Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cuomo Quote in Reactions to Verdict

The phrasing of the Cuomo quote is tendentious and its accuracy is questionable. Besides, the section is about the guilty verdicts and reactions to the verdict. Why include a debatable quote about a legal consensus before the trial?

Here, for example, is a U.S. News source that has a quite different view of legal consensus: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10613615-prosecutors-build-strong-case-in-rutgers-webcam-spying-trial-analysts-say?lite This article cites "legal experts" (no broader than Cuomo's assertion) that the prosecution's case was strong and better than expected. The article notes that bias intimidation is difficult to prove, but that the defense would have "an extremely large burden." Yes, this article was written after the prosecution's case, so some minds may have changed. But what is the purpose of trying to broadly characterize legal opinion at each trial stage?

My point is that nothing but tendentious purposes are served by trying to broadly characterize the legal merits of a case. Let individual authors (not journalists trying to summarize a "consensus" of legal opinion) speak for themselves. I don't mean that now we should include additional sources to give counterweight to Cuomo's summary. This section is a reaction to the verdict. Nothing is needed about legal opinions before the trial or during the trial; whatever they were, they did not have all the evidence. There are ample individual sources here that take issue with the verdict and hate crime laws.

I also would reiterate that Cuomo's phrasing is injudicious. "Thin, at best" has the air of a pundit's disdain. And then an additional sentence is given to Cuomo's broad-brushed characterization: "Analysts openly wondered...." To be sure, before the trial, some legal analysts questioned whether the state's case was strong, including Edward Weinstein (quoted in the U.S. News article), who changed his perspective after hearing the prosecution's case.

Avoidance of bias can best be served by eliminating the Cuomo quote, which is injudicious in its phrasing and is unnecessary to provide substantive opposing opinions. It also doesn't fit the category. Individual opinions already are clearly presented as reactions to the verdict and the bias intimidation law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profspeak (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The contention of the Cuomo quote that analysts questioned the merits of the state's case "after hearing all the evidence" is contradicted by the U.S. News article.Profspeak (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The source quoted above does not serve the assertions made. Basically, anyone who followed the trial knows that there was a sea-change of media coverage from the beginning, when the tabloids mis-reported many aspects of the case until the trial, when the vast majority of articles shifted to various themes associated with criticism of the trial and the charges. The Cuomo quote is proof that the current weight of opinions in the article provides wp:undue weight to the minority opinions expressed in the press. The US News sources tacitly supports this assertion by reporting that the prosecutors did better than expected. The bar, according to the article, is not high: the prosecutors did enough to prevent the trial from being tossed out at the conclusion of the the prosecution's case.LedRush (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. News article states that the prosecution case was so strong that it set a high bar for the defense, so high that Weintein saw the defense as facing "an extremely large burden." In another article, law professor Susan Abraham says in an interview that she too was impressed (http://www.njtvonline.org/njtoday/video/former-public-defender-thinks-prosecution-has-good-case-against-ravi/). Granted, one can find different articles that give different points of view; that is why it is unwise to characterize the consensus of others' views, especially when one uses tendentious phrasing. Cuomo's phrasing smacks of punditry; he says that legal analysts wondered why the state "insisted" on pursuing bias intimidation charges--the "insisted" suggesting that the prosecution was being stubborn or irrational. I don't understand the relevance of your point about a change in media coverage; this section is not about media coverage. If anything, the change in media emphases should make one dubious about any article that purports to say what everyone else is thinking or should think. This section should explore specific reactions after the verdict, not try to tell us what the experts in general are thinking at any one time.--Profspeak (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC) + The U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profspeak (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if, per WP:BRD, you would revert your edit while we discuss the matter here.LedRush (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1. LedRush, sometimes BRD means at this stage of edits and reverts you have to be willing to let the "other" version stay on the page. You don't need to "win" every edit war.
2. Both of you, please quit the mutual reverting. Even if you both stop before you technically hit 3RR, you are both violating the spirit of WP:Edit warring.
3. On the merits of the content, I'm going to give LedRush a heart attack by saying that he is pretty much in the right. WP:NPOV requires us to give representation to what the Cuomo piece says, and omitting it in its entirety goes against that. I support restoring the deleted sentence.
4. I'm willing to explore alternative wording for the sentence, indicating the extent to which Cuomo's reading of the situation is not echoed by other reliable sources, or, alternatively, adding some other such sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD means that if someone reverts your bold edit, you discuss it. Merely calling something an edit war and promoting a battleground mentality is not helpful.LedRush (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Context, for the record: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Oh, and let's not overlook: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have made many edits to improve the article as you have ignored wikipedia standards and attempted to promote your own POV opinion on the matter despite the weight of reliable sources. But can you please talk about the edits suggested in this section rather than deliberately sidetrack constructive discussions?LedRush (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't there a separate article for Dharun Ravi?

I looked through the archives and couldn't find anything on this but I'm guessing there is a reasonable explanation. I Googled Dharun Ravi and this article came up. There isn't even a section specifically about Ravi in this article (The "Prosecutions" section is the closest, but would need a ton of work.) SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at my POV tag section above, I argue that this current article title is a POV violation because Ravi is discussed only in relation to the suicide, while nothing else abut the suicide is discussed. Early on, certain editors refused to even include any comments which suggested that there were different causes for the suicide, even if the comments came directly from Clementi! While a couple of these comments have now trickled, these same editors now block more inclusion in an article which is supposed to be about the suicide. The obvious solution is to create an article called the Trial of Dharun Ravi. The spy cam incident is best explained in that context, not by tacitly saying it was the direct and only cause of the suicide. However, this article does not have many people taking care of it, and advocates of specific agendas will resist any change.

Also, so you know, an article about Ravi alone would not be tenable. Independent of the rutgers case he is not notable. Any biographic info should be handled in an article about his trial.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a 'Trial of Dharun Ravi' article (or section of this article at the very least) makes a lot of sense at this point. There's just too much information surrounding it that can't properly be articulated within the context of this article. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and submitted New Jersey v. Ravi for review. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Other issues with summaries of commentary

In the Guilty Verdicts section, we have the reaction of people to the hate crime charges and verdict. The quotes from the commentators place undue emphasis on views that do not support the subject of this section.

Cohen

The article states:

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen called Ravi's actions a "revolting invasion of privacy and ... hideous bullying", but argued that hate crime laws unfairly punish an individual for thought or speech, and therefore erode civil liberties.

In his article, he argues against hate crime laws in general, and against their use against Ravi specifically. These is one half of one sentence dedicated to criticizing Ravi's actions, and that is done to make the point that laws already exist to punish people for their actions. By bringing in that one criticism on Ravi and giving it front-and-center attention, we misrepresent the author's main point, violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in the process. The original wording was:

Richard Cohen, a reporter for the Washington Post, argued that hate crime laws unfairly punish an individual for thought or speech and, therefore, erode civil liberties.

This accurately reflects the author's opinions on the subject at hand. If editors want to start a section where people criticize the invasion of privacy, then Cohen's views on that may be relevant.

Bazelon

The article now states:

In a New York Times op-ed piece, journalist Emily Bazelon argued that, while Ravi's invasion of Clementi's privacy "should be out of bounds on a college campus," the punishment he faces is disproportionate to that crime, and that hate crime laws were not intended for these types of actions.

Again, Bazelon gives only passing mention that Ravi's actions regarding invasion of privacy were bad, instead focusing her article on how the punishment he faces is disproportionate to his crime because of the hate crime law. The original language stated:

In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, Emily Bazelon argued that while Ravi committed the crime of invasion of privacy, the punishment he faces is "out of whack" with that crime, and the hate crime laws were not intended for these types of actions.

I wrote the original with the admission about Ravi's crime because I knew that other editors on this board wanted to stick it in for every quote. It is unnecessary, but at least the original language places that view in some perspective. Best practices would be to delete any mention of this. However, an acceptable compromise would be to restore the original language as it is at least less POV/UNDUE than the current.LedRush (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Sources for Cohen [10], and for Bazelon [11]. I think it's a matter of looking at what they actually say, and then looking at the passages in context on the page, and determining how well or not well each version actually fully presents what the sources say. (For editors new to the page, let me also point out that LedRush is choosing the edits he brings up here. For comparison, please see also, for example, this: [12], [13]. Admitted?!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason that your last parenthetical is in this section? If you have an issue, make a change. Wait, you did already? So, what could be the reason you bring this up...? Remember, comment on edits, not editors. Having said that, your edit was 100% right and made the sentence more encyclopedic.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with my edit. But please don't make it sound like I corrected an error that you made. This is a quintessential example of the concerns that I have. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely don't understand your comment, though I do recognize hostility and pettiness. At least your edit was good. Of course, you could have made that good edit without trying to embarrass me with ridiculous accusations. Do you have anything to add that actually speaks to edits and not editors?LedRush (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

LedRush, I started with the assumption that you were going to be a fair editor but you have made that a ludicrous assumption. For example, in your latest edit, you made removed what Gov. Christie said re Wei and Ravi...and that is only the latest example. --Javaweb (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, if you disagree with my edit on Christie's comments, you should discuss it in the appropriate discussion above. You'll notice that Profspeak agreed with my assessment and that Tryptofish didn't see why we needed to take it out, but also didn't really oppose taking it out (I'm sure he will correct my characterization if he disagrees with it). So, instead of engaging in discussion on the edit, you've made a personal attack and simply reverted a well-discussed edit.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, where to begin? Well, I am very pleased to see Javaweb and Profspeak here, and I thank them both for providing their input. I'm amused (if that's the word) to compare LedRush's call for AGF and NPA with his comments directed at me. And I'll be happy to correct his characterization: I didn't object to the effect of his Christie edit, but I did object to his rationale and was unenthusiastic about the effect. I greatly prefer the improvements made by Javaweb.

Now, LedRush, let me say this very clearly: I (and, I think, all of the other editors here) fully support applying BLP to our presentation of Ravi. But I do not consider that to be the same thing as systematically making every edit in a manner that has the exact same effect as would edits by Ravi's defense attorney making an argument for public opinion. Perhaps we should have a content RfC to try to resolve the issues associated with the POV tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how making yet another personal attack against me by repeating a demonstrably untrue statement helps the alleviate the battleground mentality you are so carefully fostering.LedRush (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag

Pursuant to Wikipedia rules, I am tagging the article for it's persistent POV issues. The tag is intended to attract new, neutral editors to the article, and cannot be removed as long as specific concerns are addressed here or until everyone agrees that the tag should be removed.

1. The title of the article unfairly implicates Ravi in the Clementi's suicide.

More time is spent either discussing the trial, the outcomes of the trial, or information that was presented in the trial than any other aspect of this incident. Almost no time is given to the actual suicide or the various factors that could have contributed to the suicide. This is a clear BLP violation which can be remedied by either splitting this article up into different parts, one of which would be the "Trial of Dharun Ravi", or by renaming the article that name or another (like the "Rutgers Spycam Incident".

2. In the lede, the article says that Ravi attempted a second viewing.

This is disputed by Ravi and various sources. We need to attribute this opinion to the jury, a journalist, or merely change the language to reflect what all agree happened.

3. The reaction section is based on the yellow journalism that mis-reported the incident in sensationalist ways.

This entire section is from a time in which most reliable sources agree the reporting was not accurate. Giving people's reactions to inaccurate reports does not serve the purposes of wikipedia.

4. The reaction section puts undue weight on certain events.

The anti-gay governor of NJ is on record personally attacking Ravi and Wei. School Board decisions are listed as being significant despite very little press coverage. In recent months, far more reaction has been in favor of Ravi, but these opinions are muted.

5. The article makes many mentions of this as a bullying case based on sexual orientation.

That is a disputed opinion which must be attributed.

6. The prosecution section is filled with inaccurate assessments of articles.

In the last paragraph of the prosecution section, many articles are misrepresented by giving much greater weight to negative opinions of Ravi than appear in those articles. This is an issues of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and simply bad editing.LedRush (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the attention given to Christie's words is excessive. These comments do not warrant the extended quote. However, in general, this Wikipedia entry is generous in the attention given to Ravi's defense. He is quoted extensively in his own defense. The apologies, for example, are given without any refutation by the prosecution, which viewed them as "filled with lies" and an attempt at a coverup. Indeed, a knowledgeable observer would acknowledge that the apologies are "weaselly," to say the least (Parker's word, by the way). Much of the Wikipedia entry still reads as though it is about an ongoing trial, in which a jury has not found fact.

In regard to your point 6, you will have to be more specific about the misrepresentations.

As for the title of the article, the suicide and the trial are inextricably linked. I believe the Wikipedia article is wise in trying to cover both, and it is also wise in avoiding too much detail about the trial. The main focus in the trial coverage is trying to establish facts about what happened. If the article intended to cover the trial more thoroughly (which I don't think it should), it would have to give more summary of the closing arguments of each side.

More information is not given about the reasons for Clementi's suicide because such information would be very speculative. There is, however, information about his relationship with his family.

The reaction section is primarily about the reaction to the suicide and the heightened concern about the dangers of bullying. This section shows how the Clementi suicide contributed to an environment of heightened awareness. (I have already expressed my reservations about the Christie quote.) Much of the section seems blandly factual: it simply shows the impact of the suicide in regard to specific memorial actions and national discussion/awareness. Moreover, the section indicates that the Clementi suicide was just one of several that produced this heightened awareness. As for the definition of "bullying," obviously it can take different forms and have different severity. The reaction section summarizes how the Clementi suicide was one factor that galvanized public concern about bullying. As to the nature of the bullying in this case, there is ample detail elsewhere for the reader to reach a conclusion. Of course, one key detail is that the jury concluded that Clementi was targeted because of his sexual orientation.Profspeak (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the placing of the tag was a rather childish overreaction to having lost an edit war. If it is going to be used as a bludgeon to force reargument of things that have already been at consensus for a while, it will boomerang. Let's fix the issues that are discussed in the two talk sections above, and then remove the tag and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that you petulantly added a tag to a section because you weren't getting your way, right? Your contributions to this page have devolved into name-calling, accusations of bias, and refusal to engage in open and honest discussion. You should reexamine your motives for being here. I see that you have actually started to reengage with compromises above. I apologize for my rush to lash out; I have been frustrated by your actions for several weeks now and your attach of me here set me off. I should be big enough to let that pass and deal with what you are doing above right now.LedRush (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, your first sentence is not accurate. Several editors on the talk page agreed with me; none were agreeing with you. We were all willing to let your edits stay on the page without reverting you. I had hoped that someone other than me would revise your edits, but when no one did, I rewrote the section, and, subject to the issues that Profspeak pointed out above, improved it considerably.

