they relate to Ravi, so BLP is the correct policy for my edits.  Of course, we need to be mindful of BDP and other WP policies (like NPOV) as well.LedRush (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You've raised a number of issues, so here is my detailed reply.


 * First, let's look specifically at the edits in question. You've made two edits updating the information, which are very helpful, and I did not revert them:, . I made three edits, which partially reverted some of your other edits.


 * You removed a category and two templates as inaccurate: . I restored the "bullying" template, while accepting your other two removals: . At the time I made my edit, all I had to go by was your mention in your edit summary of WP:LABEL. It seemed to me that it was factually clear that the incident on this page was a bullying case. I now see from your comments here that you are concerned that there might not have been a causal relationship between what happened in the dorm and the suicide.


 * You removed the table (which, as another editor noted on your talk page, had been discussed in some detail at the time it was created): . Your stated reasons (in the edit summary) were: "it looks unencyclopedic, is a violation of BLP and NPOV, and generally uninformative". As for how it looks, this is a subjective matter, and I'm receptive to your point about moving it into the text instead, although all you had done was delete it. As for BLP and NPOV, that was baffling to me. It seemed simply to be a timeline of events, based on reliable sources. I reverted you with a polite request that you explain in talk, per WP:BRD: . I now understand from your comments that you are concerned that the timeline implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the events listed and the suicide.


 * You added information that there have been reports of difficulties within Clementi's family, and of Clementi making a comment about the video not bothering him that much: . In my revert,, I expressed concerns that you were making a sort of argument about what really caused the suicide, not supported by the preponderance of sources. No, I'm not a prosecutor. I'm an editor looking for NPOV. But we can take another look at this.


 * When you reverted all my edits in a single edit,, back to what you had written, you indicated in your edit summary that I was violating BLP and not explaining my edits, which isn't really accurate.


 * So, it seems to me that you are raising the issue that it is possible that the suicide was motivated by Clementi's relationship with his mother, and not by what happened in the dormitory, which might have been something of little importance. You base the latter on a report of a comment Clementi made on line shortly before his death. My thinking is that one has to be very careful about assigning too much significance to what a suicidal person says when they are upset; the report of the on line comment sounds like someone trying to keep a stiff upper lip. Given the preponderance of sources stating that criminal charges have been filed in the case, you need better sourcing to justify a claim that Clementi was actually not bothered by what happened. As for the relationship with the mother, I'm open to including that, although I think the wording needs to be discussed so as not to run up against WP:SYNTH.


 * Continuing from that, you apparently feel that it is incorrect to characterize the incident as a bullying case, on the grounds that it was really the relationship with the mother that caused the suicide. I'm not sold on that at all. You also feel that the table implies causality. I don't see it that way. I see it simply as a timeline, nothing more. Each entry in the table is a well sourced fact. There is no BLP violation in that. If the effect of the entries, taken as a whole, were to imply fault for the suicide, then there would be a question about that. But I don't think that the implication is there, beyond what the reliable sources say. Instead, I'm concerned that you are advocating a WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single report about the mother.


 * I'm leaving the page as you left it, and waiting for other editors to express what they think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One more point occurred to me, that I thought I should raise. Looking at the comments above about WP:BDP, a case can be made that writing this page in a way that might be construed as "blaming" Clementi's mother for the suicide might actually be a BLP violation with respect to the mother, as described at BDP. Again, I look forward to hearing what more editors think about the various issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The page as it was before recent changes was stable, reviewed by many experienced contributors and unchallenged for a significant period despite this being a notable controversy. I believe whilst the changes proposed by LedRush in their recent edits are under discussion, the most respectful approach would be to agree to restore the previous version and discuss the proposal, possibly by an RFC process if necessary. It may well be that due to recent developments reported about the legal case there will be a revived interest, possibly the source of LedRush's interest, recent developments ought to be integrated but with a constant eye on the long view rather than tempting claims of recentism. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is more respectful to follow WP procedures regarding BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for your detailed responses. Here are my replies:

1. Neither the content of the table nor the possibility of BLP issues seems to have been discussed at all, nonetheless at length. I saw a very brief discussion on the formatting. Could you please show me this old discussion (for educational purposes, as we all know, consensus can change, and this still wouldn't excuse BLP or NPOV violations).

