Talk:Rachel Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming[edit]

Should this be renamed Rachel's Challenge since the article is more about that? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Endofskull (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel's Challenge[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and move the part about Rachel's Challenge to the article, Rachel's Challenge. I'll make it flow better too. Please either reply here, send me a message on my talk page, or post on the talk page of the Rachel's Challenge article if you have any concerns about how I changed it. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the writings of a person who is irrelevant to the topic giving their own opinion. Please use the talk page or the sandbox instead.[edit]

Someone, more specifically a ten-year old girl who even went so far as to name herself, posted a paragraph she wrote about Rachel Scott to the page. Please use the sandbox or find a forum to post it on. This is meant to be an encyclopedic reference. Also, I fixed the formatting errors in the See Also section.

Wanderson9 (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading[edit]

I reread the article again today, and I believe that the award given to her father regarding ==Rachel's Challenge== should be moved to Rachel's Challenge and removed from here. Ideas?

Wanderson9 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Anne Frank[edit]

Hello, I am new to the whole wikipedia thing. At school i head an Rachel's Challenge assembly and the guy speaking said that Rachel's Diaries were similar to Anna Frank's. I dont know how to cite this, but i added 2 sentences to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.48.161 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! Just a couple of follow up tweaks, changing 'Anna' to 'Anne', and I just added the double brackets to her name to create the article link.--Vybr8 (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are similarities between the legacies left by Rachel Scott and Anne Frank, and I have argued such elsewhere on Wikipedia. But for this claim to remain, a reference needs to be provided for "some sources". Marsoult (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worded and sourced the Anne Frank parallel. Oneinatrillion (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opinion that there is a similarity between Anne Frank and Rachel Scott should not be mentioned in Wikipedia. My impression is that some people, weak in their mind and weaker in the hearts are hell bent on turning Rachel into a christian icon. All of this is rather embarrassing but the fact that there is now a comparison to Anne Frank is a disgrace. Until the day of her death, Rachel obviously had a rather blissful life until, by chance and much too early, she became a victim in a terrible shooting. There is nothing at all connecting her life and her diary to her death. By contrast, Anne Frank moved out of Germany at the age of three with her parents when the Nazis came to power. At the age of ten, she was trapped in Amsterdam, that was occupied by the Nazis. She and her family went into hiding for two years. Afterwards she spent half a year in a concentration camp, where she died eventually. I suggest that the comparison is removed from the article and the reason documented here for the future. 217.253.94.213 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not to merge. -- StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel's Tears: The Spiritual Journey of Columbine Martyr Rachel Scott was redirected to this article in 2004, after an Afd, then un-redirected in July 2011. User:Kerowyn proposed a re-merge with this page in December 2011, but neglected to add the tag to this page and open a discussion, so I'm doing both on her behalf. I oppose the merge; the book is notable enough to be worth a seperate article. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this comment from the other article's talk page for clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no merge; notable in itself. Wikipedia:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. " Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a search in Google News I found some stuff that may help WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protecting this page[edit]

I noticed in the edit history that a lot of unencyclopedic and dubious, unsourced additions were made to the article by anonymous users, although these were removed, i think that this page should be semi-protected to prevent things like this from happening. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've put in a request at WP:RPP on your behalf. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist?[edit]

This person is not famous nor notable other than being a murder victim, and there are plenty of other victims who do not have wiki pages. I think this page should not exist, I do not think this person meets the criteria. It reads like a glowing obituary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.254.50 (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I mean, why do both Rachel Scott and Cassie Bernall have their own articles and not the other 11 victims as well? I think somebody should make a page entitled "Columbine High School victims" and put all the 13 people murdered (and even injured too) by the massacre rather than two random people having their own articles for no apparent reason.
I visited this article to see the reporting on her martyrdom. A film was made about her life. That's good enough for me. — tbc (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see the opening of this section begging the question "Isn't this obvious preferential treatment to the Christian victims of the Columbine shooting?", I have to disagree. Rachel Scott now has a movie about her, as well as having been biographied. Cassie Bernall has been biographied as well. I find short Wikipedia articles on these two people who attained modest postmortem fame to be appropriate, regardless of how or why that fame was attained, i.e., in both cases allegedly being shot for their religious preferences. If this original poster does not feel the other 13 victims (including those who perpetrated the tragedy) are being done a disservice by not having individual articles written about them, perhaps it is time to start writing.Risky shift287 (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of number of people who watched her funeral on CNN[edit]