More broadly, it's entirely appropriate to make sure that our coverage of Ravi complies with WP:BLP, and to give due weight to sources that defend him. But it's completely inappropriate to try to purge the page of everything that seems critical of Ravi, purge it of everything that reflects the sympathy of the GLBT community and its friends for Clementi, lard the page with undue emphasis on claims that Clementi and his family members are in the wrong, lard the page with undue emphasis on sources that find fault with press coverage or find fault with the prosecution or with the laws under which it issued charges – and even worse when the first resort is to revert anything you disagree with. If I imagine what edits to the page Ravi's defense lawyer would make, I imagine that they would be almost indistinguishable from yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It is sad that you continually have to resort to name-calling and accusations of bias. It is even more discouraging that you continually misrepresent my views. If you can't engage in civil and honest discourse, you need to reevaluate your role here.LedRush (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Last Word. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if more editors would offer opinions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I just came to this article via a Google search for "Dharun Ravi." As suggested in the discussion below, I think it may make sense at this point to have either a separate article entitled "New Jersey v. Ravi" or, at the very least, a section in this article with that title. More than half the lede of this article is about Ravi's actions and his trial, not about Clementi's suicide. I think this would allow some of the information surrounding Ravi to be presented in a more organized, neutral fashion while still being sensitive to any WP:BLP concerns. A lot of the "Reaction" stuff and Ravi's quotes seem extraneous to me and make finding the actual encyclopedic content difficult. Just my two cents. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'm beginning to like this idea too, if for no other reason than the pragmatic one of relieving some of the stress apparent in this discussion. At the same time, we have to be careful about WP:POV Fork issues, particularly with respect to not having two conflicting accounts of the webcam events. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about where the webcam events would go. As I mentioned in the discussion below, I created a stub for New Jersey v. Ravi and submitted it for review. If it is approved, it seems to me that most of the information can be split up fairly easily between the two articles (the second part of the lede and the Prosecutions section from this article can basically be moved over to New Jersey v. Ravi.) My opinion is that the info regarding the webcam events should be moved over as well with only a brief summary remaining here...simply because we don't know the degree of the relationship between the webcam events and Clementi's suicide...but they are key components of the trial. Also I want to reiterate what Jeraphine Gryphon mentioned in an earlier discussion, that an article split like this isn't without precedent (i.e. Suicide of Megan Meier and United States v. Lori Drew.) SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The one part of that I can see an issue with is that there is no way to write this article appropriately without covering in some detail Clementi's last days, and there is no question the webcam was a very prominent part of it, regardless of causality. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I largely agree with what Profspeak said in the section just above (maybe not entirely about Gov. Christie), and I stand by my comments above. In addition, here is what I think after taking time to think about it, numbered the same as in LedRush's list above:

1. Of course, the title of the page doesn't actually say anything about Ravi, but I take the point that basically comes down to the issue of whether we should split off a separate page about the prosecution and trial. As I said just before the section break, I increasingly think that this would be a practical solution, just so long as care is taken not to create a POV fork.
2. This issue has already been discussed in #"Ravi later attempted to view Clementi's sexual encounters a second time", above. The POV of the prosecution is that Ravi very much sought to carry out the second viewing and was only foiled by events. The POV of Ravi's defense is that he had a change of heart well ahead of time. The NPOV we should adopt here should lie in between those two. It would indeed be wrong for us to say that Ravi viewed Clementi and the guest a second time, but we clearly do not say it. The plain English meaning of "attempted" is that he made efforts in that direction, but did not succeed. That's NPOV and consistent with the source material, taken in its entirety. Splitting hairs about how long before the second encounter between Clementi and his guest Ravi might have changed his mind is something Ravi's attorney would do, but we should not. We have discussed various "compromise" words, such as "prepared". I think that these fall afoul of WP:WEASEL. Perhaps we could recast it in terms of Ravi saying to friends and Twitter followers that he was planning to do a second viewing, but that gets awfully verbose very quickly.
3. There have been some reliable sources that have criticized the early press reports, and the page already gives those adequate attention. I am unaware of any reliable source that calls the preponderance of press coverage "yellow journalism"; that appears to be editor opinion. It would be wrong to leave out the notable reactions of the public to this suicide, as much as Ravi's defense would have preferred that it had never taken place. Indeed, the early and extensive public reaction to the suicide is much of the reason why the subject of this page is notable. The correct thing to do is to report it as sourced, and then report reassessments of it that came later. We already do that.
4. I don't see the point in trying to characterize Gov. Christie's motivations with respect to GLBT persons. He is the governor of the state in which the events happened, commenting on those events. His comments are therefore encyclopedic. I don't see any problems with us saying that he called it a tragedy, that he called for an investigation, and that he commented as a parent about his sympathy for Clementi's parents. I'm guessing that the part that is of concern is where Christie says: "I don't know how those two folks [Ravi and Wei] are going to sleep at night." I guess we could take that out, but I don't think that we need to. There is a single sentence about a school board: is it really undue? LedRush claims that we have "muted" recent coverage that is "in favor of Ravi". Actually, the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources support the guilty verdicts against him on all of the basic charges. The controversy lies entirely in the guilty counts on bias that attached to those other charges, and the possible long jail sentence that might result. Yes, there has been controversy there, and the page already covers it, in fact giving it quite a lot of space.
5. Like it or not (and I'm sure Ravi and his attorney do not), Ravi is currently a convicted felon on that matter. If there are specific places on the page where attribution should be made, we can do so.
6. That section went through stages of editing, beginning largely with edits by LedRush that cherry-picked material from sources in a manner that omitted material that Ravi's defense would find objectionable. That was the "bad editing". Subsequent edits went back and fixed the problems, by presenting the source material in a more balanced and complete fashion. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to go through the specifics. As it is, the page actually gives quite prominent attention to criticism of the prosecution, and yesterday I reverted an edit that had removed a criticism by Chris Cuomo of ABC News. (Actually, looking around a bit more, I find this other ABC News piece, in which Cuomo praises the tactical judgment of the prosecution: [14].)

I, myself, have been the only editor on another page having POV concerns, so I really do know what it feels like. But, really, I think that the editing of this page has been sufficiently sensitive to LedRush's concerns, and what he claims here is either easily fixable or without merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-WP:Battleground Subsection Title

• 1. Great! That would solve most of the problems with this article, and most of my concerns.
• 2. There are two, simple solutions. 1. Use the word "plan". 2. Attribute the opinion that he attempted this. We simply cannot use WP's voice to say something as fact that is disputed.
• 3. We report on a lot of trivia of reactions which were based on bad press reports. Then we make brief mentions of criticism of the press. That is akin to a page 1 article boldly making incorrect statements followed by a page 14 semi-retraction. The reaction section is too long and gives undue weight to opinions based on bad journalism.
• 4. If everything that a governor says on a subject is encyclopedic, our articles would be weighed down by pages and pages of junk which contribute nothing to the article. Regarding recent coverage, it has clearly dealt with the issues in fairer terms. And remember, we have reliable sources for my statements.
• 5. Perhaps I missed the the jury's verdict that Ravi was bullying. But even if I did, it doesn't make it a fact. It makes it the opinion of jury. Could someone please show me a reliable source in which a jury decided that Ravi was guilty of "bullying"?
• 6. The section has been rewritten to include negative opinions of Ravi which are not part of the author's main points. Emphasizing these non-central points is as clear a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV as you can have.

Despite Tryptofish's vitriolic accusations, there actually seems to be several areas where we can come to compromises. I suggest that the battleground mentality be dropped, and we attempt to focus on article-improving edits.LedRush (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Thank you.
2. To me, it is plain as day. I suspect that we need more opinions.
3. To me, the balance on the page is not like that at all.
4. Well, it's far from "everything" that the governor said.
5. He was found guilty of "bias intimidation". If there are places on the page where you feel that we have WP:SYNTHed that into "bullying", please identify them specifically, and we can look at them.
6. We can look at what the sources actually say, and whether the edits focused unduly on minor points, or whether they included material that needed to be included in order to represent the sources accurately.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the only open points not discussed elsewhere are #2 and #4. I simply cannot understand what you lose by changing the word "attempted" to "planned", a word supported by common sense and reliable sources. At least one other editor found the choice of the word "attempted" to be wrong, though, of course, he was immediately reverted. No argument against the change has been made except that "attempted" might also be ok. That's a horrible reason not to come to an easy compromise.

On 4, you're missing my point. Your argument about why a gov's comments are encyclopedic doesn't work for the same reason you pushed back against it.LedRush (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On #2, "planned": WP:WEASEL, as I said before. (Was he putting it on his calendar? Of course not.) I normally am very friendly to compromise, but this particular instance is one where I see it more as you insisting over and over that a tortured misinterpretation of the plain meaning of a word is somehow controversial. Your framing of the past discussions and edits is rather selective. As I've said before, I'm just fine with applying BLP with respect to Ravi, but this is a matter of the need to be an encyclopedia article, rather than a court brief for Ravi's defense.

On #4, I don't object strongly to the edit you made, which deleted what Christie said about Ravi and Wei and removed his call for an investigation. But I honestly don't like the reasons you gave in your edit summary: [15]. You say, first, that he was talking about suicide rather than spying. It appears to me that he was talking about both. What he said about those two sleeping at night, which you deleted, is plainly about what Ravi and Wei did. You then say that you deleted the call for an investigation because the investigation had already begun and he did not also start an investigation of his own. In so doing, you substitute your own judgment for that of the person, a state Governor, cited in the source. As I say, I don't really object to the effect of your edit, but I think that this explanation helps to show why I am not simply going along with everything that you ask for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On #2, there are no weasel words involved. Plan has a different meaning than attempted, and all sources agree that he planned to do it, but sources disagree as to whether he attempted it. If you refuse to compromise, we must attribute who says he attempted it, as this is directly contradicted by several sources.

On #4, the reasons are completely sound. The article says that he was talking about the suicide, not the incident. If you disagree, please talk to the author of the article. The article also doesn't state that Christie called for an investigation. The article actually states that an investigation is ongoing and that Christie doesn't want to interfere with it. That's almost the opposite of what our article said before I corrected it. At least we agree with the outcome of my edits.LedRush (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing is for a third opinion from another editor. And I'm pleased to see that we have one! Javaweb revised the passage, in a manner that restores what Christie said. I said earlier that I didn't really object to your edit, but I also didn't really endorse it. I prefer what Javaweb has done, and I thank them for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so does Profspeak not count as an editor?LedRush (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional POV issue

I would like to add an additional reason for requiring a POV tag on the page, this edit: [16]. Contrary to what the edit summary says, I consider it to be pushing a POV, and I would like the issues to be resolved before removing the tag. I will explain my concerns in detail, below, at #Characterizations of Two Sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution section (reason for bias charge)

The present wording of the rationale for the hate crime charge is a distortion of the source cited; moreover, the source does not indicate the primary reason why Ravi was charged. Bazelon says that "prosecutors could seize upon the law because it 'sent a message,' as one of them later said." To begin with, the quote that Bazelon is using is extremely murky. It doesn't say that "sending a message" is the primary reason for filing bias charges. It says that one prosecutor later mentioned "sending a message." Indeed, other sources suggest that the reason for filing bias charges was that evidence showed that Clementi was targeted because he was gay. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/grand_jury_hands_down_15-count.html One of the purposes of all hate crime laws, of course, is to send a message (indeed, one could say that about all laws.) Without the context of the quote, and given the fact that other sources cite the evidence discovered as the reason for the charge, this sentence appears to be a distortion. Profspeak (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Indeed, Bazelon may be referring to the State Attorney General Paula Dow, quoted in the article I cited above: "This indictment is an important step in this heartbreaking case," Dow said. "New Jersey’s bias law recognizes the terrible harm caused by acts of bigotry and hatred and imposes harsher punishment on those who commit such crimes." Profspeak (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I could not find the template for citing a source. Has it changed?Profspeak (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I find a template for citing under "Cite" on the talk page, but where is the template on the article-editing page?Profspeak (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course the prosecution will say that the charge is being made because the accused did what the prosecution accused them of doing. If they didn't believe that, they would be disbarred. If you want to make a statement on that, that's fine (completely unnecessary, but fine). However, Bazelon's quote is still accurate and should be included. We have other sources critical of the manner in which the prosecution brought the hate crime charges already included in the article. [17]. Certainly the prosecution's opinion can be noted, but I don't see why that has to be done to the exclusion of other reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I've made this edit. [18] Profspeak's language had two main issues: 1. it incorrectly stated that bias charges were brought against Wei (at least that wasn't in the cite); 2. it didn't give context to when things happened or the sequence of when they happened. I've tried to remedy both of those issues, while giving more weight to what the prosecuter's said when they opened the investigation of hate crimes.

With this as the backdrop, is there any reason that we can't include an attributed quote, supported by Bazelon's article, that the prosecutors wanted to send a message against bullying?LedRush (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no bias charges were brought against Wei; I didn't realize that was in the original.

The revision seems tortuously wordy. Moreover, the sentence "believed that Ravi committed a hate crime dating back to when he first learned Clementi's name" is strangely worded. The prosecution said there was evidence of bias dating back to the time before they moved into the dorm; for a crime, there has to be something illegal, which didn't occur of course till the invasion of privacy. Is all of this added detail needed? My objection to the original phrasing was that it made it sound as though, after initially deciding not to pursue bias charges, the prosecution decided to make these charges to "send a lesson." Clearly, there was ongoing investigation and analysis of evidence. Some of the Rutgers students, for example, were re-interviewed when IT records were further analyzed. At any rate, Bazelon refers murkily to "one" prosecutor and gives no context for the quote. Perhaps the individual said that the charges were made after further analysis and that they would "send a lesson." If the context of this quote, attributed to one nameless prosecutor, cannot be found, then I think one should not force the quote into a straitjacket of implying that the prosecution's change of mind was motivated by a desire to "send a lesson." In addition, just because an author makes an uncited quote on an opinion blog doesn't mean that the author's interpretation of the quote is valid.Profspeak (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that NY Times journalist and Yale Law research fellow writing for the New York Times OpEd section is an "opinion blog"? I don't quite understand that position.

As I stated above, I don't mind saying that the charges came after further investigation. In fact, I edited the article to give details about the investigation and quoted a prosecuter. I've also tweaked the language to be more clear. But I don't see why mention of other factors in the decision to prosecute must be omitted as long as we keep them in perspective.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the Bazelon quote is murky and not given clear attribution or context (one prosecutor said the phrase "sent a message"). As I noted, hate crimes by nature are intended to send a message. Your inclusion of that phrase (by one prosecutor out of many) seems to be designed to advance a point of view--namely, that the prosecution's motivation for the bias intimidation charge was politically rather than factually based. It is a POV that your earlier phrasing also emphasizes ("amid cries from gay rights activists and bloggers"). Commenting on the prosecution's motivations is speculative--fine for an opinion piece, but not sufficiently based on factual clarity to be included. If you could find the original quote, with a context of more than three words, I might have a different perspective. Profspeak (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess when reliable sources speak to the motivations, it makes sense to me to include them. I've tried to quell your concerns by making the prosecution's self-stated reasons cyrstal clear.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I thank Profspeak for this discussion and the new edits, especially the sources that differ from Chris Cuomo's view of the prosecution. (You can find the citation format information at Template:Cite news.) I've made a further edit, to decrease the implication of cause-and-effect giving rise to the prosecutor's actions. With that, I think the section was improved quite a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you liked my new edits.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't someone just say, a bit above, "Wait, so does Profspeak not count as an editor?" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. You forgot him up there and me down here. What's your point?LedRush (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi has been created

New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi was just approved. I felt this was appropriate since a significant portion of this article has become about Ravi and the prosecutions/trial. The article is currently a stub so please contribute as you see fit. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 03:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi article

There is an editing dispute what Ravi did and was indicted for.
Here is my edit:
The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi pointed his webcam at Ravi's college roommate's bed twice during dates and the second time told 150 of his friends how to view it.

LedRush wants "The charges stemmed from incidents on September 19 and 21, 2010 in which Ravi used his webcam to view his college roommate kissing another man and told 150 of his friends how to view it. "

The second viewing and telling "everyone" to watch is what got Mr. Ravi indicted on the invasion of privacy charges. Here are the relevant edits:

• (What he did)
• (it is disputed it the camera was ever pointed at the bed)
• (It is undisputed he pointed the camera there twice. Ravi claims he later moved the camera away but does not dispute he pointed the camera there)
• (let's get down to the real issue)

As someone who edits the Clementi article, you may want to review this article as well. Readers searching for Ravi will probably find this article so the more reviewers the better. --Javaweb (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Characterizations of Two Sources

First source

This source [19] was expounded upon in this edit[20]. The relevant part of which is as follows:

Susan Abraham, a law professor and former public defender, said that she believed that the prosecution successfully established both the invasion of privacy and the bias intimidation charges.

The source doesn't say the defense "successfully" did anything. Also, the quote doesn't give the context that the article gives: namely, this occurred after the prosecution rested and before the defense made their case. Generally, a discussion of "establishing" a case at this point in a trial (after the prosecution rests) is a discussion about whether the prosecution's case is strong enough to survive the motion to dismiss that is almost always requested at this time in the trial. Finally, the article devotes one sentence to the opinion that the prosecution has established the case (apparently from the video based on Ravi's conversations with police), but two on the potential defense rebuttals which may mitigate such testimony.

For these reasons, I suggested the following compromise language:

Susan Abraham, a law professor and former public defender, commenting after the prosecution rested its case and before the defense brought its arguments, said that she believed that the prosecution established both the invasion of privacy and the bias intimidation charges, though she believed the defense had a couple of arguments to question the validity of Ravi's statements to police.

