Celia Homeford (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
I invite the IP user who is edit warring today to discuss their concerns here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
I invite the IP user who is edit warring today to discuss their concerns here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Please don't. The "lol" in their edit summary and the content of their edits are clear indications that they are simply trolling, and they've already been answered in a section above this one. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
:Please don't. The "lol" in their edit summary and the content of their edits are clear indications that they are simply trolling, and they've already been answered in a section above this one. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::{{replyto|Celia Homeford}} Thanks for the clarification; I had posted this because to report them as an edit warrior they need to be given an opportunity to discuss the issue. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:30, 12 December 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed merge with The Tyler Clementi Foundation
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to Merge Tyler Clementi Foundation into Suicide of Tyler Clementi. I'm going ahead and performing the merge after closing this.(non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
This foundation is already mentioned on this article, and doesn't seem notable on its own especially given the existence of this page. The Foundation page seems mildly promotional(though not enough to delete it IMO) 331dot (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I agree, that's a very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support I agree with the rationale provided by the proposer. TheBlinkster (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. It's the merest of stubs now, and its content doesn't even suggest notability. If events warrant, it can always be broken back out into a separate article later on. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I don't see why not. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Social Autopsy and Removal of Talk Page Comments
Overlong post with no clear bearing on improving article
|
---|
It appears that an editor has removed my previous submission on this talk page. Talk page edits are not to be reverted irrespective of if you disagree with them, dislike them, or have some other predisposition that would otherwise compel you to think you have the right to remove them. Arguably the author of the discussion text themselves should not even do so for the sake of transparency. Censoring dissenting opinions is corruption at it's most base definition. The Tyler Clementi foundation, a registered charity backed--to some degree they have not / will not clarify--a failed kickstarter to raise funds to provide a professional doxing service through a website called Social Autopsy. To most of the world the only reason this article, the foundation, or Tyler Clementi is now known is for a charity being involved in an morally ambiguous plot such as Social Autopsy, especially given the fallout of such a thing will include abuse, and lead to real world consequences. The purpose of Social Autopsy is to doxx targets who are arbitrarily decided, by a secret panel of judges, to be 'cyber bullies' and publish their information online for exposure, harassment, persecution and inevitable brigading. This is one of the most evil Orwellian acts I have personally witnessed a registered charity being involved with. It's notability is unarguably compelling enough, and there are thousands of media articles on the subject to source from. As the website is still live and still bears this foundation's logo in it's footer, and no clarification has been raised by the foundation explaining its involvement, nor explaining whether the people involved in the project have been dismissed or still are involved with / work for the foundation I see no reason to ignore Social Autopsy and not address it. Originally I asked that perhaps one of the editors present address Social Autopsy on the article. But now I have misgivings of the neutrality that would yield and instead I suggest that for neutrality sake that a third party editor be brought in to be able to address the issue. In 7 days I will proceed with this if no one has any compelling reason that Social Autopsy should not be included and if the Clementi Foundation chooses to continue to ignore the matter and not address it publicly. Removing this comment is not a viable option, this issue will not just go away if ignored. As an aside, and for clarity; my interest in this stems solely from the academic / legal aspect which is quite compelling an example of criminal negligence. In law, specifically dealing with the tort of negligence, we often use the term 'reasonably foreseeable,' and it is reasonably foreseeable that such a service would be abused, would cause brigading etc., and would lead to bullying campaigns and even further suicides. ESSkull principle and wilful ignorance not mitigating slams that point home. The Clementi Foundation and whoever else is behind Social Autopsy would be unquestionably held to be criminally negligent for a suicide or other real world consequence occurring from their 'service.' It is so black and white I've actually used it as a clear and concise example of criminal negligence in my law classes for my students. Given that the Clementi Foundation is born from the suicide of an individual the fact that one of the primary consequences of their plot is that it will cause extreme bullying and probable suicides beg's belief. I find this entire thing remarkably ironic, and feel that it is the most notable thing to come from the Clementi Foundation in it's short history. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC) |
- In one brief sentence, please say what you would like to see done to improve the article. I've collapsed your comments as highly inappropriate. EEng 08:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with EEng. I read all of the above twice and have no idea what you're talking about, let alone its relevance here. A talk page exists for one purpose—to facilitate discussing improvements to its associated article—and various policies and guidelines allow collapsing or even removal of certain irrelevant posts. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I agree too. See also here. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
edit request - - - Clementi's suicide
Discussion closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I had put in the introduction, a mention of the factual information that this guy COMMITTED SUICIDE TO ESCAPE THE PAIN AND HELL OF LIVING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. However it seems some editors disagree what the reason was he had no more desire to live in this world. Please give me a lengthy and detailed reasoning of why you do not agree that this is the correct reason for ending his existence. 172.58.217.16 (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please consider the matter closed. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
Infobox
