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]

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]

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 [13]. 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]

Sorry for responding rather slowly. Looking at the current content of the "Altercation" section, I see four places within four consecutive short paragraphs where single words were put in quote marks ("antagonizing", "mutual", "scrapes" and "bruises") and another quote of a two-word phrase ("blacked out") and another quote of a three-word phrase ("I got jumped"). Most of those seem like rather ordinary words or phrases. To me it seems a bit odd to use quotes in such a chopped-up way. In the Background section, another questionable example is the two-word phrase "greatly admired". For that one, it is not clear to me who (or what document) is being quoted or why that is formulated as a quote instead of merely described or just stated as-is without quote marks. Later in the article, "a personal matter" could just be of a personal nature without using quote marks, and "In Memoriam" could be memorial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 28 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 [14], and then restored with an edit summary indicating the disputed, contentious content is contentious [15]. 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]

  Can you cite your sources that it was in fact a suicide? WiinterU (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See these:

  1. New York Times [16]

  2. USA Today [17]

  3. NBC [18]

  4. CNN [19] Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these sources do not directly state that it was in fact a suicide. WiinterU (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[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]

Can you prove that it was in fact a suicide instead of an altercation that killed them? WiinterU (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that it was caused by the injuries suffered from the altercation? WP:FRINGE aside, the coroners report and the circumstances of the death don't support such theories of homicide. It's tragic that Nex died, and given the history surrounding the father, I'm almost certain that there are details to this story that will emerge as time goes on, however, the finding the death was a suicide is unlikely to be overturned. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:10, 1 April 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” [20]. 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 [21] 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, [22], 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." [23]

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." [24]
• 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." [25]
• PBS: "The state medical examiner determined last week that Benedict’s death in February was a suicide caused by a drug overdose." [26]
• The Associated Press: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [27]
• TIME Magazine: "The report shows Benedict had toxic levels of two drugs in their system and died of an overdose." [28]

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. [29] [30]

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 [31], [32], and removed what I was working on to expand the lead [33] after I mentioned this reliably-sourced content elsewhere on this article talk page, e.g. [34], [35]. 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." [36]

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. [37]

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]

All these sources are referencing the same statement from March 14 which is publicly available. [38]

Read it for yourself. Quote me the passage that says that the family disagrees with the suicide ruling.

Only one reliable source makes this claim. Other reliable sources contest the claim. It gives the dubious claim WP:UNDUE weight to say it is so in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Peter, I have read almost all of the sources published in the last two days and no other reliable sources contest the claim, because no other reliable sources have mentioned it. There are no reliable sources published on or after 27 March that state that Benedict's family are not disputing the results of the final autopsy report. Conversely there is one source, the WaPo article, that states the opposite. The only thing that can contest the WaPo's article from 27 March is one published on or after that date that states that the family are not contesting the autopsy report, or if the WaPo make a correction to their article by removing that content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The family hasn't made any statements since the 14th per Daily Beast [39]. I don't see why March 27th plays any bearing in that. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting there is a second secret statement that only the Washington Post knows about??? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting no such thing. I don't know nor do I really care where the WaPo are sourcing that content from right now. We aren't here to ascertain the truthfulness of a statement, as editors we only care if content is verifiable to one or more reliable sources. All I know for certain is that the latest version of the WaPo's article contains content that states that the family are contesting the autopsy's findings, and that no other reliable source has content published on or after the same date that contains content that states the opposite. That alone is more than enough for us to proceed cautiously when adding any content relating to the report's findings.

Maybe the WaPo are right, maybe they're wrong. We don't know right now, and we can't know right now. We just have to wait to see how the sourcing develops over the coming days.

As for the Daily Beast, maybe you're looking at an older copy of the article, but the current copy says that the family planned to conduct their own independent investigation into Benedict's death, and that they had no further comment yesterday. Now that to me does not read as the family hasn't made any statements since the 14th, just that they had no further comments at this time.

Let's wait and see what happens over the coming week. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly other threads where the family's statements can be discussed but this section is called "caused by a drug overdose" and I started it to gauge the consensus on including these words to describe the cause of death in the lead.

Both I, and the IP above, agree that both the cause (drug overdose) and manner (suicide) should be included in the lead, rather than just the manner.