LedRush (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the edit I made [21], that you reverted [22], I agree with you about "successfully". You are correct about that and I'm fine with leaving that word out. As I said in my edit summary at the time, the part about her assessment of the prosecution's case is worth including here, because she was assessing a case that already happened. In contrast, what she said about the defense was a prediction as to what might, perhaps, happen in the future. Instead of us, now much later, retaining that, it makes better sense to present the material that we do present in the section about the verdict, based on what actually did happen. The only reason I can see for including those predictions here would be to repeat the defense's arguments an extra time. The fact that there was one sentence about the prosecution and two sentences about the defense is beside the point; those two sentences are now out of date. (Or maybe I should say that in two sentences: "The fact that there was one sentence about the prosecution and two sentences about the defense is beside the point. Those two sentences are now out of date." There, that made it twice as important!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with including any praise of the prosecution argument at this time is that it is inherently biased; the prosecution has presented its case and the defense had not responded. That is why the timing of the comments is important to point out. Additionally, the commentator saw avenues for the defense to attack the prosecution case. While it is true that the defense case hadn't been brought yet, potential criticism of the prosecution case are weaknesses that the commentator saw at the same time that she assessed the strength of the prosecution case. That means they are explicit opinions the commentator has about the strength of the prosecution case. Seeing as the author of the article devoted significantly more space (in words and sentences (so any snark above is logically fallacious)) to these issues, it is a distortion of the commentator's views merely to talk about one part of the assessment of the prosecution case.LedRush (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But I agreed with you about including the information that pointed out the timing of the comments. Perhaps, however, it would make better sense to say that she identified those two points as weaknesses in the prosecution's case, which is something that you didn't suggest before, making it instead sound like predictions of the defense actions in the future. That's something I could work with. But, no matter how many times you say it, it actually is fallacious to use word counts as the arbiter of importance within a source. This isn't a case of many paragraphs versus a brief phrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Second source

For the second source, the relevant part of the edit is as follows:

Edward Weinstein, a New Jersey-based attorney specializing in criminal and family law, said that "The defense has an extremely large burden; the prosecution put on a good case."

This statement was also made after the prosecution rested the case and before the defense made theirs. The source puts this quote in context by saying, immediately after the quote "Before the trial started, Weinstein was quoted in several media reports as saying the prosecutor's case might be weak." The article also points out that Weinstein still believed that “The outcome totally remains to be seen,”. Further giving context to the quote, the topic sentence of the article is "Prosecutors built a better than expected case before resting Thursday in the trial of a former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on a gay sexual encounter of his roommate who later committed suicide, legal experts say." The snipped used in our article does not accurately reflect the source, and seems to distort it significantly.

I suggested the following compromise language:

Before the trial, Edward Weinstein, a New Jersey-based attorney specializing in criminal and family law, stated that the prosecution case might be weak. But after the prosecution rested its case and before the defense initiated its case, he thought that the prosecutors did better than expected, saying "The defense has an extremely large burden; the prosecution put on a good case."

LedRush (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In the edit that I made [23], that you also reverted [24], I explained that Weinstein had changed his mind about the earlier opinions that he held (and, much less importantly, that it was repetitive to say that the prosecution exceeded his expectations, given what comes just after, and maybe just a bit of a two-edged "compliment"). It seems to me that we should present what our sources currently say. If I try to think of reasons to present, also, positions that they previously held but no longer hold, one reason might be to illustrate their changing views over time. But I don't see the evolution of Mr. Weinstein's views as really being a significant issue to cover in that much depth on this page (maybe on the planned page about the trial, but not here). The only other reason I can think of would be to repeat views that might be considered supportive of the defense, even if they are no longer held, which seems to me to be contrary to NPOV.

There is a larger NPOV issue here. In my original edit to this passage [25], I changed wording that had made it sound like the two sources discussed here only contained material supporting the prosecution. In addition to fleshing it out with actual quotations, I added a detailed sentence about Jack Levin's view, that criticized the prosecution. I felt that we would be ill-serving the source, and ill-serving NPOV, unless we also included that. (It appears that there is no objection to that part of my edit!) Like most editors at this page, I try to edit for NPOV. (Indeed, I also recently made this edit: [26].) Now if we look closely at recent edits, I also made this minor edit [27], deleting a stray space before the sentence about Louis Raveson, and this minor edit [28], about a capital letter. When LedRush made this reverting edit [29], he wrote an informative edit summary, but was actually just reverting all of my edits. He then corrected the capitalization [30], but if you look closely he didn't realize that he had also reverted that stray space. What was the effect of that reversion? To restore content sympathetic to the defense case, even if that particular content didn't really belong there. I've just pointed to two edits I made that were supportive of the defense's POV; could LedRush point to any of his that supported the prosecution's? If you look at all the reasons giving rise to the POV template on this page, this is the root of them all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While I generally don't specifically reply to the numerous personal attacks and tangential petty arguments that Tryptofish begins, this one requires at least some retort. The balance of Trypotofish's edits were to revert my changes and add a huge amount of POV material, while also throwing in an extra piece about a commentator who had said that it was difficult to know Ravi's motivations. Just because one aspect of the edit was accurate doesn't mean that the 2 distortions should stand. This entire section demonstrates the problem with the article. Tryptofish treats this article with an entire WP:Battleground mentality. If I make a good edit which he agrees with, as I did recently, he will not acknowledge it. If I commend him for making my edit better, he attacks me saying "please don't make it sound like I corrected an error that you made. This is a quintessential example of the concerns that I have." He sees every edit as either being "supportive of the defense's POV" or supportive if the prosecution's. We should be finding NPOV ways to express all the ideas. Does it matter that when editors come in making apologetic arguments for Ravi that do not comport with WP standards, I argue against them [31]? Does it matter that I included information which argued against information that I had earlier included, because I follow the principle that it is important to neutrally add information from sources [32]? Does it matter that even when an editor made an edit for which I argued, when he didn't follow the correct procedure I reverted it [33]? Does it matter that when another editor added information regarding the motives of the prosecution that I agree with, but which was unsupported by the source, I deleted it myself [34]? Does it matter that I include commentator's views regardless of whether they support one side or the other [35]? Does it matter that I try and ensure that prosecutor's opinions which are neutrally inserted don't get removed [36]Does it matter that it was Tryptofish who repeatedly refused to accept any mention of any other factors that might have contributed to the suicide in an article about the suicide [37] [38]? Does it matter that when the evidence of the text messages came out, he refused to include them, and then only would let them go in if they were attributed to the defense, even though they were quotes of text messages and online activity? But when there were texts which cast Ravi in a negative light, they could go in unattributed? Does it matter that my reasoning stayed consistent, that all could go in unattributed if they were relevant to the case? None of this seems to matter to Tryptofish, as he sees the world in black and white: either you're for the prosecution or you're against it. I try and enact Wikipedia policy and follow its procedures. The article is a controversial one, and one that sparks emotions on both sides. Despite the incredibly amounts of personal attacks against me, and despite the deliberate misrepresentation of my views, I still have been able to work collaboratively, trying to incorporate others' views into my edits and directly into the article. Despite Tryptofish's continued attacks and insults, I will continue to do so. Even as he refuses to.

Regarding the actual substance of this source, we need to let the reader know when the statement was made for the same reason as above. It is important that the commentator changed his mind because it puts his comments in proper perspective. He came into this with a different view but the prosecution made a stronger case than he thought they could. It also slightly mitigates the strength of the assessment: the prosecution did a good job with the case they had. By keeping in this info, we give the reader context without making any of the analysis ourselves. The reason we need to say that the commentator thought the prosecution did better than he expected is that it also provides context for the commentator's views. It is quite different to say "The prosecution put on a good case" and "they did better than I expected, they put on a good case". Again, none of this analysis should be in the article, but we should provide the context to provide an accurate picture of the commentators views. Remember, the commentator himself also expressed equivocation on whether the prosecution did enough to win the case when he said “The outcome totally remains to be seen,”.LedRush (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm commenting on your edits and their effects on this page. You do a lot of framing above, but your presentation of diffs does not actually support your thesis, nor would a more complete examination of your edits and mine. I edit a lot around the project. My first instinct is always to try to de-escalate, rather than escalate. I don't make a habit of drawing attention to other editors' conduct or editing patterns. And I don't do it lightly here. I've interacted with you for almost as long as this article existed. For a long time I tried very hard to talk things out with you and find reasonable compromises. But AGF is not a suicide pact, and I eventually had to conclude that you were only using my good will to get what you wanted onto the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you are making repeated and unfounded accusations of bias against me. If you discussed the edits, we could sit down and discuss each one and try to come to a compromise. However, you are now more than happy to merely make a personal attack and not discuss edits at all, comfortable knowing that you can just revert away and get your way. And if your first instinct is not to escalate, why do you make constant accusations of cherry picking (at least four times against me)? Why wouldn't you first discuss the edit instead of accusing me of bias? Why, when I agree with your edits on two occasions, would it be necessary to insult me and my edits and accuse me of bias [39]? Wouldn't my compliment to your edits be the perfect time to de-escalate, not double down on personal attacks in an attempt to score "gotcha" points? When you introduce horrible edits into the article, I criticize the edits, fix the POV, and then thank you for working cooperatively to make the article better. This contrast in styles is stark, indeed.LedRush (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I want to be very clear about some terminology, because misunderstandings about it have been a source of confusion in the past. As I think you would agree, neither I nor anyone else here is accusing you of "bias" in the sense of homophobic bias. That could be misunderstood, and I want to make very sure that no one thinks wrongly that I'm calling you that. I definitely am not, and I recognize that it is the opposite of true. I am, instead, accusing you of POV editing, but not in a pro- or anti-LGBT sense. Second, I reject your framing of me as making personal attacks instead of commenting on edits, your framing of me as not having, first, tried long and hard to de-escalate by discussing, your framing of me, not you, as making a habit of reverting in order to get one's own way, and your framing of me as someone who makes horrible edits. And I would welcome editors actually looking closely at the diff you provided, in full and in context, as it would show what is really going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the word "bias" means only "bias" and nothing more. However, I simply can't understand how contantly accusing me of bias is commenting on edits. Perhaps you think I'm biased because of my edits, but by repeatedly, perhaps dozens of times, making personal attacks against me and not just discussing the edits, you have fostered a WP:Battleground mentality and refused to follow WP guidelines. If you don't like the edit, criticize the edit. Once you start making accusations about the editor, it is much more difficult to work collaboratively, though at least I have continued to try to work with you despite your aggressive and insensitive actions.LedRush (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't recollect ever having said that you are "biased", in that word. I've said that your edits display a consistent POV that appears to me to go against the source material. Sooner or later, other editors will see which of us is commenting personally on the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think you've only used the dictionary definition of bias when making attacks against me, not the actual word.LedRush (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that none of the analysis that evaluates the strength/weakness of cases or charges before the verdict should be included. That was my original point. And that includes the analysis of Chris Cuomo, who purports to tell us what the consensus of experts is, and who does so in a language of punditry (why did they "insist" on doing this? or "thin, at best"). There simply are too many different opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the lawyers' performances. It would be unwise to get into an extended analysis of lawyers' arguments. Such opinions could be explored, however, if there is a separate Wikipedia article for the trial, although inclusion there will have some of the same problems of clarity. Note too that there is already a section devoted to specific responses to the verdict and the bias conviction.

As for the Weinstein representation, his statement that the "defense has an extremely large burden" is very strongly stated, since usually the prosecution is seen as carrying the heavier burden. It is also not clear how much Weinstein's views changed; we read he was one of those cited who stated that the case "might be weak." He might have had strong views about the weakness of the charges or just mild skepticism. Within the article, the fact that he was once skeptical seems to have been included to show the strength of the prosecution's performance; someone who was skeptical is impressed. The phrase "outcome remains to be be seen" is also ambiguous; it could mean, who knows how things will play out, as any bias charge is hard to prove. Or it could mean that there might be further testimony that could be important. When asked to make evaluations, professional people often show restraint; they don't speak in the language of advocacy. Thus, even John Fahy, the only expert mentioned by Cuomo to support his "consensus," adds that "time will tell" as to why the prosecutors brought the charges. Fahy, too, adds a qualifying phrase to suggest that he might not know everything. Profspeak (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good analysis, and, at a minimum, it argues against making too much of Weinstein's supposed change of mind, and instead, focusing on that strongly-stated point. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Profspeak's analysis is interesting, and other editors are free to make such analysis only if the section remains as I have written it above. If we take out the context, all we are left is one, out of context quote, which may or may not accurately reflect the views of the person we're quoting. And of course, our readers won't be able to make the analysis that Profspeak makes, or the one I believe is more persuasive, without such context. Very well said, Profspeak.LedRush (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Profspeak, does LedRush accurately describe what you feel your analysis? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention was not to describe Profspeak's feelings, but the logical conclusion from his analysis.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My intention was not to describe Profspeak's analysis, but the logical conclusion from his analysis.LedRush (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, Profspeak already changed the language in the article to remove language per this discussion (and over my objections).LedRush (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess you've answered my question as to whether you and Profspeak are in agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm willing to live with the change if that's the end of it. Hence the reason I've not reverted and continued to engage in discussions.LedRush (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Short article, packed with some interesting info

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434365-504083/rutgers-spycam-trial-dharun-ravi-supporters-hold-protest-rally/

Interestingly, it appears that the prosecutors are not asking for the full 10 years.LedRush (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a quick google search shows hundreds of articles on the sentencing and the protest.LedRush (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent topics relating to the aftermath of Trial.

Interesting but not surprising:

• The rally occurred in the week after the prosecution memo outlining their sentencing recommendations so the rally did not affect the 5/10/2012 memo
• most news media was trumpeting that a ten year sentence was a possibility without mentioning why that was totally improbable. The maximum sentence is reserved for repeat violent offenders, where physical violence with permanent harm is involved. Mr. Ravi was not charged in the death or with any physical harm to Mr. Clementi.
• the victim's parents were not interested in “any particularly harsh punishment” but only that existing laws applied “appropriately and in due course,” and “As a matter of principle, and based on the facts known to us,” he wrote, “we feel it is important to establish accountability, and to further establish that Tyler was subject to criminal acts, not merely a college prank, as some may argue.” and were more interested in deterring future crimes rather than just harshly punishing Mr. Ravi.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 05:47, May 17, 2012‎

I've now read the CBS source, as well as the Star Ledger source that Javaweb provided. For one thing, they seem more related to the new trial page than to this page about the suicide (see how confusing this is getting!). But more importantly, I think the Star Ledger source is actually more informative about matters of lasting significance. On the other hand, that source notes that the defense lawyer hadn't yet had an opportunity to respond, so I'd prefer to wait until a response before writing about it here. For that matter, the sentencing is now just days away. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Improving the Title of the article

This article is about the public life of Mr. Clementi and virtually all events of interest happened in the last month(s) of his life. Suggestions

1. "Tyler Clementi"
2. "Last days of Tyler Clementi"

Mentions of the trial might be through a "main article" tag and a summary. Of course, testimony and evidence presented at trial relevant to the last days need to be here because that is where most of the information came out in a reliable way where the defense and prosecution both had a chance to weigh in. As we do in the article today, Clementi's state of mind (as much as it is reliably known) should be included. His taking pictures of the GW bridge, etc. Readers want an article about his public life. It is impossible to exclude notable events from those last months without biasing the article one way or the other. The article's scope is fine. The title should reflect what the article should/does cover. Let's avoid a Procustean solution. What do other editors think?

--Javaweb (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Well, almost all of the secondary source coverage that makes the topic notable is about the suicide, although I certainly agree with you that his last days are a critically important part of that series of events. We definitely should not name the page after the person, however. We use a title based on the event, not the person, because of WP:BLP1E. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Background Section

I find some awkwardness, vagueness, maybe inaccuracy in the phrasing of the last paragraph of the Background Section. Take this phrasing: "Clementi's online conversations and text messages described his discomfort with Ravi." Parker notes that Clementi remarked about Ravi's insistence on changing clothes in the "cubby" he constructed; okay, that may be discomfort. And there were remarks about Ravi's messiness. But Parker also notes that Clementi appreciated Ravi's being " very considerate and perceptive" in recognizing Clementi's aversion to having a lot of people around and his leaving Clementi alone. So I would hardly characterize Clementi's reaction to Ravi as "discomfort."

Then there is the matter of the joke about Ravi's parents. The sentence begins "Similarly, in communication with his friends...." To begin with, prior to moving in, Clementi expressed no concerns about having an Asian roommate, whereas some of Ravi's emails suggest uneasiness with his roommate's gayness. Clementi wrote his Asian friend, "I got an azn." If anything, he seemed excited. So I don't see the "similarly." Yes, both did investigate each other before they moved in together, although Clementi seemingly less so, perhaps because he was less social. It was after they moved in that Clementi made the Dunkin Donuts joke about Ravi's parents.

