Talk:Death of Nex Benedict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the lead, NPOV, and BDP[edit]

Before full page protection was implemented, there were several changes made to the lead that seem problematic according to various policies and guidelines. As a general matter, according to MOS:LEAD, this is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.

"poured water" / "mutual combat" NPOV/BDP issue[edit]

In some of the additions and removals that happened before full page protection was implemented, there were what appear to be news-style detail added by PLG, e.g. [1] "pouring water" and "mutual combat." Should we continue to add detail to balance this detail, e.g. what the police officer said about pouring water not giving a right to use physical violence in response? That would seem contrary to MOS:LEAD in a lead that is already getting long. In addition, and I think more critically, reliable sources do not seem to support the implication that now seems to be made in the lead that it was the water that supports the mutual combat determination. The POV implied by this lead therefore seems unsupported and contrary to BDP policy.

unsourced potential BDP violation[edit]

There is also an aspect of the lead that currently has a "failed verification" tag. The issue of whether and how to include detail related to notes described but apparently not released by the Oklahoma medical examiner was the subject of edit-warring, where I did attempt, including on BDP grounds, to remove content that appears unsourced about Benedict, but it was added back into the article by PLG, contrary to WP:BLPUNDEL e.g. [2]; in an attempt to avoid further edit war, I added the tag, and then the page got locked with this apparently unsourced content about a recently-deceased person still in the lead; my hope is this apparent unsourced overstatement about Benedict can be addressed after the article unlocks, or by an uninvolved admin before then.

the lead generally[edit]

It may be best to simplify this now quite-long lead into a more streamlined overview. There appears to be an ongoing potential for disruption in this 3-CTOPs article; less detail may be far more beneficial for providing an overview of this contentious article.