2. The structure of the article is now such that we attribute Clementi's suicide to Ravi's actions. No court of law has created this causal relationship and Ravi has not been accused of this crime. It is fair game to talk about the charges against him (purely factual matters), but it is not fair to present only a certain set of facts which leads people to believe that Ravi's actions were the direct cause of Clementi's suicide. Further to this point, if we are being fair, we should give all evidence reported in the media about Clementi's relationships before the suicide: that means we should present how he expressed his opinions of Ravi's actions to friends and what his relationship to his mother was. I don't see how we can be NPOV while presenting only one view with a very transparent agenda.

3. I do not want to say that the suicide was a result of his relationship of his mother. As above, I want to present more than one side of the case as many Reliable Sources have reported.

4. I do not think that Clementi's relationship with his mother necessarily affects whether this is a bullying case. WP:LABEL states that we should stay away from value laden terms. While to me this is obviously not a case of bullying, the media has reported it as such. The article should (and does) reflect this. However, when we label it a bullying case ourselves, we are making the determination ourselves, violating BLP, NPOV and LABEL.

I am not adverse to playing with my wording...I have no ownership over this article (no one does). However, a mass revert of edits intended to address BLP and NPOV concerns seems counterproductive. Now that we've staked out our general ideas, I think it would be helpful if you suggested specific changes to the text (or other ways to address the BLP and NPOV concerns).

Also, as an aside, there are tons of articles about Clementi's relationship with his mother, not one. This is not a case of UNDUE. Furthermore, I am not advocating blaming his mother in any way, just as no one here should be advocating blaming Ravi in any way. We should be explaining the events around the suicide in a NPOV way that doesn't violate BLP and which reflects RSs.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that we are discussing these issues, and I'm hopeful that we can figure out a way to consensus.


 * I tend to agree with Fae about which version of the page we should keep until we reach a longer term decision. As for BLP concerns, I have pointed out that there are BLP concerns with respect to Clementi's mother in the version that is on the page now, so we're caught in a situation where there are BLP concerns either way. This being the case, I'm continuing my stance of not reverting anything myself, even if it's the proverbial Wrong Version TM. I'd like to just wait a few more days and see if additional editors show up and offer views. If that doesn't happen, perhaps I'll put a neutrally worded request at WP:BLPN.


 * On the minor point of the prior discussions of the timeline table, my recollection is that no one previously raised any BLP concerns about it, even though it was being looked at closely. There would have been no reason to discuss BLP concerns if nobody felt that any such concerns existed.


 * I appreciate learning that there are now multiple sources about possible alternative explanations for the suicide. To the extent that we still adhere to WP:UNDUE, I'll be fine with incorporating them into the page. I'll need a bit of time to examine the sources for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, it seems like the only outstanding points are regarding the table (which I believe is unencyclopedic, violates NPOV, violates BLP and contains only information already in the article; and you believe is helpful) and the info on Clementi's mother. Seeing as this information (on Clementi's feelings of being rejected ) is extremely widely presented in RSs (New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, NBC, CBS, etc.) it is clearly not a case of UNDUE.  The only question is about BLP concerns.  I personally don't see any at all.  How can we present the information on Ravi alone, implying causation, and omit all other factors which are reported in tons of super-RSs?  If we deleted everything on Ravi and included only the information on Clementi's feelings about his parents, I might agree that is a BLP violation (might because we focus on Clementi's feelings and not on his mother's actions, whereas we focus on Ravi's actions, despite the fact that no related charges tie him to causation).  That is obviously not the case now.