Finally, somewhere, if not here then later, there should be reference to Ravi's emails in which he discusses his new roommate's sexual orientation. The "F--- my life; he's gay" quote was discussed by both prosecution and defense; and the prosecution claimed that Ravi's earliest emails in regard to his roommate reflected an uneasiness with the sexual orientation or, at the least, a desire to frequently discuss the orientation.Profspeak (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are three points:

1. I think Parker clearly describes discomfort: the changing of clothes, the racist jokes, the conversations with friends on how to communicate better with Ravi, etc.

2. Yes, the jokes about the parents and other racist jokes happened after they moved in together. We can make that more clear.

3. The Parker articles details many conflicting attitudes about Clementi's sexual orientation, and picking out only the most negative is a serious issue. I'm not sure that we need more detail than we have in an article about Clementi's suicide, not about Ravi or his trial.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved here from the RfC section by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Clementi did not make "racist" statements. Parker said, "Clementi told Yang that Ravi’s parents had seemed 'sooo Indian first gen americanish,' adding that they 'defs owna dunkin”—a Dunkin’ Donuts. Clementi and Ravi seem to have responded in similarly exaggerated ways to perceived hints of modest roots in the other." In the other case, chatting with an Asian friend that his new roommate is also Asian is not racist. --Javaweb (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Not sure why this is here, but if you look up racist jokes in the dictionary, saying that an Indian-American must own a dunkin' donuts will actually be listed there.LedRush (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

End of moved material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, we have to go with what the source says. When Parker characterized the joke, he did not say it was a racist joke. Plus 'racist' is such an extreme term. Any other editor think that the best way to characterize this is 'racist' or that Parker supports that characterization? Also, jokes cannot be found in the dictionary. Except this one. --Javaweb (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

(Had a girlfriend give me that book as a gift.) --Javaweb (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

If anyone is proposing that we write on the page that Clementi said anything racist, I'd say that I oppose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There was only one joke, as I recall. In regard to Clementi's relationship with Ravi the first three weeks (not a long time), I would describe Clementi's feelings as the awkwardness of a shy person. "Discomfort" just seems the wrong word. Given the fact that Ravi was often out till late at night (or rather early the next morning), Clementi as a less social person seems to have been satisfied overall. The changing of the clothes seems most to have amused/"bothered" him. As for the conversations with friends about Clementi's difficulty communicating, I don't find a theme that blames his roommate. In the short period of three weeks, it was clear that they didn't hit it off together and went their own ways.

As for Ravi's communications about his new roommate's being gay, I believe the present wording does not present well the extent of those communications. They certainly are complex in tone--some expressing uneasiness, while others suggest acceptance. It is also true that Clementi saw the "wtf" tweet that was so discussed at trial. I wouldn't argue for the inclusion of that specific tweet in this section, but I do believe that Ravi's extensive exploration of his new roommate's sexuality should be noted.Profspeak (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the Dunkin Donuts joke is about at the same level as Ravi's observation that "January is a gay month." LOL (about the stupidity of the joke). But Ravi had much more to say than that.Profspeak (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right, that there was not really an equivalence between the two. But I'm starting to lose track of what the issue is in this discussion, about what we should be writing on the page: what is it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My original points were these:

1) The use of the word "discomfort" in regard to Clementi's attitude towards his roommate is not the right word. Some things he didn't like (the cubby hole change, the messiness); others, he did (especially Ravi's being "considerate and perceptive" in basically leaving Clementi alone and not forcing a social atmosphere).

2) The section's use of "similarly" is strange. It is not clear what is similar to what. While both roommates investigated each other online, Ravi seems to have done so more extensively; and a number of his emails explore his new roommate's sexuality, some in negative terms. Moreover, the "similarly" introduces a disparaging comment of Clementi's after they moved in. This comment is similar to what? Ravi's conclusions about Clementi before they moved in? But there is not really overtly negative content in Ravi's conclusions of "gay, socially inept, and poor"), except for perhaps the "socially inept." In reality, all three were described by Ravi negatively (including "I hate poor people"). So the reader, without additional information, is confused by the "similarly."

3) The section really avoids a key factor in this period, namely, Ravi's exploration of his roommate's gayness, which includes the notorious "F--- my life" quote, which Parker tells us that Clementi read (I assume that Clementi made a reference to the quote, and that is the basis for Parker's conclusion--have to check that). So Clementi was aware of at least some of the negative comments about gays, and Ravi's communications were an important part of a later trial discussion. Those communications, however, are certainly mixed in tone.Profspeak (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence reads that the two roommates would go for days at a time without seeing each other. For most readers, this defies common sense. Where in Parker is this said? It's hard to locate things in the Parker article, because it is, even more so than most New Yorker articles, highly discursive.Profspeak (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think my responses above still speak for themselves. As for the word "Similarly", it came from this sentence in Parker's piece: "Clementi told Yang that Ravi’s parents had seemed “sooo Indian first gen americanish,” adding that they “defs owna dunkin”—a Dunkin’ Donuts. Clementi and Ravi seem to have responded in similarly exaggerated ways to perceived hints of modest roots in the other." However, I still agree that we can make clear that Clementi's when Clementi's comment was made.LedRush (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Profspeak for spelling out the issues again for me. I've now reviewed them, and I share most of your concerns about that paragraph.

1. How about changing "discomfort" to "lack of communication"? That's really more like what the source says.
2. Although it's true that the source does recount some things like the Dunkin Donuts message, I think increasingly that we should simply delete that sentence from the page entirely. What does it accomplish? It certainly has no bearing on Clementi's motivations for suicide. It comes across now as just a gratuitous pointing out of something awkward that Clementi had said.
3. I don't feel strongly that we need to say more about Ravi's comments about Clementi being gay, since we already mention it. The details might actually go better on the other page, about the trial. But about the last sentence, about not seeing each other for "days at a time", how about, more accurately, changing "days" to "many hours"?

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the last sentence definitely needs to be changed. It strains credibility to say that two people sleeping in the same room did not see each other for days. I'm still looking for this in Parker.Profspeak (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In an online chat, Clementi says shortly after they moved in that "I'm reading his {Ravi's} twitter page," so that alone would be basis for concluding that Clementi read the August Twitter posting of Ravi, "Found out my roommate is gay." That is Parker's conclusion. Also, Parker infers that Clementi makes the connection between Ravi's tweet (in which he notes Clementi's being gay) and Ravi's carefully constructed private area for clothes changes. Since Parker quotes selectively, perhaps he is also relying on context from other Clementi communications for his conclusion. At any rate, I think it important to note that the two monitored each other's communications, but had little communication between each other. Perhaps also to note that Clementi was aware of his roommate's exploration of his sexuality (and a rather insensitive posting of it on the Twitter account). That might help explain some of the initial awkwardness: Clementi knew that Ravi might be uneasy with his sexuality, which the clothes changing confirmed. Of course, too much detail is unwarranted, and one doesn't want to interpret too much, but something about this would help explain the atmosphere and also include an aspect of Clementi's state of mind.

(Correction of an earlier comment: the "F-- my life" quote was part of an IM conversation, so Clementi didn't see that, but did read Ravi's Twitter posting.) I took a stab at a revision. See what you think.Profspeak (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the revision that you made is much better, thanks. And I also think it's fair from both perspectives. I've made some further, relatively minor, edits, so please see if they are OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Article regression

Ravi didn't just send out the final apology. There were events before that Parker thought were important and readers will want to know about. This edit deletes the context for the apology. It also removed the original apology. The one Parker refereed to as weasley(sp?). This does not fairly represent what happened. Here is the net effect:

Five minutes after Clementi posted on Facebook, Ravi sent the first of two final messages to Clementi. The messages were sent after Ravi had been visited that afternoon by the resident assistant and told of Clementi's complaint:

"I want to explain what happened. Sunday night when you requested to have someone over I didn’t realize you wanted the room in private. I went to Mollys room and I was showing her how I set up my computer so I can access it from anywhere. I turned on my camera and saw you in the corner of the screen and I immediately closed it. I felt uncomfortable and guilty of what happened. Obviously I told people what occurred so they could give me advice. Then Tuesday when you requested the room again I wanted to make sure what happened Sunday wouldn't happen again and not to video chat me from 930 to 12. Just in case, I turned my camera away and put my computer to sleep so even if anyone tried it wouldn't work. I wanted to make amends for Sunday night. I'm sorry if you heard something distorted and disturbing but I assure you all my actions were good natured."

The prosecution noted that the apology came after Ravi learned he faced discipline by Rutgers. Prosecutor Julia McClure said that the apology was one of "many attempts" by Ravi to "dilute, cover up and explain, in other words to tamper with the facts and to fabricate evidence that could be looked on as favorable to him."

Ten minutes later, Ravi texted again:

"I've known you were gay and I have no problem with it. In fact one of my closest friends is gay and he and I have a very open relationship. I just suspected you were shy about it which is why I never broached the topic. I don't want your freshman year to be ruined because of a petty misunderstanding, it's adding to my guilt. You have a right to move if you wish but I don't want you to feel pressured to without fully understanding the situation."

Ravi told police he had not seen Clementi's Facebook posting until the next day.
--Javaweb (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Ravi Apologies

The Ravi apologies need context. They were not made out of the clear blue. That afternoon he was told he faced disciplinary action from Rutgers. Moreover, the second apology was not his initial way of phrasing things. His first instinct was to give an account filled with fabrications, perhaps, as the prosecution maintained, trying to establish a false record of events (the viewing being accidental, his texting done because he was asking for advice, his trying to avoid what happened with the first viewing).

Should the apologies be included here or in the trial article? They might be discussed in a separate section of the trial article, since the prosecution said they were part of a coverup. Regardless, when they are presented, they should be presented with full context. Including the second apology here without context makes it sound as though out of the clear blue Ravi is struck with feelings of remorse. In actuality, the context (what happened before and his phrasing in first apology) strongly suggests that all of his words are strongly motivated by an attempt to minimize his role in the incident.Profspeak (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Javaweb and Profspeak that we should either present the apologies in context or not at all. If I follow the edits correctly, the apologies are now absent from either page. I don't feel strongly about which page they should be on, but maybe there's a case that, because they are what Ravi said, they should be on the trial page, rather than here. But in any case, the second apology must not be presented out of context. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Article construction/focus proposal

Now that there is an article which deals in detail with all aspects of the trial, it may be time to consider the organization of this one. While there are still discussions about where certain information is best placed, I suspect that the trial article will never be able to exist without full recounting of the actions which took place during that period, since the entire trial hinges on those very facts. However, I don't think anyone disagrees that the Clementi's suicide has some relationship to the webcam incident, and that at the very least a summary of the incidents must be presented here. I suggest the following:

1. This article present brief summary of the actions of the webcam incidents as they relate to Ravi and Wei's role in them, with a link to the Trial article which retains the information as it once existed here.

2. We create a new section for this article in which we detail Clementi's reactions and opinions to the incident. This would comprise texts from Clementi among his friends about how he felt about what happened/was happening, reports from the RA on how Clementi reacted (and Clementi's request itself) and any other information that directly relates to Clementi's state of mind.

I understand that there would be some overlap in this new section (the "Clementi reaction section) and the old Webcam section, but it would be presented with a different focus. The idea is to present a picture of Clementi's feelings and reactions to the incident and not necessarily a fair and balanced view of the webcam incident itself. Ravi's reactions, apologies and disputes of fact would not be necessary in this section, unless they were the basis of a certain Clementi reaction.

I believe that this different organization scheme would best allow for a NPOV telling of the "Suicide of Tyler Clementi" and minimize the potential for a POV fork with respect to the underlying actions of the webcam incident as are discussed in the Trial article.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Webcam Incidents. I agree that both articles require detail about the webcam incidents, since they are essential context. One also should not expect a reader to jump back and forth between articles. Our focus then would be to provide a basic context (including basic things Clementi didn't know about, such as Wei's role), to detail Clementi's actions, and to show what we know of his state of mind. Any quote that Clementi later saw or might have seen would have to be retained. But this focus would mean eliminating such things as Ravi's reasons for using the webcam and Ravi's claims about disabling the camera before the second rendezvous.

Apology Part of Suicide Section. Yes, this indeed would better be placed in the Trial article.Profspeak (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal above would have the webcam incidents summarized, followed by details of how Clementi reacted to it (much of which would be pulled from the current section). Indeed Ravi's response and reasons and motivations would be deleted from the summary, and I don't think it would be appropriate to have Ravi's opinions/motivations in the Clementi Reaction section. In my proposal, I didn't not properly contemplate the suicide section. This article is the obvious place for the most details as they pertain to Clementi, while the other article could talk about relevant details for the trial (which would probably just include Ravi's "apologies". As you can see in the other article, the suicide is only briefly described now. But with the new structure as I proposed it, you are right that it probably would make sense to delete from this article at least some (and probably most) of what Ravi said and some of the information as it pertains only to Ravi. I would suggest deleting the first, longer quote as (1) it's longer; (2) it speaks primarily of Ravi's actions/motivations; and (3) it was reported far less than the more succinct apology. We could even trim down the second quote, perhaps deleting the second and third sentences. We could also delete mentions of Ravi leaving school and whether Ravi saw Clementi's facebook posting.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly delete the fact of Ravi's leaving school. Really both apologies speak to Ravi's motivations and can better be covered in the trial article with full context. The apologies were part of the trial discussion. They don't pertain to Clementi's actions, and there is no evidence of any impact on him. Profspeak (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have very deep concerns about this proposal. I've already expressed them at the talk page of the other article, and now they are materializing here. Like Profspeak, I think it would be a good idea to expand on Clementi's reactions, per the sources. However, we now have LedRush's proposal here to pare back the webcam material on this page, coming after my proposal on the other talk page to pare back the webcam material on that page, so we have two competing discussions about the same issue. Obviously, we will need to talk through the pluses and the minuses of the possible changes, but I hope that we will come to one conclusion, not two. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Profspeak is correct that we should try and write the articles so it is unnecessary to jump back and forth between articles. Because the webcam incident is almost exclusively the source of all details relevant to the trial (and, in fact, most of the information about the incidents came to light exclusively because of the trial), it is impracticable to delete the details of the incident at the trial article. Of course that doesn't mean that all details of the incident would be deleted here. We would need to provide the basic, undisputed actions (and just about all actions are undisputed...this was a case about legal interpretation and motivations). Profspeak is also correct that many of the motivations and explanations that Ravi gives are not pertinent here, as this is an article about the suicide. Clementi's state of mind and his reactions to the incident are of paramount importance, hence the reason I suggest creating a section of the article detailing this. As I stated before, much of this could be taken from the current webcam article, and we have other reliable sources talking about his reactions as well. Under the proposal we will have more information about Clementi, his feelings and his reactions than currently at the article (which is a good thing for an article about the suicide) and less about Ravi and his motivations/reactions. This should make both articles better and lessen the chance for POV forks. I honestly don't see a down side.LedRush (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Although Profspeak can correct me if I misunderstand, I didn't read the comment about not wanting readers to go back and forth as being a reason to really pare back the description of the webcam incidents here. But I think we actually all agree that Ravi's arguments are the kinds of things that belong on the other page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that we're all saying vastly different things. My guess is that our potential disagreement may be on the fringes.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That would, of course, be nice! But I want to be clear that I feel very strongly that this page should be the page about Clementi's final days, whereas the other page should be about the arguments in the trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find much in the present Webcam section that would warrant deletion in this article. The reader needs to get background context (including, as I noted, the actions of Wei) and to get any tweet that Clementi did view or might have viewed. I'm not bothered by duplication of the two articles in regard to the webcam incidents. Profspeak (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling that that was the case, and I agree with you. In fact, it also occurs to me that, just as there is at least some argument that readers need the background in order to understand the court case, it is at least as true that they also need it to understand what we have here in the reactions section. In fact, after the split to the other page, we may want to add back some of the reactions that had been deleted out of concern that they would reflect by implication on the trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

LedRush wrote "However, I don't think anyone disagrees that the Clementi's suicide has some relationship to the webcam incident". What LEdRush or any other armchair juror thinks is immaterial. What is important is that the court ruled that there was ZERO relationship between Clementi's suicide and the webcam incident. It ruled this (explicitly or implicitly) when it decided that suicide-related charges should not be brought against Ravi. Those are the facts, and as such, this entire article should be removed from Wiki due to the entirely unremarkable nature of the suicide (which can easily be seen when the 2+2=5 glasses of pure speculation are removed). It is possible that Clementi killed himself for entirely unrelated reasons, e.g., his mother's rejection, or, perhaps, that of his male friend's, or just because he was suicidally depressed. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it would be more accurate to say that the court did not determine the cause of the suicide, rather than that it determined positively that the webcam incidents did not cause it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it would be more accurate to say that the court had every opportunity (and motive) to attempt to connect the two incidents but refused to. Agreed, that's not to say that the two were not connected, however, OFFICIALLY they haven't been found to be. Funny that Wiki writers would decide to take the complete opposite approach. You do the site's reputation for reliability no favors by inventing connections that the court couldn't find. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Clementi parents' reactions under "Prosecutions"

I'm not sure these reactions fit so well under "Prosecutions," but they belong somewhere.Profspeak (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, both in terms of them belonging here and in terms of the fit, so I renamed the section to "Court case", which I hope makes it more inclusive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now in this section we have what is a barebones account of the court case. That is appropriate since details are given in the other article. We also have some reactions in terms of societal implications. Perhaps those reactions should be in the reaction section, or perhaps there should be a separate section that discusses what, in the aftermath of the tragedy, the implications for society should be. Certainly, the sorts of comments we have now seem to be a fitting ending. Perhaps we could also just keep these comments here as being comments that deal with the larger social picture rather than a specific reaction to the justice of the verdict itself.Profspeak (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these reactions might fit under the "reactions" section of the suicide article--under a "Clementi's parents" section (including the Charitable info now there). These reactions are not so much reactions to the verdict (which are already in the trial article) as they are reactions about the societal implications of the entire event. At any rate, I wonder if they don't belong more in this article than in the trial article. At this moment, I don't find them in either.Profspeak (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that removed the pair of quotes. It seems to me that there wasn't really any consensus to have moved them to the other page, so I'm restoring them here. I also think that it makes better sense, on a content level, to have them here and not on the trial page. That's because both comments really do not say anything at all about the trial or the legal issues associated with it. Rather, they are statements growing out of the suicide, issued after the verdict only because it was an opportunity to speak to the press and the public. I would suggest that we follow that reasoning generally, in deciding whether to put reaction comments on this page or on the other. Thus, comments about the suicide and about societal responses to the suicide would go here, whereas comments about the legal issues should go on the other page.