And as a general note, as mentioned in an earlier section, I am winding down my activity on Wikipedia for an extended wikibreak/retirement, and sharing my general thoughts here about these recent issues is part of that process. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"poured water" Keep the same. Otherwise, undue emphasis is placed on the three girl's beating Nex, and not enough emphasis is placed on the water pouring which is what started the physical altercation and led to the three girls beating Nex. Reliable sources that describe the physical altercation nearly always detail both the water pouring and beating. And, the bullying that preceeded the water pouring is mentioned too; an omission of the water pouring would be glaring.
Alternatively, if we are focused on brevity, we could say that Nex and three girls engaged in a physical altercation without mentioning any further details about who did what.
This paragraph is already balanced. It is a factual depiction of who did what. No where does this paragraph claim that the three girls beating Nex was justified, and thus there is no need for a counterargument from the police officer for the sake of balance.
"mutual combat" Keep the same. We do not (nor should we) state in wikivoice that the altercation was mutual combat. We attribute this claim to the DA. It is clearly relevant to why charges were not pressed, and not undue, given that every reliable source explains that charges were not pressed for this reason. If we delve into enough detail to mention the name of the DA who declined to press charges, surely the reason why no charges were pressed is also relevant, as this is clearly of more relevance than the name of the particular man at that agency.
"handwritten notes describing self-harm" Keep the same. The handwritten notes describing the self-harm are attributed to the medical examiner, and are clearly relevant why the death was ruled a suicide. The reference to the notes are not unsourced; on the contrary they are mentioned by nearly every reliable source including the Washington Post [3], and NBC [4]. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, no source states notes describe self-harm; the primary source is quoted: "Handwritten notes that are suggestive of self-harm were found in the decedent’s room by family and provided to law enforcement” e.g. WaPo. The change to overstate the primary source conclusion appears to be a BDP violation. Beccaynr (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm getting you. How about if more clearly attribute the "suggestive of self harm" to the medical examiner. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source states that Nex Benedict poured water when a verbal altercation with the girls escalated. Suggesting a timeline where Nex started the altercations is POV. We should compromise and reflect the uncertainty by changing:
On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma after pouring water on them.
to
On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma during an altercation.
Its also a silly detail IMO to suggest pouring water is the most important thing about Nex.
The point of this article is not to do a play by play in the lead of how the fight went, just the notable part; we can include details in the section as appropriate. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the opposite: It is POV (to the effect of making Nex seem more sympathetic) to not mention an important detail of the timeline which is not disputed by any party. What is the uncertainty to which you refer?
Pouring water is important because it was the first act of physical assault/violence that started the altercation. Why would we mention the beating but not what started the physical altercation? Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am undoing your revert because there is puts undue emphasis on the three girls, and there is no indication that there is consensus to do so. Because of ongoing arbitration on this page, do not revert again, as that would be considered editwarring and could subject you to a block. Discuss your objections here instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the lead:
Instead of "On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma, during an altercation."
Lets do
"On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma, when a dispute escalated."
Though I suggested the phrase "during an altercation", this vague phrasing has bothered me as well, and this seems like a useful compromise that should satisfy all parties without turning the lead into a play by play of the incident. Its also more specific that there was some sequence of events that remains unknown and invites the reader to look at the relevant section. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why be vague when we could be specific? I don't understand why this wording is better than just saying after pouring water.
Nobody disputes that Nex said they poured water on the girls. Why is this so contetnious? Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues related to the 'pouring water' statement have been discussed at length in the talk section below: Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Pour_water. As to the lead generally, I think it may be helpful to take some time to rest and reflect on the article, the reliable sources, core content polices and BDP. This is what I had been hoping to do, and I have some general ideas about lead construction that may address various concerns raised on this talk page. I will plan to try to post a proposal on this talk page in a separate section when I can. Beccaynr (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section predates that one. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, we can change this to a compromise and you can keep arguing about the pouring water idea in the lead.
Or we can avoid changing this to a compromise, we keep edit warring and reverting the phrase pour water, and you can keep arguing about the pouring water idea in the lead.
A compromise now does not mean you have to stop arguing.
You don't have to stop arguing your points, but if you truly want to add something about the fight to the lead, maybe meet halfway? Wouldn't that be nice?
And if you are able to build a consensus and show a consensus of folks that me and Beccaynr are wrong, you can change it later, while some kind of compromise is up. Or we can keep the current phrase too.
I personally want to just change this to showcase that there were events beforehand, and folks can figure out for themselves. (Clearly some folks will see that Nex started it, others will think the verbal dispute and culture of bullying beforehand escalated it.)
And the vague phrasing is just plain bugging me. The guy who removed the "during altercation" phrase was right, its repetitive, and doesn't get the point accross that there were events beforehand. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're "compromise" makes no steps towards addressing my criticism of it being UNDUE mention of some parts of the altercation but not others.
You are right: (Clearly some folks will see that Nex started it, others will think the verbal dispute and culture of bullying beforehand escalated it.)
But the problem is that we mention the bullying and beating, but omit the water pouring! The solution to undue, therfore, is to also remove reference to beating and simply state:
"On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been involved in a physical altercation with three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma."
That is a true comprimise. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is notable precisely because of the beating of Nex. We cannot remove that. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It seems notable because Nex died. Peter L Griffin (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Play by play" of the fight is not directly relevant to the notability, but if it is important to include in the lead, water pouring and beating should both be included. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will tentatively add in my compromise version since you have not yet responded. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
was going to change it back, but double checked coverage of nytimes. they also use physical alteration so reverted my revert.
a lack of response probably isnt a consensus or assent unless if enough time has passed User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the lead, to reflect various MOS cited in my edit summary, as well as the article contents, this discussion, and the discussion below at Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"Altercation". Beccaynr (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Please revert your unilateral changes to the lead. You very well know that the lead is contentious, and they should have been discussed first. Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, instead of demanding a unilateral revert, we can figure out what to change.
Beccanyr, the lead is still rather large. Can we shorten:
"On March 14, family members of Benedict released a statement about the full report, and how they did not want the finding of suicide to overshadow what they described as the severity of the assault on Benedict, and U.S. President Joe Biden released a statement expressing grief for the loss of Benedict and support for non-binary and transgender people."
It feels redundant to the second paragraph, and the part about Joe Biden probably is a bit too detailed for a lead.
How much of the full autopsy report should we include in the lead in the final paragraph? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a slight change to lead. Also added in that toxicology report was released with full autopsy report. It seems like a lot of news orgs reported on that when the full report released. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PLG from my view, there has been extensive discussion, and I have been suggesting a more simplified approach; in this discussion, it was suggested that both 'beating' and 'pouring water' be removed. I have also suggested following MOS:LEAD, i.e. developing the lead according to the article contents. There is also a discussion below about the repeated use of the term "altercation," which I incorporated. And I addressed what appear to be other MOS issues related to the use of wikilinks in quotes and attributed to a speaker, and a general overuse of wikilinks. I also addressed what appeared to be misattributed content. When I removed what appears to be excess details, this seems to be in accordance with MOS:LEADREL. I also specifically avoided issues that have been discussed by multiple editors as contentious elsewhere on this talkpage, e.g. "drug overdose" (which remains in the lead), and I did not add content from the 27 March WaPo article (which may benefit from further discussion) to the lead nor the article.
@Sawerchessread, thank you for your feedback about the March 14 family statement; this statement received substantial amount of coverage (and again after the full report was released), so it seems to have weight according to the MOS:LEADREL. And Biden has a seperate section, with substantial coverage, so there also appears to be weight for the lead. Perhaps splitting this into two sentences would help make it more readable, but it is a first attempt at drafting a summary of substantial content, so wordsmithing could also be helpful. Thanks again. Beccaynr (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He/him[edit]

