Talk:Parkland high school shooting: Difference between revisions

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toree Thompson (article contribs).

Weapon

CNN reports local law enforcement say a .223 caliber, AR-15 style firearm was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.162.112 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 107.13, the sources are a bit all over on this one, I've put modern sporting rifle (our article on AR-15 style rifles) in the info box for now. An after action report will usually be specific and identify the manufacturer and model of weapons used. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks for your note. I was all up in arms already about that term (which sounds kind of like a euphemism), but I see your point. And it doesn't matter anyway: it's one of those guns that shoots a million bullets and I can pick one up anywhere. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha @Drmies: so punny. Most of the sources are claiming AR-15 style rifle not the Colt AR-15 rifle. If we get a more specific source, great - until then it's like saying a "Honda CR-V" when you mean "A compact crossover" style vehicle - maybe it was a Toyota Rav-4? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That CR-V quit being compact quite a while ago. Still, I wonder if we shouldn't have "AR-style rifle": most sources I looked at say that, or words to that effect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: There was a previous policy discussion in 2016 - some mention is given that Colt is not preventing other arms manufacturers from using the term "AR15" in a generic fashion on their own website.

The usatoday source says "an AR-15-style rifle" was used. Wikipedia redirects the term "AR-15 style rifle" to "Modern Sporting Rifle". It's better to use a piped link with the text appearing on the page matching the exact text in the usa today source. -- Callinus (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that's what I updated it to to better match the sources. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who says someone else said... It matters what that someone else said. If the sheriff came out and said that, its news to me. And being THE "Mandatory Carry f****t," I've been trying to find such a story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B20A:34B5:2909:2D9D:8D24:769C (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be a sporting rifle in the AR-15 style- as opposed to a true AR-15 which is an automatic military assault rifle, which the subject would not have been able to get his hands on, unless we're to say the subject involved is extremely rich. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AR-15's are semi-auto only, you're thinking of the M-16.

Re: [1][2][3], any consensus here is very weak at best. I'll add my support for AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, per sources, barring unlikely sources for "modern sporting rifle". If there is a significant MOS:EGG case, somebody needs to take the redirect to WP:RFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Modern sporting rifle? Take 2

Re: this edit, yes, the article is named Modern sporting rifle, but I think most of the coverage uses "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" or some variation of it. I think that using [[Modern sporting rifle|AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle]] is going to be less confusing to readers. Feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Under discussion at #Weapon, suggest keeping it together there. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved into this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:EASTEREGG. The article AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle is a redirect to the article Modern sporting rifle. It should be kept that way. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: Please provide sources that discuss the weapon used by Cruz as "Modern sporting rifle". I don't see it; News search for stoneman douglas "Modern sporting rifle" produces two news articles which discuss the NRA / manufacturer terminology for such rifles. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is an EASTEREGG, so is Willam Jefferson Blythe III. The existence of the redirect means that the two terms are equivalent, or close enough for Wikipedia's purposes. You're free to put the redirect up for deletion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's actually more of an issue for the underlying article, as "Modern sporting rifle" appears to be NRA / manufacturer term, while these rifles are commonly referred to as "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles". But that's for a separate discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And that's a discussion that has been ongoing for years. As you indicated, we are not going to resolve it here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read the rule. Redirects themselves are not a problem. But in the infobox for Hillary clinton her husband should be states as Bill Clinton, not as Willam Jefferson Blythe III. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Only because "Bill Clinton" is the name used by the predominance of sources. As I said, the issue of how to handle this category of weapon has been ongoing for years, and it's a very, very complex issue. If you want to argue for unlinking "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle", go ahead, but that's what a majority of sources are using for this case so it's what we should show readers. If we link it at all, there is no other place to direct the link. Any egginess is minimal and, being an MOS guideline, takes a back seat to WP:V. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: Please provide sources that discuss the weapon used by Cruz as "Modern sporting rifle". I don't see it; News search for stoneman douglas "Modern sporting rifle" produces two news articles which discuss the NRA / manufacturer terminology for such rifles. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I withdraw my opposition. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: Thank you. Would you mind undoing the edit? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: It had already been undone. [4] Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No Refrences

Any reference to the weapon or style of weapon or anything ELSE describing it (other than "Unknown; Firearm") should be REMOVED until a clear and unambiguous statement from the Sheriff Office (or other LE) is made. "AR-style" is an extremely political term, solely meant to cause panic and fear. None of the claims about type can be in any way verified; They all reference "law enforcement source" that may not exist (and yes, the media HAS been caught making up sources- extensively). Neither can we trust them to understand what they are talking about themselves; There's the infamous "AR-15 watermelon" video to start with. And last but not least... We really can't trust them to report the story honestly. That's just the way it is. Until the police (sheriff's) make a statement, any reference to type of weapon MUST be removed; To do otherwise is to deliberately and intentionally confuse and incite panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b227:d544:707a:e424:849:c8df (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, very little of your reasoning is consistent with Wikipedia content policy. We invite you to learn something about that before commenting. And please sign any future comments per Wikipedia:Signatures. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, very little of your reasoning is consistent with Wikipedia content policy. We invite you to learn something about that before commenting. Verification policy. Don't call me a liar again. 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) MandatoryCarry. (Happy now?

Source identified

Multiple sources have now identified the weapon as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The sources do appear to be copies of each other, but there isn't much to say in identifying the model. Our article on Modern sporting rifles could use a little more building, but its fairly solid. Good lesson learned here - all of the early sources were all derived from the exact same source (a clip from the sheriff's announcement) , when the sheriff was either using the genericized term, or just misinformed/mistaken. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still not an official statement; Just hearsay of unidentified "law enforcement sources" (that don't exist). We KNOW he purchased an AK-47 (which can't be readily concealed either, but an AKS-74U can be), but mysteriously he used an "AR-15" (which can't be). (Now, if the Sheriff says something that dishonest, at least THEN it's on him.) 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC) MandatoryCarry.

Correction; If the sheriff 'did' say that, then all is 'well enough.' I've been searching for this video since I first heard about the shooting. Ain't found it yet. 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)MC

The video interview from the first day did have the sheriff saying "AR-15" - I'll assume good faith that it wasn't dishonest (i.e. intended to deceive), just inaccurate. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What video?! I googled "Parkland AR-15 just this morning, still NOTHING. (Hey, it might even be true and correct, but without confirming HE said it, we can't begin to move forward.) 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)MC

Pretty much every video source purporting to show Cruz's guns prominently features various airsoft and pellet guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist gang leader's suggested motive

Is the sentence Although no motivations have been offered by prosecutors or police, white supremacist gang leader Jordan Jereb alleges Cruz held a hatred of Jews and women really approriate for the lead in sentence? While I have no problem noting that he may have held these views in the suspect section, thus far no official source has suggested that he was actually targeting jews or women. This persons speculation on what his motive may have been is no more relevant than my own speculation.Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have moved his comment to after the police's statement and I am happier with how it reads now, Although I still doubt the legitimacy of this group given the police's comments. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel these "White Supremacist" accusations are way too early and there's not enough reliable sources to consider it official. Even if the accusations are true, there's no logical connection between the shooting and being a white supremacist. The majority of the victims were white, so it's kinda contradicting itself.Drogge (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved it out of the lead before and it was moved right back, I am going to move it back down to body of article again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Drogge, white supremacists also target Jews, who are predominantly white. There are supposedly some sources that suggest that the school targeted had disproportionate Jewish enrollment. Whether these ties are legitimate or served as motivating factors remains to be seen, but there is no contradiction in white supremacists targeting white people belonging to certain religious or ethnic minority groups. Panoramalama (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@MichiganWoodShop:, please discuss why this should be in lead here before reverting again. There has been no kind of reason given here or in edit comments for it to be in lead while not following MOS:LEAD(The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.). Please discuss with the rest of us. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed this content altogether; please see Talk:Douglas_High_School_shooting#Claims_by_Republic_of_Florida. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, after getting 3 straight edit conflicts, I didn't have to do it for a 3rd time since you got it done. will continue discussion(if needed) in new talk page section you made below. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"no known ties" [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:813:53A7:45D8:DDBA (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The i newpaper in uk states ..."It emerged yesterday (16 Feb(my insert)) that he had trained with a white supremacist group, The Republic of Florida, and the group's leader Jordan Jereb said he was "part of our organisation" This information should now be re added to the article IMO. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well there you go, not only I but the i was taken in. You would have thought after Brexit I would notice bull shite! Apologies. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Jordan Jereb can be considered a reliable source. All kinds of nobodies could come forward to claim that a famous murderer was part of their organization to get attention. Woodall appears to be doing some lazy reporting here. A group leader claiming someone trained with them is not proof that he actually trained with them. You'd need more than that, like pictures showing Cruz training. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The motives of murderers are psychopaths (suicides). In their damaged psyche. Who and how? Why and for what purpose?

  Damaged the psyche of 239 murderers. Bereaved children in schools. During the last 5 years in the US. Are there any mature technologies? Makers? Toxins?Klein pigeon (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header

Nikolas Cruz has already confessed to the murders. Once a criminal confesses to a crime, he or she is no longer considered to be a suspect. Someone has the idea that a person is a suspect until they are convicted. That is a false premise. The header for the Section "Suspect" should be changed to "Profile of a killer." Cruz is no longer a suspect in the crime. He is not even an alleged killer. He is the ACTUAL killer. Anthony22 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he did it or not, we have policies on Wikipedia that are very strict when it comes to a living person. As I linked in my edit comment, refer to WP:BLPCRIME. Even news articles will use alleged, as it is standard procedure to do so until a conviction. It is mandatory on Wikipedia to do so or else it is a WP:BLP violation. We aren't trying to imply he didn't do it, but per policy it will be accused killer until conviction. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but ... "accused killer" is very different than "suspected killer" ... no? The former implies that the authorities have accused Cruz, but Cruz was not necessarily found guilty in the legal sense by a judge or jury. The latter implies that the authorities "think" (suspect) Cruz did the crime, but even that "fact" is not yet certain. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alleged or suspect works. Killer by itself does not. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a change to "Attacker" as section header (since noone doubts he is the shooter) but it was reverted. I think this is better than something like "Perpetrator" that implies legal guilt. I think it's appropriate to reflect facts, while not prejudicing a trial verdict.--Pharos (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As I told Pharos in my editsum, I reverted just because I thought this needed prior consensus, not because I was strongly opposed to "Attacker". So how about a little participation? As I generally prefer to err on the side of caution, I'm not in a big hurry to replace the word Suspect in that heading. I also tend to react negatively to rationales about bias, idiocy, and related evils. I personally don't see much need for any label at all in that heading, and I would be happy with something like "Nikolas Cruz". Otherwise, I'm ambivalent and would like to see some arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to put 'attacker' or 'shooter' in a section title, BLP concerns. The present format of using the suspect's name as the section title seems best. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think 'Suspect' (or some other descriptor) is actually better than his name. 'Suspect' isn't ideal, but we don't use the names of attackers for section titles in other articles.--Pharos (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FBI

Following the FBI flub, Florida Governor Rick Scott called on the FBI Director to resign. Here is the aftermath:

The breakdown prompted a wave of recriminations from Florida officials, including Gov. Rick Scott who called on Wray to resign.

“The FBI’s failure to take action against this killer is unacceptable," Scott said. “Seventeen innocent people are dead and acknowledging a mistake isn’t going to cut it.

Notice that Scott referred to Cruz as a killer, not a suspect. It would have been absurd for Scott to call Cruz a "suspect." Anthony22 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perry? Perry is the former governor of Texas. Scott is the Governor of Florida (who you wikilinked). But he can use the word he wants in his statement, he doesn't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no legal danger of naming him as the killer, now. Once he has confessed, Wiki is absolutely on totally safe ground - he's a public figure, now - all the newspapers are calling him the killer. The other evidence about him is also overwhelming. You can continue to hide your head in the sand about this and spout BLP but it really is no longer necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.173 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules and legality are two different things. I never claimed legal reasons. If you have issue with the policy, that's fine, we still have to follow it unless it is changed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Being a public figure means it is okay to list Cruz's name, but giving a confession does not put us on safe BLP ground to call someone a killer prior to a conviction resulting from the confession. People have been coerced into false confessions before, so our burden of proof is the conviction, not a confession which hasn't yet stood up to trial process. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Jewish mother"

I believe I've found the common denominator between all these shooters: they all have fictional Jewish mothers, as per random quotes attributed to no one.