As I write this comment in talk, it occurs to me that the confusion about having these quotes in the court case section might be addressed by moving them to the reactions section. I'm going to do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Counts and Charges

There were not 15 charges, but rather counts. The counts refer to various activities (such as deleting a tweet or writing a false tweet) or incidents (such as Sept. 19 or 21). The charges were 3rd and fourth degree invasion of privacy, 2nd and 3rd degree bias intimidation, 3rd and 4th degree attempted invasion of privacy, 4th degree tampering with physical evidence, 3rd degree hindering investigation, and 3rd degree witness tampering. So I count 9 charges in a quick reading. Each count (referring to a specific incident or activity) may have also had subparts, such as the different aspects of bias intimidation, or may be related to different parties (such as invading privacy of Clementi or MB). Profspeak (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been following these edits, and I have to confess that I don't understand the difference between charges and counts. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction: there was only 4th degree invasion of privacy as a charge. So there were 8 specific charges, spread over 15 counts.Profspeak (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't either.

count n. each separate statement in a complaint which states a cause of action which, standing alone, would give rise to a lawsuit), or each separate charge in a criminal action. For example, the complaint in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit might state: First Count (or cause of action) for negligence, and then state the detailed allegations; Second Count for breach of contract, Third Count for debt, and so forth. In a criminal case each count would be a statement of a different alleged crime. There are also so-called common counts which cover various types of debt.

— legal definition

charge n. In Criminal Law, to indict or formally accuse.... in a criminal case, the specific statement of what crime the party is accused (charged with) contained in the indictment or criminal complaint.

— legal definition

--Javaweb (talk)Javaweb

Yes, the first definition suggests that the two are interchangeable. But the second (of "charge") suggests that by "charge" is meant the type of crime committed. There were only 8 types of crimes here, spread over 15 counts.Profspeak (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I may need to consult my attorney (joke), but that sounds to me like "counts" are the specific sub-sets within "charges", so that a "charge" might consist of one or more individual "counts". Is that correct? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well,that is how I understand it, though the terms may sometimes be used interchangeably. One may be charged with 1st-degree murder, but if one murdered three people, there would be three counts in regard to that charge.Profspeak (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need to fix what the page now says? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do, because even if "charge" is used as the equivalent of "count" (and the source actually uses "count"), the charges were much more specific than such things as "invasion of privacy." The charges or, as the source says, "counts" refer to specific degrees of each crime or to certain activities related to the crime (such as the deletion of tweets or the fabrication of tweets). The change I made is consistent with the change made on the trial article and agreed to by SGMD.Profspeak (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why a Wiki on a suicide?

Tyler Clementi committed suicide. Officially, nobody else played a part in that suicide (see verdict in Dharum Ravi trial). It has not been proven that Clementi committed suicide because he felt harrassed. Therefore, there is no good reason for this suicide being singled out as special and meriting a Wiki article. The only reason it has been so singled out, is due to the hype generated by the media. That is not a good reason for maintaining an article on anything on Wiki. I say the entire article should be removed... or EVERY suicide be recorded on Wiki, with accompanying hypothesized motives for those suicides.

To clarify... Clementi committed suicide for reasons entirely unknown to anyone except him. Ravi was convicted of "bias crimes". The two things are OFFICIALLY unconnected and not Wikiworthy. Remove the article. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it you are new to Wikipedia.I didn't mean to be patronizing by that sentence. Sorry if it came across that way. Please let me explain that Wikipedia determines whether or not to have an article on a topic based upon Wikipedia:Notability. We don't have articles on every time that someone, somewhere, commits suicide. Here, there has been so much news coverage that the notability guidelines have been amply met. We separated an article on the New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi trial precisely because the trial is not about the cause of the suicide. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I take it that you are new to the concept of the ad hominem argument representing no argument at all. Please let me repeat myself for your, hopefully, ultimate edification. Clementi's suicide was and is NOT notable. It had NO bearing on the Ravi bias trial (that's IN FACT, notwithstanding what people wish the case to be). Therefore, a Wiki article on "Tyler Clementi's suicide" would contain one line at best, viz "Tyler Clementi committed suicide on such and such a date, by jumping from the George Washington Bridge". Entirely unnotable, and not excessively reported in the media in its own right. The Ravi bias trial is only notable due to the hyped up (and entirely false) "connection" made by the media between it and Clementi's suicide. Either incident taken on its own is entirely unnotable and unnewsworthy. Therefore, unless Wiki intends to be driven by the yellow media's desire to increase ad revenue, I suggest that this precedent should not be set. Remove the article. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly that the article need to be deleted I would suggest that you place it up for an AfD discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

However there is no possibility that the result of the AfD would be anything other than Keep. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that the usual procedure? Raise an issue here on Talk and then move it directly to AfD? I think it's a simple matter to resolve this here. The article is on the suicide. Was the suicide itself notable (e.g., can you remember how long the body was in the water?) Has the suicide been found to have been connected to the webcam incident, etc., by anyone except gossip-mongers? If not, what are all those superfluous words doing on this suicide article page? May I dig out some incident that happened to Clementi years ago and add it in as MY personal view of his probable motives for taking his own life? Perhaps he dropped his ice cream once. May I add a section on that? If not, why not? How would that be any different to the speculation regarding the webcam incident's effect on Clementi's emotional state? And is it not verging on the libellous to suggest that Ravi was in some way responsible for Clementi's death? (Would it be if someone suggested that it was directly the mother's fault?) Hypesmasher (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"No possibility..." Speaks volumes. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you the honest truth. There is no chance of this article being deleted. Atleast not without a AfD discussion. Your arguments are all over the place, and makes no sense honestly.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. I disagree that my arguments are all over the place. My argument is exactly this: that the webcam incidents have not been found to have been related to Clementi's suicide, in any way, by the authorities. Therefore, I take issue with the fact that the second and third sentences of the article (following the first, which detailed Clementi's suicide) should read "On September 19, his roommate, Dharun Ravi, and a fellow hallmate, Molly Wei, used a webcam on Ravi's computer and a computer in Wei's dorm room to view, without Clementi's knowledge, Clementi kissing another man.[3] On September 21, the day prior to the suicide, Ravi urged friends and Twitter followers to watch via his webcam a second tryst between Clementi and his friend.[4][5]" I don't see why this information is relevant to the suicide. Perhaps you can explain (using facts, not personal conjecture). Hypesmasher (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the article will not be deleted. So if that is your "goal" then you are wasting your time. Your only chance as I see it to have the article deleted is placing it up for AfD and hope that someone more buys your arguments. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at this. Hypesmasher, to answer your procedural query, the question of an article's deletion is never resolved on its talk page. Except for those articles which qualify for deletion under speedy deletion rules, the discussion always takes place at Articles for deletion. If you feel strongly that this article should be deleted, that is the one and only place to propose that. Having said that, I'll give you a third opinion that concurs with what Tryptofish and BabbaQ have already told you: the topic of this article clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so the likelihood of an AfD discussion being resolved in your favor is nil. Please see WP:IDL. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BabbaQ, are you some kind of authority on here? If not, please refrain from making statements that make you sound as if you are. Hypesmasher (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BabbaQ is some kind of authority here. So am I. So are you. So is everyone else from Jimbo Wales to an IP editor making his first test edit to the sandbox. We are all allowed and encouraged to refer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and when what we say is in the policies and guidelines, it is entirely proper for us to speak authoritatively. You don't get to decide what BabbaQ can and can not post, as long as he isn't violating any policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I made no procedural query (I asked a rhetorical question to highlight the apparent reticence of others to actually use Talk for what it was intended, i.e., to discuss these types of issues). So far, nobody has seen fit to address my actual concern, which involves the legitimacy of a) A Wiki page on "Tyler Clementi's (unnotable in itself, no matter which criterion you use) Suicide" and b) the illegitimate connections obviously being made between that suicide and the Ravi bias trial. Can someone please explain why such connections should be made (in more than a passing reference) on such a page?

Again, as I see it, the official position (the court's) is that there was no connection between Ravi's actions and Clementi's suicide. Why is speculation by yellow journalists and the general public being allowed to inform the "facts" of Clementi's suicide on its (entirely undeserved) Wiki page? I'm guessing that it has something to do with a "no gay bullying" agenda. Hypesmasher (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all you made the AfD nomination wrong so the last AfD result was shown instead of a new fresh one. You need to read trough the AfD process properly before adding another AfD. Also you are not in authority here either, as your comment I take it that you are new to the concept of the ad hominem argument representing no argument at all make you up to be. Just saying before you hit a "dont throw rocks in glass houses"- argument.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically you have to replace Afd1 with Afd2 when placing the article up for AfD. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just stay on topic. This article hasn't been challenged since Oct 2010. Obviously, new information has come forth, in the form of the court's (implicit or explicit) ruling that Ravi's actions did not cause Clementi to commit suicide. This article is called "Suicide of Tyler Clementi". The very extensive article offers extremely limited information on that actual event, but copius amounts of speculation on the part played in said events by actions taken by Ravi in the days leading up to the event. Again, the official position is that none of the actions taken by Ravi caused, or played any part in, Clementi's decision to commit suicide (or, at least, that what prompted his decision is unknown). Therefore, the article, under its present title, and in its present form, is entirely illegitimate. Further, given that the suicide itself, taken as an isolated incident (which is the only way to take it, according to the authorities), was not notable by Wiki or any other standards, no such article should be permitted here.

What we have at present is a Wiki article that would be more reasonably titled "Unofficial and verging on the libelous speculation as to the motive behind Tyler Clementi's suicide". That's just not good enough. Hypesmasher (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I and other users have tried to say to you is that you can not get this article deleted trough its talk page. You have to go trough the AfD process if you want to stand a chance of getting the article deleted. Keeping on saying that the article isnt notable because this and that here on the talk page will get you nowhere unfortunatly.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why will it get me nowhere? Why won't it, at least, get me to a place where YOU either agree or disagree with me here, on Talk? Are you suggesting that I should, instead, just start deleting all the parts of the article I consider to be irrelevant to an article titled "Tyler Clementi's Suicide", including all references to Dharun Ravi and "LGBT bullying"? Hypesmasher (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikirony?

A Wiki page titled "Suicide of Tyler Clementi". The page contents focus 90% on the actions of Dharum Ravi and "LGBT bullying". Yet the page also contains the following...

"Ravi and Wei were indicted for their roles in the webcam incidents, though they were not charged with a role in the suicide itself.[6]"

"Clementi left a suicide note which, along with documents on his computer, was never released to either the public or to the defense team in Ravi's trial, because Clementi's suicide was not directly related to the charges against Ravi.[25]"

And they think the neutrality of the article may be in question?

Can you not see? This kind of political agendizing is what will kill this project stone dead.

Suggested alternative text for "Suicide of Tyler Clementi" prior to its ultimate deletion:

"Tyler Clementi (December 19, 1991 – September 22, 2010) was an eighteen-year-old student at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, who jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. Although Clementi apparently left a suicide note, it's contents have not been publicly divulged. Some acts of privacy invasion suffered by Clementi days prior to his suicide were not considered by the authorities to have been related to the suicide." Then delete as wholly unnotable in itself. Hypesmasher (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you've had a lot of fun. We all enjoyed it. You've made some sort of point, I expect. Very few people care. That's what consensus is about. You've seen it in operation. If you don't like it, as others who don't like it have found, that's tough. Nothing hurts WIkipedia. Odd, but that;s true. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How would you know how many people care or what they agree with? The way I see it, a lot of people, yourself included, don't seem to realize what this Talk feature is for. Yes, I've made a (very clear) point. Nobody has seen fit to respond to it properly, i.e., by illustrating agreement or disagreement with the point itself. I notice that your userpage says you are out of the closet and proud. Would that have anything to do with your illegitimate and passive agressive response to me? Would you rather I go away and not disturb the political agendizing taking place here? Reading that response, and the private message you sent me (please, don't contact me again), I get the impression that you think I would act more appropriately by just deleting all the irrelevant content from the "Tyler Clementi Suicide" page, including all that referencing either Dharum Ravi or "LGBT bullying" (which the authorities deemed were in no manner connected. I think you're right. To the edit button! Hypesmasher (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I know because I can see here, and at the dispute resolution that you opened, that your arguments are not gaining consensus. I am amused that you have gone to the trouble of determining my sexuality and use it as a supposed argument here against me. I would rather not that you go away, but that you reach and then accept consensus. Everyone so far seems to have advised you to do that. Very few WIkipedia editors care about the outcome of consensus, but all good editors will seek to influence it wisely and will abide by the outcome. It is far wiser to lave zeal behind when editing this organ. If you are correct then your opinion will prevail. If not, then not. Right now you still seem to be having a lot of fun engaged in some sort of battle. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

My arguments are not gaining consensus for two reasons. One, because participation appears to be limited to a very small group of interested parties (i.e., the editors who contributed to the article and me). This due to a flawed system. And two, because the very hype that I am arguing against causes people to be blinded to what is right, in favor of what is reported. People (like people who might later be excluded from a jury) have been told what to believe. They now have two stakes in the matter: a) the need to uphold the media as being fair, otherwise their worldview would necessarily collapse around them, and b) the need for their dark thoughts to remain justifiable to themselves. Basically, they've tried and convicted Ravi and Wei of killing Clementi so many times in their hearts that they need that to be true, lest they catch a glimpse of their monstrous, mob-joining, pitchfork-wielding, lynching-capable selves.

I didn't require to go to any trouble to determine your sexuality. You, for reasons known only to yourself, decided to broadcast that fact (along with your political affiliations) on your Userpage. I didn't use that sexuality as a weapon against you anywhere. I suggested that your admitted POLITICAL biases (i.e., your stated support of LGBT rights, etc.) may point to nefarious motives for interfering in an ongoing dispute resolution discussion, "helping" me to complete my abandoned (as entirely useless) AfD on the article, and thus cause my dispute resolution discussion to be closed. I make no greater a speculative leap in laying out those potential motives than the editors of this article do in suggesting, in their ignorance, what drove Clementi to kill himself. Please though, don't allow any of that to get in the way of your playing the abused minority card. I continue to seek consensus. It is a very diffcult task where nobody agrees to engage in the actual debate in good faith. Again, the question is this: Does this article fairly reflect Ravi's part in the SUICIDE of Tyler Clementi? What do you think? IS it not possible, for example, that Tyler's mother played a bigger part than she is being given credit for? And is it not possible that Clementi himself is being done an injustice by the suggestion that what he may have considered a minor slight (read about his known reaction to the webcam incident) was enough to cause him to take his life? Might he not have had a more important, more emotionally-overwhelming reason?--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Editing of absolutely no use

I disagree with the inclusion of much of the content of this article. That is, since the court (bias trial of Dharum Ravi) concluded that Ravi's actions (crimes) were in no way connected with Clementi's suicide, I feel that the inclusion of any reference to Ravi (except a cursory one to highlight media hype) and "LGBT cyberbullying", etc., is illegitimate; even, perhaps, libelous. I have tried to initiate discussion on this here. The results are a matter of record. I then tried to edit the page. Each attempt was met by a complete revision. Finding administrative help is a bureaucratic nightmare (perhaps the boffins might step back and see the getting-help system for the unuser-friendly one that it is, e.g, Step 176b: Enter this text (where it's obviously supposed to be entered, we're not going to spell it out for you) and perform a pasadoble to international standards before attempting to...

