Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi/Archive 2

See also, and template
In the latest revert of my edits, this:. I'll copy the edit summary here, for easier reference: "Delete: 1. abuse link...has abuse been alleged...the article doesn't mention it; 2. link to two other suicides which seem unrelated and aren't mentioned in article".

About the abuse template, first see Template talk:Abuse cases. As can be seen there, I too was skeptical about including this and related pages on the template. However, at least one editor working on the template makes an insistent case that this page should be listed within the template, and at this time, it is listed there. I'm receptive to re-arguing the point, although I don't think it will be particularly productive to do so. However, so long as this page is linked to by the template, it really does not make sense to remove the template from this page. Just removing the template from this page does nothing to change the fact that the template is on multiple other pages, where it lists this page as an example of abuse.

About the two see also links, WP:ALSO actually makes it clear that the section is used for internal links that are not mentioned within the article, and so the absence of mention within the page is not really a good reason to delete them. (Although a case can be made for deleting them from see also in favor of keeping the links to them in the template!) Suicide of Megan Meier is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. Suicide of Ryan Halligan is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. This page is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. There is obviously a relationship of the subject matter. That does not mean that the cases, or the motivations, are identical. They don't have to be. They simply have to be pages that readers interested in this page might also want to look at, and they link back to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the two other cases are "related", but I'll concede those. The abuse tag, though, runs afoul of BLP, in my mind, and I'd want that one removed until a consensus is built to include it.  I'll bring it up on that other page, if you like, but we need to follow the rules of what's best for this article WP:otherstuffexists.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I can work with that. To be consistent, we need to discuss at the template talk the possibility of removing this and related pages. I see that you have started on doing that, and I will rejoin that discussion too. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Some changes needed
I saw this article which has new information on the case and has something that we should update regarding Clementi's mother (I don't think we delete what we have, just update for another side to the story.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dharun-ravi-suspected-spying-gay-roommate-rutgers-rejects-plea-deal-article-1.989220#ixzz1g4VxGgxK

If no one does this in the short turn, I'll try to find the time to insert it corectly.LedRush (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Although you didn't mention it, would it make sense to add to the page that Ravi has rejected a plea deal? As for the mother, clearly the content on the page where the new source has bearing is the sentence: "While his father supported him, Clementi said that his mother had basically "rejected" him." My take on the new information is that it might, instead, be best to simply delete the sentence I just quoted. On the one hand, the new source does not address that bit of information directly; on the other, it puts it in a very complicated light. Instead of explaining what Clementi said and then explaining what his mother said, which leaves things very ambiguous (since they address slightly different things), it might be better to treat either apparent "side" as being WP:UNDUE until further journalism (perhaps in the course of the trial) leads to an understanding amongst sources as to what the facts really were. It seems to me that the WP:BLP issues with respect to deleting that sentence are minimal with respect to Ravi (or Wei), but they are significant with respect to the mother, and the new source may mean that it is now irresponsible for us to leave the sentence I quoted in there. (Alternatively, we could change that sentence to: "While his father supported him, reports differ as to how his mother reacted to the news.", and cite both sources. That presents both "sides", but I'm not convinced that it really captures what the new source does and does not convey.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did add the Ravi plea rejection (that was the main update to which I cryptically referred) and I've tried to add the info about his parents. I am still very reluctant to pull out this info because we are already strongly insinuating that Ravi caused Clementi's suicide, despite the lack of commensurate charges against him.  Many sources have discussed Clementi's state of mind, and his recent, perhaps traumatic, but by all accounts dramatic, discussion with his parents is a piece of the puzzle.  It should come as no surprise to you that my concern is the BLP angle regarding Ravi, though I completely understand and respect your opinion.
 * What do you think of my attempt? I've tried to be as fair (true to the source) as possible.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's complicated by the fact that a third editor removed some of what you added, between the time you made the edits and the time I logged in and saw this. But I guess I'm fine with this, because it does come across to me as balanced, and I am also very happy with how we are working collaboratively on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually remove anything (any content, that is). — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing my references!LedRush (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Woops, I misread the diff. Anyway, I read it all again, and it's all fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed "streaming" from introduction.
There was no support for the assertion that video was streamed. And, I just found a source saying it was not streamed: The Story of a Suicide, The New Yorker, 2/6/2012. So I edited the introduction to remove that assertion. Dogweather (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the cited Guardian article reports the claim that "Ravi then streamed the video live, and that same night broadcast to the 150 followers of his Twitter feed details of his voyeuristic escapade." Is that no longer believed by authorities to be the case? I haven't read the New Yorker piece yet, but whether or not he streamed the video, if the allegation remains that he used the Internet (i.e., Twitter) to out Clementi, that probably should remain in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Maybe we need to say, then, that there are conflicting reports. The Guardian doesn't make it clear who their source is. It *sounds* like it's the grand jury indictment, but I'm just guessing. The New Yorker article says that the "streaming" and "outing" claims are both false. Dogweather (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no streaming. It was available to anyone who sent an iChat request to Ravi, however no one did. The webcam was only viewed for about 5-6 seconds.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New Yorker article
I have just deleted a newly added section from the page, sourced to the article that just appeared in the New Yorker by Ian Parker. I did so because it cherry-picked information from that source, in such a manner as to argue that there had been a "media controversy" that portrayed Ravi unfairly, when, in fact, that is not what Parker, taking the article as a whole, is really saying. It is inappropriate to cherry-pick source material so as to make an argument promoting a particular WP:POV, as opposed to presenting source material neutrally. That said, there is a lot to unpack in this source, and I do believe that we can make more extensive use of it, just not to score any points. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Similar content has been re-added under a different heading since you posted this. While I'm going to reserve judgment until I can get around to reading the New Yorker piece, I will say that, whatever its specific merits or problems, the new section probably violates WP:UNDUE simply because of its length. The article isn't Media response to the suicide of Tyler Clementi, and it seems inappropriate to devote so much space to a report published in one source (even if it's a highly reliable source, as The New Yorker almost invariably is). Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't see such a huge problem with this. Sure it could use some tweaks and maybe the section's contents should be intertwined into the rest of the article -- but most of it isn't undue since it's a more accurate description of what actually happened, very relevant to the topic of Suicide of Tyler Clementi. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The information looks largely solid, to me. We knew most of this before from court documents, but it is clear that the early reporting on the issue is at least now being accepted as false (instead of just proven false by court documents).  much of this information can be integrated into the article itself, while making sure to remove knowingly false information (per BLP), and we should add a very short section about the media coverage as this was a media-created controversyLedRush (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As Rivertorch correctly points out, the re-added material came after what I posted above. I agree that what is there now is significantly better than what I had deleted, so thank you for those changes. (The now-deleted version was quite different from what you see now.) I also agree that the source is a solid one, that this is now an event-by-event account, and that it's good for us to include the more current understanding of what the facts really were. At the same time, I think that it's a sort of UNDUE to devote an entire section to a blow-by-blow summary of just one article. Instead, we should integrate the new information into the rest of the page. There's no need to present a now-out-of-date version of the facts, followed by a lengthy correction of it. Instead, we should have a single narrative, sourced to the most current information, and omit what is now known to no longer be true. I should point out that Ian Parker himself actually does not make the argument that all the previous coverage was wrong, only devoting one paragraph to pointing out a small number of particularly outrageous things that had gotten repeated, and they were not repeated in the Wikipedia article here. We shouldn't make an argument about flawed media coverage if Parker doesn't make it himself (see WP:SYNTH). Thus, it's a matter of editors now needing to, each of us, read the article in full, and decide what is and what isn't supported by the source. In that regard, I've made several non-controversial WP:MOS corrections without changing anything substantive, and I invite all of you to consider how best to move the new information out of a separate section, and into the main narrative of the page. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he does say "It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet" — I'd think we'd just be playing stupid if we pretend he's not implying that previous media coverage was considerably flawed. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why we should have all of us reading the source and coming to our individual conclusions, and then working from there. You're right of course that he says that. He says a lot, and that's just one sentence. The earlier version of the section, the one that I reverted, had presented the entire New Yorker piece as being about the controversy in the media, which I don't think it is. And if you take, for example, "no closet", the article as a whole presents a more complex portrayal than what one comes away with from just that one sentence in isolation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I read through it now (because it's actually really interesting!) -- most of it is really about what actually happened from multiple points of view, but it definitely doesn't seem to make a point that there was "controversy" of that sort (controversy about media reporting), but to me the implication is clear that earlier media reports were flawed and caused misunderstanding.
 * If anyone has the time to take it upon themselves, the Additional reporting section can probably safely be tied into the text above it, though if there's any clear contradiction in facts and implications then they can both be mentioned ("this source said this, that source later said that") -- because in addition to the happenings, how the media reported these happenings is relevant and important as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I just read it a second time, and I agree 100% with what you just said. I'd like to wait a few days and see what other editors might want to say about it, but I agree that that's the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I think a key aspect of it, given the "multiple points of view", is to make sure that we don't emphasize one of those points of view over another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While the New Yorker article is the first to report on some recently released information, its tone is often polemical and preachy; contemptuous of the idea that this suicide was a hate crime, and condemnatory of the press that judged Clementi's tormentors. Whatever new facts it offers should be carefully integrated into existing sections, but the piece definitely does not merit its own section. Shrigley (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I read the New Yorker piece. I agree with Shrigley that it's preachy in places. It draws some conclusions that, while perfectly reasonable, are evidently the opinion of the author and not incontrovertible facts. Given that Ravi's case has yet to be adjudicated, I think we need to be very careful about how this material is presented. For starters, I'm unhappy with the section title; we shouldn't be labeling these things as "facts" at this stage. The larger problem is that (as others note above) it really needs to be integrated into the rest of the article; a stand-alone section based on one source is deeply problematic. Also, the first two sentences need to go: the description of Parker's methodology, while undoubtedly accurate, looks like original research, and I take issue with the "investigative journalism" label and the claim of what his article "attempted" to do. Having said all that, I hasten to add that I think Parker's piece is a highly worthwhile source that may end up being invaluable to our building a better article, and I'm grateful to Abevelacqua, both for initially adding the content and for making a diligent effort to improve it. (Abevelacqua, please join the discussion!) Rivertorch (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with these recent comments, and I'm concerned in exactly this regard about the paragraph LedRush just added to the Reaction section. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to integrate useful info into the article, and cull extraneous or repetitive info based on the comments above, which seemed largely in line with my early comments. Of course, this was my first go at it, and this is a collaborative project.  Feel free to make my edits better.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, I think it's good. The thing I'm not comfortable with is what is now the second paragraph at the top of the "Reaction" section. My take is that there is sentiment in this talk that it's a little undue to quote that sentence without qualifying it with other things that Parker said. I'm not going to revert it, but I'd like you to re-read the discussion above with that in mind, and see what you think, and I'd also like to hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, I think we are coming at this from very different head spaces. As it stands now, the article has a litany of reactions which are either 1. false comparisons; 2. based on demonstrably false information; or 3. a combination of the two.  I don't believe that a two line mention of an author's writings on the subject is undue given the venue in which the opinion was written and the size of the article.  While it is true that the author's stated intent was not criticism of the media, the author spends huge amounts of time debunking myths about the case, clarifying facts, or presenting new information which calls into question the accepted media portrayal.  The safest and most reliable way to convey the author's view is with a direct quote; one that, in this case, is 100% on point, factually accurate, unlike much of the other information in the "reaction section".LedRush (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I moved the two lines so as not to break up the flow of the reeaction section.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New Yorker arbitrary break
Err, it seemed more like you wanted to move the paragraph as close to the bottom as possible. I don't think it makes any sense at the end of that bulleted list. And I think what he says is important, and should be near the top of the Reaction section (or maybe elsewhere). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chronologically, it belongs at the end of the section. From a flow persepective, it also belongs at the bottom as it largely contradicts everything else in the section.  The only other place that makes even a bit of sense would be at the top of the section.  However, then you'd have something that refutes a position, followed by many reactions which espouse said refuted position.  I guess it could go as a bullet in the "other" section, but that doesn't seem to work as it is different in nature than anything else, and I think the point is too important to be buried.  Anyway, if you want it somewhere else, try it out and see what the others say.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved it back up and rewrote it. Let's see if that's an improvement (or not). My changes are based on the following. Parker really does not argue that the news media coverage was wrong, so much as that people outside of the news media made overheated statements that weren't supported by evidence. I don't think it helps the page to emphasize Parker's piece as some sort of investigative reporting that breaks new ground, when it's primarily a more detailed examination, from multiple perspectives, of what happened (for example, Clementi's mother's reaction to his coming out, which we discussed before in this talk). As noted above, the quoted sentence, taken in isolation, gives a misimpression of what the rest of Parker's article says. (For example, the sentence says "no closet", but the rest of the article goes into detail about Clementi's objections to Ravi making information public.) More broadly, I think we should use the Parker piece to update and correct material that we had based on earlier reports, rather than to use it to present a sort of point-counterpoint. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Tryptofish. I've altered your edit in two ways: (1) I mention the exaggeration of Ravi's actions (2 out of the 3 things on the list relate to this); (2) I've restored the quote.  To me, the quote not being included is a deal breaker.  We are having somewhat of a disagreement about the nature of the article, but the fact that he has given this quote is indisputable.  Tryptofish's edit was probably OR, reading the article and making a claim more nuanced (and in some ways, quite different) than what the author actually says. The safest way to deal with situations like this is to just let the author speak for himself.  However, as a compromise, I have not altered the core of Tryptofish's edit, so hopefully the result is that we keep in the author's own words, but Tryptofish's edit provides some context that people generally believe to be accurate (though I believe that Parker is also criticizing the media, which the current version soft-sells). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 13:25, February 11, 2012‎
 * Sorry, I disagree. If you are going to argue that my attempt to summarize Parker's point was OR, then you are going to have to consider that your own re-wording of the the summary is just as much OR. Actually, I don't think either one is OR, but we are each seeing the material to be summarized differently, and our choices of words reflect that. I think you are wrong to argue that it's always better to quote the sentence directly. In this case, as I (and, I think, other editors) have clearly stated in the discussion above, the quoted passage, taken in isolation, conveys a very different impression than what the Parker article in its entirety says. It's like, by quoting it in this way, Wikipedia is saying: "Look, an investigative reporter now says that the case against Ravi was just a lot of exaggeration!"


 * Let me try to illustrate it this way. The quoted sentence says, in part, that there was "no closet". Yes, that's what Parker wrote, there. But here is another passage, later in the article, that I will reproduce here verbatim:


 * "By 1 A.M., Clementi’s attitude seems to have hardened. He looked up the university’s code of student conduct, which included a section prohibiting secret audio or video recording that was likely to capture nudity or sexual activity. He was wondering if he should make a complaint that might result in Ravi’s expulsion:
 * [messaging dialog between Clementi and Yang]
 * "Clementi’s conversation with Yang ended at 1:37 A.M. Forty-five minutes later, Clementi wrote a message to Justusboys. He was clearly pained, but there’s little to support the idea that he was mortified by the thought that he’d been outed. There are only hints of Clementi’s mood in the previous weeks and months. There was his claim that he hated high school, and there were three files on his computer, written in July and early September, whose contents are unknown but whose file names are Gah.docx, sorry.docx, and Why is everything so painful.docx. It may be significant that, on his initiative, he and his mother had taken excursions to bridges around New York; he kept photographs he had taken of the George Washington Bridge on his phone. Paul Mainardi, the lawyer, wondered if Tyler was “in the thinking-about-suicide world” sometime before college.
 * "Now Clementi saw a risk in turning a creepy episode into a scandal that he was not equipped to handle. He had things to protect: a fresh start at school, a new lover, a new home. In person, he and Ravi had maintained a wary coexistence, and it was built on not discussing what they knew and said of each other online. Ravi was sneaky, but sneakiness is a form of discretion; he was nice enough face to face."


 * Here, Parker gives the details that his investigation revealed, that led Parker to say "no closet": "... but there's little to support the idea that he was mortified by the thought that he'd been outed." However, one comes away with a very different reaction when reading what I quoted here, compared with what you quote on the page.


 * And I can illustrate the issue another way. Here's another direct quote from Parker, just a bit after the one above: "Ravi now went into full impresario mode, in a way that may present the greatest challenge to his attorney." That's just a short sentence. Take it in isolation, and there's no doubt about it, it's a direct quote from the source. But, in isolation, it sure makes Ravi, and his legal case, sound bad in Parker's opinion. I imagine that if I were to insert it into the part of the page that recounts the second alleged spying, there would be concerns, even though it's an exact quote. Or, the sentence where Parker says, verbatim: "Ravi was sneaky, but sneakiness is a form of discretion; he was nice enough face to face." Direct quote, but in isolation, wouldn't there be BLP issues?


 * I feel quite strongly that it's misleading to present the quote in the way that you are favoring. I'd much prefer to go through the page and correct claims that we had gotten from older sources, instead of using this sentence as a point-counterpoint.


