This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wiki Loves Pride This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2024.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Oklahoma This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Folks, please be careful when adding content to the article that you're not conducting original research. Original research is prohibited by policy on Wikipedia. Additionally primary sources, like the police body camera footage, cannot be used to support assertions about living or recently deceased individuals.

I've just removed two paragraphs, and a blockquote that was not verifiable to secondary sources, and contained assertions about living and recently deceased individuals. This content is not acceptable per either WP:NOR or WP:BLP. Please do not add this again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the actual video from the police body cam is hardly "original research." I don't think you understand what that term means. Quoting from a home video that the mom made that night would be original research. This video was released by the police and is available widely on verified sites. Does it make more sense to quote from some biased news site that's looking at the same video? Easy to do... there are many stories that have long excerpts from the video. Why not just add a note that you want a better citation? It's looks shady when you take down the block quote, as if you don't like what Nex said about the altercation. There are no assertions. This is Nex speaking. This is the only chance readers will ever have to see Nex speak about this event. MyMets (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, sourcing anything directly from the video is definitely OR and is not acceptable in a BLP. The video is bodycam footage not a news report or something, which might be acceptable as a source. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video itself is a primary source. Drawing conclusions from the video ourselves is absolutely OR. We need reliable, secondary sources which have analyzed the video and drawn their own conclusions from it to act as citations for our article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If drawing conclusions ourselves from the video is original research, then isn't it original research if a secondary source draws conclusions from the video and these conclusions are presented? I think it would be better to simply quote from the video without comment, then any conclusions drawn are those only of people reading the Wikipedia article, therefore not original research. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are prohibited from incorporating their own original research into articles. The creators of reliable sources can and should engage in original research. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from a source without additional comment is hardly original research, but you do you, I guess. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{[1] [2] [3]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splodlesplurf (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article currently states in the Aftermath section

  During the vigil in Owasso, some participants used masculine pronouns when referring to Benedict, and some friends later told NBC News that Benedict used he/him pronouns primarily and also used they/them pronouns.^[4][5] At the Owasso vigil, one participating friend said, "I want to start off by saying that Nex was transgender, and he used he/him pronouns" and "He was so much more than his transness."^[5]

  Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NBC article uses he/him pronouns as well, so there is a case to be made here for using he/him in the article, but I think the stronger case for now goes to they/them. If a few more RSP sources could be pulled saying he/him pronouns, there might be a solid case to change to article to use he/him. Snokalok (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. There might be a case to state in a footnote that Nex used both sets of pronouns, if the family confirm in later statements and sources what Nex's friend has said in the NBC article. But I don't see a convincing case yet to change to using he/him as the primary pronouns in the article for Nex. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for holding the family’s perspective above the friends? Is there a rule that says the families perspective is most important in the case of deceased individuals on Wikipedia? I believe other articles we use pronouns commonly used by friends or community. In reality, trans editors know that it’s likely the friends knew the correct pronouns, and that the family did not. Gay.cat.dad (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely this is something to keep an eye on but as others have said we need to wait and see how this develops before we can make a change. Importantly, as it stands, it still seems we're using pronouns which Benedict found acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A USA Today source, "Death of Nex Benedict did not result from trauma, police say; many questions remain," updated on Feb 26, 2024 includes Nex, a sophomore at Owasso High School, used they/them and he/him pronouns and identified as gender expansive, an umbrella term that describes people whose gender identity expands beyond traditional gender norms, according to the National Institutes of Health. Also, The Oklahoman, "FBI investigating threats against Oklahoma school after death of Nex Benedict, police say" (updated Feb. 24, 2024) states Nex used the pronouns they/them and he/him. Beccaynr (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's enough I think to add a pronoun footnote. Not sure what we want to use for the primary pronouns here. I think we've still got more sources that use they/them than he/him, though using he/him could help us avoid some potential singular versus plural issues where we need to refer to both Nex and Sue in the same paragraph or section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance if I offend anyone—something that appears to be inevitable when wading in these bogs. This is obviously not a clear-cut situation, and the insistence on anyone " gender", set of " personal pronouns", or names seems factually inaccurate, the result of a misguided-if-well-intentioned application of Wikipedia's guidance. As the NYT reported, emphasis mine: "The student, Nex Benedict, who often used the pronouns they and them, told relatives that they did not see themselves as strictly male or female". At the same time, it's clear that Benedict's own family referred to Benedict as female and by her female birth name, in everything from a 911 call and police interview] to Benedict's obituary, funeral, and fundraiser. Indeed, I'm unable to find any examples of Benedict's mother or other family referring to Benedict as "they" or even "Nex" prior to Benedict's death. While activists are predictably attempting to censor putative "dead names" and "misgendering", there appears to be no evidence that Benedict considered the use of female pronouns or given name to be anything of the sort. The Wikipedia standard appears to be "the person's most recent expressed self-identification"—not, it's worth noting, "pronouns which [the person] found acceptable". Here, it seems that Benedict went by multiple names, more than one and/or no "gender", and at least a few sets of "personal pronouns", including "she", "they", and possibly "he". In Benedict's last documented appearance of which I'm aware, Benedict is consistently and exclusively referred to as "she", a "daughter", and her female birth name. While that episode may not, strictly speaking, include Benedict's "self-identification", Benedict clearly doesn't object to or attempt to correct the consistent use of female terms and birth name. My question: in the absence of a clear "most recent self-identification", who exactly is harmed if all the various "genders", "personal pronouns", and names used by Benedict and other are included—as well as any controversy over their use? Certainly not Benedict. Indeed, it appears the only people who are (or ever were) up in arms about this are activists, who obviously have a strong interest and stake in what "gender identity" is ascribed to Benedict and treat the use of a supposed "deadname" as if its imbued with some talismanic, voodoo-like ability to cause great harm, in this case to a dead person who never, at least as far as we know, took issue with it. Ekpyros (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

As to sources, there are a variety that discuss family recognition e.g. "Nex Benedict mourned by hundreds in Oklahoma City vigil: 'We need change'" (USA Today, updated Feb. 26, 2024) Nex, who went by the pronouns he/him and they, them, and was part of the LGBTQ+ community, their friends and family have said. If there is a larger concern related to MOS:DEADNAME/MOS:GENDERID generally, the talk page of that guideline is likely a more appropriate forum for discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about respect, names change, pronouns change, this shouldn't be political. I have a deadname, referring me by it causes me discomfort, please do not speak over people like me. Splodlesplurf (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as another example of many available sources describing family members and their recognition of pronouns/gender identity: Nex Benedict: What we know about death of Oklahoma teenager (BBC, today, "I hope this ain't from her head," [Sue Benedict] said [during the emergency call]. [...] She later said in an online post that she had still been getting used to using Benedict's preferred they/them pronouns). And the Independent has coverage of family members discussing respect, understanding, teaching, and learning. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if more sources using they/them pronouns is as important as correct information. The nbc article citing he him pronouns was really clear and more recent. Gay.cat.dad (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that a preponderance of sources is neither a guarantee of nor a substitute for accuracy. Wouldn't it make sense to clearly state that different people in Benedict's life referred to Benedict by different genders/pronouns? I think it's worth noting Benedict's mother's apology. And in the interest of accuracy, wouldn't it be better to not use any pronouns in Wikivoice, given the unresolved question about which Benedict preferred and/or the fact that Benedict would appear to have been comfortable with several? Ekpyros (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable sources, there does not seem to be uncertainty and doubt to such a degree to warrant removal of all pronouns. I think we can examine whether secondary sources find the initial coverage and apologies significant to this event before inclusion of such information is considered; in the meantime, the primary coverage about what was said initially and follow-up clarifications/apologies seem to further support the specific discussion here being about how to apply MOS:GENDERID with available reliable sources discussing they/them and he/him pronouns. Beccaynr (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that removing pronouns entirely is unnecessary and makes the articles somewhat difficult to read. It's clear that he used he or they pronouns and that it was important to him, so why remove them? Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in the interest of accuracy, wouldn't it be better to not use any pronouns in Wikivoice Typically in cases where a person uses mixed pronouns, we note all of the pronouns the person uses, and then pick one for article consistency. So far we have sources for they/them and he/him as pronouns that Nex used, and we're currently using they/them in the article. This all seems well within the norms for this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

So, the title here might be slightly deceptive.