If, Tryptofish, the "infobox event" template can't be used for this article, why do some or many other articles about deaths of individual persons use "infobox event" instead of "infobox person"? Why not changing "infobox person" to "infobox event"? --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic, but the consensus at Talk:Noel Coward to omit an infobox... actually, there was "no consensus" on an infobox, so the version that lacks an infobox is used by default. Can that be used as a precedent? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'd welcome hearing from other editors about this question, but the way that I see it, the choice of template is subject to editorial judgment, page-by-page. I do, of course, understand that the page is about the event and not the person. But as I indicated in my edit summary, I think that it is important to retain a certain amount of personal information: [2]. I felt that the way the infobox was presented after your edit left out too much information. I don't care what the template is called. If the event template can provide the same information, then I don't mind using it instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see All pages with titles beginning with suicide of for comparison. Otherwise, let's compare. Suicide of Audrie Pott lacks an infobox for unknown reason. Suicide of Amanda Todd currently uses infobox event. If comparison is not enough, I shall say this. The "infobox person" doesn't add much substantial information; a reader can see birth dates in the lead without looking at an infobox. It discusses education profile but not adequately substantial. "Infobox event" tells readers who is or are directly and indirectly involved with the event. I added "charges" parameter and "arrests" parameter. But this is getting tricky if two of us can't agree which infobox shall be used. Call for RfC? George Ho (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are other editors who watch this page, so I'd like to just give a few days for them to comment if they want, before turning to an RfC. This issue certainly isn't an urgent one. But looking around, I quickly found these pages that use the person infobox: Suicide of Phoebe Prince, Suicide of Dawn-Marie Wesley, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, Suicide of Jadin Bell, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Megan Meier, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, and Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those pages aren't biography, yet "infobox person" is used. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infobox should be used to "summarize, not supplant, 'key' facts". I'm not confident that the usage of "infobox person" was reasonable, but you might interpret differently. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think these are summaries of what is in the text. If an editor wanted to rename this page "Tyler Clementi" instead of "Suicide of...", I'd oppose that on the basis of it being about the event and not the person (and in fact this was a long-ago discussion that actually took place). But that pertains to notability and pagename, not the name of a template. Our readers do not even know what the names of templates are, and they don't care. What matters is what information we provide them with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is a "key fact"? I always thought that key fact is anything relevant. Can a key fact be also less important? Does adding "cause" and "arrests" qualify as key facts? George Ho (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is a "key fact"? I always thought that key fact is anything relevant. Can a key fact be also less important? Does adding "cause" and "arrests" qualify as key facts? George Ho (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think these are summaries of what is in the text. If an editor wanted to rename this page "Tyler Clementi" instead of "Suicide of...", I'd oppose that on the basis of it being about the event and not the person (and in fact this was a long-ago discussion that actually took place). But that pertains to notability and pagename, not the name of a template. Our readers do not even know what the names of templates are, and they don't care. What matters is what information we provide them with. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those pages aren't biography, yet "infobox person" is used. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infobox should be used to "summarize, not supplant, 'key' facts". I'm not confident that the usage of "infobox person" was reasonable, but you might interpret differently. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are other editors who watch this page, so I'd like to just give a few days for them to comment if they want, before turning to an RfC. This issue certainly isn't an urgent one. But looking around, I quickly found these pages that use the person infobox: Suicide of Phoebe Prince, Suicide of Dawn-Marie Wesley, Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, Suicide of Jadin Bell, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Megan Meier, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, and Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see All pages with titles beginning with suicide of for comparison. Otherwise, let's compare. Suicide of Audrie Pott lacks an infobox for unknown reason. Suicide of Amanda Todd currently uses infobox event. If comparison is not enough, I shall say this. The "infobox person" doesn't add much substantial information; a reader can see birth dates in the lead without looking at an infobox. It discusses education profile but not adequately substantial. "Infobox event" tells readers who is or are directly and indirectly involved with the event. I added "charges" parameter and "arrests" parameter. But this is getting tricky if two of us can't agree which infobox shall be used. Call for RfC? George Ho (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll rephrase. The "infobox person" contains just birth date, death date, education, cause of death, and occupation. My version of "infobox event" contains "location", "arrest(s)", "charges", "trial". I wish I would have fleshed it out by adding "verdict", "convictions", "sentence", and "notes" before the revert back to "infobox person", which doesn't allow further improvement as the infobox of the article. The "event" one has more well-known summarized facts than "person" does... unless you can counter what I was saying? George Ho (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you'd want to add parameters such as "verdict", "convictions", and "sentence". "Arrests", "charges", and "trial" (found in the version you saved before Tryptofish reverted) are already problematic, imo, because their connection to the event is an indirect one. Those would be appropriate for an article about a homicide. In an article about a suicide, they are potentially confusing. This may be a case of "if it ain't broke . . ." Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- And now that I see George Ho's answer, my own response is very much the same as what Rivertorch has said. It really ain't broke. It sounds to me like the argument for changing to the event template is something like: the suicide was an event, so we must rigidly use the event template, and because we are using that template, we should look for parameters to fill in that are associated with it. In my opinion, that's the wrong approach. The right approach, I think, is to ask "what best serves the improvement of this page?". Our readers don't care what we name our templates. They care about the information that we provide. A change in infobox would have to be justified by showing that the information would be more useful to our readers. Here, it appears that it would actually be less useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Dispute
I invite the IP user who is edit warring today to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't. The "lol" in their edit summary and the content of their edits are clear indications that they are simply trolling, and they've already been answered in a section above this one. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Celia Homeford: Thanks for the clarification; I had posted this because to report them as an edit warrior they need to be given an opportunity to discuss the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)