What are your thoughts? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And both these statements will be attributed to the medical examiner. Beccanyr was found to be engaged in editwarring by repeatedly removing reference to the drug overdose that were attributed this way, because they felt that such was undue. I don't feel that that action was backed by consensus. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, when an editor rapidly adds content in multiple places in an article that has been disputed per NPOV/BLP/BDP because to how it seems to portray a recently-deceased person, and ignoring WP:BLPUNDEL policy, in theory WP:3RRBLP applies to Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, but this can be controversial. It can also be difficult to keep track of reverts under such stressful circumstances, but this article now has a 1RR restriction, which will hopefully help. Please also note that I do not affirm or condone PLG's comments about me anywhere and in anyway. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I don't believe you have gotten a strong enough consensus to put this wording in yet. Please self-revert. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's let it be discussed some more. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, I don't have strong feelings for the wording either way, and it is the wording the medical examiner used, but I see other editors have such a feeling, so it's best if it's discussed some more. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the wording per se which is disputed, but rather the question over if the manner of death ought to be included in the lead at all. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, myself and IP seem to think yes, Beccaynr thinks no. Hoping to get a few others to weigh in here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, disagree. Suspected suicide according to autopsy report should be cause of death.

Drug overdose has weird connotations and many main stream news sources do not use that combination of words. Should be stated instead that “autopsy found high toxic levels of diphenhydramine and fluoxetine in the body“

In general, lead should not include nitty gritty details like that and should only summarize that autopsy report found suicide as cause of death, which family disputes. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lead should summarize, not repeat full details of the rest of the article. This is covered by MOS:LEADREL - Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. So a lead summary should just include the general summary cause of death. The rest of the article can go into the details of the cause per medical examination. Raladic (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that it was a suicide via drug overdose not a basic fact?

There are many types of ways to commit suicide: gunshot, hanging, jumping off a bridge. When these occur, the cause of death is rarely disputed. The fact that it is a drug overdose is relevant to understanding why there was confusion and people initially believed it was because of the fight in the restroom. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:24, 31 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." [40]

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. [41]

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: [42], [43], after Peter L Griffin repeatedly removed the content sourced to the March 27 2024 WaPo article from the article [44]. 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: [45]. 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]

  Peter, as I've just said above, neither a statement from the family nor an article by AP News from 14 March can be used to dispute content in a reliable source published on 27 March in this manner. A lot can happen in 14 days, including the family changing their minds. The only sources that can disprove the WaPo's article from 27 March are those published on or after that date, and which contain an affirmative statement from the family that say they do not contest the final report's findings.

  Beccaynr is entirely in the right here. For our purposes right now, this autopsy report appears to be disputed by the family, based on the most sourcing available. Now for our purposes, we don't need to figure out who is right and who is wrong, per policy we aren't even supposed to do that in our articles. All we need to do is be patient and wait and see what sourcing develops over the coming days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, but I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion by repeating myself.

  I also want to add, however, that even if the family disagrees, they are not doctors. Their disagreement with the relevant qualified medical authorities is a WP:FRINGE belief and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight regardless, in the title or anywhere else. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And WP:FRINGE beliefs persist about almost anything. You advocate kicking the can for the moment, but doing so indefinitely favors the status quo, and no policy privileges the status quo over other alternative versions.

  So I ask you: At what point would you feel comfortable putting suicide in the title? What criteria must be met? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not how FRINGE works. FRINGE is about pseudoscience topics, not about the family of a deceased individual disputing the investigation into the death of their relative. The family are perfectly within their rights to contest the autopsy report, and they are perfectly within their rights to commission an independent one by another pathologist. The family commissioning their own autopsy report is not uncommon in the US, the family of George Floyd commissioned a second autopsy into his death, as they had serious concerns about whether the county pathologist would be reliable in their findings.

  Right now I want the dust to settle on the sourcing. The report was published around 24 hours ago, all of the reporting on it is still new. We have one reliable source, the WaPo that have said the family have contested the report's findings. I want to see how that plays out. Maybe the WaPo are right and maybe they're wrong. We don't have the sourcing either way to confirm that right now, and I want there to be time for that sourcing to develop. Remember, Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. Our content is written from a historical perspective, once sourcing on a subject settles.

