While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state) may be able to help!
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more
non-binary people. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Many, but not all, non-binary people go by
singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
It is mentioned prominently in every article, including in many titles.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 22:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
If you want a formal deletion nomination and discussion, please see
WP:AFD.
Funcrunch (
talk) 22:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I disagree, but either way it is too soon to tell. There is no rush.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply