text:
Talk:Rachel Scott

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

 * See below. Endofskull (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rachel's Challenge
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)

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.
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)

After rereading
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)

Reference to Anne Frank
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * I've re-worded and sourced the Anne Frank parallel. Oneinatrillion (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Merge discussion
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)

 * Copying this comment from the other article's talk page for clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * no merge; notable in itself. 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)
 * Doing a search in Google News I found some stuff that may help WhisperToMe (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting this page
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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rachel Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501181901/http://www.rachelschallenge.com:80/LearnMore/RachelsEssay/tabid/1701/Default.aspx/ to http://rachelschallenge.com/LearnMore/RachelsEssay/tabid/1701/Default.aspx

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
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)

 * 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)

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)

 * Comment: The article exists per WP:Notability. So regarding Risky shift287's suggestion that articles for the others be created, they would need to satisfy WP:Notability as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of number of people who watched her funeral on CNN
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)

The Lord vs. God
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Discrediting J. Watson
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)
 * 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)

GA?
I think this article is worth pursuing a good article nomination. Thoughts? Blue sphere  08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Blue  sphere  08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Asking about belief in God
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Positive suggestions are of course welcome for adjustment.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dead refs
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. Blue sphere  07:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . 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)
 * 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. Blue  sphere  05:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will get around to this in the near future. Thanks for your reply. :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The urls have been archived, thanks for reviving them. All the best, Blue  sphere  07:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank comparison
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)
 * 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)

About the edits I've made
Seeing as my edits to this page have invoked the thanks of while  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."

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)

. 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)
 * 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)

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)

Major NPOV issues with this article.
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)
 * Well,, 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)

 * 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)

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)

Most Popular School Assembly Program in America
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)

title: Talk:Rachel Scott


text:
Shobna Gulati

Shobna Gulati (born 7 August 1966) is a British actress and presenter. Gulati is known for her roles as Anita in dinnerladies, and Sunita Alahan in the soap opera Coronation Street from 2001 to 2013. From 2013 to 2014, Gulati appeared as a panellist on the lunchtime talk show Loose Women. She took over the role of Ray in the West End production of Everybody's Taking About Jamie in 2019 and also reprised the role for the movie adaptation. Most recently, she played the role of Nima in Hullraisers, Mari Hoff in the 2022 UK Tour of The Rise and Fall of Little Voice, and is reprising the role of Ray in Everybody's Talking About Jamie for the 2023-2024 UK and Ireland Tour.

Gulati was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the 2024 Birthday Honours for services to the cultural industries.

Early life
Gulati was born in Oldham, Lancashire, to Hindu Indian parents. She grew up in the Salcombe area of Openshaw, Manchester, where she became friends with actress Sarah Lancashire. She has a degree in Arabic and Middle Eastern politics from the University of Manchester.

Career
One of Gulati's earliest appearances was as a dancer in the video for Boy George's 1991 single "Bow Down Mister". In the late 1990s, she appeared in both series of Victoria Wood's BBC sitcom dinnerladies. She appeared as Ameena Badawi from October to December 2000 in EastEnders. She appeared in Coronation Street as Sunita and in the same role in "East Street", a crossover between both soaps, as part of the 2010 Children In Need telethon. In 2001, she appeared in the short film Shadowscan, directed by Tinge Krishnan, which won a Bafta Award and, in 2004, was nominated for a Manchester Evening News theatre award for her work in the play Dancing Within Walls, which was staged at the Contact Theatre in Manchester.

Gulati has also appeared on the TV quiz shows Call My Bluff, Have I Got News for You, The Weakest Link, Russian Roulette and as Diana Ross in Celebrity Stars in Their Eyes. In early 2006, Gulati took part in the Reality TV series Soapstar Superstar.

After Gulati left Coronation Street for the first time in 2006, she played Nisha Clayton, a regular role in the final series of Where the Heart Is, and made appearances in New Street Law and the one-off comedy drama Magnolia, which was written by Dave Spikey for BBC's Comedy Playhouse series.

In October 2006, Gulati appeared at the Royal Albert Hall as part of a short skit featured in The Secret Policeman's Ball. In the sketch, Gulati and her co-star Nitin Ganatra play a holidaying couple who are under the mistaken belief Guantanamo Bay is a holiday resort. The sketch also starred the American actors Chevy Chase and Seth Green.

