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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024 (2)

After the statement that Nex was declared dead at the hospital, could the fact that the police denied their death was due to physical trauma be added? The supporting link is here: https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/oklahoma-lgbtq-teen-did-not-die-from-trauma-police-say-204679749836 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the discussion above on the Preliminary autopsy results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no good reason why this widely reported fact (the fact that the police said that the death was no linked to any physical trauma) should be left out of the article. It's pretty obvious this was a drug overdose and possible suicide.2600:1012:B138:DBF1:499D:F7C8:1640:EAB8 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"It's pretty obvious this was a drug overdose and possible suicide."

Where's your source for this information? In all the articles I've read, there's no mention of drugs, not even medication, only the beating Nex endured. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Suicide by group of transphobes? That's a new one and puts your prejudices on display. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The police have indicated that they have NOT ruled out the fight as a contributing cause for the death. What the coroner means by "didn't die as a result of trauma" has been widely misunderstood by people... It just means he didn't die from severe physical injuries (in other words, didn't die from physical trauma). It does NOT mean that Nex could not have passed away from injuries they suffered. UnapolMaker (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please include this and any future updates from the coroner's report.--Somegenerichandle (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Assault

The "Death" section reads:

"As retaliation, while in the bathroom of their assigned sex per Oklahoma law, they poured water on three girls who had bullied them, which led to Benedict being reportedly assaulted by the three girls. During the assault, Benedict sustained severe head injuries after being knocked to the ground and having their head repeatedly slammed into the floor."

While labeling the girls as assaulting Nex would it not be fair to say that Nex committed assault when they poured water on the three girls? As presented now it appears as though the girls outright assaulted Nex, when in fact it was in retaliation to the initial assault committed by Nex. Both sides appear by the article to have committed assault, but as written it seems to show bias that only the girls committed assault even though assault was initiated by Nex. Angrycommguy (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously putting pouring water on someone into the same category as slamming someone's head repeatedly into the floor? If so, find a reliable source that describes what Nex did as an "assault". Funcrunch (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

okcca.net/ouji-cr/4-26/

[1]https://coolidgelawfirmaz.com/throwing-a-drink-is-assault/#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20definitions%20of,may%20classified%20as%20harmful%20touching. Angrycommguy (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I asked for a reliable source that describes what Nex Benedict did as an "assault". An attempt to include the unrelated sources above in order to justify describing Bendict's actions as assault would constitute original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Throwing water on someone is simple assault & battery according to law and case law. If you want a PRIMARY source you can watch the full 21 minute police body cam video of the hospital interview with (Redacted) (yes, she did go by (Redacted) and she/her pronouns) where the officer discusses that (Redacted) will be charged with assault as well. Angrycommguy (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

why are we taking the officers discussion at face value?? Nithin🚀 ^talk 02:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Angrycommguy, are you serious? Pouring water is not comparable to slamming someone's head into the floor. I think you should reconsider even being part of the conversations on this talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but it does constitute assault and battery under Oklahoma law. Not here to compare degrees or justification, just trying to keep this article objective and remove bias.

okcca.net/ouji-cr/4-26/ Angrycommguy (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In light of the recently released body cam video of the interview with (Redacted) (as she is referred to in the video) where the police inform her and her mother that she committed assault and initiated the assault this revision to add (Redacted) as the original perpetrator of assault should be made with immediate effect. Angrycommguy (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said: Are you serious? Snokalok (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

According to “The Advocate” (the original source for this part of the article) in a new article it is confirmed police are saying this is a case of mutual assault and that Benedict was the first to initiate assault. Advocate article confirming both parties committed assault according to police. Angrycommguy (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can perhaps see adding into further down that the police informed Nex (you're not adding their deadname, flat out) that they were likewise being investigated for assault due to the water throwing, per NPOV. That's as far as I'm willing to compromise. Your entire work on this page thusfar has been trying to argue that we include their assigned sex at birth to inform readers of "the nuance" of them being beaten to death, then trying to have Benedict's role described in wikivoice as un-provoked assault and battery, and then trying to rewrite the article to include their deadname. I'm sensing a pattern. Snokalok (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Then why did you delete my edit that only added Benedict had been accused of assault as well? Please kindly remove your revert that removed this edit.

