Talk:Rachel Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Scott article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Rachel and Cassie weren't together or doing anything together, therefore the pages shouldn't be merged with each other. Yet Rachel also professed believing in God and got the same death, therefore I think the page should stay. WhisperToMe 00:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wonder where Pigsonthewing got the info on the toothbrush, anyways. WhisperToMe 01:18, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it was a miss-take - sorry. Secretlondon 14:34, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

• Gold star for Secretlondon! Andy Mabbett 14:38, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

From the article

She allegedly replied yes to that question. Some people think of her as a martyr because of what allegedly happened to her on that day

Who thinks of the poor girl as a martyr? Is it possible to be a bit more specific at this point? Is it possible to say who makes the allegations instead of just saying 'alledgedly'. I am sure these sorts of sad events kick up all sorts of strange and terrible rumours. Pete 14:31, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answering my own question. A Google search appears to indicate that the use of martyr to describe Rachel arises essentially from her father through his two books. This CBS News article also gives a flavour of the dynamic here. There also seems to be another under current - both her mother and father have written two books each about their daughter. It seems to be that their may be some family competition going on. Pete 14:48, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The reviews of Cassie Bernall's book here at Amazon seem to indicate that no-one knows if she said "yes", but that the idea was perpetuated as it beefs up a story. Pete 14:51, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Deletion debate 2 Further discussion 3 Date Error 4 Predicted own death? 5 quotes 6 personal doom 7 Single page for all the victims? 8 notability 9 Unreliable Sources

[edit] Deletion debate

Moved from Votes for deletion - Note early comments refer to an old version of this article that has been changed radically

• Get rid of it, this is just stupid conservitave brn again BS and it has no place here.
• Rachel Scott - not every kid who died in Columbine now, please. Do we need an obituary wiki? Secretlondon 23:11, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • One, I already found a page on her that already existed. It was at: Rachel Joy Scott - See: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rachel_Joy_Scott&action=history WhisperToMe 23:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge into Cassie Bernall. Andy Mabbett 23:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Yes, one page on the story and victims should suffice. Merge -- Marshman 01:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The reason why I split the article about Cassie into a separate article is because the ESPERANTO wikipedia already has an article about Cassie. I feel that the Columbine Shooting Article should focus on the actual chronology of events and the general aftershock while the details on the actions on individuals should be left in his/her article (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have the same article, since they are famous together) WhisperToMe 01:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • my concern is that these people are only famous for being killed and that since they were killed they are portrayed as angelic. I appreciate that there may be some transatlantic cultural stuff going on here that I don't understand but it all seems really bizarre. I could understand if the author knew these people and writing the article was part of the grieving process... I agree that famous grizzly murders should have an article but I think this is a little over the top. Secretlondon 10:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • As with victims of Sept 11th, there should at most be a single victims page, though I'd prefer to see all these merged with the general article on the shootings. Bmills 11:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons stated by Secretlondon. I'm sorry for their fate, but we can give in to sentimentalism. Why dont we make a victims page? Muriel Victoria 13:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the OLDER Rachel Scott Article is over the top....[1] The person who wrote that may have known her and/or perhaps may even have been affiliated with her website. I never knew her, however. I don't live in Colorado. Also, she was already listed on the list of people as a "martyr". I changed it to "Victim of the Columbine High School massacre" so it could be NPOVWhisperToMe 16:36, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Daniel Quinlan 17:59, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete, for the reasons so well expressed by previous users.
  • Keep or merge and keep redirect: it's not stubby, and looks reasonably verifiable and neutral. And it's quite interesting too. Less of these than sep11 folks, so individually more notable. Martin 21:16, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
• Just added "Her favorite colors were yellow and lavender". Please no. This is ludicrous. Secretlondon 23:10, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete if not NPOVed - it's funny how all these victims of this type of shooting are angels. Morwen 23:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • "Just added "Her favorite colors were yellow and lavender". Please no. This is ludicrous. Secretlondon 23:10, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)" - I added information just like that to the Megan Kanka and Polly Klaas articles quite some time ago. WhisperToMe 23:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If we really want that type of information, perhaps we could tabulate it instead? Morwen 23:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • "If we really want" lists of favourite colours? Have I died and gone to Wikihell? Stop this nonesense! Andy Mabbett 00:11, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As in make a table out of it? I'm now contemplating making "child favorites" tables for Klaas, Kanka, and Scott WhisperToMe 23:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, I just did that. Thanks for the idea, Morwen. :) WhisperToMe 00:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. --Jiang
  • Delete. --snoyes 07:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Please NPOV and keep. Just how any books do you need written about you before you become encyclopedia material. The article should have emphasis on the controversy and publicity, not on her life itself. Rmhermen 15:26, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's perfectly understandable that people wish to preserve the memory of that girl, but it's also perfectly unencyclopedic. There is nothing remarkable about her except her death as a victim of violence, and that fate she shares with I don't know how many thousand US citizens every year. It might be a good idea to move all these obituary articles somewhere else, perhaps the memorial Wiki could be extended to such a purpose? Kosebamse 15:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Replying below your comment Kosebamse but this applies to some other comments to... I did a small amount of research (see Talk:Rachel Scott) - it appears there is more to this than just a memorial.. she's had four books written in her memory - two for each parent and her killing has been used to bear a flag for some Christian churches in bible belt America. There is an encyclopedia article that can be written under this title... if not in the fairly memorial tone we have right now.
  • Viajero, explain how it is an "embarassment" then. Others with critical views here have used different, more accurate words to describe why they don't think that the article should stay.