"Legislation under consideration for the 2024 session includes new curriculum for public schools to describe gender as an "immutable biological trait," a ban on changing "sex" on birth certificates, and a requirement for school employees to use pronouns and names for students based only on birth certificates."

I agree that the info is notable to the environment present at the time, and is more or less stated as such in the cited RS, but I'm wondering if we could connect it in text so that the reader understands that it's notable to the situation and not just being tacked on. Snokalok (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to developing encyclopedic content based on the WP:WEIGHT of available sources, it appears multiple independent and reliable news sources discuss various current laws, policies, and administrative actions, as well as various items of proposed legislation, as relevant context/background related to this event. Many of these sources are cited in the Background section, and I am not sure what else to add in that section beyond a summary.

In the Reactions section, there is further content about advocacy organizations and their statements; however, various sources do not seem to only be attributing mention of the context to advocacy organizations. Overall, inclusion of some background information about the current laws/policies and proposed laws/policies seems supported in the Background section, with further detail supported in the Reactions section. Beccaynr (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I don't know if it fits into the background section of this article though. It would certainly be on topic for transgender rights in Oklahoma, but I'm not so sure pending legislation is really part of the background for this article. The already passed legislation requiring students to use the bathroom based on their assigned sex at birth is certainly on topic, given the series of events as we currently understand them.

I'm also concerned about some content that was added to the background section that's repeating content that was already present in the reactions section. Do we really need to say in two places that Walters appointed Raichik to the state library committee? Or that Raichik was responsible for one of the teachers Benedict admires leaving their role at Owasso High School? The content detailing the appointment of Raichik, and the targeting of a teacher at the school really should only appear in one section. I'm somewhat minded to remove it from the background section, as it's better framed towards the topic of the article in the reactions section. But I wanted to see what others think first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the weight of multiple secondary sources describing relevant context should help determine inclusion; it appears that there are multiple RS that describe the laws and policies, including the proposed legislation, as relevant background. Perhaps the Reactions section could be adjusted according to the weight of sources if repetition is a concern; it may also be worthwhile to note the POV described in the article about 'politicization,' perhaps as if it is only advocacy organizations noting a connection, while a review of various RS indicates that this does not appear supported by the sources. I think we should stick to the sources and be particularly mindful of NPOV for this contentious issue. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources and the content in the Reactions section appeared to be written more broadly than the references supported, so I adjusted it and also removed content that appears to be presented only by the news source as background content. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it may also be worthwhile to note the POV described in the article about 'politicization,' perhaps as if it is only advocacy organizations noting a connection That was certainly the case as of the 21 February, when I last looked at the sourcing surrounding the overall state legislation and the actions of Walters in substantial detail when helping to write some of the content in that section. Has that since changed? Are the balance of sources now asserting that independently of the criticisms from advocacy and activist organisations? If that is the case, then I have no issues here other than the duplicative content.

I think we should stick to the sources and be particularly mindful of NPOV for this contentious issue. I 100% agree. My concern, based on when I last read the sources for this aspect, is that the content to the background section yesterday went against NPOV, because when I last read the sources in detail on the 24th it was only activist and advocacy groups who were establishing that link. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think based on the sources cited in the Background section, there appears to be a substantial focus by news RS on context not attributed to advocacy groups. Some were published after 24 Feb, and many added after 24 Feb. Overall, I expanded the Background section because as I researched, multiple RS appear to focus on laws/policies, as well as Walters and Raichik. After multiple sources seemed to independently emphasize this, it seemed appropriate to include a summary as background. Beccaynr (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah that'd explain it then. We wrote that content on the 21st (not 24th, my memory is awful and I have no sense of time), and the sourcing then put the focus on the advocacy groups drawing the connection. Cool, if the sources now make it more part of the background information, rather than aftermath criticism, then yeah it does make more sense for it to be in the background section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to phrase my thoughts here, but does anyone else feel that a photo of the deceased is unnecessary? This was a private individual whose very tragic death became a matter of public interest—is their portrait necessary? I am in favor of erring towards privacy for the deceased, and I don't see how a photograph of Nex is necessary for an article that is about their death and its aftermath, not about Nex themselves. The article's text is not really supplemented by the image, in my view—Nex themselves is not the notable topic.

To put my angle more succinctly: I feel that people have a right to be private. Non-public figures (especially children) should be assumed to have preferred their privacy. This article is not meaningfully supplemented by the portrait of Nex. And since Nex did nothing to ask to become associated with an event of public interest and notability, their normal right to expectation of privacy should be maintained.

Any opinions on this? Zanahary (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was the image in the infobox is a version of the widely-distributed image of Nex that helps make this article quickly identifiable to readers, but I also think your question raises issues related to WP:BLP policy generally, both in how the policy may apply to people who are recently-deceased and to minors. WP:BLPIMAGE warns against using images out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light, particularly including images from situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Another section of BLP policy addresses content related to People who are relatively unknown, with an emphasis on focusing on high-quality secondary sources and only using sources published by the subject with caution. This image is sourced to the Associated Press, although the image could have been sourced to other news outlets. Overall, I do not think it is unusual to include a BLPIMAGE-compliant image of a subject in an event article about their death, even when they are a minor, when they have been a focus of substantial national and international media attention in independent and reliable sources after their death. Beccaynr (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that since Nex is outdoors in the image and, furthermore, is looking at the camera, they expected to be photographed, so there is no privacy issue in using that image to visually identify the deceased. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nex certainly did not expect the photo to be published Zanahary (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source that he did? I agree that the photo shouldn't be used unless permission is granted by the surviving family members, otherwise it's quite possible that we're actively harming those same relatives. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AP image used in the article has a caption that includes "(Sue Benedict via AP)" (image 17 of 17), and I generally recall reviewing sources indicating this image was provided by Sue Benedict to news outlets. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia’s using this photo follows reliable sources and apparent permission given to said sources, but there’s a spiritual difference between allowing a news agency to use a photo of your sadly deceased child, and clearing it for use on an encyclopedia, given that news is fleeting while an encyclopedia is permanent. Zanahary (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I do not like the use of quotes around the phrase "radical left" in this article because scare quotes are unprofessional and it implies that the "radical left" does not exist. I'm not saying the term is always properly applied, but that is true of every term. There is nothing wrong with using the term in Wiki voice in this context. We are saying "Walters blamed this on the radical left." We are not saying "the radical left was involved." Putting the qualifier "Walters said the radical left did this" makes use of the term without scare quotes completely legit. Thank you for hearing me outMagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

The use of quotes in the article for statements by Walters are direct quotes, and it seems contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE policy to present Walters' opinion about the existence of a 'radical left' as a statement of fact, i.e. as if Walters blames a clearly discernible entity that Wikipedia says exists. Walters is quoted in the article as describing the open letter calling for his removal as "a standard tactic of the radical left" and also using the phrase during an interview with The New York Times. "Radical left" also appears to be a contentious term in contemporary American politics, so it seems we should be exercising caution and using quotes from Walters for this contentious terminology. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC) - update comment to clarify/specify Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be contentious as to whether a radical left exists. Communists, anarchists, Maoists, Leninists, Stalinists, lesbian separatists, etc. etc. are all variations of radical leftists and they exist. Wikipedia has many articles about each one. The issue is not whether such people exist, it's whether the term "radical leftist" is applied correctly and I think that, with qualifiers, we should be able to use the term when describing Walters' opinion without resorting to scare quotes.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

We are not saying "Walters is totally correct that everyone who cares about trans people is a radical leftist." We are saying "This guy considers some stuff the work of radical leftists.".MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