  As I said in my !vote below, I'm opposing the move for now because the autopsy report appears to be contested by the family. Now if that resolves itself, for example by the family releasing a statement saying they're not contesting the report's findings, or by the family commissioning an independent autopsy that also finds this was a death by suicide, I would support moving this article to a Suicide of title per the NCDEATH flowchart. However, while the autopsy report appears contested, and as a result there is ambiguity as to whether or not the state's autopsy is accurate, in my opinion we must keep the more ambiguous Death of title. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Wikipedia is not a breaking news source and so ask: why are you citing a breaking news report to justify your preferred title? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because right now there is ambiguity over the cause of death. The autopsy report states that suicide was a probable cause, according to the WaPo the family are disputing that. All I'm suggesting is that we keep the current title until that ambiguity is resolved in some way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're perception that there is ambiguity is based on breaking news. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:27, 1 April 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]

  Why should we go with what the family say over the medical examiner's findings? Families often contest medical examiner conclusions, surely it's undue weight to treat the opinion of the family as equal to the medical examiner's report? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The family of the victim is the family of the victim. They know the victim better than the examiner. WiinterU (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first sentence is a meaningless tautology. Nex's family (not medical experts who performed an autopsy on Nex) are entitled to an opinion, but their opinion is far less credible than the medical expert who did perform the autopsy, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many instances where a family doesn't know their child all that well or just refuse to believe that their child could have done something heinous. Would you give equal weight to a family opposing the conviction of someone for a crime because they know the accused better than the judge/jury? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, O.J. Simpson and the Criminal Court case argue that he was innocent. However, he did lose a civil lawsuit. The family disputed this and by this point, 30 years later, it's obvious OJ did it. WiinterU (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except someone being found not guilty isn't a complete exoneration; it means there wasn't enough evidence provided to convict them, some evidence may not be allowed into show due to being unlawfully obtained even if it may be definitive proof of the crime.

  Unless there are reliable sources contesting the medical examiner's reports going with the family's opposition is just undue weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:05, 31 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]

  Could you provide a source? As far as I am aware, it is not being challenged in courts. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:31, 30 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]

I don't believe "Death of Nex Benedict" has been use so commonly as to become a common name. Media, of course, did not use suicide before it was known to be a suicide.

Media regularly runs headlines such as "Derek Chauvin found guilty of all three charges for killing George Floyd" or "George Floyd: Jury finds Derek Chauvin guilty of murder"; attributing such determinations to their sources. But still, we rightly call the article formerly "Death of George Floyd" and then "Killing of George Floyd" Murder of George Floyd. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A silly litmus test could be if the article headline has the purported action in it; it would suggest consensus.

For example, by 2023, NYTimes was calling George Floyd's death a Murder in a headline https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/minneapolis-police-george-floyd.html

Find an NYTimes article with the unambiguous headline "Suicide of Nex Benedict", or something like that. Not "Medical examiner rules suicide", or "Suspected suicide", but just an unqualified headline. If we find something like that, we should go ahead and change the name of this article. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the murder of George Floyd was first reported, they went off of what the police said. The police took the blame off of themselves. This could very well be happening here. WiinterU (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The medical examiner is not the police. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The medical examiner works with the police. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd's death was changed from "Death of" to "Killing of" when the medical examiner ruled the manner of death was homicide. Derick Chauvin, of course, disputed this, yet the title remained as to not give undue weight to Chauvin's POV.

Why does the medical examiner's (disputed) opinion matter then, but not now? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that authorities and medical examiners can hide and make things up to hide problems with themselves, the state, or the government. WiinterU (talk) 23:35, 30 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]

  Unlike in other areas of life, the status quo is not privileged over any other alternative version on Wikipedia. As such, we should pick the side that seems more correct now, knowing we can update the title later. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the death was notable as a death and what lead up to it, with RS discussing it as such, as such per the top note of the flow chart on NCDEATH - WP:COMMONNAME supersedes the use of the flowchart. The ruling of it having been suicide afterwards is secondary to that. Raladic (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, current title is accurate, proposed title may turn out not to be, depending on what the family's investigation shows. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Medical examiners are known to lie constantly. Because this is a southern state, this could be motivated in some way against Benedict. Their family may have decided against disputing this either because they were trabsphobic, or they were afraid of being criticised and getting threats from Libs of TikTok. WiinterU (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority can and will lie. WiinterU (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles cannot give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE theories such as yours, which are not detailed in WP:RELIABLESOURCES.

