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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls the death a suicide in author's voice

• New York Times
• USA Today
• NBC News
• CNN

Says the death was ruled a suicide

• NPR
• The Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 21 and March 22 source examples

CBS News Mar 21: "An Oklahoma district attorney declined to file charges in connection with the death of nonbinary teenager Nex Benedict, officials said Thursday." NPR Mar 22: "Prosecutors in Oklahoma say they will not pursue charges in the death of Nex Benedict." Oklahoman Mar 22: "LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the Tulsa County district attorney's decision to not file charges in the death of Nex Benedict or the fight that preceded it."

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

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

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

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

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

References

Page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autopsy dispute

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

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

The initial source clearly reads:

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

This sentence was shortened and the following sentence added:

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

These combined to state:

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

As per the press release of the family’s legal representation(https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/status/1768484432946811288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1768484432946811288%7Ctwgr%5E4f106bc34f079c49b08f019792bd1a3a52ec7356%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.lgbtqnation.com%2F2024%2F03%2Fnex-benedicts-family-releases-details-from-medical-examiners-report-indicating-physical-trauma%2F), it is clear that they never clearly state they do or do not object to coroner’s findings, but due wish to shed light on aspects which were overshadowed by the initial evidence presented.

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

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

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

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

Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Freshman Girls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria for page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent lead addition - undue detail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"caused by a drug overdose"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand you.

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

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

"The lead should reflect the article and the sources"

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

Proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 28 March 2024

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

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

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

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

Because this is the full report, new details are unlikely to emerge from this point forward. This addresses many of the concerns about rapidly changing information raised earlier after the release of the summary report. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)