Basically, I'm a little disillusioned. It appears obvious that there are political agenda gangs busy protecting certain parts of turf around here. In the edit wars, it appears the first casualty is the usual one.

If anyone in the know is interested in doing one thing to improve this project, they might consider implementing a rule that states that yellow journalism and hype, and the ensuing orchestrated public outcry (bleating), means ZERO when it comes to providing justification for articles, and legitimate citations.

The bottom line is that the court ruled that the charges against Ravi were not connected to Clementi's suicide. Ravi's "bullying" then, is as relevant to Clementi's suicide as is Clementi's mother's rejection of him following his admission to her of his being homosexual. Wanting the opposite to be true, for the sake of your own political agenda's ends, does not make it so. As long as this article stands as is, Wikipedia is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. Hypesmasher (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are still at it I see. Please let it go.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hypesmasher, how many times are you going to repeat the exact same argument that did not convince anyone the last dozen times you made it? Please read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Let it go? Do you mean that I should stop using the Talk page to talk about the article's shortcomings? Can it be true that you believe the Talk page is designed for telling people to shut up?--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hypesmasher, consider the example of a coroners inquest: all the events of the days leading up to a suicide are considered relevant, but most especially those that contributed to stress on the suicide. If anything, the page needs more information to fulfill its title, not less. BtW, you are aware that what you (want to) smash is also short for hyperbole, or exactly what your line about mockery and travesty is, right? Onundr (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it is impossible, as a human being, not to question whether the webcam incidents played any part in Clementi's decision to take his own life. However, the court appeared to rule that they didn't (or that such was unknown and unknowable). The article though, doesn't add that information in an unbiased and measured way; it smothers the reader with the idea that the webcam incidents a) constitued an instance of LGBT bullying, and b) that that bullying drove Clementi to commit suicide. Both contentions are wholly unjust. The article is clearly, in my opinion, an LGBT agenda-furthering document. IF that's what Wiki wants, so be it.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the hyperbole, it's a joke, stolen verbatim from the Woody Allen film Bananas. Intended to add a little levity to the proceedings.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you wrote "Hypesmasher, how many times are you going to repeat the exact same argument that did not convince anyone the last dozen times you made it?" I'm going to make it as many times as I see fit and until it produces results. Only a dozen times? I plan to make my argument at least as many times as the average minority activist makes his or hers. I wonder if you make the same complaint in response to people saying things like "We demand our basic human rights!" or "Justice for all!" I mean, how long are they going to flog that, what was it you called it, horse carcass?--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's policy on the above:

Signs of disruptive editing

A disruptive editor is an editor who...

• Sticks to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end. Such actions are disruptive to Wikipedia.
• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
• Continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
• Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
• If a pattern of disruption is subtle or long-term, and informal discussions are ineffective, a user conduct request for comments may be used to document the problem and establish a consensus for a editing restriction or community ban.

References::

• WP:REHASH
• WP:TE
• WP:HORSEMEAT
• WP:GOI
• WP:WALKIES
• HOWTOLOSE
• WP:BP
• WP:FIRSTLAWOFHOLES

And, for the rest of us (myself included):

• WP:COAL
• WP:BAIT

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's really no reason to go all legal on me. I'm not gere to disrupt anything. I've made two concise arguments on the Suicide Note and Neutrality of This Article sections of this Talk page. I can't quite see what the consensus is on these issues, due to most contributing/interested editors here not offering a viewpoint. If everyone who has interacted with me on this Talk page (or who is reading this and has interacted with me, on this issue, on other pages) could please make their viewpoint known, with respect to my arguments in the aforementioned two sections, I would be very much obliged. If, after receiving those viewpoints (preferably backed up by reasonable arguments to the contrary) I perceive that the consensus is that my (actual) arguments are without merit, I will withdraw and not return. That is, if the consensus reasonably argues against my central argument, I will withdraw without further argument. I'm just dying to see what a consensus looks like here.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been following some of your comments and I think you make some valid points, particularly about the WP:BLP issues regarding Ravi. Even the judge went so far as to say that Ravi was not charged in any way with Clementi's suicide. We've never seen the suicide note so unless it's released, I really think most mentions of Ravi in this article are probably inappropriate and should remain at New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi. I still think this article should exist since it was notable, but WP:BLP trumps everything else. Just my two cents. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that I understand your frustrations with the bureaucracy here. At the same time, it usually leads to better articles. Still, the 'consensus' positions are not always right (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you in this particular case.) For example, last year I was editing what I felt was an extremely biased section of an article that kept getting reverted by multiple other editors. It took weeks of talk page discussions, an RfC, a Mediation Cabal case, and posts on the Administrators' noticeboard for my edits to finally be included. My point being that while it may seem frustrating, there are proper channels to take if you feel your edits warrant further consideration. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 00:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere New Not To Talk About This

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Suicide of Tyler Clementi". Thank you.

Keeping the bureacracy alive, one, massive, endless, frustrating, sisyphean nightmare at a time.

--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution discussion now closed and disappeared. Did I call it in the header for this segment, or did I call it?--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You put things in the wrong place, they get deleted. What's so unusual about that? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't put my Dispute Resolution (on my edits being always immediately reverted) section in the wrong place. After I started that discussion, Fiddle Faddle (and later, the DRNB clerk) decided that protocol demanded that I first complete an abandoned AfD on the article. That's ongoing. When its done, I'll be opening a new Dispute Resolution section and making the exact same arguments I made on the closed one. I have patience to wait out the protocol. What will you say then? That the AfD failed, so I have no right to open a DR section on the edit revision question? I hope not.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You most certainly did put your "Dispute Resolution on edits being always immediately reverted" complaint in the wrong place. Dispute resolution is for disputes about article content, not user conduct. This is clearly explained in the instructions at the DRN page. Reverting edits is a matter of user conduct, not article content. This has been explained to you before. We have a place where you can complain about user conduct. You were told this. Repeatedly. You didn't go there. Earlier you were told where to go to seek article deletion. Yet you persisted in arguing for article deletion in the wrong place. You are refusing to listen to what multiple people are telling you. Not only that, but you are also refusing to listen to what multiple people are telling you. Did I mention that you are refusing to listen to what multiple people are telling you? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe reporting one reverting editor in the correct place for doing that would be couterproductive, in that I'm pretty sure this reverting wouldn't turn out to be an isolated incident. If I managed to have one such reverter stopped, another would spring up in his or her place. Also, in the course of making such a complaint, I am very sure that somebody would ask why I was doing the editing in the first place, and why wasn't I disputing the content instead of the reverts. The editing and reverting was only the means. The actual dispute was regarding the 90% illegitimate content that I was trying to remove, and the fact that I was being thwarted in my attempts to do so. Perhaps, I am refusing to listen to what multiple people are telling me because I doubt their good faith in telling me what they are telling me. You are a case in point. I have no doubt that you are not acting in good faith in this matter. I feel I am being given some kind of bureaucratic runaround by a closed shop of editors who have some kind of perverted stake in this article's illegitimate content remaining intact. I wonder what we could label that group?--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An Editor started discussion to delete this article

Editor Hypesmasher has started WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi and interested parties can have input. So far it is just this edit and myself. He would like to delete this article. --Javaweb (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The discussion about the deletion is at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi_(2nd_nomination). --Javaweb (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I didn't start a discussion about deletion. I started a discussion about the potential removal of all of the irelevant information in the article. Fiddle Faddle decided to begin a AfD on the same article, promptly voting to KEEP it, and suggested that my discussion was illegitimate on venue grounds. My Dispute Resolution discussion was then closed and removed. Obviously, this issue is not to be discussed or resolved to the satisfaction of any party who is against the article's current composition. I have learned some things about Wikipedia. Apparently, it's just a regurgitation of whatever the handful of owners of the MSM want "reality" to be, and therefore, useless.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that it was someone else with the username "Hypesmasher" who, at 7:08 pm (UTC) on 21 May 2012, wrote[40] "Remove the article."? and that the administrators who run the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard are all part of a Vast WikiConspiracy[41][42] against "any party who is against the article's current composition"? Dude. You are losing it. (Start of replacement text) My esteemed Wikipedia Colleague: Your recent comments implying a Conspiracy that includes the clerks at the Dispute resolution Noticeboard appear to be signs indicating losing a firm grasp on reality. With all due respect, please consider the possibility that the clerk in question closed the entry for the reasons he stated in his closing comment. It is highly unlikely that he is conspiring against you. (End of replacement text) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is "Dude. You are losing it" civil comment. No. I'm saying that I didn't start a discussion on the Dispute Resolution notice board about deletion of the article (which is what JavaWeb claimed in this segment of this Talk page, and which I was responding to). No. I am not saying that the DRNB administrators are part of a conspiracy or that they acted in bad faith. I would guess they acted in bureaucratic faith; trying to maintain order in a kind of jobsworth manner. My claim that this issue is not to be discussed here was more based in the actions and contributions of the editors who helped to cause the DRNB discussion to be closed in favor of the entirely useless AfD procedure. Your attitude towards me (that of attempting to marginalize my input via ridiculing it and me) is a case in point.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. My comment was not civil. I apologize for any distress this may have caused you and I have stricken out the offending comment and replaced it with a more neutrally worded one. Sorry about that. It won't happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did start a discussion on having the article deleted here. It took me only a few hours to realise that that would be impossible without first having its 90% illegitimate content removed. Also, as there were no serious takers for that discussion, I moved on to a new discussion: that involving having said illegitimate content removed. Please feel free to argue the case against such removal being sanctioned.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the AfD has been closed, properly, as a "snow keep". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Snow in May. What a surprise. May I now begin a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard section on the irrelevance of 90% of the article's content?--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural nomination at Articles for Deletion

Following an editor's failed attempt at nomination for deletion (see the article history) I have made a procedural nomination, noting my own keep !vote below it. Since that editor desires a full discussion in a relevant forum I feel that this is the best mechanism to put this to bed at present. Consensus will be reached and be shown to be reached. I hope for the participation of all interested parties and await the outcome with interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Since that editor desires a full discussion in a relevant forum I feel that this is the best mechanism to put this to bed at present." And put to bed the discussion was. I want a discussion on a dispute I'm having with other editors regarding my attempts to edit out 90% of the information presently included in the article, on the grounds that it is irrelevant to Tyler Clementi's suicide. Where you I begin that?--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to decide what you want and then ask for it in the right place. First you asked for article deletion at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. WRONG PLACE! WP:AFD is the right place for that. Then you argued non-notability on WP:DRN. WRONG PLACE! WP:AFD is the right place for that. Then you argued about user conduct at WP:DRN. WRONG PLACE! The right place is WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, and WP:ARBCOM, in that order. (Free clue: don't bother trying WP:RFC/U before trying WP:WQA, that would be the *cough* WRONG PLACE!) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you heard yourself? Do you agree that Wiki has become a bureaucratic looping nightmare, and somewhere that nobody could be expected to navigate without years of pertinent (i.e., having disputes) experience? Where is the place for discussing the potential removal of 90% of an Article's content, on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the subject of the article? What is this Talk page the right place for?--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that Wikipedia has become a bureaucratic looping nightmare. I believe that it seems that way to you because you refuse to listen when told where to go and what to do in order to accomplish your stated goals.

As to what this talk page is for, it is for the purpose of seeking consensus. If you wish to use this talk page properly, make a calm, reasoned argument for whatever content changes you are proposing, and try to convince others that your position is the correct one. Free clue: you don't convince people by acting the way you have been acting. If the consensus is still against you, take it to DRN (but avoiding the mistakes you have made in the past such as discussing user conduct instead of article content at DRN). Wikipedia does have places where your claims will get a fair hearing. Alas, you will have to listen to what other people are telling you in order to accomplish anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm making a calm, reasoned argument in the Neutrality of this article section of this Talk page. As you appear to be very interested in this, perhaps you'd like to participate in the ongoing discussion there. If you suffer from a cognitive or reading disability, have someone read the words to you and explain them. Thank you for being so thoughtful as to suggest that I might suffer from such shortcomings in the "An Editor started discussion to delete this article" section. From now on, I will bear that in mind as a possibility whenever I interact with other editors, and try to remember to offer the same advice to them. I really have been remiss in that respect up until now. So, thanks again for bringing the potentiality to my attention. Only, if you do so suffer from said handicap, how will I know that you can comprehend this? Can you make some kind of sign? Perhaps ping once for yes and twice for no? --Hypesmasher (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you wrote: "Free clue: you don't convince people by acting the way you have been acting." Can you explain this further. I had been laboring under the impression that people would be convinced or unconvinced based on my arguments, not my actions. Are you saying that my arguments have been unconvincing? Or are you actually saying that the arguments matter less than how people interpret my "behavior"?--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Suicide Note

The article says:

"Clementi left a suicide note which, along with documents on his computer, was never released to either the public or to the defense team in Ravi's trial, because Clementi's suicide was not directly related to the charges against Ravi."

Wouldn't the suicide note and the contents of the computer become the property of his parents? If we can find a source that shows that those items were withheld from the parents, that would be notable. If we can find a source that shows that the parents received those items and chose not to publish them, that would be notable as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This information is only notable in the context of an article about the trial (and media and public accusations). That it was deemed not directly related to the charges against Ravi means that Ravi's actions have been officially deemed to have had no proven bearing on Clementi's decision. Since this article is about the suicide itself, the only information regarding motive that should be included is that such is either unknown or has not been made available by those privy to the contents of the suicide note. Hence my call to have all such motive-speculative information (e.g., that referencing Ravi, webcams, the trial, LGBT-bullying, suicides said to have resulted from that, political and celebrity outrage, etc.) removed from this article.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And the above differs from the dozens of other times you have made the exact same argument without swaying anyone ... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'm just now wading back in here. My recollection is that the police found something, and, for reasons that have not been made public, decided not to release it to the parents or to anyone else. We should probably go back and re-check the sources, to see if that is really what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's what happened, surely somebody must have pointed out that this is a blatant violation of their fourth amendment rights. Unless there was a will saying otherwise, When Tyler Clementi died his parents inherited all of his worldly possessions. The police aren't allowed to simply seize the property of people who have not been accused of any crime.