Seriously, we went through this in 2011 with Jared Loughner (see this and this).

It was essentially the same quote then ("Loughner listed Mein Kampf as a favorite book in part to provoke his Jewish mother", 2011, versus "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her", 2018).

Of course, Loughner's mother's genealogy was (relatively) easy to find, and so it was possible to disprove this random claim and see that his mother isn't Jewish. Cruz is adopted, so the very clever angle here is that it's nearly impossible to find any genealogical information about his biological mother, henceforth, the totally unsourced quote is the default.

So, I shall be removing the claim from the article, as per the Loughner Rule, until someone can establish the names of Cruz's biological maternal grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Then there's WP:WEIGHT anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

AHW, I'm all for requiring good sourcing for the quote but I'm not seeing how these are "essentially the same quote". On further analysis, if we have CNN making the claim, that seems notable enough to mention. Although CNN appears to have been the first to have reported this you can see a variety of other news outlets have picked up the Instagram quote:

• http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Florida-shooter-expressed-hate-for-Jews-via-private-chat-542895
• https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/101549502/us-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz-left-trail-of-abuse-before-killing-massacre
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-florida-shooter-said-he-hates-jews-claims-they-want-to-destroy-world/
• http://kfor.com/2018/02/19/exclusive-group-chat-messages-show-florida-school-shooter-obsessed-with-race-violence-and-guns/
• http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/374346-shooting-suspect-regularly-expressed-violent-racist-views-in-private

I believe all of them attribute CNN properly for exposing the quote. I think this establishes the 'weight' Mandruss referred to. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning it along with his other racist comments is one thing, but I object to including it in the section on his early life, as there is no reliable information about his birth parents.--Pharos (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's not really the same quote, but it's

1. Jared Loughner was into anti-Semitic material so as to anger his Jewish mother.

and

2. Nikolas Cruz hates Jews and therefore, or because of, his Jewish, birth mother.

It sounds similar enough so as to suspect trolling by life, or whatever. Anyway, I don't mind being lawyerly about this: Cruz, in this absolutely verified quote that he doubtless did say, may not have been speaking literally. He could have just used "Jew" as a pejorative term (i.e. "stop being such a Jew", etc.) rather than giving us a biographical tidbit about his biological mother. BTW, this woman, whoever she is, had two children by two different fathers in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and then gave them up for adoption to an elderly couple because she couldn't take care of them. All of this... doesn't sound very Jewish. The Loughner source was Mother Jones magazine, a reliable source, and it was reprinted. I think this falls under the "fool me once..." principle. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is really stretching it with the arcane semantics. We have a reliable reference from CNN where he describes his birth mother as Jewish. If we're getting the antisemitism tidbit in there, then that is even more reason to mention his own self-professed Jewish background. It really must be a two for one deal, if the word "antisemitism" remains in the article, then "Jewish mother" must too.

It is not clear if his alleged private statements about Jews are any more relevant to the shooting itself (what the article is about, not just Cruz) than what he had for breakfast that day. Is there any evidence that he tried to specifically target Jews in this shooting? From the names of the victims, only a couple appear to be Jewish. Loughran is an Irish name, Wang is a Chinese name, Ramsay is a Scottish name, Montalto is an Italian name. Doesn't appear the attacker was selecting his victims based on race, let alone religious sect. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@All Hallow's Wraith: re special:diff/826776378 where you pruned a quote including "His birth mother was Mexican" in your summary, please do not introduce any original research here. If you have a source saying she was Mexican, feel free to add that, but do not remove the reliably sourced information about him referring to his mother as Jewish, per CNN. These are not mutually exclusive either, see Judaism in Mexico and List of Mexican Jews, so even if you can find a source saying she's Mexican that is not grounds to remove the Jewish info. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Mexican thing was a "joke". And I don't mind stretching semantics. I haven't forgotten the Jared Loughner thing, and I'm not going to. Fool me once... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, some interesting information about Cruz's biological mother here. It says, among other things, that "only" Roger and Lynda Cruz knew of her identity. Not sure if that means Nikolas didn't. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is being being promoted by people like Paul Nehlen now, alongside other dubious claims.--Pharos (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Nehlen, another tell-it-like-it-iser. Klebold was of one quarter Jewish descent, but Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, and Rodger (not Rodgers) are/were not Jewish at all. In fact, I don't know of any school shooters of Jewish ancestry other than Klebold. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced the title of this section. The OP did his own personal research and claims Cruz's mother is not Jewish w/o any evidence other than the fact another loony perp (Loughner) imagined a Jewish mother. Now, we must go by what WP:RS say. And what CNN says is that Cruz wrote antisemitic stuff and the guy wrote his mother is Jewish. For all we know, what Cruz wrote is false (i.e., he is not antisemitic and he does not have a Jewish mother), or what Cruz wrote is true (yes, he is antisemitic and his mother is Jewish). What is a horrible case of cherrypicking is for editors to only pick what they like. Either do away with all of it, or put all of it in. XavierItzm (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't change my title. Anyway, I was just going to chime in to say this new article has some interesting information, including that Cruz was raised Catholic. BTW, while they are not mass shooters, I haven't forgotten the cases of Michael Richards (see here) and Charlie Sheen (see here). In short, all I have to say is, "no". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't "your" title. Section headings are community property. I've made the heading neutral per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun shop where the weapon was purchased

There are a few sources that mention where the rifle was purchased, and some that go into detail about the gun shop (Sunrise Tactical Supply) closing its business.[6][7][8][9] I think something about this should be included in the article, but I'm not sure where.- MrX 🖋 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose, tangential. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. They are not related to the shooting and the sale was a year before the shooting. There's no allegations that they did anything wrong. On the contrary, they followed all the laws, performed the background and complied with any waiting periods required. There is more harm than good coming from including them as well as an WP:UNDUE. I don't see a connection especially since a lot of the troublesome behavior outlined was after the sale. Are we then going to mention the abused girlfriends name that failed to get a restraining order that would have confiscated the rifle? It's an awfully slippery slope naming people and entities that did nothing wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ummm... I wasn't proposing that we portray the gun shop as villains. On the contrary, I think it would be useful to mention that they were investigated, cleared, and indefinitely closed their business. It probably falls somewhere under aftermath and it's certainly no more tangential than Russian bots.- MrX 🖋 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support removal of Russian bots. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply no. They add nothing to the account of the shooting. Unrelated and listing them at all is undue weight. Why would we need to mention they were "investigated and cleared" (which is actually false as there was never an investigation of them at all). --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mention it as the place of purchase. The gun itself is a huge part of the story, and its background is relevant. The shop's past or future is its business. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

I see no relevance except that it was purchased legally at a nearby gun store. Whether it was Sunrise or Bob's Killing Machines seems immaterial to me. Tangential. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Very few things really matter. Not naming the town or the day of the month wouldn't affect much. But with this much minutiae about the shooter's background here, anything at all about the deadliest weapon in an American high school's history seems conspicuous by its absence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/sunrise-tactical-supply-coral-springs 131.111.184.102 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I just moved it from Legal proceedings to Shooting, before anyone complains it's gone. After the five footnotes. Can't miss it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

That's where it was a couple of days ago. I had moved it out because it interrupted the narrative flow of the shooting (and it was the only thing in the section that did so), but I wasn't sure where to put it. The purchase occurred a year before the shooting, which is the subject of the section. Frankly I'd prefer Suspect over Shooting, but it's not a huge deal, Frank. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The gun made the shooting. Sure, there was a gunman and victims and space between them, but it doesn't get much more central than this. Flow, we can work on, but there can't possibly be a more relevant section. Of the ones we have, I mean. There's no rule that a gun can't have a section, it just doesn't happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

The gun made the shooting. Please, let's try to avoid aphorisms. Gun purchase is background. It could just as easily be argued that Cruz made the shooting so we should move some of his background to the Shooting section. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've half a mind to trout you. As Marge Simpson says, guns are designed to kill cannons are designed to hurt. This one is no different. If you pull the trigger on a beaver, nothing. Pull it on a lamp, it makes light. Pull it on a gun, it makes shooting. This is not a bumper sticker slogan. This is both plainly apparent and extensively documented. For centuries. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Very true, and yet so irrelevant. I don't think we're going to reach a consensus on a general and comprehensive philosophy of Wikipedia editing to be applied article-wide. Time to hope for more participation on this single issue, and since I'm such an awesome guy I'll let you have your way pending a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but if your side wins in the end, you get the trout in the end. Or ultimately, at least. My mind was made up by that bold-faced "yet so irrelevant". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be at the wrong venue. Wikipedia isn't about 'winning' arguments. -- Veggies (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ten bucks says I can write a persuasive counter-essay to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Are we mentioning the names of the family that took him in and provided storage for the rifle? Let that sink in. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a BLP issue per WP:BLPNAME. No comparison, if one was intended. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And so is the store. It's not a faceless operation, it's a married couple running a small business and their names are tied to the store. Naming the store is naming them. They are inseparable. They've received hate mail and death threats and it's the reason police are outside their store and house. --DHeyward (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a new one on me, BLP by association. Got any policy backup, or is that your interpretation? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the policy. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Do you have any evidence that it's harmless? The current state of police presence protecting their lives and property speak directly to this harm. --DHeyward (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As I suspected, your interpretation. Sorry, but it doesn't automatically follow from that blurb that BLP policy applies to something that could be linked to a living person's name. It's anything but a minor or subtle distinction, so one can't point to WP:CREEP for an explanation for why there isn't a single word about that in the entire multi-page BLP policy. Therefore you're inventing personal content policy, a really bad idea for multiple reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to name the owners. Maybe name the shop and note that all laws were properly followed in the purchase. If there's any significant aftermath to the property owners' livelihood, that could be added in an 'Aftermath' section. -- Veggies (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here;s what the article currently says: "He had purchased the rifle legally from a nearby Coral Springs gun store in February 2017." ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention the name of the gun shop, but we should mention that that the owners are distraught and closed the business indefinitely.- MrX 🖋 14:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Do you have any objection to my above proposal?- MrX 🖋 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I object, in the meantime. There's no reason to personalize this at all. The salient issue is whether the gun was stolen (illegal), grabbed off the back of a speedboat (complicated) or bought at a store (legal). Saying anything at all about the storeowners reaction or emotion is what'll make them potential targets of hypothetical readers upset they didn't do or feel the right things. These aren't public figures, they're just people doing their jobs. Gun stores are designed to 'sell guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

OK InedibleHulk, but you did write: "Mention it as the place of purchase. The gun itself is a huge part of the story, and its background is relevant." Do you think we should name the gun shop?- MrX 🖋 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can take it or leave it, so long as the sentence conveys the store was legit and nearby. If it were a notable store with an article, I'd insist on naming it. That's not a call to create the article, just a bit of reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Protests