Gulati was one of the storytellers in a CBBC revival of Jackanory and in the UK tour of the hit play Girls Night by Louise Roche. She also appeared on the Channel 4 special Empire's Children, tracing her family's history during the partition of India. In summer 2007, she appeared in Pretend You Have Big Buildings at the Royal Exchange, Manchester.

In 2008, Gulati made her debut as a filmmaker, producing the short film Akshay for the motiroti's 60x60 Secs. This was shortlisted for the Satyajit Ray short film awards. During this same period, she returned to her Coronation Street role as Sunita Alahan, where she stayed for three years.

On 11 June 2009, Gulati appeared in the BBC1 programme Celebrity MasterChef. She did the first stage tour of dinnerladies in early 2009 and she has appeared as a guest story teller for Bedtime Stories on CBBC. Gulati made her Loose Women debut on 18 November 2010 to celebrate 50 years of Coronation Street, appearing with regulars Kate Thornton, Sherrie Hewson and Carol McGiffin. Gulati returned to the show on 11 April 2012 appearing alongside regulars Andrea McLean, Jane McDonald and Janet Street-Porter during soap week. Gulati returned to the show as a regular from 13 March 2013, taking over from Sally Lindsay who took time off to film Mount Pleasant, from September 2013, Gulati became an occasional panellist on the show, before leaving on 30 May 2014.

In June 2011, Gulati was a guest on Countdown. Announcing her departure from Coronation Street, she expressed her desire to write and perform more comedy than her work in a soap opera had permitted her time to do. In 2016, she appeared in the ITV/Netflix series Paranoid. Gulati made a guest appearance in Casualty on 29 October 2016.

In 2017, she appeared as Saba in the British romantic comedy film Finding Fatimah. In 2018, Gulati appeared in the Doctor Who episodes "Arachnids in the UK" and "Demons of the Punjab" as Najia Khan, mother of The Doctor's companion Yaz Khan.

Gulati played Ray in the West End production of Everybody's Talking About Jamie at the Apollo Theatre in 2018. Now adapted as a screenplay, Gulati played the part of Ray alongside Sarah Lancashire. Everybody's Talking About Jamie was released on 17 September 2021. In 2022, she led the company of The Rise and Fall of Little Voice as Mari Hoff, and starred in the show alongside her son Akshay. Gulati is reprising the role of Ray in the 2023-2024 UK and Ireland Tour of Everybody's Talking About Jamie.

Gulati wrote a memoir titled Remember Me? on losing a parent to dementia based on her experiences caring for her mother, who died in 2019. During publicity interviews for the book, Gulati revealed that she had contracted Coronavirus earlier in 2020.

In May 2021, Gulati starred as Vicky in the three-part comedy drama murder mystery series, Murder, They Hope.

In December 2022, Gulati appeared as Posy in the Christmas special of BBC dark comedy Inside No. 9, "The Bones of St Nicholas".

Personal life
Gulati is the daughter of K. A. Gulati who arrived in Oldham from Bombay, India, in 1960. She has a younger brother, Rajesh, and two older sisters, Sushma and Hema.

Gulati married the architect Anshu Srivastava in a Hindu ceremony on 10 November 1990; the couple divorced in May 1994. Shobna lived separately from her husband and became pregnant. From 1999 to 2003, Shobna was in a relationship with the ex-Emmerdale actor Gary Turner.

Gulati has a working knowledge of six languages and is a vocal supporter of Asian women's rights and various anti-racism campaigns. Shobna works on female body image issues. Shobna is a supporter and a season ticket holder of Manchester United.

In 2015, Shobna was appointed as a deputy lieutenant of Greater Manchester. This gives her the right to use the Post Nominal Letters "DL" for life.

Shafilea Ahmed
Gulati was asked to help a murder hunt in December 2004 following the murder of Shafilea Ahmed. At a press conference appealing for more information, Gulati read out some of the poems found in her bedroom during their investigations which "were a testimony to her sadness at being caught in a culture clash with other members of her family". After the reading, Gulati said that she believed they showed that Shafilea was trapped between two cultures. "It can be very difficult if you are born here but your parents were not and there can be a lot of cultural issues," she said. "It is a situation facing many young Asian women who are unable to express themselves properly within their families. I feel these words are the sort of style she would use when talking with her friends. If she is out there she should let people know she is safe because there are organizations and individuals who can help her."