I'm questioning the accuracy of the statement that Rachel's funeral on CNN was watched by more people than Princess Diana's funeral. The two references listed for this statement don't seem to have the source of this information listed anywhere (one is a broken link and the other is an unofficial Columbine memorial site that simply lists this statement with no sourcing or numbers-- http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/funeral.html).

Moreover, the linked page about Princess Diana's funeral says it was watched by 2.5 billion people worldwide (it doesn't give a CNN-specific breakdown, though CNN has a global presence), which is an extremely high number and seems very unlikely to be surpassed by Rachel's funeral, given the differences in stature and awareness between Princess Diana and Rachel Scott. The 2.5 billion number for Princess Diana can be sourced to dozens of reputable news outlets, so I think it can be regarded as accurate.

If this statement about Rachel's funeral having more TV viewers can't be sourced properly, I think it should be removed since it implies something extremely significant that may not be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.139.201 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord vs. God[edit]

User:Kieronoldham referred to Rachel's martyrdom in his addition as hinging on "the existence of the Lord;" however, the sources cited say "do you believe in God?" Let's be clear. As a Christian in the Anglican tradition, I am taught that "the Lord" may refer to either God as He is called in the Old Testament or to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity. Putting "the Lord" in an encyclopedia article when sources simply say "God" is confusing and, I think, editorializing. Hinging martyrdom on "the existence of the Lord" is strange, anyway, compared with the simply understood question, "Do you believe in God?" Besides, in this story, the latter is how her martyrdom is portrayed. — tbc (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is what is harked to in the various text and online sources I used. All I will add to that is when writing that I tried not to directly transcribe the material I have and have read online for obvious reasons. I also tried to combine as many sources as I could to dilute the volume from each source. Many of these sources hearken the exchange between Scott and Harris to her being classified as a Christian Martyr. Those are not my claims, but those in reputable sources. Call it editorializing if you like. The article has over 90 watchers, by the way...--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS it was the source of her beliefs that led to her being shunned by some at Columbine, and why that final exchange (depending on which source(s) you believe) took place. (I'd like to finally add here that direct quotes—rather like non-free images—should be limited in instances of use on articles depending on the article's overall size. I believe there is a text volume versus image/direct quotation insertion acceptability ratio on Wikipedia and believe me I learned that the hard way around 4 or 5 years ago.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrediting J. Watson[edit]

I'd like to read more about Rachel's martyrdom, and I think J. Watson is given too much credibility. Consider this critique by Amazon user Nexus6, who writes:

Not once does this author offer solid evidence that the Rachel and Cassie accounts never happened. He even goes so far as to quote law that a jury must follow in defining "proof" because it is so lacking in this book that the author can only be too aware of it. He insults the victims and their families by calling into question their stories, essentially calling them liars, based only on his own speculation. With the mass of confusion in the library that day, the Cassie story will always be debated, yet again, Mr. Watson offers no new evidence. As for Rachel Scott's story: the following text is an excerpt from page 151 of No Easy Answers, The Truth Behind Death At Columbine by Brooks Brown and Rob Merritt. "After he got the breathing tube out, he (Castaldo) was crying and upset, telling me through sobs how they taunted her (Rachel Scott) and teased her about God," Castaldo's mother Connie Michalek, told the Denver Rocky Mountain News on April 21, 2000. Mr. Watson actually explores the idea that she was being less than truthful with what Richard said in the hospital that day!
It is the opinion of this reader that if an author wishes to make the accusations that he does, he should bring new and compelling evidence to the table. This book offers no new insight into the Columbine tragedy. The information he cites as evidence has been around for years, and is available to anyone with internet access or a library card.