How much detail are we going to put in the gun advocacy section? At least 5 articles I have seen been created due to responses or planned responses to this event, do we really need every bit of detail here. For instances as it is right now there is a paragraph and a half mostly about Emma Gonzalez and two block quotes from her. Some triming overall on specifics could be done since most of this information can go into their respective articles, particularly the 2018 gun violence protest one. A good summary is fine, but if every protest or rally that gets coverage, or every walk out planned at individual schools gets added in, it's gonna become a lot. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree It's getting a bit absurd. A high schooler gave a (rather inaccurate) emotional speech. I understand the need to include it as part of the reactions to this event, but that section alone is now almost longer than the "Shooting" section itself. There's no reason for two separate blockquotes or that much fawning silliness about "emerging as a passionate advocate for gun control" and "one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States." Focus on the facts, please! -- Veggies (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Veggies, can you be mindful of the BLP and not suggest that high schoolers shouldn't be talking about adult matters? Did you notice that all of a sudden the whole country is talking about gun control, and that it's very, very possible that that's because of those kids who refused to be quiet? "Emotional"--you mean irrational? Or do you mean that it was just a girl talking? If you don't want to elaborate, don't drop those silly comments here: it's a bit emotional. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said students shouldn't be talking about "adult matters". I don't know where you got that from. The country has been debating gun policies for decades. If you think "the whole country is talking about" it right now, I think you probably need to get out more. The whole country is doing what it does regularly—Fox and CNN News' interminable babbling don't represent the whole country. By emotional, I mean emotional, but a lot of the speech was irrational, yes. -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I said this once before and I will say it again...we just need four clear opinions on the gun debate section, two for and two against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, why four? And why two for and two against? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also do reliable sources give equal weight to both sides like that? Because WP:BALANCE says that they sould only recieve as much prominence as reliable sources give them.--2600:1702:280:ECE0:6896:4C4A:82E8:1E40 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes they do. This is not a fringe theory or topic. This is a topic that has been subject to a decades-long policy debate in this country. And that includes both pro- and anti- arguments made in the aftermath of this shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a fringe theory or topic. Is it your understanding that all non-fringe viewpoints should be given equal weight? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No. -- Veggies (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - Could we leave a summary and push the rest down to the Never Again MSD article? (Which apparently is failing its deletion survey.) It would become the main article for Stoneman's Gun control advocacy section and 2018 United States gun violence protests would be the main article for NAMSD. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: 2018 United States gun violence protests is the main article for this, which should eventually be much more built up.--Pharos (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done - I fixed up the section to include two sentences on Emma Gonzalez. I deleted info that was displayed in a promotional resume like tone rather than focusing more on what her role was in the shooting response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, why did you take out the part where Gonzalez said that Trump received $30 million from the NRA? --Nbauman (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because its not relevant to the shooting, we already have Political positions of Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Gonzalez and the students were studying political science. They said that the underlying causes of access to guns, and school shootings, including this one, was contributions by the NRA to politicians, and they named several. So Gonzalez thought that it was relevant to the shooting. That's why she included it in her speech. Why do you disagree with Gonzalez and the other students? --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, here's another student who said that money from the NRA was relevant to the shooting. “We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around. … This is about us creating a badge of shame for any politicians accepting money from the NRA and using us as collateral,” Cameron Kasky, a junior at the school, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” [10] Why do you disagree with Kasky that NRA funding was relevant to the shooting? --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are giving me loaded questions, so I want to say that this isn't the place to debate gun control. Trump receiving $30 million from the NRA is wrong, but per WP:UNDUE we would also have to add a statement from the NRA or such to back up their actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That the country's largest gun promoter is also one of its biggest lobbies is a salient point in the gripe, but the "math" about Trump's share of the cash per 2018 shooting victim is utterly senseless. The first part should be included in the Never Again article, the second nowhere. I think the overall NRA contribution bit is summarized fine here, as of now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, I am pointing out that Gonzalez, Kasky, and other students said that gun control, and financial contributions to politicians from the NRA, were relevant to the Stoneman Douglas shooting. Why do you disagree with Gonzalez, Kasky and other students? --Nbauman (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop with these loaded questions already and WP:AGF....The donations to the NRA are another talking point that throws weight towards pro-gun control. As it is the Gun control debate section leans towards pro gun control as pointed out in another section here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, these aren't loaded questions, they're difficult questions for you that you can't answer, because you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV.

You are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." Why aren't they relevant to the shooting? Do you have any facts, or reasoned arguments, or Wikipedia policies or guidelines, to support that viewpoint? If so, what are they? Or is that just your own viewpoint, based on your own personal feeling? --Nbauman (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Because Trump was paid it well before even Cruz knew this shooting (or the rest) would happen. And it was given under the (assumed) assumption that Trump would promote and allow guns in a manner befitting the NRA. Have you ever known them to campaign for school shootings? It's not their style. They're all about proper storage and only blowing the fucking heads off of deer, bear, burglars, beaver, tailypo, foxes, wolves, rats, pigeons, possum and the King of England (should he come knocking again). If you're going to connect these dots, you need to connect them to every rifle homicide, not just the one you heard a girl talk about recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hulk above as the NRA paying Trump isn't a new thing but part of a larger issue. I'm not editing from my personal beliefs and yes those are loaded questions you are asking me. Why would you insert me not supporting inclusion of a piece in this article to me not agreeing with the students? This is a pretty big assumption as I am only trying to keep things that are relevant to the article rather than shift the focus on things that might be seen as WP:UNDUE weight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, please have a read of WP:SATISFY. It's part of "only an essay", but the essay is one of the most widely-accepted we have, and that carries significant weight. Discussions are not interrogations.
Further, you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelines is a fairly clear violation of WP:AGF. You can't make such a statement absent "clear evidence", and that's absent no matter how you perceive the situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, You are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." I'm asking you, Why aren't they relevant to the shooting? Asking why you believe as you do, or how you support your argument, is not a loaded question. In college freshman English composition, students are taught to support their arguments with facts and logic. So far, you haven't done so.

User:InedibleHulk, you say that the payment isn't relevant to the shooting because it occurred before the shooting. Gonzalez, Kasky and other students said that it was relevant, for the reasons they gave. Many WP:RS quoted them. Under WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Therefore, the students' comments about Trump's NRA contributions belong in the article, under the policy WP:NPOV, "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia". Why do you disagree?

The Talk page is a place to discuss improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. But since you bring in your own personal opinions about the subject, that the $30 million contribution is "not relevant" because it occurred before the shooting, I'll address that objection if it makes it easier for you. The students are saying that the $30 million contribution is relevant (even if it occurred before the shooting), because it was that contribution, and other contributions like it to other politicians, which led those politicians to oppose gun laws which would have restricted or eliminated access to these kinds of weapons, and (as Gonzalez said in one of the quotes that you deleted), he couldn't have killed 17 people. That's the argument the students made. Many WP:RSs thought it was worth reporting. Why do you disagree with that argument? --Nbauman (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Already answered, teenagers sometimes speak from the ballsauce rather than brainjuice. Don't ping me anymore unless you have something new to ask. I'm not a busy man, but still only have 24 hours a day (23 and a bit now). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, your statement dismissing these students as speaking from "ballsauce" is so insulting to them, that I am giving up trying to convince you with facts and logic. --Nbauman (talk)

User:Knowledgekid87, for the record, you are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." I have asked you for any supporting evidence, acceptable under WP policies or guidelines, to support your claim. You have not given me any evidence. --Nbauman (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Where did I mention gun control? Of course gun control is relevant here which is why we have a whole section about it. If you are asking if we should add: "Trump took a $30 million contribution from the NRA" or the like then start a section about it to get a consensus. Right now this has just been a back and forth ball toss so it would be nice to get some other editor input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "this isn't the place to debate gun control" above. Yes, I agree it would be nice to get some other editor input. --Nbauman (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What should be made of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/20/florida-school-shooter-sympathized-with-syrian-terrorists-sold-knives-from-lunchbox-friend-says.html

It says that he allegedly was sympathetic with "Syrian terrorists" granted his Islamophobic views and remarks this is rather interesting nonetheless. Perhaps he was pro PKK/YPG or even Hezbollah as it is unlikely to be that he would support Islamist oriented groups like ISIS or some FSA factions or Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not particularly interesting, and we shouldn't expect ideological consistency. The common point is just an affiliation for death and destruction.--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's unpatriotic to refer to the YPG as Syrian terrorists on Fox News. They're the "People's Protection Units". But in a quote, who the hell knows? Everyone's a terrorist in Syria, according to one side or another. Maybe he felt bad for any rebellious force that has to fight drones with rifles while the side with the drones has food, water and shelter. It's human nature to at least think "sucks to be them" now and then in private conversation, even if it's unpatriotic. That's all this is, one teenager to another. Remember when a bunch of them marched about the country, calling for the rape and murder of their newly-elected President, or when you wished your parents were dead for not lending you the car (or whatever)? Kids can be so cruel. No big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's a big deal when it's as cruel as a school shooting. Just not when it's schoolyard talk. Even if it looks serious in hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

I believe that this should be mentioned. If his views are ideologically inconsistent, then we should let the readers know this fact. Typical Islamophobes do not support groups like Hezbollah. In fact, it might not even be ideologically inconsistent. He might be pro-Hezbollah in light of his anti-Semitism (Hezbollah is anti-Israel). Perhaps he just has a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude. JDiala (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone beside you and the OP mentioned Hezbollah in particular, or "like Hezbollah"? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of ones views of the PKK/YPG, to a typical High school student Im sure the YPG would look like terrorists as I doubt most teenagers outside Syria would really know the difference between the various fighters, it's not just Fox news who said this there was an interview with a girl who was an acquaintance of his who said he admired 'Syrian Terrorists' without naming a specific group. I believe his interest in the Syrian conflict such as possible support for Kurdish, Pro-Government militias, or even though unlikely Syrian Opposition groups could be an ideological description that leads to something much deeper about himself. Also given his Anti-Semetic views it could be assumed as mentioned he liked Hezbollah or SSNP but his Islamophobic views would not allow him to support Islamist oriented groups such as ISIS or Tahrir Al Sham, nonetheless however as stated this provides further insight into his mind and possible motivations and alignments while also providing the full picture of the story of Nikolas Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He can have his full story told (incompletely) when he has a full article, which will happen after he's convicted. For now, we still need to rein back on the near-libelous and potentially prejudicial gossip, especially from high school girls.

Less importantly, I bought a knife from a classmate in Grade 5, and it wasn't weird at all (probably saved $40). Plenty of non-violent and productive uses for knives. You can peel an apple for teacher, shave your peach fuzz like Rambo or help a kindergartener out of a tetherball snafu. Trying that with a gun is what gets kids suspended/killed/looked at funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the topic of his admiration for Syrian armed groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking me, the second part isn't. Just replying to something else that freaked Lopez out in the source you offered. Also a bit peculiar that she'd have her mind blown by the normality of seeing a hamper in the background of a picture of a bed. This may sound to some like the type of source for complex analysis of Syrian-American relations, terrorist/freedom fighter motifs in pop culture or what makes mass killers kill, but (in my experience) she sounds more like the sort to ask where to find weed if you're new in September. That's just personal speculation though, since Fox didn't bother asking her to clarify what her favourite Steve Miller Band tune is, either. (Hint: They're all pretty much the same.) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk with that being said, it is clear that it is very unlikely for her knowledge regarding factions in Syria to be in depth. However she still referenced it as it made an impact on her to the point that she would mention it in an interview on television. This might show a sign ideological inconsistencies that could be a result of self-hatred that in itself is motivated by antisemitic and racist sentiments. It could also be an indicator to violent obsessions and tendencies as his interest in Syrian groups is likely not motivated by political or religious motivations but rather psychopathic based ideals and low-self esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That impact on her is relevant to her article and Fox News' human interest piece. One doesn't exist and we already read the other. That's enough. I don't think the girl I bought pot from in school ever repeated anything she heard on the news (and I thank her for that).

It absolutely might show something about the way buddy ticked, in which case it would be huge for understanding this shooting and mass shootings, period. But it might not be anything, because it's just some girl on the news for the first time. Reporters have ways of making stoned kids talk.

In any case, "Syrian terrorists" can be narrowed down into three basic groups: America's enemies, Syria's enemies and Turkey's enemies. They're as different as System of a Down is from Avenged Sevenfold is from Frank Sinatra and until we can tell which band he preferred, there's no telling what's what. Thankfully, this "terror attacker" is not dead. He (and his counsel) can tell us what was in his head from a more credible source, if we just hold on a few months. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

"NRA-funded" JROTC

A recent edit to this article now described JROTC as "NRA-funded". I'm not disputing that JROTC receives funding from the NRA. However, it seems that the placement of this in the Cruz section could cause readers to infer negative thoughts on the NRA. In the Victims section, where JROTC is first mentioned, we don't mention the NRA funding, which could cause some readers to infer positive thoughts on the NRA. In an effort to remain neutral, I have removed the "NRA-funded" adjective. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well they funded JROTC to the tune of over $10,000 in just that one school, in one year. See: [11]. You don't think that the referenced fact of them paying to train a mass murderer to kill people is on topic???GliderMaven (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct - there are many reasonable criticisms of the NRA, and positive things as well. I think we should not imply that the NRA paid to train Cruz - or Wang/Petty/Duque. GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

