Talk:Parkland high school shooting

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.

Name

Shouldn't this be called the 2018 St. Valentine's Day Massacre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.179.128 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that has a nice ring to it.UserDude (talk • contribs)

Disambiguating things by year is so last year. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Is this a reaction to special:diff/825760256 perhaps? Given that there is a rowing event with that name and you didn't provide any sources, I'm gonna wager no. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could save the dark humor at least until the kids are buried. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

AdWeek must've felt the same when it changed this headline. Scotland doesn't see a problem with it and England seems fine enough with a bit of allusion. One Mirror Online bit morphed from "At least 17 dead as pupil carries out Valentine's Day massacre" to something about bombs hunting the school shooting dead to a completely forbidden page of mystery entirely. But it was there six hours ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

All irrelevant. There is virtually no case for changing the title to that, so this thread is a WP:NOTFORUM violation at best. Alternatively, if the OP was actually serious, it's a WP:CIR issue that shouldn't be entertained by experienced editors such as yourself, just for the mental exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. Shows it's seriously what some outlets called it across the pond, rather than a cheap joke. It's not going to win COMMONNAME, but it had a brief run before editors thought better of it, and there's no shame in exploring how it got old fast to illustrate why 47 hasn't a case. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Since the name of the school is the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the name of this article should also include the full name of the high school, as well. Anything less is an insult, an affront to the memory of the person after whom the high school was named. You wouldn't shorten a school named Booker T. Washington High School (Miami) to "T. Washington High School," would you? Of course you wouldn't! So who shortened Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to just Stoneman Douglas, etc.? Again, that's disrespectful. It's just rude. Strongly recommend you use the full name, both out of respect for the victims, the community and their school, as well as the person after whom the school is named.Clepsydrae (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The school calls itself Stoneman Douglas High School on its website and for most other purposes. It's not uncommon for an American high school's name to be abbreviated this way.--Pharos (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And the U.S. calls itself "America," which is also a shortened form of it's full, legal name. Yet the Wikipedia entry for the U.S. isn't "America." It's United States. In fact, ""America", "US", and "USA" redirect here." If you're defending the current name, you're missing the point: Wikipedia articles use proper names, not shortened, slang, or "common" names. I'm sure they would have abbreviated their website URL to just "Douglas High School" if it were available. Just because people use slang or shortened forms, however, doesn't mean encyclopedic entries should ever be shortened. Do you find "A-bomb" in the encyclopedia? No, except perhaps in an index or cross-reference in the back. It's Nuclear weapon. Even "atomic bomb" redirects there, because it's neither precise nor fully correct. Again, strongly recommend you use the full, proper name of "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" and redirect Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to it. If you want Wikipedia to continue to improve, I also recommend not using mediocre practices as any sort of standard. Raise the bar. Reach the bar.Clepsydrae (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

All other reasoning aside: The successful RM on this question closed less than 5 days ago. Note the closer's words "clear consensus". We are not going to revisit the question so soon just because you showed up and disagreed with the clear consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Second shooter claims

I've seen some reporting on this. For example:

• "17 dead, former student in custody after school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High in Broward". The Bradenton Herald. Some students believed there was a second shooter at the school, but the Broward Sheriff's Office has given no indication that was the case.

I actually didn't know multiple students were claiming this, I had just watched this interview where one of the seniors made the claim. Not aware of any other video interviews where the second shooter theory is presented, so guessing Bradenton's plurality derives from non-videoed interviews.

This clip has a reporter from KHOU (Matt Musil) commenting on the above senior who mentions @55s "she thinks there was a second shooter, that's the first we've heard of that, but she believes there was actually a second shooter, we'll see if that comes about or not". ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the video interview that KHOU reporter Matt Musil refers to in the video linked above.

In this video interview with KPRC, a student describes two shooters approaching from opposite sides to prevent students getting out either of the two exits. She describes it twice in the video. Also when she was asked to confirm that there was more than one shooter, she states that she heard that there were three, but the reporter does not pursue that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.90.84 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Way premature to talk about inclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's never premature to TALK. Talking is how we evaluate inclusion maturity. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

These are the same students that didn't notice the actual gunmen escaping with them. There is an incredible amount of confusion. --DHeyward (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Have we EVER had a shooting where some people didn't claim there was a second shooter? MelanieN alt (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Well, I can't get the link to load, but it's a blog post saying "OMG there was a second shooter at the Lincoln assassination!" MelanieN alt (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) My point being: there is always confusion, contradictory statements from witnesses especially relating to where the sound of the shots came from, etc. Sometimes those contradictory statements blossom into full blown conspiracy theories. Let's not do anything to promote that outcome. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Silly. They were talking about a second shooter. And you're on vacation anyway.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Pandering to conspiracy theorists is not something encyclopedias should ever do. If the authorities confirm evidence of a second shooter, the cite from credible sources. If not, then such suspicions belong in a distinctly separate entry. However, not only is there not enough moment to even accept such a a new article, but security camera footage in the school has already confirmed that the suspect acted alone.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be pandering to theorists to acknowledge witnesses who said there was another shooter, and reporters who have highlighted that aspect of witness testimony. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No way we include this as factual (or anything close to it) information. However, we should probably have either a section or (depending on how events unfold) an article on Florida school shooting conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ties to white supremacist group

According to this source https://www.adl.org/blog/florida-white-supremacist-group-admits-ties-to-alleged-parkland-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz Victor Grigas (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Picked up by other sources as well. [6][7]- MrX 🖋 18:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait Please read the facts, not the headline. This is based on the word of a guy in an organization. Who knows if he's trolling? Who knows what's going on. I advise to wait on this before doing something BLP-conflicting. -- Veggies (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the sources MrX posted, 3 students have told ABC news that Cruz had been seen with the leader, and was a member of the group. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's much better. -- Veggies (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I do wonder about this, there have been several interviews with the guy from the organization, yes, but the one mention of ABC News about his classmates is a bit lacking in detail. I should note that someone has started a new article on the group: Republic of Florida.--Pharos (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Local law enforcement saying Nikolas Cruz, has no connection with ROF, or any white supremacist organizations. Claim motive is uncertain as of this hour. This should be clarified or edited in the article.

I have removed it for now, given most of the sourcing is the interview, and the police haven't found anything. If this is real, more information should pop up within 24 hours to put it back on.--Pharos (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It was reverted to include ROF again. Please make people reflect the truth of the current situation. Most "sources" are deleting the white supremacist claims.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User MichiganWoodShop has no interest in an unbiased narrative. He is pushing hard for the White Supremacist angle to be at the top of the page. I am in full support of user WikiVirusC and his thoughts that all talk of the White Supremacist group should be moved under the Suspect section.Johnandrus (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to not mention this at all, as the article currently does. The allegations made by media and students should be mentioned, alongside the police opposition to this narrative. I agree that it is not appropriate to mention in the lead-in paragraph.Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't this all just an elaborate troll by 4chan to see if the MSM would pick it up? ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a ridiculously simple dupe by three Instagram followers (or one Instagram follower and two normal followers) to see if one very particular ABC reporter would pick it up. 4chan just laughed along, offered advice and sent dirty pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how many times something like this needs to happen before we disqualify ABC as a reliable source for having their editors allow stuff like that to slip through. Seems like they're not vetting reporters well. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

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" [8] — 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)

Claims by Republic of Florida

I removed this content with this edit as the claims appear to have been unsubstantiated. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see LA Times:

Did he have ties to a white nationalist group?

Apparently not. The Anti-Defamation League and others initially reported that a spokesperson for the white nationalist group Republic of Florida had said Cruz was associated with his group and took part in training exercises. But the spokesperson, Jordan Jereb, later said he’d been mistaken.

Source: "Here's what we know about Nikolas Cruz, charged with killing 17 in Florida school shooting". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I should have gone with my gut-instinct up above. -- Veggies (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ABC News also received confirmation from 3 students saying that he was a member of the group. Just because 1 police officer says he has no knowledge at this time, does not mean it did not happen. He simply said he had no known knowledge of the ties at the time. MichiganWoodShop (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

When there's some independent confirmation, instead of claims by the leader of the group & unnamed classmates (who may or may not be actual classmates), then it may be included. White supremacists are known to lie. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And to make mistakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is included in article or not, It has no business in the lead. I suggest you don't revert or re-add it again as you are already past the WP:3RR. Lets discuss it on talk page first. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a disgusting stretch by MichiganWoodShop for clearly political reasons. There is no rational reason to include unsubstantiated, and now dismissed rumors in the lede.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but it would be against WP:NPOV to not include the information as it hasn't been debunked by everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a police force and the gang leader himself against three obscure Florida teens (presuming they still think what we think they thought). Who's any reasonable and impartial judge supposed to believe? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

"no known ties" [9]

Just for comparison, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Still notes that the Islamic State claimed the shooter was theirs, even though this proved to be false. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has some detail on the unraveling of the claim. If we consider this entirely debunked (which it increasingly looks like), I don't think it has a place in the article at all; this is not like a false claim from a major group like Islamic State.--Pharos (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it again, see Politico article. Also, the AP calls it a lie and ABC News explains how they screwed up.--Pharos (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"On Wednesday, an ABC News reporter contacted one of Cruz’s followers on Instagram." On Thursday, Cho Park, Dylan Goetz, Halley Freger, Maureen Sheeran, Kathy Conway, Aaron Katersky, Noor Ibrahim, Josh Margolin, Brian Epstein and Pete Madden wrote an article together so nobody could tell who screwed up. Two entirely different kinds of anonymous bullshit, working together. It's beautiful. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

Cover up the Screw up, hilarious. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

From the clues above, we can eliminate seven men. Freger didn't contribute to this report, so she's out. Conway and Sheeran both contributed to this report, which calls Fernando Santos "a friend of Cruz who spoke to ABC News through Instagram". Could be an entirely different Instagram source, but if not, the bits about Cruz liking guns, being picked on for "the first few years" of school and not having enough friends might well be lies, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

There is a good New Yorker account of the whole debacle. If we ever decide it's useful in retrospect, it would go with the Russian trolling paragraph in the 'Aftermath' section (like 2017 Las Vegas shooting#Hoaxes).--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The botched media claims and 4chan hoaxes related to Cruz and the ROF have received plenty of WP:RS coverage. Any reason they shouldn't be included in this article? Oren0 (talk) 02:06, 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)

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)

Extra "that"s

I think they're pointless syllables that slow down reading, but Tony here believes it reads better for many that way. Anybody else have an opinion? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I take it the dictionary is not enough for you. Ok, how about a selection of articles from the current home page of The New York Times? Got any respect for their writing/editing competence? say that, said that, notes that, believed thatsaid that, mused that, claiming thatsaid thatsaid thatworried that, saying that, insisted thatsuggested that, said that, saying only that, acknowledges that, demanded that I can do more if you like, I probably looked at the first 5-10% of the articles linked on that page. Signed, Tony. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between using a word because it's technically not improper and omitting it because it sounds unnatural. Newswriting uses many devices that regular people don't; we're only meant to mirror the facts in reliable sources. Otherwise, we'd need to change "FBI" to "F.B.I." and "Cruz" to "Mr. Cruz". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing grammar with MOS. Good writing is good writing, no matter where it occurs; it's pretty much universal at least within AmEng (i.e. it may be common to omit the "that" in BritEng, I don't know). I haven't a clue what this has to do with mirroring facts in reliable sources, or how that mission would change what accepted good writing is. I hear that it sounds unnatural to you, and you're entitled to that, but I and The New York Times disagree. I must say I was surprised to see you come here seeking a local Wikipedia consensus to override the English dictionary.
I'll add that in some cases it sounds more natural to me without the "that", just none of the cases you changed. I would never write "I thought that you were kidding," for example. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Thinking that" something's something is just as wrong as "saying that" something's something, isn't it? If you would never write "thought that", why would you ever defend "said that"? A thought is just something you have before you say, write, declare, insist, confirm, repeat, claim, ponder or muse it. Where between your brain and your fingers or lips does it suddenly become so different?

Wordy writing is unnecessarily complex wording, wherever it occurs, and at Wikipedia, we're told to avoid it in favour of Plain English. News outlets have a vested interest in keeping eyes on ad space, and their reporters are trying to win awards. Books like ours are meant to inform efficiently, and empty syllables just hinder those who "speak" along in their heads while they read (that's most people). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Just for a half point, note you didn't say "I must say that I was surprised". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

If you would never write "thought that", why would you ever defend "said that"? Because the former sounds unnatural to my ear and the latter sounds natural to my ear. I never said natural writing can be defended when examined closely using logic. If you want logic in language, go edit the Esperanto Wikipedia.
That said, I'll soften earlier comments a little and recognize that there is some subjectivity involved even if I feel I'm in the majority among the population. So sure, let's make it a local vote. I think after this much time we can hear the collective "meh" from everybody else on this pedantic question, so this pretty much wraps it up barring a move to WT:MOS (please no). On my side are me and the editors who wrote those "that"s. On your side are ... you. Does that work better for you? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The meh was all I wanted when I asked "Anybody else have any opinions?", so yeah, let's hear it. Keep in mind, though, a lot of those people on your side just typed like that because they'd read it like that a minute before. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you could get enough participation to produce anything resembling a consensus (I'm not deferring to 2-1 in this situation), I can't imagine what a consensus would look like anyway. What is your proposal, precisely? Elimination of all "that" following forms of "say"? Elimination of all "that" as a conjunction (i.e. all of the usages listed above from the Times, and more)? Reinstatement of your edit with no effect on future usage? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I proposed we don't add "that" when it adds nothing meaningful. Then I noted your argument. I asked for a third opinion, and never got that far. I imagine consensus would look like anybody else agreeing to use them or not. If you really want them, that's fine, but I already knew you wanted them. Now we're just chatting. Not a forum, my friend. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not just chatting. I think an intelligent person would want a clarification of the question before giving an opinion. Define "meaningful". As far as I can tell so far, the question is whether to eliminate use of "that" as a conjunction. Please look at the Times examples and tell me whether you see any that require the "that" in order to be "meaningful". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not just chatting. It's like you're filibustering and I'm too dumb to stop responding and wait for anybody else. If you can delete the "that" and the sentence still means what it did when "that" was there, it's not meaningful. So "meaningful", by definition, would be a word that's not like that. I'm not going to read anymore of your newspaper. You've already made me read 15 pages of it. I've learned a lot from that, though, so thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

• Well... I doubt this is going to help, but I almost always use "that" as a conjunction. E.g. "states that", "believes that", "indicates that", "considers that", "suggests that", "identifies that", "hypothesized that", "demonstrate that", etc, etc. Each of those examples was taken from an article I am currently working on. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You say potatoes taste good, I say that potatoes taste good. Both sound okay to me, but I would side with whatever saves us 5 characters. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pointless implication bias?

"On Friday, Trump went to a Studio 54-themed disco party in the ballroom of Mar-a-Lago" What is the point of adding this piece of information other than as an attempt to slander the President? Hardly pertains to this event in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.48.13 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [10] - I dunno about implication bias, but there is certainly no relevance. Thanks for calling attention to the sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is what it's always been. American politicians hate each other and people read the news. When completely unrelated children die, politicians use it as political ammo, so some newsreading people think the underlying topic is the shooting itself rather than the politicians. The whole section is pointlessly huge, especially reciprocally.

Donald Trump is all over this shooting, which he had no part in, but this shooting isn't mentioned once in his article, despite it directly garnering him widespread analysis from major outlets for days. David Berliner, same deal, but without any excuse of trying to avoid clutter. If this thing he's getting his name out there for isn't important enough for his own short biography, what can it possibly matter to anyone or anything here? Even if not going to work works, and legislation for gunsanity is passed, will this event be affected? Not at all. Paul Ryan only mentions Bruce Douglas, Jeb Bush nothing, Rob Runcie less than nothing, that anonymous teacher even less than Runcie. Hoffman and Scott, you're cool, but the rest need some serious work in their own zones if they're to seem worthwhile and relevant elsewhere. Most don't mention any shooting they're mentioned in.