To clarify, are we specifically discussing a proposal to remove a direct quote from Walters and replace it with Wikipedia's voice (that may or may not reflect the meaning of Walters' opinion) and a wikilink to Far-left politics [13], as well as a removal of a direct quote from Walters [14] stating his opinion in response to the open letter about the existence of "radical leftist tactics", and replacing it with a Wikivoice statement of fact about the existence of radical leftist tactics? Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial idea.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Courtesy ping GorillaWarfare, who restored a Walters quote [15]. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any use of such a specific and contentious label should be carefully attributed and put in quotes. We need to be careful about WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV. Hist9600 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This needs to remain as a direct quote from the individual, so it's clear that it's their opinion and nothing more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed that the quotes need to remain; otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia is describing those who have been raising concerns over Benedict's death as radical leftists. I think the concern about scare quotes would be alleviated by providing a more complete quote rather than breaking it into very small quoted portions. Compare: He called Benedict's death "a tragedy" and said "radical leftists" had "decided to run with a political agenda" and "some folks" had tried to exploit Benedict's death for political gain. to something like Walters stated, "I think it’s terrible that we’ve had some radical leftists who decided to run with a political agenda and try to weave a narrative that hasn’t been true. ... You’ve taken a tragedy, and you’ve had some folks try to exploit it for political gain." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the second version is not only more legible, it makes the attribution clearer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we've got another secondary source also highlighting those two quotes (The Advocate). When I expanded the content from when it had been based on the Pink News source, I was probably overthinking the "You've" and readability. But I do think for contentious content, it is better to use direct, attributed quotes. Beccaynr (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article that I think reflect this discussion, by adding the quotes as well as the additional source. Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that quotation marks are being used excessively in the Death section. Here are some excerpts from the article:

Nex had complained about the three girls not "leaving them alone", including "calling them names" and "throwing things at them".

Nex told the officer that they had been "jumped" in the school bathroom, and described details of the altercation, including that they "blacked out" while on the ground.

The excessive use of quotation marks in these sentences seem to imply a lack of credibility; I believe that these quotation marks should be removed. Cobblebricks (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider changing "jumped" to a fuller quote "I got jumped." e.g. Oklahoman, Advocate. "Blacked out" is also reported as a quote, e.g. ABCAudio "I blacked out"; New York Times ("...described how they “blacked out” while being beaten on the floor of the bathroom by three girls who had previously mocked Nex and their friends..)"'; People ("Nex told the officer they had “blacked out” during the fight.").

Removal of the quotation marks would generally seem to place these types of quotes in WP:WIKIVOICE, instead of the voice and perspective of the speaker. According to MOS:QUOTEPOV, Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. In the context of the full section, "jumped" and "blacked out" are introductory and further expanded on in the next paragraph in a summary style, so perhaps more robust sourcing could help address credibility concerns from the introductory use of Benedict's words. Beccaynr (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources and swapped out a reference for the line with the "jumped" and "blacked out" quotes from Nex [16]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also expanded "jumped" to "I got jumped", with sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second concern raised, the full line in the article is Sue said in the week before the incident, Nex had complained about the three girls not "leaving them alone", including "calling them names" and "throwing things at them". followed by three sources. I notice the Oklahoman source I recently added to the article quotes Sue in context saying "[Nex] said mom, these three girls there, they're making comments, they're calling us names, they're throwing stuff at us." Beccaynr (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded this part into a full quote - after a review of sources, the content in quotes appears to have been from a news source, not directly from the speaker. Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is excessive use of quotation marks in the article around single words and very short (e.g. two-word) ordinary phrases. In many cases there is already a statement saying this is a description of what someone said. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific concerns about specific words or phrases in the article? Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct city name spelling in 2 places. Correct spelling is Owasso. Mmwomack (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beccaynr (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a fair amount of back-and-forth editing related to the first sentence of the lead, based on whether to add detail from the summary autopsy report recently released from the Oklahoma medical examiner. MOS:LEADSENTENCE includes Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

From my view, I think a chronological approach works well for this article, because information developed over time; by not including contentious summary report information in the first sentence, the lead can continue to reflect the overall article, and how this information emerged after some time had passed after Benedict's death. The first sentence also seems 'overloaded' with a detail that is already in the remainder of the lead, with context such as the date of when the summary information became known. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think there may be WP:WIKIVOICE issues if we incorporate the opinion of the summary report from the medical examiner into the first sentence of the lead in Wikipedia's voice. We have breaking news about a summary report with probable findings, and a full report expected March 27. According to NPOV policy, I think for now, we should only summarize and attribute the source we have, and then wait for further sources (including after March 27) to develop before we consider adding Wikivoice statements. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is still very WP:RECENT, and we need to be careful about putting it in wikivoice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the recency concerns, but I also think barring a major change in reporting it wouldn't be a problem to include it in a couple of weeks or so. No source seems to hold any doubts concerning the report, though of course that could change after the publication of the full autopsy. XeCyranium (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I don't know if my last comment is too focused on potential future problems, as long as there's no contention against the finding of them having committed suicide I think it'd be okay to include in the lead sentence. I mainly say that because the sentence as it is now already mentions they died, it just leaves the cause unknown which we drop at the end of the lead instead. XeCyranium (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going WP:CRYSTAL, I wouldn't be shocked if family contests the finding and requests an independent autopsy, something that's happened several times in contentious deaths. So I think this will evolve more over the next few weeks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable news outlets only seem to be attributing the probable cause to the summary/preliminary report from the state medical examiner; I think we should be careful to not try to independently assess the report as a way of supporting removal of the widely-reported attribution and substitution of the use of WP:WIKIVOICE. Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, a statement was released today by an attorney on behalf of Benedict's family, saying the finding of suicide is not disputed AP News. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the family issuing a statement, I made the WP:BOLD change to include the manner of death in the lead sentence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADSENTENCE suggests that the most relevant (up to date) information belongs in the first sentence of the lead, with the rest spread out over the following paragraphs (not the other way around). In terms of the chronology of events, the last thing that happened prior to the death was reportedly an OD, so I'm unsure why we wouldn't want to include that in the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc Agreed. —Of the universe (say hello) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is the 'excess detail' and wikivoice issues - the summary report says 'probable' combined toxicity, and that qualification would be needed in the first sentence, as well as an attribution so we don't overstate the probable summary finding from the medical examiner in Wikipedia's voice. This seems excessive and undue detail for the first sentence; and the summary finding is already in the remainder of the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr By that same logic is it not even more undue to bring up the altercation in the first sentence? —Of the universe (say hello) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The altercation aspect is an extensive part of the article and widely reported on for weeks; per MOS:LEAD, it seems clearly due to include; news reports also often describe an 'altercation' when introducing articles related to Benedict. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from better now. Still, the probable cause of Nex's death is not really a detail, it is very central to the topic. —Of the universe (say hello) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the summary report is described in the lead, stated chronologically in a way that reflects the overall article per MOS:LEAD, and currently attributed to the medical examiner, not in wikivoice. And as to whether this is central to the topic, the sources will guide this; as the sources and article develop, the lead can continue to develop; right now, this is breaking news. Beccaynr (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronologically, Nex had an altercation, then they likely overdosed, then they died. What you're proposing isn't chronology of the death, it's chronology of information being released. That type of "chronology" privileges inaccurate breaking news reporting over robust, slower reporting.

My issue with the lead as it currently stands is that the juxtaposition of the death and the altercation does seem to imply a relationship between the two. This juxtaposition is stated in the first sentence and then repeated in the last sentence of the first paragraph: "they were beaten by three girls...and Benedict died the following day." A casual reader would likely infer that the beating caused the death. It's therefore worth mentioning early in the lead, if not in the first sentence, that the cause of was ruled a likely suicide, and not a direct result of the fight.

Due weight: Many of the cited sources, including those from before the preliminary autopsy was released, bring up the fact that police do not believe Nex died from trauma early in the article, e.g. "Nonbinary Teen Nex Benedict Dies After School Fight".