It seems like most sources are now using he/him pronouns in relation to Nex. As such, it seems like it would be appropriate to update this article to reflect that. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite these sources and whether they are doing so based on newfound information or just obliviousness?
If not, then it would be undue to make any changes. The article note already cites that Nex used they/them and he/him and we use they/them for consistency across the article based on the RS cited in the note.
Per MOS:GENDERID, we use the most recent self-identification - the emphasis is on the self-identification, not on the newness of the sources.
Per this article which has direct worded quotes by Nex's mother - their mother referred to Nex as using they/them, which goes to reason that Nex went by they/them as the last self-identification we have prior to their death. She told The Independent that Nex was always understanding if she used an incorrect pronoun, or called Nex by their birth name. “Nex did not see themselves as male or female,” Ms Benedict said. “Nex saw themselves right down the middle. I was still learning about it, Nex was teaching me that.”
Also note that Template:MOS-NB up top on the talk page specifically calls out that it doesn't matter what is used in most sources, we go by most recent self-identification (in this case, an interview with Nex's mother after their death would likely constitute this), even if it is different to most sources. Raladic (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mutual combat[edit]

changed the quote in the lead to “instance of mutual combat”. most sources use quote to attribute it to spoken by the DA.

think it makes sense to keep it like that, instead of suggesting a jury has rules absolutely that it was mutual combat. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misrepresenting the question here.
It's not about whether or not we attribute it to the DA or not, but whether we need to include a longer quotation from him when we can just say that he deemed the altercation to be mutual combat. Neither phrasing suggests a jury has ruled something or makes any mention of a jury, and both phrasings make it clear that this is the opinion of the DA.
I personally find the longer quotation to be unnecessary, because the essense of it is captured by saying that the DA "deemed the altercation to be mutual combat"... I'm not sure what more we get out of it by adding "instance of" in quote marks. Peter L Griffin (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an unusual wording, which is why most sources like [5] quote it full as "instance of mutual combat" as well, so we should keep it in its completeness as attributed by RS. Raladic (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of it is unusual?
"Instance of mutual combat" seems to be a fairly unremarkable turn of phrase. Peter L Griffin (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mutual combat links to a legal phrasing. the DA has theorized that this legal concept would prevent any conviction and has refused to prosecute based on that.
but as the legal question is not answered by a jury, including a quote gives proper deference to the fact that this is the DAs reasoning and not the full legal process User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does the quotation marks make it any more so that saying the DA deemed it to be mutual combat vs. the DA deemed it to be "an instance of mutual combat."
They seem to say the same thing, and the first version does it more succinctly. Either way makes it clear it's the DA's opinion. Anything about a jury seems to be reading way too far into this. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, i see your point. I think my argument is incorrect then.
raladic is correct on his point though. nearly every newssource uses "mutual combat" in some form of quotation around it for a reason, and if we are reflecting the news source, we should include the quotes as well. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News orgs have different manuals of style from wikipedia. This is normal and expected as we have different aims and missions.
On wikipedia, per MOS:QUOTEPOV, "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred."
Mutual combat is a non-emotive concise opinion. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that makes the phrase unusual is the addition of "instance of" which can carry certain contextual connotations, which is why I believe the phrase is also quoted by news organizations with those 4 words together, they also agree that it is unusual wording.
"instance of" often is a synonym for "example of" and can carry a connotation of slight uncertainty, which especially in the context that is the whole article and it being a point of contention (whether it really was a mutual combat or not), we are better off also quoting this unusual wording as-is, rather than try to re-interpret it and ommit the phrase as quoted. Raladic (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is worth noting that a search about mutual combat on wiki shows varied results around if its quoted or not.
theres 4 bios where an MMA/street fighter is openly challenging folks under mutual combat. as both parties clearly are doing it, there is no quotes. as this is clearly not some organized street fighting we should not consider this.
there is a single instance in zac efrons bio where authorities refuse to charge him cuz of the mutual combat defense. no quotes there. of note the citation on the zac efron piece is slightly wrong and includes no phrase “mutual combat”, though a quick news search shows that other sites did report on it and also used quotation marks
and there is Hickok–Tutt_shootout which does use quotes.
i think wikipedia is inconsistent withregards to quotes here mostly because this term does not show up that often. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be quotes though per manual of style. Whether or not other articles use it incorrectly is not the point.
It's a non-emotive term, and the MOS says that adding quotes be akin to qualifying with weasel words. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reactions[edit]

