Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Scott/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old comments

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)

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)

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)

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.

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))

Like you were playing Resident Evil. Right. Stetsonblade 17:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, reading the book her parents wrote about her, her certainly seemed to have a preoccupation with her own death. They see it as a spiritual prophesy of hers, but it's more likely she was suffering from depression.Bruiseviolet (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've definitely heard about that before and have seen that quote several times. It's rather freaky, but prophecy normally is. Saksjn (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I heard from Rachels father during Rachel's Challenge that she was a mighty prophet and the savior of humanity. I'm sorry, I didn't know wikipedia documented superstition and propaganda used to push such nonsense, and I also don't believe that her family counts as a primary source. Benodoc (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That diary entry is a matter of speculation and is not mentioned in the article: it was removed 2 years ago (this is an old thread). JGHowes talk - 12:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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
While I cannot site anything at this point, as I would not know where to look, I have witnessed one of the "Rachel's Challenge" seminars, wherein the speaker at one point referenced a page in her diary saying she predicted that she had "less than a year left on this earth". Like I said before, I cannot site the speaker, but that is what he said. Given his relation, he is probably biased, but we may never get an unbiased report on the Columbine shootings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.78.149 (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure her diary should be considered a primary source. If she said it in her diary, that's what we should assume. I'm not suggesting that we use diaries to figure out events, only saying that it is significant that she said it. Saksjn (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

She's been a major figure in the study of modern martyrs. That, in and of it self is notable. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

See my comment in above section. Saksjn (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please refrain from calling this "Christian glurge". That... is the definition of intolerance. Saksjn (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Info

Can someone please provide a source for the "early news reports" about the exchange between her and her killers, and also for the statement that Castaldo "subsequently seemed uncertain and unable to remember what, if anything, was said between Rachel and her murderers"? Marsoult 10:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This was rather widely reported in newspapers and TV back in 1999 and until a year or so ago the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post archives had the old articles online, but it appears their directories have been moved or deleted. It also was covered in the ABC 20/20 interview which examined this aspect of Columbine (including an interview with Castaldo and his mother) which was at www.abc.com for a long time but that is now taken down, too. Sigh, that's the problem with web cites for 8 yr old stories. I'll see what I can find that's still on the web. JGHowes talk - 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with the sentence "Although the subsequent official investigation into the shootings concluded that it was actually a surviving Columbine student, Valeen Schnurr, who had been asked that question in the library by her assailants, Rachel Scott’s parents contend in their book, Rachel’s Tears: the Spiritual Journey of Columbine Martyr Rachel Scott, that their daughter was targeted by the killers and died as a martyr for her Christian faith...." Saying "it was actually a surviving Columbine student, Valeen Schnurr, who had been asked that question in the library" implies that Rachel was not asked that question. However, what happened in the library is not relevant in this case to what happened outside the cafeteria. There is no reason why the question could not have been asked to more than one person. What matters is Castaldo's testimony since, as far as I understand, he was the only eye witness to Rachel's shooting. In Rachel's Tears, her parents say that in 2000, Castaldo's mother appeared on a segment of NBC's Dateline and confirmed that she heard her son describe the alleged exchange between Rachel and Harris (2000, pp. 91-92). They also mention that he can no longer remember what happened. (As I said above, these claims should be sourced in the Wikipedia article, though I don't think Rachel's Tears is a good source to use.) What Harris or Klebold said to who in the library seems irrelevant to this issue (unless the claim is that Castaldo confused what he heard had happened in the library with what he witnessed outside the cafeteria, which seems improbable). Marsoult 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rachel's Challenge

What is the rationale behind having the section on Rachel's Challenge about twice as long as the section on Rachel herself? I think the section on Rachel's Challenge should be significantly reduced or included in a separate article. Marsoult 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a national movement attracting thousands including a White House meeting within the past year, as such it is notable for encyclopedic reference purposes. Since the two are inextricably bound together, why separate into two articles when it's short enough already? JGHowes talk - 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If Rachel's Challenge does not merit a separate entry, which I accept, then I think the section on it in this article should be shortened, for example, by shortening the lengthy quotes from Darrel and Craig Scott. Another possibility would be to expand the section that specifically discusses Rachel. If no one else agrees with me, then I won't keep harping on about it, but I feel that currently there's too much info about Rachel's Challenge and too little about Rachel herself. Marsoult 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


i think that this page is unnacceptable whoever is writing in here !!!!! rachel was an amazing gift from god she wasnt a saint but she has touched millions of peoples lives and this stuff i have been reading about her is just not right

it iz evident in her journals... and have you actualli read any of the books her parents wrote because they didnt make it out as if she were a saint she was jus an orinary girl living for god and god has used her to touch millions of people :):) and i can honestly say if it wasnt for rachel i wouldnt have the relationship i have with jesus today :):):) love from kelly :) 

may god bless you :)