 * At this point, I would seriously consider deleting the paragraph entirely, and making corrections elsewhere on the page instead. But I'd like to hear from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with your analysis or your suggestion. Nothing you quote leads me to believe that what is currently in the article is not 100% accurate and reflective of the author's intent.  There is a difference between being outed and fearing that a scandal associated with you hooking up with an older man being streamed on the internet (even if it wasn't, he may have believed it to be so) and the ensuing drama.  The former is light years away from the latter, and it is discouraging that you are equating them in a way which dramatically changes the tone of the article.
 * Furthermore, outside merely following good Wikipedia policy for creating articles and using sources, BLP argues against your opinion. Obviously, BLP is not relevant to Clementi, but is very relevant to Ravi.  If there are well sourced statements about Ravi which we have no reason to doubt and there is no other reason to exclude the info, the info could be used.  If the quotes you write above could contribute to the article, I don't think BLP would prevent them with regards to Ravi.  After all, what would be the real harm of calling Ravi sneaky, other than that it doesn't fit and sounds unencyclopedic.
 * Your statement regarding correcting the factual errors rather than use this quote seems misplaced to me. We have an entire reaction section in which authorities and celebrities react to a version of what happened which is demonstrably false.  Yet their reaction remain because that's actually how they reacted.  We've largely fixed any factual inaccuracies, but the reaction section puts everything in a complete different light; one that greatly exaggerates what happened and why, based on the info we have from reliable sources.  This quote, and this article, tempers that reaction and is a reaction itself.  I cannot understand how it can be argued that those other reactions remain, despite the fact that most are based on multiple incidents (not just this one - which brings up a BLP issue in itself with the equation of dissimilar fact patters) and factual mistakes, yet this reaction which is based on the facts and is a direct quote, somehow should be removed.  In my view, this article is far better than before, but still heavily biased.  By removing information which reduces bias both with opinion and reporting based on fact, we are making the article even more problematic than before.LedRush (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we both acknowledge that we are both commenting in good faith, but, let's face it, it's an understatement to say that we disagree. I'm fine with just waiting to see what other editors think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I've been trying to think about why we keep coming to different conclusions, and the following comes to mind. I tend to start from the position that we must stick to the sources, and thus, represent accurately what the sources themselves say, with imposing editor opinion. It seems to me that you start from the position that balance is paramount, in particular with respect to BLP concerns for the accused. Consequently, it looks to me, subjectively, as though you are selecting material from the sources in order to accomplish what you consider to be balance. Obviously, you do not see it that way at all, and you feel that my reading of the sources lacks balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are almost right in our differences. I see the most recent reliable sources as more reliable than the initial ones from which most of the article's information is taken.  Because we have more accurate articles coming out now than in the first weeks after the incident, I believe the article should reflect this.  While it is true that we have more reliable sources from the initial firestorm, I find relying on knowingly inaccurate reports as problematic.  Furthermore, I see the more recent articles and want to follow them precisely, using just what the reliable sources say, while it seems to me that you are trying to shed the new reports in a light which attempts to contradict the earliest reports as little as possible (and consequently, in my view, doesn't accurately reflect the newer reliable sources).LedRush (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And I, in turn, see it as paying close attention to the newest sources, and presenting them accurately, not looking for ways in which they differ from earlier sources and presenting those supposed differences out of context, in order to make them appear more "different". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Since I last got around to checking in, the discussion has grown into a wall of text, and I admit I'm having trouble following all of its intricacies. It would be helpful if the one of you who wants to change the current revision (LedRush, I think) could sum up very succinctly what the exact question is at this point. What exact change do you propose, and why? In very general terms, I think the article looks good now. Having read the New Yorker piece carefully and the cited news stories back in the day, nothing jumps out at me in terms of misplacement or undue weight. Also in general terms, it might be worth pointing out that, like most articles in The New Yorker, Parker's piece reports facts and draws conclusions, and it's important we distinguish between the two. It looks like we are doing that—the conclusions being in direct quotes in the Reaction section—but I may be missing something. Rivertorch (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The current text is a compromise version that I drafted and I agree with your assessment of it. While Tryptofish is welcome to correct my assessment, I believe that he thinks that the quote is not representative of the article, and therefore should not be used.  I believe that the quote is perfectly representative of at least one aspect of the article (and I believe of the whole thing), and that it is better to use the author's summary than our own when we disagree as to what the author is saying.LedRush (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll defer my comment for the moment. Tryptofish, is that a fair summary of the dispute? Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rivertorch, and my apologies for the tl;dr. As I see it, the current text is what LedRush wrote (the most recent changes, that is), and I've chosen to discuss it rather than revert it. My concern is that LedRush has cherry-picked material from the Parker article to emphasize the argument that earlier news reports painted Ravi unfairly, in ways that do not reflect the Parker article as a whole. I'd suggest looking at the recent changes to the page, and then looking back at the Parker piece and assessing whether the recent changes are really representative of what Parker wrote as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at recent diffs, including the latest one, and I skimmed over the Parker article to refresh my memory. Based on that, I'd say that the part of Parker's article dealing with the exaggerations in earlier coverage is one of the most salient parts of what he wrote. If highlighting that part seems like overemphasis, one way to ameliorate that would be to also highlight those other parts that strike you as especially important. I'm a bit torn about whether to include the quote; it does seem somewhat like cherry-picking, given the length and scope of the piece. On the other hand, using the quote is probably a lesser evil than paraphrasing, since the latter approach necessarily requires us to interpret Parker's precise meaning. If pressed to decide, I'd offer tepid support for including the quote. If we do that, then I'd suggest amending the current wording leading up to the quote to read:"Writing in The New Yorker, Ian Parker has stated that some of the public outcry against Ravi has exaggerated the extent to which Ravi had actually revealed information about Clementi:"and then do a blockquote. The current wording—"both Ravi's actions and the extent to which he had actually revealed information about Clementi"—seems redundant and confusing: isn't the extent to which he'd revealed information about Clementi the principal action that's at issue in the criminal case (and in terms of ethics and public opinion, for that matter)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I expanded the language that Tryptofish wrote from just "revealed information" to include "Ravi's actions" because the former (and, apparently, Tryptofish's issue with the quote) only deals with one of the three aspects of the quote (and the article). The quote talks about (1) outing someone; (2) posting a video; and (3) observing sex.  The original language (before Tryptofish's edits) stated that the article criticized the media coverage.  This is a true, general statement which covers all three of the aspects.  Tryptofish seems most concerned with the accuracy of the "outing" statement, and his edit regarding "revealed information" only deals with that 1 aspect.  I added "Ravi's actions" because the prosecution of the crime depends on 2 and 3, not 1 (it isn't illegal to out someone, but it is to post videos of them having sex without permission) and the quote/article deals with all 3.  I would prefer we go back to the first description (Parker's article criticized the media coverage, saying "[add quote here]").  It is the most accurate and least unwieldy of the options.LedRush (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the following is my proposal:
 * Writing in The New Yorker, Ian Parker has criticized some of the media coverage of the incident and the public outcry against Ravi, writing that after Clementi's suicide
 * (block quote) "[i]t became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet." "
 * Sorry, I don't know how to blockquote.LedRush (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at Parker's piece again today. I'm not sure, but I'm wondering if the criticism was implied (and thus arguably shouldn't be identified as such in our article). (LOL @ blockquote. It's html and might be deprecated, for all I know! But the tags are "and", pretty easy.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Parker explicitly criticizes the media and the public reaction by recounting the things that they said and reported, and then saying that they were false immediately afterwards.:


 * Clementi’s death became an international news story, fusing parental anxieties about the hidden worlds of teen-age computing, teen-age sex, and teen-age unkindness. ABC News and others reported that a sex tape had been posted on the Internet. CNN claimed that Clementi’s room had “become a prison” to him in the days before his death. Next Media Animation, the Taiwanese company that turns tabloid stories into cartoons, depicted Ravi and Wei reeling from the sight of Clementi having sex under a blanket. Ellen DeGeneres declared that Clementi had been “outed as being gay on the Internet and he killed himself. Something must be done.”


 * Enraged online commentary called for life imprisonment for Ravi and Wei, and Ravi’s home address and phone number were published on Twitter. Ravi was called a tormenter and a murderer. Garden State Equality, a New Jersey gay-rights group, released a statement that read, in part, “We are sickened that anyone in our society, such as the students allegedly responsible for making the surreptitious video, might consider destroying others’ lives as a sport.” Governor Chris Christie, of New Jersey, said, “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night, knowing that they contributed to driving that young man to that alternative.” Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Rush Holt, both from New Jersey, introduced the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act. Clementi’s story also became linked to the It Gets Better project—an online collection of video monologues expressing solidarity with unhappy or harassed gay teens. The site was launched the day before Clementi’s death, in response to the suicide, two weeks earlier, of Billy Lucas, a fifteen-year-old from Indiana who, for years, had been called a “fag” and told vicious things, including “You don’t deserve to live.” That October, President Barack Obama taped an It Gets Better message, referring to “several young people who were bullied and taunted for being gay, and who ultimately took their own lives.”


 * It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet.


 * If you say that people's reactions and the reporting on it are factually incorrect, you are criticizing them.
 * There are other instances in which Parker is critical of the media, but we need not bring them up with this evidence from the author himself.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that Parker explicitly criticizes anyone. Criticism is more than simply noting that something is incorrect or finding fault with someone. It is the expression of an opinion; it suggests disapproval. While I have little doubt that there is implied criticism in what Parker's wrote—I take it that way myself—I think we need to be very careful about characterizing his intent in writing it, which is what we risk doing by labeling it as criticism. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with you with regards to what constitutes explicit criticism, it is somewhat of a tangential point. Tryptofish's language mistakenly refers to only 1 of 3 aspects of the author's statement, and it soft-sells it at that.  I tried to rectify it by including the bit about Ravi's actions, though it is admittedly awkward.  Do you have a suggestion on how to cover the 3 topics of the author's opinion without talking about his criticism of the media's handling of this?LedRush (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rivertorch, for your helpful comments. Some points:
 * I'm just fine with deferring to Rivertorch's view that, on balance, it's appropriate to include the Parker quote, and I also feel positively about the suggestion that I add other facts from the Parker article that I also consider appropriate. I've been saying all along that we should do more to integrate Parker's reporting into the page, as opposed to simply treating it as a point-counterpoint. I'll try to take a stab at that in the next few days, and we'll see what we think of it.
 * My concern with the quote wasn't actually just about the outing issue, but I tried to use it in this talk as an example where the "no closet" quote, in isolation, does not accurately reflect the rest of what Parker says.
 * About criticizing the media, although Parker does point out errors in reporting by "ABC News and others", and by CNN, the bulk of his comments are about people like Ellen DeGeneres and Chris Christie, and thus are less about the news media than about the public reaction. I agree with Rivertorch that we shouldn't conflate correction with (express) criticism. As for the overall perspective of Parker's piece, I think that Jeraphine Gryphon nailed it earlier in this talk as presenting multiple points of view (as opposed to taking the single point of view that Ravi was given a bum deal by earlier media coverage). Bottom line: we shouldn't present the Parker piece as an investigative report that, primarily, redresses unfair portrayal of Ravi in earlier reporting.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responses to Trytofish:
 * (1) excellent
 * (2)Parker also states "Similarly, the enduring false belief that Ravi was responsible for outing Tyler Clementi, and for putting a sex tape on the Internet, can be seen as a collective effort to balance a terrible event with a terrible cause." How many times does an author need to say something is false in plain language in one article before we accept that it is, in fact, the view of the author?  Furthermore, this is further criticism of the media and public reaction.
 * (3) There is a similar amount of time dedicated to the media and the public (remember, he goes back to criticize the media again later which would probably make the word count higher for the media than the public). And just because there are other ideas in a piece, doesn't mean that all ideas need to make a Wikipedia article.  When discussing the media and public reaction, we merely need to summarize Parker's opinion of it.  He makes his opinion crystal clear in several spots.  That he also heavily criticizes Ravi and paints more detailed portraits of Clementi, his parents, Wei and others than other articles on the subject doesn't mean that he isn't making the explicit statement (twice) that the media and the public were wrong about what Ravi did (videotape sex and put it on the internet) or about outing Clementi.  You can disagree with that last point, but I don't see a way to disagree that that is the author's opinion.LedRush (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With this in mind, I propose the following:
 * Writing in The New Yorker, Ian Parker has stated that the some of the media coverage and the public outcry against Ravi have exaggerated Ravi's role in the incident, writing that after Clementi's suicide
 * (block quote) "[i]t became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet." "
 * The word "criticize" has been removed, Tryptofish's language has largely been retain, but it is clear that Parker speaks both about (some of) the media and the public reaction.LedRush (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good approach for the quote – and excellent about your excellent. What I meant about (2) was that, elsewhere in the article, Parker describes ways in which Clementi felt badly treated in ways related to outing, and that's true to some extent about all of the quote, not just the closet part. I'm glad that you said here that Parker presents negative material about Ravi as well; that's really what I'm trying to make clear. We shouldn't just be selectively pulling out Parker's positive material about Ravi. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, your latest proposed revision sounds fine to me. Rivertorch (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) And I've made the change, with two minor differences (I killed the blockquote because the quote is really too short to warrant it and it looked funny, and I removed the brackets from the lowercased 'i' per MOS). Rivertorch (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Whoops—and I put "The New Yorker" in italics. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Trial Begins
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/02/24/rutgers-webcam-spying-trial-begins/?mod=e2tw LedRush (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of college dorm rooms and priorities of use
The discussion of this case neglects the basic purpose of a dorm room does not include sex whether homosexual or heterosexual. The actual intended purpose of a dorm room is study and sleep. The room is shared with another person and far too often the occupant with a sex partner ignores the rights are on the side of the occupant who wishes to use it for its intended use. Judging from the articles describing the incident Clementi went into a room which was being occupied by Ravi and made a demand he vacate. This case neither the digital surveillance or suicide would not exist had Clementi and his partner rented a motel room or had their tryst in the partners unshared private space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond (talk • contribs) 18:37, February 25, 2012‎
 * You are wrong both on the law and on WP policy (which is to reflect reliable sources, not conduct original research which points to the WP:TRUTH.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am commenting on the way the Wikipedia article presents info on the case. The intended purpose of a shared dorm room is not a venue for sex of either persuasion. There is nothing in the law that supports the position that a person sharing a dorm room has an obligation to yield for someone elses desire for sex.RichardBond (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the article make any claim about intended purposes and dorm rooms? I can't find it. If it says anything about anyone being legally obligated to vacate a dorm room for any purpose, I can't find that either. Fwiw, I've read a considerable number of college conduct policies in my day and have yet to see one that attempts to limit the purposes of dorm rooms to studying and sleeping. Based on extensive personal experience (mostly being the one who vacated, not the one who got lucky, alas) I'd say that asking a roommate to get lost for a few hours because company is coming is so common an occurrence as to be completely unremarkable. Compliance with such requests, within reason, seems like basic good manners, at least if one has any hope of reciprocity were the shoe on the other foot. That's neither here nor there, I guess, but I offer it by way of saying that I don't understand what you're saying at all. Exactly what changes do you propose for the article? Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, all colleges do restrict use of the dorm room, and a great many do involve visits of a sexual nature (but most of those are for people of the opposite sex). However, you rightly point out that the article makes no claims about this otherwise, and this is not an issue under the law at all (school codes of conduct are completely independent of the law).  Furthermore, this is not at issue in the law case.  This is simply not a factor here, and I am puzzled as to why anyone would think it is.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the quote from the New Yorkers Ian Parker but go further to the extent that Ravi did not have a obligation to turn over the room.RichardBond (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? It is not relevant either to the trial or to the incident.  Have you seen any reliable sources refer to this with respect to the incident or the trial?  IF not, we couldn't include it even if it were important.  Every statement must be backed up by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Another reversion that we need to discuss
Please see, , and. An IP added some quotes from Clementi's mother that I removed, and LedRush reverted me. It is simply not necessary to devote that much text to the mother's reaction. It's enough to report Clementi's perception of it and the mother's subsequent explanation in the Parker interview. We don't need a long section on it, and it's questionable whether the quotes, snippets that are pieced together in the IP's edit, are really "accurate" as to what she actually has said. It also seems to me that LedRush's edit summary misses the point. The "good"/"not good" framing is strange: it seems to me that per WP:BLP we ought not present cherry-picked quotes in a manner that might not accurately represent the entirety of what the person said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably better to spend our time discussing the merits of the edits, and not hurling accusations of bias at the other parties.
 * I reverted your removal for two reasons: (1) the new information is completely accurate and in her own words when asked directly about the incident at hand; (2) when I read the Parker piece, I see that she says she felt "betrayed" and that she was "grieving" because she wanted Clementi to be married and a father (her words, not mine...I'm not sure why she assumed those couldn't happen anyway, but, whatever). The current quote from that article does not accurately reflect the information in the article as a whole.  The language you had is set up like a rebuttal of Clementi's statement.  But the People interview and the New Yorker one both give us concrete reasons for Clementi's feelings.LedRush (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hurling accusations of bias"? Seriously? I said that your edit summary missed the point. As for the substance of the material, the isolated quotes ("dreams are kind of shattered", "processing it", and "needed time") make it sound like she was reacting negatively to his being gay, not that she had been expecting him to eventually marry and have children. There's a world of difference between wanting grandchildren and being homophobic. I'd like to hear what other editors think about this (the quotes in question, more so than the behavioral complaint). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish - you have said on at least 3 occasions, (and at least twice about me) that editors have cherry-picked information to support a POV; one which is not adequately supported by the sources. And you have made similar claims in less explicit terms elsewhere. If those weren't intended to be accusations of bias, I am sorry.  But you might want to choose your words more carefully.
 * The reasons the quotes make it sound like she was reacting negatively is because all evidence shows that she reacted negatively, at least in part. Certainly Clementi felt so (he said his mother "basicall rejected him").  Furthermore, she explicitly says so herself.  In the Parker article she says she felt "betrayed" by the disclosure and that she was "grieving" the loss of what she had hoped for from her son.  The current summary of the Parker piece does not accurately convey what the piece actually says, nor does it accurately portray the People piece the IP has quoted.  I am fine with amending the IP's edits in some way, but that way must be one which accurately describes the reaction as covered in reliable sources.  Furthermore, we might consider combining the two sentences: something like "the mother said she felt betrayed by the disclosure and was grieving the loss of her hopes for her son [and that she was quiet because of (I can't find this in the source)] but that she told her son she loved him and remained close to him for the next week."LedRush (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful choice of words or otherwise, I don't think that I've ever said or implied that you are homophobic. I have said, explicitly, that I think that you go too far in wanting the page to avoid presenting Ravi in a prejudicial light; you've made it clear that you think I lean the other way. That's what happens when two editors both want NPOV but differ as to where NPOV lies. Here, I said the IP cherry-picked the quotes. If you are feeling unfairly treated, please consider that you always seem to revert my edits when you disagree with them, but when I disagree with your edits, I leave them in place and, instead, ask in talk.