hey PLG, i saw your removal of a lot of the reaction info.

I think we can include a lot of it still.. As a general rule of thumb, if there is a news site covering much of it, it should be considered notable.

I think we can subsection the reactions though and give it a bit more structure. I'll try my hand at it. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I removed involved non-notable people and were covered by only one or two sources, which often weren't reliable independent news orgs. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more over, news cites cover a lot of stuff. We certainly can't include it all. If it's a one off quote from a random guy on the street, or some random parent in a school board meeting, it's probably not worth including in this article. We already have a lot of quotes here that say more or less the same thing. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NNC, though sub items within the article may not warrant their own article right now (I.e. nobody would argue for a separate article "Federal Investigation into Death of Nex Benedict" or "Vigils held for Nex Benedict"), we should note that there are multiple articles for both the federal investigation and for vigils held for Nex Benedict.
I've added info about the federal investigation back in. We should also consider adding in the info about vigils and protests as well. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah wait, im silly there is already a section about the federal investigation. removing mine.
we should still include info about vigils/protests User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do we have reactions in the investigation section, and then also have a separate reactions section? Can we have them one place or the other, but not both? Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this entire article is a bit heavy on opinions. Much of this can be condense or elided... we have an entire Aftermath section too full of more opinions. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sawerchessread why did you just undo my last productive edit? I thought we were past the editwarring. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a mistake. apologies.
I must have started editing when you started editing. Did not realize. Will fix. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it your intention to revert my change putting Aftermath after Investigation? If so, I'll self-revert so as to not edit-war, but it is my current understanding that this was moved back unintentionally? Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, ah we do have a vigils section. Apologies!
Sigh, I guess I need to read this article more closely.
In terms of opinions, it's hard to say. I think we def do have a lot of quoting of a lot of organizations. We are also doing a play by play on the exact date when a organization responds.
I'm looking at other events though which have reactions similar to this.
Charleston_church_shooting#Aftermath has a lot of the same style of reactions. Apparently Murder of George Floyd had so many reactions, it split into its own article here Reactions_to_the_murder_of_George_Floyd... not to mention Reactions_to_the_George_Floyd_protests. There is some summarization of similar responses, but some responses warrant its own paragraph.
Some of the responses sections for similar deaths and suicides of LGBTQ folks vary from abbreviated to very in-depth. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, main pattern i see among the profiles on List_of_suicides_of_LGBT_people is that the less high-profile the suicide, the more abbreviated and summarized the reactions are.
The more high-profile, the more in-depth reactions seem to be.
In general, I'd argue that as Nex's suicide is a bit high profile, we can probably include more opinions. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this example here, the opinions/punditry/analysis from uninvolved parties is kept within the aftermath and reaction sections and not also in the investigation section. Hard facts come first. I'll edit to more closely resemble that. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard facts such as? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as what involved parties have said in interviews, what investigators have determined, etc. What some non-profit president thinks doesn't belong in that section; punditry belongs in the reactions section. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in general favour of a pass that does reduce the amount of what are essentially news article lines included purely because someone said them in favour of a slightly more encyclopedic structure. However I already see cuts that are not fully baked being tossed in. Favour the removal of overlong inclusions of material over total removal of sourced material. If a piece of sourced material becomes an obvious stub when made concise, that itself can help signal that it needs to be removed but slowly does it here. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example; a lot of the trimming done to the vigils section, in particular the quote removals are appropriate, as the edit comment says the overemphasis of certain vigils with quote excerpts was worth editing. However the total removal of many held vigils is over cutting to my eye. A "laundry list" without overlong description is a good way to properly describe the set of vigils held without overemphasising any. The new vigils section essentially contains almost none and in doing so overemphasized the ones that were not trimmed. It's one thing to cut the overlong description of the parasol patrol as an organisation, another to cut a sourced report their vigil entirely, same for the Rainbow Youth project.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, a single sentence listing vigils should be enough to point folks looking for info on wikipedia to know it exists. if they want to learn more, they can do their own research by clicking on the source User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the list of vigils back in. Here is the current diff of info removed so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Nex_Benedict&diff=1218756654&oldid=1217555592
Its mostly just rearrangement and making stuff more concise, but we definitely could move more slowly when deleting. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added back in a sentence about the office of civil rights investigation to the lead. It remains fairly important, as whatever counts as next steps in this event. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through altercation. the phrase "I was jumped" is an important headline and quote in most of these stories. Should include on Wikipedia. added some of my own edits in too.
Reactions definitely needed to be cleaned up, especially with some of the redundancy. Some were added back in above, but the pace of change on this article remains difficult to keep up with... especially as this is all just reformatting and no new news has come out. The formatting in general seems better at least, but its hard to tell what has been wholesale deleted.
13 sources seem to have been removed so far. There are also at least 20 paragraphs that have been deleted, or reformatted somehow. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sigh... admin saw my edits and disagreed. guess page as is, is alright. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sawerchessread, while Drmies is an admin, most edits that admins do are not administrative actions, and (per WP:INVOLVED) there should be a pretty hard separation. I don't believe that edit was intended as an admin action. That said, administrators tend to have a lot of experience as editors, and I think it was probably a good trimming per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps a good line is that vigils that were mentioned not-quite-trivially in two major news sources should go in? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Russ Woodroofe, thank you--yes, User:Sawerchessread, edits are usually not administrative actions. I'd appreciate it if you kept this talk page section a bit on focus; it reads like a running diary, and I can't really see what it is supposed to discuss--that's also because you keep making new, short paragraphs that are heavily indented, which are difficult to follow. A list of vigils is not encyclopedic content; "it's verified cause it was in the paper" is not much of an argument. It's like the "reactions" to the next school shooting: it's NOTMEMORIAL material.