Anyway, the part you hate is gone, but there's still a bit about showing up a hospital and giving a "thumbs up" gesture, which pointlessly implies it wasn't a real thumbs up. Says he congratulated doctors on the "incredible" job, pointlessly implying Trump is mocking him for healing children. And then he wants to "respect the dead and mourners" (wink, wink) while "memorial services continue" (nudge, nudge). Pointless! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree on MAJOR trimming. Actually trimming implies minor, so let's use gutting instead. But no real urgency to do this today, and except for the most obvious three degrees of tangent like the above, I don't see a problem with letting this expansion continue for a few more days. More passage of time, more meat to consider in the butchering process. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We've hacked off 957 bytes. Only 43 to go, and we've done a MEGA trimming already. Wasn't so hard. But yeah, it's like a goddamn hydra for the next three days. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

No hydra is no match for no Starship! 990 bytes, in one fell swoop. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

The horror. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the source, or discussed it in Talk, before deleting it, you would have found out that the point of mentioning the disco party was to contrast Trump's statement that he had skipped golf to “respect the dead and the mourners”. I think your pro-Trump feelings are clear, by your language here and by your deleting anything that reflects poorly on Trump (even his own words). Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, if you can gather a mob to win a revert war, no one else can get a word into the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I barely feel anything about Trump, and what I do is mixed. Most of what I deleted just pertained to him because most of the irrelevant stuff other people added was about him. If they'd added stuff about your favourite politician, I'd have done the same thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how golf or a disco party are related to the shooting which this article is about? Every statement does not need to be mentioned or included in here, only the key or important ones. Those two both are pointless. In a Hypocrisy of Donald Trump article or a subsection of the sort in his own article it could be considered, but here I do not see the point. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nbauman, also WP:AGF please. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is that many WP:RSs have reported Trump's reactions in their coverage of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and therefore it is on topic for this Wikipedia entry and has WP:WEIGHT. As currently edited, this entry contains uncriticized comments by Trump, and everything embarassing to Trump, or disagreeing with him, has been deleted from the article, in violation of WP:NPOV. This is despite the massive criticisms of Trump personally by the students themselves, as reported in multiple WP:RS. Furthermore, this material was deleted with no discussion in Talk. Therefore, it seems to me as if it was edited by editors who didn't want to include anything unfavorable of Trump. Is that true? Do you want to include any of the students' criticisms of Trump? If so, what do you want to include? --Nbauman (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We also need to be mindful of WP:RECENTISM (which is admittedly difficult since this is a very new subject). The mere fact that news outlets publish a fact (or more often, parrot other articles to get more sweet page view$), does not require us to to include it, per WP:ONUS. In the interest of keeping this article on topic, some elements need periodic trimming. I'm no defender of Trump, but agree on this removal. NPOV can be addressed by devoting less detail all around, rather than pedantically giving "balanced" yet excessive coverage of every sub-detail. Also, if anything, Wikipedia leans liberal. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is simply an opinion, with no official authority on Wikipedia. It says at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It's simply an essay. Some Wikipedia editors agree with it, some don't. In fact, the essay itself presents the two opposite positions: Wikipedia:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_negative and Wikipedia:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_positive. --Nbauman (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

But let me get back to my original question. Trump has commented about this shooting. He offered his "Thoughts and prayers." He blamed the FBI for mishandling information. Trump's comments are in the article, as they should be, because they were repeated by multiple WP:RSs. However, the students at Stoneman Douglas responded critically to those specific comments by Trump, and that was also repeated by multiple WP:RSs. WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia policy, which we are required to follow, so we must represent all significant views published by WP:RS. Do you agree that the entry should also include the students' responses to Trump? --Nbauman (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This is a shooting article. We can have Trump's response to the shooting. We can have some students' response to the shooting. We can't have the students' response to Trump or Trump's response to the students. You should try putting them in Donald Trump or Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

Long version of the above: The problem is knowing where to stop with things repeated by multiple RSs. These events invariably trigger weeks of ripple-effect coverage of tangents upon tangents, by news sources who have a different mission from ours. If we include students' responses to Trump's comments because they were repeated by multiple RSs, do we not then have to include public responses to the students' comments that are repeated by multiple RSs? As well as some editorial opinion about the whole thing? And so on until multiple RSs get tired and move on to other more recent things? We would end up with more space devoted to the reaction than the shooting itself.
In my view the only reasonable solution is not to start down that path in the first place. Cover the shooting, the perp and his prosecution, and the victims, include a few general sentences about the political hubbub triggered by it, and move on. If there is some actual historical impact such as closely linked legislation, of course include that, but that's a mere hypothetical at this point. It's either that, or raise the bar from "multiple RSs" to "many RSs", per WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can have Trump's response to the shooting, and the students' response to Trump. That's WP:NPOV, getting all significant viewpoints. Why not? As I said above, this entire entry gives the voices of the politicians, but it doesn't give the voices of the students. This violates WP:NPOV.

Without the student viewpoints, you're just giving a platform to Trump. Which is what I said originally. --Nbauman (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

They have the only second-degree subsection in the table of contents. It's very clickable. If that's not a platform, I don't know what is. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

@Nbauman:, the indentation and placement of your comment implies that it's a reply to mine, but there's no indication you read what I said. If you did, you sure didn't respond to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fictional 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)

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.[11][12][13][14] 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)

worth noting that this is the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. w/ living perpetrator?

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong - this is my first time posting on a Talk page Anyways, perhaps it may be worth mentioning somewhere that this is the deadliest U.S. mass shooting where the perpetrator is still alive?[15] I noticed that the Orlando nightclub shooting has a similar mention in its first paragraph: "It remains the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in which the perpetrator did not commit suicide.". It's a somewhat interesting factoid that occurred to me as I was just watching the arraignment of the perpetrator and thought "woah, you actually don't see arraignments very often in these kinds of cases because they're always dead.." Edasaki (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that makes this observation? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like an unencyclopedic, unconsequential trivia item that would come about via synthesis rather than a WP:RS. But maybe that's just me. As well, if we consider including it simply because something similar is in another article, WP:OTHERSTUFF should be invoked. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the inclusion of this info but I don't think you need synthesis. E.g. while this source doesn't directly say it's the deadliest with a perpetrator who survived [16], it does say "Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history, 19-year-old Cruz is the only shooter to survive". Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