If you believe medical experts/the government/the media are not to be trusted, that's a much broader problem than this particular move discussion, and should be taken up on those policy pages instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just saying that it might be possible. Also, how can you prove that is in fact a suicide? Almost everything in the death report was called out within it's first few days. WiinterU (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are calling Nex's death a suicide. Reliable sources do not claim the medical examiner is lying. Of course that is possible, but we should give that claim WP:UNDUE weight because it isn't being made in reliable sources. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by reliable sources? WiinterU (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media outlets the Wikipedia community deems reliable, such as the New York Times, CNN, etc. Peter L Griffin (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter L Griffin:

• You are arguing with everyone, including literal admins (an admin reverted a troll comment, and you argued with them that they don't understand Wikipedia policy on you Talk space)
• You are pushing the same viewpoints in at least three or four different sections on this page, and it seems you have opened discussions about moving this page multiple times. And you spout the same words over and over again when someone argues with you.
  • Reliable sources state the medical examiner ruled a suicide, which family disputes. Stating more certainty than that is not reflective in the reliable sources.
  • In particular, this article move idea seems doomed (at least until more info comes out, and the family settles the matter). The consensus is Oppose for most folks, and many folks remain skeptical.
• Apparently, a user has accused you of an edit war, and both you and the user are currently on notice to stop edit warring. You have then gone on to accuse the user of admin-shopping... which another admin has stated is not the case.

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia (made this account years ago, but started really editing this year), but this is bizarre behavior. Even if you think that there is some Wikipedia policy that supports you, if admins, editors, and 90% of others disagree, it is unlikely you can overrule the consensus (its not a WP:DEMOCRACY, but consensus will win out). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times? Reliable on transgender issues? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

objectively, agree nytimes sucks at trans coverage.

but wikipedia is biased towards what it considers “reliable”. this means that if nytimes publishes garbage, we cannot avoid including it until nytimes or other secondary sources criticize it :( User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, being an RSP green source doesn't automatically mean a piece has to be included, it just lends it credibility. As editors, we're still free to exclude sources from RSP publications if the argument is there for its non-reliability. For example, if an NYT article is uncritically citing ACPeds on abortion, the fact that they're citing ACPeds is a reasonable argument for discounting that article. Snokalok (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support as per BD2412's arguments as well as the official medical evaluations. 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The cause of death is disputed by the family and the family's lawyer is conducting an investigation (per this WP article). I do not believe a move of the page is warranted at this time, at least not when the cause of death is still contentious and being disputed. Iscargra (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: It's about time someone pointed out that WP:NCDEATHS is neither a guideline nor a policy, and the process of its creation was dubious in my opinion. It is just an essay. Moreover, as for the medical examiner's opinion, Wikipedia should not unduly defer to "official" declarations. A medical examiner is an individual person. Medical examiners can be wrong. If the medical examiner was an official in some other country whose government we are not so fond of (e.g. Russia after someone "jumped out of a window" after publicly opposing some policy), would we be so eager to accept their opinion as the final word? The current title is not inaccurate. It is not necessary to push a conclusion into the title, and some of the notable aspects of the case happened before this conclusion was declared. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for stating this. WiinterU (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article "Murder of George Floyd" was not renamed due to an autopsy report.

The relevant move discussion for "Murder of George Floyd" is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd/Archive_7#Requested_move_20_April_2021

A similar move was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd/Archive_6#Requested_move_1_April_2021 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_George_Floyd/Archive_1#Requested_move_27_May_2020