I’ve made no edit regarding Benedict’s sex or gender. Angrycommguy (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Because your edit said in wikivoice that they committed assault, which violates at the very least NPOV, BLP, BLPCRIME, and the fact that you kept reinserting it violates BRD and ONUS.

Consider, instead something along the lines of:

According to Benedict's grandmother, Sue Benedict, who had raised Benedict since they were two months old and adopted them in 2022, the school did not call an ambulance or the police, and instead ordered Benedict suspended for two weeks. Sue took Benedict to a nearby hospital for treatment, where she summoned the Owasso Police Department at around 3:30 p.m (CT). There, the police informed Benedict that both sides were being charged with assault, with Benedict being treated as the primary aggressor. Benedict was discharged later that day, and reportedly went to sleep with a sore head.

With all relevant citations ofc

And no, you haven't added their ASAB or deadname in, but you've been fighting tooth and nail for it here. Snokalok (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Upbringing and adoption can be edited into the biographic portion of the article rather than the “Death” section. Perhaps a section labeled “Altercation” or “Bullying and Altercation” should be added separating death and altercation. The “Death” section is rather long and separating the two could make the article an easier read. Thoughts?

At this point it seems that regardless of citation provided you will just vandalize any edit I insert. So I would implore you to add the edit as you prefer. Regardless Benedict is being accused of assault just as the girls are and in fact is being accused of being the one to initiate the mutual assault. So please either edit as you would like or improve upon my edit. Angrycommguy (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGP Assume good faith. Reverting under BRD is not vandalism, it's the process working as designed; and it's especially not when in response to edit warred in material against consensus. I'll add in the above paragraph with the sources you provided. Snokalok (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet you did not consider WP:AGF with my edit? You revert edits that you simply do not agree with. My edit was in good faith and provided citation to support and merely added that Benedict committed assault as well. You are vandalizing edits that don’t support your bias and then accusing others of vandalism. You clearly don’t want it mentioned that Benedict committed assault. Don’t revert and vandalize edits supported by citations and references simply because you don’t like what the citation states. Stop vandalizing this article. Angrycommguy (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to make a change to the article and the change is disputed, the proper procedure is to have it reverted under WP:BRD and then have you obtain consensus for its inclusion under WP:ONUS. If you try and add the change back in in contravention to that process, that is edit warring and subject to sanctions under WP:EDITWAR. Likekwise, under MOS:GENDERID, a subject's ASAB and deadname are not included unless they were previously notable under that name, and even then their name and pronouns on the article still reflect their preference. Under WP:BLP, any contentious or poorly sourced material about a recently deceased subject must be removed by default and consensus or an incontrovertible level of citation must be obtained. Under WP:BLPCRIME, a subject is presumed and written as innocent until proven guilty. Under WP:NPOV, disputed government sources are not treated as the word of god.

If you're not willing to engage with the processes of edits on Wikipedia, I can't help you @Angrycommguy. Snokalok (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you an Admin? You’re not.

If they’re using their name in an interview and not correcting anyone, even family, is that name actually dead? The “Nex” name more accurately falls under the alias category. Angrycommguy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A. I don't need to be an admin, this is how Wikipedia works - consensus. Learn it.

B. It's not an interview, it's a police questioning. They're very different things and attempts to characterize that as an interview at best dishonest. Snokalok (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a terrible source, but i don't feel the video is faked. Maybe the full one is on yahoo, but i am not going to give them permission. Anyway, the officer explains Benedict initiated. Throwing a liquid (or anything is assault). The officer explains that if they (Benedict and the grandmother--called mama here) file, Benedict will likely be considered the initiator. https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1761297554124517829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somegenerichandle (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Owasso police have released the interview. It's also 21 mins long. https://www.youtube.com/@OwassoPoliceDepartment And throwing water at someone is assaut as the Officer explains, so i agree with Angrycommguy. Somegenerichandle (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Should Nex's given name be included?