3 purple hearts

was there sources on this?75.171.96.130 (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing something about Purple Hearts? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Article's section, "Shooting" can be enhanced with the more detailed published timeline of the event published by a local Broward County television station at: https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/timeline-of-the-shooting-at-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school. It includes information on the shooter's entry into the school, and his escape from the scene. This information will enhance the article for readers seeking facts on the tragedy. dcuda (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As edit requests must request specific changes, as in "Insert X following Y", I'm converting this to a regular discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The first thing that catches my eye is the street addresses for the Walmart, the McDonald's, and his capture. I think it would be useful to add infobox coordinates at least for the capture, with body prose to back them up with a street address. Something similar was done at Shooting of Walter Scott. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that we already had a similar timeline from the Miami Herald,[17], but with more details. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

ADL white supremacy links

Earlier today someone readded a source that had previously been removed saying that the ADL says that Cruz had links to the Republic of Florida. This appears to not true and the ADL updated their article to reflect this, so it should be removed or corrected to reflect the source. Nettless (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, see the #Claims by Republic of Florida section above.--Pharos (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: return mention of Cruz's antisemitic beliefs

This edit removed the mention of Cruz's antisemitic beliefs, as was reported by CNN: "Cruz wrote that he hated, 'jews, ni**ers, immigrants.' ... Cruz hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world." The belief that Jews manipulate other groups (like black people) to pit them against white people is a hallmark of antisemitism.

The fact that his birth mother probably wasn't Jewish and that he wasn't involved with the ROF group doesn't negate the fact that his social media presence was still littered with antisemitism along with, as the current article already states, anti-black and anti-Muslim slurs. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You meant to link this diff, methinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect counted in the injured?

Really? He was buying soda at subway. This might be a mistake. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

He was taken to the hospital briefly for breathing issues before being booked, not sure it that counts.--Pharos (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Whatever caused his breathing problems it was not an injury at the school. He did not shoot himself or get shoot by police. On a related point, the injured count was reported as closer to 50 in some sources. Not everyone went to hospital, so I'm guessing there were trip and fall kinds of non-serious injuries in the higher number. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The number 15 includes Cruz. He was included only because he was taken to the hospital with those breathing problems. If you no longer count him, you need to change 15 to 14 in three places. AFAIK that is per the best sourcing we have found to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact several vics died in hospital is confusing the numbers too. Here "Sixteen victims are being treated at local hospitals, according to the Orlando Sentinel, including seven victims at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale. Of those seven, two were in critical condition and five were stable, a doctor told local reporters. Another another nine victims were taken to Broward Health North Medical Center, of whom three were in critical condition." but CNN quotes a hospital statement on Feb 14 stating 5 with life threatening injuries and 10 with non-life threatening "from today's school shooting" So maybe 16 is the right number as that report has the most detailed breakdown by hospital and status. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Still adds up fine. Sixteen victims plus one suspect is seventeen. Two of those five critically injured died, leaving fifteen in all. CNN isn't about to recognize Cruz as a victim, but Dr. Evan Boyar diagnosed him, by name, as a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

"Fifteen were taken to hospitals, we have no idea how many were hospitalized." Not only is that no excuse to use wordy passive voice, it's not true. Seventeen were taken to hospital, and seventeen were hospitalized, because that's what going to the hospital means. Unless you're visiting. Please don't anyone tell me you think he might have been allowed a short visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

FTR, yours: "It killed 17 people and hospitalized 15 more..."
Mine: "Seventeen people were killed and fifteen more were taken to hospitals..."
Sometimes wordy (word count difference = 3) passive voice is the best (least bad) available option. Mass shootings don't kill people, people kill people. That's a sucky use of active voice. We haven't mentioned Cruz yet, so we can't change "it" to "Cruz". And regardless we couldn't say that "Cruz"—or "the shooter"—hospitalized anybody. Killers don't hospitalize people, doctors hospitalize people.
Seventeen were taken to hospital, and seventeen were hospitalized, because that's what going to the hospital means. As I've said previously, if one is taken to an emergency room with a transient breathing difficulty and treated-and-released without being admitted, they are not said to be "hospitalized". The same goes for an unknown, but likely nonzero, number of people who may have just twisted an ankle running down stairs or something. With rare exceptions, hospitalization implies at least an overnight stay; Cruz was out of there within a few hours at most. Obviously this is only my perception based on a lifetime of experience, as yours is only yours; that should go without saying. (I could spend a half hour hunting down web support for my claim, but recent experience with you tells me that would be a waste of my time.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass shootings, mass shooters and guns all kill and hospitalize people. Doctors treat patients after they've been hospitalized. One kid was grazed and released that evening after being one of seventeen the hospitals "took in". Does "take in" not mean "admit" more than "take to" does in your experience? From mine, shortness of breath is scarier than abrasion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

We don't know whether "took in" are the hospital system's words or a paraphrase by the reporter. Regardless, the words are vague and ambiguous, not commonly recognized to mean something specific, unlike "hospitalized". As to the rest of your comment, I stand by what I said, and I'm not clear on what the scariness factor has to do with our choice of words.
Look, I've moved on from the placement of the gun purchase, as much as it grates on me, and it will stay where it is unless somebody else moves it. How about a little give and take, instead of insisting that you have everything your way including nebulous language issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is one-third me trying to get my way and two-thirds trying to help you understand the language from other perspectives. Like WBAL's, following a shooting that killed 17 and hospitalized more than a dozen. Or the Lincoln Journal-Star's when it says, "a 19-year-old man armed with an AR-15 rifle killed 17 people and hospitalized 15." Active voice isn't my way so much as it's just not a wrong way.