It should be noted that editors were reluctant to consider naming the article "Murder" simply based on autopsy report, and waited for the jury to convict before renaming. They were willing to agree with "killing" as an interim given that most sources used the word "killing" without any qualifications. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stop using the strawman argument of "Murder of George Floyd" because of an autopsy report when documentation shows that this did not happen. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per rationales given above, particularly those of Beccaynr and BarrelProof. As others have noted, there is ongoing debate about the cause of death. Once the dust has settled, so to speak, this discussion can be revisited. No need to make a hasty page move before all the particulars in the case have been sorted out. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This article is about the events that lead up to the suicide of Nex, as supported by the vast majority of RS reporting on the coroners finding. As the naming conventions of over 20 other articles, the article should be named like the others (see: List of suicides attributed to bullying), eg. Suicide of [...]. Regarding the debate, the only debate seems to be on this Talk page, WaPo article is pretty clear that the dispute is in regards to the findings that the injuries stemming from the altercation at school were unsubstantial, not the overdose or subsequent death resulting from said OD. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct cause of death 2601:19C:4400:48C:83F:7CB1:17D1:41B5 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 3 or 4 talk sections already talking about this User:Sawerchessread (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's being disputed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, the article falsely states that "Advocacy and civil rights groups have noted a connection from anti-LGBT policies and rhetoric to Benedict's death," which implies the statement to be a fact rather than, more accurately, an assertion. The accurate way to write the sentence would be "Advocacy and civil rights groups have claimed a connection from anti-LGBT policies and rhetoric to Benedict's death," which shows that the assertion is one by those aforementioned groups and that it is not presented as a fact claimed by Wikipedia itself. 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the subject of the sentence already indicates that its not a fact (i.e. "There is a connection between anti-LGBT policies and Benedict's death. <CITE: advocacy groups>", but that its "noted" by the groups.

regardless, yeah, we can def change the sentence when full protection ends. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:CLAIM - there are ways to rewrite the sentence to reflect WP:NPOV policy, e.g. words to watch. For example, "Advocacy and civil rights groups have said there is a connection between anti-LGBT policies and rhetoric and the death of Benedict" would seem to be a more neutral way to phrase the same information. However, this was added by an editor awhile ago and I have been hoping there could be some review of sources and consideration of how independent, reliable and secondary sources describe this aspect of the impact. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, "claimed" can imply a degree of falsity to the claim. "Said" seems appropriate. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

"poured water" / "mutual combat" NPOV/BDP issue

In some of the additions and removals that happened before full page protection was implemented, there were what appear to be news-style detail added by PLG, e.g. [46] "pouring water" and "mutual combat." Should we continue to add detail to balance this detail, e.g. what the police officer said about pouring water not giving a right to use physical violence in response? That would seem contrary to MOS:LEAD in a lead that is already getting long. In addition, and I think more critically, reliable sources do not seem to support the implication that now seems to be made in the lead that it was the water that supports the mutual combat determination. The POV implied by this lead therefore seems unsupported and contrary to BDP policy.

unsourced potential BDP violation

There is also an aspect of the lead that currently has a "failed verification" tag. The issue of whether and how to include detail related to notes described but apparently not released by the Oklahoma medical examiner was the subject of edit-warring, where I did attempt, including on BDP grounds, to remove content that appears unsourced about Benedict, but it was added back into the article by PLG, contrary to WP:BLPUNDEL e.g. [47]; in an attempt to avoid further edit war, I added the tag, and then the page got locked with this apparently unsourced content about a recently-deceased person still in the lead; my hope is this apparent unsourced overstatement about Benedict can be addressed after the article unlocks, or by an uninvolved admin before then.

the lead generally

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

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

"poured water" Keep the same. Otherwise, undue emphasis is placed on the three girl's beating Nex, and not enough emphasis is placed on the water pouring which is what started the physical altercation and led to the three girls beating Nex. Reliable sources that describe the physical altercation nearly always detail both the water pouring and beating. And, the bullying that preceeded the water pouring is mentioned too; an omission of the water pouring would be glaring.

Alternatively, if we are focused on brevity, we could say that Nex and three girls engaged in a physical altercation without mentioning any further details about who did what.

This paragraph is already balanced. It is a factual depiction of who did what. No where does this paragraph claim that the three girls beating Nex was justified, and thus there is no need for a counterargument from the police officer for the sake of balance.

"mutual combat" Keep the same. We do not (nor should we) state in wikivoice that the altercation was mutual combat. We attribute this claim to the DA. It is clearly relevant to why charges were not pressed, and not undue, given that every reliable source explains that charges were not pressed for this reason. If we delve into enough detail to mention the name of the DA who declined to press charges, surely the reason why no charges were pressed is also relevant, as this is clearly of more relevance than the name of the particular man at that agency.