A possible rewrite:

Nex Benedict (January 11, 2008 – February 8, 2024) was a 16-year-old non-binary American student who died the day after an altercation at their high school on February 7, 2024. Although initial reporting suggested that Benedict died from head trauma, on March 13th, a medical examiner ruled Benedict's death a probable suicide.

According to their mother and friends, Benedict had experienced bullying from students due to their gender identity for more than a year before their death. Benedict told police they were beaten by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma on February 7. Benedict died the following day. —Of the universe (say hello) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not seem to include support for 'initial reporting suggested Benedict died from head trauma.' The article has long included reporting stating otherwise, e.g. police statements based on initial findings not suggesting a cause of death from injuries sustained during the altercation. This also seems to be potentially excessive detail for the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Fair enough re: what exactly initial reporting said, my point is that concise and up to date information about the cause of death can and should be included at the very beginning of the article, as is the case with many reliable sources on this topic. —Of the universe (say hello) 15:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor made an update to the first sentence of the lead while this discussion was pending, and I edited the language for neutrality. As a follow up, I had meant to note language such as "Although" is also discouraged by NPOV policy and the corresponding MOS about editorializing. Beccaynr (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Thanks. I'm not really advocating for that specific sentence. I'm advocating for information about cause of death in the first sentence of the article--- or if the cause is unknown/disputed enough that it needs additional context or nuance, then the second sentence. —Of the universe (say hello) 21:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, I think the current issue is more that we are dealing with breaking news, a summary report from a state medical examiner, a statement by an attorney issued on behalf of unidentified family members, and a wide array of news reports citing the autopsy results - we're moving ahead with a declaration of fact in WP:WIKIVOICE when reliable news sources do not seem to be putting this information into their own voice. This should perhaps give us pause, in addition to the ongoing editing dispute, and the three contentious topic designations that apply to this article.

According to MOS:LEAD, this article seems to mostly be about Benedict's death, the investigation, responses, and reactions; the coverage mostly pre-dates the summary report. I am still thinking on this and considering my opinion - I was surprised to see the bold change happen earlier today while this discussion was pending; I am still not sure if we should be in a rush to change the first sentence based on the currently available sources. WP:BDP also applies, so I think we should also be considering the sufficiency of sources for contentious content about recently-deceased people. Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikivoice, that's reasonable. I think a good solution then is to put cause of death in the second sentence in order to have a complete sentence that includes the attribution to the medical examiner.

Re: Second paragraph, it's true the article includes a lot of sourcing that came out before the medical examiner report was released. Imo, the lead should still emphasize the most up-to-date probable cause of death which is important context for all the other information in the article.

There is clear due weight for the early inclusion of cause of death because the majority of reporting, including reporting from before the examiner's report, includes early mention of what is known about the cause of death. Therefore the wikipedia article should also include up-to-date info about cause of death early in the article, and said up-to-date information is that the death was ruled a probable suicide by the medical examiner —Of the universe (say hello) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice back-and-forth editing has continued - the disputed content that was added without consensus while the discussion was pending was removed again [17], and then restored with an edit summary indicating the disputed, contentious content is contentious [18]. Given the ongoing dispute about inclusion of this contentious breaking news in the first sentence of the lead, perhaps it would be better to remove the disputed content until consensus is obtained for inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that's reasonable. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As more reports have come out, I think it is time to refer to Benedict's death as a suicide in wikivoice within the first couple sentences of the article. A quick survey of recent news has all sources mentioning suicide in the first paragraph, and the majority of sources referring to the death as a suicide in the author's voice. Some sources continue to caveat that the death was ruled a suicide.

Calls the death a suicide in author's voice

• New York Times^[1]
• USA Today ^[2]
• NBC News ^[3]
• CNN ^[4]

Says the death was ruled a suicide

• NPR ^[5]
• The Guardian ^[6]

(method: I saw the article in the New York Times, and then did a google search and clicked on the first 5 news links) —Of the universe (say hello) 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in waiting until the full autopsy report is released next week, there's no rush after all. At present we only have the cover sheet from the ME, plus an extract of the draft report released by the family. Let's wait until the final report is released, that way we can be sure that the information we're including is accurate and not something that has been taken out of context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo on March 20: "their apparent suicide in February"; and I have been adding sources about advocacy groups calling for an independent investigation, as well as noting the language used by the Tulsa County DA in their March 21 statement; previously, family members have indicated through their attorney that they do not wish for the medical examiner's finding of suicide to overshadow the other findings.

Overall, this appears to be an WP:NPOV issue, and I think we should be taking particular care according to WP:BDP with a topic that is within 3 contentious topic areas before we rush to include still-developing, sensitive, politicized news in the first sentence of the lead that is based on primary sources from a medical examiner, police invesitgation and prosecutor statement, particularly one that has recently indicated a refusal to release underlying evidence and where in response, independent investigations have been requested. There is no indication that any news source has made their own finding of suicide.

Ultimately, similar to the discussion below about the title, this article has developed because of the event of Benedict's death, and the neutral way to describe this event, particularly for now and likely for awhile, appears to be chronologically as this event has developed and continues to develop. I think even after the release of the full medical examiner report, further discussion will be warranted about whether to update the lead sentence based on available sources, the applicable MOS, NPOV, and WP:NOT. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears some breaking news sources about the DA announcement are focusing on 'the death of Nex Benedict', e.g.

Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is this secondary coverage, e.g. What we know about Nex Benedict, the non-binary teen who died after altercation in school bathroom (CBC, Mar. 27, 2024):

The death of non-binary Oklahoma teen Nex Benedict has become symbolic of the fears expressed by 2SLGBTQ+ people in the U.S. — that hateful rhetoric and restrictive legislation targeting transgender and gender non-conforming people will have tragic consequences. [...]

The state's Medical Examiner's Office is due to release its full autopsy report Wednesday, but a previously-released summary indicated Nex died by suicide and not as a result of injuries sustained in the altercation. There are many lingering questions and criticisms about that assessment, the investigation into Nex's death and the events surrounding it.

I think the article overall and secondary sources like this, per MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV, weigh against a rush to change the first sentence. The event of Nex's death was notable before the release of the report, summary or otherwise, so promotion of a recent contentious primary source over the weight of the article content and reliable secondary sources seems undue and contrary to NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page moved? Especially without first seeking a discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RMUM, there was no reason to discuss. There are plenty of pages of individuals whose only notability is their death (suicide) and are named Suicide of [...]. (a quick wiki search will confirm this). The BOLD move seems entirely uncontroversial. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullying and suicide
• List of suicides attributed to bullying
• Fenwick, Ben (14 March 2024). "'Death by bullying' — teen's suicide finding elicits anger and sadness among Oklahoma's LGBTQ+ community". The Advocate.