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:

[2] AP [3] TIME [4] The Independent [5] NYT [6] CNN [7] PinkNews [8] ABC [9] 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)

[10] Teen Vogue "Brain trauma" [11] The Independent "Severe head injuries" [12] 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)

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

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 phrase "older peers" should be reworded. They aren't peers if they're older. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daddyelectrolux Age isn't the only parameter by which two people can be peers. I think it's reasonable to call them peers insofar as everybody included is a highschool student. This also helps illustrate pretty succinctly who the altercation was between; peers as opposed to an adult faculty member, for instance. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hijerovit: in this edit, where did you find text in the cited article that supports mocking them for their clothing style? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th This, in the very beginning: "Nex, who used them/they pronouns, appears alert while telling the officer that they poured water on three girls who had been bullying their friends for “the way that we dress”." Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"bullying" is the operative word there. Not mock. The two are very different things with very different connotations, and mock just comes off as an attempt to downplay and make Nex's reaction seem unwarranted. Snokalok (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok Second source added says: "Nex, who used they and them pronouns with peers, 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 “because of the way that we dress.”"
I hope this is cleared up now. I don't think anybody thinks spraying somebody with water is unwarranted after being mocked, especially regarding the girls' retaliation. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My reply to this shall be down below in the sideswipe subthread Snokalok (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Aaah, I missed the "way that we dress" quotation when skimming the article. I agree with Snokalok here however that bullying is a more accurate word to use here than mocking. While mocking can frequently be a form of bullying, it can also happen independently of bullying, and the source itself is more explicit that this was bullying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th No, I agree, but I find it a more precise expression, which is why I believe it's a decent addition to "bullied". I feel like bullying implies more heavy, physical abuse and that mocking encapsulates the comments better in this scenario in addition to the fact that it was obviously bullying. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing though, because ultimately, the word "mock" comes up once, while "Bullied" comes up more times both in that source, and unanimously in every other source; and the fact is, they *were* beaten to death, so we can't really say for certain that the bullying was only mockery. Snokalok (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to imply the bullying was mockery alone, only that the mockery was the part that initiated the physical confrontation, especially as Nex claimed they and the girls had never met or interacted before (aka. the girls weren't involved in any other instances of bullying).
Due to that, I think the mockery by the three girls and any other bullying should be named separately. Though, I definitely see how my addition might've read like the two are synonymous. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 19:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but consider also that given that prior bullying was a factor on the table, even if it was only mockery in this instance (which is a very large if), people - and especially abuse victims which this objectively was - don't judge things based off singular incidents, consciously or unconsciously. The wider background of bullying is *far* more consequential to the escalation of throwing water, than whatever came immediately before it. Snokalok (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's relevant to the description of the incident, as we have to consider other perspectives, and not only Nex's, meaning that their perception of their bullying can't be the end-all-be-all. Provided we get a secondary source for the compound factor of bullying here (might already be somewhere out there, I just haven't stumbled onto it), it needs to be included, but also I believe we need to separate out the situations so as to avoid implying the girls had a history of bullying them. Saw the new edit – no contest. Thanks for taking the time! — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 20:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

While you may find it a more precise expression, it's one that the source that was originally cited (The Independent) didn't support. The text in The Independent is ...who had been bullying their friends for "the way that we dress".

I know that later you added a second source, The NY Times, which does state by three girls who had previously mocked Nex and their friends "because of the way that we dress." However, the Washington Blade article on the footage also uses bullied here. While there's no other major news sources for this yet as far as I can tell, I'm more minded to use bullied based on it being used slightly more often than the alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Pronouns versus no pronouns

@Snokalok and Angrycommguy: Rather than a series of back and forth edits, undoing each other, perhaps you could explain your respective positions on this issue.

Angrycommguy, why do you think it is an improvement not to use Benedict's pronouns in this article? Upon what policy or guideline are you basing your arguments on?

Snokalok, why are you undoing these changes? Upon what policy or guideline are you basing your arguments on? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm undoing them because A. It's not grammatically necessary to remove the pronouns in all or even the majority of cases, and B. Per AngryCommGuy's numerous WP:BLUDGEONING in this talk page and his edit summary, he by his admission considers the use of they/them pronouns to be a fundamental issue despite unanimous support for them by reliable sources and overwhelming editorial consensus; and has instead repeatedly posted the deceased's deadname and dead pronouns in talk with his justification being entirely based on WP:OR, and - again per his edit summary - gradually worked to remove any pronouns to the contrary from the article in direct contravention of MOS:GENDERID because he considers referring to Nex as "they" to be "non-neutral wording". This comes on the heels of making vociferous demands that Nex's ASAB needs to be included in order to understand "the nuance" of them being killed without "having to go dig for information, and responding to any sentiment to the contrary with some variant of the words "facts don't care about your feelings".