I'm trying to make it less of a "memorial" (Esp. in relation to how the article started out) and more about why she was labeled a martyr. Seriously, let's try to salvage the article first. WhisperToMe 19:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• The article has now been almost completely re-written since virtually all the above comments were made. The article is much more widely-sourced, encyclopedic and less-memorial-like than before. Do any of the above commenters still believe it should be deleted? Pete 20:56, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Is much better now. -- Viajero 22:36, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's fine now. Secretlondon 22:51, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the rewrite, PCB, Pete, and Viajero. :) WhisperToMe 23:05, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Yes; merge as I orginally suggested. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Any particular reason why? There does not seem to be a great deal of overlap. Pete 11:03, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The same story, told twice. Andy Mabbett 11:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I've been tinkering with Cassie Bernall article. They could be dealt with in the same article but then again so could lots of pairs of articles... I hope you'll agree there are quite substantial differences between the two articles. Pete 12:11, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • No. Two victims of the same attrocity, who share a possibly apocryphal tale. Andy Mabbett 12:45, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • IMO there's no possibly about it. The fiction is deliberately perpetuated by some religious folk to further their own aims. (No change there then!) Pete 12:58, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • There is very much a good vs evil feeling about this. I liked the touch that one of them used to be a satanist. No doubt the killers believed in evolution ;) Secretlondon 13:14, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

Why are we saying "Some {Americans/People}..." in the first paragraph? We know who these people are... we don't we name them? Pete/Pcb21 16:38, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I went back to Christians. Please, if there is any reason not to, say why on this talk page or my user talk page. Pete/Pcb21 00:49, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I heard somewhere in the official Web site that Rachel Scott predicted her own death. Tedius Zanarukando 14:23, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)

[edit] Date Error

The article states that she was killed on April 20, 1999, the date of the shootings. It later states that, "On May 2, 1999, she wrote in her diary..."

One is clearly in error, and should be corrected, but I do not have sufficient resources to research the dates accurately. Did she die the day of the shooting, or a few weeks later? Or did she write the entry earlier in the year?

There is no contradiction. She wrote the statement on May 2, 1998 not 1999. Less than a year later, she was killed.

[edit] Predicted own death?

"On May 2, 1998, she wrote in her diary; "This will be my last year Lord. I have gotten what I can. Thank you", and in a poem she referred to the halls of Columbine High School as the "Halls of Tragedy". A drawing produced two hours before her death portrays a pair of eyes and tears dropping onto a rose and turning into blood. The thirteen tears shown are said to correspond to the thirteen fatalities of the Columbine Massacre."

If I'd heard of such artwork and diary entries by any other teenager in any other context, my reaction wouldn't be "prediction of being murdered within the year". It would be "teenage angst" and "suicidal ideation". Has anyone else ever pointed this out? I did a quick google search, but all I found (without going pages and pages deep, granted) was stuff on how the Columbine killers had commit suicide, and one reference to how Cassie Bernall was suicidal years prior to the killing spree. --68.239.189.53 04:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The artwork and poem or diary sounds like she was a goth or something.I mean it sounded pretty obvious she has secret problems.Or she was told about the massacre when it was planned.Still even though I'am typing this right now it stills creep me out like i was playing resident evil

(User:Benjida 9:17PM 29,March 2006 Benjida 02:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] quotes

wikipedia is not the place for extensive listings of quotes. some of the quotes can probably be written into the article. others quotes consider collecting the quotes at WikiQuotes. Kingturtle 00:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal doom

it is not uncommon for teenagers in the U.S. to think they are going to die. can anyone find any stats on this? Kingturtle 00:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what this kid wrote or said unless what she said or wrote is quoted in from reliable source as specified by verifiability criteria. RachelScot.com is not a relable source. Speculation about her prophesy is not a verified information as specified in wikipedia. If anyone want to promote RC, you can do that in RacleScot.com. This site should not be used for soapbox. Vapour

[edit] Single page for all the victims?