 * But on the good news side of the coin, I welcome your willingness to consider a rewording of the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that you said (or implied) that I was homophobic. That would be an odd accussation indeed.  I said that you have accused me of bias by saying that I deliberately choose only quotes that present a distorted view of the reliable sources.  There is a difference between saying that an edit (or phrase, or quotation) was inaccurate and that an editor cherry picks inaccurate quotes to support a POV.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you said that you felt that I was accusing you of bias, I took "bias" to mean homophobia, not pro-Ravi views. Anyway, I've attempted a rewrite per what you said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the word "bias" to mean homophobia unless it was followed by "against homosexuals". Regardless, I think the accusations of bias should stop.  When is doubt, discuss the edits and not the editors.
 * The rewrite is better, though it still soft-sells her negative reaction and emphasizes (by majority of words) the explanation. The RSs do the opposite...they emphasize the negative and more briefly mention the excuse.  Also, where do you pull "and that she had been taken aback by his expressions of sadness over his perception that he had difficulty making friends".  I seem to remember reading something like this, but I can't find it in the Parker piece.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is verbatim what the Parker piece says:
 * "Jane Clementi told me recently that Tyler announced his sexuality to her in a private, late-night conversation, which “snowballed” to cover his perceived shortage of friends and the uncertainty he had about his faith. At the end of their talk, she recalled, “he cried, I cried, we hugged.” They said that they loved each other. But, Jane Clementi said, “I must admit, other than being surprised, I felt betrayed.” He had not confided in her, though he had known he was gay since middle school. She told me that she and her husband had long assumed that Tyler’s brother James was gay, and had even discussed the matter with Tyler, asking him, “Why won’t he just talk about it?” (James is now out.)
 * "The day after Tyler’s disclosure, she said, “I guess part of me was grieving a little bit. I expected Tyler to be married one day, and be a father.” She said, “I was sad, I was quiet,” and she wonders if this is what he was reacting to when he wrote “rejected”; the word hurt her. She recalled that she spent the rest of the week with him, delivered him to college, and, throughout September, spoke to him on the phone. And she was expecting to visit Tyler for Parent and Family Weekend: “We had tickets to the football game. We had plans for the day.”"

It seems to me that Parker actually places the concern about his perceived shortage of friends and his religious doubts first. I notice now that he also discusses her disappointment that he had not confided in her, and I'll add that to the rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, I'm satisfied with the rewrite of that sentence as it is now, and I believe that it fairly represents the sources. I also agree, fyi, with LedRush's deletion of that paragraph about the charges. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stability and civility
FYI, if you check the archives of this page, I removed it from my watch-list six months ago after investing significant wiki-time in helping create and verify the article content. Unfortunately I found LedRush too difficult to work with and so walked away. I was thinking of helping out again after reading new developments in the legal case, however I see the same argumentative problems still here (the word homophobic being particularly troublesome in the above thread) and consequently the talk page appears hostile as a place for new contributors. It could probably be claimed that I am unrealistically sensitive to civility issues, however I would guess I am not the only thin-skinned Wikipedian when it comes to being interested in this area of gay related newsworthy events. Are there any suggestions for how the environment here could become a bit more welcoming? Perhaps less contentious areas for improvement might be added as a to do list where new contributors might expect to help without feeling they are being dropped in the middle of a heated argument? I'll re-add to my watch-list for a while to see if the situation improves. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A practical suggestion having watched the talk page (etc) for a while is that the major editors involved choose to ignore this article for several months and allow different people to edit it without their guidance. I say this without casting any aspersions whatsoever in any direction. The article will alter with or without their involvement. Generally article changes tend eventually towards a better article. We should always work on an article for a while and then walk right away for a while. It gives us and the article a breathing space. It does, however, take a confident editor to ignore an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fae, could you please explain what troubles you about the use of the word "homophobic" above? Also, other than Tryptofish's accusations against certain editors, I feel that the tone has been civil for a case in which strong emotions are involved.  Furthermore, despite Tryptofish's statements, I find him to be quite civil and we repeatedly seem to be able to get to a result with which we can both agree.  Other than my minor annoyance with what I believed to be his claims of bias, everything seems to be working.LedRush (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, any on-wiki discussion that resorts to the "are you being/calling me homophobic" question shows there has been a serious breakdown in communication or that there is an even worse problem of contributors feeling harassed for their interest in gay topics or assumptions about their own sexuality . If you and Tryptofish have been civilly collaborating on this article for over six months, such accusations seem highly incongruous. I imagine most editors would not be attracted to help improve any article where there is a history of such accusations, or a similar hostile tone. I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable. I put it on a par with accusations of racism or misogyny. Obviously, if you feel this level of hostility is to be the norm here then I'll just take this article off my watch-list again and leave you to whatever works best for you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed by your comments on several levels.
 * -I asked Tryptofish not to accuse me of bias. No one has accused anyone else of being homophobic in any way shape or form, nor has anyone felt they were being accused of homophobia. Since most of what you say stems for this mistake of fact, it is largely not necessary to address.
 * -I have never said that accusations of homophobia would ever be acceptable. I have never suggested this.  I have never hinted at this.  Please redact (or preferably remove) that statement immediately.  If you choose to remove it, I will remove this bullet-point.
 * I believe all of your points and opinions expressed above stem from misinterpretations or mistakes of fact. Honestly, I don't see how you came to even read the discussions here to support your statements.  Hopefully explicit statements denying your accusations, coupled with the evidence of conversation above, will put this to rest.LedRush (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to comment here at all, but I'd just like to say that I hope for two things: a refocus of this discussion back to improving the content of this page, and more, not fewer, editors helping to improve the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish: I'll second that. I've hardly been paying attention for several days, and I'm sorry to see this thread now. @LedRush: Cherry-picking isn't necessarily indicative of bias, and Tryptofish did not hurl any accusations. @Fae: In the time I've been watching this article, I have been impressed by the civility that both Tryptofish and LedRush have routinely displayed. They disagree frequently but try hard to work it out constructively here on the talk page. I think that by and large they have set an excellent example for Wikipedians in general vis-à-vis focusing on the content and not the contributor. I suspect that today was an aberration and everything will soon return to normal. Thanks for your earlier work on the article, and welcome back! Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the hypothetical part of my earlier comment per the lengthy and repetitive discussion at User talk:Fæ. Sadly, based on the fact that dealing with LedRush was the reason I stopped helping with this article six months ago, I have removed it from my watchlist again. If anyone else wants to point anything out to me, other than the fact that I need to grow a thick skin, they will need to contact me on my user page or by email. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we add this?
The New York Times,, reports additional information about what Ravi said in his text messages, prior to the second alleged viewing incident. These quotes (verbatim) include: "People are having a viewing party with a bottle of Bacardi and beer in this kid’s room for my roommate.", and "Yeah, keep the gays away." I'm leaning towards adding this information to the page. But first, I figured I would ask here in talk whether there would be any objections to my doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My preference is generally to omit anything but major procedural details while a trial is taking place. There is frequently conflicting testimony, and the balance of the overall picture can change rapidly from day to day. It is almost impossible to maintain due weight in the face of that. After the trial ends, it's entirely appropriate to include such details from the evidence presented in court. Do you think the article is severely unbalanced without including it? Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I would lean towards including this information, though there are several issues (with weight, POV and structure).  Taking the last question first, how do we want to approach this information: in a trial section or in the "background of incident" section?  If done in the latter, we would need to do a lot of prosecuters said so-and-so, Ravi/defense said so-and-so.  However, if we do cover this in the trial section, we will then have broken up the story a little bit.  That's not necessarily bad as we could put the undisputed stuff in the incident section (in addition to non-trial info) and the disputed stuff in the trial.  Any thoughts?
 * Regardless, I don't mind waiting a bit to include this, though I don't think it's necessary to wait.LedRush (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For what I hope are obvious reasons, I felt it better to ask before making any edit. I'm in no hurry, and I have no objection to waiting until we have more perspective on how the trial progresses. My thinking is that the page now is kind of heavy on the quote from Ravi that was sent just after Clementi's death, and that these quotes are quite notable in that they present a contrasting picture. (Don't get me wrong: I like including the message Ravi sent the day of the death. I think it's important to include it. I'm just not sure that it's representative of the entirety of what we know that he said.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reread the section and that note Ravi sent at around the time of the death does receive a lot of attention. I think it should be included, and I don't really know that it can be pared down.  The more I think about it, the more I think the quotes should go in as the current background seems slightly weighted for Ravi (meaning, we have a lot of Ravi explaination of events).  I think it's fair to use his own words.  I don't know that the second quote (yeah, keep out the gays) should go in, but I would suggest that you just try it and see how it comes out.  I don't believe that everything need be hashed out here before inclusion.  Of course, if Rivertorch strongly believes that this shouldn't go in, I will defer to his opinion.LedRush (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it strongly; I just think it's best practice not to add details gleaned from testimony while a trial is in progress. Recentism and all that. If you both think that in this case it should go in now, I'll defer to your judgment. Rivertorch (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry. I'll wait a bit and see if later events refute it. But I don't think there is doubt about the accuracy of the text message quotes, just a matter of due/undue. (I'll also note that the Times highlighted the "keep out the gays" comment in the headline.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories
Why the removal of all those categories? Some were arguably inappropriate, but Category:2010 deaths, Category:LGBT people from the United States, and Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey seem completely reasonable. Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before daring to look again at this page, I had just reverted the same kinds of edits at Suicide of Phoebe Prince. I'm going to revert them here as well, now that I see your comment. Of course if anyone wants to propose them individually in this talk, it would be fine to consider deleting some. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was done by bot, right? I always assumed they were following some sort of secret WP directives.  Either way, I don't care if they stay or go as they all seem accurate.LedRush (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was done by someone using an automated editing tool, but not literally a bot. I've just gone around and reverted those pages where other editors haven't already reverted it. I'm guessing that the reasoning was to move categories that, very strictly speaking, refer to people rather than to suicides, from the suicide pages to the redirect pages, named for the persons, but which merely redirect to the suicide pages (sorry for the convoluted syntax). Anyway, however strictly "logical" it might have seemed to that person, it wasn't helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Secret WP directives. I don't worry too much about categories, as a rule, but this seemed a bit sudden. Edit summaries would have been nice. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories This is a very straight-forward matter, really: the suicide of Tyler Clementi is not a person from New Jersey, nor is it a 1992 birth, etc. Tyler Clementi is and so his name should be categorized as such but not this article which is about an event. Should Death of Kurt Cobain be categorized under Category:Grunge musicians? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Note that now both Tyler Clementi and Suicide of Tyler Clementi are in Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Tryptofish's reasoning above, though I still believe the cyber-bullying tag should be deleted (but I think I've given that fight away).LedRush (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Justin: however, Tyler Clementi is simply a redirect to here. You are commenting here, because I left a note on your user talk, asking you to please respect the consensus of other editors. Please allow other editors to respond to you here. You can see already that LedRush largely agrees with my reasoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right But there is no problem with categorizing redirects--you're supposed to do it. As WP:CAT states, you categorize based on the topic of the article. This article is not a topic about a person from New Jersey. Also note that you have put categories that apply uniquely to either Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the article that is about the duo. You're making this far too complicated based on one person agreeing with you above as a consensus and ignoring the purpose of categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Categorizing redirects which explicitly points out a case like the Harris/Klebold one I mentioned above. This is how we categorize on Wikipedia... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it, thank you. I have also commented further, rather seriously, at your talk. It seems to me that the redirect cat guideline provides advice on what to do when there is a desire to have a redirect for the purpose of having an alternative title for a page, but it also begins by a caution against categorizing redirects generally. Please note that it is more than just one person who joins me in disagreeing with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate approach Let's try this: what (if anything) makes you think that this article and the Tyler Clementi redirect are exempt from Categorizing_redirects? If you think that there is some general principle by which articles such as "Death of X" and "Suicide of X" should be exempted from these kinds of guidelines, then discussion should probably occur at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects... Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see the removal of "Suicides in Vermont" category. Whether it be a bio or an article about the act itself, this seems likes a perfectly legitimate category. Could you explain why you deem it otherwise?  Gah, wrong suicide, but you removed that category from Suicide of Ryan Halligan.  Same comment applies, as per the comment from Rivertorch below.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) Your event-vs.-person reasoning seems a bit rigid. While it would be nice if categories were always perfectly logical, their purpose is to make the encyclopedia more functional by making related topics easier to find by grouping them. However, using your reasoning, can you explain why you removed the categories Suicides in New York and Suicides by jumping from a height? Rivertorch (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories Some are set and others topic categories. At the risk of being pedantic, some categories are about a general topic and can include all manner of articles about that broad subject. E.g. Category:Racism (bear in mind, of course, that if a category gets too broad, it will have to be diffused...) Others are intended to only include examples of the thing being discussed, with the possible exception of a main article or list article. Consequently, Category:Presidents of the United States of America is only to contain articles about those presidents themselves, not general topics related to the POTUS like President of the United States of America in fiction or West Wing (TV series). Category:People from Ridgeway, New Jersey is only for persons from there, not more general topics about persons from there. It's my understanding that all of the person/death categories are strictly for categorizing biographical articles, not more general topics, although I could be wrong. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, that's "alternative". I don't see it as a matter of needing to change what that guideline says. I see it as a matter of recognizing what it already says now. It doesn't say this is something that must always be done, algorithmically. Rather, it talks about cases where there are "disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid" or where "a single article covers things known by multiple names". That's not really what's going on here. Above, I pointed to WP:BLP1E. If you look into the edit histories, these pages typically began as biography pages about the person who died. Later, it was decided to make the pages about the event, not the person, and the person name then became a redirect. The pages still contain significant information about the persons. I think that makes the categories much more useful on the page itself, instead of on a redirect page. I thank you for apologizing at your talk for rolling back the edits that I and other editors have made, but I would really prefer to allow more editors familiar with these pages to comment (and maybe make me change my mind), rather than having you essentially lay down the law as you interpret it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right For precisely the reason you mention, these categories need to be segregated... Since this is about a suicide and not a person, categories that pertain to the suicide should be included. Think about this hypothetical reader conversely: he's browsing a category and comes across articles that don't fit it (bearing in mind the set/topic distinction I pointed out above) and that have duplicate entries for no apparent reason. The page I pointed to above is explicit that one of the reasons for categorizing redirects is "redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category". The event of this suicide is not a 1992 birth, so it shouldn't be in 1992 births. For that matter, I really can't imagine that someone reads this article, gets to the end and thinks to himself, "Now that I've read this, I want to know more about persons born in 1992." I can imagine someone thinking, "Why is the suicide of X in a category about 1992 births--that's nonsense." (I can imagine this because it's precisely what I did.) This guideline on categorizing redirects was created for exact cases like this. I respect the fact that you're a thoughtful editor but I honestly don't see what the controversy is here... In my mind, this is a very straight-forward and commonsense matter. If I appear to be flippant, it's not out of rudeness but simply an inability to understand your perspective. Again, if this is a discussion that is going to affect a broad number of categories, it would be wise to have this in a centralized place--it seems short-sighted to get a consensus of five editors here when what is decided will affect dozens (hundreds?) of pages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We clearly are having trouble understanding each other, but please realize that no one seems to be agreeing with you. I'd actually be quite receptive to removing some categories, such as birth years, for the reason you describe, but perhaps you are taking the logic of this too far. Again, I'm not arguing for changing the guideline, just for changing how you are interpreting the guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay But which ones do we remove or keep, when all of them are set categories? They are all intended to only contain biographies... What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the issue. If there is no article on the biographical person, and there is an article on the event which includes biogarphical info on a person, isn't the best place for the categories on the article that exists, not the redirect that cannot be used for an article due to other policy reasons?  It seems that the category policy above does not offer much guidance in this circumstance, unless I am missing it (which I could be as I just starting reading these things).LedRush (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CAT I honestly don't want to be condescending, so please excuse me if I come across that way, but it's due to the set/topic distinction I pointed out above. Some categories are only intended for examples of the thing being categorized. Category:1992 births is only about persons born in 1992, not all kinds of topics about persons born in 1992. Does that make sense? These person categories are for biographies and if there is no actual biographical article, but there is a redirect, then the redirect should be categorized this way per the purpose of set categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin asks above which categories to delete and which not. Fair question. Here is the list of categories on this page where the edits are in dispute: Let's note that, in fact, we aren't even looking at a category about dates of birth. Numbers 3 and 4 seem to me to clearly belong here by any measure – this page is about a suicide of this nature, and the categories apply (they are not categories of persons who committed suicide in these ways, but of the suicides themselves, although the word "suicide" can also be applied to persons). Number 1 is about deaths, and this page is about a death. Number 8, as LedRush mentioned above, has been a topic of discussion, but the past consensus has tended towards applying it here. That leaves numbers 2, 5, 6, and 7. I don't think anyone would really be opposed to deleting number 6. Number 7 is, I admit borderline, because the subjects of the page are not alumni, although the subject matter is very much related to the university. Number 5 is very relevant, in that the page is very much about LGBT issues, although a better category than one about people might actually be a better choice. Number 2 seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. It's true that the page is titled for the suicide, rather than for the student who committed suicide, but it is absolutely the case that the page is all about a college student committing suicide. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:2010 deaths
 * Category:College students who committed suicide
 * Category:Suicides by jumping from a height
 * Category:Suicides in New York
 * Category:LGBT people from the United States
 * Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey
 * Category:Rutgers University alumni
 * Category:Victims of cyber-bullying

