Talk:Death of Nex Benedict

Preliminary autopsy results

It looks like in the last hour or two, the Owasso PD have released a statement saying the preliminary autopsy results indicated that Nex did not die as a result of trauma. Found four sources on it so far; KFOR, Fox 25 Oklahoma, News on 6, and The New York Times. That being said, the police statement doesn't state an actual cause of death, as they are still awaiting further results.

I'm hesitant to add content relating to this to the article at this time. This appears to be a preliminary autopsy, with the full report and results still pending. It would not be out of the realm of possibility for these results to change in the final report. Overall I think we're safer waiting for the final report results before adding this content, as an incorrect preliminary report wouldn't ordinarily be that notable when considering how we'd be viewing the content of this article in 5 to 10 years time. But I wanted to open discussion here on this to see how other editors feel. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

So, I think that the results of the autopsy should be handled in a similar manner to how they are when the police kill someone and say they died of fentanyl or mania or some other made up reason. That is, we shouldn't write it as an objective measure of truth, only as what the police said, with the police treated as any other relevant source of uncertain reliability Snokalok (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Because ultimately, American police have a reputation for discrimination against minorities and helping to cover up lynchings even in progressive areas. This meanwhile is a small town in the middle of a state that has Libs of Tiktok as a govt official, in which (it is believed by many) three kids lynched another kid and the school initially tried to cover it up. Police in this matter, particularly local PD, are a relevant source and absolutely worth including in the article, but they are not the word of what is objectively true and what isn't. Though I may just be jaded from editing UK-related articles. There if a judge rules that the sky is actually red, everyone seems to take that as the indisputable gospel.Snokalok (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, so the reputation of American police aside, it seems as though the messaging from the Owasso PD is confused. On the one had they've released a statement saying the preliminary results indicated Nex did not die as a result of trauma, and on the other they've requested and been granted a search warrant on the school looking for traces of blood and other evidence of foul play, according to an article in USA Today. It seems Nex' family is also conducting their own independent investigation into the killing. I wouldn't be surprised if this case winds up having a second independent autopsy done.

I think we should exercise extreme caution in including any information on the probable cause of death. Let the dust settle and the facts sort themselves out, there's no rush after all. We don't need to be the breaking news source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There have also been calls now for federal involvement due to the local police handling, so this is at minimum a tangled nest that it would behoove us to write with some pre-planning Snokalok (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bolt and Thunder, please self-revert your addition of the PD autopsy. Consensus has not been reached yet. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Unverified accusations of lynchings and cover ups should not be included on Wikipedia per BLP, which includes talk pages. I don't mean to harass you but this should also be stricken. XeCyranium (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The other request to strike I didn’t at all agree with because genitalia is pretty uncontroversially how most people define sex for all intents and purposes, but I struck it anyway for the purposes of maintaining a productive dialogue.

This one, I’ll give you the addition of “it is believed by many” because it is pretty objectively believed by many and it’s not unreasonable to acknowledge that in discussions of the weight to give various sources, per NPOV Snokalok (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, I think (don't quote me) it's fine if you attribute it. XeCyranium (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"The other request to strike I didn’t at all agree with because genitalia is pretty uncontroversially how most people define sex for all intents and purpose"

do you have a source for this because this is not at all uncontroversial Nithin🚀 ^talk 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Should Nex's given name be included?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For clarification - their given name is (Redacted) Benedict. Some of the earlier news articles refer to them as their given name, so including that name could eliminate confusion. Mustachio0 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Please see the second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:BDP. None of the articles currently cited in the article use or mention Benedict's former name. There's no confusion here over who they were or how they were referred to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Names and aliases are germane in all biographies. This is an encyclopedia, a ledger of human history. If we leave out facts now then knowledge will be lost forever. Generations later will miss out on nuances of these articles. Raw data and information should never be oppressed, censored, or withheld. All names and aliases should be included in a respectful fashion. Angrycommguy (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Read MOS:GENDERID again. This represents the current consensus of Wikipedia editors. Funcrunch (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Benedict goes by (Redacted) and she/her pronouns in polite body cam footage. She makes no effort to correct others nor her family. It is obvious that she is more commonly known as (Redacted) than by the "Nex" nickname. You can see this as evident in the 21 minute police interview with her in the hospital that is available on multiple social media video platforms. In fact there does not seem to be much, if any, evidence that she was commonly known as "Nex" or used "they/them/their" pronouns. In light of this information this article should be corrected to her legal name that she clearly utilizes and goes by. Angrycommguy (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This is from an interaction with a police officer (not figures one would typically correct on name and pronouns) while having suffered a severe TBI? Not a strong source. Every reliable source says they preferred Nex and They/Them. Snokalok (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What reliable source has made it clear that Benedict utilized different pronouns and names? The AP article says that family used “they/them” pronouns but the interview disproves this claim by AP. Any and all secondary sources provided thus far have provided no evidence of this pronoun/name claim. It should be mentioned that in the interview with police and family Benedict does go by the legal name “(Redacted)” and uses she/her pronouns. Can it not be argued that the use of the “Nex” name and alternative pronouns is alleged and not substantiated in any of these citations? Angrycommguy (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The interview does not disprove this claim even slightly, it simply says that Nex did not correct a police officer on their name and pronouns while being questioned and in the hospital for TBI.