"handwritten notes describing self-harm" Keep the same. The handwritten notes describing the self-harm are attributed to the medical examiner, and are clearly relevant why the death was ruled a suicide. The reference to the notes are not unsourced; on the contrary they are mentioned by nearly every reliable source including the Washington Post [48], and NBC [49]. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, no source states notes describe self-harm; the primary source is quoted: "Handwritten notes that are suggestive of self-harm were found in the decedent’s room by family and provided to law enforcement” e.g. WaPo. The change to overstate the primary source conclusion appears to be a BDP violation. Beccaynr (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm getting you. How about if more clearly attribute the "suggestive of self harm" to the medical examiner. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the source states that Nex Benedict poured water when a verbal altercation with the girls escalated. Suggesting a timeline where Nex started the altercations is POV. We should compromise and reflect the uncertainty by changing:

On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma after pouring water on them.

to

On February 7, Benedict told a police officer they had been beaten that day by three girls in the girls' restroom at Owasso High School in Owasso, Oklahoma during an altercation.

Its also a silly detail IMO to suggest pouring water is the most important thing about Nex.

The point of this article is not to do a play by play in the lead of how the fight went, just the notable part; we can include details in the section as appropriate. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the opposite: It is POV (to the effect of making Nex seem more sympathetic) to not mention an important detail of the timeline which is not disputed by any party. What is the uncertainty to which you refer?

Pouring water is important because it was the first act of physical assault/violence that started the altercation. Why would we mention the beating but not what started the physical altercation? Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am undoing your revert because there is puts undue emphasis on the three girls, and there is no indication that there is consensus to do so. Because of ongoing arbitration on this page, do not revert again, as that would be considered editwarring and could subject you to a block. Discuss your objections here instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nex's Autopsy report shows death be suicide from an overdose. ^[1] 23.244.192.106 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to already say that: On March 13, the Oklahoma medical examiner's summary report was released, citing suicide as Benedict's cause of death, and including a finding of probable cause from a "combined toxicity" of two pharmaceutical drugs. Please specify what exactly you want changed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, I would like my edit from pre-protection to be modified such that the last sentence of the lead reads:

On March 27, a full autopsy report was released by the Oklahoma medical examiner with a toxicology report, a description of Benedict's injuries, and a reference to handwritten notes that the medical examiner deemed to be "suggestive of self-harm." Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the primary source states "Handwritten notes that are suggestive of self-harm were found in the decedent’s room by family and provided to law enforcement." (e.g. WaPo) To ensure compliance with NPOV and BDP, it is seems best for now to simply state "On March 27, a full autopsy report was released by the Oklahoma medical examiner." Further discussion appears needed as to how much detail is due to include, and whether cherrypicking detail creates implications that are biased, poorly-sourced, or otherwise contrary to BDP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus an edit of this nature. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating edit request pending discussion (or the protection expiring tomorrow). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter L Griffin

You cannot revert my change and claim we need consensus, when you were the one who unilaterally placed the phrase "pouring water" in the lead in the first place.

It's POV-pushing and bizarre to keep that in the lead. We don't need a play by play of the altercation in the lead.

I suggest that you stop asking for everyone else to get consensus for their changes when you keep adding in changes yourself without any consensus. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit war with you. Nonetheless, the same rules that apply to me apply to you.

I think your edit was POV-pushing and bizarre. You apparently think the same of mine.

Why are you justified in reverting my edit without consensus, but I'm not justified in reverting yours without consensus? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is already an open section discussing this. There's no need for you to make another one and tag me specifically. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the sections are insanely large circular discussions that are hard to keep track of. Apologies for making a new section. I did not notice you discussing reverts.

The same rules that apply to me apply to you. Agreed.

You are pushing a perspective that:

A) discounts bullying and anti-LGBTQ pressure on Nex Benedict's death (arguing that Nex was always suicidal, arguing that pouring water should be given equal weight to physical violence, especially when most sources agree that the sequence of events on how stuff escalated is not quite known)

B) Suggests that the framing of the incident by Oklahoma officials (who happen to be accused of being anti-trans) is a certainty when we should be much more careful and state the multiple sides

C) protecting any of your own changes by claiming that they have consensus.