Centralized discussion
Time-out Since this discussion can (and does and has) affect a number of articles, I suggest that we post to Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects--it seems obvious that this is the right venue for this discussion. I'll stop sorting through this inappropriate categories in the meantime while users give their input. Again, I cannot imagine how or why someone would find otherwise, but I'm willing to get others' feedback. If you think an RfC would be profitable, I would be happy to have it. Also, at the risk of sounding aggressive, you've yet to answer my straightforward questions--I think that if you do, you will find that your line of reasoning leads to absurdities and the (admittedly) rigid application of Categorizing redirects is for the best for a variety of reasons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to get wider consensus on this, but your characterization of the discussion so far is anything but fair. We've heard your strict reasoning on why the categories belong and offered reasoned explanations on why they do.  You've not addressed these reasons except to claim that they don't fit into a 100% literal reading of the category, a point widely conceded.  I think the editors here are looking at this from the standpoint of what would help a user of Wikipedia, not technicalities.  Strict rules with brightlines are often easy to administer, but also often don't end up doing what they're intended to do.LedRush (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay That is a perfect point to bring up at a centralized discussion. All the things we're talking about now are not about the suicide of Tyler Clementi, they are broader issues about how we categorize pages. Therefore, we shouldn't be talking about this here. Honestly, every post that is not about this article but about a larger set of articles or a philosophy of editing is a waste, as there are appropriate venues for that. If some consensus is reached in a centralized way, then it will be easy to apply it to a variety of articles. If it's reached here on this one article that is not binding on others and I will have to re-hash this discussion dozens of times. You are certainly correct that there are times when one should ignore all rules, but there are also times when you should stick with them. I see nothing about this article that makes it exempt from the guidelines about categorizing redirects, so I see no reason to make an exception for it. If all "Suicide of X" pages should be categorized under the scheme of "[Year] births], then that's a discussion to have somewhere other than at this talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These pages are not redirects. Are you, perhaps, mistaken in the proposed venue for a discussion? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects No, I am not. The problem here is that categories are being taken from proper articles in the mainspace and moved to redirects within the mainspace. The reason I am doing it is because of the rationale about categorizing redirects that I cited above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Please spoon feed me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin, based on the number of editors who have objected here, or on your talk page (now rather quickly archived by you), I don't think we are lacking for editors who are paying attention. If you wish to start a thread at the guideline talk page, please do so and provide a link here. But I think that it is only you, and no one else, who maintains that the issue here is a matter of changing the guideline or not. The rest of us simply think that you are misinterpreting the guideline, at least as it is applied to this and related pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that whatever happens, a 24 hour pause for thought on all (both?) sides (if there are sides) would be useful here. I still do not understand the point about redirects, and do need spoon feeding over that one, please. I'm happy to wait a day or so to have t explained, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, Justin is arguing that this page should only have categories about suicide, whereas Tyler Clementi, which redirects to here, should have all the categories about Tyler Clementi. The act of suicide, versus the person. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dispute Here's what happened:
 * I looked up Tyler Clementi and was redirected to this page--Suicide of Tyler Clementi. I noticed that this article was about an event--his suicide--not the person himself as a biographical article so I removed certain categories that only pertain to biographies and placed them on Tyler Clementi instead. My thinking on this is that it is in-line with Categorizing redirects and the distinction between set and topic categories (with which I will assume you are familiar.)
 * Tryptofish saw that I had removed these categories without an edit summary that gives my rationale and reinstated them. In the meantime, I went through other such "Death of X" and "Suicide of Y"-type articles at Category:Deaths by person and did the same thing. He also reverted those changes.
 * Further reverts, edits, and posts to talk pages have lead us to this point. I feel like my edits are entirely justified and logical and there is really no discussion to be had. Other editors disagree and think that certain categories belong here rather than (in addition to???) the redirect.
 * What I am proposing now is that we all stop talking about this in several different places and have a centralized discussion. This will allow other users to give input and will keep me from having to go through this same conversation over and over again.
 * Do the contours of the dispute now make sense? Do you understand why I am proposing that we stop discussing it here and start discussing it elsewhere?
 * For what it's worth, the talk page that I proposed before is not that active, so it should probably go to Wikipedia talk:Categorization so several users see it. Alternately, we could have a proper RfC. The discussion is no longer about how to make this article better, it's about an application of policy that is germane to several articles, so expending effort here is a waste.
 * I'm going to let this lie for a little while and see what feedback it gets. Also, for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that I stop getting messages on my talk about this--that only compounds the problem I just mentioned. I am aware of your objections and I have ceased editing in that fashion. Some of you objected to the form, some the content--either way, I'll just wait it out until consensus has been reached (which, again, it tacitly has at Categorizing redirects, but I digress...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Justin, you say at the top of your post that you started by looking up Tyler Clementi. That being the case, you were looking for information about the person. You were led here, because this is the page where it is covered. If you were to look at the redirect page itself, it's merely a redirect page. Even though what you are taking from that observation is that this page should not have categories about the person, everyone else here is arguing that readers interested in the person will be reading about the person here. Another way of thinking about it is that categories should apply to the content of the page, rather than to the title of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I now understand why the term redirects has come into play. Sometimes a large pace back is required before one can make forward progress. I am sympathetic to the recategorisation of this and other pages by, for example, the removal of the date of birth and of death of the person, since I agree the article is (articles are) about the suicide, not about the individual per se.
 * I am unsure about placing, for example, the removed categories on redirect pages, and need some time to mull that over. I need to think whether it is (a) useful and (b) adds to the understanding a casual reader will have of the items they have chosen to read about. Reader miss categories on redirect pages because they are whisked past them transparently. Those categories just 'appear" so to speak, in the category itself. IN this I am choosing to ignore any policy for the moment and to consider the matter as a reader of Wikipedia.
 * I agree that a central discussion, if that is required, might take place more usefully on a more high traffic talk page than the initial one suggested, the one I did not understand at the time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the discussion is not, per se, about changing a policy, but about understanding it, is the policy talk page the correct page for such a discussion, or is it a Village Pump topic? Or am I nuts? Feel free to say so clearly. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that things seem to have calmed down. In the interests of getting to consensus, please let me propose the following hypothesis, and ask whether anyone disagrees with it: Justin has explained his reasons, other editors have listened to those reasons and now do understand what he was saying, and, with numerous editors having commented here or elsewhere, no one has been persuaded by his reasons. Is that fair, or not? If it's fair, then perhaps we have a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we have at least the basis of consensus, and I do now understand Justin's rationale. To an extent I am sympathetic to it. As we know, it is consensus that prevails, not our individual views. I'm certain that people will have divergent personal views, but I support your implicit proposal that the categories be seen to be appropriate in the larger list associated with the article in this version. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the current categories as an example
I am taking the list from this version

We have:
 * Category:2010 deaths
 * Category:College students who committed suicide
 * Category:Deaths by person
 * Suicide of Tyler Clementi
 * Category:Suicides by jumping from a height
 * Category:Suicides in New York
 * Category:LGBT people from the United States
 * Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey
 * Category:2010 in New York
 * Category:Rutgers University alumni
 * Category:Victims of cyber-bullying

I'm flagging these as "Personal attribute" or "Suicide Article Attribute"
 * Category:2010 deaths – Personal attribute
 * Category:College students who committed suicide – Personal attribute
 * Category:Deaths by person – Personal attribute
 * Suicide of Tyler Clementi – Suicide Article Attribute
 * Category:Suicides by jumping from a height – Suicide Article Attribute
 * Category:Suicides in New York – Suicide Article Attribute
 * Category:LGBT people from the United States – Personal attribute
 * Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey – Personal attribute
 * Category:2010 in New York – Suicide Article Attribute
 * Category:Rutgers University alumni – Personal attribute
 * Category:Victims of cyber-bullying – Personal attribute

That narrows the discussion down somewhat. Assuming I have not associated an attribute incorrectly, I think those that are Suicide Article Attributes most definitely remain as being wholly appropriate types of category for the article, and that there is no dispute about adding the article to similar categories in the future.

Those that are Personal attributes are probably inappropriate categories for the suicide article.

The discussion then encompasses whether those categories should be associated with Tyler Clementi which is currently a redirect.

If I've stated this correctly, and if we all understand it to be a correct statement and understand the premise, then a discussion can and should proceed, (somewhere). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See also my closely related comment just above where the centralized discussion thread starts. I'm not sold on the argument that we cannot have any personal attribute categories on this page, because some are less narrowly "personal" than others, and some of them do relate to the subject matter of the page. I also want to repeat a point I made above: categories should apply to the content of the page, rather than to the title of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am increasingly persuaded that your thinking is, while not absolutely congruent with current guidelines, logical and reasonable, and I am at present 60:40 in favour of retaining the Personal Attribute categorisation of the Suicide articles. the 40% against is because of the guidelines. However, I have come to think this is a WP:IAR situation. The categories add value to the articles because they add clarity.
 * With the categories in the articles I am neutral about categorising the redirect pages.
 * I am not persuaded so far that guidelines (etc) require changing, and see no huge value in a discussion on those category guideline pages. I believe that exceptions are acceptable and that WP:IAR is intended to cover exceptions in a blanket manner Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would even dipute the categorization of the categories above (meaning, several of the "personal attributes" don't seem so personal to me. Vitims of cyber-bullying (a category I still don't think we should have) is as related to the incident as to the person.  "2010 deaths" seems similarly less personal than other "personal attribute" categories.  And, of course, as both Tryptfish and I have argued above, WP readers coming to learn about Clementi come to this page.  And people looking at those categories would be interested in this page as well.  Why provide one more barrier between them and the content they want to read about?LedRush (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you strike through the ones you don't agree with and reclassify them for this discussion. Your reasons and reasoning are persuasive. For what my own opinion is worth I am tending to your view. The discussion about VofCB's existence or otherwise is something I think we should stand back from here.
 * What I hope we can do is to reach a broad consensus over the principle, and then choose later to rifle in on individual categories on a per article basis when required Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions about that. I've copied the list here, since other people might not cross out the same ones that I would:
 * Category:2010 deaths Keep.
 * Category:College students who committed suicide Keep.
 * Category:Deaths by person Keep.
 * Category:Rutgers University Keep.
 * Category:Suicides by jumping from a height Keep.
 * Category:Suicides in New York Keep.
 * Category:LGBT people from the United States Keep.
 * Category:People from Ridgewood, New Jersey Delete.
 * Category:2010 in New York Keep.
 * Category:Rutgers University alumni Delete.
 * Category:Victims of cyber-bullying Keep, unless the trial verdict contradicts it.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks right to me. On the last one, what makes a "keep"?  Guilty on bias intimidation?  Guilty on anything?  Guilty on invasion of privacy?  I would argue that only a hate crime conviction (bias) would support the tag.  (even then, I'm not happy about the tag, but...).LedRush (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About that last one, I feel like there are so many possible combinations that could be in the verdict, that I'd like to wait on an answer to your question until we actually know what the verdict is. Let me, at least, put it this way: if it's acquittal on all counts, I'll certainly support deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are only three categories of crimes: (1. tampering; 2. invasion of privacy; and 3. Hate crime enhancements (applicable only if guilty on category 2)). The first category clearly doesn't apply to cyber-bullying, and I'll concede the third category does (though I think it's debatable), leaving really only the second category for debate.  But, of course, you're right.  This is all hypothetical now.  I just thought that if we agreed before-hand it might make post-judgment discussions easier.  (this is not to convince you to come out on the record now...your desire to see a verdict is also sensible).LedRush (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your honor, I take the fifth. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the keeps and deletes, though with some reservations based upon guidelines (already mentioned and not worth rehashing here) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree also; Tryptofish's list seems entirely reasonable. Frankly, after reading an awful lot of discussion on various pages (including the relevant guideline and Fiddle Faddle's brave attempt at clarification), I still don't have the faintest idea what the basis was for removing some of those categories in the first place. Re the cyber-bullying cat, while it can be revisited after the trial, I see no pressing reason to remove it. The notability of the event that spawned this article lies in widespread perceptions of cyber-bullying, and including the phrase in a WP category doesn't imo really imply anything about what exactly happened, let alone culpability for it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: both this page and the redirect are currently in Category:College students who committed suicide. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's because categories were added, in a group, to the redirect pages the same time that they were removed from the article pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One great article, and a couple others, before the dam breaks
One great, and some other good, article on the case. Of course, no sense making edits now.


 * detailed account

http://abcnews.go.com/US/clementi-trial-daily-analysis-politics-tyler-clementis-suicide/story?id=15909031


 * analysis of law (opinion of presiding judge)

http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/03/di_ionno_muddled_legislation_e.html


 * defense opinion

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/13/gay-suicide-victim-tyler-clementis-roommates-spying-was-childish-not-a-hate-crime-lawyer/

LedRushLedRush (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we will want to re-evaluate a lot when the verdict comes in. I see that the jury just went home for a second day. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Verdict is in; rewrite in order?
Now that the verdict is in, I think it might make sense for us to consider a rewrite of the article. I actually believe that the current structure does not need a drastic overhaul, but based on the verdicts and the change in media coverage, we might want to think of the best structure. It seems that the vast majority of media sources are currently correctly identifying the major facts of the case, and it also seems that both the defense and the prosecutors largely agreed on those facts. What that means is that the trial is more about legal interpretation and not about fact-finding. For that reason, I think that we can populate the "Background" section with a pure recitation of the facts, both as presented in the trial and in the media. That would leave the stickier concepts of motives and legal analysis for the "prosecution" section. Furthermore, I think we may need to expand the reaction section. On a preliminary basis, I suggest the following outline:


 * 1 Background and incident
 * largely the same as what we have now, though cleaned up further with current sources and court testimony
 * 2 Prosecutions
 * A. Molly Wei
 * Talk about her plea
 * B. Ravi
 * This is the bulk of the section, obviously. It should lose the timeline feel it currently has and become more of a narrative in an encyclopedic format.  We would largely discuss the legal arguments here (prosecutors contended that; defense argued that...)
 * i. investigation
 * ii. charges
 * iii. Verdict
 * iv. sentencing
 * explain the verdict
 * 3 Reaction
 * A. Reaction to incident
 * i. Government
 * ii. Other
 * I think this could be expanded to cover the most recent reactions in the last month
 * B. Reaction to verdict
 * Commentary is exploding on this
 * 4 See also
 * 5 References
 * 6 External links

So, this is my unambitious idea. Does anyone else have better, different, more ambitious or other ideas?LedRush (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that WP:There is no deadline, I think the first order of business is adding a brief summary of the verdict to the lead. Then we all need to read carefully what the verdict was, and maybe give about 24 hours for some secondary sources (news commentaries, etc.) to provide some interpretation of what the verdict means. Then, we can better decide what detailed changes to make. My initial reaction, seeing a large number of guilty counts, is about some places where we've already discussed how far to go in presenting material about what Ravi said in tweets and instant messages, where we might consider adding more material that could be considered as unflattering to Ravi, that we held off from adding before. We might also consider pruning back as undue some of the material that implies that the suicide was caused by other things, such as Clementi's mother's reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted that there's no time limit, but I don't know that anything I proposed gets down to the details you're talking about. Also, I would warn against the sentiment in your last sentence - nothing in this verdict means that the suicide was caused by the incident.  In fact, almost every article on the subject now seems to make that distinction.  Furthermore, even if that point was on trial (which it wasn't) the verdict wouldn't really change how we approach the "facts" of the case.  Juries don't decide what information is true for the purposes of a wikipedia article; reliable sources do.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the jury was not given the task of determining the cause of the suicide. But they were determining where to apply charges of bias intimidation, and they found bias intimidation in the second viewing event, and the sources indicate that the judge's instructions were that they had to assess Clementi's state of mind for that. Absent any sourcing that does find that the suicide was principally caused, instead, by the mother's reaction, I think we might have WP:UNDUE issues with keeping the discussion of the mother's reaction as long as we have it now, as well as WP:BLP issues (with respect to the mother). What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a tough call. Probably better to err on the side of caution. How do you propose shortening it? Rivertorch (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Before drafting a shorter version, let's decide whether we want a shorter version. What do other editors think about this, please? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, what do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's take it slow, but LedRush, your outline looks like a good starting point. (Thanks, btw, for reverting that edit to the article. It may need full protection if there's much more of that. II won't be around to watch it for some hours.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I also thank LedRush for catching that not-in-source that I missed. I too will be away from the computer for a couple of hours now, but I would support requesting full protection for 24 hours or so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "current event" tag. --Javaweb (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Arbitrary break
Regarding the above outline, I think that responses to the verdict should probably be in their own section, not a subsection of "Reactions". The section is a bit of a mess at the moment. The New Yorker thing seemed marginally okay there before but somehow now looks really misplaced. The first paragraph of the section also has issues. Rivertorch (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the main responses section should be about responses to the suicide. Responses to the verdict, in contrast, should be separate from that. Right now, there aren't a lot of the latter on the page, but if, as may happen, there are more responses to the verdict, we might want to create a subsection for them where the verdict material is, not where the responses to the suicide are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are going to divde the reactions sections, should we first move the current section about the prosecution, and then have the prosecution section and the reactions to it? Also, should we divide the reactions to the prosecution and the reactions to the verdict?LedRush (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about this comment a lot. The article is shaping up to be more about the trial than it is about the suicide.  Such heavy focus on the trial implicates the participants in the trial unfairly, especially as much information regarding the suicide was purposefully not available to the defense nor was it used at trial (the suicide note, the files on Clementi's computer, etc.).  This makes sense as the trial was about invasion of privacy and the related charges, not the suicide.  However, it is also clear to me that the trial is independently notable and nothing we have in here necessarily is problematic if properly presented.  That leads me with a couple of thoughts.  (1) we rename the article "The Trial of Dharun Ravi"; (2) We split up and make two articles; (3) We significantly reduce the amount of information on the trial in this article; (4) We rename the article to encompass both the suicide and the trial in some neutral, simple and natural manner.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two articles sounds okay. Example: Suicide of Megan Meier and United States v. Lori Drew. (I'm not volunteering to help, tho.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit premature to consider separate articles. We have no idea how long the publicity is going to last. If it proves to be short-lived, we might wind up wanting to merge the two back into one, which is always awkward. For now, I think the trial and aftermath can just comprise their own sections here. Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article stays as one, I still remained concerned that the article is titled "Suicide of" but the focus is "Trial of". This creates a link between the two that is at best misleading and at worst POV.  Having two separate articles was one of only four options to address this, and I'm sure there are other options as well.LedRush (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I'll point to WP:There is no deadline. I think that, as Rivertorch correctly pointed out, we need to let some time pass and determine whether there is sufficient reason to split the article, lest later events just lead back to merging into a single page. Let's at least wait until after the sentencing.