This isn't hard. Snokalok (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a few places in this article where the grammatical problems of using "they" arise. They aren't as blanket as have been edit-warred over, but there are some places where a reader will be confused by some bad writing. Take

There, the officer in question informed Benedict that should they choose to file a report, both sides would be charged with assault, […]

There are two problems with this.

First, "they" has three possibilities for referents: Benedict, Benedict and the officer, and both sides. It's not clear which possibility it is that is being conveyed here. You might know as a writer which one you mean, but with my reader hat on I can tell you that singular they with multiple possibilities for referents is a problem with your writing.

The second problem is "The officer in question". There is no officer in question. There is no question, and this is the first time that the article mentions an officer. This is also badly written.

You do have some poor writing problems in this article. Looking at the sources, "the responding officer" and "the School Resource Officer" are some quite obvious choices of how to address the second problem.

Addressing the first problem involves the point that the text as written is not verifiable from the secondary sources cited, which in their analyses of the video say rather that there, the responding officer said to Benedict that should Benedict choose to press charges the three girls could choose to press countercharges.

Although I observe from the primary source that it was actually the grandmother as legal guardian who would be in the position of pressing charges. Sadly, the secondary source writers weren't listening. So none of the referents are actually correct here. The problem is not even just that it's not clear to readers which referent is the one meant.

Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As a reader I completely see what you’re saying, there’s room for improvement. This is more of a cosmetic request, but in addition to making these improvements could we explore cleaning up the use of first/last throughout the article? Right now both Nex and Benedict are used to refer to them, a little consistency might make it an easier read. 166.70.90.130 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Use "Nex Benedict" in first referral, and their surname thereafter, the same as in other articles about individuals. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For the most part we can do this. One exception are paragraphs and sections where we're referring to Sue Benedict, Nex's mother. MOS:SAMESURNAME suggests that for this, we should refer each person by their forenames or full names, rather than surname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

This entire page is false. Video has now come out with a lot of information. You state the officer told her NOT to press charges. That’s false. He told her they both can and she would be primary aggressor since she threw water first.

Revise the page with facts, not more lies or half truth to continue to divide people. 2601:500:8080:BBD0:B070:9298:2990:D265 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Also remember that on Wikipedia, a verified video of the victim making a clear and unambiguous statement doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Only certain kinds of secondary sources are considered reliable. Tkircher (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Sue Benedict heard about what happened in the bathroom from Nex. Sue wasn't in the bathroom or the classroom with the freshman "bullies." So how is Sue's (obviously emotionally distraught) response to a journalist from the Independent, who then put their own spin on the events, a better source? The police officer who speaks to the Benedicts in the ER on Feb 7 was called to the ER by Sue. Nex did not speak to the officer, whom she knew from a previous encounter for vaping, under duress. Nex's head may have been hurting, but Nex does not appear to anyone in that room to be unable to speak about the altercation. Take what anyone says with a grain of salt, but don't have a policy that says the "victim" is not a reliable source. MyMets (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS are the relevant policies. An individual's statement is treated as exactly that, their statement. We need reliable, secondary sources to report on these things, that's how Wikipedia works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This child is dead and you can't even respect them when you type... come on. Have a little humanity at least? 199.168.95.209 (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) "Nex" Benedict suffered "severe head injuries"

Your authors state that (Redacted) "Nex" Benedict suffered "severe head injuries". What is your evidence of this? Do you have the hospital records from Feb 7th? I don't think so. 141.239.157.47 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia only includes content that is verifiable to one or more reliable sources. In this case, the content that Benedict received severe head injuries is cited to an article by The Independent who state that On 7 February, Nex suffered severe head injuries during a "physical altercation" in a bathroom at Owasso High School, according to the Owasso Police Department. Additionally this is corroborated by the Los Angeles Blade who state In what has been described as a "physical altercation," Nex suffered a severe head injury in a high school bathroom at the hands of three girls., Attitude who state that A non-binary student from Oklahoma has died from severe head injuries the day after being attacked in a girls toilet at their school, and The Huffington Post who state Benedict was allegedly beaten by three girls in the girls’ bathroom and suffered severe head injuries after being knocked to the ground.