I did a quick search and found nothing other than the brief mention in the cite we have now. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds odd. Beyond that, I don't know. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon... It differs not a whit. What's your point? Are we only allowed to use a given argument once per individual Talk page contribution? Why not try to argue a case against that? Why not explain to me how court-ruled UNconnected events should be legitimately connected here on Wiki, based solely on "notability" granted them by yellow press sepculation and hype?--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I advise everybody involved to ignore the above as being totally unrelated to the (suicide note) question I raised. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What question did you raise? Let's see. Q:"And the above differs from the dozens of other times you have made the exact same argument without swaying anyone ... how?" A: "It differs not a whit."--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Guy Macon... The police is allowed to seize whatever it considers to be potential evidence in a crime. For all we know, the police is still investigating the suicide. What will happen to this article if it comes out that another person committed a crime that caused Clementi to commit suicide? Hmmm? And now, Scout Finch would like to address the assembled editors. Scout?--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the police are allowed to seize and hold potential evidence in a crime for a reasonable period of time, but your additional "whatever it considers to be" clause is totally fictitious. Once someone has asked for their property back, the police must get a judge to approve holding it indefinitely. If things worked the way you say, the new Jersey Police could kick in your door wherever you live, seize everything including the carpets, and keep it forever, just by saying that they consider it to be evidence in a crime committed in New Jersey. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, by "the police" I meant "the police following all legal procedure". The fact remains that it is you who seems to think that the police are acting illegally in retaining the suicide note. Obviously, they are legally entitled to, whether that entitlement was pronounced by a judge or otherwise.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Lot's of things are obvious to you, but the rest of us need evidence. We do not know whether the police have the suicide note and computer files or whether the parents have them. If the police have them, we do not know whether the parents were given copies. If the police have them and the parents were not given copies, we do not know whether the parents asked for them. If the police have them and the parents asked for them, we do not know whether the police obtained a court order to retain then or whether the police are retaining them illegally. If you have any evidence that will answer these questions or at least narrow down the range, please post it. What is and is not "obvious" to you is of no interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So much for what we don't know. What do we know about the suicide note? Only this, that the court refused to make it available to either the defense or the general public, on the grounds that it (the court) found that the events that led to Ravi's trial (let's call them the webcam events and their immediate aftermath) were unconnected to the suicide. So, there's that. Now, what do we know about the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article on Wiki? For one thing, we know that it makes a rather obvious and deliberate connection between the webcam events and the suicide. So much so, that an otherwise uninformed reader (of which we must expect many in the eternity to come) would be forgiven for quickly (after reading the first few sentences of the introduction) arriving at the conclusion that the webcam events and the suicide were not only connected, but that a) the webcam events were an instance of LGBT cyber-bullying, and b) that that LGBT cyber-bullying was discovered (via the evidence) to have been the major causal factor in Clementi's decision to take his own life. The only problem with that is that none of it is known to be true, and that all of it amounts to pure speculation, running contrary to the court ruling on the matter. I can only surmise that the editors who made such speculation have nefarious motives for doing so, perhaps, in connection with the illegitimate furtherance of an LGBT rights agenda. Of course, that being simply speculation on my part, I would never think of including it in a Wiki article.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

The first sentences of this article run thus:

"Tyler Clementi (December 19, 1991 – September 22, 2010) was an eighteen-year-old student at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, who jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. On September 19, his roommate, Dharun Ravi, and a fellow hallmate, Molly Wei, used a webcam on Ravi's computer and a computer in Wei's dorm room to view, without Clementi's knowledge, Clementi kissing another man.[3] On September 21, the day prior to the suicide, Ravi urged friends and Twitter followers to watch via his webcam a second tryst between Clementi and his friend.[4][5]

"Ravi and Wei were indicted for their roles in the webcam incidents, though they were not charged with a role in the suicide itself.[6]"

I contend that the juxtapositioning of the above information concerning (as far as we know, and court-ruled) unconnected events is misleading, in that an uninformed reader, especially one who reads no further than these lines, could easily be convinced that the actions of Ravi and Wei had been officially held to constitute a factor in Clementi's decision to commit suicide. Since it was never proven that Ravi and Wei's actions had any bearing at all on Clementi's decision to take his own life, and since the court ruled that the two sets of events were unconnected, I suggest that all references to Ravi and Wei, and the webcam incidents, be removed from the article's introduction.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The second clause of the sentence you quote says "though they were not charged with a role in the suicide itself." To me, that answers the question. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it? How about we add that you were never charged with a role in the suicide itself either? Would that be fair? We'll just stick it in there. Can we have your real name and address, for the more perfect clarifying of who wasn't charged (that's not to say wasn't involved)?--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the mother rejected Clementi entirely upon his coming out to her, but wasn't charged with having a role in the suicide itself. That should be made clear also, no?--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No. An IM from Tyler Clementi is not a sound basis to state as a fact that his mother "rejected [him] entirely." Assuming you've read the more detailed articles such as the Parker piece in The New Yorker, I'm dismayed you would state that as a fact here. Please read WP:BLP. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there ANY communication from Tyler Clementi that would serve as a sound basis for juxtapositioning the first few sentences of this article on a suicide in such a way as to create the impression that the webcam actions had a known bearing on Clementi's decision to take his own life? If not, what is the justification for it? Editors putting two and two together themselves?--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How to Handle Conflict with other Editors

I've been advised by several editors not to get into discussions about other editors, and to stick to discussing the issues. In an effort to comply with that advice, I would ask that someone else respond to Guy Macon's constant jibing and sniping, preferably in a private message to him or her. Thank you.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If you're having a problem with another editor that you cannot resolve amicably between the two of you, you're free to file a Wikiquette alert—not complain about it or ask for help on an article's talk page. (Before filing a Wikiquette alert, please read the instructions carefully and in full.) But from what I've seen both here and on your user talk page, Guy has gone out of his way to be helpful to you. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved in this "dispute" for a couple of days now. So far, I'd estimate that I've been told that I'm not following the proper procedure and/or not using the proper "form" over 10 times now, the corrections involving a different "form" each time. It seems that I haven't done anything right in all the time I've been involved in this (and that goes way beyond forms and procedures to incorrect forms of address, tone, attitude and use of information freely volunteered by others). I've been so bogged down in the bureaucratic swamp that I haven't been able to make ANY headway at all in what I set out to do. In full realization that this Talk page is (probably) not the correct "form" for asking these things (how could it be, if I have more than one question, and everything seems to have its own separate procedure and "form"?), I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway (as the fact that I have to ask, should excuse me for not knowing where/how to ask... "One Lobster Bisque please"... shuffle, shuffle, present exact cash, remain silent, wait for soup).

How is an editor who is inexperienced in the vast dispute process supposed to learn about the correct procedures and "forms" involved for different aspect of that process? Why don't the more experienced editors, in lieu of handing down snort-accompanied sage advice on what size bradawl I should have been using, instead point people like me to the place where all of this information may be gleaned at once, along with an estimate of the time it may take to learn it all? Why would an editor be expected to learn everything about that process in order to complete one complaint? Why is the system so bureaucratic? What is the point in my following advice from the obviously very exprienced, when it can also lead to my using the wrong procedure and/or form (an administrator of 5 years suggested I begin a DRNB section, and when I did, I was told I should have continued an abandoned AfD first)?

What percentage of inexperienced first-time disputers last even as long in the process as I have, and/or return to ever enter into another dispute? If that percentage is very low, don't you suppose the system is broken, and that a type of Groupthink, where only a certain kind of mindset would result in an experienced and able disputer emerging from the swampland of the learning process?

I want you to understand (and don't take my word for it, just look over the paper trail that you may find here, on my usertalk page and the talk pages of those I probably erroneously responded to on theirs in lieu of on my own, on the DRNB section for this article) that the dispute system IS a bureaucratic jungle nightmare. And I'd like to suggest that I'm probably not a person who would make that claim very lightly. Again, as this is most certainly the wrong place for discussing this, please feel free to treat it as rhetorical rambling... just bear it in mind and consider doing something about it.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the boldface notice at the top of this page that says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article"? I'll reply in more depth on your user talk page or mine if you want, but it comes down to this: Wikipedia has a complex series of norms and procedures because that facilitates building and maintaining an encyclopedia. It's incumbent upon newbies to go slowly, acquaint themselves with the basics, and show a little respect for those already on the scene. Assuming you're Hypesmasher and forgot to sign in, you haven't exactly been doing that. Try starting here and just follow all of the links, one by one. Rivertorch (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss that boldface notice at the top of this page. However, that notice didn't say anything about where I might find the page bearing the boldface notice that states that what follows is the dispute procedures degree course. Plenty of experienced editors have used this page to tell me that I'm doing things incorrectly. Surely, that represents illegitimate use of this page. Surely, there is a separate form for that? WPTskTskTsk or something? Why should it be incumbent upon newbies to go slowly when blatant injustices are plain for them to see. I came, I saw, I edited. People reverted. I have a dispute. How slow do you want me to go? Meanwhile, what are the "basics"? It seems to me that that is synonymous with "everything". I won't take your advice, because I have no faith that it will make things any easier. I've already followed advice, and all that happened was that I wasted my time. I have started a discussion on this page at "Neutrality of this article". All are welcome to input.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Plenty of experienced editors have used this page to tell me that I'm doing things incorrectly. Surely, that represents illegitimate use of this page", if you want to make errors and not have anyone explain to you what you did wrong, I am pretty sure everyone here will be glad to accommodate you. Just let us know whether you want those statements to be ignored with no reply, or whether you want them to be deleted on sight. (The latter requires your express permission; we don't ordinarily delete other peoples comments, but if they ask us to do so that is a different story). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I choose make errors and not have anyone explain to me what I did wrong, or "help" me to stop doing it at all, by "helping" me to do it properly. Meanwhile, if you have anything to say here, why not say it where the pertinent discussion on the articles content is taking place.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sentence details

CBS is reporting the sentence as $10000 to the charity and $1900 in fines (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57439063/judge-sending-message-with-ravi-sentence/). Can anyone give clarity on this? As I recall, the $10000 must go to the probationary office, which will distribute it to the charity. Also, just from my memory, the judge noted that there was a probationary fee; the judge was doing the math, but it was hard to catch. I cannot find a clear source on these matters. Is the $1900 (or $1950, as some report) a fine or a fee?

What must we do with all the reactions? Many of the previously cited names are commenting again--Dobbs, Lowder, Bazelon, Savage--in opinion pieces that are often very nuanced. Except for Savage, whose response was in a short tweet--"far, far too lenient."Profspeak (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about covering reactions. Sorry, I thought I was in the trial talk. How do you draw lines through what you've written?Profspeak (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Profspeak, you can do it with the strikethru tag, so <s>like this</s> produces like this. If you edit this, you'll not only see how I did the strike-thru, but how I managed to fake not having the tags work.  ;-) Hope this helps --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it.Profspeak (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The above faking method is great for small sections, but if you ever need something to make the tags not work on a long section with many tags, simply surround the section with <nowiki> and </nowiki>. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes in Advocacy Section

I changed the existing language in the advocacy section because it was unnecessarily vague and in some cases a distortion of the article itself. The existing reference to Lowder's article includes the phrase that Ravi "should not be blamed for larger problems in society." This phrasing sounds as though Lowder believes that Ravi's actions and the larger problems of society are distinctly different; in fact, Lowder repeatedly emphasizes that he sees Ravi's actions as an extension of the homophobic posturing so accepted in society. In that sense, Ravi could be seen as a "scapegoat" (though Lowder doesn't use that term); Ravi, says Lowder, has been singled out for something which society tends to condone, a homophobic "disease of the culture" or a "vocabulary of acts and words" that is pervasive in society. The existing phrasing is unnecessarily murky, if not an outright distortion of what Lowder is saying. More murkiness exists in the references to the Savage article. Savage, we are told, "argues that attention should, instead, be directed towards the multiple factors that contribute to a hurtful image of young gay men." The reader wonders, what "multiple factors" and "hurtful image" is Savage referring to, and how does this relate to the Ravi case? Is it the case that these multiple factors have nothing to do with Ravi's actions? Not at all! Savage calls these societal factors "accomplices" that "warp young minds." Again, Savage doesn't use the word "scapegoat," but he could be interpreted as saying that Ravi and Wei are being singled out for attitudes that have warped society as a whole. I see no reason to be so murky about what these "multiple factors" are; Savage is quite explicit about these factors and discusses them at length. It is clear that Savage is not underplaying the errors of Ravi and Wei. His closing sentence (that Ravi and Wei should not receive all the blame) summarizes his take on a "scapegoat" theme (if indeed he had chosen to use that word). I contend that the changed phrasing is more accurate and more informative of the central argument of these articles. I hardly see this changed phrasing as casting Ravi in an unfairly negative light; it simply shows the authors' analysis of the societal background. However, the existing phrasing could be interpreted to mean that these authors downplay Ravi's actions, which is indeed a distortion. There is no "non-central" weight in this phrasing. Rather, there is clarity in showing how the authors connect Ravi's actions and the societal background. The articles show how Ravi's actions are an extension of the social milieu that accepts homophobic "posturing" and often ignores bullying. These two authors' conceptions of scapegoating do not downplay the teens' wrongs, but they do examine (according to the authors) society's hypocrisy, singling out, and blindness to underlying causes. I also continue to have reservations about the undue weight given to this theme of "scapegoating." Just because an "Edge" article chose to develop this idea doesn't mean that it warrants 10 lines in an encyclopedia. But if authors are mentioned, their central arguments should be clearly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profspeak (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. (And I have to say that I was relieved that LedRush didn't revert the revisions that I had made previously!) On the one hand, I think that Profspeak was correct that, in two places, my wording had been kind of vague. I was uncomfortable with that myself, at the time that I wrote it, and I felt positively when I saw that Profspeak had made the language more specific. On the other hand, I can kind of see LedRush's point that the wording ended up having some flaws of its own. My thought is that maybe we can find some wording that is intermediate. That's usually a better way to go, and I have to say that this page suffers from too much reverting in lieu of improving the wording.

• Let's start by looking at the wording in question. I had written:

“ Journalist J. Bryan Lowder has similarly criticized hate-crime laws, arguing that Ravi's motives are difficult to know, and that Ravi should not be blamed for larger problems in society. ”

Profspeak wanted to change that to:

“ Journalist J. Bryan Lowder has similarly criticized hate-crime laws, arguing that Ravi's motives are difficult to know, and that society is "complicit" in Ravi's actions since "his brand of homophobic posturing is pervasive in our culture." ”

Could we change that last part of the sentence to something intermediate, like "and that Ravi should not be blamed for problemsattitudes that are "pervasive in our culture.""? That gets away from the problem with my wording, that I didn't specify the "larger problems", because it uses a direct quote, but it doesn't go as heavy on the criticism.

• In the second disputed passage, I had written:

“ He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the multiple factors in society that contribute to a hurtful image of young gay men, and says that the absence of such attention amounts to "a coverup". ”

Profspeak wanted to change that to:

“ He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the "adults and institutions" (schools, politicians, religious groups) who are negligent in protecting gay youth or who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice"; "to pin all the blame on Ravi and Wei," says Lowder, "is a coverup." ”

That, actually, was partly wrong, because this was about what Savage said, not what Lowder said. How about, instead, changing "the multiple factors" to "the "adults and institutions"", and changing "that contribute to a hurtful image of young gay men" to "who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice""? That replaces my vague words with direct quotes, without really changing any of the meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Yes, I meant "Savage" for the second quote.) While I think that Tryptofish's changes offer improvement, they do not include anything to clearly show Lowder's idea that Ravi's attitudes reflect the societal mileu, something that Lowder spends four paragraphs developing. I would suggest changing to "Ravi should not be blamed for attitudes that are 'pervasive in our culture.'" That would more clearly indicate Lowder's idea that Ravi reflected societal attitudes.

As for the changes in Savage, I like Tryptofish's changes, but would eliminate the "instead" and add "warp young minds" and "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice" (which connects with the "adults" mentioned and shows the influence on the actors). The cover-up addition, as now phrased ("which amounts to a coverup"), adds nothing of clarity or rhetorical force, so I would eliminate it if a direct quote is too blunt. Both Savage and Lowder emphasize that others are also to blame. I'm not sure why there is this reticence to indicate that these authors are blaming both the kids and the society that shaped them; certainly Savage goes out of his way to underscore the idea that "both are to blame." Profspeak (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. Your second group of points seem to me to be overkill, to the extent that I haven't already made those changes! Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and we don't have to go for the maximum rhetoric impact; indeed, we shouldn't. So:

“ Journalist J. Bryan Lowder has similarly criticized hate-crime laws, arguing that Ravi's motives are difficult to know, and that Ravi should not be blamed for attitudes that are "pervasive in our culture". ”

and:

“ He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and says that the absence of such attention amounts to "a coverup". ”

Can we agree that these are reasonable compromises, and move on? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK--I agree that my second paragraph argues for phrasing that is too rhetorical.Profspeak (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I thought that Tryptofish's original changes were detrimental to the article, but I have been too busy and too tired with presenting full arguments and merely being stonewalled in response to argue them. They were flawed, but they weren't horrible. Profspeak's edits did correct an issue of vagueness, but sacrificed encyclopedic voice, and violated NPOV and UNDUE. If we are going to look at compromises, I would like to look back to the articles and give this some real thought. My first feeling is that these compromises still misrepresent the original sources, but not nearly as badly as before. But I would ask for some time to review the source articles and suggest better language.LedRush (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Dobbs

I had originally wrote:

Gay activist William Dobbs said that there was a rush to judgment by gay rights groups and others before an investigation had been conducted.

Tryptofish changed this to:

William Dobbs has criticized the use of hate crime charges and what he considers to have been scapegoating of Ravi and Wei.