Controversies section

I have removed this section, as the assertion that Darrell Scott is gaining personal financial enrichment from 'Rachel's Challenge is a serious allegation and a slander, if false. Its inclusion in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, verifiable published sources or immediately deleted per WP:V and WP:BLP requirements. A lone college newspaper opinion piece by a student hardly suffices to meet WP:V and WP:BLP. JGHowes talk - 04:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He's pitching a goddamned book. Fifty7 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Provide a freaking reliable source for your slander! Saksjn (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This page appears to be a shrine to this person

I suspect this article was written by a relative. The family has my sympathies, but she is not notable beyond being killed by violence. There is already a wiki page for Columbine victims. I again propose that it be deleted. Cap'n Walker 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Disagree. I am one of the editors on this page as the article history will show, along with others, and I assure you that I am in no way connected with, or related to, the Scott family or anyone else involved with Columbine, for that matter. In fact, I have never met them. Because of the ongoing public appearances by the Messrs. Scott at the White House and news media attention cited in the article, the subject clearly meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia and has inherent encyclopedic reference value. If you have sourced information to add, of course please do so. JGHowes talk - 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying. Assuming that what the Whites have done since Rachel's death is notable, shouldn't they have their own page? A page titled "Rachel Scott" should be about Rachel Scott, not what her relatives have been doing since her death. In any event, I'm not going to actually propose this article for deletion until others have chimed in. Cap'n Walker 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one has show any interest I'm going to drop it. Cap'n Walker 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The lack of interest you refer to only supports a call for deletion. In fact, the sole rationalization for why this "article" (rather, obituary) has eluded the same fate as Ms. Scott merely intensifies the necessity for its termination; very few people care.
Unquestionably, this entry lacks any intellectual or academic merit and offers (albeit arguably) no cultural significance. Furthermore, riddled with parti pris, the editors succeed only in bastardizing the didactic value of Columbine. Notice how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, referenced but never named in full, are afforded the same mistreatment here they experienced as students. The editors, by highlighting Rachel's bush-league accomlishments ("....played the lead in a student-written play") and trifling character (..."known for her friendliness and compassionate nature"), fail to contextualize the real scope of her existence.
Conscious or otherwise, the language alienates the "perpetrators" from Scott's station in these events, which in turn negates any cause for the article to begin with. The one section addressing the killings, headlined "The day of the shootings", negotiates Ms. Scott's hypothetical martyrdom through "claims" and various "accounts", which are ultimately contradicted by the one cited source (2). That her death was mourned, even to the extent of her car being memorialized, is frivolous to the point of embarrassing and plays like shameless promotion. After all, maybe she was just double-parked. Whatever singularity Ms. Scott has achieved in the aftermath of these events can be attributed to the ambitions, however noble, of her grieving family, who have pursued the media with a degree of aggressive abundance. Such quotes as "I have found students that actually idolize the two shooters at Columbine..." asserts their necessity to undermine the facts and players for therapeutic condolence.
Rachel Scott was a victim. She believed in god. And her family was forever changed by her death. That's it. From an academic posture, the nature of this article contributes more to the cultural response and impact of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Or perhaps it would find some relevance under an umbrella article discussing the psychology of the bereaved, below entries for Fred Goldman and Dominick Dunne - although their children were high-profile victims whose faces adorned the media, and wose struggles grew synonymous with the crimes.
In a nutshell, the lack of calls for deletion signals not a consensus, but utter disinterest or sympathy for the interests of whoever wrote this. It was the tactful, and abortive qualities of this casuistic entry which prompted me to register as a user. If we're going to learn somthing of the victims, let it be revealing of their place in the Eric and Dylans vision, not that of God or their families. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. And for anyone who believes this article is anything but, I leave you with several highlights....
1. "Scott has since been the subject of several books and is the inspiration for Rachel’s Challenge, a nationwide school outreach program for the prevention of teen violence" (all procured by her relatives. including her "salesman" father)
2. "Described as a devout Christian by her mother, Beth Nimmo, she was active as a youth group leader at Orchard Road Christian Center church in the Littleton area and was said to be known for her friendliness and compassionate nature" (hmmm, I wonder who said that? maybe it was the media. Or maybe it was Beth herself. This reads like a poorly written eulogy)
3. Shortly before her death, she wrote an essay for school stating, “I have this theory that if one person can go out of their way to show compassion then it will start a chain reaction of the same." (Tasteless. Silly. And notice that the editors create a theme of "chain" by using quotes by her family which also reference a "chain") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamism (talk • contribs) 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Response With all do respect, I am aware of the discussion and responded to it when stating that any lack of calls for deletion signals not a consensus, but utter disinterest or sympathy for the interests of whoever wrote this. The loaded attempts to liken Ms. Scott's cultural significance to that of Ms. Frank are as offensive as they are absurd, just as comparing Columbine to the Holocaust beckons an even deeper injustice, or perhaps plain ignorance.