If you have any issues with this content and believe it to be incorrect, I would suggest that you first contact these sources and request that they make a correction to their article. If that happens, we will of course look at the sources again and see what they state at that time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

what's up with you use of Scare quotes around Nex? Nithin🚀 ^talk 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the original person's comment dead named Nex. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 00:56, 29 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024 (3)

Under "Death" the first sentence has an OR claim. It's in the source: Two videos released Friday showed surveillance camera footage from inside Owasso High School that did not capture any of the assault. However, 21 minutes of body camera footage from School Resource Officer Caleb Thompson captured a critical conversation in the emergency room between Thompson, Nex, and Sue Benedict, the teen's grandmother and adoptive mother. 73.255.7.56 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added that reference to the section, thanks for mentioning it. I also moved the OR tag around but left it in for now. I looked at the source, and it does not seem to be sufficient for all the details in that paragraph. For example, it does mentioned the jumped thing and also mentions bullying over the way they were dressed. But it doesn't mention a lot of the other details, for example unlike jumped, the quoted "antagonizing" doesn't seem to be in the Advocate. And there's nothing about a vape pen, indeed unless I missed it the source doesn't mention that the officer already knew Benedict. I'm actually not sure if these details were in the video, but either way the tag clarifies that we need sources for all details in that paragraph. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The body-cam police video from the ER on the day of the altercation is the source of the facts you mention. Nex uses the word "antagonizing" to describe the way the 3 freshmen girls acted. Nex notes that the officer knows Nex and pals because of the incident with the vape pen that got them detention. Nex, a sophomore, says Nex didn't know the freshmen girls before they all wound up in in-school detention together. The Advocate is not the source for what happened in the bathroom. So far, at least, Nex is the only one who publicly described the altercation. MyMets (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Death section rework

I believe the death section rework by @MyMets should be integrated into the previous version, adding detail that was not present there.
Using the video as a solitary source might not be the best way to construct this, as it might not be reliable even if it doesn't fall under original research. A child talking to a police officer is, in my opinion, more likely to fabricate or leave out details than they are taking to their grandmother (who, if I remember correctly, is the source for the articles removed as part of the paragraph rework). — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 12:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Snokalok (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You must not have been a teenager. They lie to everybody! Especially mom/granny. Nex is barely 16 and in trouble...not for the first time because we know Nex was already serving in-school suspension along with friends for having a vape pen on campus. Mama Sue gets a call from school to pick up Nex after a fight. What's Nex going to tell mom? That Nex started it by throwing water on those girls? No. Nex is going to tell mom that those girls were picking on them again and jumped them in the bathroom for no good reason. But when the police officer is there, with a camera glowing on his chest, Nex thinks it may be time to fess up that they threw some water first. Nex may have told mom that the girls beat her head on the floor. But when the cop asks what happened, Nex adds the details that Nex threw a girl up against a paper towel dispenser and Nex can't remember what happened when Nex hit the floor. We're now supposed to believe that Nex threw themselves under the bus about the water throwing and girl tossing because it's a cop asking the questions?

AND it's crazy to remove Nex's quotes about what happened in the bathroom from this entry. Nex's words are all that Nex has left and they have been removed because of some crazy idea about sourcing. Let Nex speak. MyMets (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

We are not here to advocate on Nex's behalf. Nor are we a memorial. Our sourcing rules are very clear. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Response" section?

The response section of the article is just opinions put out by different groups on the matter. What an Oklahoman senator said about his state has no bearing on Nex Benedict's death (paragraph 4 of response section). Why does this section exist? Isn't the facts about Nex's death itself enough to include? Mustachio0 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Events that spark controversy, contention, or outrage generally have response sections. Snokalok (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic

How exactly is this article about a homicide related to post-1992 politics of the U.S? Trade (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m asking this in the most genuine way possible - have you paid attention to the news over the last three years? Snokalok (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

LGBT+ rights, and violence against such individuals, has been a political hot topic for years in the US. An Oklahoma senator, commenting in a hearing about LGBT+ youth after this death, stated "We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state."