— tbc (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources precisely would you like? You can find some online, as you likely already know. You can read more in newspaper archives.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA?[edit]

I think this article is worth pursuing a good article nomination. Thoughts? Bluesphere 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually only one way to find out. I tried to clean up some of the sentence structure and tone. It's a challenging entry because the subject is known mostly for one event and because much of the potential source material was written by the subject or her parents. You could put in a request at WP:PR or WP:GOCE if you want more eyes on it before a GA nomination. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to try and help with any issues with the article or references if you want to pursue GA.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I also thought about having this peer reviewed. Gonna send it right away. Kieronoldham, your help will surely be required since you have significantly contributed to the page. I just performed minor tweaks to it, lol. And I'm sorry I forgot to sign my post above. Bluesphere 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the article's religiosity toned down a bit before I'd consider it GA - things like linking "His Son" as "Jesus" are inappropriate. Further, the whole article feels very much not NPOV. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe; maybe not. Her faith was paramount in her life and activities, though. See the sources and their tone yourself 1st though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about belief in God[edit]

Should be removed as there is not a single reliable source for this claim. The only eyewitness, Richard Castaldo, has only said that he can't be sure if it happened or not. ReneeMoody (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (last time I checked) are reliable. The section even states there are disputes/questioning as to Rachel's "final moments" in the text. I or others can and will add more should you wish. Forgive any encroaching (even tentatively) onto NPOV territory here, but I would have thought that would satiate your inquisity if your mindset was neutral and not alluding to the YT "G*d Awful Movies" channel?--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only understand half of what you're trying to say and have never heard of that YouTube channel. The only source I see cited for the claim that she asked about her belief in God, and killed because of it, is a quote from her brother, Craig. Craig Scott did not witness it and has no way of knowing whether or not it happened that way. The way it is currently written makes it sound like a handful of people question the circumstances, everyone else knows that this is what happened. In reality, it's all speculation. The only one person who might ever have known what happened hasn't made a definitive statement to the press. It should at least be revised to make it clear that this is theory rather than fact. ReneeMoody (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references support this (nobody is stating Craig's word on its own would classify as reputable for this information). Actually the mother(?) of Castaldo left a message on the family answering machine stating this (you can find written and video sources online), but later retracted her statement. You are correct there will never be a conclusive answer to whether the exchange occurred or not. If you have suggestions or reputable sources you'd like to add into the paragraph let us all know. Regards and sorry if I sounded somewhat irate previously.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Positive suggestions are of course welcome for adjustment.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead refs[edit]

Someone please attempt to fix these dead urls before I attempt to archive all the refs; I can't seem to find them around the web. Bluesphere 07:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluesphere. How's that? Hope that's addressed your concerns. Let me know if you consider further action necessary. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 40 and 57 are still broken, Kieron. Btw, the article was unsuccessful in getting a peer reviewer and has now been archived by a bot, unfortunately. But since you're a major contributor to the article, it's your decision if you want to nominate it for GA. It has gotten a copy editing from a GOCE member and I believe it's good to go. I'll just perform minor tweaks such as fixing the format of inline cites and archiving all the references. Bluesphere 05:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will get around to this in the near future. Thanks for your reply. :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The urls have been archived, thanks for reviving them. All the best, Bluesphere 07:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank comparison[edit]

I noticed that there was some back-and-forth editing on this entry regarding comparisons between Scott's journal entries and those of Anne Frank. It was suggested that the matter be discussed here. I'm noticing that the source says it's actually Scott's uncle who sees the similarities between these two subjects, so a simpler phrasing would be "Scott's uncle compared her to Anne Frank". How is this encyclopedic - much less lead-worthy? EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's newspapers etc. which you can find online, too (and no they don't just quote Rachel's father, relatives and other relatives). Plus Debra Klingsporn's book. The text in the lede was adjusted by another user to read what it currently states.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the edits I've made[edit]

Seeing as my edits to this page have invoked the thanks of EricEnfermero while Kieronoldham has declared their partial expectation that I might "advocate loyalty to atheism-adhering sites", I best explain myself before I step further into this POV quagmire of an editing conundrum. I admit my actions may have seemed heavy-handed, but I am of the opinion that this article is presented in such a fashion that is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia and it needs correction.

I removed some info about Scott's drama performances, because in the general scale of the of her life and legacy they are not very significant at all. My other edit of significance is changing the sentence "Thereafter, she was known among her family and friends as very devout, pious girl, and conveyed her love of the Lord and His Son to the people she knew." ---> "Thereafter, she was known among her family and friends as very devout and pious."

@Kieronoldham: You aren't really showing much WP:Good Faith here by reverting my edit and saying, "I half expect you to advocate loyalty to atheism-adhering sites" because of what I had done. You also wrote on my talk page that "Some of your edit justification rationales could be argued as being your own POV, dude" and "Reliable references are used via the existing context." Also, in you explain in your reversion that "WE didn't write the [reference]". I would appeal for you to consider that books written by Rachel's parents might not be so NPOV. They seem to have an interest in showing their daughter in a positive light and as very devout, no? Just because something is in a reference doesn't mean we are bound to include it verbatim. Now, I don't understand the exact context that led to the inclusion of the phrase "conveyed her love of the Lord and His Son to the people she knew", but I can say that THAT is certainly pro-Christian POV. First of all, God, in the Abrahamic sense, is not "the Lord" of the people reading Wikipedia. God should be referred to as "God". Jesus should also be referred to as "Jesus". You told me in your reversion explanation "Sorry, but change the wording slightly if you like." Allow me to find that similar to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Let's say we can reach consensus, in which case I would say simply that the first part of the sentence, "she was known among her family and friends as very devout [and] pious" already says all that needs to be said. If not, it could be reworded to say something along the lines of, "She was known among her friends and family as very devout and pious and openly she openly expressed such devotion before others." -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle:. I'm not going to get into an argument, and I'm sorry if I have touched a nerve of some kind. I just suggest you read your own edit justifications before you pass judgment. Kindest regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Despite us both getting off on the wrong foot here, I ironically agree with the vast majority of your edits (and did yesterday). Maybe the word condescending comes to mind with some of your edit explanations, and yes, I hold my hands up and agree I should have stepped back and re-read what you did. Some sections contained a little too much sentimentality, maybe. As for own behavior, I've been reined in before several times and will be in the future. I don't particularly mind. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham: Aye, my edit summaries did come off as abrasive and harsh. I apologize for emoting too much! As for improving the article and bringing it up to GA standards (like you mentioned on my talk), I would say that as it stands the article is well developed. I think it would probably benefit from the removal of some tangential/sentimental information and some rewriting more than any additions. Also, if you know what to extricate, "Works Cited" and "Further Reading" should not be meshed together. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major NPOV issues with this article.[edit]

This article has a lot of issues regarding Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. I have listed below the problems in each section that need to be addressed before the NPOV tag can be removed from the article. Intro - The intro mentions her uncle, among others, comparing her to Anne Frank but I fail to see how this merits mention in the intro. While indeed some have made this comparison and it probably merits mention in the article, I don’t think it’s been widely accepted enough to merit mention in the introduction. I’m pretty sure it would be a viewed as a very contentious and controversial claim if it where more widely out there.