 * There's also another problem with rushing to create a separate page. There is a danger of creating a WP:POV fork. I note LedRush's comment about the attention given to the trial on this page somehow implying that the trial was unfair. Whether or not one perceives it that way is very much in the eye of the beholder. One could just as well conclude that the prominence of the trial reflects the fact that it was something of a "watershed event" (to quote one source), in that it set a new standard for the law not letting "he was just an immature kid" (my paraphrase) stand as a defense. Now on the other hand, if LedRush is concerned that the page, now, has too much emphasis on concerns about the trial or prosecution having been unfair, perhaps that's because of what LedRush himself has been adding to the page. Look: a single sentence (that I added) about that "watershed event", but three paragraphs about comments about criticism of the verdict. I think that lacks balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of things: (1) I never said that the trial was unfair. I think it's best to focus on the edits and not the motivations of the editors; (2) while there isn't a hurry generally, as I mentioned above, creating two separate articles is one of at least 4 options; (3) while there isn't a hurry generally, the focus of the article should be rectified in some manner, and it is best if done quickly; (4) in the reactions, there was the opinion that it was a watershed moment and the quote from the father (both basically the same opinion).  I added 5 new opinions which offered the spectrum of opinion - 1 criticizing law and trial, 1 criticizing law and prosecutor, 1 criticizing media coverage and punishment; 1 praising the trial but concerned about punishment; 1 praising the trial as a victory for LGBT rights.  That's a diverse group which, together with your 2 quotes, presents 3/7 unqualified supports of all aspects, 5/7 views saying the law was correctly applied, and 4/7 offering some kind of sympathy that, even if correctly applied, the punishment itself is harsh.  Seeing as the law itself, not to mention the verdict, has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the media, if anything there should be more criticism in here so as not to have WP:UNDUE weight to the "support" opinions.  Not only have many legal scholars and commentators ciriticized the law, but the presiding judge himself has.LedRush (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking note of the fact that a very recent discussion in this talk led you to open a WQA thread in which you complained of being treated unfairly here (not by me, though), I think I need to point out that your point #1 is almost a carbon copy of what started that episode. (I never said that you said the trial was unfair. I said that you said that the emphasis on this page made it look to you like we were saying that the trial was unfair.) And, yes, I think that your recent edits lack balance. Looking another way at your tally, you added 4/5 that were critical of the verdict. (You also counted the message to young people from Clementi's father as one of your "2" positive comments about the verdict.) You've also added a quote from Clementi's messages about Dunkin Donuts, and material (since modified by other editors) that seemed only to emphasize that Ravi's second attempt at viewing failed. You shouldn't be surprised when editors question your POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, only 3/5 were critical of the verdict. 3/5 said it was a correct verdict (1 said it was the "correct" verdict but still an unfair one).  Those join the 2 already in support of the verdict.  This is uneven as we are giving more time to support of the verdict than criticism, when it appears there is much more criticism than support, especially when we talk about law and the sense of justice rather than cold application of the law.  For example, all I did to add the 5 opinions was do a google news search.  However, to get more "support" opinions I had to go deeper into the search results than the "criticism" ones, which were on the first page.  So, I skewed the results to favor "support" opinions, yet I still get accused of POV editing for "criticism" ones.
 * Also, I added the comments by Clementi about Ravi in response to an increase in material (and an increased negative portrayal) of Ravi in the article. We added not only new quotes of what Ravi said about Clementi, but we changed the description of actions to put more focus on Ravi's plans regarding the attempt for a second viewing.
 * Regarding the "trial unfair" comment - I did not say that the coverage here makes it look like we are saying the trial was unfair.  I said "The article is shaping up to be more about the trial than it is about the suicide. Such heavy focus on the trial implicates the participants in the trial unfairly."  What I meant is that we are connecting the suicide and the charges at the heart of the trial and that this connection may be unfair - especially to Ravi and Wei.
 * However, you are correct that this misunderstanding has similarities with the WQA incident: (1) in both cases you are mistaking what I said in a manner in which I object; (2) in both cases you are commenting on the editor and not the edits. These issues can be avoided if you avoid #2, which I think will help you avoid #1 as well.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[cough] At this point, I do not think the article has an undue focus on the trial. A rough estimate indicates that the Prosecutions section, including the Guilty verdicts and sentencing subsection, accounts for less than one-fourth the length of the article. (I'm not including the refs in that; if I do, it accounts for less than one-fifth.) That doesn't seem unreasonable at all—if anything, it seems like too little. What, after all, makes the topic meet notability guidelines to begin with? It's not the suicide itself but rather the unusual series of events that preceded it and those that followed it. Those events led to enormous public outcry and media attention, and they led to a closely watched prosecution culminating in a trial that may have significant ramifications for public policy and criminal law in the United States. Of course the legal adjudication and the reaction to it are going to constitute a significant portion of the article. And that may make a separate article on the trial a good idea. Time will tell. In the meantime, the unifying factor that connects the several noteworthy aspects of the case—the suicide of Tyler Clementi,—is reflected in the article's current title, and I see no compelling reason to change that. If that is somehow violative of NPOV, I'm not seeing it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding reactions to the verdict, I really don't think the Above the Law blog mention is kosher. If our own article (tagged for nearly a year for questionable notability) on said blog is to be believed, Elie Mystal (who has no article of his own) is, as far as we know, not a particular authority on criminal law but simply a blogger at a blog specializing in gossip about corporate law firms. Hello? If that's true, we might as well include the reaction of the proverbial man on the street. I think that reactions quoted in the article need to be either from people who are involved in the case (broadly construed) or at least meet our notability guidelines. As far as the Huffington Post goes, some of its contributors are notable and some aren't. Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, your understanding that Above the Law is only concerned with corporate law is not accurate. In fact, the site began dealing only with litigation matters, focusing primarily on the federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Above the Law can be a reliable source for news as it does have an editorial staff which oversees and ensures the quality of the reporting.  However, that's not what the site is being used for here.  Here it is being used to cite an opinion of someone who focuses on this issue.  Others have sought out Mystal's opinion on legal matters, as he is often asked to guest on news programs to give such opinion.  He has done so on Fox News a few times, and he has done so on issues as diverse as law school costs to the legality of Obama's recess appointments.  I don't see why an uninvolved prosecutor would be more relevant than a legal analyst on this matter.  Of course, it other opinions better represent the scope of views on this matter, they should be used.  I also wouldn't think that we would limit reactions to those involved in the case (removing every opinion currently in the article except the father's).  The law, the trial, and the verdict have been the subject of much commentary, and it seems odd to so drastically limit the scope.  This seems especially true when currently, 30% of the article is about the reaction to the incident by uninvolved parties (meaning that the trial takes 30% of the article and the reactions to the incident take 30%, with the incident and together also about 30% of the article).


 * And this brings me to my first point. The trial currently takes up almost 30% of the article, almost as much as the incident itself.  The article is either badly named or badly focused.  And seeing as the trial is at best tangentially related to the suicide, the focus on it seems to me to improperly connect the Ravi and Wei to the suicide (something the prosecutor in the case deliberately did not do, though, of course, that is not a dispositive argument here).LedRush (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the weight of reactions, a google news search today pulls up a ton of criticism (of the law itself, of the prosecution and of the verdict) .  So you know the search was just for news articles about the case in the last week...no limiting criteria.  I went deep into the results to get off-setting, supporting views.  Seeing as there has been a massive debate on hate crime laws in general, and about the application of them in this case specifically, it seems that we must fairly represent those views.  If anything, the current focus, and the focus after my edits, put undue weight on supporting opinions.  However, I recognize that google news is not the be-all and end-all of judging weight, and against my better judgment I added more "supporting" views than seem warranted by news coverage.  With regards to HuffPost, I am not sure which editors you feel are noteworthy and which aren't, but I took the top three that showed up in google news, ensuring that one was an unconditional support, one mixed and one critical...again against the weight of news coverage on the incident.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Too much to respond to adequately in the short time I have today, but I'll do my best. Bottom line: you have mischaracterized what I said. As I clearly indicated in my comment above, my understanding of Mr. Mystal's credentials and the relevance of his blog were based on (1) our stub of an article on his blog and (2) our lack of an article on him. I didn't look further than that, and frankly I shouldn't have to. Readers of this article should expect to find reactions to the verdict from people who either had some stake in the trial (i.e., their opinions are specifically relevant to the case) or have blue links (i.e., allowing it to be easily determined that their opinions are generally relevant to the topic). Otherwise, the door is wide open for including anyone's opinion at all. Quite frankly, if you think it's a good idea to include criticism of the verdict from a sometime Fox News commentator (red flag #1) who may or may not meet our notability guidelines (red flag #2), I'm a bit at a loss for words. In any event, I never even implied that Above the Law is "only concerned with corporate law", and I'm taken aback at what I said being twisted in such a way. Nor did I say we should "limit reactions to those involved in the case". Please go back and re-read what I did say. Then perhaps discussion on these points can move forward. Regarding your premise about the trial being "at best tangentially related to the suicide", I can only say I don't agree with that at all. From all I've read on the case, it seems clear enough that without the suicide there would have been no trial. Rivertorch (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, I'm not sure that it matters where your understanding regarding Above the Law is from. It was wrong, and I corrected it.  I don't blame you for the view, and I'm sorry if my post somehow indicated that I was.  My point was to demonstrate that Mystal's opinion is exactly the type of opinion that we would look for here, nothing more sinister.
 * Also, your red flag regarding his appearing on Fox News seems odd. Generally, showing up on major media outlets to give legal opinions would indicate notability and not be any kind of "red flag".  Anyway, he has appeared on other TV stations (NY1 comes to mind) also to give his opinions on legal matters.  (NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS AN ASSUMPTION.  IF IT IS INCORRECT, PLEASE DISREGARD)  If your concern about him being on Fox is that he is either biased or ultra-conservative, I have a couple of responses.  One, it doesn't matter.  Two, he is definitely biased, as most people are.  Three, he is ultra-liberal.  He devotes much time to laws and incidents regarding minority groups and is considered a liberal counterweight to managing editor David Lat on the web-site. (END ASSUMPTION).
 * Also, yes, you are right that you said people referenced in the article should be either notable or connected to the case. I am sorry I incorrectly conflated those two points into one.  However, I feel Mystal's position as an editor of the most widely read legal blog in America, as well as a legal commentator on various news sites, makes his position on this case and the law notable.  However, if I am reading your position correctly, the requirement that people have blue links is extremely odd to me.  When discussion the efficacy of hate crime laws, I'd rather ask a Fordham Law Professor who specializes in this than Bret Easton Ellis (who called the trial a witch hunt).  As I said above, I'm not married to Mystal's view if another better represents the opinion.  But perhaps it is best to speak generally on what criteria should be used and not focus on Mystal specifically.
 * Finally, many commentators have linked the trial to the suicide, it is true (in the beginning to blame Ravi, currently (mostly) to say it was unfair to Ravi). However, the prosecutor did not charge Ravi with any crimes involving the suicide, and the judge would not allow any evidence regarding the suicide to be given from the prosecutor to either the defense or the jury, stating that it was not at issue and irrelevent to the trial.  My point regarding this above is that the current layout, content and title do not conform to how Wikipedia generally organizes/establishes its articles, and there were several ways to address this (some quite simple, really).LedRush (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if anyone else wanders in and cares to offer an opinion. I'll defer any response to the above for now, but I've read it with interest. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll wander in, although I've become rather fed-up with the discussion here. In short, I'm pretty satisfied with the way the page is, as of the time of this comment, in terms of these kinds of balance. I also think that we will all have a clearer understanding of how to present criticism or support of the verdict after the sentence is handed down. The judge will have a lot of latitude in determining the sentence, and the range of possibilities is wide. Depending on what actually does happen, the short-term debate of recent days may look very different afterwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some complaints about this article:
 * (1)Ahrun Ravi was not prosecuted for the suicide of Mr Clementi so I do not think it belongs in an article about the suicide of Tyler Clementi. The connection between Mr Ravi's actions and Mr Clementi's actions has not been investigated but by putting them in the same article it makes the assumption that Mr Ravi caused Mr Clementi to commit suicide.
 * (2)I do not think Mr Ravi, Tyler Clementi, or his suicide are notable.  The trial of Mr Ravi is notable and that is what the article should be about.  So I think the article should be titled The trial of Ahrun Ravi.  Tyler Clementi's name should redirect to it, and his suicide mentioned.  But since Mr Ravi's connection to the suicide is not clear, and the suicide's lack of importance to the trial, I do not think an article about Tyler Clemente's suicide is proper.
 * (3)The issue of Tyler Clementi achieving notoriety through suicide is important in my view. I think it is a very bad idea, maybe even dangerous, to allow people to achieve any kind of notoriety solely by committing suicide.

In short the article should be about the trial and issues raised in the trial, not the lifestories of not notable individuals, Mr's Clementi and Ravi, and not about issues not raised in the trial.Geo8rge (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the article as now titled has passed muster regarding notability. .  I agree with you on point #1, though.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding point #1, I understand the argument that you and LedRush have made, and it may have merit. We don't know what single or multiple factors led Mr. Clementi to end his life, and we may never know. That the legal proceedings apparently established no connection between the webcam incidents and the suicide is a salient point to consider, but it's not the only relevant point. We also should keep in mind that there almost certainly would have been no legal proceedings were it not for the suicide. Whether or not that's the case, the suicide and the trial are inextricably bound together in terms of their coverage in all of the reliable sources. The suicide has been the nexus of all the different aspects of the coverage, to date. That may change. In the meantime, I think it remains the most starting point for the article and the best basis for the title.
 * As for your second point, the suicide clearly meets notability guidelines. Your third point is irrelevant. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Birth date
Was he born April 29, 1992, according to several sites? Tinton5 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Links, please. The birthdate has been added and removed repeatedly as unsourced. Btw, I see you added a category. You may want to skim the categories discussion further up this page (or at least the latter part of the thread). Rivertorch (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again I have removed the birthdate (this time it was December 19, 1991). It was sourced to findagrave.com, a site with user-generated content and no fact checking afaik. Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, I nailed down the year. I haven't quite been exhaustive, but after a fairly lengthy search I came up with nada as far as the actual date goes. I don't think it's terribly important for the article, but I also think it's probably out there in a print source (local newspaper obituary, for instance). Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, here's a source. I think it should be reliable, but I'll wait to see what others think. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources should be reliable in relation to the subject matter. That seems fine to me.LedRush (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WebCam pointed at the bed
A recent interview by Ravi says that he pointed the webcam away from Clementi's bed before the planned second viewing. I added this statement to the article but it has been reverted. The rationale is that this view of events is contradicted by others. I agree that we could include the definitive statement that the webcam was once pointed there. However, I cannot see in any source that says that at the time of the anticipated second viewing that the webcam was pointed at Clementi's bed. I would say that the best thing to do would be to say that Ravi set it up pointing at Clementi's bed, but, according to Ravi, he said the "joke" was not funny and turned it away. That way, we attribute his opinion to him, but keep the uncontested facts straight. If there is a source which says that at the time of the planned second viewing the webcam was still pointed at the bed, we can attribute that to that source. (If there is already a source in the article that says this, I am sorry...I just haven't found it.) Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this instead of reverting, and for suggesting alternative, middle-ground, solutions. I agree with you that it would be a good idea to formulate it along the lines of "it was set up this way, but according to Ravi...". Perhaps you could give another read-through of the Ian Parker piece, and see exactly what Parker said about where the camera pointed. (I just got through tracking down the Lautenberg sources...) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I review the Parker piece and it doesn't comment on the direction of the webcam at the time of the incident, but does say that Ravi pointed it at Clementi's bed earlier (something that Ravi appears to confirm himself in the interview).LedRush (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the Parker piece quote:"He unplugged Ravi’s computer. In a text sent at 9:41 P.M., he[Clementi] told Yang, "I was afraid he might have hidden another webcam so I also shut down and turned off the power strip."...Ravi contends that, by this time, he had changed his mind about the broadcast, and had disabled his webcam. Yet he[Ravi] was still referring to a “viewing party” after leaving the dorm for Frisbee”"