If you actually cared about the consensus, then you would just remove the phrase "pouring water" along with many of the other changes that keep getting reverted and stop trying to argue with each and every single one of these comments when they disagree with you. Your name shows up more than 70 times in this Talk section, especially with arguments to try to move this page. In half the Oppose arguments for moving this page, you are arguing with the folks who oppose your move. You are the main proponent for many changes and you continue to argue because you simply enjoy trying to push this perspective. When someone calls you out for violating a WP policy, you pull out another WP policy as proof that you are "right".

We are clearly going in circles. We need real Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, probably with an uninterested third party mediating at this point. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter L Griffin @User:Beccaynr I'm starting a dispute resolution ticket here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Death_of_Nex_Benedict. It is a non-punitive way to ask for more help, and should be straightforward. We all need more help at this point. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(A) and (B) mischaracterize my positions, and (C) applies to you as well. I feel that you are seeing motivations on my part that do not exist.

A)

• I never argue Nex was always suicidal or try to put that in the article. Where is this?
• I do not discount bullying, as I do not modify the parts of the lead that mention bullying.
• I do not discount anti-LGBTQ pressure, as I do not modify the parts of the lead that mention this. Nonetheless,
• Pouring water was a part of the physical violence that transpired in the bathroom, and was the antecedent to the beating that subsequently transpired; as such it should be mentioned. Pouring water is considered assault/physical violence; this is no more POV than saying beating someone is considered physical violence -- clearly pouring water is a physical act.
• Pouring water is not proportionate in magnitude to beating, and nowhere is this claim made. The inclusion of the water pouring displays the escalation of the altercation, from a verbal dispute to water pouring to beating.
• To mention the bullying and the beating but to omit the intermediate act of water pouring is POV, as it gives the false impression that the bullying led directly to the beating, without mentioning Nex's role in escalating the fight.

B)

• I do qualify claims by partisan elected officials who are accused of being anti-trans (ie. the DA, the superintendent, etc), and in no way say that they are certainties or should be expressed in wikivoice.
• The medical examiner is a medical expert and not a partisan elected official, and the medical examiner has not been accused of being anti-trans in reliable sources. Yet I still attribute claims which are disputed (notes suggestive of self-harm). I also am mindful of not giving undue weight to those without medical expertise (the Benedict family) and presenting them as an equally plausible alternative to the findings of a doctor.

Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, because we say in the lead that charges were not filed because it was assessed to be mutual combat, it is otherwise confusing not explain Nex's role in the combat. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be original research to suggest the Tulsa county prosecutor made a finding of mutual combat based on 'pouring water,' because no reliable source appears to state the prosecutor said this was the basis of the decision to not bring charges or the basis of the mutual combat determination.

An attempt to place an undue emphasis on 'pouring water', particularly with the intent to suggest a connection between 'pouring water' and the prosecutor's decision not to charge based on mutual combat, and the suggestion that this is "Nex's role in the combat" further appear to be NPOV and BDP issues.

I tried to discuss this in a talk section about the lead above, with a suggestion to consider simplifying the lead according to the MOS, NPOV, and BDP, and to help reduce risks of ongoing disruption. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never say that what you assert I am claiming. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above the purpose of including pouring water is :

• Pouring water was a part of the physical violence that transpired in the bathroom, and was the antecedent to the beating that subsequently transpired; as such it should be mentioned. Pouring water is considered assault/physical violence; this is no more POV than saying beating someone is considered physical violence -- clearly pouring water is a physical act.
• Pouring water is not proportionate in magnitude to beating, and nowhere is this claim made. The inclusion of the water pouring displays the escalation of the altercation, from a verbal dispute to water pouring to beating.
• To mention the bullying and the beating but to omit the intermediate act of water pouring is POV, as it gives the false impression that the bullying led directly to the beating, without mentioning Nex's role in escalating the fight.

Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These repeated bullet points appear to be original research, because no reliable source sems to state this, and no reliable source seems to say the Tulsa county prosecutor states this about the charge decision and mutual combat.

You also said at 21:29, 31 March 2024 about the lead

And also, because we say in the lead that charges were not filed because it was assessed to be mutual combat, it is otherwise confusing not explain Nex's role in the combat.

We should also be careful to avoid developing such apparent original research based on a need to "right great wrongs" e.g. to correct a "false impression that the bullying led directly to the beating".

I think a simplified lead summary of the article contents, according to the MOS and core content policies and BDP, may help reduce further risks of ongoing disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]