Adolescence - This section has a few issue. First, the sentence “Thereafter, she was known among her family and friends as very devout, pious girl, and conveyed her love of the Lord and His Son to the people she knew.” The main issue here is that the way it is written, it comes across to me as saying in the Wikipedia voice that a single Christian male God exists who’s son is Jesus Christ when this is a contentious claim that many non-Christians would argue with, either partially or fully, such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists/agnostics, etc. I would find a way to reword the sentence to express how she believed in “God” and “Jesus Christ, Son of God”, and believed it was important to show love for them, in accordance with her Evangelical Christian beliefs, without Wikipedia appearing to take any position on whether or not “God” exists, what gender, if any “God” has is or whether Jesus was a was not the “son of God”. Second, the sentence “Furthermore, because of her faith, she was occasionally subjected to mockery by several of her peers, including Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.” This issue here is that it seems to be saying she was mocked merely for being Christians, when it appears it was more for adopting a very conservative evangelical Christian lifestyle & belief system, something many of her peers did not share. To fix this, we should clarify what exactly is meant by “her faith” and then we can quote her brother Craig Scott as well Rachel herself as described in the letter she wrote just before her death. If she was mocked for converting to a devout christian lifestyle then we can say that rather then implying she was mocked merely for being Christian. As to wether Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold targeted her for merely being Christian, that claim has been contested, by witness to her murder, police who investigated the Columbine massacre. (see my critique of this myth below) so we should not make such claims ourselves but merely quote others as having done so.

Personality - This section comes across as a bit to much “Rachel Scott was the most wonderful perfect person” and such. The tone of the section is way to biased towards her and needs to be more neutral.

Death - This section has one of the biggest issues with the article. Quoting from the section: “Although at least one author questions the actual circumstances of Scott's final moments,[41] other sources say Eric Harris approached her as she and Castaldo lay wounded, lifted her head by her hair, and asked her whether she believed in God. She said, ‘You know I do.’ In response, Harris said, ‘Well, go be with Him" and shot her in the temple.’”. This contradicts what is written in the article on the Columbine High School Massacre. In that article, it describes how several different dead or surviving students where supposedly asked that question, most notabley Cassie Bernall and survivor Valeen Schnurr (she has claimed). It never states anyone claimed that Rachel was asked that question. That seems to what her brother has claimed to have heard (not seen). The reality is that a number of witnesses as well as the police al seem to contradict all such claims, not just “one author”. The author sources quoted are either not reliable sources or they link to a video where her brother makes this claim without any proof. Given that reliable sources say that she was killed instantly, as stated in the Columbine Massacre article itself, that would preclude her from having being asked such a question. While we can include the claim made by her brother, we should also include all the counter-claims made by other witnesses as the the police conclusions regarding such claims, not just this one author.

Funeral - The main issue here is the following claim: “The funeral service was televised worldwide on many national and international TV channels, and the entire funeral was viewed by millions around the world. Broadcast live on CNN, Scott's funeral drew the largest audience the network had attracted to date, even surpassing the viewership of the 1997 funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales.”. The source cited does not support the claim that the funerals viewership on CNN surpassed the viewership of the 1997 funeral of princess Diana. Unless this claim can be backed up with sources then it should be removed.

Journal entries - Some of the statements about her journal entries lack sufficient sources to back them up. Did she really predict her own early death? I couldn’t find that in the sources listed. If her journal entries are published in untouched form somewhere then we can quite the relevant journal entrees directly.

My Ethics; My Codes of Life - In this section some slight wording improvements might be in order to clarify that we are describing the father stated motivations creating Rachel's Challenge, not taking any position on them, especially wether he indeed did have the prophetic dream he claims. Rewordings such as “He says he was inspired…” rather then “He was inspired” and “He says he was stunned…”, rather then “He was stunned”, for example, might help.

Rachel's Challenge - In this the claim is made “As a direct result of Rachel's Challenge, numerous child and teenage suicides have been prevented, bullying has decreased in American schools, documented acts of community service have increased, and in seven known cases, planned school shootings have been prevented.” but the sources for this either are the organization itself (not unbiased) or other non-reliable sources. These claims needs to be removed unless unless they can be properly sourced. If they can’t, then the claims could be reworded to state who makes them with a clear statement that they have not been proven by reliable sources. rewording Example: “Rachel’s Challenge claims their program has significantly reduced or prevented suicides, bullying, etc….” thought this has not been proven by any studies.