Gulati said that she sympathised with the teenager's difficulty in balancing her culture with her upbringing. "She has obviously been unable to express herself in terms of her family and she probably talks like this to her friends, or has written these songs in private."

Books

 * Remember Me?: Discovering My Mother as She Lost Her Memory, Octopus Publishing Group (Hachette UK) Hardcover ISBN 978-1-78840-247-7; Paperback ISBN 978-1-914240-58-4

Commonwealth honours

 * Commonwealth honours

Scholastic

 * University degrees

 * Honorary degrees

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Shobna Gulati


text:
Talk:Strong inflection

[Untitled]
I would not have said that there are no strong nouns in English. There are two patterns of nouns which each exhibit just a few nouns each, and a third that possesses two apparent cognates. However, the parallels are so obvious that we can't just necessarily relegate these nouns to irregular classes.

The first pattern (2 nouns):
 * goose (sg) vs geese (pl)
 * foot (sg) vs feet (pl)

The second pattern (2 nouns):
 * mouse (sg) vs mice (pl)
 * louse (sg) vs lice (pl)

The third pattern (2 nouns):
 * man (sg) vs men (pl) (cf. German Mann vs Männer)
 * woman (sg) vs women (pl)

It could be argued that the word woman formed its plural by analogy with man > men. Also, phonetic changes have occurred in some of the words. However, these examples should be enough to demonstrate some patterns, albeit limited ones, in English strong nouns, as well as the existence of these nouns themselves. Also, I have to make mention of the fact that the reason there are no strong adjectives in English is because there are no weak ones, either. Adjectives take no affixes, and they do not inflect for number, case and gender in the way that adjectives in some other languages do. This means that all adjectives in English are invariable, and the distinction between weak and strong adjectives becomes useless for English. thefamouseccles 00:29 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * A reasonable suggestion - but these aren't classed as strong nouns. Essentially, the definition of strong as meaning that there is a vowel change in the inflected form applies only to verbs.   (In Old Norse, many strong nouns, such as himinn, are declined without any vowel changes.)  If possible, something substantial about strong nouns and adjectives should be added to the article.  (I didn't think I knew enough about it to write any more than I already have.)  The Oxford English Dict. says of strong: "Of Teutonic nouns and adjectives: belonging to any of those declensions of which the old Teutonic stem ended otherwise than in n... Some scholars, following the letter of Grimm's definition, inconveniently restrict the term strong to the vocalic stems."  NB In Middle English, strong was inflected strong, strenger, strengest, and we still have old, elder, eldest.  But again these aren't counted as strong adjectives. Rjp_uk 20:42 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think "woman"-"women" is formed in analogy with "man"-"men", rather, the word "woman" comes from Old English wifman (wif="woman", man="human person", the modern meanings wife="married woman" and man="masculine person" are more recent), so since wifman was a compound to begin with, it has always been conjugated with the similar pattern as the last part of the compound word... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=woman&searchmode=none

"Strong" does not necessarily have anything to do with vowel changes. The Germanic trong verb shows ablaut, of course, but some Germanic weak verbs also show vowel changes. In German nouns, weak are those with an -n throughout the present stem, and all others - including those with vowel changes, but also including all regular nouns, are "strong", though the word "strong" is not always used here. In Germanic adjectives, the difference is between two parallel systems of inflections, neither of which involve vowel changes. In Hebrew, the meaning is quite different again, but likewise, vowel changes have nothing to do with it. In other words, there is no unifying characteristic for all uses of the word strong, except that it is always the opposite of weak. I have extended the discussion of this in the article on weak (grammatical term), and as "strong" is only meaningful as a counterpoint to "weak" I have cut this article and cross-referenced. No need to say everything twice! There was a request to have the two articles merged completely, but I think this is a good compromise. --Doric Loon 12:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Strong adjectives with ablaut?
The current line in the article is "The Germanic strong verb, for example, is characterised by a vowel shift called ablaut, but there is nothing comparable in the German strong adjective inflections". Not true. EN: Old, elder, eldest DE: Alt, älter, ältest; How about DE: Nah, näher, nächsten, related to the words "neighbor" and "next"? samwaltz 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed... and the idea that there is nothing objective about the term 'strong'... the idea is that 'strong' inflection shows that the words inflect in their own way, not according to any set pattern. Thus "ox" and "oxen" are within a strong noun declension because they do not "succumb" the weak, regular pattern of -s.  A 'strong' adj in English would be "elder" which has been replaced mostly by "older", a weakened form that follows the pattern.  And of course, verbs also become weakened over time... many English speakers will write "payed" instead of "paid" because there is no similar strong verb to help one remember (in addition to today's poor education).  The once-upon-a-time analogous verb "said" is not pronounced the same way, and goes to show that strong means simply "does not follow a predictable pattern".