- Ian Parker You don't tell folks to tune in if you have already disabled the equipment. Ravi wanted to show off his technical wizardry, not falsely present himself as a bumbling incompetent. --Javaweb (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * While your insights into the workings of Ravi's mind are interesting, I don't think we need to work hard to imagine a situation in which Ravi set up the webcam, invited people to watch, and then changed his mind. In fact, that's exactly what he's said has happened, and I've not read any commentary that has definitively dispelled this version of events.LedRush (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I would ask other editors to just read the quote and look at what is in the article and talk about it. We'll leave theories out of it, as I have in the article. My statement is only on the Talk page. --Javaweb (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Reaction Section (to incident) "Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act",
The reaction section to the incident seemed very large, to me, and I started to update certain items and remove some events which I thought were either not very notable or not well-sourced. One of my deletions was regarding the "Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act". My position is that if this act has become law, we should include it in the article. If not (meaning, it was a bill that failed), we shouldn't. Edit: It seems that neither is true: as of a couple of weeks ago, it appears that it isn't law yet. LedRush (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood your edit summary to mean that you would support adding it back if, in fact, it had actually been introduced as legislation, as opposed to what it said before, which was that the Senator planned to introduce legislation. If so, sorry. But I think that it's reasonable to include pending legislation (I think it is pending, not defeated) when that legislation is named for the subject of this page, and when it has been mentioned in a news article just two days ago. Also, by including it, it becomes possible to include the response opposing it, which allows for inclusion of a balancing POV in that section, something I had hoped you would welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine to include it if you want to. Given my druthers, I wouldn't, but I don't see this as a big issue.  I merely wanted to cut the reaction section a bit per my parameters above.  However, I would not support any inclusion of criticism of the Bill.  The section is about the reaction to the incident, not a debate about the wisdom of the bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 21:53, March 22, 2012‎
 * Well, from the department of not-big-issues, I guess a case can be made that the criticism of the bill (read the source) is part of a larger response to the incident, not unlike Parker's criticism of the earlier media coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could make that case, but I think it would be a weak case indeed.LedRush (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. I know the opinion is cited.  What I'm saying is it's off-topic.  If you wanted to, you could go through and put criticism of every bill we've mentioned in the reaction section because these laws are getting killed by legal commentators.  But that section is about the response to the incident.LedRush (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding opinions of Ravi's actions
In this edit, information regarding an opinion of Ravi's actions was introduced to the reaction to the verdict section. I would think that detailed (and quoted) opinions regarding Ravi's actions occur only in the "reactions to incident", and that the reactions to the verdict section should deal with reactions to the law, the verdict, and the prosecution of the crime. To make this clear, I would recommend renaming the "Reactions" section to "Reactions to the incident" or "Reactions to the suicide" or something like that. Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else added that material, but I agree with adding it. A couple of thoughts. A few days ago, I moved the reactions section above the verdict section, so I think that makes it clear that it deals with reactions to the suicide, not reactions to the verdict. I don't object strongly to renaming it as "Reactions to the incident" or "Reactions to the suicide", but I think that MOS recommends naming sections without redundantly referring to the page title. At this time, I think that it is premature to pull out a new section on reactions to the verdict. I think that it was important to present the quoted material in that edit, because it provides a more balanced presentation of what Cohen said; by segregating what he said about the incident from what he said about the verdict, it would almost be like a mini-POV-fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but while we wait for other opinions, would you object to at least pairing down his opinion about the actions. I don't think when discussing the merits of a law it's worth mentioning the opinion on the perpetrator's actions (like every objection to capital punishment would be bogged down by irrelevant criticisms of the prisoners), but if we do, could we take out the quote and say something more like "While highly critical of Ravi's actions, Cohen argues..."LedRush (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I would object. I feel that it would be sanitizing one half of what the source says, while emphatically presenting the other half. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like that is better than inserting undue POV that belongs in another section. Personally, I'd rather just delete the opinion entirely and go get one of the other hundreds of legal commentaries which talk about the law seeing - as we're supposed to be talking about the law.LedRush (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the Clementi-Ravi incident and Cohen's opinion of Ravi's actions is at least as relevant to the article as his opinion of one of the laws one of the charges Ravi was found guilty of. There have been comments about Ravi's culpability and they need to be reported accurately. Highly critical is vague and sanitizes his, quote, "revulsion", unquote. The short quote I used was, literally, what he meant.
 * This article should not disproportionately turn into a coat rack for discussing bias legislation or bullying but should mention these issues in the context of the article.  --Javaweb (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I agree with Javaweb. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Javaweb as well. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * {double edit conflict} The argument against summary is a bit of a red herring; we can use more appropriate language summarizing his views. But, that's not my main point.
 * All I'm saying is if you want to talk about his reactions to the incident, that should be in the section about reactions to the incident. If you want to talk about his reactions to the law, it should go in the section that deals with that. About 30% of the article is about the exclusively about the trial, and the commentary on the laws has been massive.LedRush (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've read your comments carefully and understood them, really, and I would guess that so have the other editors. Sorry, but we just aren't persuaded. Reactions to the law can be expected to include views about the incident, and when the latter significantly modify the former, we would be misrepresenting the former by only quoting them in isolation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that presenting a commentator's view of a law (hate crime) as generally applied to the citizenry at large without giving that person's view as to a single perpetrator's actions regarding a different law (invasion of privacy) is in any way a misrepresentation of the person's view on the former law is very strange, to me. Quite honestly, it would still seem strange to consider it a misreprentation of one's views even if it were the same law.  For example, I say "The person who raped and killed that family in Connecticut is the lowest form of human life, but laws regarding capital punishment are extreme, barbaric and prone to mistakes", I don't see why you'd have to quote the first half of the sentence to include the second half.  Indeed, it detracts from the view because it is off-topic.  And to say that it would be a misrepresentation to do so is unfair in the highest regard.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Sand Diego school board resolution
I recommend deleting the reference to the San Diego school board resolution. It just doesn't seem to be as relevant or as important as the other information (it's not a piece of legislation, powerful political presence, family member or even a bill). We have so much in there already, it just doesn't seem to add anything to the conversation, in my view. Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about shortening it to a brief sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"properly convicted"
The article currently states that in an Op-Ed piece, an author stated that Ravi was "properly convicted" of invasion of privacy. To me, this connotes a judgment about the fairness of the trial itself, and not only a judgment of whether the person committed the crime. What the author states in the article is that "New Jersey jury convicted Dharun Ravi of invasion of privacy, and for good reason" and that Ravi committed the crime. I would rather use her exact language as, to me, that does not pass judgment on the process, but on the Ravi's actions themselves.LedRush (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your honor, may we approach? What she said: "Last week, a New Jersey jury convicted Dharun Ravi of invasion of privacy, and for good reason... That kind of spying should be out of bounds on a college campus." It seems to me that she was not just commenting on the accuracy of the verdict, but also the fairness – that not only did he "do it", but also that it's proper, in Bazelon's opinion, that he be called to account for it. I'm having a little trouble keeping track here: I think that you oppose directly quoting Richard Cohen, but you want to directly quote Emily Bazelon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) You oppose quoting Bazelon but support quoting Cohen. This inconsistency is not the subject of this topic.
 * (2)I don't need to quote Bazelon, but want her comments properly conveyed. That's the reason I didn't quote her in my edits and merely stated her opinion in plain words.  However, we are now disagreeing as to what her opinion is.  I don't see in her writings anything that suggests that she thinks the process of the conviction was fair.  In fact, when she criticizes the process saying that the bias intimidation charges were brought to "increase the pressure on a defendant to plead guilty", though she does believe the plea arrangement was fair (though she got the details wrong).  She also criticizes the bias intimidation law in general, saying the conviction was probably influenced by Clementi's suicide.  I understand that these statements are not smoking guns regarding a criticism of the process, but I am not trying to argue for the inclusion of the opinion that she was critical of the process.  What I am saying is the article doesn't support your summary.  If we can't agree on what an appropriate summary is, I'd rather stay as close to her original words (or possibly quote her, though not my first choice).LedRush (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd support quoting her, if we do it in full, including the part about "should be out of bounds". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't even think it was necessary to have in her opinion that he committed a crime as it is wholly unrelated to her opinion on the law, the subject of the section. However, based on your earlier comments, I thought that if we were going to go off-topic and WP:COATRACK attacks on Ravi, we might as well make them short and accurate (which also avoids the WP:UNDUE issue that some current quotes have as they do not accurately reflect the thoughts of the author).  The current language ("properly convicted") is not accurate (or, at least not clearly supported by the text), so can we just try and keep in something short and accurate, like she "thought that Ravi was convicted of invasion of privacy with 'good reason'" or she thought his actions were "out of bounds" (meaning, use that part of the quote, but only that part of the quote).  I just want to stay on-topic and minimize the sideshow.  If you want to include any of these opinions in the reaction to the incident, go ahead.  We could even make two sections for the trial reactions - (1) reaction to invasion of privacy charge/conviction; (2) reaction to bias intimidation charge/conviction.  As you know, I don't have objections to these opinions on Ravi's actions, I merely want them to be organized well and not in a manner which detracts from the authors' purpose of writing.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, let's see what other editors think, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Clementi left a suicide note, but authorities have declined to release it or describe its contents.
Clementi left a suicide note, but authorities have declined to release it or describe its contents.

This might be important a fact for your american "justice" system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't we mention this? If not, we could.  We could also mention the files that were not presented at trial because the trial was not supposed to be related to the suicide.LedRush (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Trial
There is not enough about the trial itself in the article. The trial, charges, and results should be described in more detail. Also, the NY Times had an article interviewing the jurors how they made their decision on the different charges. The trial would be a good place to discuss the Judge's opinion on the bias law as well. --Javaweb (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I generally agree, but for this only bolsters my opinion that the article should be renamed the "Trial of Dharum Ravi" or that there should be a separate article by that name. Regardless, the opinions of the jurors should definitely be incorporated into the article as they clearly relevant and helpful to a reader.LedRush (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep things in the order they actually happened
It makes the article less confusing and less prone to WP:SYNTH or viewpoint pushing. --Javaweb (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Well, I did try to reorder some things that were out of order, but as I mentioned there were a few problems with merely stating the days and putting what happened in them. (1) it can be confusing.  Not every event flows naturally from the last.  (2) it conflates the webcam incident and the suicide, a serious BLP issue that most be avoided.  (2) it is wholly unencyclopedic.  There is a reason this format is not widely used.  (4) it is restrictive.  It doesn't allow us to serve our readership by presenting the article in the most natural way.


 * I think you'll see that my title renaming has done very little moving around to take us out of a pure timeline and, indeed, I put some things in order that had not been before.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is good to have distinguished between the webcam incidents and the suicide, and to move away from the date-based section headers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unaffiliated prosecutor's view
In this edit, Tryptofish moved McRae's opinion out from the others saying "He was not saying something described by that summary sentence." The intro sentence says "The trial and the verdict sparked public debate on the validity and efficacy of the New Jersey hate crime statute and similar laws nation-wide." McRae's quote talks directly about the verdict, arguing that it is valid and important, saying the verdict was "a watershed moment, because it says youth is not immunity". I don't see how his statement is not covered by the intro or why it needs to be separate from the other commentary on the verdict and the laws.LedRush (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I grit my teeth and try not to lose my temper, I will point to this edit, in which you reverted what I had written: . I think that editors can clearly see there what I had written about what McRae had said. He was saying that the jury rejected the defense argument that "youth" was a defense. As an alternative to edit warring, I moved the quote back where it had been before. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than get angry, I wish you had responded to my post in which I ask how McRae's statement is not covered by the current intro or why it needs to be separate than the other commentary on the verdict. Regardless, I reverted your language for three reasons: (1) it introduced POV into a NPOV statement; (2) it introduced a specific opinion into an intro which just generally introduces the scope of the debate, not any opinions on it; (3) it was a muddled mess that was both awkward and which destroyed the purpose of a topic sentence.  Anyway, I feel that the existing language is broad enough to introduce any views on the verdict or the law.LedRush (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to other editors to assess whether or not I sufficiently explained my response to your questions, as well as whether or not my emotional reaction was justified. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But there was no response. I guess no response could be sufficient in certain circumstances, but it's not helpful as we try and forge compromises.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to other editors to evaluate the truth of that statement too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic Sentence (again)
For discussion regarding the debate regarding the verdict and hate crime laws generally, the existing topic sentence for a while was:

"The trial and the verdict sparked public debate on the validity and efficacy of the New Jersey hate crime statute and similar laws nationwide."

Tryptofish has been deleting it saying separately, that the source doesn't say anything about the trial and that the source says nothing about hate crime statutes in other states.

However, the source explicitly says:
 * " a verdict poised to broaden the definition of hate crimes in an era when laws have not kept up with evolving technology." (explicit talk about hate crimes in general)
 * "The case set off a debate about whether hate-crime statutes are the best way to deal with bullying." explicit talk about debate regarding hate crime statutes in general, not just New Jersey.
 * "They, along with Mr. Ravi’s lawyers, had argued that the case was criminalizing simple boorish behavior." explicitly talking about the "case", not the verdict.
 * "What the jury had to decide, and what set off debate outside as well as inside the courtroom, was what Mr. Ravi and Mr. Clementi were thinking." (Explicitly talks about trial; NOTE, there is a link over the italicized words which links to 6 people's views on hate crimes in general, with some expressing opinions on this specific trial; the piece was written during the trial and before the verdict).
 * Clementi's father is quoted giving his thoughts on the trial.
 * The prosecutor "rejected suggestions that Mr. Ravi would not have been on trial if Mr. Clementi had not killed himself. Even if he had not, he said, “under these facts, under this evidence, we would prosecute this case.”" (explicitly debating the prosecution/trial.

It is hard to imagine a source more explicitly or directly supporting the topic sentence above (regarding debate about the trial and hate crimes in general).LedRush (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The verdict sparked nationwide debate on the validity and efficacy of the New Jersey hate crime statute and similar laws." Does anyone else think there's a problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your summary is too narrow, though it is good that you've recognized that the debate is about hate crimes nationally (as explicitly mentioned in the source).  That is progress.  But the article says the "case" sparked the controversy; the article refers to debates that happened before the verdict but during the trial; and the article talks about the trial specifically.  I just can't see why you are so determined to change the old topic sentence.LedRush (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm stupid. I changed it to "case" and you reverted me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you wrote "the case", you still believed that the article didn't say anything about laws other than the NJ one and deleted mention of hate crimes generally. That was clearly incorrect, as you almost seem to acknowledge now.  Because it was inaccurate and unnecessary, I reverted.
 * Can you articulate a reason that the above topic sentence doesn't work? You state one reason and after that is disproven, you come up with a different one.  This has happened 3 or 4 times, but you still haven't explained on the talk page why the topic sentence above isn't acceptable.LedRush (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of minor actors' full names
In this edit we've added a lot of good information about the specifics of the event. But, per LedRush (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * M.B.'s name was not divulged because, under NJ Law, alleged victims of sex crimes don't have their identities exposed against their will. The other folks are not victims and their names are published in multiple responsible sources. I appreciate the sentiment but there is no issue with using those names.

--Javaweb (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Meh. While I don't see a BLP violation, I also don't see that use of the names contributes to our presenting a clear account of the topic. I'd lean toward removal but don't feel strongly enough to do it myself. Rivertorch (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my analogy to M.B. was imperfect, but WP:BLP still argues against inclusion of the names of minor characters in an article like this. "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons."  I know that when I worked on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article we did not include the names of the roommates and other witnesses, despite the fact that some newspapers did, per this policy and because using their names adds nothing to the article.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and omissions
Please consider the following additions to this account.


 * Witness interference and evidence tampering The presentation under "Prosecution" is unnecessarily vague. The evidence tampering charge did not just involve deleting 86 tweets, but also altering certain key tweets, such as "Dare you to view." I think a reader would benefit from more specific information about the witness tampering, namely Ravi's text urging Wei to corroborate his version (we were "just messing around with the camera" and didn't do it "on purpose").


 * Timing of apology text and omission of first text.The account of the timing of the apology statement is an error. According to Parker (and other accounts), Ravi sent first (5 minutes later) a text in which he tried to describe his actions as "good natured." This text is one that many (including the prosecution) saw as part of a cover-up. For example, it includes the claim that Ravi told his iChat network not to video chat him during the time of the rendezvous (reflecting Ravi's changed tweet of the original "Dare you"). Then 10 minutes later, Ravi sent the second text in which he talked about a gay friend and said he had no problems with Clementi being gay. So the Wikipedia account errs in saying that the second text was sent 5 minutes after Clementi's posting on Facebook. The apology text given in Wikipedia was the second one Ravi sent after Clementi's posting. I believe that some key phrases from the first text should be presented, although personally, I as a reader would prefer the entire text.


 * Extensive attention given to select Ravi quotesAn editor said that Wikipedia wants to avoid excessive detail and extensive quoting. However, I notice that long quotes are given to the more favorable apology of Ravi (the second one) and to Ravi's statements 5 days after the verdict. Moreover, Ravi's apology after the Facebook posting is not presented in context. Ravi had just been confronted on the afternoon of Sept. 22 in regard to Clementi's request for a room change. On the evening of Sept. 22, of course, Ravi also tried to change and delete tweets. A clearer context could very briefly be given, simply in terms of chronology, showing what occurred before Ravi's decision to text Clementi. (And the Ravi text clearly indicates that he is aware of the room change request.) Why the decision to include long quotes in which Ravi tries to frame the events in a sympathetic way, but not quotes of Ravi that seem more suspicious or "weaselly," as Parker puts it?


 * Confusing and incomplete presentation of Second AttemptUnder the "Second Attempt," the Wikipedia entry could give a clearer explanation of the two accounts of events (that of Ravi and that of the prosecution). There is extensive detail in regard to the position of the webcam for the second, attempted viewing. However, no mention is made of really more significant details in regard to the attempted viewing. For example, no mention of a friend (Lokesh Ohja) who testified that he helped Ravi position the cam. No mention of another friend, Alissa Agarwal, who testified that after dinner that evening, Ravi went to her room with other students and tested the remote webcam functioning and demonstrated how the students could watch. No mention of a text as late as 8:40 that encouraged Michelle Huang to watch.  Such testimony undercuts Ravi's contention that the viewing was all a joke and that Ravi put the computer to sleep. This whole section could be clearer if it first gave Ravi's version of events and then gave the prosecution's key points.