As for sources:

[1] AP [2] TIME [3] The Independent [4] NYT [5] CNN [6] PinkNews [7] ABC [8] NBC

Need I go on? The only source you have is a video of someone in the hospital for brain damage, not correcting a police officer on their name and pronouns while being questioned under possibility of criminal charges - which is an entirely reasonable way to handle the situation. Under MOS:GENDERID, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:ONUS, you need much stronger sources than that and you need consensus. And even if this was a reliable video of a subject not under police interrogation, and not suffering brain damage, it's still WP:OR. Snokalok (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source on the brain damage claim? Seems like self research. Angrycommguy (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

[9] Teen Vogue "Brain trauma" [10] The Independent "Severe head injuries" [11] Advocate "Head trauma"

Not to mention that, in the case of someone having their head slammed repeatedly into a hard floor and having to go to the ER, it's not unreasonable to say that there was brain damage suffered. Snokalok (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

None of those citations mention Benedict being diagnosed with brain damage. Self research is not acceptable. Angrycommguy (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Then if you must be so pedantic, they were being questioned by police after repeatedly having their head slammed against the floor and suffering severe head injuries that required an ER visit and then the next day they dropped dead and stopped breathing, circumstances which would fit the textbook description of a subdural hematoma. None of this helps your overall argument though. It's still a primary source under unreliable circumstances Snokalok (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The mother has stated explicitly that she is sorry for not using the correct name and pronouns for Nex. This is cited in The Guardian amongst other sources. Funcrunch (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

“Benedict goes by (Redacted) and she/her pronouns in polite body cam footage.”

I don’t care. Nex is clearly this individual’s real name and the name they should thus be buried under regardless of what their parents put on their birth certificate. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

[12]

Is there any source more primary available after this tragedy than the obit that was written by the family? Pronouns are female throughout. 2606:EC00:10FE:E200:364B:7B1F:1492:6176 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The other name still redirects to this article. Better censor it quick quick. Equinox ◑ 01:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate Altercation and Death sections

The death section should be separated into an “Altercation” and “Death” sections. This would better illustrate and help understand the sequence of events. Angrycommguy (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. In addition to that, it would separate the occasions to a more appropriate degree. I feel like the article, in its present state, implies causation, which (while most likely the case) has yet to have a proper secondary source that would justify such phrasing. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The sources on Benedict's death seem to consider the attack in the bathroom related to their death the following day. I don't see any compelling need to separate this into Altercation and Death sections at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, there doesn't seem any reason to separate them and there would be little to fill the death section with beyond "A day after the altercation, they dropped dead" Snokalok (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"Older" peers

The article states that three older peers were involved, but in Nex's testimony to the police (Available as a video on various websites, Youtube, Twitter &c.) differs. The story according to Nex is that three younger girls (who Nex claims to be Freshmen) fought with Nex (who claims to be a Sophmore), and that they "did not know" each other before the incident. Maybe they were older and Nex is mistaken, but we should not state "according to Benedict's testimony" they were older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotRexButCaesar (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Original research

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Consistency in referring to Sue Benedict

Sue Benedict is described in the Background section as the grandmother and adoptive mother. Later in the background section, Sue is referred to as Nex's adoptive mother. In the first paragraph of the Death section, she is referred to as Nex's mother. In the last paragraph of the Death section, she is referred to as their grandmother. I think the article would be improved if we referred to her the same way each time. I propose that we simply call her Nex's mother after the first paragraph of the Background section. This seems to be how the articles refer to her most often. Poppa shark (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in these cases it is best to explain the background once and thereafter use the simple term. --Ziko (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nex possibly used he/him pronouns

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Splodlesplurf (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The article currently states in the Aftermath section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist

References

Notability of pending legislation

So, the title here might be slightly deceptive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the photo appropriate to have?

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Radical left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive use of quotation marks

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Spelling

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

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

MOS:LEADSENTENCE

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Look elsewhere

In other words, there are certain facts, critical to the subject at hand, that Wikipedia will not tell you, and if you wish to know these facts, you must look elsewhere. Does that sound encyclopedic to you? 96.237.184.133 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)