The social context is that there is a hatemonger demographic which encourages bullying as a way to oppress gay youth, and when they apply this tactic, they declare themselves blameless for the suicides that are the inevitable outcome. Saying only "suicide" without giving context takes the pro-bullying side by making this out to be a mental health issue rather than a state-sponsored harassment issue, and and counters the anti-bullying side such as the LGBT+ magazine I cited here. "Death" is the neutral term. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the articles that are listed on the second bullet are named "Suicide of ..." (as I mentioned in my OP), the only outliers are instances where the individuals were notable prior to their death. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contentious article, such a BOLD move was going to cause disputes. That's why it should've been discussed beforehand. I don't see how you could look at this talk page and state that it would be entirely uncontroversial. That's just baffling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move - the article was created weeks in advance of Benedict's cause of death being announced, with WP:EVENT notability substantially supported without the suicide cause of death announcement. This article is also within multiple contentious topic areas (post-1992 American politics, BLP, GENSEX), so a discussion before a move seems appropriate.
  It also seems very rapid to make such a major change based on breaking news related to the sensitive issue of suicide - an editor recently boldly updated the lead's first sentence while a discussion was pending about it to add a cause of death, and I copyedited the language for neutrality, but I do not think creates sufficient support to shift the title of the article.
  Based on the article content and sources, Benedict's death has been notable before their cause of death was announced by the summary examiner report and agreed upon by family members represented by an attorney spokesperson - in advance of the March 13 and March 14 announcements, there has been a substantial amount of community and political activity, federal and state investigations are pending, and there are multiple political aspects of this event article that have been covered in depth by independent, reliable, secondary sources. I think according to WP:NPOV policy, the article contents and reliable sources (and WP:NPOVTITLE), the current title 'Death of Nex Benedict' is a neutral reflection of the article contents. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) - updated to reflect recent clarifying coverage - family members dispute suicide finding in full Oklahoma autopsy report, per Washington Post, March 27, 2024 Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move - :::I was keeping with general naming conventions as per WP:RMUM. Also, I think the name change made it clear that Nex's death was not the result of injury from the bathroom altercation, which was a widespread perception. Trying to reflect the events as they happened.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
• Support move The article is about the events that lead up to the suicide of Nex. Per naming conventions of over 20 other articles, the article should be named like the others (see: List of suicides attributed to bullying). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I invited watchers of Talk:List_of_suicides_attributed_to_bullying#Relevant_move_discussion to join this discussion. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move This is still a very WP:RECENT event, and we should be avoiding page names which switch the focus of the article or make implications about the circumstances of the death. We've yet to even settle on the wording of the lede around the death itself. A page move is premature for now. We can revisit this later once consensus around the article contents have settled more. At the moment, 'Death of...' is the more stable, neutral name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I agree that the more neutral title is "Death". In general we have to wait for more information, and it would be rather incomplete without the eventful day prior to the day of dying. Ziko (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move for now Assuming reporting on the cause of death remains consistent and undisputed, a move to "Suicide of Nex Benedict" will be appropriate. However, the news is still breaking, and for the sake of stability of the article, we should wait until journalists have a little more time to process and respond to the information in the medical examiner's report. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, see user:Beccaynr's comments in the above talk section for reasons why "suicide" is currently problematic for wikivoice. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. This is very recent, and news is still breaking about the causes and circumstances of the death. We should avoid creating unnecessary thrash as the new information emerges. At a minimum, moving a page on something like this deserves a discussion because it will cause at least some controversy among editors. Hist9600 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move The title is fine for now. PuppyMonkey (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have been reviewing the Article titles policy, including the section about considering title changes. This section states, Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made, in addition to what may be additional helpful guidance for future discussion about the title for this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move for now. The relevant guidance for this is the flowchart at WP:NCDEATH, and depending on how sourcing develops over the coming days following the publishing of the full medical examiner report I may support a move per NCDEATH. However at present we only have the cover sheet from the ME, plus an extract of the draft report released by the family, both of which are taken out of context from the full report. We don't know yet whether or not the ME is correct, whether the final report will have the same ruling as the cover sheet, nor whether the report's findings may be disputed within reliable sources. Let's wait until after the final report is published, and the dust settles before deciding on the name of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move. Nex Benedict gained notability because they were a non-binary student whose death was initially assumed by most RS to be primarily caused by a physical attack. Their death being ultimately ruled as a suicide does not, from my perspective, necessitate a change of title to this article. Sadly, many trans and non-binary youth and adults die by suicide, but the vast majority do not gain enough notability for a standalone Wikipedia article. The same would have very likely been true of Benedict if they weren't in that widely-reported restroom fight beforehand. Funcrunch (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We mention the bullying and altercation in this article. But that doesn't mean the death wasn't a suicide and shouldn't be titled as such. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "bullying and altercation" isn't just "mentioned", it's the entire reason for the article's existence. I don't dispute the finding of death by suicide, I'm simply arguing that it shouldn't be in the title as that was not known until well after Benedict gained notability. Funcrunch (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia covers facts that come from reliable sources. As more information is uncovered, we have new information to inform the way the article is crafted. Now that we have this information in reliable sources, I say it ought to be included. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move This should be have been put into discussion first. If the information that comes out of this does not change in 6 months, it would make sense too change, but it's still too soon.

User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment especially with how contentious the topic is, and with many folks having issues with the coroner's report on social media, it is unlikely a move like this would have been without significant controversy.

I think that if no other news came out about Nex within a few more months, then a title change like this would make sense. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move. While the topic is certainly contentious and controversial, Wikipedia is not the place for creating false balance. The relevant medical authorities have released a full report stating the the death was a suicide and the police found handwritten notes “suggestive of self-harm” [19]. The Benedict family does not dispute that the death was a suicide either.

Why wouldn't we move the page, if this is what the relevant authorities and reliable press outlets are saying? The point of Wikipedia is not to appease the WP:FRINGE. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it too soon? What more detail to you expect to come out in the next 6 months that we do not have now? We have the full autopsy report. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the referenced AP source cited, the autopsy section is incorrectly worded to suggest the family stated that they did not dispute the autopsy finding.

This appears to have been done by shortening two sentences in the AP source, down to one, but then infer that the family actively stated they did not dispute the cause of death.

The initial source clearly reads:

”Benedict’s family reviewed the complete autopsy report and said it documented numerous areas of physical trauma that evidence the severity of the assault, in a statement released through their attorney.”

This sentence was shortened and the following sentence added:

“They did not dispute the coroner’s report finding of a suicide.”

These combined to state:

”Benedict’s family reviewed the complete autopsy report and said they did not dispute the coroner’s finding of suicide.”

As per the press release of the family’s legal representation(https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/status/1768484432946811288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1768484432946811288%7Ctwgr%5E4f106bc34f079c49b08f019792bd1a3a52ec7356%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lgbtqnation.com%2F2024%2F03%2Fnex-benedicts-family-releases-details-from-medical-examiners-report-indicating-physical-trauma%2F), it is clear that they never clearly state they do or do not object to coroner’s findings, but due wish to shed light on aspects which were overshadowed by the initial evidence presented.

So that sentence should be removed, as the family has not stated that they do not object to the cause of death findings. That is unless there is another source where the family directly states their non-objection. 97.115.84.143 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the press release IP 97.115. According to AP News: Benedict’s family reviewed the complete autopsy report and said it documented numerous areas of physical trauma that evidence the severity of the assault, in a statement released through their attorney. They did not dispute the coroner’s report finding of a suicide. The Oklahoman seems to make it more clear about what was a statement from the attorney about the unreleased/partially released report, e.g. The family released what it says is a portion of the full autopsy report. [...] The family said it believes that some of the other injuries "evidence the severity" of the altercation at school that preceded their death, and reporting by NBC News also indicates statements are made about the unreleased report. So when I developed content, I relied on all of these sources to state what the AP said about the lack of objection to the suicide finding, and to state an attorney spoke on behalf of family members about the complete report along with a quoted statement about why. I think this approach reflects policies including WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, and perhaps other editors can offer opinions on the content and applicable policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect a recent report in the Washinton Post about the past statement by Benedict family members:

Nex’s family has said the teen was bullied for being nonbinary and, after the summary was released, disputed authorities’ findings that the death was a suicide. They hired Tulsa lawyer Jacob Biby, who is conducting an investigation into Nex’s death. Biby released a statement from the family citing passages from the 11-page autopsy report, saying they “contradict allegations of the assault on Nex being insignificant.”

Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.vox.com/culture/24092224/nex-benedict-death-what-happened-okhlahoma-anti-trans-laws-backlash

"On the afternoon of February 7, Benedict was participating in a school disciplinary program alongside three first-year girls."

