Talk:Killing of Scout Schultz

They

As Scout Schultz was intersex, we should use "they," not "he," to describe them. The BBC uses "they."Zigzig20s (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. It shall not use the "inclusive language" the media sometimes uses to please cultural marxists and their diktats UlyssesFromIthaca (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think if the use of "they" is good enough for the BBC, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. But I will let other editors make a final decision on this.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please restore this perfectly referenced passage: Both The New York Times and The Guardian notes that Schultz, "preferred the pronouns “they” and “them” rather than “him” or “her”.? This is a direct quote from two reliable third-party sources, and it should not be redacted.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, trou de balle UlyssesFromIthaca (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) UlyssesFromIthaca (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The English language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and so typically, how a word is used is more correct than the dictionary definition. However, even prescriptively, "they" is considered the correct gender-neutral pronoun by the "AP Stylebook". While I don't have a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary on hand, the "Indiana University Bloomington Library" has recorded that the OED prescribes "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, with its first use recorded in the 14th century. Furthermore, even if you do not agree with the use of "they" in reference to Non-Binary individuals, Schultz was Intersex, and physically neither exclusively male or female. There is no justification for "he" or "she", as neither correctly refer to Schultz regardless of your definitions of gender and sex. DenniATL (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

look at this lad trying to find obscure justifications. Truth is above your weak paragraph. A man who decided to cut off his balls and penis, remains a man. He was intersex according to him, not to nature. We should describe a reality that's above the way Schultz perceived himself. UlyssesFromIthaca (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Singular they is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I have added relevant templates to this talk page and reported UlyssesFromIthaca for BLP violations and personal attacks (which should probably be hatted or removed from this talk page). Funcrunch (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In reference to the "man who chose to cut off his balls and penis" comment, intersex and transgender/transsexual individuals are entirely different. Intersex includes hormonal or other physical conditions such as Androgen Insensitivity Disorder, as well as those classically (though incorrectly) referred to as "Hermaphrodites". In fact, Intersex individuals are often forcibly subjected to "sex correction" surgery early in life, a process many openly Intersex individuals defy by presenting as their birth sex rather than their assigned sex (i.e., intersex rather than male or female). DenniATL (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree for different reasons. This article is *really* confusing. It talks about 'they' holding a knife, and I'm immediately wondering if Scout was in a group. IMO, in an article about crime, preserving standard singular/plural pronoun use is more important than honoring the deceased's preferred usage. 99.184.132.164 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

At least some cases can be resolved by rewriting the sentence (or few sentences) to avoid the need for the third-person pronoun. My primary concern is that readers can actually understand the writing (I agree with User:99.184.132.164), so in the interactions between one person and a group of other people, I think "they" is likely to be misinterpretted by many readers to mean the group. But this is no different than avoiding saying "he" when discussing two different males...we simply rewrite to avoid the need for the pronoun altogether. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

While there's no doubt that "they", "them" and "their" are gender-neutral and can even mean a singular person, the main misuse of this word comes from the fact that these are *indefinite* pronouns, which cannot resolve in the cases used here.

Proper use of "they" in a gender-neutral, singular, but still indefinite setting: "A person asked me how much they owe."

The argument isn't whether the word is gender-neutral or not, it is whether it represents a definite or indefinite pronoun. You wouldn't exchange the words "the" and "a/an" without completely altering the meaning of a sentence. This is no different. 2601:183:8300:5BCE:C8F4:92A6:D15A:8D61 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

According to MOS:GENDERID, Wikipedia should use "a person's latest expressed gender self-identification". Apparently, this would be male, seeing as Schultz called 911 to report a man with a knife - that man in fact being himself. Rhoark (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering that Schultz was obviously in a disturbed mental state at the time, and also that most US-Americans do not know or acknowledge that non-binary people exist, it wouldn't make have made sense for them to report a "non-binary person with a knife" in that 911 call. The reliable sources cited establish that Schultz was non-binary, not a man, and preferred singular they pronouns, not he/him/his. Funcrunch (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Please include the part on how Scout called in the 9-1-1 call himself. Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/gbi-georgia-tech-student-called-911-before-shooting/WTH4NAGX30oJJEAEK98biN/ Starked1 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done by User:Gssq. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of "suicide by cop" hypothesis

Excluded from this article is the fact that Scout left a total of three suicide notes in his/her room, suggesting that this was a premeditated occurrence. The article need not definitely state that this was "suicide by cop," but it is certainly a factor in the large picture that should not be neglected, as there is a wide audience who are of this mindset. Hoermann3 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC) GT Alum, former GT psychiatric services patient Hoermann3 (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The suicide notes are mentioned in this article, and "suicide by cop" is also addessed, both in the "Aftermath and reactions" section. (Schultz preferred singular they pronouns, so that would be "their" room.) Funcrunch (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

age edit

Scout was actually born Dec 7 1995. I went to HS with them and graduated with them. This saddens me so much. A fix would be greatly appreciated. And a memorial Service will be held on the 8th of October in Lilburn. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/name/scout-schultz-obituary?pid=1000000186711557 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3405:1EF0:8A3:EABD:36EC:3C65 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if legacy.com is considered a reliable source for this information. I searched the reliable sources noticeboard but didn't find a definitive answer. I'm not personally opposed to including Scout's birthdate based on this source, but do any other editors have thoughts on this? Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_195 says legacy.com is not reliable as a sole-source for birthdates. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@DMacks: I saw that, but that was in reference to establishing the age of supercentenarians, which involves an extraordinary claim. I see nothing extraordinary about including a birth date from that site in this particular case. Funcrunch (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

was carrying a multitool that included a pocketknife, with an unextended blade

I don't think that statement is quite accurate, at least not using publicly available information. It has not been disclosed anywhere, AFAIK, whether the multitool/knife was extended while it was being carried. The photos instead show that, at the time the photos were taken sometime after the shooting, the knife was not extended. It appears that the AJC may have been a bit sloppy in their wording in the sourced article. Rob.the.batman (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Intersex/LGBT in the lede

