This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Canada: Nova Scotia Low‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia. Pornography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force.

In comparison with the 2012 Delhi gang rape case hasn't this case seen US politicians fishing in troubled waters? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian politicians, not U.S. politicians. This happened in Canada. Ss6j81avz (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YK, please confine use of the talk page to discussing improvements to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder Fiddle Faddle, and Ss6j81avz, I know what I was talking about, US politicians fishing in Canadian troubled waters just as they did in Indian troubled waters.[1][2] It is a small world, I just wanted someone more more informed to contribute all aspects of the incident. (Fiddle Faddle that is discussing improvements to the article.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it is. If it proves to be as you state then I think there are more important items to work upon and to discuss first. It feels to me as if a political point is being made out of the unfortunate young lady;s experiences and death. In the wider world it may be the case, but WIkipedia's article talk pages are not the place, as we all know. At least adjourn this discussion until other and far more useful aspects of the article are complete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand a lot of what you've written except the adjourn part which I'm happy to do. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful. I think expanding my message here would be counter-productive, but I am happy to continue on your or my talk pages if you wish. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• anonymous 1st statement
• anonymous 2nd statement

--Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reporting of Anonymous needs to be flat. I have taken the material dded to the article earlier and flattened it. IT shodul be noted that the existence of Anonymous itself is not a provable item.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • [3] 24.91.50.90 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that Buzzfeed passes scrutiny as WP:RS and would appreciate thoughts. It seems to be a sensationalist news aggregation and commentary site rather than a reliable media source. It seems to me that it can be replaced easily with one of the other current sources and that such replacement would be to the article's benefit, the more so since Buzzfeed appears to simple rehash other sources in a tabloid manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, Buzzfeed is not remotely an RS - it simply recycles other organisations' content. There are plenty of better sources that could and should be used instead, feel free to replace it. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Huffington Post citation is an adequate replacement, certainly for the present. Buzzfeed has been replaced. Thank you for your thoughts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details like date of birth are not necessarily relevant, nor is {{infobox person}}. There is a temptation with articles about suicides to stray into elements of biography. Its understandable, but must not happen. The young lady herself was not notable (except to those who surrounded her), save for her suicide and the circumstances leading to her suicide. It is the suicide that is the notable subject of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Fiddle Faddle. I think we should be discussing relevant information like the suicide. I propose that we should remove the infobox or the date of birth, which is irrelevant to the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the infobox I think must stay out. The date of birth, provided it is cited properly, has a relevance to the suicide since it demonstrates her youth. But we must take care not to allow the article to become a biography by including it, and also not to become a memorial by in some manner memorialising the young lady. And we should, in all our dealings with this article, be aware that the young lady's family will see it and also this talk page. This is a difficult path to walk because our role is to create an encyclopaedia, not to be unduly sensitive to the needs of those who loved the victim, but I believe that our acts are important and the manner in which we conduct ourselves is important. Those surrounding the young lady should not feel in the least demeaned by our creation of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was only trying to help, but as a user who has been involved with Wikipedia for over 6 years with over 49,000 edits, 12 featured articles and over 10 good articles, I understand all of the policies and guidelines quite clearly and I have built up a reputation for being fair and honest. We must be careful not to out anyone. This article is a particuarly sensitive one. Her family must also be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. Outings are never acceptable on Wikipedia. I guess I made a mistake in one of my comments. Sorry! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being critical of you. I can see with hindsight how it might have been read, though. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no hard feelings. It always helps when an uninvolved user gives their 2 cents to the discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to recover my username, so IP it is until I figure that out. I had a couple questions. Generally, at least for the last six or seven years, I've only edited articles to correct blatant and bothersome spelling errors. I, for personal reasons, identify strongly with this particular subject and am on the fence as to whether or not I want to devote time to contributing to Wikipedia. I already spend time on what I call "Wiki rants", when I click on a search results, find an article and find myself with a couple dozen tabs opened and several hours later I've gone from a search for what size soccer shin guards my daughter needs to somehow reading about eucalyptus trees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of the points raised by ArielCNC are relevant, including "organ donation" which is notable, the father's blog which is also notable as long as we have no reason to suspect that it is a hoax, however it can be only as good as using the Microsoft website as a source for an article on Microsoft, we can use it for neutral data and not for exceptional claims. Coming back to "organ donation" does IP suggest that organs were donated while she was still on life support? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organ donation is only notable insofar as any recently dead body is suitable for organ donation. The request is usually made while on life support. But the donation of organs from her body is not a factor in her suicide, nor surrounding her suicide. It is a normal part of death. Her father's blog, while harrowing and deeply personal, is just that, harrowing and deeply personal. It is an absolute primary source. It is not a reliable source despite it being about his own daughter. It is not the type of source entertained here. I feel you need more familiarity with basic Wikipedia policies, so please read WP:RS with care. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that un-familiarity is assumed at the drop of a hat. Also since the father's statement is now carried by a third party source,[4] the whole debate is now redundant. We may now carry the parents' views as are relevant to the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Strong oppose Absolutely, categorically not. It should be abundantly clear why not. It should also be abundantly clear that your nomination rationale is one of the most deeply offensive things her family could see. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia titles are decided by Wikipedia policy and not how offensive or otherwise they come across. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the nomination more carefully. The nominator is accusing those who authorised turning of the life support systems of murder in their wording. That is the deeply offensive element. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean. Nevertheless we should be calling it OR and not offensive. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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