First-year students is just another way of saying freshmen. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks exactly right. No BLP violation as this claim is attributable to an independent reliable source. It seems like that they were freshmen originally comes from the bodycam footage of Nex's interview, which has since been synthesized by secondary sources like Vox, and thus can now be included on Wikipedia. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Vox re-stating what was said in the bodycam footage as 'first-year' - but this does not seem to be independently-reported, i.e. the information does not appear to have been investigated/fact-checked/confirmed and therefore able to be considered attributable to an independent reliable source. So I think this needs clean up, so the attribution to the interview is clear, and so WP:WIKIVOICE is not used to present as fact something that appears to only be based on video of the interview, instead of independent and reliable journalism. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fairly pedantic — then we also shouldn't say that there were three of them (maybe there were two or four), or that they were girls (they could have been non-binary too) as all of these "facts" are Benedict's point of view. But that that there were three freshman girls seems to have been reported in the voice of various major journalism outlets; whether that allows us to do so on wikipedia can be debated here, though I argue we can as Wikipedia is a synthesis of secondary sources. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reorganization [20] seems to have introduced some WP:NPOV issues; there are restrictions on how much can be said in Wikipedia's voice as fact, according to policy. This section had been presented with what individuals said clearly attributed, because content based only on what Benedict said should be attributed, so it is clear that the encyclopedia is not saying this as fact, according to policy.

For now, we do not seem to have independent, reliable, and secondary sources saying "freshman" or 'first-year'; various investigations are still underway and conclusions about what happened and who was involved have not been released; we are limited in how much we can say at this time, and there are other policies, including WP:BLP, to consider with regard to how careful we should be about sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. Your edit looks fine, I won't keep arguing with you on that. I just wonder why the substance that the "three freshman girls" were freshmen is contentious, but you don't treat the assertions that they were girls or that there were three of them in the same way. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section had been organized around the available sources, some of which are limited to information from the sources reporting on the bodycam video. That impacted the organization and led to an organization that is not strictly chronological in a 'what exactly happened' sense - it was in a chronological order of 'what happened,' including when the interview happened and what was said during the interview, without elevating content from the interview into Wikipedia's voice.

With the current organization, the first line, for example, seems a bit adrift, attributing statements to Benedict, but not providing context as to when and where these statements were made or under what circumstances.

I do generally support a chronological narrative in the article, but I think in this section, the interview and what was said is something that happened in the hospital, after the altercation, so what was said should remain there, so it is clearly attributed to Benedict and Sue. This is how assertions that there were three girls had been and would be handled in the same way. Beccaynr (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter L Griffin, you have also now added repeated content from the Investigations section into the Altercation and death section. I think it would be best to revert back to the Altercation and death section before the WP:NPOV issues were introduced, so the attributions/chronology are more clear, and the repeated content is removed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change, and added in the content from Vox about the school disciplinary program, placing it within the context of the hospital interview - Vox links to a local news report about this, so it seems as if this should be incorporated into content attributed to Benedict during what was said to the officer at the hospital. Beccaynr (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire body of this section was to be reordered chronologically without changing any of the "according tos" or "so says Benedicts" what would be the issue? That would no longer be in the realm of NPOV and just an issue of whether things are coherently organized. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about attributions and agree. I disagree with the way it is ordered. I also think the cause of death is vital to be mentioned in the section labeled "altercation and death". Otherwise, the casual reader might infer that the death was a direct result of the altercation. Or — we could make this section only about the altercation, and not about the death at all, since it seems strange to combine the two given that the they appear to not be directly linked. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The medical examiner summary report is in the investigation section, in its own subsection, because the medical examiner conducted an investigation into the death, and there also seem to be potential WP:NPOV issues with adding content only from one source into the Altercation and death section, when there are multiple sources in the Investigation section related to the death investigation.

And a causal reader could read the Investigation section, or have already read the lead, which immediately states the finding in the medical examiner summary report after noting what Benedict said about the altercation.

As to the order, I think we are limited by policy and the available sources; we would need to attribute and introduce the source for Benedict's statements about there being three girls, the school disciplinary program, and the past "antagonizing" - which would then cause further problems with the chronology, because then the hospital interview would be introduced first. Beccaynr (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I changed the way sections are delimited, since it doesn't really make sense to lump the altercation and death together since the linkage between the two seems to be contentious. Can agree on this? I also would like to see Nex referred to by their last name as is consistent with Wikipedia style and the rest of this article. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the split of Altercation and Death sections is helpful; I copyedited to make Altercation its own main heading because it does not seem like Background similar to the general background in the Background section, and because the altercation is prominently mentioned in the lead. I also restored the main heading style for Investigation because of the multiple investigations in that section that are beyond the death.

As to the surname issue, this was discussed and my understanding is first names are used when Sue is also being referred to, to help with readability, but I hadn't noticed clarity issues created by your replacement with surnames; I have no objection to edits that add surnames without compromising readability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some schools like Penn State and UMaine are intentionally moving away from the use of "freshman" in favor of the non-gendered "first-year", so I see no reason not to use this synonym. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommorow the medical examiner is expected to release a full report on the circumstances of Benedict's death. Given that the summary report ruled that the death was a suicide, this will likely be further substantiated in the full report. If that is case I argue this page should be moved to Suicide of Nex Benedict, as such a title is typical for pages pertaining to individuals who are only notable for their suicide.

I also believe it would then be appropriate to update the lead sentence to state that the cause of death was suicide in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment in the discussion above about the article title, [21], according to applicable policy, this controversial move should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. This article is not a newspaper, and there is also an open discussion in another section on this talk page about how to encyclopedically reflect the contents of this article and the sources according to WP:NPOV policy in the lead sentence. It seems most helpful to keep further discussion in these existing open discussions for readability. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a move is controversial. The prior "controversy" is more to do the report being summary, and not full. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every other page describing a death through suicide is titled this way. Thus the central question is about whether the full report establishes a factual basis for the cause of death to deems suicide -- not whether titling a suicide as such is appropriate (the answer to that is clearly uncontroversially yes). Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The currently open discussion about this move indicates the proposed move is controversial. I linked to the policy, and encourage review, e.g. from WP:TITLECHANGES In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. The article contents and sources also appear to indicate the suicide finding is itself controversial, but I continue to request that we not discuss substantive aspects related to a proposed move or the lead sentence here, and instead continue discussion in the open sections. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do feel as though you dictate where the discussion takes place? That thread is on whether or not a move is appropriate based on the summary report. This is on the related but separate question o whether a move is appropriate based on the full report. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines include Check whether there's already a discussion on the same topic. Duplicate discussions (on a single page, or on multiple pages) are confusing and time-wasting, and may be interpreted as forum shopping. And the prior discussions appear to cover the anticipated report from the Oklahoma medical examiner. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained I am discussing a related but distinct topic. Please review above. I do not seek to engage in a meta-discussion with you about discussions and what makes a discussion substantively different from another. Such is pointless and a waste of time, if you are too obtuse to understand the distinction between what I raise and the preexisting thread. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a comment in an open discussion that anticipates the upcoming release of the full medical examiner report. And it will be a benefit to further discussion to maintain a focus on the content. This article is withing 3 contentious topic areas, so there is a particular need to proceed in an orderly, careful, and cautious manner. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter L Griffin Putting and emphasis on suicide would be harmful to non binary and trans people who are often stereotyped as having mental health issues / suicidal. I understand your reasoning but I think the harms outweigh the benefits of changing the title here. I think it would also be harmful to the family who have stated they disagree with the medical examiner's opinion. 98.116.173.242 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The family does not dispute the medical examiners opinion. And please refer to WP:NOTCENSORED which states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

I completely understand and emphasize with the sentiment you express. But Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate forum to pursue that agenda. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions by family members to the full autopsy report has been discussed in currently-open sections on this Talk page, including disputes with the report. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now, the current final line in the lead seems better summarized as "On March 27, a full autopsy report was released by the Oklahoma medical examiner with a toxicology report." This seems to better reflect the weight of the sources currently available. A more detailed version was restored over my objection, and I wordsmithed and edited it to reflect currently-available sources instead of continuing to try to remove what seems to be undue detail.