One other issue, I looked over the sources used to back up the statements and facts in the article and I noticed that a good number don’t seem to qualify as reliable sources for what they are being cited for. The whole list of sources needs to be gone over so that non-reliable or otherwise inappropriate sources are not being used back up statements or claims they do not or should (per Wikipedia policy) not be used for.

Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Notcharliechaplin, why not take sufficient time to address any issues you see (or personally judge). Others have thought it qualifying as a GA nominee. I mean, you can take time addressing the issues as you see them on a talk page, right? All the references are verifiable online, and you can Google book search the book sources. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed most of your points. There could be better citations for a lot of things, but the POV should be alright. NPOV Tag removed.Tetrasion (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also conflicting narrative about if Scott personally knew the two shooters- Has anybody looked into that? /* WeChat Tencent - AllThingsGO wechat2 */ 19:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most Popular School Assembly Program in America[edit]

I'm sorry but why is this statement in here? It has nothing to do with Rachel Scott and just sounds like it's coming from someone with a bias trying to paint a particular picture about her and the affect she has had. It doesn't even make a statement you can gauge. Not only that but it's source linked to is from a newspaper article that is from 2008 when sure it may have been the #1 school assembly program. However when we let a newspaper from a county with a population of 4k people and an article from that newspaper from almost 10 years ago be a source on a claim in Wikipedia then we might as well let anyone cherry pick whatever data or sources from whatever obscure places they want. I mean to find that source that person had to be really searching for backup to his/her claim.

Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh but I've been seeing this technique pop up over and over again on Wikipedia lately where someone will make a claim in an article and then use some obscure reference from a newspaper or book as it's source and then people either don't check it or think because it's from a book it holds more weight than a link and let it slide.

JaqenHghar8045.20.194.86 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

@Flyer22 Frozen: The issue is resolved now with your addition of Larkin pg 8, but there are a few points I would like to address. First, Wikipedia:Citation overkill is meant to address unnecessary citation where the information preceding a given citation is already adequately supported and thus further citations are needed. It is not meant to allow for one citation which supports other material to be used as "adequate" sourcing for other information. Basically, Larkin pg 48 did not support the statement that Klebold and Harris killed themselves, and I did not want to give the impression that it did. So, for the part of the sentence that citation didn't support, I added the tag. Secondly, the only reason we can say "Wikipedia:Sky is blue" is because around the world the sky appears blue. But ask someone from the UK, and Australia, India, South Africa, or Nigeria if they know about the Columbine shooting and that the shooters, who are named Klebold and Harris, killed themselves. Would they all know? Would it be obvious to them? I doubt it. Wikipedia should not be written with the assumption that common knowledge for Americans is common knowledge for everyone. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Indy beetle. No need to ping to this talk page since this article is on my watchlist. I prefer not to be pinged to articles or other pages that I'm watching.
Regarding this, this, this and this (followup fix here), you placed a "citation needed" tag in front of "while eating lunch with her friend, Richard Castaldo, on the lawn outside the west entrance of the school" when this is likely already sourced. You seemingly placed it there because of how you placed your additional material and/or because the statement did not have a citation immediately after it. As seen at Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Needless repetition, a citation does not always need to be placed after each sentence. Sometimes the citation supports two sentences or a whole paragraph. Personally, I sometimes engage in "needless repetition" because an editor can think that a statement is unsourced, but the editor should check (or try to check) and see if there are sources in the text that support the sentence that doesn't have a citation beside it. But we should also keep WP:INTEGRITY (reference integrity) in mind. As we can see in this case, that Klebold and Harris killed themselves is supported by the same source used to support "Scott did not personally know Harris or Klebold." You stated, "Larkin pg 48 did not support the statement that Klebold and Harris killed themselves, and I did not want to give the impression that it did. So, for the part of the sentence that citation didn't support, I added the tag." But I think that you did not check the source to see if it supports that piece. If you had, you would have simply added the source the way that I did, changing the page number. Point taken about it being common knowledge that Klebold and Harris killed themselves. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Scott&oldid=1208316727"