BUT THEY DID PAY TO TRAIN CRUZ!GliderMaven (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't yell. You provided a reliable source that says that NRA gave money to the school's JROTC group. I don't want to imply that the NRA's intent was to train a mass murderer, just like I don't want to imply that the NRA giving money to JROTC was intended to help Wang/Petty/Duque to become better citizens and put others before themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I do not see anything in the article that states the NRA was paying the "air-rifle marksmanship team" to train to kill people. GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else funded the JROTC, or just the NRA? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JROTC: "federal program sponsored by the United States Armed Forces". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose content (support removal) as I had previously removed same.[12][13][14] Editor prefers to edit war, so I was working on starting this BRRD when I saw that it had already been started. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've removed it multiple times, apparently against multiple people, and I'm the one that's rever warring how exactly?GliderMaven (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Check the history, I removed it once (that's the R in WP:BRD). You reverted me, which is the second R in BRD. Oh wait, there is no second R in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC) NO I only made two edits. Where's the third one come from????GliderMaven (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Have you read WP:BRD? Here's how it works. You make a bold edit (B). I dispute it by reverting it (R). You either accept my rationale for disputing it or start a discussion (D). Instead, you re-reverted, which is technically WP:edit warring. We don't resolve edit disputes by re-reverts, and edit summaries are not for discussions. I'm sorry that other editors do this so often that you think it's normal, and that's not your fault. But now you know. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't know the NRA funded JROTC. That's a rather interesting point, and 10k is no chump change. Surely we can leave it to the reader to do the inferring from this factual statement. Are all JROTC programs thusly funded, to that extent? Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  As a reader I would read "NRA-funded" as "NRA-sponsored". And I likely wouldn't spend the time verifying my assumption; it wouldn't occur to me that I needed to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So what? The NRA fund JROTC to the tune of millions of dollars per year, $10,000 in that one school.GliderMaven (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, I fail to see your point. So for you "funded" means "sponsored"? I don't find that very surprising given the meanings of those words. Are you proposing inserting "NRA-sponsored"? That's fine with me. But which assumption are you talking about, and why does that matter? Drmies (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm saying that I would read "NRA-funded" as JROTC is an NRA program. Whether that's a correct reading of the term or not is immaterial, what matters is whether I'm more or less typical in that interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose content (support removal) - as pointed out above the NRA aren't the only ones here providing funding. To me this is not needed per WP:UNDUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Knowledgekid87, that's misleading. Yes, the JROTC is "sponsored" by the United States Armed Forces--duh. That's what they do: it's a federal program founded by federal law. The NRA funding the joint is an entirely different thing: the US Armed Forces, as you know, are the country's armed forces. Federales and all that. The NRA, as you know, is a non-governmental organization which aims to protect certain rights of certain people to do certain things with certain tools. Not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay I struck the funding bit, with all the other things going on in the article though I still think its not needed. I'm happy with the large bit about the gun debate so I have been trying my best to keep the relevant things as neutral as I can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: I just feel we need significant RS to talk about NRA funding of JROTC in the context of this shooting. I mean discuss it, not just mention it in passing as that source does. If we have that, and I would think more than one source would be needed, we should discuss the relationship briefly instead of just the vague "NRA-funded". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Get rid of "NRA-funded" or "-sponsored" or any unsubtle insinuations. Even the most anti-NRA commentators haven't produced anything of substance linking the JROTC and its finances to this killer's crimes. Did they pay for his sporting rifle? Did they instruct him on how to kill humans? Did the NRA provide all the money that the JROTC used? Because, if not, it's an insinuation by omission to include it. Think of it this way: if the JROTC had received some money from the Democratic Party and right-wing blogs started publishing "FUNDED BY THE DEMS!" would we put "Democratic Party-funded JROTC"? No. -- Veggies (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Whether or not the JROTC program was funded by the NRA is entirely irrelevant in the context of this article. It's not an article of the politics of the JROTC program itself. Any comments on the NRA are only serving to attempt to add bias. Natureium (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems non-neutral on its face, and that's regardless of whether it leads the reader to think "Gee how nice, the NRA is funding youth activities" or "Oh my geez, the NRA helped train a killer," both of which seem about equally likely. GMG^talk 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The JROTC supported and trained Cruz in marksmanship. That it was with an air-rifle is immaterial. If he had killed with a long bow that might be material but an air-rifle is different in degree rather than in kind. Furthermore, intent on the JROTC or NRA's part is immaterial to whether this is relevant a fact. Olsonist (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

While hiding during the shooting, student David Hogg ... used his cell phone to record video of his classmates

Vox actually says: "Hogg, a student journalist, took out his cellphone and began recording his classmates — a gun control plea in sickening real time." It doesn't exactly say that he was hiding in the closet from the shooter. Watching the video (which there are several edited versions of that have been released by various reliable sources) it's not clear that this is during the shooting. No gun shots are heard. Aside from the interview noise there is a murmur of others talking in the background, there is not evidence that people are hiding, it seems more likely the event was over at this point.

The video linked in the Vox article is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=E8luXbglTaw

It includes an extended comment from a woman, however the video is blank for her extended comment, audio only.

The same audio is included in this International Business Times (Newsweek Group.) video report of the event, with a slightly longer introduction. That is located here:

The entire first part is the same, but there is additional audio at the cut where the Vox-linked video goes black. That audio includes the reporter (presumably David Hogg) giving the time and date for the recording, as well as the subject of the interview/statement. ("This is Alex View, this recording was taken at 9:32 on Feb. 14, 2018"...)

So the article's claim (echoing Vox's claim) that the video (linked at Vox) was taken "in real time" must be presumed false, for at least the longer part of the video that begins with the blackout at about :30 in the Vox linked version and :57 on the IBT broadcast version.

It appears that most of that was recorded at 9:32 PM, about seven hours after the event, not at all "in real time". Perhaps the first 30 seconds were earlier, but there is no claim or date made on the tape, and since Vox is clearly confused I suggest we remove this claim, or possibly the link altogether until the actual facts around its creation are verified.

Is "storyful" a reliable source? Is Vox?

ZeroXero (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Vox is generally reliable, but even reliable sources are often wrong, especially about shootings and politics. If any one is saying something the others don't (or contradict), the claim itself is exceptional, but the source is still good for other things (unless it happens every day). Absolutely no Very little idea about "storyful". Someone else will be by to handle your many remaining implicit questions shortly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Well I've just spent a half hour trying to sort all that out, and without much success. The vid doesn't look or sound to me like people in immediate fear for their lives—they're lucidly, articulately, and calmly discussing a political issue. I don't know why that first girl says something about hiding in a closet, but that's the only hint in the video that it was during the shooting. I don't know why Vox wrote it the way they did, but they may have just gotten this one wrong. Then we have Alex Jones's InfoWars presenting the "9:32" time as proof of conspiracy, somehow failing to consider that it might have been 9:32 p.m. It looks to me like multiple parties are at fault in some way or other, and I'm not really concerned about determining who and in what way, even if that were possible. Since no other source has deemed that video important enough to report on, as far as I can tell, I'm going to boldly remove the sentence per WP:WEIGHT and call it a day. In the overall picture it's not really that significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled drill that day

I've seen in several of the interviews with students there that they thought at first it was a drill because there was some kind of drill scheduled that way. I can't think of what existing section to put this in. Possibly aftermath? A pre-scheduled drill would actually be a prelude though, so perhaps it should have a new section? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a fire drill earlier in the day, and so when Cruz pulled the fire alarm, some assumed it was just another fire drill. There was not an active shooter drill, or anything like that.--Pharos (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hogg v Trump

I notice that the article mentions both of their involvement in the aftermath, but hasn't actually highlighted upon the attacks Hogg has made against Trump personally, or Hogg's defense of the FBI, or Hogg having a parental connection to the FBI. I think this is worth mentioning if we're going to talk about Hogg and his involvement in the push against the government. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We have articles on Donald Trump, anti-Americanism and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for things like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the article to chronicle the details of Hogg's life or his apparent connections to the FBI (which mostly seem fodder for conspiracy theorists). This talk page also isn't for snark about Hogg being "anti-American", however that's supposed to be connected (anti-Trump? pro-gun control? idk) ^Falling_Gravity 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What do they call pushing against the government where you're from? Feel free to replace my link with the article on whatever it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

These details should not be covered here. I don't know what "defense of the FBI" or "push against the government" are supposed to mean.- MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't, either, to be clear. I just read what Scratch wrote and picked out three pertinent topics. Not calling Hogg, Trump or the FBI "un-American", if anyone's reading deeper into that. I don't even follow those storylines, which is how I know they're not shooting angles. If he was talking about The Un-Americans, The Full Blooded Italians, Henry O. Godwinn or Trump and his black friend reigning supreme, I'd know exactly what he meant. Read into those connections what you will, but they're merely tangential, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Followup comment: I don't think being against any particular presidential incarnation of government (ie the Trump government) makes one against the country. I did not insinuate that Hoff was Anti-American. Being anti-Trump is not un-American just like being anti-Obama is not un-American. My point is simply that he spoke against Trump rather than against FBI. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent?

Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent because he once wrote "My real mom was a Jew" in an Instagram chat? See this edit of the redirect page.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Not a reliable primary, and the secondaries only parrot the primary. I'm not a category expert but it seems logical that we would need verifiability. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This guy could claim his real parents were Martians and we wouldn't just add him to Category:American person of Martian descent. He's not reliable. -- Veggies (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Victims

In the victims section of the article, I would add more information about exactly who each victim was. Eric Levenson's CNN article would be an extremely helpful source for this. I would specifically include the quote about Scott Beigel made by one of his students. "Mr. Biegel was my hero and he still will forever be my hero. I will never forget the actions that he took for me and for fellow students in the classroom, I am alive today because of him" (Levenson, 2018).

Levenson, Eric. “These Are The Victims of the Florida School Shooting.” CNN (2018). Sydorloff (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikolas Cruz

Under the section of Nikolas Cruz I would add more information in regards to the early childhood and adolescences of Nikolas Cruz. This information would provide the reader with valid information demonstrating why Cruz took such horrific actions. Specifically I would add a quote taken from a New York Times article from Cruz's childhood neighbor. "He had emotional problems and I believe he was diagnosed with autism. He had trouble controlling his temper. He broke things. He would do that sometimes at our house when he lost his temper. But he always was very apologetic” (Fausset, 2018). This quote shows how Cruz's behavior was effecting other individuals even at an early age. It also links Cruz's detrimental actions towards his disturbed mental state.

Fausset, Richard. “Nikolas Cruz, Florida Shooting Suspect, Showed ‘Every Red Flag’.” New York Times (2018). Sydorloff (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Eagle Eye

Columbia Journalism Review had an article https://www.cjr.org/analysis/parkland-school-shooting.php about The Eagle Eye http://eagleeye.news/category/news/ , the school newspaper at Stoneman Douglas High School (or MSD as they call it). At least one of the photographers said that they encourage any and all news sources to use their work. So it might be a good source of photos for Wikipedia. --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

if you are referring to the one tweet that says "Any and all news sources are free to use my footage please.". I don't think that by itself would qualify for use on Wikipedia. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, but if someone can "tweet back" and point them to WP:CONSENT that certainly would, or encourage them to upload their images with a compatible license on Flikr (probably more user friendly than Commons) and then they can be transferred over. GMG^talk 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If he'd offered to give photos to the news for free, I could see why we might ask, too. But he offered them his footage. Used to literally mean feet of film, but still means video today. Cellphone screencap quality has come a long way since the Northern Illinois University days, but are they yet worth the effort? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

Add Marjory to the name Change title from Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Bobmalone729 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Bobmalone729 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting/Archive_1#Requested_move_15_February_2018 - you will need to start a new discussion and gain consensus to change the name again. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose revisiting this so soon. Nothing has changed since that clear consensus was reached. Also, edit requests are not for title changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Armed Sheriff’s Deputy ‘Never Went In’ During Florida Shooting

According to The New York Times:

The only armed security guard on campus during a deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school last week “never went in” to a building to try to take down the shooting suspect, Sheriff Scott Israel of Broward County said at a news conference on Thursday. Scot Peterson, a sheriff’s deputy, resigned on Thursday after Mr. Israel placed him under an internal affairs investigation for failing to meet the standards of the sheriff’s office.

Police protocol requires confronting shooting suspects as quickly as possible. Mr. Peterson should have “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer,” Sheriff Israel said at a news conference in Fort Lauderdale.

Instead, the deputy remained outside the freshman building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14 for “upwards of four minutes” while the shooting suspect, Nikolas Cruz, was inside.

Surveillance video showed Mr. Peterson was doing “nothing,” Mr. Israel said.

Mr. Israel described himself as “devastated, sick to my stomach.”

“There are no words,” he said.