So I bring this question here - for now, should we wait to allow breaking news and article content to develop before we determine appropriate weight for sensitive detail in the lead according to WP:NPOV? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most sources mention the notes, and they are relevant to why the medical examiner made the ruling he did. Of course can reassess weight in the future when article content is better developed, but the notes detail already receives plenty of detail now, and should not be presumed to be undue in the interim. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to BLP policy, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. This policy also tells us to Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events.

Although this is an event article, BLP policy begins by stating it applies whether or not that person is the subject of the article and later states this policy applies to recently-deceased people.

Reliance on breaking, still-developing news, while article content is being developed, to rapidly add further detail from the medical examiner report to the lead appears to be undue and contrary to the care and caution needed according to BLP/BDP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have consensus to remove this. Wait for others to weigh in. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to feel very strongly about this issue, but please remember that you do not WP:OWN this page and it might be helpful if you could take a step back and allow other people to also edit this page. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently amended the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead to read "On March 13, a summary report by the Oklahoma medical examiner ruled Benedict's cause of death a suicide caused by a drug overdose." [22]

I found this relevant to add to the lead because it is contextually important to understand what exactly the medical examiner was claiming to be the cause of death to be since suicide is otherwise a broad category of causes of death.

Numerous reliable sources say that the medical examiner claimed the death was caused by a drug overdose, and because Wikipedia includes relevant facts backed by reliable sources, this five word sentence fragment ought to be a part of the article.

• The Oklahoman: "An Oklahoma teen whose death sparked widespread outrage and calls for change died of an overdose, authorities said Wednesday." [23]
• USA Today: "Authorities said the 16-year-old was involved in an altercation at their high school and died the following day of an overdose, which a medical examiner ruled a suicide." [24]
• PBS: "The state medical examiner determined last week that Benedict’s death in February was a suicide caused by a drug overdose." [25]
• The Associated Press: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [26]
• TIME Magazine: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [27]

Contrary to what I have shown above, Beccaynr claims that my edit is not backed by reliable sources, and has taken it upon themself to violate established editwarring guidelines by removing my edit not once, but twice. [28] [29]

As to not violate editwarring policy myself, I am posting about this here on the talk page. Thanks, Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the summary report states, "a finding of probable cause from a "combined toxicity" of two pharmaceutical drugs," with various citations. A recent news report about the full examiner report states "Benedict died on Feb. 8, and the Medical Examiner ruled their death a suicide in a summary report released already." The lead should reflect the article and the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also changed the body of the article to remove any reference to the drug overdose. Perhaps you should restore that too then. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects the sources, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. "The summary report concluded the combined toxicity of two different medications, Diphenhydramine, an allergy medication, and Fluoxetine, an anti-depressant, was the probable cause of death." Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you.

Are you saying it the medical examiner's summary report did not rule it an overdose?

Then why are reliable sources saying that? What you are saying and what I am saying are not mutually exclusive. Peter L Griffin (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The lead should reflect the article and the sources"

Not allowing the cause AND manner of death in the lead does not reflect the article and the sources. Corrections need to be made anywhere the article states that suicide is the cause of death, which is not accurate. The cause of death is combined drug toxicity (also known as an overdose, which you will not allow), and the manner of death is suicide. The two are not interchangeable.

Proposal:

"On March 13, a summary report by the Oklahoma medical examiner ruled Benedict's cause of death to be combined drug toxicity and manner of death to be suicide."

This would represent what is contained in the rest of the article and also how the reliable sources have analyzed both the summary report and full autopsy report. 173.22.227.47 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should call it an overdose. Because that's what sources say. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the attempt to add the contentious term "drug overdose" after the part of the lead that talks about the summary finding of the Oklahoma medical examiner. This is a loaded contentious term, and it does not reflect the "probable cause" that was reported, nor the much more widely-reported initial finding of suicide. So it appears to be undue detail and contrary to NPOV policy, which tells us to try to state facts simply, without loaded words. We have precise details available in the article body; sources seemed to focus on the preliminary suicide finding and the statement by the family members (which is now clarified as a dispute with the suicide finding).

Also, the article content about the cause of death in the disputed Oklahoma medical examiner report is currently being developed; some sources have had 'this is a developing story' stated, and reviewing sources and developing article content seems to be the first priority. The lead follows the body, and with breaking news, for an article within 3 contentious topic areas, we do not have to rush to rapidly develop a lead. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that loaded when it is the WP:COMMONNAME for what occurred...see drug overdose, Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary report is not breaking anymore; it is more than 2 weeks old. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are just wrong on all of this. Combined drug toxicity, combined drug intoxication, and drug overdose are three ways to say the same thing. None of these are contentious or loaded in any way, just outright fact. They all would reflect the "probable cause," which is simply just the cause. The initially reported cause being suicide is factually inaccurate, even if some sources have incorrectly stated it themselves. Again, suicide IS NOT the cause of death, it is the manner of death.

The cause of death, no matter how you word it, and manner of death have been established facts for two weeks and are now affirmed by the full report. The reliable sources used also affirmed these facts, and have consulted with experts to explain why these facts are accurate. Established facts with reliable sources to back them up are not undue detail and are absolutely viewpoint neutral.

Lastly, you mention a dispute by the family with the finding of suicide and you seem to state as a fact that the medical examiner's report is "disputed." You'll need to provide sources for that. None of the sources I've read state that there is a dispute with the finding. It's actually the opposite, the family has stated they DO NOT dispute the finding of suicide. The only places I've seen anyone dispute the findings is social media sites. To bring up anything in the article about the report being disputed would be completely void of fact and highly biased. 173.22.227.47 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter L Griffen removed this reliably-sourced content from the article [30], [31], and removed what I was working on to expand the lead [32] after I mentioned this reliably-sourced content elsewhere on this article talk page, e.g. [33], [34]. Beccaynr (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That claim in the Washington Post is disputed by the Associated Press which states "Benedict’s family reviewed the complete autopsy report and said it documented numerous areas of physical trauma that evidence the severity of the assault, in a statement released through their attorney. They did not dispute the coroner’s report finding of a suicide." [35]

The Washington Post is the only source I can find that makes such a claim. They seem to have gotten it wrong. It seems like what most sources say is that the family disagrees with the assertion that the injuries from the altercation weren't severe; not that they were the cause of death.

Of course, we aren't reporters and can't do original research. But if you read the actual statement itself, no where is the suicide ruling disputed. [36]

Now this might be an instance of incomplete facts arising from breaking news. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a March 14 source, based on the statement; it has since been clarified and expanded upon by the March 27 Washington Post report; this is discussed in the talk section above about the autopsy dispute. Beccaynr (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake for the text to have been added the way that it had been and I apologize for that - this has been interpreted on this talk page as an indication of agreement with the finding when the statement had not indicated an agreement, and the IP editor tried to point this out in the above discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking in a black-white dichotomy as if there are only two options:

(1) Nex's family agrees with the suicide ruling

(2) Nex's family disagrees with the suicide ruling

There is a third option:

(3) Nex's family does not endorse either position.

The third option is what is true here. And what the Associated Press stated correctly characterizes option 3. They say the family does not dispute the finding; they do not say the family agrees with it.

What you certainly can't do is say in wikivoice that the family disputed the ruling, and I glad you have recognized your mistake. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP also agrees with me on "drug overdose". Can you also just please acquiesce and add that back yourself? Let's not beat a dead horse here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full report continues to state "probable cause" with precise, unloaded language, and the article is now temporarily locked. So it not only appears to be contrary to the source, WP:NPOV and WP:BDP policy to add the proposed language, but also impossible to make any changes to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, 14 days have passed since the cover sheet of the report was published, and Benedict's family released an extract from the draft. A lot can happen in 14 days, including the family changing their mind. We cannot use an earlier source (the AP News article from 14 March) to dispute a newer one (the Washington Post from 27 March) in this manner, because it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the family have changed their mind.