While this change isn't horrible, it is not well-supported by the source. My language is. Furthermore, Trypofish has used the article to support the following statement:

According to gay activist William Dobbs, around 10,000 people expressed support on social networking websites for lodging more serious criminal charges, such as manslaughter, against Ravi and Wei.

This information was used by Dobbs as evidence that there was a rush to judgment that may prejudice the process. Tryptofish has taken this out of context and it is now used to state what a group felt, removing from it the condemnation of the commentator. This change is actively bad as a misrepresentation. I would have reverted it if I had read more carefully. The solution is to restore the original language.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read your comments carefully, and made two changes to my previous edits. If I understand your first point correctly, it is that my edit did not make sufficiently clear Dobbs' objection to the rapid rush to judgment, so I have modified the wording in accord with that.

About the second part, my thinking was that there needed to be context for what Dobbs and others were saying. I see, now, what you mean about that sentence potentially creating a misperception about Dobbs' actual position, and I have made an edit to try to make that clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your changes, with one I just made, address my concerns. Thank you for working cooperatively on this.LedRush (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Lowder

I agree with Tryptofish's proposed changes above.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Savage

I originally wrote:

Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, criticized the "mob mentality" that led people to call for harsh punishments for Ravi, saying the efforts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively for Clementi's suicide are a "cover-up", blaming "stupid teenagers" while ignoring the more important role of the adults and institutions that ignore the pressures and problems of homosexuals.

Tryptofish changed this to read:

Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, he deplores the focus on "a couple of stupid teenagers who should've known better but didn't." He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and says that the absence of such attention amounts to "a coverup".

My language is not only supported by Savage's article, which focuses on society at large and not Ravi, but by the Edge article which summarizes Savage's views much as I did. Tryptofish's language introduces 2 large issues: 1.It calls out Ravi specifically, even though Savages article does not concentrate on this. This is once again taking a minor side-point and putting it on equal footing with the main thrust of the article. This, of course, violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and is simply not good editing. 2. Savage is criticial of the rush to judgment and the "mob mentality" of those calling for Ravi's head. Seeing that is the focus of the article, it is an odd exclusion. The solution is to restore the original language.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the source material: [43]. Editors should look at it for themselves, and judge whether (1) Savage's comment about "the last straw" was in fact intended by Savage as a minor point, and (2) whether I really made a substantive change with respect to "mob mentality" versus "he deplores...". About that first point, it seems to me that it misrepresents what Savage said to omit the "last straw" statement, as it also does if one implies that Savage was just saying that "stupid teenagers" were just behaving in a manner that was understandable for young kids, when Savage actually was saying nothing of the sort. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On the last straw comment, it's one line in an entire piece. It also expresses an opinion which is not found anywhere else in the piece. Quoting that as representative of his positions as laid out in the article is a gross misrepresentation of his views. Regarding the second point, your language omits a central theme of Savage's criticism...that people rushed to judgment, victims of a mob mentality. It's not just that he deplores the focus, as you've said, but he's critical of the reasons and the manner of the focus. Why change the words of the original author to change the focus of his opinions?LedRush (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that my edits made the language consistent with what Savage said, in ways that what you advocate would make it inconsistent with what he actually said. From where I sit, the wording that you advocate would have the effect of changing what he said into an argument for Ravi's acquittal, which it decidedly was not. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to come away from that conclusion based on the text I have proposed. Also, I don't know how his comment about the last straw would affect that reading: Ravi was not charged in relation to a suicide, please remember. And the argument that an idea expressed in one short sentence and not mentioned anywhere else in the article must be summarized in the author's opinions of that article just doesn't hold water. If the idea was central to him, he would have mentioned it more than once: in one short sentence at that! Finally, it seems odd to me that choosing the author's own words regarding a "mob mentality" could lead to misunderstanding of his own words?LedRush (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree does not make it impossible. Your argument about the length of the passage overlooks the way it was written and how it fits with the rest of the source. Content does not consist solely of word count. Feel free to suggest wording that incorporates "mob mentality" into the wording that is on the page now; it may be important to you, but it was a minor part of the edit as I made it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we could simply make it:

Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, he deplores the "mob mentality" that focuses on "a couple of stupid teenagers who should've known better but didn't." He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and says that the absence of such attention amounts to "a coverup".

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can make any argument that Savage's "last straw" comment was central to his article, despite the fact that it is an idea not raised elsewhere in the article, please make it here.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, my perception of the issue is not so much that it was central in the sense of being the single central point of what Savage said, but rather, that presenting those other things that Savage said while leaving out the last straw part would be, in the context of this page, presenting Savage's views in a misleading manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you feel this when all textual interpretation seems to contradict your view?LedRush (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First, all textual interpretation doesn't do that. What I am saying is that a plain reading of the source is that Savage's major point is about what he calls the "coverup". But another significant point that he makes is the one about the "last straw". To oversimplify his position as only being about the former is misleading, because the latter serves an important role in modifying the former. Taking the source as a whole, Savage is writing about a larger issue of how LGBT persons are seen, not writing a defense of Ravi, which is what it sounded like before I rewrote the passage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First, yes all textual interpretation does seem to do that. Second, you still have not presented an actual justification for why you think it's integral, you've only repeated your conclusion. As mentioned above, the concept appears no where else in his article and the concept is given one, short sentence of space. The purpose of the article is that the blame on Ravi is a coverup. By introducing this as an equal-weight concept, you are distorting the source.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the only textual interpretation doing that is your insistence about sentence counting over sentence reading. I'm not arguing for it to be an equal-weight concept, just for it not to be a zero-weight concept, which is what you seem to advocate. The purpose of the article, as Savage wrote it, really isn't about Ravi at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right. The purpose is to talk about the people who have rushed to blame Ravi obscure the real issues, so why do you insist on making this about Ravi? Do you care to make any sort of justification for your opinion on why this needs to be mentioned in the summary of an article in which the author's main point is that the rush to blame Ravi obscures the real issues in society?LedRush (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make it about Ravi, exclusively. I made it about what Savage wrote, by revising it from a version that made it sounded like Savage was defending Ravi. Savage didn't criticize the rush to blame, so much as he criticized what the rush to blame overlooked. There's a difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't make it about Ravi exclusively, but you did make it about him. You're right that the main focus is on what the rush to blame overlooked, but the secondary focus is on the rush to blame. The "last straw" comment might not even crack the top 5 ideas!LedRush (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that something should be included that summarizes Savage's idea that the kids (Ravi and Wei) are also to blame. The "last straw" quote seems to do that fairly and actually is mild when compared with the other language Savage uses. First consider the actual last straw quote--emphasized in a one-sentence paragraph: "I'm convinced that this—the cruelty of Tyler's roommate—was the last straw." "Last straw" seems mild next to "cruelty of Tyler's roommate." And then look at the last paragraph of the article. The teens "did not act alone. There were others involved in destroying Tyler Clementi." Yes, "destroying Tyler Clementi"--that is harsh language, but it summarizes Savage's import. This is not an article that in any way exonerates the actions of the teens or shrinks from describing their actions as cruel and destructive.Profspeak (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to represent Savage's opinion accurately. The article itself is a reliable source and not of independent interest. He is saying, "I'm convinced that this—the cruelty of Tyler's roommate—was the last straw." It is an integral part of his opinion. Leaving it out makes it sound like he does not think Ravi is culpable. He clearly does. --Javaweb (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I agree entirely with Profspeak and Javaweb. In fact, it's worthwhile at this point to look back up to the top of this talk thread and compare the two versions. The revised version hardly gives undue weight to Savage's opinion about Ravi. Instead, the older version conspicuously fails to convey the nuance of it, making it sound, falsely, like Savage was excusing away what Ravi did. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the opinion that this concept, which is not mentioned anywhere else and is devoted almost no attention at all, is not supported by the article. Savage devotes much time and effort in criticising the rush to blame Ravi and how that has made people ignore the larger problems in society. The article isn't about Ravi and the amended version distorts the article to make it appear as it is.LedRush (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As Profspeak pointed out very helpfully, Savage actually goes into it a good amount more than the quote here does. No one here disputes that Savage devotes much time to criticizing the rush to blame. And the revised passage reflects that. What all three of us are saying is that Savage was not excusing away what Ravi did, and the revisions were needed in order to correct the mischaracterization that he was doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But the language as I drafted it does not indicate that Savage was excusing Ravi's actions. In fact, the opposite is true. My language said "efforts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively for Clementi's suicide...". That is a clear indication that Savage still had plenty of blame for Ravi. Furthermore, my language also indicated that Savage thought that Ravi and Wei were "stupid teenagers", which is obviously a criticism of their actions. My language clearly summarizes the main points (as we seem to agree that Savage's main points were to focus on the larger problems and (secondarily) to criticise the rush to blame them exclusively) yet makes it clear that he does not excuse Ravi without putting the focus on that. The current language takes focus off these main ideas and adds undue focus to Ravi.

However, seeing as it is unlikely you will agree with my analysis, is there any way that you can think to make it clear that Savage is not excusing Ravi without adding so much information which focuses on Ravi?LedRush (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I think that the revised version includes the appropriate balance on that. If you can suggest something, though, I'm sure all of us would consider it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could respond to my arguments about how my text explicitly lets readers know that Savage isn't giving Ravi a pass. I've explained the justification for my position that my summary clearly indicates that Savage isn't giving Ravi a pass quite clearly, but if you no one articulates a justification against it, I can't guess what will make you happy.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can go into that! (1) Your original version leaves out a mere three words, "the last straw", that you now consider to be an overly long UNDUE passage, but which three editors have now said are necessary to give an accurate representation of what Savage said (as opposed, it appears, to what you wanted him to have said). (2) Your original version makes it sound like Savage was saying that Ravi and Wei were just a couple of silly kids who could not have been expected to know any better. That's not what he said. (3) Your original edit makes it sound like the "coverup" was the criticism of Ravi and Wei, when it actually was the lack of attention to the more important social issues. (4) Your original edit makes it sound like Savage's primary concern was the harshness of the punishment Ravi might face. It wasn't. (5) Your description of blame "exclusively" seems to imply UNDUE-ly that other factors in Clementi's life were the cause of the suicide. I could probably list more things, but what the revisions fixed was a change in emphasis from presenting Savage, falsely, as saying that the major problem was the effect of putting Ravi in jeopardy of major sentences, and instead presenting Savage, accurately, as saying that the major problem was the lack of attention to major societal issues. (As for making me happy, don't worry about that. I'm happy with that part of what's on the page now. I was inviting you to try to come up with wording that would both make you happy and also get consensus from the rest of us here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) That is not a reason, but it is a personal attack. Also, "although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide" seems like more than 3 words to me. (2) I disagree. I would support removal of the statement, but I put it in there precisely because I thought you and the other editors would demand negative comments about Ravi in the quote, even though I felt they were unnecessary. I was right on that matter, but wrong about how much negative information you believe is enough. (3) the "cover-up" is both. Savage argues that the attention on Ravi/Wei takes away attention to the larger issues. (4) again, Savage criticizes the attention on Ravi/Wei as it takes away attention from the larger issues. (5) Savage argues that other factors were partially the cause of his suicide. Explicitly. If you think he's not saying that, there's a really big issue. Also, my language also explicitly states that Savage sees Ravi's actions also as a cause to the suicide. Regardless, at least you've given me something to work with. I will try and craft something with this in mind.LedRush (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, writing something like that is the way to go. (You have a rather selective sense of what constitutes a personal attack.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

When you say that I have things that I wanted Savage to say and that's what I'm putting in the article, that's a personal attack. You are commenting on me and not my edit.LedRush (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd much rather be discussing your suggestions for a revision, but I feel that I am obligated to reply to that. You will note that I said to you yesterday on my talk page about a different matter, "You are right, I was wrong, and I apologize." Full stop. When I'm wrong, I do not hesitate to set things right, and to accept responsibility. Here, I'm not going to do that, because I was not wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I could not reconcile your language with the Savage article, so I simply quoted the article more extensively. Seeing as there are several paragraphs of Savage making his argument that others to blame, and that he concludes his piece with a strong statement that efforts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively were a coverup, if we include his one sentence on Ravi being the trigger, we need enough of the article to place that opinion in proper context otherwise we continue to run afowl of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Hopefully this approach, merely quoting the author, can help resolve this. Regardless, even with this issue (and a few others, I'm sure) outstanding, I removed the tag on the article because the policy is clear that the tag should not be a badge of shame. It is supposed to prompt discussion and bring in new editors. It's efficacy is debatable, but I don't see a benefit in keeping it up.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you personally can or cannot reconcile, I find it very strange to have an extensive quote in which Savage refers to MB as a "boy". Please feel free to propose other revisions here in talk, as I suggested just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we just try and use Savage's words as I suggested, while removing the reference to "boy" as you suggest? I'm trying to move forward with compromise and new approaches.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought of deleting that sentence anyway but it does constitute a significant thread of thought in his article (one for which he was criticized) so I decided to leave it in. Without it, my suggestion is:

"Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, there were "other contributing factors, that drove Tyler to such a point of despair and hopelessness that he took his own life. And this one incident of anti-gay bullying, however traumatizing it may have been (and Tyler's emails and web posts immediately after indicate that he was upset, but not destroyed, by what his roommate had done), were not enough to do it... This one event did not take a healthy, well-adjusted, well-loved gay kid and convince him to throw himself off the George Washington Bridge." Savage argued that people "need to start calling the effort to pin all the blame on Ravi and Wei exactly what it is: a coverup".

We might also delete the parenthetical as we cover that with other reliable sources in the incident section itself.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just made an edit to the page, so please see whether or not you think it helps. My reasoning is somewhat similar to what you just suggested, but instead of continuing to try to figure out what to quote directly, I tried to paraphrase succinctly what Savage says in those sentences. To some extent, I think we've both been falling into a trap of feeling like we have to direct-quote more and more in order to find the right balance, to where we risk creating a quote-farm. If you agree that I've paraphrased it successfully, then I think this may make for a good version. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your summary is excellent, and we're almost there. I also agree that we quote outside opinions too often, though sometimes its the only way forward if we can't agree on how to summarize the author's opinion. The last remaining issue I have is with regards to what Savage names a "cover-up". Our article states "and says that the absence of such attention [on other elements in society which perpetuate anti-gay opinions] amounts to "a coverup". What Savage says is "And we need to start calling the effort to pin all the blame on Ravi and Wei exactly what it is: a coverup." I still believe that my summary/paraphrasing ("saying the efforts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively for Clementi's suicide are a "cover-up", blaming "stupid teenagers" while ignoring the more important role of the adults and institutions that ignore the pressures and problems of homosexuals.") is more accurate than the current summary and the best way to approach Savage's opinion, though I do like your summary of ""adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice"" better than what I wrote on "pressures and problems". However, in the spirit of compromise, I would like to keep your general formulation and merely tweak the language which describes the cover-up. Savage explicitly states that it is the effort to pin all the blame on Ravi and Wei which is a cover-up, while tacitly saying that the lack of the other attention is a problem. You cover Savage's opinions on the lack of attention on the other issues well, but in describing the cover-up you state, in the negative, that the lack of attention on other matters is a cover-up. I think we should stick with Savage's formulation, in the positive, that the focus of all the blame on Ravi and Wei is the cover-up. I believe this is an essential distinction, and that Savage meant it this way as that is the way he wrote it, and he felt it was powerful enough to end his article with. My proposal is as follows:

"Dan Savage, co-founder of the It Gets Better Project, has written that, although he considers Ravi's actions to have been "the last straw" that triggered Clementi's suicide, he notes that Clementi's guest did not commit suicide, and concludes that there must have been additional factors, preceding the webcam incidents, contributing to the suicide. Savage says that he deplores the "mob mentality" that focuses on "a couple of stupid teenagers who should've known better but didn't." He argues that attention should, instead, be directed toward the "adults and institutions" in society who "perpetuate anti-gay prejudice", and says that attempts to blame Ravi and Wei exclusively are a "coverup".

If you disagree with my summary, I could also live with the last phrase (after "anti-gay prejudice") to be a direct quote from Savage.LedRush (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and I see good reasons for switching from the negative to the positive. How about: "and says that the focus on Ravi and Wei amounts to "a coverup"."? To move things in this direction, I'll put it on the page now, and we can modify it further if it doesn't work for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. If there are any other issues I have with the article (other than structural ones), I don't remember them any more. And I don't plan on reading the talk page to find them. I'm glad to put this summary behind us. Thanks for your willingness to compromise on this one.LedRush (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Marcus

I am fine with Tryptofish's edits to this commentator.LedRush (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)