Sheriff Israel, flanked by two of his top aides, appeared emotional during the news conference where he described Mr. Peterson’s conduct. His eyes appeared to glisten, and his speech was sometimes halting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

TheHoax (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Was added in a short while ago [15], then moved up [16]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a big deal. In the "Aftermath" section, we should talk about how Peterson failed to intervene and the Broward County Sheriff's investigation into his conduct. One sentence in an entire article is wholly inadequate. TheHoax (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's three sentences, not one, and I feel they cover the situation adequately without undue weight. I will oppose any expansion other than adding his name if there is a consensus to do so in the subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss Don't you oppose anything and everything anybody else does? TheHoax (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, ask anybody. That's my function here, to make everybody's life as difficult as possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming the school resource officer

The officer failed to engage the shooter, which was part of his job description as a cop and as a school resource officer. He later resigned, and was pretty much publicly shamed by his boss, the sheriff. We have related content in two sections. Do we add his name or omit the name per WP:BLPNAME? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it."

His name is on the New York Times and other newspapers. Sheriff Israel even mentioned him by name: "Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus for this entire event".

WP:BLPNAME does not apply. TheHoax (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're calling out a guy for running into a gunfight without a gun, we may as well name the guy who had ran away from it with one. Don't go too harshly on him, of course, because he's still a living person and Cruz had the bigger gun. No loaded quotes, just the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any value in naming him in the article. We should leave it out.- MrX 🖋 01:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr The "issue" that Mandruss raised is whether including Peterson's name violate WP:BLPNAME or not and it doesn't. TheHoax (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I know it doesn't violate policy, but I'm arguing that adding it does not improve the article.- MrX 🖋 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I felt it violated the spirit of BLPNAME, but I've stricken that since you say so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It probably does violate the spirit of BLPNAME, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:NOTNEWS. The benefits of omitting his name outweigh the benefits of including it.- MrX 🖋 01:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"Spirit" don't count. Could you imagine people just go to different pages and argue that something violate the "spirit" of Rule X, Y, Z ? TheHoax (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't imagine it till I saw it with my own eyes, back in '09. Since then, I've tried to imagine it, but it always feels like remembering all over again. It's not even just a Talk Page phrase anymore, it permeates everything from Sponsored post to Cunnilingus in Halacha. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's ridiculous. "Spirit" doesn't count. Either something violates a rule or it doesn't. TheHoax (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're "violating the spirit" of your own rule about saying it again, 28 minutes later. I'm afraid it's spread to you, too. Good luck finding a cure! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Omit There's no reason to name him. If his name is that widely published, people can look it up elsewhere if they want. Adding it would contribute nothing of value to the article and this man's role only comprises a small part of the shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Veggies I don't see why 'Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said that "[a school resource officer] was absolutely on campus for this entire event"' is better than 'Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said that "Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus for this entire event"' TheHoax (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Omit per MrX and Veggies. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we already know your objection. You don't have to say it again. TheHoax (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Omit - (1) Opens up BLPNAME, (2) reads the entire thing, (3) finds this recommendation: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. While not explicitly required, it's a solid recommendation. Do we have any sources that aren't newspapers publishing this guys name? I don't see any particular reason to include his name. So I fall on the side of: leave as is. I am curious as to what he was armed with; a 9mm handgun? because pitching your handgun against an "AR-15 style rifle" isn't much of a fair fight. Still much better than [our fallen hero's] fist vs rifle, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

His name was only released a few hours ago so obviously there aren't going to be other sources (other than the news) that has his name in it. There are no journal article with Nikolas Jacob Cruz's name in it even though we know his name since a week ago, yet we are not omitting his name. TheHoax (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We omitted it for longer than a few hours, though. Wouldn't hurt to make sure this isn't the Scott Peterson. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I think San Quentin would have noticed his bunk was empty by now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If we've only know this guys name for a few hours, why the hell are we you rushing to include it??? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Who's "we"? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't Omit President Trump mentioned this. Scot Peterson's name is now well publicized. People have the right to know the fact that an armed and uniformed officer did nothing while teenagers and their teachers were gunned down in cold blood. JW19335762743 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We are omitting lots of names that are now well publicized. We already state that the deputy failed to enter, as well as some reaction to that; all we're omitting is his name. So your comment makes little sense, as well as being emotion-based instead of policy-based. This issue appears to be settled. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What is "Peterson High School"? Is that a typo? I read "On September 23, 2016, a peer counselor notified Peterson High School of Cruz's suicide attempt and intent to buy a gun..." Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I read that as a different school in Parkland or nearby, unrelated to this deputy. Remember, six transfers in 3 years, so he could have been attending Peterson at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see mention of "Peterson High School" in the 3 supporting sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you might be right. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping this clears it up. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe this edit is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the sheriff's proposal leadworthy?

I say yes. Not only would detaining Floridans for being vaguely disturbing online affect vaguely disturbing Floridans as much as taking their guns away, it's probably more likely to become law (like this one did on the day of the shooting). Jeff Sessions is already loosely onboard, so maybe even beyond Florida. If we're going to mention know-nothing kids with their even vaguer pipe dreams, we should give at least some weight to a full-grown sheriff and attorney general. MrX says no. What say you, a jury of our peers? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

The sheriff is not an authority on law making or mental health, as far as I know. There are a lot of proposals floating around in the wake of the shooting. This one is not particularly noteworthy in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 01:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

These kids are authorities on lawmaking and gun control, I understand. Lots of proposals out there, but two in here that I see. Take everyone's guns and detain weirdos. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Where is there a proposal in the lead to take everyone's guns?- MrX 🖋 01:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, "control" everyone's guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, but not if you aren't going to be serious.- MrX 🖋 01:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Tell me what you want me to call it and I'll refer to it as that. I swear to God. The point is the body mentions two ways to go about never letting a third Florida school shooting article on Wikipedia again, and Wikipedia's lead mentions one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk makes a valid point. The sheriff has a much better position for making calls then the students do. I don't see why we'd mention the kids arguing for broader gun control and ignore the sheriff arguing for broadening the scope of a current and existing law. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a significant point for inclusion in the lead. The student activism obviously is as it has been covered extensively around the world, regardless of the validity of their position. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:LEAD should be our guide.- MrX 🖋 03:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes and WP:LEAD mentions WP:NPOV, which mentions representing all views fairly and proportionately to avoid editorial bias. So I can sit here and make the argument that presenting one side is a violation of NPOV. There is no reason to exclude it, and some reason to include it. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't some ass-backwards backwoods sheriff you see in a movie, either. Broward County has 2,000,000 people. They elected him for something or another to do with law. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the children or felons didn't have anything to do with that. Still a lot of political power, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

He seems to have the support of the county's superintendent, who says (waving to his friend, the governor): "We should not have disconnected youth wandering around in our communities...". That's cherrypicked, obviously, but they're all basically on the same page. Round up the nutjobs before they turn dangerous. And if rounding them up turns them dangerous (as most crazy people will tell you sudden involuntary unwarranted detention might), the children of tomorrow can "deal with it" in their future without guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Related topic: I don't see how his proposal fits into a 'Gun control debate' section.--Pharos (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If enacted, the proposal would further restrict certain people's ability to use, transfer or obtain guns (even previously and legally purchased guns) by keeping them secured in hospitals. In theory, they would only be released when they no longer pose a threat to themselves or others, after which they would in theory use their guns like healthy, law-abiding citizens (or not at all). This would also designate them as the type to flag a background check, should they stop taking their pills and get the urge to buy another gun.

Granted, this approach more directly controls the potential mass shooter than his potential murder weapon(s), but the general gist of our section seems more about stopping the overall illegal shooting problem, title notwithstanding. I believe Israel's proposal is more in the spirit of the protesters' who want laws amended specifically to avert human tragedy than suitable amongst the political responses, which largely revolve around the usual hollow statements.

If American media has given anyone the delusion that mental health and gun control are polar opposites and must be kept apart, Dr. Hulk suggests giving your head a brisk shake, then looking at the last dozen or so deadliest US shootings. In each, a disordered man worked hand-in-hand with a dangerous weapon, creating a distinct problem neither issue poses alone. This continual combination should suggest a need to address it as one; if it doesn't, shake your head as needed and call me on Monday. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The current title isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. The large majority of media articles about it don't include Stoneman Douglas in their titles. The Columbine High School massacre is different in that respect, because it's commonly known by that name due to Columbine being the name of the settlement where it occurred. We don't include Pulse in the title of the Orlando nightclub shooting. We don't name the Beslan school siege the School Number One siege. Jim Michael (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still all for Florida school shooting, and even moreso if Never Again has its way. But also for waiting a week or two. The headlines haven't quite settled yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Florida school massacre would make more sense, as it's not the only shooting that's happened at a Florida school. This school's name is unknown to people outside Florida and if you were talking about this mass shooting to anyone other than Floridians there's no way that you'd reference it by using the name of the school. Jim Michael (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

But nobody had called the other a school shooting online until I brought it up and it was yoinked as a redirect. It'll happen to your suggested link, too. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Nathaniel Brazill's shooting of a teacher at his school happened in Florida, so it fits the description of Florida school shooting. There was only one victim, so it can't be described as a massacre - whereas this mass shooting easily has enough victims to be described as a massacre. It's bizarre that this article's title includes shooting rather than massacre, when fewer people were killed at Columbine High School and we do describe the mass shooting there as a massacre in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 1#Requested move 15 February 2018 for the "clear consensus" for the current title, now about 7+1⁄2 days old. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That discussion lasted less than 19 hours before it was closed. Many readers would have been unaware of it at the time. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: At least you have substantial experience, unlike most of the others who have dropped by to propose other moves with very flimsy rationales. If you feel it's important, I wouldn't oppose another RM now, but I think an RM would be needed to replace an RM.
I would take issue with This school's name is unknown to people outside Florida since I'm seeing "Stoneman Douglas" (or "Marjory Stoneman Douglas") all over RS. One or the other occurs 13 times in the article's current References section alone.
For current events, my interpretation of COMMONNAME is seen in this comment in the RM, and that's probably the position I would take in a new RM. It's unlikely this shooting is going to be widely known by any one name at all in a year, and that's my criterion. If history proves me wrong, there could be another RM after a year.
And finally, the problem with too much reliance on precedent is that it largely kills improvement. You can't have both consistency and evolution on things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not support Florida school massacre, because WP:TITLE calls for precision and recognizability. A scan of Category:School shootings in the United States shows that the current title is consistent with our standard practice. Besides that, with the nearly $¼ billion budget of the NRA and a legislature more concerned with porn that assault rifles, do you really think this will be the last shooting in a Florida school?- MrX 🖋 12:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be because "assault rifles" (presumably you mean selective-fire and/or automatic rifles, and not semi-automatic rifles as that would mean almost every modern rifle in production) are already illegal for citizens to own in the U.S. with few exceptions (automatic rifles purchased before 1986 were excluded from the ban). It's been illegal in the U.S. to own automatic firearms since 1986 with FOPA brought in by non other than Ronald Reagan, and the later Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994–2004 didn't target assault rifles, only semi-automatic rifles that looked like assault rifles. I'm not an American and I know this basic shit (strike reason: not fair to call it that; misleading impression that I'm saying someone is stupid). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not be pedantic. Obviously I was referring to semi-automatic rifles/carbines, not automatic rifles. "Assault rifle" is not my term, but it is commonly used by the media and politicians to refer to these types of weapons.- MrX 🖋 13:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd postulate that you know this basic shit because you're not an American. Speaking as an American. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

When the ban happened in 1994, the DOJ defined assault weapons as "semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[17] ATF even used to describe it as the "semi-automatic assault weapons" ban.[18] So lets not act like there has been one clear definition forever and people are stupid for referring to any such weapon as assault. Not that any of this "basic shit" matters in a section about this article's title. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright it was unfair of me to call it "basic shit", and it's not about being stupid, it's just that I hear it so oft-repeated and it's not correct. It's a commonly misused term, sort of like point-blanc where point-blanc is actually the range at which adjustment for projectile drop is not needed, but is commonly used to just mean "short distance" usually a few feet from the target. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

While whoever is misusing it or not, the ban became commonly known the assault weapon ban, so its going to forever be a common name for that category. The DOJ has(had?) a definition for "assault weapons", the military definition I've seen is for "assault rifles", i'm not sure if either have a definition for the other or not. The key difference in that DOJ definition between what you mentioned with every modern rifle in production, is the large magazines. But we all know we are referring to when talking about banning either way. It makes sense that that broad definition was used for weapons, and rifle has a more specific description, but doesn't make much sense to say semi-autos are assault weapons, but not assault rifles.