 * Unclear presentation of Clementi's reactionsThe second paragraph of the Second Attempt section is confusing in that it conflates Clementi's reactions to the first viewing with those of the attempted viewing. Why not put Clementi's series of reactions on Sept. 20 (early morning) in the First Viewing section? He initially said that although he felt violated, it wasn't that bad; then he discussed the events some more and asked for a room change online.  Under the Second Attempt section, one should include Clementi's visit with RA Grover, who reported that he was "shaky," "uncomfortable," and "upset." That testimony is much clearer than relating Clementi's internet communication that "the RA seems to take it seriously." Why too do we not have the full text of Clementi's e-mail to Grover after the second tryst with MB: "I feel that my privacy has been violated. I am extremely uncomfortable sharing a room with someone who would act in this wildly inappropriate way." Elsewhere, we get lengthy quotations of Ravi's account of how and why he acted. We can't even get the full quote from the e-mail of Clementi? That quote is central to whether intimidation occurred.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.90.69 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you that the editor who reverted you may have reverted too much. I particularly agree that the page could do better at explaining the basis of the tampering charges, and in presenting more of what Clementi felt, as opposed to just presenting Ravi's views. I used to be receptive to arguments that Ravi should be treated here as someone who was accused, but not convicted, but obviously he is convicted now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%.
 * He has been convicted. Legally, as far as determining the facts of the case, the unanimous jury decides. The judge decides on punishment. A future appellant court would look primarily at the interpretation and application of law rather than retrying the facts of the case.
 * The jury saw evidence and testimony presented under oath at trial. It is the most trustworthy and salient information we have. --Javaweb (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Re:"Timing...". . Thank you for catching the omission and the error. --Javaweb (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We definitely should note the jury's conclusions, but when it comes to matters of disputed facts, a jury's opinion should still be attributed. Just because a trier of fact determined it to be true doesn't mean it is, and it certainly doesn't mean that Wikipedia treats it as such. However, a jury's determination will be quite important, and definitely should be included where applicable and helpful to the readers.LedRush (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that, between us, Javaweb and I have added back most of what probably should have been added back. If anyone feels that I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely great catches on the timing and reaction inaccuracies, and I agree that we should have a more direct discussion of the cover up and that it should be very brief. I do, however, have the same concern as before. We are adding in a lot of details that are not relevant to an article called "Suicide of Tyler Clementi", but instead the "Trial of Ravi Dharum".LedRush (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the additions in the Prosecution section, but after the reference to deletions of texts, I would suggest saying something about Ravi's altering some damaging texts, such as omitting the "yea!" after "saw my roommate making out with a dude" and changing the "Dare you to chat" tomorrow to "don't you dare video chat me from 9:30 to 12." Alterations such as these tended to destroy his general credibility and revealed a degree of calculation not consistent with the idea that he was just acting impulsively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.90.69 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 184.57.90.69 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)--184.57.90.69 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Guilty verdicts and sentencing
I believe that the verdict information is not correct in the first Wikipedia paragraph under "Guilty Verdicts." Ravi was found to be guilty of bias intimidation in regard to both the first and second incidents. In order to find bias intimidation, the accused must be guilty of one of three aspects: 1) purpose (purposely intimidated), 2) knowledge (knowing that an action would result in intimidation), OR 3) the victim being intimidated and reasonably assuming that (s)he had been targeted because of sexual orientation (or another protected category). In regard to the first (Sept. 19) incident, for Count 2 actions (observing someone in sexual contact without consent) the jury did not find Ravi guilty of the first two aspects (purpose or knowledge), but did find him guilty in regard to the third aspect (the victim was intimidated and reasonably believed that he was targeted because of sexual orientation). For Count 4 actions (activating a webcam so others could view, also Sept. 19), the jury did not find purpose, but did find knowledge that intimidation would result, and the third aspect (victim was intimidated and reasonably believed he was targeted because of sexual orientation). Since only one of the three aspects is needed, Ravi was found guilty of bias intimidation in regard to both counts relating to the first viewing. In regard to the second attempted viewing (attempted invasion of privacy), the jury  found all three bias intimidation aspects present, so for Counts 6 and 8, Ravi was also found guilty of bias intimidation.

http://www.jennamcwilliams.com/2012/03/16/dharun-ravi-found-guilty-of-most-charges-in-bullying-case/

The jury evidently made fine distinctions. In regard to viewing sexual conduct without consent, they felt that Ravi did not purposely try to intimidate because of sexual orientation or know that his conduct would result in intimidation, but Clementi did feel intimidated and reasonably believed that he had been targeted because of sexual orientation. In regard to activating a webcam for others to view, they found that Ravi didn't purposely try to intimidate because of sexual orientation, but he did know that such activity would result in intimidation, and Clementi reasonably believed that he had been targeted because of sexual orientation. In regard to the second attempted viewing, they felt all three aspects applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.90.69 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All this is true for the charges relating to Clementi, though less for M.B. (I think he was oddly acquitted of all bias charges against M.B., but I could be wrong). Regardless, I don't know if your source is a reliable one, but this one is LedRush (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ravi was acquitted of all bias intimidation charges relating to MB. Perhaps the jury felt that since MB was not known by Ravi, Ravi was not trying to intimidate him; and since MB was not known in the dorm, he would not be humiliated or embarrassed. At any rate, the Wikipedia text should be corrected, since in regard to the Sept. 19 viewing, the jury did find that Ravi knew that activating a webcam would result in intimidation; it wasn't just that the victim felt intimidated. Moreover, in regard to the attempted viewing, the jury found purpose, knowledge, and reasonable belief of being targeted. The error is in stating that only 1 of the bias counts was found (all four were) and in stating that the jury found guilt only based in the victim's feeling intimidated.
 * yup. I made the change before you posted.  I think we might need some color on the law and the breakdown of verdicts, though.  Thanks for bringing this up.LedRush (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the attempted viewing, the jury did find that Ravi acted with purpose. Thus, I think that some editing still needs to be done. In regard to the first viewing, the jury did not find that Ravi acted with the purpose of intimidating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.90.69 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 184.57.90.69 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)--184.57.90.69 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ravi's encounter with RA Grover
Original text read: "Ravi tried to explain, but Grover cut him off." This phrasing has a tendentious air to it, as if Ravi wasn't given the chance to explain. I am not sure why this detail is included anyway. Perhaps just to give a sense of narrative, but it certainly isn't that important, is it? I changed the text to reflect Grover's testimony in the trial. Perhaps the detail is important in that Grover was implying that Ravi's actions would need a lot of explanation to higher authorities than Grover. Parker's phrasing of "cut him off" seems to be narrative color or maybe a reflection of Parker's perspective; it certainly is not objective phrasing.

--184.57.90.69 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think these edits are good. I just wanted to comment that it would be helpful if you could spend a few minutes looking at how we format reference citations. I don't have time right now to fix them, but it would be good if you or someone else would. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Javaweb, much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is some documentation on filling in cites:
 * web
 * news
 * book
 * journal
 * Your edits look good. I also would be happy to help if any of the documentation above is not clear. Citations are not intuitive but pretty simple once you see the documentation. --Javaweb (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

"Ravi later attempted to view Clementi's sexual encounters a second time"
In the lead, we say "Ravi later attempted to view Clementi's sexual encounters a second time". I believe that the word "attempted" should be changed with "planned". We know that he planned a second viewing because he tweeted it and prepared for it. But in common speach to "attempt" would mean that he actually tried and was thwarted. This is a disputed fact and cannot be said in wikipedia's voice. The citation referenced does not support the language as it just says he was charged with attempting to view again. The actual charge is attempted invasion of privacy (something broader than attempting to watch again.) We can say that a jury convicted him for attempted invasion of privacy for that second attempt, which of course we already do.

Anyway, the change, I think, is modest. However, if people want to keep in the current language, it will have to be attributed in some manner, either to the paper that made that claim, or to the jury which found him guilty of attempted invasion of privacy.LedRush (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that Ravi later attempted to provide a second videostreaming of Clementi's sexual encounters. (I assume that "broadcast" is not permitted.) According to Ravi, he never even planned a second viewing; he said it was all a joke in some of his comments. So that too is a "disputed fact." There was ample evidence that Ravi tested the position and function of the webcam--that certainly is evidence of "trying," of "attempting."  As to whether he himself intended to watch or tried to watch, the actual evidence may suggest that he did not; he would be at frisbee practice, and perhaps he had no prurient interest himself. Of course, I don't know what Wikipedia's policies are in regard to trial "facts" (which you probably do), but I see no reason to be squeamish about major facts of the case after the jury decision. In regard to citations, why not give both the description of the attempt and the jury's conclusion. --Profspeak (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed that Ravi planned a second viewing. He has admitted it in interviews and court documents.  However, he says that he changed his mind.  It is that distinction between an "attempt" of a viewing and a "plan" of a viewing.  Now, the jury found that he attempted invasion of privacy, which is more broadly defined than how the word "attempt" is used in our lede.  For facts as determined by a jury, we still need to attribute those views to those of the jury.  Wikipedia is not bound by any determinations of triers of facts.  If it were, there would be countless issues with historical articles, not to mention current ones involving crimes.
 * Anyway, I don't see why this word change would give anyone heartburn: my suggested change is undeniably true, so at the very worst I am asking for a minor change from a term which might be disputed/overbroad/attribute to one that has none of these issues but which conveys the same underlysing actions.LedRush (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having no heartburn, myself, here is my take on the question. First, I'd really like to hear in this talk from the editor who reverted you, to hear their reasons. That said, I think that "attempted" is arguably more accurate than "planned". If we go with "planned" based on Ravi's position that he subsequently changed his mind, we get into a morass of circular logic, in that he planned to do it before he changed his plans and planned not to do it. An attempt, in the plain meaning of the word, means that he began to undertake the second viewing, but, for whatever reason (the reasons being in dispute, between what Ravi said and what the prosecution says), the attempt did not actually lead to a successful viewing. If you feel that it's a minor issue, then perhaps it's better to leave it as "attempt". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear the rationale of AV as well. Regarding how the term "attempt" is commonly used, I think we have very different views.  Your view seems like the typical legal definition to me (there must be an intent to commit the action and an overt act towards that end).  I think the normal usage of the term is something more like "trying" to do something (meaning, he hit the "view" button on the webcam but it didn't work).  While the point is minor, I feel it is important to get right.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anyone think of a third alternative (besides "attempted" and "planned")? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Prepared"?LedRush (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the NYer article, which is (can we agree?) the definitive account, from the text 'On the twenty-first, however, Ravi tried to set up a viewing.' through the text 'Yet he was still referring to a “viewing party” after leaving the dorm for Frisbee, and, when he texted Huang the next day, he said, “it got messed up and didn’t work LOL.”' This seems fairly clear that he both prepared for a second viewing and attempted to use it. But yes, if the consensus here is that "attempted" isn't appropriate, "prepared" is acceptable as a fallback. AV3000 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Parker's piece is the most comprehensive, and the first really accurate, account of the story. However, I don't think that we can use his opinion or relation of the facts without attributing them to him, especially when they are disputed by others.  However, I see his account in the part you quote as supporting the word "planned".  He says "She told police that although she had been “zoning him out,” she heard him “bragging” about his plan to broadcast Clementi’s date."  He also indicates that Ravi's contention is that there was no second "attempt" as "Ravi contends that, by this time, he had changed his mind about the broadcast, and had disabled his webcam."  All accounts support the use of the word "planned" (or "prepared"), but Ravi's obviously doesn't support the term "attempt".  Any use of that word should not be in Wikipedia's voice with respect to the second incident.LedRush (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Yet he was still referring to a “viewing party” after leaving the dorm for Frisbee, and, when he texted Huang the next day, he said, “it got messed up and didn’t work LOL.”' clearly indicates that he attempted the viewing (having been thwarted by Clementi's “I was afraid he might have hidden another webcam so I also shut down and turned off the power strip.”) AV3000 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is ABC News' account of Altman's closing argument: "The text messages and Twitter messages about a second viewing were nothing more than immature jokes, and Ravi never intended to spy for a second time, Altman argued." That argument is also what I recall, though there were other accounts suggested by Ravi at different times. Regardless, one could argue that a plan might be purely mental, without any actions taken; such, of course, was not the case. I don't say that the present wording is perfect, but "plan" has its own problems.--Profspeak (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Is that a quote from the lawyer or the article about the trial?  The reason I ask is that Ravi has clearly stated that he had planned a second viewing, but then thought better of it.  And even if everyone agrees that "planned" doesn't work, we simply can't say "attempted" without attribution.  I'm trying to get a word that doesn't require attribution.  I still say "planned" works unless the above quote is from the lawyer (Ravi's own quotes should trump those anyway), and "prepared" might work as well.  Any other "other" options.LedRush (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a quote from the article. Ravi gave different accounts at different times. The change-of-mind scenario is certainly one version, but the jury would have had a hard time buying that, since at 8:41 he was urging Huang to "do it{watch}" and "he can't see you." --Profspeak (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's my recommendation:

Ravi was also found guilty of attempting to set up a live video stream of Clementi's sexual encounters a second time, and drawing attention to the event by making Twitter postings to his 150 followers, and in private messages to his friends, as well as deleting and altering the posts to obscure what he had done. On March 16, 2012, Ravi, was found guilty of invasion of privacy, witness tampering, and evidence tampering, with further charges of bias intimidation attached to some of the basic charges. An appeal is planned. He was not charged with a role in the suicide itself. --Javaweb (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb


 * Sounds okay, but how about parallelism--"and sending private messages to his friends."--Profspeak (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The language is completely accurate, but it doesn't seem to fit into the flow of the lede, to me. As it stands now, we introduce the topic at large, lead into the general accusations against Ravi/Wei, then talk about the incident, and conclude with the verdict.  This proposed language moves into the verdict early, and attributes actions that are part of the incident.  I think the current language, with one of the proposed changes above, better matches the structure of the article and complies with WP:LEAD.LedRush (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't frame the whole lead in terms of the verdicts. Seeing the continued slow edit war, I'm pretty much convinced that we should leave it as "attempted". The sentence in which the word appears goes on to introduce the material about the Twitter posts, etc. At the time that Ravi was making those posts, his attempt had not been abandoned, even by his own account. In context, it's splitting hairs to worry over whether he had to spend the rest of the night looking at a computer for it to have "really" been an attempt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is this "continued slow edit war" of which you speak? And if there was one, isn't it best to use a compromise?LedRush (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NY Times op-ed
Today's New York Times has an op-ed by Bill Keller about hate-crime laws that, in part, discusses the subject matter of this page. To some degree, I feel that our current recounting of the responses to the verdict is already too long and suffers from recentism, so I hesitate to add more to the back-and-forth. On the other hand, this is a reasonably significant source, so I figure I'll point it out in talk. There is one paragraph that is particularly relevant here: ""Anyone who followed the Rutgers trial closely — or read Ian Parker's absorbing investigation of the two roommates in The New Yorker — is likely to conclude that Ravi is arrogant, mouthy and insensitive, but not a malicious homophobe. Clementi was an openly gay, socially awkward, complicated 18-year-old, who killed himself for reasons we don't know. My reading of the case is that the jury seized on those handy bias statutes in a clumsy attempt to punish somebody for a death that remains unexplained. It's not a great reach to say that Ravi faces up to 10 years in prison for being a jerk.""