 * However, if, after reading the sources below and the one cited in the article, you still actually believe the inclusion of the sentence regarding Clementi's feelings toward his mother is a BLP violation, you should delete it until we reach consensus here. Legitimately disputed BLP issues should not remain in the article while under discussion.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say. What I say is, first, I would welcome hearing from more editors, and, second, I want to examine the available sources (including but not limited to those you have presented), and see for myself what I think the reliably sourced information is. I don't think it's productive for me to speculate on what the page might end up saying until I know more about the recent sources. In the mean time, anyone is welcome to remove any BLP issues as they see fit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you think the "you (LedRush) say" is, or why you've chosen such a confrontational attitude in response to a post of mine which is pretty explicit in calling for collaboration and akcnowledging my willingness to compromise.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Skeptical to a reasonable extent, but not confrontational. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm entering the discussion a bit late in the game, after three weeks of barely glancing at my watchlist, so please excuse me if I'm not quite up to speed. I have read the comments above and glanced at the history but not studied the matter in detail. First, let me say right up front that the heading for this section raises a red flag for me. In my experience, use of the word "lifestyle" in this context often indicates either considerable ignorance about the topic or an ideological bent that includes antipathy toward the LGBT population. "Lifestyle" is not synonymous with "sexual orientation", and I trust that it was merely a careless mistake in this instance. Since first encountering the article a few months ago, I've thought the table was a bit strange. I toyed with the idea of incorporating its content into the body of the article but decided that it might be useful in that it provides a quick overview of relevant events. I'm not persuaded that the timeline necessarily implies a cause-and-effect relationship between those events; each of them is a major event in the story, and they did happen in that order. As far as the mother is concerned, other than exercising due diligence in checking sources and wording it neutrally, I see no reason to exclude her from the article. I'm not sure what function the word "basically" is serving in that sentence in the current version. It sounds weaselly. Better to go with exactly what our most reliable source says; it's going to be a very short quote, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "the word "basically" is used because some of the RSs use it when they describe Clementi's statements. It is unnecessary in the article but used to ensure that people didn't think I was attributing ideas to Clementi that he didn't expressly state.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the points that Rivertorch has raised, in particular with respect to the word choices we should make on the page. That's true about "lifestyle". I also am uncomfortable with the stereotype of an easy going father and an overbearing mother. Please don't get me wrong: I don't think any of that was intentional, but I'm just saying that we need to be aware of how things sound. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am agnostic on the term "lifestyle"; it is the term of choice for the PC crowd, which is probably why the RSs use it. I am unaware of the stereotype of the easygoing father and overbearing mother (isn't it stereotypically the other way?), but regardless, we don't even hint at that now, and we must report on what the RSs say, even if it were a stereotype that just happened to be true in this case.LedRush (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some articles which can be used to update this article (and help the article with the NPOV and BLP issues)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/nyregion/with-tyler-clementi-suicide-more-complex-picture-emerges.html

"The early news media coverage linked the suicide of Mr. Clementi to the spying, but the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life."

"The Web chats that appear to be Mr. Clementi’s do not portray a man fearful of having his sexual orientation disclosed. He played down Mr. Ravi’s telling people and wrote that other students would know why he was bringing a man to his room. He wrote that he had told his family that he was gay and that unlike his brothers and his father, his mother reacted negatively."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502811047499564.html

This article focuses on Ravi's responses to accusations, and an update on the trial.LedRush (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources
I have now reviewed the sources cited above, as well as having looked for additional recent sources. I can only conclude that the correct thing to do, per WP:BDP, is to revert the recent edits, and I have done so.

Here are the results returned by a Google News search for "Tyler Clementi" without any other, potentially biasing, search terms, for approximately the last two months:. A number of facts stand out:


 * The term "bullying" is applied to the events by numerous recent sources. For Wikipedia to find reason to reject this "label" per WP:LABEL would violate WP:OR. Are there any reliable sources that say the incident should not be called bullying? If they exist, I'd be happy to cite them, but I do not see them.


 * There is nothing—nothing!—in the sources that would contradict the timeline table. Indeed, many of them continue to repeat it (one example). They even reinforce the idea that there actually was cause and effect. The table does not state that there was cause and effect, but it would be an accurate representation of the sources if it did.


 * Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal  articles linked above make several things very clear.
 * First, they both substantively repeat the account of events reflected in the timeline table, far from refuting it. Just read what they say.
 * Secondly, they both attribute the arguments about alternative explanations for the suicide to a motion filed by Ravi's defense attorney. They do not present it as information revealed through their own investigations. They present it only as claims made in defense motions. It looks to me like all of the other stories, in other news outlets, are mirroring the Times story. Thus, any claim by Wikipedia that the video etc. were not the proximal cause of the suicide would have to be attributed to the defense attorney. I would not object to mentioning briefly on the page that this is the defense's position, so long as it is clearly identified as such.
 * Thirdly, they report that the dropping of charges against Wei was done in exchange for her testimony against Ravi, a fact we need to make clear.
 * Fourth, the mention of Clementi's mother is made only very briefly in the Times piece (second paragraph), where it is presented as something that was on his mind, but not as a possible cause of the suicide. It is cherry-picking and original research to pull that mention out of the article, and make it sound like a possible alternative explanation.

So, I have reverted the changes. I think we need to add to the page a brief mention of why the charges were dropped against Wei. I would support adding some information to the page, reflecting the position of Ravi's defense, but clearly identifying it as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your mass revert goes against direct BLP guidelines, and fails to address many of the points I have brought up. Addressing your points:
 * 1. I don't have to go and find sources that don't say it's bullying (which is just silly, really...how many news reports say that an event does not fall into some random category of events? How long of a list would be required for each story?)
 * 2. I never said the timeline was wrong. Please read my remarks above.
 * 3. You seem to be assuming a cause and effect between Ravi's actions and the suicide. The prosecutors haven't done this (check the sources above) and WP cannot do this without attribution.
 * 4. I haven't inferred a cause and effect relationship regarding Clementi's feelings on his mother. However, this is reported in literally hundreds of news reports as a significant event before the suicide.  Not including it is a BLP issue, as well as a NPOV one.
 * 5. The article says in the lede why Wei isn't being charged. How much clearer can it be?
 * Please discuss the actual issues here before reverting, per WP policy on BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You said somewhere above that you wanted me to remove anything that I thought violated BLP, and you yourself seem to be doing most of the reverting here. And my apologies about the reasons Wei isn't being charged. I just missed that, which was a complete error on my part, sorry.


 * About bullying, I asked if you had such a source. You don't have to provide one if you don't have one. But I have provided numerous sources that do indicate that the events are considered to have been bullying. Absent a source to the contrary, my arguments, above, that it violates WP:OR for us to decide that these sources should be ignored, remains unrefuted.


 * It does not matter whether you, personally, think that the timeline is right or wrong, or that there are or are not cause-and-effect relationships. You argued above that the timeline implies a cause-and-effect relationship amongst the individual entries in the table. I have shown that the timeline properly reflects the available sourcing. You seem to be insisting on removing it on the basis that Wikipedia should treat the events involving Ravi as unrelated to the suicide, which is a position that actually goes beyond what any sources would support.


 * About the "literally hundreds" of sources about Clementi's mother, I have shown that they are all mirroring the Times report that this information was obtained only from filings by Ravi's defense attorney. You have no sources to the contrary. I support presenting the defense's position, but it must be presented as such, not as "facts" in Wikipedia's voice.


 * I am concerned that you are misrepresenting sources, and I feel that we may need to ask for more editors to look at these issues, instead of just going back and forth between you and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not misrepresented sources, but it seems that you may be. The New York times says that the information came from Clementi's web chats.  This is not the defence making an argument, this is the defence citing web chats in their papers.  There is a huge difference.  I hope that you will engage in edits in the article in good faith, with an eye towards NPOV and BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't really responded to what I said. Rather than us continuing to go around in circles, I have posted a request for more editors to offer advice at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting...I seem to remember writing the same about you in the recent past. Hmm...LedRush (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One editor has commented at BLPN (see the link above) that the issues here appear not to be BLP-related at all (instead WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE), which I find quite significant, to the extent that it suggests a view that arguments that have been based upon BLP may be faulty. I'm pleased to see some more editors are looking at the page now, and I look forward to seeing if any more advice will be forthcoming from uninvolved editors in the next few days. I may perhaps also follow that editor's advice and post at NPOVN, if need be. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, are you not ok with the info on Clementi's relationship with his parents as it now appears?