Personally when I hear rifle, I think of a hunting rifle, when I hear assault rifle I do think of M16/AK-47 or another fully automatic, I need to hear semi-automatic, before I think of AR-15s or the such, and in general I will just call it by the name of the gun. But knowing the names and difference probably comes from when I used to play COD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiVirusC since you've brought it up: the reason why the DOJ has a definition for "assault weapons" and the military for "assault rifles" is that the former is a political term with nebulous meaning, and the latter is a technical term with specific meaning. Try reading (not being condescending, it really is a convoluted mess) title XI from the assault weapons ban. It's not just about "high capacity magazines" which means "can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition" – Glock 17 has a high capacity magazine and is a popular police firearm; it's also a handgun, so not subject to any such restriction. This is a far more complex issue than I can lay out in a single paragraph. I was initially responding to MrX's reference to assault rifles, and my point was that they are already banned. Though they've clarified that they meant semi-auto's. That was all. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your comparison with modern rifles. That definition was what the general description from DOJ was. The actual ban itself specified conditions for each type, rifles/pistols/shotguns. It also listed specific weapons in it as well, and some "pistols" like Tech-9s were banned, while other weren't. The general definition is to vague to enact as a law, they went into detail. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been re-reading this section, and I notice that I failed to properly define the terms. You had me lost when you said but doesn't make much sense to say semi-autos are assault weapons, but not assault rifles, I think I know why now. Assault rifles (military term) refers to select-fire capable and automatic fire rifles. The Colt AR-15 isn't select-fire capable, but the Armalite AR-15 and M16 are. I'd agree with you in principle that it makes little sense to call a rifle an assault weapon but not an assault rifle, but that's what the assault weapons ban did. I brought up modern rifles being semi-automatics because of this distinction.
Actually, I have to admit, I was wrong about the Glock 17; not the firearm, it was perfectly legal, but you couldn't get the 17 round magazine clips that were standard for it. Large capacity magazines were banned outright, except those that were already owned. The section of the ban referring to the firearms discussed features of the firearm and depended on the type (as you mention). I believe the Tec-9 was banned for having an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip (Section 110102, 30, C, i). Though I'm speculating on that. This is interesting to me, so I'm happy to discuss as much as wanted, though you're correct to say this hasn't got much to do with the article title. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep we both completely agree the naming/definitions that were done made for a lot of confusion, then again they were done about 25 years apart and not in relation to each other. The Tec-9 and all copies of it were named outright in the ban as illegal (110102, 30, A, viii), and yeah the the magazine outside pistol grip(along with its threaded barrel) was one of the potential conditions that would of made it illegal even if it wasn't named outright. But two of the conditions needed to be meet, so the manufacture just made a version without a threaded barrel or barrel shroud, and 10 round magazines. It still could take the 20-30 round magazines that were made from a Tec-9 though, and was still legal since it only had the magazine outside of grip and no other defining features. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The current title is fine. Neutrality^talk 12:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see two problems with the current title: a) including the name of the school which is not well-known (yes, a significant minority of media articles have the name in their title, but the large majority don't) rather than the geographical location; b) using shooting rather than massacre is less precise and seems to be minimizing it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to see if there's enough support to make another RM worth the effort? I reiterate that I think an RM would be needed to replace an RM, and I think that's a fairly uncontroversial thing to say. A, say, 5–3 consensus in this thread would not replace that clear RM consensus, so I'm not sure what you're doing at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Early on in the Sandy Hooks reporting most "news article titles", which you seem to be focusing on, used Connecticut School shooting or somethign of the sort. See the sources in an early revision of Sandy Hooks. I can't think of anyone that would refer to it simply as Connecticut shooting anymore. Florida is way to big to simply have article called Florida school shooting, while Parkland High School shooting could work, but we had a recent move discussion where that option was brought up by a few, but majority felt current title was best. I don't think another discussion at this point is going to change the decision arrived at last week. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook is a village that, prior to the massacre there, was unknown outside Connecticut. The early media reports didn't include Sandy Hook in the title because non-local readers hadn't have heard of it. The village's name became known solely because of the media coverage of the massacre. As the village's name became well-known from media coverage, it became used in the titles of media reports. Likewise, few people outside Scotland had heard of Dunblane before the massacre there - but the small Scottish town is now known to many millions of people in many countries solely because of the huge amount of media coverage of the massacre. This is highly unlikely to happen in regard to this massacre, because Stoneman Douglas isn't a settlement. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes I understand, but I was just comparing why a lot of articles don't refer to the shooting as Douglas High School shooting in the article titles, since outside of South Florida no one would have heard of it. I still had no clue to just now that Sandy Hook was a village, I just knew it as the name of the school and obviously only after the shooting occurred there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

After reading the addition that occurred during the edit conflict, I don't think I can say people found out about the village and now describe the shooting in reference to the village as opposed to the name of the school itself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Media coverage of massacres have made previously little-known villages and small towns - including Sandy Hook, Columbine, Dunblane and Hungerford - known to millions of people who would otherwise have never heard of them. Sandy Hook Elementary School and Dunblane Primary School are named after the settlements they occurred in. The fact that the schools are named after their settlements means that the schools and settlements have become well-known. An ordinary school which isn't named after a settlement is unlikely to become well-known due to a massacre, because massacres are typically referred to by their geographical location. An example of this is the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Despite becoming very well-known due to a song being made about it, the name of the school is still unknown to the vast majority of people - because, like the subject of this article, it's named after a person rather than its location. If a massacre happened in a factory, restaurant or shop, it would be typically referred to by its geographical location rather than the name of the establishment or the company who owns it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• At some point I'm just going to create a template for this.

This RECENT HORRIFIC EVENT only occurred NUMBER OF DAYS ago, and so it is unlikely that a discussion regarding the article title is going to be productive in any permanent way. This is the ORDINAL NUMBER time a discussion has come up during the short life of this article, and it is equally unlikely that a clearly most common name has emerged during this time period so as to decidedly change the result of previous discussions. Consider improving the content of the article, and delaying discussions about article names until more time has passed, especially since even if successful, the results of this discussion are likely to be undone by some future discussion anyway.

GMG^talk 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me know when that template is available. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

other perspectives on student walkouts and School Resource Officers

We had small student walk outs locally covered in Wednesday's paper 21 Feb 2018. The students at the city high school were quoted as saying they wanted social media threats taken seriously, security beefed up, maybe metal detectors at entrances. They complained that some school entrances are left unlocked when most entrances require the students to swipe their student ID cards to open.

A walk out student at another school was quoted as saying: "I was trying not to make it about gun control necessarily." 2013 two students at his school who were obsessed with Columbine were thwarted while planning an attack to kill as many students and faculty as possible; a parent and a mental health specialist alerted the authorities.

The local walk-out students apparently were focussed on indentifying threats and beefing up school security. Identifying actors with motive and denying them the opportunity to act. The current news media and social media campaigns focus on "students for gun control"; they even declare they don't want police in schools turning schools into "armed camps" with no guns in schools, especially police.

The city high school (2,200 students) has two School Resource Officers SROs. The four high schools in the county have had SROs since 1997. They do more than just act as armed guards; they do all sorts of in-school public safety programs. But they do act as armed guards.

30 Aug 2010 Sullivan South in-school SRO Carolyn Gudger engaged an armed intruder Thomas Cowan who had the prinicipal at gun point. Cowan demanded her gun and access to the fire alarm system. She held him in a stand-off until other deputies arrived and entered in minutes. It ended with Cowan dead. (I note: Cruz started his rampage by using the fire alarm to fill the halls with targets.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lost source?

(Redacted)

Moving this to talk for the time being. Possible that this got separated from the actual source at some point. But while the article does mention these two, it doesn't seem to contain any of these further details (and neither does the article the article links to). Also both are presumably still living at the moment, so this should be fixed or removed, including this section from the talk. GMG^talk 15:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing it.- MrX 🖋 15:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Text redacted. If someone wants to try to fix it, or if I've somehow overlooked where it is on one of these pages then we can restore and discuss further. GMG^talk 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On the section title "Nikolas Cruz"

Hi I just edited the page to change the section title "Nikolas Cruz" to "Suspect" which got reverted. I believe that we should refrain giving those psychopaths a "shrine" including the eponymous section title which would help breed the sick thinking that "Fine, I'm gonna be just lie him, at least I'll forever famous" that is same as the "brokwn window effect". Even if that's not going to happen, please borrow some ideas from the WP:LTA page creation/editing policy and act accordingly. I'm basing my two cents of worth on the WP:COMMONSENSE and perhaps WP:DUE policies. Have a nice day!113.210.34.37 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

COMMONSENSE is obviously vague, and what editors consider to be common sense varies too widely for that to be of much use. For example I disagree that your edit makes common sense. WP:DUE hardly argues against that name in that section header, as it is about amount of RS coverage. The rest of your argument has no policy basis. I have no idea what your reference to WP:LTA means, or how that could possibly bear on this section heading. "Nikolas Cruz" was chosen precisely because it is free of any label, and that is policy-based reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am tending toward agreement with the IP. 'Suspect' isn't perfect, but a descriptor makes more sense than his name. It's odd to just have a name as the section header, and other articles of this type don't work like that. And if a reader is unfamiliar with the case and who the shooter is, and they are going through the table of contents, 'Suspect' or 'Attacker' or 'Shooter' is just more useful.--Pharos (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree on all counts. If a reader makes it as far as the 3rd sentence of the lead, they know what "Nikolas Cruz" refers to. If they don't make it that far in the lead, they will know what "Nikolas Cruz" refers to upon reading the first sentence of the "Nikolas Cruz" section. If I ever cited COMMONSENSE, I would cite it for things like that. Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. As for the IP, their reasoning clearly comes from emotion, moral judgment of the perp, and a desire to use this encyclopedia to right great wrongs, and that is about as anti-policy as it gets. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

By then your insistence to put his name as a section title would contradict the neutrality and fair-presentation policy in the long run. As Pharos pointed out it'll be certainly odd to see that the other articles 2017 Las Vegas shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting used descriptors while this one goes its own way. I'm on dynamic IP though. 113.210.1.212 (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out in reply to Pharos, Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine. But suspicions that we're putting the shooter into a more off-the-balance light by putting his name instead of descriptors and hence contradict the neutrality and fair-presentation policy intentional or not isn't going away regardless of the tad-bit-counterintuitational guidelines. The best way right now for us is to start an RFC and gauge the larger consensus. I hate the shooter, but I'm not going to edit-war over that as I've a busy life off wiki. To be fair rules can be ignored in suitable times per WP:IAR. Good Luck! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate the shooter, but I'm not going to edit-war over that as I've a busy life off wiki. That's the wrong reason not to edit-war. See WP:EW for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to add that going on what was the cyber equivalent of a brute fistfighting over the wording of a section title is just plain and simple childish. RfC should be initiated over this though IMO. Bye! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If we see more disagreement among experienced editors on this question, I promise to start said RfC. As it stands now, the current section heading has a bit of talk page consensus and a lot of de facto consensus. Before you, exactly one editor had tried to change that very-high-visibility item—with no edit summary let alone talk page discussion—in the 5 days since the heading was changed from "Suspect". As of this moment there is no need or justification for an RfC. I'm sorry if this seems plain and simple childish to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. Have a nice weekend! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A preferable section heading would be "Suspected shooter". This dovetails well with a first sentence in that section presently reading "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student at the school." At present the name is not only bolded in that first sentence but that name is serving as the title of the section heading. Too much emphasis is being placed on that name. A perfectly acceptable level of clarity would be achieved by titling that section "Suspected shooter". The IP raises a valid concern. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

For some of the history of this issue, see #Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header. To summarize, an editor objected to "Suspect", another editor changed it to "Attacker", I tried to get more participation while suggesting "Nikolas Cruz". After 18 hours without a response, I decided to float a BOLD edit and the BOLD edit stuck. Until now. If we can now get the participation that I requested 6 days ago, I have no objection to rewinding the clock. I'll say that I see little improvement in "Suspected shooter" over "Suspect"—what else would the suspect be suspected of in an article about a shooting? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are righting a great wrong if we endeavor to understate the identity of someone likely implicated in a heinous crime. It is in good taste to avoid splashy displays of such a person's name. I don't mean to rob them of their humanity. But our value judgements are just beneath the surface. When given the choice we should opt for the low key presentation of such a person's name. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are righting a great wrong The IP's motivation was clearly RGW, saying "No free airtime on section title for despicable psychopaths like him" in the edit summary and using words like "psychopaths", "shrine", and "sick thinking" in this thread. I promise you I will always respond with extreme negativity to such things. Let's pretend the IP never happened and stop responding to my response to the utterly incompetent IP. Ok?
I don't think the concept of low-key presentation of a name applies to the largely obvious perp of a mass shooting, but I wouldn't strongly object to a return to "Suspect". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should leave the shooter's name in the section heading, for two reasons. There is zero doubt that he is the shooter, and his name has been repeated so frequently in news reports that it is immediately recognizable. If we do remove it, it should be for informational reasons, not emotional reasons.- MrX 🖋 12:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Our primary concern here should be one of taste. It is in good taste to tone down mention of one who is universally regarded as having acted in a grossly depraved manner. The name is mentioned in bold in the first sentence of that section: "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student at the school." Does his name also have to be the section title? Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be there, but there is case to made for that. In my view that case has a stronger connection to policy (not to say a clear connection) than an appeal to good taste. Actually I've never seen an appeal to good taste in going on 5 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the case for having the name serve as the section title in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