It seems to me all these random victims don't deserve their own pages; shouldn't they all be on the same page unless they've done something else notable? This person didn't seem to do anything. Titanium Dragon 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Agree completly, why is this page still here. Its a shame the way she died but it doesnt warrent a page to herself, shes still unnotable unfortunately. TSMonk 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason she has her own page is very, very simple: Her father wrote books about her. Make one page about the kids who do not have their own pages. TSMonk, I have sent you a message in your talk page. WhisperToMe 03:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to make a page about the kids who "do not" have their own pages, I just fail to see how being the subject of a few books makes one notable. Like I say, its a shame the way she died but the information about her and the other articles I see on the victims could easily be merged into one. Looking at this articles history though I see you pretty much started it and probably feel you own it so Im sure Im talking to a brick wall anyway. TSMonk 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notability

• Actually, there's already a Wikipedia page listing all of the Columbine victims with their photos, it's List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. As far as notability of Rachel Scott is concerned, she certainly merits this article, based on Wikipedia Notability requirements. She has indeed been the "subject of multiple published works...television and newspapers...". Darrell and Craig Scott regularly make public appearances, as, for example, addressing several thousand people in Maryland last year and also here in Bermuda. Whether you personally agree or disagree with what they have to say is irrelevant - the public interest certainly makes Rachel Scott notable for encyclopedic reference purposes.JGHowes 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

She played the lead in a student-written school play. She was also active in Orchard Road Christian Center church. She was "made for the camera," according to her father, and was an aspiring writer and actress. "There's nothing I can add or take away from what she gave us," her mother said. "In those short 17 years, it was complete." She had just performed in Columbine's "Smoke in the Room" and was writing a play for her senior year.

This whole paragraph tells us things which aren't notable.

In the aftermath of the massacre, it was initially reported that one of the gunmen, after having first shot her in the leg, asked the wounded girl if she believed in God, and that she had answered "You know I do", provoking a second, fatal shot to her head at point blank range. Some accounts attributed this version to Castaldo, who subsequently seemed uncertain and unable to remember what, if anything, was said between Rachel Scott and her murderers.

Further adding to the confusion were unconfirmed reports attributing a similar dialogue to another slain student, Cassie Bernall, who died in the school library.

This has all been repeated elsewhere.

An official investigation into the shootings, published eight months after the event, substantiated the claim that yet another Columbine student, Valeen Schnurr, had in fact been asked that question by one of her assailants after he had already shot and wounded her. She responded "no", then "yes", apparently looking for the "right" answer to avoid being shot again, it is thought. The gunmen moved away and she survived.

Ditto

Indeed, the second half of this page is notable, but isn't about her at all! Its about a book and about her father. Perhaps -he- should have his own page. But I don't think she should. There isn't much to say about her, really, because she wasn't significant or notable. What is significant and notable are the books and her father speaking, and obviously the Columbine massacre, but it seems like those would fall under her father's name and the massacre, respectively, as she isn't really important. Titanium Dragon 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Titanium Dragon, I really don't follow your logic. You acknowledge that the book about her is notable, but not the subject of the book?? Perhaps you've overlooked the crux of Wikipedia notability requirement, so I've gone back and bolded it (above): Rachel Scott has been and continues to be, the subject of numerous newspaper articles, TV programs, and books. As such, an article about her is necessary in a reference encyclopedia. Tell you what, how about we leave this article intact and add a redirect from Darrell Scott to Rachel Scott (with a disambig. from Darrell Scott the Nashville musician)? I've already restored the redirect from Craig Scott which had been vandalized last week JGHowes 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done an extensive rewrite and updating -- comments welcome! JGHowes 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable Sources

I notice that there are a number of citations of books on Rachel, but how reliable are they in terms of factual information? This page feels like a typical Christian glurge in many respects. Titanium Dragon 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• By "typical Christian glurge [sic]", presumably you infer that the cited sources are unreliable on their face because they are about a self-described Christian. While you're certainly entitled to that POV, what's the point? Isn't that for the reader to decide? I might add that Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News are unquestionably reliable sources. Of course, if you have other sourced material to add to the Article that debunks the sources already cited, by all means be bold and add them! JGHowes 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)