 * Are the other issues the use of the "bullying" tag and the table? I am trying to nail down precisely what your concerns are and understand specific proposals to address them.LedRush (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about how to present the information from the defense filing, about Clementi's parents, and Clementi's statement about not being bothered by who saw the video. I do not currently know where we stand on that.
 * About the timeline table, I am open to discussion about the esthetics of it and about whether the information would or would not be better presented in the main text. However, I think the argument that it should be deleted on BLP grounds (with respect to Ravi) is without merit.
 * About the template and category pertaining to bullying, I think that it is very clear that the available sources indicate that it was incorrect to delete them.--Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And now . This has the effect of repeating the information twice, and seems to be another instance of constantly reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the one constantly reverting. You seem unwilling to discuss specific proposals on the talk page, and instead look to just mass revert once a day or so.  Also, your most recent edit made the argument that Clementi's death was a direct result of Ravi's actions (even though the NY Times goes out of it's way to say this is explicitly not the position of the Prosecutor) and then further distorts reality by saying that Ravi's defence even admitted that there was a causal relationship, but merely a less direct one.  That edit violated OR, BLP, NPOV and just basic editing protocols.  If you want to revert further, I once again suggest that you make specific suggestions and discuss them here first.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I consider those comments to be 100% inaccurate, but I'll leave it to other editors to judge for themselves who is and who isn't editing responsibly. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% inaccurate? You don't concede that the NYTimes piece says "The early news media coverage linked the suicide of Mr. Clementi to the spying, but the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life."  You don't see how saying "arguing that the causes of Clementi's suicide were less clearly related to Ravi's actions than the prosecution had claimed" are doubly bad as the prosecution hasn't made this claim, and obviously the defense isn't conceding a causal connection at all?LedRush (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in arguing about 100% versus 90% or whatever. I provided that wording in good faith, believing that it was an accommodation to your concerns. It turns out that I misinterpreted what you felt about it, and I accept your deletion of those words. By the way, I also agree with your move of the bullying-related material to the reactions section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Judging from out recent edits, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on how to integrate the new information. I believe your method is a clear BLP and POV violation. It must be integrated, and not passed off just as some defense claim.

2. About the timeline: the aesthetics are bad, and the information is already integrated into the text ( I believe, what information is there that isn't in the text? If it's not, it should be). Therefore, other than aesthetics and going against WP guidelines on generally integrating information, it isn't adding anything good to the article. And because the timeline is selective, it is currently POV and a BLP violation (this last point is correctable, of course, but the bigger point is why do you want it in when it doesn't add anything).

3. I don't feel it is clear at all. However, enough sources have made the claim that I will concede this point, even though I think it's better from a policy perspective not to include the tags.LedRush (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we agree, then, on point 3? If so, that's a significant step forward! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree on point 3, but I agree that I will not stop you from readding the labels, even though I don't agree with your doing so. That's kinda like agreement, right?  And it is progress :)LedRush (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you! I appreciate that very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed "Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying" from the list (was that there before) because it is conclusory, not articulated by the prosecution or authorities, and recent RSs seem to question it. If you disagree with my reasoning, let's add it to the list of outstanding issues you seem to be constructing below.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

 * 1) About the timeline table, a case can be made that it is helpful to give, in a compact way, a clear sense of, literally, the timeline – that is, the timing of the events from day to day. On the other hand, I can accept that the table looks a little odd, and the information contained in it (other than all of the dates, at least in a quickly accessible format) is repeated in the text. I do not accept that there are BLP issues for having deleted it. At this point, I don't feel strongly about it: I would accept other editors putting it back, but I'm not going to press any longer for its return.
 * 2) About the "new details" raised in the August defense filing, I think that we have made progress towards a mutually agreeable format, but I remain uncomfortable with some issues. I note that the discussion at WP:BLPN is giving some push-back against the theory that we need to include that material as a BLP matter with respect to Ravi. I could also point to WP:BLPPRIMARY's discussion about how to report information that is sourced to court documents. Because the information in the court filings has been discussed by numerous secondary sources, I think we are on solid ground including it in some form, but we need to be clear about how those secondary sources have presented it, and how they haven't. How, then, to balance the need, per WP:NPOV to adequately present Ravi's "side" of the story, with the issue of WP:UNDUE? I have agreed all along that we do indeed need to present the POV of the defense. However, we still have some issues about presenting claims as though they are objective facts, equal in weight to the other sourced facts. All of the sourcing for (1) the issue of whether Clementi was upset by his mother's response to finding out that he was gay, and (2) Clementi's comment online about not being too bothered about what Ravi had done, comes from sources that attribute the information to the defense's filed documents. Consequently, I'm not comfortable with reporting these two pieces of information in the Background/incident section, along with the other information that sources attribute, instead, to journalistic facts. I agree that we should present the information, but I think it better to present it in the section about the court case, as information that came to light as a result of the defense filings. Indeed, that is simply factually accurate, as to when and how the "new details" emerged. I was reverted on that. I'd like to re-examine that issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I'd like to add back the category that was deleted while I was commenting above. It seems to me that most sources support such a categorization (the only reliable sources now questioning it base that questioning on the defense filing, not their own journalistic findings of fact), even if it is not a matter of legal finding. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #3, that is clearly not the case. Can you please show me a source in which the authorities or prosecution say that the suicide was a direct result of the spying incident? If you do (I don't think you can), does that source also say that the prosecution has deemed that the spying was in fact a case of bullying (cyber or otherwise)?