To some extent, it does a good job of encapsulating the debate, although it could also be argued that it doesn't add much to what we already have on the page. One point that I think is important, should we decide to use it, is that it would be problematic to only use parts of the paragraph, because it would be too easy to select parts to emphasize one POV over another. We could certainly replace the part about Ian Parker with an ellipsis, but I wouldn't want to modify it more than that. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I too think that the section on the responses is already too long. One thing in Keller's comments that may be different is the idea that the jury was "clumsy" in its attempt "to punish somebody" for Clementi's death. That drew immediate response elsewhere by people who noted that the jury made distinctions in its determination of bias intimidation. I believe those responses would also have to be noted if Keller's viewpoint is included. Otherwise, I don't believe Keller's observations are that aptly phrased or developed. The first sentence--if you followed the trial closely, you should agree with me--is not very compelling. The contention that Ravi was not malicious has been made by others in this section. Are there malicious homophobes and nonmalicious homophobes? Or perhaps he is saying that Ravi was neither malicious nor homophobic.  Ravi is termed a "jerk." Isn't part of the definition of a jerk that he lacks self-awareness, doesn't realize he is a jerk? Are jerks then less likely to act with malicious purpose? Keller quotes Professor Hurd in stating that "you can't choose not to be biased" on the spot; bias is rather (according to Hurd) a deficiency of character, unlike a malicious choice made by a criminal, and therefore should not be penalized by the law.  Many reader responses to the column, by the way, really took Keller to task.--Profspeak (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have two general responses: (1) I don't think that the reaction section is too long. Compare it with the reaction section for the suicide, many of the reactions being based on evidence we know is inaccurate.  If we are going to devote so much attention to the trial, we should have a commensurate (not equal) amount of coverage of the trial/verdict/laws.  The reactions have been incredibly widespread and very well reported. (2) The quote seems fine, though I don't think we need the first sentence at all.  It is an opinion on what other people's opinions might be.  Starting with his second sentence, he frames/summarizes the situation well, and then gives his opinion on the jury verdict, ending with his opinion on how Ravi is viewed. My only issue is whether we want to bring in any thoughts about his views of hate crimes in general, which, seems to me, the focus of the article.  The Ravi trial and verdict is an example of that point.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I think it was useful to discuss it. I think at this point, I'd be inclined to leave it out, at least pending the sentencing. I do agree with Profspeak that the point-counterpoint is getting too long as it is. And leaving out Kellar's first sentence is exactly what I would not want to do. Sanitizing the criticism of Ravi, while leaving in the parts about Clementi's personality, is exactly what I was warning against. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not "sanitizing" anything. WP:UNDUE warns against the inclusion of the off-handed criticisms of Ravi which account for miniscule portions of the authors' stories.  As does WP:COATRACK.  What we're doing is making comments that are completely tangential to the authors' main points, comments which account for about 2% of the authors' opinions voiced in the article and 0% of the substance, now equal 40-50% of the represented view of the author.
 * I argued to keep in the second sentence merely to set the stage. If you're worried about not including comments on Ravi but keeping comments on Clementi, we could easily delete that sentence as well.  That would assuage your concern over "sanitizing" and make the quote shorter to assuage your concerns about length.
 * As a change of topic, I've seen that this Op-Ed itself is getting play in the legal media. The point they've been latching on to is as follows:
 * [T]he fact that it is constitutional and commonplace does not quiet the nagging sense that hate crime legislation resembles something from an Orwell dystopia. Horrific crimes deserve stern justice, but don’t we want to be careful about criminalizing a defect of character? Because our founders believed that democracy requires great latitude for dissent, America, virtually alone in the developed world, protects the right to speak or publish the most odious points of view. And yet the government is authorized to punish you for thinking those vile things, if you think them in the course of committing a crime. (emphasis in original)
 * This talks about the hate crimes generally, and not the case specifically.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Use whatever term you want in place of "sanitizing", but my point stands (including about undue emphasis on arguments that Ravi was framed). And I think we had best not make this page a coatrack from Hate crimes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any arguments about framing anywhere in the article. But rather than fall down that rabbit hole, I'll ask you this: do you have any comments regarding any of my main points?LedRush (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The section on sentencing already has way too much on how folks feel about bias crimes in general. Lets take out the repetition. Instead of arguing Hate Crimes legislation here, put it in that article. This article could do do a better job of covering the charges. The NJ bias law takes into account the victim's alleged feeling that he was been targeted for being gay and someone can be found guilty of bias crime even without perpetrator intent. --Javaweb (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Yes, I think now that you are right. I suspect it's best now to leave this additional quote out, at least for now, and not to waste any further time debating the side-issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Support for Ravi from gay activists"
Perhaps this new section should be revised to be "Views of Ravi amongst gay activists". In its present form, it sounds like the views of activists who support Ravi are more important than the views of those who have criticized him. It also shoehorns Savage, who actually blamed Ravi to a significant extent, into the category of "supporter". It is also important to look carefully at each source cited, and make sure that we aren't underplaying anything that the source said that goes against the "support" label. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stayed pretty close to the both the Edge article which is used to cite every sentence in the section (except maybe one Savage sentence) and the other articles which make make mention those people's positions. Savage definitely blamed Ravi to an extent, but he also calls him a scapegoat and heaps tons of blame on others.  However, I don't object to the change of title out-of-hand.  My concern is that the anti-Ravi views of gay activists are covered very thoroughly throughout the reaction section.  If we change the title as you recommend, many of those other views would be just as relevant in this new section as they are where they currently are.  Perhaps we could change it to "Criticism of Ravi trial by gay activists".  Although the Edge article clearly says that gay activists are supporting Ravi, I see their views as more like saying "stop blaming Ravi for everything when there are more important issues out there" and "the potential sentence does not fit the purported crime".  Not exactly ringing endorsements.  "Critism of Ravi Trial by gay activists" might better reflect what is currently written in the paragraph.LedRush (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that would be going from bad to worse, because it would ignore the activists who express support for various aspects of the trial. As for the balance issue, where you say that the anti-Ravi views are "covered very thoroughly throughout the reaction section", I think that your current version actually devotes more space on the page to the criticisms than to the supporter statements. I'd suggest going with what you just said about activists saying that there are bigger issues: emphasize that, rather than emphasizing the activists' arguments that Ravi wasn't such a bad guy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To put it in perspective, most of the gay activists supposedly pro-Ravi are on the whole saying, although Ravi is a creep that did a nasty thing, there are bigger fish to fry in attacking bullying, anti-gay attitudes, and his co-conspirators that made him think it was ok. Society shares in the guilt. Lets not let Society off so easily. There's is a minority of a minority position and is over-represented in the article. --Javaweb (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Yes, I think that explains the situation quite well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't see the reaction section as being "anti-Ravi" in its general thrust. Most of the things mentioned are memorial acts--holding vigils, increasing awareness of teen suicide. Even the references to concerns about bullying are only obliquely "anti-Ravi." And now we have an entire section of "gay activist" "support" for Ravi! Who represents "gay activists"? I haven't found any article that comprehensively surveys the reactions of "gay activists." Lowder caricatures those who defend the bias verdicts; he says that they paint Ravi as a "vicious," "hate-driven monster." But Michael Signorile's article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/the-dharun-ravi-trial-wha_b_1375327.html) defends the verdict, defines "hate" simply as motivated by bias, and refutes the "prank" and "jerk" defense of Ravi, even while he acknowledges that hatred of homosexuals is ingrained in our culture. I have strong reservations about this new section. A few gay "activists" have expressed reservations about the trial and hate crimes, but it can be difficult to capture all the nuances of their attitudes. And there is no evidence that they are representative of gay activists. I suspect that many activists view the trial as significant in that the jury rejected the "gay panic" defense of Altman and in that the trial exposed the cavalier bias towards homosexuals that exists in our culture. I haven't done the research to clearly focus this section (I'm not sure that the sources are there), but I question whether the section is necessary; as is, it reads like an apology for Ravi, who is seen as scapegoat for our collective guilt, a victim of media (actually, recent media have been quite generous to him), the recipient of blame when others (societal institutions) should be blamed, and one who has been meted an unjust punishment. There's a lot of sheer rhetoric here; e.g., "locking up a misguided young man for a decade or more" (in reality, a 5-year sentence would mean a little over a year for a first offender). By whom, by the way, was Ravi misguided? Could we say this of any young criminal? If this section is to stay, it needs revision, but I fear a revision would go on and on. --Profspeak (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't believe this section is mandated by the anti-Ravi quotes from politicians and celebrities in the reaction section, but it seems odd to keep in that information (much of which was based on sensationalist reporting that has been disproven) yet not this section, which seems to me to be a very tempered reaction from a large group of individuals. I agree with Tryptofish and Javaweb on the thrust of the quotes and how they should be presented, but I think they are already presented in that manner (meaning, they aren't saying Ravi is good, they are saying that there is too much focus on him which detracts from the "real" issues).  I tried to emphasize that just as the the reliable sources upon which this section is based emphasized them.  Of the four authors/activists mentioned (there are a ton more from which to choose, but I stuck with 4 out of the 5 explicitly mentioned in the reliable source), the first talks only about the "rush to judgement", the second sums up the sentiment perfectly (too much focus on Ravi, not enough on larger issues), and the fourth says the same thing (too much focus on Ravi, not enough on larger issues).  Only the Savage quote devolves into what I consider to be too much discussion about Ravi as a person.  That is because, despite WP:Undue, it was believed that whenever anyone talks about the trial, the verdict or the laws, we need to throw in their view of Ravi, even when it is tangential to the subject's opinions.  I think the first Savage sentence could be deleted (with the intro moving to the second) and that would further push focus away from Ravi in this section.  The only thing left to change would be the title of the section, which is, again, basically from the Edge article summarizing notable views of the trial.  Because everyone here seems to agree that the focus of the quotes and the section isn't really about "supporting" Ravi, it would seem fair to ignore the Edge's characterization of their own article and get a better descriptive title for the subsection.  But seeing as we have several reliable sources talking about the general opinions on this matter, and reliable sources talking about these specific reactions, both as a group and individually, I don't see how we can justify not having this section in the article.
 * Obviously, if anyone thinks that there is a better way to summarize these guys' opinions to better portray the core of their beliefs, please edit the section accordingly.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On the section title, we could say something like "Criticism of media focus on Ravi". Alternatively, we could just have a section entitled "Reactions from gay activists". We could start off with criticism of Ravi and mentioning that most activists have been highly criticial of Ravi (as the section currently states in the first sentence) and then talk about those activists who have been vocal in their criticism of the trial as diversionary from larger issues.LedRush (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) You have destroyed the meaning of what that Savage was saying. Also, The section title is false. He and others like him are not saying Ravi is not guilty. There are 3 things he was found guilty of: The first 2 are felonies and the third thing is an add-on punishment that increases the sentences for the felonies.
 * 1) He did it
 * 2) He lied about it, etc.
 * 3) He did it because he hated gays.

Most of their criticism is about some part of 3)
 * 1) bias laws are making thought a crime and/or
 * 2) In NJ, if the victim reasonable feels it is a hate crime, it is one. The NJ bias law is bad. and/or
 * 3) This perpetrator didn't hate gays so he was not guilty of the third crime.

The root issue, however, is this is not an article about bias laws. What the article needs is only a few words saying
 * what is the bias law used in this case
 * some people don't like the bias law and perhaps why (see my list above)
 * some people doubt Mr. Ravi was biased against gays.

The rationale behind mentioning bias crime at all in the article at all is because it has a 3rd-degree connection to the subject of the article, which primarily centers around Mr. Clementi's last days and secondarily Mr. Ravi's trial is a direct outcome of his part in the most notable part of those events. Opinions, assuming they have relevance at all, are here because they relate to the fairness of Mr. Ravi's charges. If critics think charge #1 and #2 are good and #3 is bad then they need to be mentioned in that context. --Javaweb (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * It can be difficult to summarize opinion articles, but I too think that the existing summary of Savage's opinion is a distortion. Here is how I would summarize Savage. Dan Savage considered the "cruelty of Tyler's roommate" to be the "last straw" leading to Clementi's suicide. He emphasized that Ravi and Wei "did not act alone"; also to blame, he said, are individuals and institutions (religious, political, educational) that "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice" or are indifferent to the needs of "vulnerable" gay youths. This summary is much different from the existing one, but I think it better reflects the main thrust of Savage's viewpoints, namely, that others are also to blame and, by focusing only on these stupid teens, we are ignoring the homophobic elements of our culture. Note, by the way, that Savage's sentence "the cruelty of Tyler's roommate...was the last straw" is a one-sentence paragraph and thus even more emphatic. Savage does not downplay the seriousness of the teens' actions.

--Profspeak (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can have better conversations if we stay away from hyperbolic accusations against other editors on the board. I did my best to summarize Savage's opinion as I read it, and as it was reported in the Edge article.  I didn't say that Ravi wasn't guilty, nor did I indicate that this was Savage's opinion.  I think Savage's opinion is best summarized by the last line in one of his articles: "And we need to start calling the effort to pin all the blame on Ravi and Wei exactly what it is: a coverup."  Edge confirms this understanding.  They say this about Savage's opinion:
 * Gay City News points out that newspaper columnist Dan Savage, who founded the "It Gets Better" project, "was particularly troubled by the idea that Ravi was being scapegoated for a range of factors that might have led the college freshman to take his own life." "Middle and high school classmates who may have brutalized Tyler for years; school administrators who may have failed to protect him; religious ’leaders’ and religious ’traditions’ that pounded self-hatred into him. And I’m very sorry to say this but it has to be said: Tyler’s own family may bear some responsibility for his decision to end his life," Savage wrote in the Seattle alt-weekly Stranger.
 * I think the current language tracks rather closely what Savage himself said about the incident, and what Edge and Gay City News said that Savage said. However, if anyone thinks that there is a better way to summarize his opinions, please feel free to try.LedRush (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you think of what is an appropriate summary, I think it is useful to ask yourself, "why did Savage write his articles?". I think that the answer is that he felt too much attention was spent on Ravi/Wei, and that this attention served to scapegoat them (his word, not mine) while drawing attention away from more serious, and more difficult problems.LedRush (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any use of "scapegoat" by Savage himself; Gay City News characterizes him as viewing the teens as scapegoats. "Scapegoat" can have the connotation of undeserved blame. Savage emphasizes that Ravi and Wei are products of a larger homophobic society and that we need to focus as well on that larger social context; by only focusing on the teens, we are covering up. The unifying thread of the section still seems unclear to me. If this section is just a hodgepodge of reactions from gay activists, it will have to include a lot of different viewpoints on a lot of subtopics.
 * --Profspeak (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You're right, Gay City News says that Savage is worried about scapegoating.
 * Regarding the theme of the section, I think it is clear from both Edge article and the Gay City News article: too much or too quick of focus on Ravi to the exclusion of bigger issues. I think the section reflects this clearly, both in the topic sentence and in each individual sentence.  As I said above, the individual sentences are supported by links to those articles, and Gay City News and Edge support the theme of tying these opinions together in the manner I just described.LedRush (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The one recent edit does not really help with the major issues here. In fact, it is a step in the wrong direction, because it simply removes what Savage said in criticism of Ravi, thereby increasing the deceptive appearance of "support" for Ravi. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It removed most of the criticism (not all) and all the positive, getting down to what he's actually talking about, as was requested above. I thought we agreed to try and focus on what the authors/subjects are focusing on.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are trying to focus on the article's subject and minimize this side show. You have not responded to the bulk of my comments and those of other editors above. --Javaweb (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * I don't see how the reaction of people to the incidents and the trial are a side-show. I'd love to see the trial as a seperate article, as I've stated several times in the past (having it in here is highly prejudicial POV).  However, while the different subjects are conjoined, we need to deal with them appropriately.  If you have any other comment to which you'd like me to make a response, please let me know and I'll do my best to respond to your satisfaction.LedRush (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the same reservation as that expressed by some others that the insertion of trial reaction in a section otherwise devoted to suicide reaction is problematic. Other than that, I find the section tendentious. It focuses on one idea of some gay activists--the idea that Ravi is a scapegoat. That term can be murky, since some use it as implying that Ravi doesn't deserve the blame he received, while others use it to imply that the blame given to Ravi (while justified) is obscuring the blame that society as a whole should receive. Savage definitely falls in the latter group, while Dobbs and Lowder (to a lesser extent) are in the former group. Regardless, there is nothing to support the idea that this focus on scapegoating is representative of gay activists in general. Nor is there any reason why this topic is more worthy of inclusion than other topics discussed by gay activists. For example, a number of articles reacted to the trial by discussing new twists on the "gay panic" defense, noting that Altman's defense tried to appeal to potential juror homophobia. Ravi, said Altman, was unhinged by this sudden exposure to gay sex, by this older, seedy-looking sexual partner of Clementi; MB, he said, "didn't belong there."
 * Perhaps the main idea of the Wikipedia section under discussion--that Ravi was scapegoated by a society that does not want to acknowledge its own homophobia--could better be inserted briefly as one reaction to the verdict.--Profspeak (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the main idea is pretty clear (in the topic sentence and in each sentence of the section) and it is clearly supported. I think you've hit the main idea exactly, and that's exactly what we currently have.  Because these are reactions to the incident (or reactions to the reactions to the incident) and some are made before the trial, they can't be in teh verdict section.  The views have been widely reportedly separately, and the association among them has been made by other reliable sources.
 * If you think that other topics are important, and you have reliable sources to back up that claim, add them to the article. Nothing here should prevent that. In fact, your "gay panic" point is one that I've read in at least two articles myself.  That could be a good addition to the verdict section (it is a reaction to the verdict, not the incident).
 * Also, I don't think Savage's ideas are substantially different than Dobbs' and Lowder's - basically he says that Ravi deserves blame, but not all, or perhaps even most, of the blame and that the focus on Ravi obscures larger issues.  He calls it a cover-up while the other two call it scapegoating.  But rather than interpret the information too much, I've really just stuck with their own words and made sure that I don't stray from the reliable sources and how they have interpreted the opinions.  That's safer than some of the deeper analysis which alters the focus of his main argument. If you think you can better summarize it, though, please give it a shot.LedRush (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose two changes. First, we could cite Lowder under the reactions-to-the-verdict section as a substitute for the "Gay Activist" section. Here is the sentence I propose: "Writer J. Bryant Lowder argued that Ravi deserved to be punished for invasion of privacy, but not for a 'homophobic posturing' that is 'pervasive in our culture.'" I would hope that this sentence would satisfy the need to make some reference to the idea that Ravi was a scapegoat.  Secondly, I think the Cuomo excerpt in the reaction-to-the-verdict section is overly broad and basically an opinion of an opinion. It is very broad and vague to speak of a legal "consensus" or contend that the case was "thin."  Such a comment adds nothing specific to the discussion. One might also question the journalistic integrity of the phrase "legal analysts openly wondered." Certainly, some legal analysts openly wondered; others expressed the opinion that they thought the prosecution case was stronger than they anticipated. Why not focus on the original sources that specifically examine reservations about the verdict or hate crime laws, rather than try to broadly characterize legal opinion? --Profspeak (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've restored the article, but if I didn't carry out your intent, let me know and I'll change it.
 * I don't think that the views in the "gay activist" section belong in the trial section for the reasons stated above (namely, they aren't reactions to the verdict). Also, your summary misses the main thrust of Lowders' arguments: Ravi is being punished severely and that takes focus off the wider issues in society. Your summary focuses on Ravi, but the bigger point is that the focus on Ravi does an injustice to the wider issues of anti-gay sentiment in society at large.
 * Also, on Wikipedia on articles like this there is often a move to try and describe general feelings on an issue. This comes up not just with respect to WP:UNDUE, but also in deciding how to present an issue.  However, there is often disagreement about whether there is sourcing to say "Most commentators", or "many people argued" as they can be either WP:OR or WP:WEASEL.  However, the great find is when you get reliable sources commenting on the same thing.  We get to attribute the opinion, avoid weasel, and make the statement.  That's what Cuomo's opinion does for us here.  It's an incredible asset to an article which attempts to summarize many opinions.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lowder's article was written after the verdict and is, at least partly, a response to the verdict. My summary of his viewpoint is aimed at the category of responses to the verdict. In terms of society at large, I would say that Lowder's view is that Ravi is a product of a culture with homophobic "posturing"; thus, his attitude is no different from that commonly accepted in society, by politicians, Lowder says, as an example. Homophobia, he says, is a "disease of the culture" and thus, according to Lowder, Ravi should not be punished more severely for sharing that disease. As for Cuomo, I find his statements not accurately phrased. For example, "thin, at best"--the "at best" has a rhetorical, pundit's air to it, not the measured statement of judicious reporting. And the second sentence is misleading. After hearing the prosecution presentation in the trial, some analysts expressed surprise at the strength of the case. Note too that this article was written before the verdict, before summations were even given. In this section, Wikipedia already has specific objections to various aspects of the verdict and hate crimes in general. There is no need for a broad-brushed news-article assessment of opinion that is not carefully phrased, if not inaccurate. The reader can examine the specific objections (along with their sources) in the comments that follow the existing Cuomo quote.--Profspeak (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)