Scariness is severity, and you seemed to be writing Cruz's hospitalization off as trivial because he merely lacked oxygen, but not discounting a similarly precautionary admission for a scrape. Seems a bit biased, at least from afar. I'll concede you your wordy passive voice like I left your extra "that"s; just consider my advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Re your first sentence, no, all I said was that emergency room is not hospitalization in my experience. I said nothing about severity as it had nothing to do with my reasoning.
I will consider your advice, but it's unlikely I'm going to be able to alter the fundamental way I process language after 60 years. I use words precisely, more precisely than many editors, apparently more precisely than some reliable sources, and I guess I'm just condemned to eternal conflict hell as a Wikipedia editor. As Wikipedia stresses go, it ain't so bad by comparison. But we kept it civil. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can respect a man who commits to doing it one way, night after night, for richer and poorer, in sickness and in health, for a term not exceeding the rest of his natural life. I'd like to present you (and your misses) with a sparkling Tiffany Yellow Diamond barnstar as a gesture of good overallness on such a traditionally joyous anniversary, but such a gem is artificially scarce at the moment.

If you'd please to instead select one of many fine trinkets, I will make every practical effort to deliver it in a timely manner to your Talk Page with a warm (but professional) personalized telegram. This shall be in lieu of any previously discussed outstanding trout, shall wipe our troubled edit balance clean and shall symbolize an eternal and unbreakable sacred vow between us to only henceforth bicker like an old married couple with other, fresher Wikipedians.

So whaddya say, Tony? Will you divorce me and live happily ever after? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

You're not so bad, for a guy who's into pro wrestling. I'll have a burger and a shake. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fast food. I like your style. I should have it ready by this weekend, at latest. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

If the count of 15 injured includes Cruz, the page should make note of that. Other pages about similar events, like the Port Arthur massacre (Australia), the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and the 2017 New York City truck attack all have "(including the suspect/perpetrator)" in the "Non-fatal injuries" entry. Dreadwyrm (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If we say "including Cruz" in the Victims section, it says Cruz is a victim. If we change that number to 14, people are bound to object to the "discrepancy" between that and the lead. These things invariably get us all tied up in knots if we insist on precise numbers and precise wording. My suggestion is, for wounded/injured/taken to hospitals, to stop insisting on precise numbers. I propose "over a dozen" in the second sentence and the Victims section. Adds two words to the second sentence, and I can live with that. Propose "over a dozen" or "12+" in the infobox. @InedibleHulk and Legacypac: Any comment? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Stop insisting on including Cruz in any of those places just because he spent 40 minutes in an emergency room and didn't even receive any treatment (per a NYT piece I read yesterday). Reduce all counts to 14. If it's deemed important, mention at the end of Shooting that he was taken to the emergency room with breathing problems. Readers really won't care about (or even notice, most likely) any remaining "discrepancy", and a hidden comment can be used to address Wikipedia editor overthink. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Over a dozen" was just the way it was reported before the numbers settled. Going back in time to doubt them is like going back to pretend we still don't know if he's Nicolas of Jesus. Petty accuracy aside, either's a damn good idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Implemented damn good idea 2.[18]

Make it "more than 15 injured" as at least that many were taken to hospital and there would be other injuries. Don't mention the perp who was neither a victim nor injured anywhere.Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

2018 United States gun violence protests

Given there are 3 major demonstrations planned, as well as ongoing smaller protests, I created 2018 United States gun violence protests. I invite page watchers to move over content appropriately, or add content to the new article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos needed

Please upload photos of the Never Again MSD founding members to Wikimedia Commons, as well as more images and pictures. The link for uploading is here. Remember whoever took the picture (ie, pressed the button on the smartphone or camera) is the copyright owner, so that's the person who should upload the photo. Please label each image so we can find it to include in this article. If you declare images as 'public domain' they're more likely to be copied widely around the web.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If uploaded, put them in the Never Again MSD article. We don't really need pictures of the founding members of that organization here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some images of the Feb 19 White House demonstration and lie-in at Commons:Category:Demonstrations and protests in the United States in 2018. I agree that images of Never Again MSD founders are of little value in this article, but may be appropriate at the devoted article, and/or 2018 United States gun violence protests. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

How was the identity of the shooter first determined?

News sources tell us that the police called James Snead and inquired as to the whereabouts of Nikolas Cruz. But I have not read any news source telling me how they knew to suspect Nikolas Cruz even before he was caught. The news sources say that they knew how the shooter was dressed, and that this led to his capture. But I don't know how they knew his identity to be Nikolas Cruz. In this source I read "As Snead drove there, a SWAT commander called his cellphone and asked where his son Nik was. Told him it wasn’t his son and he didn’t know where he was." How did they know to call James Snead? Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

He was recognized by several students at the school, presumably they alerted the police.--Pharos (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I recall reading in one of these sources that mentioned a security recognized him as he was entering the building and radioed someone in the building early on before the shooting started. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Cops know lots of things (even relatively laidback cops), as do social services, social media databases and Big Telephony. If there's something one doesn't know, it can ask the other. With futuristic push-button speed, too, no more sharpening pencils or walking to the fax machine. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Peter Wang (cadet)

Peter Wang (cadet) was created and I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Comments about it go on the talk page there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Except for that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, February 20, 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

characterization of FBI involvement as "mishandling"

It is not clear that the FBI "mishandled" anything.

Characterizing their involvement as mishandling implies that there was something they should have done that they did not. The FBI investigates potentially dangerous people all the time. There are many young men with guns and troubled lives agitating online. They do not have a legal right to arrest or otherwise detain people on the basis of the information they appear to have been provided with so far.