I don't think we're far apart on #2, though I think you are mistaken about the nature of the facts of this case and how the RSs report it. I will give a more detailed response to this later.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to just chip in on the bullying category issue. Even if the "authorities" or any particular temporary group of lawyers do not currently or officially consider this a bullying case, that does not stop the wealth of existing reliable sources that refer to the suicide as a bullying case. It is perfectly reasonable to categorize the article on this basis. Please keep in mind that the article is about Clementi's suicide (a BDP not a BLP) which includes contemporary context and historic and social impact, not just the details of the current legal case against Ravi. Fæ (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course that is true. That is why, even though many RSs don't seem to address this as a bullying case, I conceded that we may add those tags to this article because the ones that do.  Now we are talking about a direct causal relationship between the alleged bullying and the suicide.  We have RSs like the NYTimes stating that it is unclear why Clementi killed himself.  I remember only sensational reports making the direct causal claim, though there could be others.  Would you please find a list of RSs which make this direct causal relationship explicit so we can see whether those RSs are pervasive enough to overcome the obvious BLP issues of making claims that no one officially makes?LedRush (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The high quality sources are unlikely to make any clear causal statement but provide a clear enough context, you may want to read through the sources included that reported the original suicide in the first few weeks rather than putting the burden on me to re-list them here. As a single high quality example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/tyler-clementi-gay-student-suicide states "Clementi's suicide is the latest example of the damage that can be inflicted when the age-old habit of pranks between teenagers meets the huge social power of technology." which makes it a case study for bullying rather than family rejection issue. Again this is a BDP not a BLP, concern over fairly representing the legal case is not a reason to fail to include details of the historic and social impact of Clementi's suicide (including summarising the contemporary sensationalist or reactive reporting) even if the Ravi defence case is currently questioning that perception with previously unknown correspondence. I would recommend that both aspects are captured by a good encyclopaedic article in line with Undue weight. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am highly concerned by (1) you not recognizing that facts regarding living people, even in articles about dead people or events, are still BLP issues; and (2) your lack of willingness to provide evidence of your position regarding the causal relationship as I asked above. Regardless, I will look at some sources and see if any of them come close to supporting the position.LedRush (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the source you use says that Clementi killed himself after video of him having sex with another man was streamed on the internet. This is exacly the sensational, yellow, and factually inaccurate reporting that cannot be used.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was perfectly willing to provide a source and I did, you even referred to it in your response, claiming that I am "unwilling" is incorrect. I find it surprising that you think The Guardian is not a reliable source to show historic impact. Excluding such sources when they are being used with appropriate weight is not supported by policy. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that this is a BDP, and I have not ignored the fact that BLP applies to facts about living persons as the BDP section of BLP explains quite clearly. To spell it out, BDP is a part of BLP. BLP is not a big stick to beat aside every other good practice and policy for writing Wikipedia articles and WP:DUE applies here. To be honest, I am uncomfortable with the argumentative response you have given, so I'll take this article off my watch-list rather than annoying you with repeating the same issues of policy and good practice. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I seemed combative, but it appears that the editors on this page are (deliberately or otherwise) (1) misstating my position, (2) misstating the sources, (3) ignoring my points, (4) being extremely defensive, (5) bringing a specific POV into the conversation, and into the article. As just one example, the Guardian can be a reliable source, but when it grossly misstates the facts of the case in a sensational headline, can't we agree that that article is best not used? Instead, you've brushed past my point on that matter and misrepresented my opinion as something I clearly didn't say. If you understand BLP, I'm not sure why you'd point out that the article is a BDP when you seem to acknowledge the BLP applies to Ravi and any other living subjects. Finally, you haven't found any RS to support your position. You've asked me to go somewhere and look through a list on the off chance that one might contain the info that you hope it does. That's just not right...LedRush (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a few comments, not necessarily to convince LedRush, but directed more to any other editors who may be looking in. I appreciate what Fae said here, and I hope that they have not really been driven away. I also note that an uninvolved editor is making it very clear at WP:BLPN that the BLP-based arguments are unconvincing. As for the sourcing, I pointed quite a while ago in this talk to a survey of the recent sourcing on the topic,, and it's worth noting the abundance of reliable secondary sources that treat the incident as a bullying case. This talk page has gone back and forth about whether we are, or are not, talking about cause-and-effect, but if sources are, repeatedly, saying that the subject matter pertains to bullying, then that's what the sources say. And there is no sourcing requirement that a court have ruled that it is bullying, only that reliable secondary sources say so. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why my arguments are repeatedly either ignored or mistated, here, but perhaps I need to be even more clear: I have conceded the point on the bullying and cyber-bullying labels. Please see above.  I have removed the label about "suicided due to cyber-bullying" as we have an extremely high quality RS which says it isn't the case, and, per BLP rules on labels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates), we need to have that info clearly and well cited in the article in order to have the label (and to make it into the article, we need to meet all the concerns about NPOV, UNDUE and BLP as well).LedRush (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's interesting to note that the very first hit of the google case is the NY Times article that says that the suicide has not been linked to the spycam incident.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were just me disagreeing with you, that would be one thing. But with other editors, here and at BLPN, expressing frustration with you, you may want to consider whether editors really are not ignoring what you say, but instead finding it unpersuasive. Or not, up to you.
 * What the Times actually says about the possible connection between the dorm incidents and the suicide is: "the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life." That's not the same thing as saying "the suicide has not been linked to the spycam incident." The overwhelming majority of reliable sources do make the link, while leaving open the possibility of gray areas. WP:BLPCAT does not require sourcing to meet courtroom standards, which is the standard "the authorities" in question have to use. BLPCAT also refers only to categories about categorization of people, not of events. Thus, I think WP:UNDUE actually justifies the category. Obviously, you disagree.
 * Since the two of us are stuck on the category, let's see if there are other places where we can make progress. Please note that I very largely agreed with the newest edits you made. I observe that you added material from the defense attorney's court filings, about Clementi's earlier comments about life being tough and about the bridge. Since the other outstanding issue is about my concern about the other material that also comes from that court filing, about Clementi's mother and about saying what Ravi did was no big deal, would you now perhaps consider putting that information, as well, in the same paragraph with the court filing from which it comes, instead of in the section about the incident? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, your changes to my additions were much needed and make the article better. Thank you.
 * Thank you also for at addressing my argument. I do not ask people to agree with me (well, I do, but you know what I mean), but I do want them to at least acknowledge and address my positions.  You now have.  Thank you again.