1. It avoids the problem of calling him a mere suspect when it's all but certain that he is guilty of the crime. We are still using the word in prose but that doesn't automatically justify it in the table of contents; they are two different issues that don't need to be linked. 2. It avoids the problem of calling him the perpetrator or attacker or shooter when that would presuppose his guilt. 3. What MrX said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

He happens to be the "Shooting suspect". In common parlance such a person can be called a "shooting suspect". Every reader of that language comprehends fully that there is good reason to consider that person to be the actual person who actually used a gun of his own volition to shoot other people. No meaning or nuanced significance is lost in substituting "Shooting suspect" for the birth name of the individual. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is zero case for "common parlance" related to mass shooters who survived, were identified by classmates and security cameras, and confessed. Name one. No, for "common parlance" let's make that at least three. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to think that the section title affirms guilt or casts doubt on guilt. It does neither. It identifies the section. The reader uses a handle to orient themselves within the article and that "handle" is the section title. It is a stylistic element. We are expected to use it in good taste. The content of the article conveys information about guilt and innocence. Prose such as is found in the first sentence of that section articulates factors applicable to this person's culpability. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry we couldn't agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As concerns our discussion you should not be so concerned with whether the mass shooter was identified by classmates and security cameras, and confessed. I don't think that is the primary question that should determine what the section title should be. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As already said, there is no question about who murdered the students. Heading the section with " "Shooting suspect", as you suggest, suggests that he is only suspected of doing the shooting which is not factual. Best to use the name IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think using his name is violating any practices. In this situation, it would be better to use his name because he is still pending before a court. CookieMonster755✉ 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Another possible section title might be "Presumed gunman". Again: his name is given in the first sentence of that section, and it is bolded. This article is about a school shooting. We don't have an article on the individual presumed to be the shooter. And conceptually it matters less who the individual is than that there are school shooters. The American debate about the Second Amendment concerns those cases in which guns are misused; this is not especially an article about Nikolas Cruz. Yet inexplicably we have a section title Nikolas Cruz and a first sentence in that section reading "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student." There is a misplaced emphasis on the name of the presumed gunman in this particular incident. He is not the only such gunman just as this is not the only such school shooting. We are writing an article that is part of an American phenomenon. It is sufficient to name him in the first sentence of that section. The section itself is adequately identified by the general, nonspecific terminology of "presumed gunman". Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The name is bolded there because that is a redirect to that section. See MOS:BOLD. If you see "misplaced emphasis", go to WT:MOSTEXT and propose a change to the guideline. And conceptually it matters less who the individual is than that there are school shooters. Not in an article about a single school shooting. That is meta to this article and belongs at School shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You are myopically arguing that this school shooting is not a part of all school shootings. And my concern is not with the bolded text in the first sentence. Perhaps I was not clear about that. We are not writing an article about Nikolas Cruz. No article exists on our site on Nikolas Cruz. There is only a redirect from "Nikolas Cruz". The purpose of "section heading" is adequately satisfied with a general reference such as "Presumed gunman". Why are you writing his name prominently, two times, in close proximity to one another? The section title gives his name. And the first sentence gives his name, bolded. I'm calling that overemphasis. Why isn't it overemphasis? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough that neither of us is going to convince the other of the rightness of our thinking, and I know a pointless debate when I see one. Like so many other issues, policy does not give us a clear answer and it comes down to a vote. I make it 4–2 for status quo, and that doesn't count all the editors who have accepted the status quo for about a week. I'd drop stick in this situation, but of course you're free to continue with anybody who cares to continue with you. Unless the trend starts to swing in the other direction, I'm out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice that at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting the section title corresponding to the section we are discussing is titled Perpetrator. Why would there be that distinction between that article and this article? We are naming him in bolded text in the first sentence and we are using his name as the section heading. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"suspect" is too light a word for no one questions he did the crime. "Perpetrator" might be fine, as is his name which is redirected at this section. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No one questions he did the act. Whether that act was criminal depends on his lawyers' aptitude and the jury's understanding. Or his plea, if "guilty". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't know why we have the section heading as Nikolas Cruz. It's safe to assume that many of our readers will not know the name of the perpetrator off-hand when coming to this article. The heading as-is is unnecessarily vague. Who is Cruz? A victim? The shooter? Someone else related to the case? The heading should be something along the lines of Perpetrator. AdA&D ★ 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We have now entered circularity; your point has already been made above and responded to.
The third sentence of the lead begins with: "The suspected perpetrator, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz". The first sentence of the section in question begins with: "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz". I believe that answers the reader's question, and that there are more important things to consider than saving readers a few seconds of wonderment about the topic of a section. But your !vote is noted and I now make it 4–3 for status quo, not counting all the editors who have accepted the status quo for about a week. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at articles of other mass shootings, the section is usually titled, as you said, Perpetrator.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. Likewise, we won't take our consensus here and go around applying it at other articles. And you may be missing the significance of your own word, "usually". The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all section heading for this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The only difference is that here the shooter is still alive. 'Suspect' is still valid, and there are several good alternatives that are also accurate, and do not confuse readers trying to navigate the article. It's wrong to assume everyone should have to fully digest the introduction to use the sections, and we shouldn't actively make browsing more difficult. Especially for non-Americans, who have not had the constant media exposure, it will definitely sow confusion to see this section heading out of context.--Pharos (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already counted your vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are we not even under the pretense of calling them !votes now? This is a discussion, they can reply whenever they want. AdA&D ★ 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) So is the your tally now at 4-4? That aside, my point had more to do with the table of contents which instead of having a “suspect” or “perpetrator” link, which would be easily identifiable to our readers, it has a persons name that is entirely unfamiliar to many. The table of contents is where my eyes at least are drawn to without necessarily reading through the lead. AdA&D ★ 04:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point. And—as I said—I think there are more important things to consider in this decision. That it not the same as saying your point is unimportant; surely you can understand the notion of priorities and trade-offs. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity it is best to articulate information pertinent to the specific individual likely to be responsible for this school shooting in the first sentence of the paragraph but to use the section heading to use the general terminology as might be found at similar articles. Thus I argue for leaving the first sentence in the paragraph as is but changing the section heading from the individual's actual name to his role in carrying out this shooting. His role is not unlike the role of the young man who carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I am listening carefully to hear someone present a convincing argument why the specific individual's name has to represent the section under discussion in this article. I am not hearing any good reason for that. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You remain unconvinced after thousands of words of discussion. Likewise everybody else in the discussion, including me. It's kind of pointless to point out that you're being open-minded in this, since people on the other side are also being open-minded, including me. You seem to be a subscriber to the idea that there is one correct answer to everything and it can be determined through debate. The fact is that there is no one correct answer to much of anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What is your argument for wishing to have the section heading read "Nikolas Cruz", in light of the fact that the first sentence of that section reads "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student", including the bolding? Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I and others have already presented that argument above. It's still there for your review. Please stop asking me to repeat myself, just so you can repeat your rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article on a school shooting not unlike other school shooting articles. Consider if you will the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. Why wouldn't this article similarly title the corresponding section with the role that the person played in taking the lives of others? This could be "Presumed gunman" or "Perpetrator" or other terminology. Why are you apparently so insistent on using the individual's actual name as section heading in this article? That is what I am trying to understand. Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:SATISFY and my previous comment. I am going to try once again to put this circular debate behind me and move on with my life. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Major backlash against the NRA

Quite a few sources are reporting a major backlash against the NRA as a reaction to the shooting, including boycotts.[19][20][21][22][23] It may be worth a couple of sentences here. What do others think?- MrX 🖋 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but try editing Wikipedia's article National Rifle Association -- there are die-hard staunch NRA-types who will not allow much criticism, even of a neutral nature; like when I tried to add this single well-referenced and neutral sentence to the lede section here it got kicked out. So the article as of February February 24th is (in my view) a biased, non-neutral puff piece extolling how the NRA upholds civil rights. It's like the NRA has no idea how much the public is turning against them, how the NRA is increasingly seen as pushing a consumer product and a gun culture that encourages violence and mass shootings. The NRA article in my view is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, adding it to the lead of the NRA article is likely to get push back at this point since the NRA has a 146 year history. If the current anti-NRA movement gains any momentum, that would change things. I will add the NRA article to my watchlist, just for the fun of it.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a short reference to the article on the boycott in the section about mass shootings.--DarTar (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the question concerning this article, I agree that the #BoycottNRA initiative is national news (see sources above) and closely related to this particular school shooting. The NYT [24] says " In less than 24 hours, at least eight companies that had offered N.R.A. members discounts or special deals announced plans to separate or end affiliations with the organization, including Hertz, Enterprise and Avis Budget; SimpliSafe, which gave N.R.A. members two months of free home security monitoring; and North American and Allied Van Lines." WAPO [25] says "The decisions came as the names of companies with NRA associations began circulating widely on the Internet and social media under the #BoycottNRA hashtag after the deadly Valentine’s Day attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla." HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't edit the story, so let me add two more sources here. Newsweek [26] suggests the movement began with a Feb. 20 story in ThinkProgress [27] listing the companies that have business ties to NRA. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) See also 2018_NRA_boycott. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article needs info on the NRA backlash. It is a major part of this shooting and may well go down in history as a turning point. (which would be nice...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we need page protection?

I've recently felt that, with the 3RR restriction, there aren't enough competent editors still actively working this article to deal with the stream of incompetent ones. I would like to request extended confirmed protection, but I would settle for semi-protection. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection as a first measure. The disruption is relatively light, and the majority of it seems to be from IP editors who typically don't meet the threshold. If I recall correctly, ECP could only be pursued if semi fails to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Auto-confirmed semi-protection is warranted now. If there are still problems after that's implemented, extended confirmed protection can be requested.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Requested 14 days semi.[28] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh. A half dozen IP edits in 24 hours (not all of which were reverted) is probably well within the acceptable limits of normal disruption that can be solved through editing, rather than needing protection. To justify protection, you're usually looking for something more on the level of several edits per hour, especially on an article as high profile as this. This is actually a pretty remarkably low level of disruption for a politically charged topic receiving about 100k page views per day, not to mention a current entry on the main page. GMG^talk 13:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm impotent for the next 17 hours. Then I get one revert. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

While yeah the protection just expired yesterday, the vandalism/unconstructive edits was a lot higher before it was protected the first time. Adding that with the fact that a lot of IPs probably left while it was protected and these half dozens could be just new ones, with the old ones have yet to return. Being that this is recent event, has political arguments involving it, and the contains BLP concerns, I feel keeping it semi-protected isn't a bad idea. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Other deputies who failed to enter?

Content about responding Broward deputies who failed to enter has been added and removed several times, per this in the CNN source: "Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene." This is based solely on comments by arriving Coral Springs officers. I think this is weak and we should wait. Latest add is here and I'm impotent. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW that last add included background information that is out of place in the Shooting section. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

CNN talked extensively about it. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

There should be a subsection in the aftermath that talks about the criticisms of both Scot Peterson and three other deputies who failed to enter. Maybe the section can be called "Criticism of delayed action". TheHoax (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, depending on how much space we can justify per WEIGHT and BALASP. For now I moved the background and reaction from Shooting to Aftermath, adding it to that related to Peterson.[29] ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I went looking for a second source and found only this in the New York Post. Not only is the Post generally a weak source, but they only echo CNN. The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Broward County Sheriff’s Office said it was investigating whether other deputies from the department did not go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to engage the gunman." This now seems even weaker to me than it did before, I think that addition of that content on the basis of one source was a bit irresponsible, and it's unfortunate that people are so focused on political issues that we can't get some participation on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made this series of edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be best to wait for more confirmation about this information before adding it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Add Category:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to the list of categories. Veldscott (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest some of the individuals who played a role in this incident would best be covered in standalone articles

I suggest some of the individuals who played a role in this incident would best be covered in standalone articles.