Perhaps "FBI involvement" would be an appropriate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C54E:F100:3185:A9ED:C0C:6594 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Many major reliable sources say mishandling, so we say mishandling. Some Wikipedia editing is really complicated, that part isn't. Oh and you'll notice that some of those Googled sources say the FBI acknowledged the mishandling, not that it matters for our purposes. Anyway, you may have missed that the mishandling was the FBI's failure to pass a tip about a death threat posted by Cruz on to the Miami field office. That's supposed to be routine, so a failure to do it is clear mishandling. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As Mandruss said, they said they were suppose to forward information to Miami office and they didn't do so. So by your definition that fits. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the existing sources, it's mishandling because the FBI is supposed to operate by its rules. But if sources should show the FBI (in practice) routinely ignores protocol, it would seem more apparent that this is simply the way the FBI handles things. I know I wouldn't want to call every city in America for each of the 5,000 or so bullshit leads I got every day, if I were an FBI agent (and maybe I am, but I'm not). I've read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and can see how actual agents might not rush to aid that boy who sends the cities' SWAT teams to harass (or kill) people who beat him at online FPS games. Makes the cities look like dicks for believing the Internet, then the cities blame the spooks.

But, if that's the job someone agreed to do impeccably and they didn't, they mishandled in the plainest sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

(and maybe I am, but I'm not) is a self-contradictory statement. Just sayin'. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether action was taken or not, it was simply the tiplines job to forward information to Miami office, from there they decide whether or not it's a boy calling wolf. WikiVirusC^(talk) 05:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say mishandling. NOTAFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC) (never mind, if we're actually talking about the article as below.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So it was just the tipline's foul? Is that even run by agents? I've amended "the FBI admitted it mishandled" to "the FBI admitted the PAL mishandled", based on what the agency as a whole clearly did not say about itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

It's not even "admitted PAL mishandled" - it's "stated that PAL did not follow protocol". Making that into "mishandled" is OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed "stated that" to "said". If someone would rather "said that" or "stated", I suppose that's fine. But three syllables is too many. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 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)

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.” [19] 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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

He was jewish 58.173.115.85 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Not an edit request. Specify exact changes and provide reliable sourcing for verifiabililty. Then we can discuss relevance and weight. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add that we normally put a subject's religion in the info-box only if he/she has been impacted by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(And that's only if they have an infobox, which he doesn't.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Depressed and self harming?

That should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Alex of Canada (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From the Nikolas Cruz section (emphasis added): "The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated Cruz in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. State investigators reported Cruz had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder." ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

This needs to be listed as Stoneman Douglas School Massacre not "shooting" The13thWASP (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Edit requests are not for title changes, and this title was chosen 6 days ago by clear consensus. We should stick with the existing title for a while, probably at least a couple of months in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Additionally, please see WP:NPOVTITLE. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 21 February 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: [20]. 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.[21][22][23] 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)

Emma Gonzalez speech -- weight

How much detail are we going to put in from the Emma Gonzalez speech? This question is governed by WP policies, particulary WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT:

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."

The Gonzalez speech, both the full speech and lengthy excerpts, got massive media coverage. Her viewpoint should be represented in the article in proportion to its prominence in the published, reliable sources. Gonzalez' speech got more coverage than any other section in the entry.

To reduce it to "Student and survivor Emma González was noted for her impassioned speech rebuking "thoughts and prayers" from the government and the President.... She has since emerged as one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States..." does not represent her viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in published WP:RS.

Furthermore, the summaries of the students' positions -- including Gonzalez -- are not as articulate or well-argued as the original statements from the students themselves. You've edited out the voices of the students. Stoneman Douglas attracted some of the best students in Florida. They were taking an AP Government class, taught by some of the best teachers in Florida, in which they studied gun control. As part of the class, they had three debates on gun conrol -- which is why Gonzalez was able to give such a striking, informed, well-argued speech.

There are no Wikipedia editors here (including myself) who can summarize or paraphrase the words of these students as well as they expressed them themselves. You've taken their words and turned them into a word salad of snippits and quotes. You missed their main points, and weakened their arguments. They didn't simply "vocally condemn... U.S. lawmakers who have received political contributions from the National Rifle Association." They demanded lawmakers refuse contributions from the NRA, and they said they would support primary campaigns to challenge those lawmakers in the primaries.

You missed other main points. Let me ask you: What do you think were the main points of Gonzalez' speech?

This was written by somebody who didn't even understand Gonzalez' speech, where she laid out these issues so clearly.

You've reduced their whole argument to two paragraphs that don't even quote the students directly. Instead, you quote politicians and officials. That was exactly what the students were complaining about: the news media quoted politicians and officials, but not the students themselves. Read the entry. Find the quotes. See who it quotes. You've used Wikipedia to quote the establishment and the authorities -- the worst flaw of journalism -- rather than the people themselves. You've failed.

I think we should restore the Gonzalez block quotes. That's what block quotes are for. You shouldn't delete them unless you think that you can express Gonzalez' ideas more clearly and concisely than she can herself. And if you believe that, you're deluded about your writing abilities. --Nbauman (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You also have to think on how to write it so we are not promoting Emma Gonzalez. Her speech was moving, but it should not warrant a section bigger than the reactions for all of the politicians combined. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I do think we should minimize the use of lengthy quotes, and have about one good paragraph about Gonzalez' influence. The more detailed content can go in her biography, but we have to be careful not to advocate for or against her cause. Let the sources do the talking.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Knowledgekid87, WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia." WP:WEIGHT says: "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." So if Gonzalez' speech had coverage as big as the reactions of all politicians combined, wouldn't her speech get a section as big as all their reactions combined? --Nbauman (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting if we can compare the coverage. I believe that all of the political responses would get more collective coverage over time than one viewpoint. There are also other students who also made great speeches that got coverage as well. This is hard, as her viewpoint is strong for pro gun control which is a debatable issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Knowledgekid87, The first question to answer is, do you agree with WP:WEIGHT? Do you agree that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources? --Nbauman (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Grammar error: "anti-immigration and antisemitic"