So yes, it's directly related to US politics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

See also e.g. How the death of a nonbinary Oklahoma teenager has renewed scrutiny on anti-trans policies (AP News, Feb. 22, 2024, "The death of a 16-year-old nonbinary high school student in Oklahoma whose family says was bullied has renewed scrutiny of anti-trans polices and political rhetoric over gender identity"), and What We Know About the Death of a Nonbinary Student in Oklahoma (New York Times, Feb. 25, 2024, "The incident has renewed scrutiny over anti-transgender legislation in Oklahoma. [...] The laws are part of a nationwide push by conservatives to restrict gay and transgender rights. Statehouses around the country have been consumed by fights over laws governing them") Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 26 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

The "Death" section is misleading. It says she was bullied for over a year but she knew these girls less than a week. It also doesn't mention that she met them in school suspension where she was, this time, for vaping in school. The section also states she told people but according to her own words on video she only told her mom and no one else. It also fails to mention that she started the fight. She threw water on these three girls for talking amongst themselves. Was it about them, I don't know it's not for me to speculate but in modern society you don't get to assault people with liquid for using words you don't like.

I feel as if this wiki page was written for political reasons and leaves the reader out on very important pieces of information that make this look like LQBTQ+ laws were to blame for this incident and no blame on the person who first assaulted the other ladies. Page that shows all videos and admittance by Nex of starting the fight and not telling anyone https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-nex-benedict-body-cam-surveillance-video-911-calls/46938607 98.24.102.134 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Additionally, please refrain from using inappropriate gendered language such as referring to the subject, who is a non-binary individual, as a 'she/her'. Please read the notice along the top of this page and be aware that the Wikipedia community generally takes a dim view regarding intentionally misgendering individuals and enforcement action may be taken if it is perceived to be done intentionally. Melmann 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"In modern society you don't get to assault people with liquid for using words you don't like" You also don't get to kill people for throwing water at you.

Nex's alleged suspension for vaping is not remotely related to their death. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@98.24.102.134 Please stop misgendering Nex. Nex's pronouns are they/them 98.116.173.242 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Its disappointing that this was your takeaway. Remember a child is dead... possibly by bullying. Try some tact and respect please. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 00:48, 29 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 Ossawo 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

Obituary

Should we include the obituary as a source here as it uses their deadname? 2600:100C:A21C:CF07:74C7:88C0:9D37:7ABC (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I swapped the obit/funeral service website source for a reliable news source as a reference for the birthdate, and the obit/funeral service website was also used as a reference for content that the website does not appear to verify, so I removed it and added a 'citation needed' template for the content. Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

During the bodycam interview, Nex stated that she threw water from her water bottle at the group in response to them "talking about them, in front of them" which instigated the altercation 89.242.26.118 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Wikivoice to Describe Bullying

In the lead, we say

Benedict, who had previously been bullied at school, told police they were beaten by three girls in the girls' restroom

However, in the body, every reference to bullying that I see has the bullying claim attributed to Sue Benedict, or Nex's family. Is there a source that states Nex was bullied prior to this incident without attributing it? If such a source doesn't exist, I don't think it is appropriate for us to make this statement without attribution. Poppa shark (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I made an adjustment to the lead that I think more closely reflects the article [13]. Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's very appropriate. I'm going to make a quick change to align with this conversation [14] Poppa shark (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

Add under Death subhead: One of the medications Nex was taking, quetiapine, has been shown to cause adverse cardiac events. Researchers in Denmark have said in published research that the antipsychotic drug has increased risks for women. The Cleveland Clinic also says that quetiapine may interact with another medication Benedict was taking, fluoxetine.

2601:401:4380:9CB0:E84C:8A5C:D5B7:2C4F (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I would argue this is undue speculation, especially as the information in the cited article is out of date; a police statement on February 27 clarified that the fight has not been ruled out as the cause of, or contributing factor to, Benedict's death. Funcrunch (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done: WP:BLP policy applies and toxicology results are pending, according to reliable sources; in the meantime, the Franklin News Foundation source quotes the Drugs.com website and Cleveland Clinic website, and seems to speculate on medications taken by Nex based on a statement made by Sue Benedict at the ER, which does not seem sufficient to support this edit request. This source also appears to misreport an otherwise widely-reported statement by law enforcement with regard to the Benedict case, and therefore seems to be a questionable source for use in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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 [15], as well as a removal of a direct quote from Walters [16] 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 [17]. 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 [18]. 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)