For most individuals, their wikipedia notability is established by adding up multiple notability factors. Believe it or not, when Captain Sullenberger landed his airliner on the Hudson River a bunch of well-meaning contributors worked hard to delete the new article on Sullenberger, arguing BLP1e. I suspected that Sullenberger had been notable, or at least on the cusp of notability, prior to the heroic landing, and worked to include references to the other notability factors in his article.

I believe that, when an individual has other notability factors, it is best to cover the main details of their lives, and the other notable events, in a standalone BLP, not in a large article on a major event. Sure, the article on a major event, like this shooting, could have subsections on individuals like Sheriff Scott Israel, but the main details of Israel's life belong in a standalone article.

A google new alert on Israel, restricted to news coverage prior to the most recent shooting, gets over 70,00 google hits. So he is clearly notable.

Scot Peterson, the Sheriff's Deputy who was stationed at the school, at the time of the shooting, also merits a standalone article, because, while not as notable as his former boss, he has multiple notability factors.

Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter, merits a standlone article as well, IMO. Arguably he is a BLP1E, but the BLP1E section of BLP explicitly offers the guy who shot Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley, as a guy known for a single event, who nevertheless merited a standalone article because his role was central to the assassination attempt.

One of the things overlooked by those who argue events like this should be covered in large articles, that cover multiple topics, is how many different reasons our readers may have for reading our articles. Consider Pererson. Sure, some readers may only want to know about his role in the shooting. But a reader might not really be interested in the shooting, and may want to read the articles about individuals described as scapegoats -- like Richard Jewell

Three teachers were killed. At least one of them is said to have proceeded to the sound of the gunfire, even though he was unarmed, in order to save students' lives. Comparisons have been made between the unarmed teacher rushing to the sound of the funs, and Peterson, who was captured on surveillance video, waiting for the shooting to end, even though he was armed. If the coach has other notability factors, does he merit a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be a well-meaning contributor working hard to delete most of these new articles, per BIO1E. Cruz has the "large role" and potential for a well-analyzed trial, incarceration and death. No victim can reasonably match his role's largeness here. Israel might warrant an article on his involvement with various crimes (including this one, of course). Peterson is a blip, having not attended. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

I feel like at some point there will be multiple articles of people involved with this incident. A lot of them may need time before they get enough coverage outside of the one event, which most of it so far is what we see. Isreal I agree could warrant an article even without considering this shooting. Sheriff of one of the largest sheriffs office in country. And with the size of Broward county, he ends up involved in a lot of stuff. Peterson, unless there is a high-profile lawsuit or something in the future against him, I can't see an article for him. Cruz will most likely end up with one. The coverage for the trial and potentially a death penalty will end up with even more coverage on him than we have now. There isn't a rush to do so, and eventually the media will get more detailed profile on him. As for the teachers, at the moment I don't see a potential for a standalones. None were considered notable before the shooting, and unless any get attention or coverage like Rachel Scott did, I think any details being here would be fine. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Scott didn't just get attention, she became a bonafide posthumous author. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

I would !vote Delete at an AFD for Cruz, for the usual reasons that people !vote Delete in single-event perp AFDs. If you think Peterson passes notability requirements, I think notability requirements need to be clarified. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It is far better to err on the side of having standalone articles in the early stages of interest in having such articles than at later points because material in a standalone article can expand without the constraint of material conforming to context within a more general article, in which WP:WEIGHT becomes an issue that can keep material out. Geo Swan makes a valid suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree it is better to err and have standalone articles early. If they aren't going to stick around, you might as well wait and see if they will stick, then create and hope it will past guidelines in future. There is no rush to get them out there. Redirects to here, and information in relevant subsections are fine, and when/if a separate article for an individual is warranted, there is no harm in creating it at that time. If worried about constraints of material, then a draft works for that perfectly. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It works, but it doesn't work perfectly. A draft is worked on in relative solitude, whereas an actual article receives contributions from a wider range of people. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, it's always easier (and lazier) to make a new article for every subtopic than to curate and edit a single good article. While some would gladly regurgitate every news hiccup until Cruz's last breath, a better option is to think from a historic perspective, removed from the day-to-day news coverage. Has anyone read a real encyclopedia lately? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "real encyclopedia". Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant one created by professional writers and editors, unconcerned with breaking news and trivium. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've heard tales of such a creature. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

I'm with WikiVirusC and Animalparty!. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Preemptive confiscation of Cruz's guns

One of the issues surrounding this incident is whether or not Cruz's guns could have been confiscated based on his earlier threats and behaviors. Here are some references:

• On Florida Law: "A few U.S. states have laws allowing police and family members to obtain orders barring people suspected of being a threat from possessing guns, but Florida does not."Tina Bellon, Jan Wolfe “Gun Restraining Order Might Have Thwarted Florida Shooting” Reuters, February 15, 2018
• On Broward County Law: "Being charged with aggravated cyberstalking could have prevented Cruz from possessing the weapon he used to kill 17 people. A condition of bond for felony stalking charges in Broward is the surrender of all firearms" "Shooter could have faced charges before massacre — had cops done their job, experts say" Miami Herald, Feb 24, 2018

Is this enough material to warrant inclusion in the article?--Nowa (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but since the idea wasn't floated in preceding sources or text, it seemed jarringly out of place here. Probably a place for it somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

ROTC

I don't believe that we should mention the ROTC students which places them above their classmates that we do not have information on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that could be shortened a lot, the mention of the medals they were awarded should stay, but the details of Wang, his clothing, his burial and witness reports of him, are a bit overweighted, compared to the other ROTC members, the coach/teacher mentioned above it, and the rest of the victims.

Fifteen-year-old Peter Wang was last seen in his Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) uniform, holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He was called a hero, and a White House petition was circulated calling for him to be buried with full military honors. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals, and Wang was buried in his JROTC Blues uniform. On February 20, he was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy. Could be changed to:

Peter Wang, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. Wang also was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the West Point. These two sentences could be added with the paragraph above instead of a new one. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree, I think that it is a bit much. Even perhaps: "Fifteen year old Peter Wang was last seen holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque, both also ROTC members (wording), were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. On February 20, Wang was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy." I'm definitely not against mentioning his acts of heroism (as is done with the two teachers, but if we want to leave it out your edit suggestion seems fine!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I probably should of left the description of the acts of heroism, although it would be nice to get details on the other two as well. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact he was in uniform should stay. I've yet to see why the other two students got metals but Peter Wang clearly ended up giving his own life to help save others. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)←

ROTC will wear regularly wear uniforms/apparel when at school. His clothes is significant even if it wasn't a rare thing for him to do? For a standalone I understand, but here? It just seems to be a lot of detail added in. I think what he did saving lives and the recognition he got afterwards with the posthumous medal and admission are the details needed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. At the West Nickel Mines School shooting, they dressed formally, too. But it was normal for them, so we don't mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Do we just want to keep it the way it's worded then? I also think they all got medals because they were all ROTC. As for OP, it's very common during shootings and events for certain people to be... singled out for acts of heroism, as with the football coach and the teacher. If we think that the description of Wang is fine, then we could just leave it. If any more information comes out about the other students, we could surely add it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

REMOVE PHOTOGRAPH OF PERPETRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH NO NOTORIETY AND DO NOT REPLACE WITH ANY IMAGE.

REMOVE NAME OF PERPETRATOR EVERYWHERE IT OCCURS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NO NOTORIETY AND REPLACE WITH THE WORD "ACCUSED PERPETRATOR" OR "ACCUSED"

https://nonotoriety.com/

KirstenStoffa (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, I agree. At the very least we should tone it down. No need for splashy section titles employing the name of the presumed gunman. See the discussion on this Talk page called On the section title "Nikolas Cruz". Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - nonotoriety.com does not set Wikipedia content policy. Please do not shout, per WP:SHOUT. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course "KirstenStoffa" did not explicitly say that "nonotoriety.com" sets Wikipedia policy. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, rational thinking supported by scientific evidence guides my thinking for how to reduce murders, gun deaths and protect and value human life. Where is Wikipedia on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstenStoffa (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best answer to your question is at WP:RGW. Wikipedia's mission is to inform readers, not to reduce murders, gun deaths and protect and value human life. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is illogical. You are perfectly able to inform readers of a crime without correlating the perpetrator to it when all scientific evidence proves that this correlation leads to imitation by other perpetrators. If your intentions are journalistic and non-biased, you are defending a known bias in your reporting style. Can I just say again that your argument is illogical? It's illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstenStoffa (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, the confessed gunman lives. There will be a trial or at least sentencing. He will continue to get press coverage for months to come. We routinely include photos of suspects on many pages. We have rightly steered clear of a seperate page just about him, though that is not always the case (see Boston Marathon bombing where the perps have a page) Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Try to use pronouns, where possible. General advice, but applicable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Due to incredibly ample scientific evidence for notoriety's association with copycat murderers, I suggest that the name of the self-confessed perpetrator in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting be removed from this article. In addition, I suggest that the image of that living person be removed thusly protecting other American children from future copycat murderers. Freedom of speech can be fully maintained without making people notorious for murder; there is no rational justification for correlating individual names with heinous crimes. I will watch this page and due my best to learn the rules of your community. Is your community interested in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reason, scientific evidence, enlightenment and rational thinking or is it an extremely radical propaganda organization aiming to hurt and kill children by arming other children against them with military-grade weapons and delusions of fame for committing heinous crimes? If it is the latter, Wikipedia has no place in civil society, whatever its political affiliation may be left, right or as a genuinely non-partisan group of civilian journalists for the common good. KirstenStoffa (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No rationale has been presented for removing the name or image per Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out also that you are misusing the edit request facility. Please see WP:Edit requests. If you just want to have a discussion, you don't need an edit request to start a new thread. But I'll also point out that Wikipedia policy is not changed at article level. You are free to start a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but frankly I think you would be wasting your time and that of other editors, as well as adding to your frustration. I say this based on almost 5 years of Wikipedia editing experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

KirstenStoffa—you should try to WP:SIGN your posts. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Cruz's name and face have been and remain all over the news. Having him named here is not going to create any copycats that the media coverage will not create. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "all over the news" reasoning is never a reason to include Wikipedia content. The point is that Wikipedia does not drive social change but rather follows it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Widely reported is good rational for NOT excluding some verifiable fact about a notable event. Also I was responding to the idea that wikipedia mention of his name was going to create copycats. 23:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Legacypac (talk)

Copycat children aren't limited to mimicking the latest infamy, they're free to learn all sorts of potentially deadly lessons here. From Cain and Abel straight through to the February 2018 Mogadishu attack, knowledge is power. How kids use that power is up to them. By the time someone responsible (in the "good sense") has taught them to read, someone has also taught them basic manners; it's the illiterate, unassimilated and literally moronic youth we need to worry about, and by "we" I mean the TV, relatives, social workers and bullies. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on survivors or any other living people with respect to this issue, some of whom are already receiving death threats ([30],[31]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the desire to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think all the individuals whose roles are important enough to be named have already been named. A good policy would be not to name anybody new without prior talk page consensus, and to automatically revert anybody who does so with a link to this consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make "policy" on the fly to fit your personal tastes. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, if only I had that power. The things I could do with it! ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

CNN and InfoWars and YouTube

There appears to be some offshoot event here, YT taking down vids, giving them 1/3 strikes, etc. Worth adding to the "Conspiracy theories and disinformation" section?

• Murphy, Paul (24 February 2018). "InfoWars' main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned". CNN. InfoWars, a far-right media organization run by Alex Jones and known for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories, is on thin ice with YouTube after it posted a video that portrayed the survivors of the Parkland school shooting as actors. The Alex Jones Channel, Infowar's biggest YouTube account, received one strike for that video, a source with knowledge of the account told CNN. YouTube's community guidelines say if an account receives three strikes in three months, the account is terminated. That video focused on David Hogg, a strong voice among survivors of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

I don't actually see any mention of Alex Jones yet despite CNN singling them out in relation to this. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Mostly matters to InfoWars, where it isn't mentioned. Might be a sign that it doesn't matter at all, might be someone hasn't gotten to it yet. The theory (the students are actors) is already mentioned here, this adds very little to understanding it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, February 26, 2018 (UTC)