The article has a grammatical error. Currently it reads "antisemitic," which should be "anti-Semitic." "Anti-immigration" should probably be "xenophobic," but either way, it needs to be followed by a word like "views." Otherwise it's an adjective with no noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-immigration" is not synonymous with xenophobic. Antisemitic and anti-Semitic are interchangeable. JDiala (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gun Control Debate" Section is Biased

The "gun control debate" section is really only giving one side of the "debate". It's not giving the conservative, pro-gun perspective. For instance, you could discuss Trump's tweets immediately after the shooting. Alternatively you could mention this pro-gun editorial written in the National Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7753:9B00:9DA3:45AC:3D71:B475 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's tweets are not really usable for a serious subject such as this. The National Review article might be usable. Please let us know your proposed wording and any sources, and we can go from there.- MrX 🖋 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

DISCLOSURE: I'm (JDiala) the user who made this original thread; I wasn't signed in initially.

Trump's tweets are absolutely relevant, serious or not. He is the president of the United States. For the National Review article, consider this wording: "An editorial published in the National Review criticized the calls for gun control, arguing that gun control legislation proposed by progressives would likely have not prevented the shooting." JDiala (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What's in the tweets? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if he's the president—most of his tweets are vacuous, especially on this subject. If we are going to add something like "...arguing that gun control legislation proposed by progressives would likely have not prevented the shooting.", then it needs to be expanded to explain the reasoning behind it, because it seems counterintuitive.- MrX 🖋 23:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We could alternatively convey what the proposed legislation actually is (anybody know?). Definitely counterintuitive when it's just "to prevent similar shootings", especially if the argument is against it preventing this shooting. I checked Trump's Twitter, nothing seems relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Chris Hixon removal

Resolved

 – Notice: InedibleHulk is not complicit in the inclusion of this content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: [24][25][26]

So the guy's actions weren't "remotely heroic" because he got shot and killed before he could help. That's some remarkable reasoning. I'm not a big fan of these memorials, but that's no rationale for removing one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Victims section has two people who died opening doors and one who shielded. These are understandable as potential life-savers. But it also had a man who ran into the fire with presumably good intentions (per his wife), which apparently only cost him his own life. Removed him as a non-factor, which seemed somewhat controversial, so I'm opening the floor showing up a minute late. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

• I originally added the content. He put others' well-being before his own in a mortal situation. That's heroic in my book. He could have run away but he didn't. starship.paint ~ KO 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If that was his thinking (I have no reason to doubt it was), it was still just wishful thinking. I'll grant that by taking the bullet(s), those particular ones didn't hit who or what they otherwise might have, but each victim and solid object hit bought time and saved damage by drawing fire. It's not a particularly noble sacrifice, in context, especially if he'd intended to help in a different way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

The essential point, which you appear to be missing (it's not about stopping bullets from hitting others), is that he could have chosen to run the opposite direction like almost everybody else, and chances would be greatly improved that he would be sitting on his couch with his wife at this moment. But he didn't, and he isn't. Heroism isn't about results, so if you exclude him you exclude Beigel, Feis, and Wang as well. If you charge the machine gun position and get cut down before you can kill any enemy, you still get the Silver Star. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wang and Beigel opened doors, allowing a dozen or so others to choose to run or stay. Feil directly and intentionally put his one person before two. These willfull decisions likely produced a net-positive in casualty figures, while Hixon's selfless act was more like a trade-off. Good for whomever Cruz might have spent the time it takes to kill one person on, but still 17 dead in the end. Being a hero is totally about results. Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind. Can you name one other real hero who didn't accomplish anything against villainy?

The Silver Star is for courage, not heroism. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr.. Chose to volunteer for a mission he knew to be very dangerous. Never made it anywhere near the target, died in friendly territory. Awarded the Navy Cross, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't suddenly caught up in his mess with only fight or flight response to guide him. Far more cognizant of the suicide mission, and volunteered after deliberation. But I'll count it, and drop the stick. As long as I don't appear complicit in it, I'm fine with including Hixon. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

You didn't appear complicit in it before your removal, but thanks for the stick droppage. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Historians won't read the edit summaries, they'll read the Talk Page. Can't have them finding a conspiracy of silence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind - so what you're saying is, 99% of students at the school are unsympathetic and unkind. Well... Cruz might be doing society a favour in that case. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, they're probably decent and would've helped if they thought they could. Just better decision makers, who likely saved their own lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said heroes made good decisions, many if not most of them end up dying. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Everybody dies in the end. It's what you do or don't accomplish before or through that which makes you a hero or a fool. There's no shame in being fooled once. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

You might actually read some of the stuff you wikilink, unless you're just trying to impress with the color blue. Hero links to Courage in its first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It says a hero "combats adversity through feats of" courage. There's no feat here, just a feeling. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

On that topic; often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good. - for example: sacrificing their self-concern for survival, for the greater good of saving others. Mr rnddude (talk)

Real greater good, not a possibly anticipated greater good. Even if he fully meant to die in someone else's place and did, that's only equal good (in a value of life way, perhaps not in value). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

It can be said that the life of a child is more valuable than an adult's. Also, heroes are subject to the fight or flight response too. Just saying. Persistent Corvid 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantCorvid (talk • contribs)

I can argue that time and energy invested in a life increases the value until it hits 70 and plateaus (with a spike at 100), or I can leave it alone, respecting your opinion and avoiding further potential insult to entire demographics today. Some things are best left unsaid, let's just say that. Live and let live. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, February 22, 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)

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories grow in darkness, but shrink to absurdity when exposed to the light. We have sections on conspiracy theories in every major mass shooting recently and this is, sadly, no exception. More sources forthcoming. -- GreenC 03:52, 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)

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)

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)