 * I do not feel comfortable removing the information as it seems to me most important as background information. I am playing with the idea of making a new section, "The WebCam Incident" and mention only the facts around that there.  Before such a section there could be a separate background information section with some information about Clementi before college.  Next we could have a "Suicide" section which explains the factual details of the suicide.  Finally, we can have the trials section.  However, that doesn't get us over the disagreement we have - I would still want information on Clementi's coming out to his family in the background section, and I would still want Clementi's web chats saying he wasn't bothered by the incident in the Incident section.


 * Regarding the category tag, it says that the suicide was "due to" cyber-bullying. However, I still have not seen any RS which makes this claim.  The NYTimes article I mention does not explicitly refute the claim, and I expect that no article will (articles don't often list what things didn't cause something to happen), but it is very strong and compelling evidence that the tag doesn't fit this article.  I will not hold the article up to the standards of being an allegation by a prosecutor (very different, and much easier than courtroom standards, BTW), but the lack of evidence is evidence in itself (even if it isn't dispositive evidence).  Currently, the tag is OR, unsourced, and doesn't meet any of the guidelines for tagging a living person.


 * Finally, I am worried about many of the sources in this article. They seem to be riddled with inaccuracies and screaming of sensationalism (not to mention, opinion pieces and non-RS have been used to make claims not attributed to them).  Some common mistakes are: (1) Ravi outed Clementi (Clementi was out at the very least to his family and friends according to RSs); (2) Ravi recorded Clementi (there is no evidence of a recording) ; (3) tons of people saw this (there is no evidence of this); (4) the webcam caught Clementi having sex (it appears that Clementi and another man were kissing with their shirts off).  At some point, I will have to endeavor to conduct an audit.


 * Sorry for the rambling - I try and ask other for concrete suggestions, and I've not really provided much here.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too. I appreciate very much being able to discuss these issues in a non-confrontational manner. I tend to agree with you that a good approach might be to divide the page into more sections, with more chronological treatment of the events that happened. Doing so would have the added benefit of making the former timeline table less missed. We may end up with a small number of things where we still disagree after that, but perhaps we will then be able to distill those down to a short enough list that we could seek additional opinions via an RfC, later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Category name
I'd like to float an idea that occurred to me about that category, and see whether or not it might help. I could look into changing the category name from "Suicides due to cyber-bullying" to "Suicides of persons who were cyber-bullied". That would, I think, take away the statement of cause-and-effect, and I think it would be uncontroversial at the other pages in the category. Would that change, if agreed to, make the category acceptable here? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was without power from the hurricane until two days ago, and busy at work otherwise. Your proposed compromise is better than the obviously unacceptable and BLP violation of "Suicides due to cyber-bullying" seeeing as we still haven't gotten any sources to back up that claim.  However, the compromise still has two big issues: (1) it implies causation where none has been asserted in RSs; (2) it is such a small category (and one that merely combines two others) that it seems pointless - you have a category for suicides, and one for cyber bullying - why would you need a category which does nothing except tell people that you the article is tagged in two other ways?  It brings nothing to the table.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm so sorry that you got hit by that hurricane, and that's certainly understandable! I've self-reverted, so the category isn't on the page for now.


 * Well, I think the proposed name (and I'm open to other suggestions) clearly doesn't state that there was causation, which is the objection to the existing name. You raise the concern, instead, that it is implied, and it seems to me that that actually matches pretty well with what the vast majority of sources do: they acknowledge that it is probably impossible to prove a causal role of the camera incident, but they treat the suicide as something that followed the camera incident. Even the sources that focus on the new evidence do not treat it as relegating the camera incident to a discarded incorrect theory, but treat is as something where the camera incident was a central event and where there is now reason to see other, additional causes, with the percent contribution (as it were) of the additional causes unknown, but important to the argument of Ravi's court defense. Many RSs actually do assert causation, to the extent of implying it while acknowledging that it would be difficult to prove.


 * Your other issue is the smallness of the category. At present, there are three other pages (one a draft) in the category. If the category shouldn't exist at all, that's something we cannot decide here. If it continues to exist, it actually makes sense to use here the most specific categories available. The page currently is not in a cyber-bullying related category at all (although there's a navbox), and it really ought to be. Nor is it in a general suicides category, but instead is in categories of suicide by state and by method of death. The parent category of the one we discuss is "Victims of cyber-bullying" (ie, with suicides a sub-category thereof). That has only one page plus the suicides subcategory, and the one page is of a living person. So I don't see much benefit of using less specific categories instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still don't like either the category name or its usage, but I've been getting my way a lot on this article.  I concede the point.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I want to say that I very much appreciate that we are now finding ways to work together cooperatively on this, and I think we, together, are on our way to making the page better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for another gracious reply. I have no doubt that you are passionate about the subject and want to make the article as good as you can.LedRush (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments at the rename discussion would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)