  • MY POINT: one must possess the knowledge that such a discourse has arisen in order for one to subscibe to it. There in rests my fundamental complaint. I deem it troubling that an article provides greater conflict in regard to its being than to its content. That such conversation calls into question the legitimacy of deletion justifies the validity for deletion. What has surfaced is a clear, overriding, vested interest in keeping this page alive (quite ironic, in light of its subject), an interest which simply dominates the indifference a majority are likely to hold. This is typically the means by which passion and passivity play off one another. Nevertheless, with the abundance of vandelism here on wiki, I'm pleased that user clean-up efforrs are more prevailent than those of deletion. Certainly if others demonstrated my degree of concern over the presence of Ms. Scott's article wikipedia would wield far less esteem than it does today.
  • I am most interested in how editors and special-interest users have maneuvered the sustentation of Scott's entry. By leeching the sensitivity and influence of Columbine, by hiding behind the vague, liberal terms outlined by wikipedia, they have buried all the red-flags administrators are accustomed to recognizing.
  • I neglected to assert this originally (for obvious reasons), but attention has been called to the August 2007 deletion discussion. I hesitate no longer to define remarks made by supporters of this article as noticeably anti-semetic, historically revisionist, and utterly calculating. Rachel Scott belongs on MySpace, not Wikipedia.Interestingly enogh, she is, in fact, also on MySpace ( http://www.myspace.com/rachelschallenge). Notice the use of an identical photograph. Certainly a profile, maintained openly by her family, would have access to additional pictures -- is it a coincidence they happened to like the same one as the editors of her wiki page? A photograph that is cited as the cover image to her book. A photograph that is even suggested as being copyright protected?
  • My fear is that over time, as more and more users stumble upon this article, Ms. Scott's page will fall victim to pranksters and vandels.This could upset, considering the fragile circumstances surrounding her life, as well as her obvious virtue and thoughful personality. And while I could never condone such actions, it is difficult to accept such a flowery, biased piece as serious and worthy of concern, especially when interpreted in the light of previous discussions, which only suggest a hierarchy of users with an indefinite, ambivalent, and questionable (however much denied) interest in maintaining this entry.
  • Alas, this is the nature of Wikipedia, and the thrust behind its irony. Accordigly, it's unlikely I will pursue my cause any further, as the history reveals great insight upon the psychology of the user generated movement, and may provide an actual scholarly resource to future analysis on cyberculture and it's role in the humanties. But is this what we want? I know, for a fact, that Rachel Scott's wikipedia entry has been cited twice already in undergaduate research work on the topic of grievence and the internet. This is actually what brought me here.
  • I will also hypothesize that further contributions to this article, or discussion surrounding it by OUTSIDE parties, will only define its impropriety and cultivate potentially hurtful conseuqneces of manifsting into an example for sociological study and other academic pursuits.
  • Rachel Scott, whom I did not know, impresses as a sincere, tragic figure -- whose life, and whose death, requires a deeper treatment than it's likely to receivce in an environment such as wiki. Usernamism 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In the archived AfD debate, nine people said it should be kept, while only one said it should be deleted, and that was the person who originally nominated the article for deletion. I'm not sure how many people would need to have taken part in this debate for you to consider there was sufficient interest in the subject of the article, but clearly some people are interested. More importantly, as has been pointed out above, Scott meets Wikipedia's notability requirements since she has been the subject of books, newspaper and magazine articles, and TV reports. If you're not happy with the content of the article because of how it "bastardiz[es] the didactic value of Columbine" etc., then go ahead and make changes. But the question of whether it should be deleted was recently debated, and the decision was to keep it. I also want to apologize if I offended you, or anyone, by comparing Scott with Anne Frank. I did so because I have tremendous respect for them both and I see a lot of similarities between them. I assume these comments were among those you found to be anti-Semitic. It pains me to read that because anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are my pet peeves. I even set up a blog a couple of years ago specifically to counter them. I assure you there was not a shred of anti-Semitism behind those comments. Marsoult (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement delete

Shortly before her death, she wrote an essay for school stating, “I have this theory that if one person can go out of their way to show compassion then it will start a chain reaction of the same.”

I'm going to remove this, as it seems like seriously NPOV trivia that has no place in an encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees, revert it and let me know why it needs to be in there, please... 98.208.95.209 (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Disagree with your deletion and have restored the content. It is reliably sourced and a direct quote from the biographee's own writings. How, then, can it be "pov" or "trivia" to quote what the person who's the subject of the article wrote about herself? JGHowes talk - 02:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Scott/Archive_1&oldid=1143899866"