 * The current page makes this whole concept sound completely arbitrary and useless, when in fact Germanic languages have *very* specific grammars obsessing over strong vs. weak inflections.

 * I could be wrong on this, but I believe "ein warmer Tag" and "der warme Tag" are regarded as strong-weak as well... that would have to be checked though. 209.133.83.10 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * First off, the vowel changes in these adjectives are caused by Umlaut, not Ablaut, therefore they are not comparable with strong verbs. (Weak verbs often have vowel changes caused by Umlaut; the point about strong verbs is that they have ABLAUT changes.)
 * More importantly, you have to look in actual grammar books and see how the actual terms are used. I don't believe you will find a grammar book where ox:oxen is described as a strong noun.
 * This is terminology which is used in various ways in different languages. If you follow the links from here to specific phenomena (e.g. Germanic strong verb) you will find that it is not at all wishy-washy. However if you try to look across all the languages and try to find a common feature of everything which is called "strong", the only constant is that it is always paired with something called "weak". The actual word "strong" doesn't mean very much as a grammatical term until you put it in a context. I think the point of this article is simply to collect the various ways it can be used, and point to other articles which deal with them. That's all we can say about this. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, since strong and weak only make sense in a dialectic, it is sensible to have one discussion for both. For this reason, the main discussion is at weak inflection. It is right that this page should be kept short, with a cross-reference to that one. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I thought ablaut was the changing of the vowel to indicate a change in tense, as in give ---> gave, whereas umlaut is the change in vowel sound indicated by a certain diacritic, as in o ---> ö. Since the umlaut changes the vowel sound, it could be used to indicate a change in verb tense and would in such cases therefore be an instance of the idea of ablaut.  (Now that I think of it, many strong verbs in German change vowels not only to change the tense, but in some cases to change the person, e.g. nehmen ---> nimmt.  So maybe the definition above should be emended to include that.) Michael Hardy (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nehmen > nimm is Umlaut. Nehmen > nahm and genommen is Ablaut. You would have to read Germanic Umlaut and Indo-European ablaut and probably Germanic strong verb and possibly Germanic weak verb to understand all the implications of the difference, but they should be kept separate. For historical linguists they are quite different things. I don't think an explanation of that can or should be put into this article, which for the reasons mentioned above should be kept short, but we can create more links to the articles which do give the explanations if you like. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of umlaut I'm familiar with involves a change in pronunciation of a vowel indicated by putting a diaresis consisting of two dots above it; e.g. ö. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Umlaut is the fronting of a vowel in the stem of a word under the influence of a front vowel in the ending. The Germanic word for foot was fot, and its plural was foti, a fairly widespread plural ending. Over time the plural became feti because it was easier to pronounce if the stem vowel was closer to the vowel in the ending. THAT is umlaut. In the modern language the ending has disappeared leaving the fronted vowel as the sole marker of the plural: feet. It is still Umlaut if the reason for it has become invisible. German has developed a system of marking Umlaut with two dots (Fuß, Füße), but the dots are not the important thing when we are discussing the results of Umlaut in the paradigms of "irregular" nouns or verbs. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to List, Please
I know that Wikipedia had a list of English strong verbs (a vital reference), though perhaps someone got rid of it. If it's here, I now have to search for it, since there is no link on this page and the category redirects don't help. Could someone please add a link to the correct Wikipedia page? And some links to external lists would help too. Kilyle 08:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it was moved to wiktionary. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strong inflection