Now it is also possible that the WaPo have it wrong, and have made a mistake in their article. That's not uncommon with breaking news, and typically you'll see a correction notice be added, or the content removed in a newer version of the article. That hasn't happened as of yet, as both the original version of the article and the latest version have the same content about the family disputing the final report. Although it is an unusable source in the article, as it is generally unreliable, the New York Post have also reported that Benedict's family have disputed the report's findings. In any event the only sources that could disprove the WaPo's article are those published on or after 27 March, that contain an affirmative statement from the family that say they do not contest the final report's findings.

Now for our purposes, we don't need to figure out who is right or who is wrong right now. We can just let this sit for a few days to a week to see how sourcing develops. Maybe the family will release a statement through their lawyer some time today, or over the weekend that'll confirm or disprove the WaPo's article. Maybe they'll say something else, like they're commissioning their own independent autopsy report. The specifics and speculation on those don't really matter though, because all we need to do is let this play out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nex Benedict → Suicide of Nex Benedict – I am formally requesting a move for this page and initiating a move discussion.

The Oklahoma medical examiner released a full autopsy report which states that Nex Benedict died of suicide. Nex's family does not dispute the factual basis of the suicide determination, but does not "want the ruling of suicide to overshadow other findings in the report", including details of injuries sustained from the bathroom altercation which the Benedicts feel "contradict allegations of the assault on Nex being insignificant".

At this point, because Nex's family, the medical examiner, and reliable sources describing the incident agree on the suicide determination, viewpoints stating that Nex's death was not a suicide are WP:FRINGE.

Thus, per WP:NCDEATH, the title must be updated accordingly.

Because this is the full report, new details are unlikely to emerge from this point forward. This addresses many of the concerns about rapidly changing information raised earlier after the release of the summary report.

Addendum: Many of the replies here are claiming that Benedict's family does contest the ruling per a Washington Post report. This report seems to be incorrect -- it is the only source I could find to make a claim, and it is directly contradicted by reporting from the associated press which states "They did not dispute the coroner’s report finding of a suicide." [37]

Most sources seem to state that the family disputes the characterization of Nex's injuries as not severe; not that the family disputes them as the cause of death.

Of course we can't cite our own original research in the article. But take a look at the statement for yourself. [38]

Does the family dispute suicide is the cause of death? I think not.

Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A suicide is a death, no? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But is this death not a suicide?

  Per WP:NCDEATH, "Death of" articles are usually reserved for articles where the cause of death has not yet been determined.

  Articles where the cause of death has been determined are usually labeled as "Murder of" "Killing of" "Suicide of" etc. depending on the cause of death, as such titles are more specific and descriptive. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't bludgeon the process. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And, to falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. I'm simply seeking to provide an answer to a question you have raised. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this single response is not bludgeoning. BD2412 T 01:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)#Flowchart. If it has been determined that a death was a suicide, the article should be at a "Suicide of..." title. BD2412 T 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  According to The Washington Post on March 27, 2024: Nex’s family has said the teen was bullied for being nonbinary and, after the summary was released, disputed authorities’ findings that the death was a suicide. They hired Tulsa lawyer Jacob Biby, who is conducting an investigation into Nex’s death. There has also been previous discussion about article title change policy and how it may apply to this event article and a proposed move based on one contentious and disputed primary source, after notability was established based on 'The Death of Nex Benedict'. Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Before the addendum was posted, I addressed this issue on this talk page above: [39], [40], after Peter L Griffin repeatedly removed the content sourced to the March 27 2024 WaPo article from the article [41]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at those links, it sounds like you now agree that Benedict's family does not dispute the ruling. Am I characterizing your position correctly? If so, shouldn't this induce you to switch your !vote? Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am winding down my Wikipedia activity for various reasons, but I noticed your comment, and I am sorry to see you mischaracterize what I have said so many times, including in the ANEW report. To re-clarify: I had apologized above for how the March 14 AP reporting was understood by myself and others, e.g. as if the family members had agreed with the suicide finding by the Oklahoma medical examiner, based on the AP report about a press release by the family members and what the AP said it did not include. What I have said several times on this talk page, and had attempted to add to the article (before you twice removed it in advance of starting this RM discussion), is the Washington Post reported on March 27 that family members dispute the suicide finding and their attorney is conducting an independent investigation.

  Ultimately, my !vote is based on the article contents (recent additions and removals contrary to policy and guidelines can be fixed by editors after the article unlocks) and the reliable sources. This is an event article about the Death of Nex Benedict; their death is what has had lasting effects, with national and international news coverage in diverse sources which includes a focus on the impact on a significant widespread societal group. There has been substantial in-depth coverage on a variety of aspects related to their death, including the social, political, and legal context that preceded their death and flows from their death. There has been continued coverage, and ongoing coverage can be reasonably anticipated; not only with regard to disputes about the Oklahoma medical examiner finding, but also the Department of Education investigation at minimum.

  Also, I think the article titles policy should take precedence over an essay about naming conventions, especially for an article within 3 CTOPs; in previous talk page discussions of a proposed move to favor the 'Suicide', I have especially suggested review of the WP:TITLECHANGES section. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Beccaynr is repeatedly making a claim which is not true, and their proof by repeated assertion is not making their case any stronger.

  I have linked to the family statement itself several times. Here it is again: [42]. I invite anyone to provide me with a direct quote of the part where the family disagrees with the finding of suicide.

  The claim made in the Washington Post that the Benedict disagrees with the finding of suicide is plainly wrong, and contradicted by the preponderance of other sources such including the AP.

  User:Beccaynr provides no policy rationale for why we should disregard the AP and all other sources which do not make such a claim, and place WP:UNDUE weight on this singular Washington Post report, which we can all plainly see is mistaken.

  I'm not sure if what's going on here is an ideological agenda or plain stubbornness, but no where does the statement make such a claim. It is just so bizarre to cling onto the minute detail which is not true. Please use common sense. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this has been discussed on this talk page in a section about this proposed page move, and somewhat in a section about whether to add "suicide" in wikivoice to the first sentence of the lead, and an adjacent discussion. It appears Benedict's death was notable before the Oklahoma medical examiner suicide finding was released in summary form and as a full report, and that this topic is and continues to commonly and widely be known as the 'Death of Nex Benedict'; examples of sources include:

Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Restating what I posted previously: Nex Benedict gained notability because they were a non-binary student whose death was initially assumed by most RS to be primarily caused by a physical attack. Their death being ultimately ruled as a suicide does not, from my perspective, necessitate a change of title to this article. Sadly, many trans and non-binary youth and adults die by suicide, but the vast majority do not gain enough notability for a standalone Wikipedia article. The same would have very likely been true of Benedict if they weren't in that widely-reported restroom fight beforehand. Funcrunch (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While there are compelling arguments to be made on for the oppose side, I don't think this is one of them.

  I agree with your premise:

  • The death was ruled a suicide by the proper authorities.
  • Nex gained prominence because people mistakenly believed that they died due to the fight.

  Your argument seems to be that the title ought to say "Death of" and not "Suicide of" because of the initial (mistaken) assumption that Nex did not die of suicide.

  I simply ask, why should this article be titled off of a presumption which we now know to be false, when we can more accurately describe what happened? What Wikipedia policy states we should do this? Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The current article title is "Death of Nex Benedict". There is no dispute that Nex Benedict died, so the current title remains perfectly accurate. I'm not really interested in arguing about my reasoning with you further. Funcrunch (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Per the Washington Post the ME's finding of suicide has been contested by the family and their lawyer. While NCDEATH is the correct naming convention, there is some wiggle room while the cause of death is contested to keep the existing title. Let's let the dust settle with the sourcing, and see if the family commission their own independent autopsy report. We don't need to rename the article this very instant, and can wait until the picture is clear. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the report is being challenged in courts it's best to stick to neutral wording, at least for the time being—blindlynx 13:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly if there is a debate about it then its contentious enough not to move.

I feel the litmus test should be a MSM source including “suicide” in the headline instead of death of Nex. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Wait until the dust settles, avoid unnecessary thrash on this page. There is no reason why this page needs to move now, and the events are still unfolding. Hist9600 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]