And now I see you're pointing at other articles, but Charleston_church_shooting#Aftermath is totally on point and focused on events directly relevant to the shooting, unlike the vague "there were vigils". For Charleston there were vigils too, but they're not in the article. And I don't like Reactions to the murder of George Floyd, esp. not with the responses with the flaggies--but that Scotland decided to not export tear gas, rubber bullets, and riot gear to the US, that's actually important. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence[edit]

Because this article is about the death of Nex Benedict, it seems to be vitally important to include known information about Nex's actual death in the lead sentence. At the moment, reliable sources say that Nex's death was a suicide caused by a drug overdose. This has been established for a month now, and no credible alternative has been produced.

I argue this should be stated in Wikivoice. But even if we disagree about whether such a claim should be attributed, it should still be included in the lead sentence qualified or not. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...which they were required by state law to use."[edit]

The lead currently says that Nex was "required by state law" to use the girls' bathroom. This is not strictly correct. The state law in question requires schools to offer an alternative in the form of a single-occupancy bathroom.

Oklahoma Senate:

[The bill] requires each school to provide a reasonable accommodation - a single-occupancy restroom or changing area - to anyone who does not wish to comply with the requirement.

CNN:

Transgender students who decline to use the restroom required under the measure would have to use “a single-occupancy restroom or changing room” provided by the school.

Washington Post:

Trans students who do not comply will be required to use a “single-occupancy restroom or changing room” at their school.

The article body is similarly inaccurate when it says that "Students are legally required to use a bathroom that corresponds with sex assigned at birth". It would be more accurate to say "Students are legally prohibited from using a bathroom that does not correspond..."

Astaire (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made Peter L Griffin (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict&oldid=1219844580"