The lede used to say they were intersex and the president of an LGBT organization on campus. I think this should be restored because it provides some important context which is mentioned in the vast majority of reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Anarcho-authoritarian: It is in the reliable third-party sources. Can you please restore it?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the incident, and it smacks of the white privilege applied in situations like this. See this, note how the press portray one person as a "timid gardener" and not the other. In fact, in our article on the Murder of Jo Cox, that biased coverage is mentioned but does not dictate the narrative of the event. And see also People v. Turner, where in the lead we do not mention how good Brock Turner was at swimming, no matter how many sources mention it. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to put biographical details of a person in the lead, then the fact that the person left a suicide note, had attempted suicide and shouted to be shot, is much more relevant than that person's sexual orientation and gender identity Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Referring again to Turner, media direction shouldn't dictate Wikipedia's direction. A search for "Brock Turner swimmer" shows many reliable third-person sources referring to him as "Stanford swimmer" or "swimmer" before "rapist", if they even call him that at all. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and shouldn't be following their lines of inquiry. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

see this. No matter how reliable AP, CNN, BBC, Time, MSNBC are as sources, there is no need to imitate their reporting. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I can understand an argument that being intersex and LGBT-affiliated may not have directly influenced the shooting, but I don't understand what white privilege or Brock Turner have to do with this article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I brought up Turner because many reliable sources about him refer to his prowess at swimming before mentioning his crime. Should that be imitated? No, the analysis of that should be mentioned, but it shouldn't dictate how Wikipedia write about him. Same here. No matter how many sources mention a person's extra-curricular activity, it's irrelevant to the lead. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned privilege because there is no way that coverage of an African American who did not drop their weapon would mention their extracurricular activity. Turner comes into this as well, because even allegedly "liberal" sources like MSNBC mentioned his swimming before his crime. Thankfully, Wikipedia does not parrot those sources as gospel in the People v. Turner article. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like Original Research to me. The FBI will decide why he was killed. That's not our job as complete nobodies. We're not a newspaper but if all RS mention prominently that they were intersex and the president of an LGBT organization on campus, then so should we.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing with Zigzig20s. Arguments against including these facts are very tenuous and often nonsensical, based around calling being intersex an 'extracurricular activity.' Rab V (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; being intersex and part of the LGBT community is not at all equivalent to participating in an "extra-curricular activity", and Schultz is not accused of committing rape. The Brock Turner comparison frankly sounds ridiculous to me (and I'm speaking as black trans person, for the record). Funcrunch (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we discussing including it at all, or including it in the lede? The article is about the shooting event, not a bio article for the person, so I don't think we should include it in the lede until reliable sources support that it is relevant to the event. However, I could see including it in the bio section because (per weight of RS) it's apparently a salient aspect of the person. DMacks (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The lede. It's already in the body of the text. Adding it to the lede does not mean we are saying it was a hate crime as opposed to an accident (that's for the FBI to decide); we are just relaying that being intersex and the president of an LGBT organization are significant aspects of this shooting, as per reliable third-party sources. It seems POV to redact it from the lede--we should stick to the sources!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Which sources say it is relevant to the shooting, as opposed to just a bunch of details about the person piled into an article about the shooting with background about the person? DMacks (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned prominently in every article, including in many titles.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Schultz's intersex and non-binary status absolutely has to be in the lede, but I thought the argument by Anarcho-authoritarian against including the information there was ridiculous. Funcrunch (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability

In agreement with WP:FAVORITE, I believe that the subject is not notable and therefore unworthy of an article. Not every mentally-ill person shot by the police necessitates an article, even if it receives national news coverage. Analogously, every US Senate vote is a matter of public record and covered in international press, but they do not usually merit an article. As this event is neither controversial, with several suicide notes having been left, nor unusual, as suicide-by-cop is a relatively routine and straightforward procedure that makes up more than a third of all killings by police in the US, the only thing that stands out here is gender identity, which does not lend credibility, but rather makes the article a pet project. Were Schultz to commit suicide in any other manner there would not have been an article, as the individual and the event are simply not of encyclopedic merit. Every suicide by cop receives national attention, very few have articles. I move that the article be nominated for deletion. 24.144.13.189 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The shooting is notable as per weight of RS and because of the FBI is conducting an investigation. And yes, it is "controversial" because they were intersex and the president of an LGBT organization on campus, which should not have been removed from the lede IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, if the only argument in favor of the article relies upon gender identity, that is simply not a good enough reason to keep it. Furthermore, the FBI also investigates copyright violations and counterfeit money, neither of these in connection with an individual necessitates an article. 24.144.13.189 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles are not created based on editorial opinions. We use reliable third-party sources to assess whether a topic is notable or not. RS suggest gender identity, the campus setting and other aspects of this shooting make it notable. We also do not know if this was a suicide by cop--that is your opinion--the FBI will decide. Wikipedia editors do not make those kinds of decisions!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want a formal deletion nomination and discussion, please see WP:AFD. Funcrunch (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with the anonymous editor, and would probably vote in favor of deletion. Per WP:COVERAGE, the fact that this is currently a topic in national news and media doesn't automatically grant it sufficient notability. If it receives WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the following weeks and months, that would be different, but so far coverage of this story already appears to be dying down except for in local Atlanta news. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but either way it is too soon to tell. There is no rush.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)